AJAAZ HABIB QURESHI Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed against the Judgment dtd. 20/1/2014 in S.C.No.57 of 2010, passed by the learned V ' Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge (Mahila Court), Hyderabad.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that accused alleged to have committed sexual assault against the victim girl, aged about 7 years. To prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 21 and marked Exs.P1 to P22 on their behalf and also marked M.Os.1 to 19. Exs.D1, D.2 and X1 were marked on behalf of the accused. The trial Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, found accused guilty and convicted him under Sec. 235(2) of Cr.P.C and sentenced him to undergo R.I for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000.00, in default to suffer S.I for 1 year for the offence under Sec. 363 of IPC, and sentenced to undergo R.I for 10 years and to pay Rs.2,000.00, in default to suffer S.I for 1 year for the offence under Sec. 307 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I for life and also to pay fine of Rs.2,000.00, in default to suffer S.I for 1 year for the offence under Sec. 376 of IPC and all the offences should run concurrently. Aggrieved by the said Judgment, accused preferred the present appeal.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the appellant/accused mainly contended that the motive for the said offence is not proved by the prosecution. The trial Court failed to see that the material available on record disproves the alleged offence. The child witness cannot be believed to base conviction without any corroborating evidence and there is no legally acceptable evidence. The prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. P.Ws.1 and 2 did not disclose that appellant kidnapped the victim girl from her house or from their lawful custody. He also contended that P.Ws.1 to 3 and P.Ws.5 to 9 are circumstantial witnesses. Therefore, requested the Court to set aside the Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.