Telangana High Court
The State Of Telangana vs Faiyaz Mehmood Ansari And Another on 1 May, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.363, 429, 478 of 2020 & 146 of 2021
COMMON JUDGMENT:
(per The Hon'ble Sri Justice K.SURENDER)
1. Criminal Appeal 363 of 2020 is filed by Accused No.2. Criminal
Appeal No.478 of 2020 is filed by A1. Criminal Appeal 429 of 2020 is
filed by the defacto Complainant/PW.1. Criminal Appeal 146 of 2021
is filed by the State.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants,
the complainant and also learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, Sri
M.Vivekananda Reddy, representing the State.
3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that PW.1 is the defacto
complainant, who is the father of the victim boy-PW.2. PW.1 married
Accused No.2 in the year 2006 and had three children. Both PW.1
and A2 went to Kuwait, where all three children were born. They
stayed in Kuwait until 2013, and during the year 2013, PW.1 sent
back Accused No.2 and all the three children to India, where they
were living separately in Khilwat area in a rented premises.
Thereafter, they shifted to Shaheen Nagar area. Both areas are in
Hyderabad.
4. On 09.09.2016, PW.1 called Accused No.2 and informed her
that he was coming to India. On 11.09.2016, PW.1 came to India and
celebrated Bakrid festival in his parents house. On 18.09.2016, PW.1
asked Accused No.2 to take back the children to their rented
premises in Shaheen Nagar, since their exams were starting on
22.09.2016. PW.2 was found shivering and weeping. He requested
PW.1 not to send him with Accused No.2.
5. PW.1 questioned the boy (PW.2) about his behavior. PW.2
informed PW.1 that A2, with the help of A1 (a thantrik), inflicted
several injuries on his body. PW.1 found several injuries on PW.2's
buttocks and other parts of his body. PW.2 did not allow PW.1 to
check his anus and was suffering from pain. PW.2 also informed
PW.1 that the entire activity of inflicting injuries, cutting him with
blades, and pouring hot water on him was photographed on a cell
phone. Accused No.2 left the house, and on further
enquiry,PW.2disclosed that Accused No.1 used to come to their
house and that A1 and A2 were having illicit intimacy. PW.2
informed PW.1 that A2 also threatened the children whenever A1
came to the house.
6. PW.1 then went to the Police and lodged an English-typed
complaint on 26.09.2016. The Police registered the case under
Sections 120 (B), 307, 341, 342, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code,
Sections 4, 6, and 10 of the POCSO Act, Sections 2 (C) and 7 of the
Drugs and Magic Remedies Act, 1954 (for short "the Act"),and
Section 23 of the Juvenile Justice Act.
7. During the course of investigation, PW.2 was taken to PW.7-
Doctor. PW.7 examined PW.2 on 27.09.2016 and found the following
injuries:
i) Injury on the left big toe
ii) Injury on the right big toe
iii) Blade marks all over the body.
8. According to PW.7, the injuries were caused with a blade.
During the course of investigation, Ex.P6-the bonafide certificate of
PW.2 was collected from PW.4. Ex.P3-photographs and Ex.P4-
CD/DVD showing the injuries caused to the boy/PW.2 were video-
graphed.
9. During the course of trial, the learned Sessions Judge
examined PWs.1 to 11 and marked Exs.P1 to P21 and MOs.1 to 7.
The learned Sessions Judge found Accused Nos.1 and 2 guilty of the
following offences:
Conviction for the offence Punishment
under Section
Accused No.1 Section 6 of Protection of Rigorous Life Imprisonment
Children from Sexual
and to pay a fine of
Offences Act, 2012. Rs.10,000/-.
Section 377 of Indian Penal Rigorous Life Imprisonment
Code. and to pay a fine of
Rs.10,000/-.
Section 307 of Indian Penal Rigorous Imprisonment for
Code. a period of Ten Years and to
pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-
Section 342 of Indian Penal Rigorous Imprisonment for
Code. a period of one year and to
pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-.
Section 497 of Indian Penal Rigorous Imprisonment for
Code a period of five years and to
pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-.
Section 506 of Indian penal Rigorous imprisonment for
Code a period of two years and to
pay a fine of Rs.4,000/-.
Conviction for the offence Punishment
under Section
Accused No.2 Section 307 of the Indian Rigorous Imprisonment for
Penal Code a period of Ten years and to
pay a fine of Rs.20,000/-
Section 342 of the Indian Rigorous Imprisonment for
Penal Code. a period of one year and to
pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-.
Section 506 of the Indian Rigorous Imprisonment for
penal Code a period of Two years and to
pay a fine of Rs.4,000/-.
10. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of A1 and A2 would
submit that the injuries on PW.2 do not suggest any kind of
unnatural sex or any injuries to his private parts. In the absence of
any such injuries, the question of convicting Accused No.1 under
Section 377 of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act is incorrect. There
was no DNA test conducted on PW.2, and the injuries were found to
be simple in nature. In fact, PW.7 admitted that injuries (i) and (ii)
were simple in nature and the third injury could have been caused
by a fall.
11. There were disputes between A2 and PW.1. For the reason of
the said disputes, a false complaint was filed by PW.1 alleging illicit
intimacy between A1 and A2. Further, causing pain to PW.2, in the
absence of any medical evidence, would not suggest that the boy was
subjected to unnatural sex. Only on the basis of a tutored version
given by PW.2 in the Court below, conviction cannot be recorded.
12. Learned Counsel further submitted that there were disputes
between PW.1 and A2 in Kuwait, and A2 had lodged complaints
against PW.1 in Kuwait, which were being investigated. To overcome
the criminal investigation, PW.1 sent back A2 and the three children
to Hyderabad, where they were staying. The complaint is in the form
of retaliation to the complaint filed by A2 against PW.1 in Kuwait.
13. Learned Counsel further argued that when the injuries are
simple in nature and caused on the toes or legs, it cannot be said
that it is an offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The
Court below has failed to consider the background of the case and
the differences between PW.1 and A2, which were documented. There
was no medical evidence to support the claim of unnatural sex with
PW.2, or that such injuries were inflicted with an intent to commit
murder of PW.2.
14. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant and
also the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that
Exs.P3 and P4 would clearly go to show that A1's acts are
punishable under Section 7 of the Drugs and Magic Remedies Act,
1954. Further, the acts of A1 and A2 were also punishable under the
provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, for inflicting injuries on PW.2,
who was aged less than 12 years.
15. PW.1 filed a complaint before the Police on 26.09.2016 alleging
that A1 and A2 were having sex in the house by sending the
childrenaway. A1 had inflicted injuries on PW.2 along with A2. A2
used to abuse PW.2, who is the victim.
16. PW.2 stated that A1 used to visit their house and crack jokes
with his mother/A2. A1 was touching A2 on her private parts and
also kissing her. When PW.2 questioned A1 as to why he was
inappropriately touching A2, A2 beat PW.2 with a rod and pipe.
During the night, PW.2 and his two sisters were kept in a room
separately, and PW.2 also found A1 and A2 in a nude position. When
questioned, PW.2 was beaten up and kicked by A1 and A2. Some
white powder was being given to PW.2, due to which he suffered from
blood motions. A1 used to undress PW.2, apply oil, and put his penis
into the Anus of PW.2, for which PW.2 cried in pain. A1 and A2 used
to give injections to PW.2. Whenever PW.1 called PW.2 on the phone,
A2 used to threaten PW.2 not to reveal anything to PW.1. Due to fear
of A1 and A2, he did not inform anyone.
17. PW.2 further stated that after PW.1 arrived in Hyderabad, he
informed him about the injuries inflicted by A1 and A2 on his body.
18. The doctor did not find any injuries on the private parts of
PW.2 when examined. According to PW.1, PW.2 complained of
injuries on 18.09.2016. However, PW.1 came to India on 11.09.2016.
There was no complaint of PW.2 on 11.09.2016. According to PW.1,
for the first time, PW.2 complained about pain in the anus and
injuries on 22.09.2016, i.e., 11 days after PW.1 arrived in
Hyderabad. From 11.09.2016, PW.1, A2, and others were staying in
the house of PW.1's parents, and they also celebrated 'Bakrid'.
19. It is difficult to understand why, if the boy was suffering from
such severe pain, PW.1 did not take him to a doctor. This raises a
doubt as to whether injuries were inflicted on PW.2 just prior to
lodging of the complaint. Admittedly, from 11.09.2016 till
22.09.2016, all of them stayed together, and therefore, the question
of any injuries being inflicted on PW.2 during those ten days does
not arise.
20. The doctor who examined PW.2 stated that Injury No. (iii),
which appeared to be caused by a blade, could indeed have been
inflicted with such a weapon. However, all three injuries were
described as simple in nature.
21. The victim, PW.2, disclosed the harassment only when PW.1
advised A2 to take the children back to the rented house. PW.2 was
scared and was very frightened. PW.2 revealed that he had seen A1
and A2 nude and that A2 was moving closely with A1. Since that
day, PW.2 had observed A1 and A2 touching and kissing each other,
after which the infliction of injuries began. According to PW.2, both
A1 and A2 began beating him indiscriminately and also started
kicking him from the day after he discovered A1 and A2 in one room,
engaged in intimate acts. PW.2 also stated that some white powder
was given to him, which caused him to suffer from bloody motions.
A1 used to apply oil on his body and insert his penis into PW.2's
Anus, due to which he screamed. Both A1 and A2 also gave some
injections to PW.2. When PW.1 called PW.2 on the phone, A1 would
threaten PW.2 by cutting a doll with a knife and showing him that he
would cut him in the same manner if he disclosed anything to his
father. In July 2016, A1 and A2 took the boy to the house of A1,
where they confined him in a dark room. A1 would cut the boy with a
blade and suck his blood. A1 and A2 also poured boiling water on
PW.2. PW.2 further stated that when PW.2 refused to allow A1 to
insert his penis into his Anus, A2 poured hot wax on his scrotum.
The said acts continued over a period of three months.
22. PW.4 is the Admin Incharge of VIP International School. He
issued the Attendance record of PW.2, which is marked as Ex.P7.
Ex.P7 shows that PW.2 was absent from the school during the
months of June, July, August, and September. Though in the cross-
examination PW.4 stated that PW.2 attended classes for about 2 or 3
months, however, the said statement is contrary to the attendance
record-Ex.P7. PW.4 was working as the Admin Incharge, and on the
basis of the record, he issued Ex.P7, reflecting the absence of PW.2
from school for four months. His statement in the cross-examination
that the boy attended school cannot be accepted, since there were 15
to 20 buses being run and several hundred students in the school,
according to PW.4.
23. The two daughters of PW.1 and A2 were not examined in the
Court; however, their non-examination is of no consequence.
According to PW.2, the entire harassment over a period of three
months occurred when he was kept in the house of A1.
24. The Test Identification Parade was also conducted. PW.6 was
the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate who conducted the Test
Identification Parade on 10.11.2016. PW.2 narrated to PW.6 the
horrific treatment meted out to him over a period of three months.
PW.2 correctly identified A1. According to PW.2, the ill-treatment by
A1 and A2 stopped two days prior to PW.1's arrival in India on
11.9.2016.
25. The evidence of PW.2 is convincing and cannot be said to be
the outcome of tutoring by PW.1. PW.2 narrated the acts committed
by A1 and A2 to PW.1 at the first instance, thereafter to the police,
and also in the 164 Cr.P.C. statement. The same version was also
given to PW.6-the Magistrate who conducted the Test Identification
parade. PW.2 withstood probing and extensive cross-examination by
both the counsel for A1 and A2. Nothing was elicited to discredit the
evidence of PW.2 in the extensive cross-examination, running into
nearly four pages, by both the counsel for A1 and A2. The version
given by PW.2 was consistent even during cross-examination, and
nowhere did PW.2 falter. PW.2 sticking to his version and giving
minute details about what transpired would go to show that PW.2
was speaking the truth the entire time.
26. PW.7 is the doctor who examined PW.2 and found three
injuries. No injuries were found near the anus, nor were there any
signs of recent intercourse. However, the injuries had been inflicted
over a period of three months. According to the narration given by
PW.2, the injuries on the body, such as, being cut with blades,
having hot water poured on him, and injuries to the toes, were all
observed during the medical examination. The scars from cuts made
with blades would be visible for a long time. However, anal
intercourse, as alleged by PW.2, would not necessarily leave long-
lasting scars or injuries on the anus. The presence of semen, faeces,
or similar evidence would only be expected if the anal intercourse
had occurred recently. The alleged harassment occurred prior to
11.09.2016, and PW.2 was examined by PW.7 on 27.09.2016, which
is a gap of more than 16 days. The absence of injuries must be
considered in the context of the facts of this case. Ex.P3 and Ex.P4
are the photographs and the CD that show hot water being poured
on the boy's legs while some Arabic recitation is heard in the
background. The Court can assess the reliability of the version given
by PW.2. As already discussed, the boy withstood cross-examination
on various aspects. It does not appear that the boy was tutored to
speak against A1 or A2. Such straightforward answers and a
consistent account of harassment are only possible when PW.2 has
actually undergone the trauma he described. In the present facts of
the case, the absence of injuries on the anus of PW.2 will not affect
the credibility of his evidence regarding the unnatural sex committed
by A1.
27. Both A1 and A2 had inflicted injuries on PW.2 after PW.2 saw
them in intimate positions. To attract an offence of criminal
conspiracy, one or more persons should have agreed to do an illegal
act or an act which is not illegal by illegal means. The infliction of
injuries by A1 and A2 was on account of PW.2 witnessing A1 and A2
having sex and questioning them. It cannot be said that they had
entered into a criminal conspiracy to inflict injuries on him.
28. Further, the allegation of practicing witchcraft or doing any
Tantrik acts of inflicting injuries on PW.2 would attract penal
consequences for causing bodily injury. In the State of Telangana,
there is no enactment punishing people practicing witchcraft/black
magic or any such practices.
29. The charge sheet was filed alleging offence under Section 2(c)
r/w.Section 7 of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable
Advertisements) Act, 1954.
30. Section 2 (c) of the Act reads as follows:
"(c) "magic remedy" includes a talisman, mantra, kavacha,
and any other charm of any kind which is alleged to
possess miraculous powers for or in the diagnosis, cure,
mitigation, treatment or prevention of any disease in human
beings or animals or for affecting or influencing in any way
the structure or any organic function of the body of human
beings or animals;"
31. Section 7 of the Act reads as follows:
"7. Penalty.--Whoever contravenes any of the provisions of
this Act 3 [or the rules made there under] shall, on
conviction, be punishable--
(a) in the case of the first conviction, with imprisonment
which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both;
(b) in the case of a subsequent conviction, with
imprisonment which may extend to one year, or with fine, or
with both."
32. Section 2(c) is the definition of a magic remedy. The enactment
is intended to punish any false claims of magic remedies for
practicing witchcraft or any such acts of black magic or similar
practices. There is no punishment prescribed in the Drugs and
Magic Remedies (objectionable advertisements) Act, 1954.
33. As seen from the injuries that were inflicted on PW.2, the intent
was to threaten PW.2 and prevent him from informing either PW.1 or
anyone else about the intimacy between A1 and A2, which was seen
by PW.2. Injuries were inflicted over a period of three months by A1
and A2 by pouring hot water on the body of PW.2, burning him with
wax, beating with rods, etc. The injuries found by the doctor were
not on any of the vital parts of the body and were not life-
threatening. All the injuries were simple in nature. For the said
reason, Section 307 of IPC is not attracted. However, A1 and A2 are
convicted under Section 326 of IPC.
34. Accordingly, the conviction of A1 under Section 377 of IPC and
Section 6 of the POCSO Act is upheld. The sentence of imprisonment
under Section 377 and also under Section 6 of the POCSO Act is
reduced to 15 years. The conviction under Section 307 of IPC is set
aside; however, A1 is convicted for the offence under Section 326 of
IPC and sentenced to undergo 10 years of rigorous imprisonment.
35. The conviction of A2 under Section 307 of IPC is set aside;
however, A2 is convicted for the offence under Section 326 of IPC
and sentenced to 8 years imprisonment.
36. All the remaining sentences of A1 and A2 under the other penal
provisions are upheld.
37. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal Nos.363 of 2020 filed by A2 and
Criminal Appeal No.478 of 2020 filed by A1 are partly allowed.
Criminal Appeal No.429 of 2020 filed by the defacto complainant and
Criminal Appeal No.146 of 2021 filed by the State are dismissed.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
_____________________
E.V.VENUGOPAL, J
Date: 01.05.2025
tk
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.363, 429, 478 of 2020 & 146 of 2021
Date: 01.05.2025
tk
