Telangana Court Sentences Madrasa Teacher To Life For Repeated Sexual Assault Of Minor Boy; Awards ₹2 Lakh Compensation

A Fast Track Special POCSO Court in Telangana on September 29 sentenced a madrasa teacher to rigorous imprisonment for life for repeatedly sexually assaulting a 13-year-old boy, holding that the prosecution had established his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Special Judge M.K. Padmavathi of Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar also directed payment of ₹2 lakh compensation to the victim boy from the Victim Compensation Fund towards his rehabilitation, education and welfare.

The accused, Mohammed Munawar Hussain , was convicted under Section 351 BNS and Sections 5(f), 5(l), 5(o) and 5(p), read with Section 6 POCSO Act.

Prosecution case

The prosecution case was that Hussain was working as a teacher at Madarsa Islamia Kashiful Uloom, Mamidipally, where the victim was studying.

The Court found that the victim gave a specific account of the accused taking him to a room in a mosque, showing him obscene videos, forcibly removing his clothes, assaulting him when he resisted and subjecting him to anal penetrative sexual assault. The victim further stated that the accused threatened him not to disclose the incident and subsequently subjected him to a similar assault on another occasion.

The Court held that the material particulars concerning the identity of the accused, the manner of assault, the place of occurrence, use of force and subsequent threat remained substantially intact during cross-examination.

It further found that the victim's testimony was supported by medical evidence, the evidence of his parents concerning his disclosure, and his statement recorded before the Magistrate.

Court rejects defence on delay in FIR

The defence had argued that there was an unexplained delay in lodging the complaint. According to the prosecution record, the alleged incidents occurred on December 23 and 25, 2024, whereas the complaint was lodged on January 4, 2025.

The Court, however, found that the delay had been adequately explained.

It noted that the victim initially complained of pain after returning from the madrasa. He was taken to a clinic, where he was treated for an infection. Subsequently, when his pain and itching increased, his mother questioned him, leading to his first disclosure of the alleged sexual assault.

The victim also stated that he had remained silent because the accused had threatened him not to disclose the incident.

The Court noted that this explanation was consistent with the victim's statements before the police, the Magistrate and his deposition during trial. It therefore held that the delay, by itself, could not be treated as sufficient to discard the prosecution case.

Relying on Supreme Court judgments, the Court said that delay in lodging an FIR in a sexual offence case is not necessarily fatal and its effect has to be assessed in the circumstances of each case.

Medical Evidence also considered

The Court also considered the medical evidence supporting the victim's account. It found that the victim's testimony was corroborated by the medical evidence as well as the evidence of other prosecution witnesses.

The Court ultimately held that the prosecution had established that the accused, taking advantage of his position as a teacher, used force against the minor, subjected him to anal penetrative sexual assault on two occasions and threatened him with non-disclosure.

The Court accordingly found the accused guilty of the offences under Section 351 BNS and the aforementioned aggravated penetrative sexual assault provisions of the POCSO Act.

Life Imprisonment On Four POCSO Counts

While considering the question of sentence, the accused sought leniency, citing his family circumstances and claiming to be the sole breadwinner.

The Court, however, imposed rigorous imprisonment for life for each of the four offences under Sections 5(f), 5(l), 5(o) and 5(p), read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

A fine of ₹5,000 was also imposed for each offence, with two months' simple imprisonment stipulated in default of payment.

For the offence under Section 351(1) BNS, the Court imposed two years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹500, with 15 days' simple imprisonment in default.

The Court directed that all the imprisonment sentences would run concurrently.

₹2 Lakh compensation to victim

The Court also directed payment of ₹2 lakh to the victim from the Victim Compensation Fund. It observed that the victim had suffered physical injury, mental trauma and an impact on his dignity and emotional well-being. The compensation was directed towards his medical and psychological care, education and rehabilitation.

The District Legal Services Authority was directed to take necessary steps for payment of the compensation at the earliest.

The Court also passed consequential directions concerning the material objects seized during the investigation.

Case Title: The Inspector of Police, PS. Pahadishareef, Rachakonda, Commissionerate v Mohammed Munawar Hussain