Telangana High Court
Thipparti Ajay Babu vs State Of Telangana on 7 March, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.103 of 2024
JUDGMENT:
This Criminal Appeal is filed challenging the judgment
dated 31.01.2024 passed in S.C.PCS.No.14 of 2020 by the I
Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the case was filed by
the State against the appellant/accused for the offences
punishable under Section 354 of IPC and Sections 9(l) and (n)
r/w Section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012 (for short ‘POCSO Act‘), for sexually
assaulting his minor daughter. The prosecution relied on the
evidence including the testimony of the victim and statements
of the witnesses’ i.e., the mother of the victim/de facto
complainant/P.W.1, the investigating officer (PW7), and
others. The victim/P.W.2 testified that the appellant touched
her inappropriately on multiple occasions, to which, the
specific stand of the appellant was that the allegations against
him were fabricated due to matrimonial disputes between him
and PW1, who allegedly influenced the statements of the
2
SKS,J
Crl.A.No.103 of 2024
victim. Further, the inconsistencies in the case of the
prosecution, including a delay in filing the complaint and the
lack of medical evidence, were highlighted. However, the trial
Court observed that the testimony of the victim is credible,
holding that the statement of the child in sexual offenses does
not necessarily require corroboration, as such, the accused
was convicted under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C., and sentenced
to two years of simple imprisonment with a fine of ₹10,000
under Section 354 IPC, and five years of simple imprisonment
with a fine of ₹10,000 under Section 9(l)(n) r/w Section 10 of
POCSO Act. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently,
and the victim was awarded ₹1,00,000 as compensation.
Aggrieved thereby, this Criminal Appeal is preferred.
3. Heard Sri P. Subash, learned counsel for the appellant
and Sri Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the respondent – State.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
impugned judgment is contrary to law, the weight of evidence,
and the probabilities of the case and that it is improper,
incorrect, and not based on acceptable evidence. He further
3
SKS,J
Crl.A.No.103 of 2024
submitted that the trial Court failed to consider that PW-1 and
the accused had matrimonial disputes and that PW-1
suspected the accused of having an affair with one Priyanka, a
family friend and that the evidence would clearly show that
PW-1 blackmailed the accused before filing the POCSO case,
demanding property and ₹5 crores for settlement and when
her demands were not met, she used PW-2 to falsely implicate
the accused. He contended that PW-1 even consulted
advocates and senior officers before filing the case, believing
that Section 498-A and other matrimonial laws were
ineffective, while the POCSO Act would ensure the arrest and
conviction of the appellant.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended
that the trial Court overlooked the delay in lodging the
complaint, as PW-1 initially tried to settle the matter with
property and money but filed the case only after failing in her
attempts and that PW-1, PW-2, and their family continued to
meet the accused, visited hotels, and even celebrated birthday
of victim/PW-2 together just before filing the complaint on 13-
11-2019. He lamented that the trial Court failed to
appreciate the fact that PW-1 and the accused were in
4
SKS,J
Crl.A.No.103 of 2024
constant communication before lodging the complaint, as
shown in Exhibit D-1 (WhatsApp messages), where PW-1
repeatedly mentioned the alleged affair of the appellant and
financial demands but never mentioned any sexual assault.
PW-1 admitted that she left the accused due to his alleged
relationship with Priyanka and later attempted to settle the
matter through mediators, including PW-5, before filing the
case out of revenge. He asserted that the trial Court ought to
have appreciate the fact that in the admission of PW-2 that
she actively participated in adult social media, openly
admitted to lying multiple times, and continued to interact
freely with both parents even after their separation.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant incessantly contended
the trial Court erred in properly considering the fact that the
presumption under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act is
rebuttable and that the accused effectively countered it during
cross-examination. Further that despite acknowledging the
strained relationship between PW-1 and the accused, the trial
Court did not extend the benefit of the doubt to the accused.
He strongly reiterated that the precedents where the wives
misused the POCSO Act to falsely implicate their husbands,
5
SKS,J
Crl.A.No.103 of 2024
but the trial Court failed to address or comment on these
precedents. Furthermore, key witnesses PW-3 and PW-5 did
not support the prosecution, yet the trial Court disregarded
their testimonies. That apart, he alleged that PW-1 tutored
PW-2, and the trial Court failed to consider the said possibility
and that the evidence would clearly establish that PW-1
demanded ₹5 crores to settle the matter, proving that the case
was filed with false allegations purely to harass the accused.
7. In addition, he contended that the trial Court did not
consider the responsibility of the accused towards his elderly
parents, who are aged about 78 and 70 and are his
dependents. He informed the Court that the appellant has
already paid the fine of ₹20,000 on 31-01-2024 and remained
on bail throughout the trial after furnishing a personal bond
of ₹10,000 with sureties. Therefore, he prayed the Court to
set aside the impugned judgment dated 31.01.2024 passed in
S.C.PCS.No.14 of 2020 by allowing this Criminal Appeal.
8. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor vehemently
opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
appellant, submitting that the prosecution had successfully
6
SKS,J
Crl.A.No.103 of 2024
established the case against the appellant beyond a
reasonable doubt by examining PW-1 to PW-7 and presenting
Exhibits P1 to P8 as evidence. He contended that the
testimony of victim (PW-2) was consistent and credible,
highlighting that the accused who is her father, had
repeatedly sexually assaulted her by inappropriately touching
her private parts. He emphasized that under Sections 29 and
30 of the POCSO Act, there is a presumption of guilt in such
cases unless the accused can rebut it with strong evidence,
and that the accused failed to do so. He pointed out that the
delay in filing the complaint was reasonable, considering the
emotional trauma of the victim and the hesitation of the family
in reporting such incidents. Therefore, he prayed the Court to
dismiss the criminal appeal.
9. Having regard to the rival submissions, and on going
through the material placed on record, it is noted that the
allegations levelled against the appellant are for the offences
punishable Sections 354 of IPC and Sections 9(l) and (n) r/w
Section 10 of POCSO Act. The case of the prosecution is that
the appellant being the father of the victim, has sexually
assaulted her. P.W.1 is the mother of the victim and wife of
7
SKS,J
Crl.A.No.103 of 2024
the appellant, testified that the accused, her husband,
sexually assaulted their daughter (PW-2) multiple times. PW-
2, the victim, stated that the accused inappropriately touched
her chest and private parts on multiple occasions between
June 2018 and August 2019. The prosecution also presented
PW-3 (a circumstantial witness), PW-4 (a mediator for the
crime scene observation), PW-5 (the landlord), PW-6 (the
officer who recorded the victim’s statement), and PW-7 (the
investigating officer). While PW-3 and PW-5 turned hostile, the
prosecution relied on the testimony of the victim, supported
by her statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC, whereas,
it is the specific stand of the appellant that the case was
fabricated due to ongoing matrimonial disputes, alleging that
PW-1 used the POCSO Act as a tool to implicate the accused
after failing to settle property and financial demands. The
appellant also highlighted inconsistencies in witness
testimonies, delays in lodging the complaint, and the victim’s
prior social media statements indicating she had a habit of
lying. The Investigating Officer admitted that he did not
examine certain key individuals, such as parents of PW-1, but
maintained that the case was based on strong evidence. The
8
SKS,J
Crl.A.No.103 of 2024
accused denied all allegations, claiming that PW-1 falsely
implicated him out of revenge.
10. On meticulous perusal of the record, it is seen that the
allegations against the accused are levelled by his daughter
herself, alleging that he has sexually assaulted her, whereas,
the strong contention of learned counsel for the appellant is
that as admitted by de facto complainant there is delay in
lodging the report, and that the same would reveal their mala
fide intention of P.W.1 to implicate the appellant in false case
using her daughter, and the provisions of POCSO as a tool.
11. The witness statements reveal significant admissions
regarding matrimonial disputes between the de facto
complainant and the accused, due to the alleged affair of
accused with one Priyanka, meetings between the accused,
the victim, and the de facto complainant in hotels, celebration
of birthday of victim, just before lodging the complaint, and
the social media activity of the victim, wherein, she stated that
she is habituated to lying. PW-1 admitted during cross-
examination that she suspected the accused of having an
illicit relationship with Priyanka, a family friend who initially
9
SKS,J
Crl.A.No.103 of 2024
helped their children with studies but later became a source
of conflict. PW-5 (the landlord and mediator) also confirmed
that PW-1 informed him about the alleged affairs of the
accused with multiple women, including Priyanka, and
attempted reconciliation discussions took place on 12-10-
2019, where relatives of PW-1 insisted the accused apologize,
but she later refused to reconcile. Despite these disputes,
PW-1 and PW-2 (the victim) admitted that they met the
accused multiple times in hotels and restaurants even after
their separation.
12. PW-2 confirmed that on 12-11-2019, just one day before
the complaint was filed, the accused gifted her watch on her
birthday, and WhatsApp conversations (Exhibit D-1) between
PW-1 and the accused showed no mention of sexual assault
but focused on Priyanka and financial demands. Additionally,
PW-2 admitted to being highly active on social media and
acknowledged posting a message stating that she had “lied a
million times” to her teachers and saw nothing wrong with
lying. That being so, it can be said that these social media
posts which are marked as Exhibit D-2, would raise serious
doubts about the credibility of the victim as the same would
10
SKS,J
Crl.A.No.103 of 2024
open doors to the possibility of victim being coached or
influenced, supporting the contention of the appellant that the
case was a fabricated driven by the matrimonial disputes
rather than genuine sexual assault allegations. Furthermore,
PW-1 admitted that she was aware of the online activity of the
P.W.2 but did not monitor or control it. Therefore, these
admissions would support the contentions of the learned
counsel for the appellant that the case was motivated by
personal disputes rather than genuine allegations of sexual
assault, as PW-1 allegedly used the POCSO Act to pressure
the appellant into settling financial and property disputes.
13. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that though the trial
Court proceeded with discussing the evidence of P.W.1 and
P.W.2 at length, but it failed to consider the admissions that
are mentioned as above and the revelations made in Exs.D1
and D2. That being so, it is imperative to note that when
there are presumptions against the accused the Court has to
consider the evidence meticulously, and on meticulously going
through Exs.D1 and D2, it is seen that, it is contradictory to
the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2.
11
SKS,J
Crl.A.No.103 of 2024
14. In view of the above discussion, it is evident that the
allegations against the appellant stem from ongoing
matrimonial disputes between PW-1 (de facto complainant)
and the accused, primarily due to her suspicion of his alleged
affair with Priyanka. The testimony of PW-2/victim is
significantly undermined by contradictions, including Exs.D1
and D2/WhatsApp and Instagram content. Additionally,
Ex.D-2 social media activity of the victim, wherein she
admitted to habitual lying, raises serious doubts about her
credibility and the possibility of coaching or influence. The
delay in lodging the complaint further strengthens the
contention of the appellant that PW-1 strategically used the
POCSO Act as a tool to implicate the accused, having
previously attempted to settle disputes through financial
negotiations. Furthermore, the fact that PW-1 and PW-2
continued to meet the accused, dined together in hotels, and
celebrated the birthday of PW-2 just before filing the
complaint contradicts the allegations levelled against the
accused.
15. Basing on these admissions and contradictions,
particularly the implications of Exs.D-1 and D-2, which would
12
SKS,J
Crl.A.No.103 of 2024
directly contradict the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2, and the
serious inconsistencies which would open doors of strong
possibility of fabrication, the case against the appellant
appears to be a clear misuse of the POCSO Act, driven by
mala fide intentions rather than genuine allegations of sexual
assault.
16. In view thereof, this Criminal Appeal is allowed setting
aside the judgment dated 31.01.2024 passed in
S.C.PCS.No.14 of 2020 by the I Additional Metropolitan
Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also
stand closed.
_______________
K. SUJANA, J
Date: 07.03.2025
PT