Sri B Papi Reddy

1 POCSO.SC. NO. 18 OF 2019

IN THE COURT OF THE I-ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE

MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY.

Present:-Sri B.Papi Reddy, I-Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy.

Friday the 13th day of December, 2019.

POCSO.S.C. No. 18 of 2019

CRIME NO.25 of 2018

Name of the complainant.The State of Telangana through, Asst. Commissioner of Police, Gajwel Sub-Division.

Description of the accused. Beemagalla Babu S/o. Sailu, Age: 40 yrs, Caste: SC Madiga, Occ: Coolie, R/o. Nemtoor Village, Wargal Mandal, Siddipet District.

Charge/s.Under Section 376 (2)(f) of IPC and Section 5 & 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

Plead of accused.Accused pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the judge.Accused found guilty.

Sentence or order.In the result, Accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 376 (2)(f) of IPC and Section 5 & 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and accordingly he is convicted under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C for the said charge and the accused is sentenced to undergo Imprisonment for life which shall mean imprisonment for remainder of life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) and in default of payment of fine, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of THREE MONTHS for the offence under Section 376 (2)(f) IPC. The pre-trial custody undergone by the accused from 15.10.2018 to 13.12.2019 shall be given set off u/s 428 Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Prosecution conducted bySri J. Srinivas Reddy, Public Prosecutor.

Accused defended bySmt. M. Ramadevi, Sri. B. Nagaraju, Legal Aid Counsels.

This case is coming on before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.

J.Srinivas Reddy, Public Prosecutor for the state and Smt. M. Ramadevi, Sri.

B. Nagaraju, Legal Aid Counsels for Accused, upon perusing the material on record and upon hearing the arguments the court delivered the following:- 2 POCSO.SC. NO. 18 OF 2019

: J U D G M E N T :

The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Gajwel Division filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under

Section 376(2)(f) of IPC and Section 5 & 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences, Act - 2012 ( for short “POCSO Act” ) in Crime

No. 25/2018 of Begumpet Police Station with the following averments.

2.This is a case of rape on a minor girl under the age of 18 years by her own father, that on 12-10-2018 the mother of the victim PW1 lodged Ex.P1/report before PW13 by stating that her husband addicted to alcohol and does not take care of the family, daily she used to go for labour work at seeds company at Nemtoor Village, but at about 3 years back, when she went to seeds company for labour work accused came to her house where the victim was alone and by taking advantage he forcibly committed rape on the victim girl, when she returned to home in the evening her daughter informed the incident, she also informed the same to her caste elders, the elders called the accused and warned him, but accused again committed rape on his own daughter when she was alone and the same was also informed to the caste elders but the accused did not changed his attitude, accused committed rape 10 times on his own daughter, as such the victim was sent to accused sister's house at

Ramakrishnapuram, Hyderabad but accused used to call his sister and abused by torturing, due to which the accused sister sent back the victim, but later the victim was sent to her grand mother's house 3 POCSO.SC. NO. 18 OF 2019 at Shameerpet for a period of one year but accused again used to call his daughter to come back, on returning the accused threatened his daughter and forcibly committed rape, the accused did not changed his attitude as such Ex.P1 report lodged before PW13, basing on the same he registered a case in Cr. No. 25/2018 for the offence under Section 376(2)(f) of IPC and Section 5 & 6 of POCSO

Act, 2012, during the course of investigation PW13 recorded the statement of PW1, PW14 took up the investigation by considering the gravity of the offence, verified the investigation conducted by PW13 and found it on the correct lines, during the investigation PW14 re- examined and recorded the statement of PW1 and sent the victim girl to Government Area Hospital, Gajwel for medical examination, PW11 medical officer examined the victim girl by preserving her vaginal cervical swabs and smears for forwarding the same to FSL

Hyderabad, the accused committed rape on the victim girl for 10 times during the period of 3 years, the accused and victim changed their clothes after committing the last rape, hence the clothes were not seized but PW14 got recorded the statement of victim by

PW15/Women Inspector, that on 13-10-2018 PW14 addressed a letter to the headmaster ZPHS Nemtoor with a request to furnish the age proof certificate of the victim girl, accordingly the headmaster

PW8 furnished the bonafide certificate of the victim girl, on verification the date of birth of the victim is recorded as 10-02-2004, as such the victim age is 14 years of age, later PW14 examined and recorded the statement of PW8, secured the presence of PW9,

PW10 and conducted the scene of observation by preparing the 4 POCSO.SC. NO. 18 OF 2019 rough sketch at the accused house, PW14 also examined the caste elders PW3 to PW7 and recorded their statements, that on 15-10- 2018 LW19/R. Niranjan, Circle Inspector apprehended the accused and produced before PW14 who produced before the court, PW14 also sent the accused for medical examination, accordingly PW12 medical officer conducted the examination on the accused and furnished potency certificate by stating that “he is capable of performing sexual act”, PW14 got recorded the statement of PW1 to

PW3 and PW5 by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sangareddy under Section 164 Cr.P.C, that on 20-10-2018 PW14 examined

LW8/D. Manga, LW9/K. Yadamma, LW10/K. Yadagiri and recorded their statements, that on 10-01-2019 FSL report was received and collected the final opinion on 15-03-2019 from PW11 who opined that after careful examination and FSL report as “possibility of sexual assault cannot be ruled out”, after completion of entire investigation

PW14 Asst. Commissioner of Police, Gajwel Sub-Division filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under

Section 376(2)(f) of IPC and Section 5 & 6 of POCSO Act, 2012.

Hence the charge.

3.This court took cognizance for the offence under Section 376(2)

(f) of IPC and Section 5 & 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual

Offences Act – 2012 and furnished the copies of case documents thereby complied section 207 Cr.P.C and examined the accused under section 228 Cr.P.C, a charge for the offence under Section 376(2)(f) of IPC and Section 5 & 6 of Protection of Children from 5 POCSO.SC. NO. 18 OF 2019

Sexual Offences Act – 2012 was framed, read over and explained to accused in Telugu but he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.The prosecution in order to prove its case examined Pws.1 to 15 and marked Exs.P1 to P9.

5.After completion of the prosecution evidence the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating material found in the prosecution witnesses evidence but he denied the evidence and reported no defence evidence.

6.Heard both sides, gone through the record of evidence meticulously, the case of the accused is the total denial of the prosecution case, in view of rival contentions.

7. Now the point that arises for determination is:-

Whether the prosecution is able to prove the ingredients

for the offence U/Ss. 376(2)(f) of IPC and Section 5 & 6 of

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act – 2012

beyond all reasonable doubt?

8. POINT:-

The specific case of the prosecution is that the accused being the father of the victim forcibly committed rape on his own daughter who is under 16 years of age when she was alone in the house nearly for 10 times within a period of three years, as such the charges were framed for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f) of IPC as well as under Section 5 & 6 of Protection of

Children from Sexual Offences Act – 2012, but the case of the accused is total denial of the prosecution case. The prosecution in 6 POCSO.SC. NO. 18 OF 2019 order to prove the framed charges cited (20) witnesses, but examined PW1 to PW15, PW1 is none other than the wife of the complainant and the mother of the victim, PW2 is the victim, PW3 to

PW7 are the witnesses who held panchayat whenever the rape was reported by PW1, PW8 is the Headmaster who issued the bonafide certificate of the victim, PW9, PW10 are the mediators for the scene of observation, PW15 is the Women Inspector recorded the statement of the victim, PW11, PW12 are the doctors who examined the victim and accused and issued opinion, PW13, PW14 are the investigating officers who registered the FIR and conducted the investigation. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses is as under:

9.There is no dispute that the accused is non other than the own father of the victim/PW2 and PW1 is the wife of the accused who set the law into motion by presenting Ex. P1/report, PW1 deposed about the relationship and testified that the victim studied up to 8th class in

ZPHS School, Nemtoor Village, the accused is in the serious habit of consuming liquor and doing galata in the home, she along with the victim used to go for work in seeds company but at about 3 years back this witness alone went for the work in seeds company but the victim was at home only as she was not feeling well but at about 05:30 PM when she came back to home the victim informed that the accused came in drunken state, asked to serve the food, after serving the food accused closed the door and committed rape by removing her clothes, then this witness/PW1 informed the same to her brother-in-law/PW3 who called the elders of the caste and 7 POCSO.SC. NO. 18 OF 2019 questioned the accused before the elders/PW4 to PW7, they also threatened and beat the accused and not to commit again as it is against the morals, accused also stated that he will not do such acts but after two days again accused continued to consume liquor and committing rape on the victim who is non other than his own daughter but the elders informed her that accused will not change his attitude and keep away the victim, as such she kept the victim at her sister-in- law house LW8/D. Manga but accused used to call her and abused in filthy language as to why she kept the victim at her house, as such

LW8 in unbearable situation send back the victim, but again after 3 days accused continued in committing rape on her daughter, thereafter one month she send her daughter to LW9/K. Yadamma house at Shameerpet for one year, then also accused used to call her mother and used to visit her house by abusing in filthy language for keeping the victim, the accused used to harass her even in the night as to why she kept her daughter with her mother, as such her mother send back the victim as accused may kill her, as such the victim again came back to the house but after two days accused committed rape on the victim, then she informed the same to the elders but they stated that accused will not change his attitude even though several times warned and to do whatever she can do, as such as a last resort she went to police station and lodged Ex.

P1/report, the report was scribed by one police on her dictation, she further testified that the police examined and recorded her statement, the victim also sent for medical examination to Govt. Area Hospital,

Gajwel, that initially the learned legal aid counsel requested time for 8 POCSO.SC. NO. 18 OF 2019 cross examination on 12-09-2019 but when the defence counsel cross examined this witness on 23-09-2019 she did not chosen to support the prosecution case as she deposed that she did not lodge any report, she did not stated the dates and place where her husband committed rape on her daughter, no rape was committed as the accused quarreled with her as such to change him they lodged this case, this might be the reason that the accused is non other than her husband but the evidence deposed by this witness on 12-09- 2019 is very much consistent and it is corroborating the earliest version mentioned in Ex. P1/report and there is not even a single variance found in the evidence.

10.Moreover, the evidence of the victim also plays vital role to weigh the veracity of the witnesses for the prosecution case, PW2 being the victim who is non other than the own daughter of the accused deposed that she studied up to 8th class in ZPHS School,

Nemtoor by 2015, she clearly deposed that her father used to consume liquor and come for lunch in the after-noons, she used to serve food to him but after having food he used to commit rape on her, at about 3 years back she stopped her education and used to go for work in seeds company along with her mother but on one day as she was suffering from fever she was at home only and sleeping but in the after-noon her father came and after having food closed the door and he kept his hands and kissed thereafter committed rape on her, but in the evening she informed the same to her mother but her mother informed to her paternal uncle, caste elders held panchayat, 9 POCSO.SC. NO. 18 OF 2019 they beat and abused her father, as such her mother send her to her aunt house at LW8 in Ramakrishnapuram, Secunderabad where she stayed for one year but her father used to call her aunt and abused in filthy language, as such her aunt stated that due to the victim only she has to listen the abusive words from the accused, as such she send back her to her mother but after 4 days also her father committed rape on her, they informed the same to the elders who chastised the accused, as such again her mother send her to her grand mother house LW9 at Shameerpet where she stayed for one year but even then also her father used to call them and abused in filthy language, as such her grand mother also send back her, thereafter also her father used to commit rape on her, they informed the same to her paternal uncle and they stated that the accused was not change his attitude, as such they lodged report before the police, the victim also examined in chief on 12-09-2019 but cross examination was done on 23-09-2019 at the request of the learned legal aid counsel, but even then this witness stick on to the evidence deposed on the first day and she further testified in her cross examination that accused used to consume liquor and commit rape on her, after committing rape only she went to her aunty house and nothing more is elicited in her cross examination to doubt her verasity.

11.PW3 to PW7 witnesses are the village elders who held panchayat on coming to know about the unbelievable incident of rape by the accused on his own daughter, PW3 testified that the accused 10 POCSO.SC. NO. 18 OF 2019 is non other than his cousin brother, but at about 2 years back when he came back from the work at about 6 or 06:30 PM PW1 came to him and stated that accused committing rape on his daughter/PW2 but on the next day he along with PW4 to PW7 called the accused and beat him, he confessed that he committed rape but pleaded excuse by saying that he will not commit such things, but subsequently also the accused committed rape and PW1 informed the same to him, as such they expelled the accused from their caste for one year, PW2 went to her aunt house for sometime, but thereafter also accused consumed liquor and beat his wife to bring back PW2, as such the victim came back and stayed for few days, but thereafter also the accused committed rape on PW2, he did not changed his attitude even though the elders chastised the accused, as such this case was lodged. During the cross examination also not elicited anything except denying the suggestion that due to the quarrels they lodged this case.

12. PW4 also deposed in the same lines of evidence of PW3 by supporting the version of prosecution, he testified that the accused is non other than his cousin brother, but at about one year back PW1 and PW2 informed him that accused committed rape on PW2, but on the next day they questioned the accused where he confessed the offence but accused stated that he will not commit again, they beat the accused, thereafter PW2 was send to her aunt house for some days, but thereafter when she came back, again the accused continued in committing rape on PW2, as such they expelled the 11 POCSO.SC. NO. 18 OF 2019 accused from their caste for one year for committing rape on his own daughter, but after Bonalu Festival also accused committed rape on

PW2, as such they stated PW1 as the accused not change his attitude and they vexed with his attitude and to do whatever she can do, as such PW1 lodged the report.

13.PW5 to PW7 are also in one voice deposed that at about 3 years back PW1 along with victim/PW2 came and informed that the accused committed rape on his daughter/PW2, when they asked victim/PW2 she stated that the accused used to commit rape on her, then they questioned the accused but after sometime he confessed that he committed rape and PW5 testified that they abused the accused by stating that it is not morality as he committed rape on his own daughter and all these elders are deposed in one voice consistently that they questioned the accused for committing rape by the accused on his own daughter, during the cross examination also nothing is elicited to doubt their evidence, but the elders evidence is very much consisting and relevant to the extent that PW1 and PW2 informed them about the accused committing rape on his own daughter and they chastised the accused and expelled him from their caste but even then the accused not changed his attitude and the elders advised PW1 to lodge the report before police.

14.PW8 is the Headmaster, ZPHS, Nemtoor, he testified that on 13-10-2018 he received a requisition from PW14 and issued bonafide certificate Ex. P2 of the victim girl, as per which PW2 date of birth is recorded as 10-02-2004, even though it is elicited that there is no 12 POCSO.SC. NO. 18 OF 2019

Aadhar number on Ex. P2, the suggestion is clearly denied by this witness that Ex. P2 created for the purpose of this case and it is not the case of the accused that the victim is not under the age of 16 years, as such the date of birth recorded under Ex. P2 cannot be doubted, as such the victim is under the age of 16 years and there is no serious dispute about the age of the victim.

15.PW9, PW10 are the mediators for the observation of the scene of offence, they clearly deposed that on 13-10-2018 DSP called them to the accused house, where police observed the scene of offence place in the house of the accused in their presence and recorded everything in the panchanama, Ex. P3 is the panchanama, Ex. P4 is the rough sketch for the scene of offence which are duly signed by both the mediators and except denying the suggestion that no scene of observation was conducted nothing is elicited in their cross examination.

16.That in sexual assault cases the doctor evidence plays vital role, the prosecution examined the doctor who conducted medical examination on the victim as PW11, she deposed that on 12-10-2018 on the requisition of the Police Begumpet, she examined PW2 on the complaint that accused being the father of the victim have committed rape since 4 years for 10 times, that on her examination victim is not a virgin as hymen is absent, as such the sexual intercourse cannot be ruled out and final opinion was given on 15-03-2019, Ex. P5 is the medical examination report, Ex. P6 is the final opinion given after receipt of Ex. P7 FSL report as the sexual intercourse cannot be 13 POCSO.SC. NO. 18 OF 2019 ruled out, as per the FSL report human semen and spermatozoa are detected on item No. 5, item No. 1 to 3 collected from the victim, item

No. 4, 5 collected from the accused by a male doctor, but after 72 hours of intercourse there is no possibility of semen or spermatozoa on the victim, as such in this case also as the victim was examined after 23 days of the last episode of rape, as such there cannot be any presence of spermatozoa on the victim arises.

17.PW12 deposed that on 15-10-2018 on the requisition of P.S

Begumpet he examined the accused and issued potency certificate

Ex. P8 by stating that he is capable to do sexual act as the sexual characters are well developed, as per the final opinion accused is capable for performing sexual act and the defence counsel also not cross examined this witness as there is no dispute that the accused is capable for performing sexual act.

18.PW13 deposed that on 12-10-2018 PW1 came to police station and presented Ex. P1/report, basing on which he registered Ex.

P9/FIR for the offence under Section 376(2)(f) of IPC and Section 5 & 6 of POCSO Act, 2012, during the cross examination it is elicited that the distance between Nemtoor village and police station is about 3

K.M but PW1 came with a written report, Ex. P1 does not contain the specific dates of committing rape, but the witness belongs to rustic village, as such they described the incident by specifying the period without mentioning the dates.

14 POCSO.SC. NO. 18 OF 2019

19.PW15 Women Sub Inspector deposed about recording of the statement of the victim/PW2 at Anganwadi Centre, Nemtoor Village and throughout recording the statement the same was also video- graphed.

20. The investigating officer PW14 deposed about the examination of all the witnesses and collecting the FSL report including the medical record and conducting the scene of observation, he also testified that he got recorded PW1 to PW3, PW5 and PW6 statements by the Judicial First Class Magistrate under Section 164

Cr.P.C, during the cross examination also it is elicited that except

PW3 to PW7 elders, he did not examined any other elders of the village, there is no specific dates of rape mentioned by the witnesses, this investigating officer also further testified that as the witnesses are rustic and ill-iterate villagers as such they cannot say the specific dates.

21.That as discussed above PW1 even though subsequently turned hostile but her evidence deposed on 12-09-2019 is very much consistent and in conformity with the earliest version mentioned in

Ex. P1/report, she clearly stated that at about 3 years back accused first time committed rape on her own daughter, when she went for work and when the victim was alone at home but when she came back to home at 05:30 PM the victim informed her, the evidence of

PW2 being the victim is quite convincing and corroborating the medical evidence also as the doctor clearly testified that after receipt of FSL report the sexual intercourse not ruled out as the hymen is not 15 POCSO.SC. NO. 18 OF 2019 intact, there is no evidence that except the accused no body committed rape, PW2 clearly deposed that at about 3 years back when she was sleeping in the home after-noon her father came and after having food he closed the door and kept his hands and kissed thereafter committed rape on her but in the evening she informed the same to her mother and the same was informed to her paternal uncle and caste elders who held panchayat and they beat the accused and abused her father, as such the victim was sent to her aunt house at

LW8 where she stayed for one year but thereafter also the accused used to call her aunt and abuse in filthy language, as such the victim was sent back to her mother, but thereafter also the accused continued on committing rape on his own daughter, PW4 to PW7 evidence is very much consistent and corroborating the evidence of

PW2 with regard to conducting the panchayat and chastising the accused but after last resort when the accused not changed his attitude the elders advised the PW1 to lodge the report, as such as a last resort when the accused did not changed his attitude and continued in committing rape on his own daughter PW1 constrained to lodge the report.

22. That in this case the victim evidence itself is sufficient that the accused alone committed rape on different times, PW2 being the own daughter of the accused without any hesitation deposed about the acts of the accused, there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of this witness, At this stage it is relevant to refer a judgment titled as 16 POCSO.SC. NO. 18 OF 2019

State of Punjab vs. Gurmit Singh & Ors., reported in AIR 1996 SC 1393(1) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:

"The testimony of victim in cases of sexual offences is vital and

unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking

for corroboration of her statement, the Courts should find no

difficulty to act on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault

alone to convict and accused where her testimony inspires

confidence and is found to be reliable. Seeking corroboration of

her statement before relying upon the same, as a rule, in such

cases amounts to adding insult to injury. Why should the

evidence of a girl or a woman who complains of rape or sexual

molestation, be viewed with doubt, disbelief or suspicion? The

Court while appreciating the evidence of a prosecution may look

for some assurance of her statement to satisfy its judicial

conscience, since she is a witness who is interested in the

outcome of the charge levelled by her, but there is no

requirement of law to insist upon corroboration of her statement

to base conviction of an accused. The evidence of a victim of

sexual assault stands almost at par with the evidence on an

injured witness and to an extent is even more reliable. Just as a

witness who has sustained some injury in the occurrence,

which is not found to be self inflicted, is considered to be a

good witness in the sense that he is least likely to shield the real

culprit, the evidence of a victim of a sexual offence is entitled to

great weight, absence of corroboration notwithstanding." 17 POCSO.SC. NO. 18 OF 2019

23.That in the present case also the victim being the own daughter of the accused clearly testified that accused committed rape ten times during the period of three years, the wife of the accused also supported her version on the first instance but subsequently changed her version, it is settle law that the hostile witness evidence cannot be thrown away entirely, moreover she herself set the law in to motion by lodging the report Ex.P1 which is in exact lines of evidence of victim and her mother evidence deposed on the first day as such there is no other corroboration is required, even otherwise PW3 to

PW7 who are the caste elders of the village are also clearly supporting the evidence of PW2. That as per Section 29 of the

POCSO Act where a person is prosecuted for committing any offence under Sections 3, 5, 7 and Section 9 of POCSO Act, the Special

Court shall presume, that such person has committed the offence, as the case may be unless the contrary is proved and as per Section 30 of the POCSO Act in any prosecution for any offence under the Act which requires a culpable mental state on the part of the accused, the Special Court shall presume the existence of such mental state but it shall be a defence for the accused to prove the fact that he had no such mental state with respect to the act charged as an offence in that prosecution. But admittedly in this case no such plea was taken or adduced any evidence rebutting the prosecution witness version and there is no reason to disbelieve the victim evidence which is in 18 POCSO.SC. NO. 18 OF 2019 consonance with the evidence of PW3 and PW14 who found the accused at the scene of offence.

24.PW8/Headmaster, ZPHS, Nemtoor where the victim studied supported Ex.P2 bonafied certificate of the victim girl, as per which

PW2 date of birth is recorded as 10-02-2004, there is no reason for deposing falsely as against the accused and being a public his evidence to be considered genuine, moreover it is not the case of the accused that the victim is not under the age of 16 years, as such the date of birth recorded under Ex. P2 cannot be doubted as such the victim age was 14 years only as on the date of reporting the offnece on 12-10-2018, it is the consistent version of the victim and prosecution witnesses/elders of the village that accused is committing rape on the victim since three years as such the accused started committing rape on the victim when she was 12 old.

25.The doctor who examined the victim girl PW11 stated that on her examination victim is not a virgin as hymen is absent as such sexual intercourse cannot be ruled out, but there is no evidence that the sexual intercourse not occurred but when the evidence of the victim itself is cogent and convincing which is supported by the evidence of PW1, PW4 to PW7 it is enough to conclude that it is the accused who committed rape on his own daughter who is under the age of 16 years as such the overall discussion of the evidence the prosecution clearly proved the ingredients for the framed charge for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f) of IPC as the accused 19 POCSO.SC. NO. 18 OF 2019 being the father/guardian and in the position of trust or authority towards the girl committed rape, the prosecution also proved that the accused committed rape on the child several times which is an offence under section 5(l)(p) which is punishable under section 6 of

POCSO Act, 2012 for the aggravated penetrative sexual assault.

Hence this point is answered in favour of the prosecution.

26.In the result, Accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f) of IPC and Section 5 & 6 of Protection of

Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and accordingly he is convicted under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C for the said charge.

Directly typed on my dictation by the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 13th day of December, 2019.

I-Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge Medak at Sangareddy.

27. Accused is questioned with regard to quantum of sentence that can be imposed against him. He pleaded mercy while imposing sentence.

28.Since the accused has committed heinous offence of committing rape on victim girl who is non other than his own daughter tender aged about 18 years in his home as such no leniency or sympathy requires as such the accused is sentenced for the maximum punishment, that as per section 42 POCSO Act when an act constitutes an offence punishable under this Act and also under 20 POCSO.SC. NO. 18 OF 2019 any other law for the time being in force the offender shall be guilty of such offence shall be liable to punishment only under the law or this

Act as provides for punishment which is greater in degree as such the accused is convicted for the offence under Section 376 (2)(f) of

IPC and sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment which shall mean imprisonment for remainder of his life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) and in default of payment of fine, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of THREE MONTHS.The pre-trial custody undergone by the accused from 15.10.2018 to 13.12.2019 shall be set off under section 428 Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time, the District Legal Services Authority, Sanga Reddy requested to examine the case and to provide adequate compensation to

PW2/Victim.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this 13th day of December, 2019.

I-Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge Medak at Sangareddy.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE.

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION. DEFENCE.

PW1 Bemagalla Mukthamma @ DeepikaNil.

PW2 Victim

PW3 Bemagalla Bikshapathi

PW4 Gadimidi Balaiah

PW5 B. Sataiah

PW6 Errola Swamy

PW7 B. Kistaiah

PW8 K. Srinivas Reddy

PW9 Bandela Bala Narsaiah

PW10 Bala Sai Yellam

PW11 Dr. Shruthi 21 POCSO.SC. NO. 18 OF 2019

PW12 Dr. B. Bala Krishna

PW13 M. Gopya

PW14 P. Narayana

PW15 P. Padma

EXHIBITS MARKED.

Ex.P1 Report Nil.

Ex.P2 Bonafide certificate of victim/PW2

Ex.P3 Panchanama

Ex.P4 Rough Sketch

Ex.P5 Medical Examination Report

Ex.P6 Final Opinion, dt. 15.3.2019

Ex.P7 FSL Report

Ex.P8 Potency Certificate

Ex.P9 FIR

MATERIAL OBJECTS.

NIL

I-Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge Medak at Sangareddy.

22 POCSO.SC. NO. 18 OF 2019

1of 13 Crl. Appl. No. 20 of 2020

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS

JUDGE, MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY

Present:- Sri. B. PAPI REDDY, Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy

FRIDAY, THE 29th DAY OF APRIL, 2022

Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 2020

1.From which Court thisJudicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Appeal is preferredMobile Court, Sangareddy

2.No. of the case in thatC.C. No. 152 of 2017 Court

3.Name and description ofMd. Soheb, S/o: Akber, Aged: 19 years, the appellantOcc: Alkbir Worker, Agarval Company Labour, R/o: H.No. 12-136, Shantinagar, PatancheruTownandMandal, Sangareddy District

4.Name and description ofThe State of Telangana through P.S. the RespondentPatancheru

5.Sentence and law underThe trial Court convicted the appellant which it was imposed byunder Section 248(2) Cr.P.C for the the lower courtoffences punishable under Sections 356 and 382 I.P.C and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 382 I.P.C and also further sentenced to a pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 356 I.P.C.

6.Whether the appeal isThe Criminal Appeal is allowed. confirmed / modified / reversed 2of 13 Crl. Appl. No. 20 of 2020

7.Date of presentation of19.02.2020 appeal

8.Date of filing of appeal19.02.2020

9.Notice issued by the Court16.04.2020

10.Bail bond if appellant is letBail bonds not available. out on bail

11.Appellant is ordered to15.05.2020 appear

12.Date of hearing18.04.2022

13.Date of judgment29.04.2022

The case came up before me for final hearing on 18.04.2022 in the presence of Sri M. Anjaiah, Advocate for the Appellant and Sri J. Srinivas Reddy, learned Public Prosecutor for the State, having perused the material on record, having heard both sides and having stood over for consideration, the court made the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(3) Cr.P.C being aggrieved by the judgment in C.C. No. 152/2017 on the file of the

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Sangareddy,

whereunder the trial court convicted the appellant/accused No. 3 under

Section 248(2) Cr.P.C and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 382 I.P.C and also further sentenced to a pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 356 I.P.C.

3of 13 Crl. Appl. No. 20 of 2020

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 07.02.2017 P.W.1 came to the Police Station and lodged a report with the police stating that on 07.02.2017 at about 6.00 PM he came to Patancheru to his relatives house and while returning to his village at about 9.00 PM accused

Nos. 1 to 3 snatched away his cell phone, hence he requested to take necessary action against the accused.

3.Basing on the said report L.W.6-S. Prabhakar, the Inspector of

Police, Patancheru registered a case in Crime No. 54/2017 for the offences under Sections 356 and 382 I.P.C, issued F.I.R and entrusted the investigation to P.W.8, the Sub-Inspector of Police. During the course of investigation examined and recorded the statement of P.W.1, visited scene of offence situated near Novapan X road, secured the presence of panch witnesses P.W.4 and L.W.3-Kotti Ramulu and in their presence conducted the scene of offence panchanama and drawn rough sketch. On 14.02.2017 he apprehended the accused, on interrogation the accused confessed to have committed the guilt of offences, upon which he recorded the confessional statements of the accused in the presence of P.Ws.2 and 3 – panch witnesses for confession and recovery panchanama, thereafter he effected the arrest of the accused 4of 13 Crl. Appl. No. 20 of 2020 and produced them before the court for judicial custody. After completion of the investigation he filed charge sheet against accused Nos. 1 to 3 for the offences under Sections 356 and 382 I.P.C.

4.The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court,

Sangareddy, before whom the charge sheet was filed, took cognizance of the case for the offences under Sections 356 and 382 I.P.C against accused Nos. 1 to 3, on their appearance furnished copies of the case documents to them. Thereafter, the accused were examined under

Section 239 Cr.P.C for the offences punishable under Sections 356 and 382 I.P.C by explaining the accusations leveled against them, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.The prosecution to prove its case against the accused examined

P.Ws1 to 5, marked Exs.P1 to P4 and exhibited M.O.1.

6.After the evidence of the prosecution was closed, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating evidence appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution 5of 13 Crl. Appl. No. 20 of 2020 witnesses. The accused denied the same, but reported no evidence on their behalf.

7.The trial court upon appreciation of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, convicted accused Nos. 1 to 3 and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment and to pay fine as referred to above for the offences punishable under Sections 356 and 382 I.P.C. Questioning the judgment of conviction and sentence, the appellant/accused No. 3 filed this appeal.

8.Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public

Prosecutor for the State. Perused the impugned judgment and grounds of appeal and also the evidence on record.

9.Now the point that arises for determination is:-

Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the

accused/appellant No. 3 for the offences under Sections 356 and

382 I.P.C beyond all reasonable doubt or not?

6of 13 Crl. Appl. No. 20 of 2020

P O I N T:-

The learned counsel for the appellant argued that there is a delay 10.

of two days in lodging the complaint, both the mediators for confession of M.O.1 are turned hostile, the appellant is unknown to the complainant, no Test Identification Parade was conducted and there are no other witnesses except P.W.1 who did not disclose the identity particulars of the accused in his complaint or before the police when they recorded the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C as such the appellant is clearly entitled for acquittal but the trial court without considering the evidence in correct perspective convicted the appellant.

11.That as per the prosecution the appellant committed the offence under Section 356 I.P.C which reads as “whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person, in attempting to commit theft on any property which that person is then wearing or carrying”, it is also the case of the prosecution that the appellant has committed the offence under Section 382 I.P.C which reads that “whoever commits theft, having made preparation for causing death, or hurt, or restraint, or fear of death, or of hurt, or of restraint, to any person, in order to the 7of 13 Crl. Appl. No. 20 of 2020 committing of such theft, or in order to the effecting of his escape after the committing of such theft, or in order to the retaining of property taken by such theft”.

12.The prosecution cited 7 witnesses, out of which examined P.Ws.1 to 5. P.W.1 is the complainant, P.Ws.2, 3 are the mediators for the confession and seizure of M.O.1, P.W.4 is the mediator for the scene of observation and P.W.5 is the Investigating Officer. It is the consistent case of the prosecution that on 07.02.2017 at about 9.00 PM when the complainant/P.W.1 was proceeding by walk beside Novapan Company by talking over phone on the main road, 3 unknown persons came on the bike, they approached him and snatched away his cell phone but except the evidence of P.W.1 and the mediator-P.W.4, there is no other incriminating evidence as such the evidence of P.W.1 has to be examined carefully.

13.P.W.1 deposed that on 07.02.2017 when he was going on the road by talking over phone, at about 9.00 PM three persons came on the bike and they pulled his cell phone, when he did not incline to give the phone 8of 13 Crl. Appl. No. 20 of 2020 they beat him with hands indiscriminately by caught holding thereafter he went to his village but after two days he came to Patancheru and gave report to the police. As per this witness he got fear as a result he first went to his home and again he came back after two days and gave report to the police, he identified those three persons who beat him who took away his cell phone and the accused persons have taken away his cell phone by beating him and he lodged Ex.P1-report. During the cross-examination it is elicited that he studied up to Intermediate and on his instructions police prepared the report. He admitted that he gave report after two days of the incident. Even though he denied that he did not gave the identification particulars of the accused but on careful perusal of Ex.P1 and the statement of this witness recorded under

Section 161 Cr.P.C no where he mentioned about the identity particulars of the accused and whether he can identify those offenders or not.

He also admitted that police did not conduct the Test Identification

Parade and he denied the suggestions that the accused is no way concerned but he is deposing false that his cell phone was taken away by the accused persons and admittedly he did not observe the vehicle number on which the offenders came and took away his cell phone.

9of 13 Crl. Appl. No. 20 of 2020

14.P.Ws.2 and 3 are the crucial witnesses for the prosecution as they are the mediators for the confession and seizure of M.O.1-cell phone from the accused possession but both these witnesses clearly deposed that the accused persons never confessed any offence and they does not know anything about this case but police obtained their signatures on white papers. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor cross-examined both these witnesses but nothing is elicited as such both these mediators’ evidence is of no avail to the prosecution case.

15.P.W.4 is the mediator for the scene of observation. He testified that on 10.02.2017 police conducted the scene of offence observation in their presence by drawing rough sketch under Ex.P2. During the cross-examination it is elicited that he does not know the contents of the panchanama but he denied the suggestion that police never conducted panchanama in his presence but only at the request of the police he signed on Ex.P1 at the Police Station.

16.P.W.5 is the Investigating Officer. He deposed that on 09.02.2017 at about 8.15 hours, S.H.O. received the complaint-Ex.P1 and registered 10of 13 Crl. Appl. No. 20 of 2020 a case in Crime No. 54/2017 and issued F.I.R-Ex.P3 and investigation took up by him. During the course of investigation he examined P.W.1 at the Police Station and rushed to the scene of offence place where he conducted the scene of observation in the presence of P.W.4 and

L.W.3-Ramulu, while the investigation was in progress on 14.02.2017 he apprehended the accused, on interrogation they confessed in the presence of mediators P.Ws.2, 3 as such he seized M.O.1 by recording the confession Ex.P4 but as stated above both the mediators for the confession are turned hostile, even otherwise the confession made in the presence of police officer is not admissible as per Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act. During the cross-examination it is elicited that the complaint was given after two days of the incident. Even though the Police Station is about 2 kms., away from the scene of offence and he sent the F.I.R to the court after 4 days of the registration as such it is clear that there is delay in registering the F.I.R and sending the same to the court. It is also elicited in his cross-examination that there is a correction in Ex.P1 about the date and it is mentioned in Ex.P1 that some unknown offenders committed the offence. It is also stated that

P.W.1 did not state in Ex.P1 or in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C that he undergone treatment for two days and thereafter he 11of 13 Crl. Appl. No. 20 of 2020 lodged the report as such the reason for the delay stated by the P.W.1 is not correct. P.W.1 also did not give the purchase bills pertaining to his phone. The earliest version mentioned by P.W.1 clearly elicited during the cross-examination of the Investigating Officer that P.W.1 did not state before him that they beat the P.W.1 with hands and he got fear and went to his house, thereafter 2 days of the incident he came to the

Police Station and lodged the report. He has not conducted the Test

Identification Parade, even though the scene of offence place is busy area but no independent witnesses were examined.

17.That on careful analysis of the prosecution case Ex.P1 clearly shows that when P.W.1 was proceeding at about 9.00 PM on 07.02.2017, three persons came on the bike and taken away his cell phone and except this nothing is stated in his complaint or in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C whereas when he deposed before this court first time he stated that those three persons pulled his phone, when he did not incline to give his phone they beat him with hands indiscriminately by caught holding and they took away his phone but admittedly there is no medical evidence and even otherwise

Ex.P1 did not disclose any force by the offenders. The incident occurred 12of 13 Crl. Appl. No. 20 of 2020 on 07.02.2017 at about 9.00 PM whereas the complaint given in the

Police Station on 09.02.2017 at 8.15 PM and P.W.1 clearly stated that he completed his Intermediate and the reasons stated by P.W.1 also not convincing. When both the mediators for the confession and seizure of the M.O.1 are turned hostile, there is nothing against the accused.

Admittedly the incident occurred on 07.02.2017 but P.W.1 examined

before the court on 15.10.2018 and no Test Identification Parade

conducted by the Investigating Officer, the same was admitted by P.W.1 and the Investigating Officer-P.W.5 as such first time identification before the court creates any amount of doubt on the prosecution when P.W.1 did not give any identity particulars in his first report-Ex.P1 or in his statement recorded by the Police. P.W.1 improved his version before the court and stated that 3 persons came, when he inclined to give his phone they beat him with hands indiscriminately by caught holding but the same was not stated in his earliest version-Ex.P1 and even though the incident occurred at busy area but no independent witness examined as such in view of delay and in absence of any seizure evidence it cannot be stated that the prosecution is able to prove the alleged offences beyond all reasonable doubt but the trial court without considering the lacunas in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses 13of 13 Crl. Appl. No. 20 of 2020 wrongly convicted the appellant as such he is clearly entitled for the benefit of doubt, hence this point is answered in favour of the appellant/accused No. 3.

18.In the result, this Criminal Appeal is allowed setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Special Mobile Court, Sangareddy in C.C. No. 152/2017 against the appellant/accused No. 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 356 and 382 I.P.C. The fine amount if any paid shall be returned back to the appellant/accused No. 3.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 29th day of April, 2022.

Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy

Read by:-

Compared by:-

1of 13 Crl. Appl. No. 63 of 2019

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS

JUDGE, MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY

Present:- Sri. B. PAPI REDDY, Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy

FRIDAY, THE 29th DAY OF APRIL, 2022

Criminal Appeal No. 63 of 2019

1.From which Court thisJudicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Appeal is preferredMobile Court, Sangareddy

2.No. of the case in thatC.C. No. 152 of 2017 Court

3.Name and description ofMd. Ghouse, S/o: Hafeez, Aged about: 21 the appellantyears, Occ: Mirchi Bandi Worker, R/o: Malkapur Chintal, Kondapur, presently residing at Patancheru town, Sangareddy District

4.Name and description ofThe State of Telangana through P.S. the RespondentPatancheru

5.Sentence and law underThe trial Court convicted the appellant which it was imposed byunder Section 248(2) Cr.P.C for the the lower courtoffences punishable under Sections 356 and 382 I.P.C and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 382 I.P.C and also further sentenced to a pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 356 I.P.C.

6.Whether the appeal isThe Criminal Appeal is allowed. confirmed / modified / reversed 2of 13 Crl. Appl. No. 63 of 2019

7.Date of presentation of09.09.2019 appeal

8.Date of filing of appeal09.09.2019

9.Notice issued by the Court03.12.2019

10.Bail bond if appellant is letBail bonds available. out on bail

11.Appellant is ordered to27.12.2019 appear

12.Date of hearing18.04.2022

13.Date of judgment29.04.2022

The case came up before me for final hearing on 18.04.2022 in the presence of Sri G. Chandrakanth, Advocate for the Appellant and Sri J. Srinivas Reddy, learned Public Prosecutor for the State, having perused the material on record, having heard both sides and having stood over for consideration, the court made the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(3) Cr.P.C being aggrieved by the judgment in C.C. No. 152/2017 on the file of the

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Sangareddy,

whereunder the trial court convicted the appellant/accused No. 2 under

Section 248(2) Cr.P.C and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 382 I.P.C and also further sentenced to a pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 356 I.P.C.

3of 13 Crl. Appl. No. 63 of 2019

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 07.02.2017 P.W.1 came to the Police Station and lodged a report with the police stating that on 07.02.2017 at about 6.00 PM he came to Patancheru to his relatives house and while returning to his village at about 9.00 PM accused

Nos. 1 to 3 snatched away his cell phone, hence he requested to take necessary action against the accused.

3.Basing on the said report L.W.6-S. Prabhakar, the Inspector of

Police, Patancheru registered a case in Crime No. 54/2017 for the offences under Sections 356 and 382 I.P.C, issued F.I.R and entrusted the investigation to P.W.8, the Sub-Inspector of Police. During the course of investigation examined and recorded the statement of P.W.1, visited scene of offence situated near Novapan X road, secured the presence of panch witnesses P.W.4 and L.W.3-Kotti Ramulu and in their presence conducted the scene of offence panchanama and drawn rough sketch. On 14.02.2017 he apprehended the accused, on interrogation the accused confessed to have committed the guilt of offences, upon which he recorded the confessional statements of the accused in the presence of P.Ws.2 and 3 – panch witnesses for confession and recovery panchanama, thereafter he effected the arrest of the accused 4of 13 Crl. Appl. No. 63 of 2019 and produced them before the court for judicial custody. After completion of the investigation he filed charge sheet against accused Nos. 1 to 3 for the offences under Sections 356 and 382 I.P.C.

4.The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court,

Sangareddy, before whom the charge sheet was filed, took cognizance of the case for the offences under Sections 356 and 382 I.P.C against accused Nos. 1 to 3, on their appearance furnished copies of the case documents to them. Thereafter, the accused were examined under

Section 239 Cr.P.C for the offences punishable under Sections 356 and 382 I.P.C by explaining the accusations leveled against them, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.The prosecution to prove its case against the accused examined

P.Ws1 to 5, marked Exs.P1 to P4 and exhibited M.O.1.

6.After the evidence of the prosecution was closed, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating evidence appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution 5of 13 Crl. Appl. No. 63 of 2019 witnesses. The accused denied the same, but reported no evidence on their behalf.

7.The trial court upon appreciation of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, convicted accused Nos. 1 to 3 and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment and to pay fine as referred to above for the offences punishable under Sections 356 and 382 I.P.C. Questioning the judgment of conviction and sentence, the appellant/accused No. 2 filed this appeal.

8.Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public

Prosecutor for the State. Perused the impugned judgment and grounds of appeal and also the evidence on record.

9.Now the point that arises for determination is:-

Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the

accused/appellant No. 2 for the offences under Sections 356 and

382 I.P.C beyond all reasonable doubt or not?

6of 13 Crl. Appl. No. 63 of 2019

P O I N T:-

The learned counsel for the appellant argued that there is a delay 10.

of two days in lodging the complaint, both the mediators for confession of M.O.1 are turned hostile, the appellant is unknown to the complainant, no Test Identification Parade was conducted and there are no other witnesses except P.W.1 who did not disclose the identity particulars of the accused in his complaint or before the police when they recorded the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C as such the appellant is clearly entitled for acquittal but the trial court without considering the evidence in correct perspective convicted the appellant.

11.That as per the prosecution the appellant committed the offence under Section 356 I.P.C which reads as “whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person, in attempting to commit theft on any property which that person is then wearing or carrying”, it is also the case of the prosecution that the appellant has committed the offence under Section 382 I.P.C which reads that “whoever commits theft, having made preparation for causing death, or hurt, or restraint, or fear of death, or of hurt, or of restraint, to any person, in order to the 7of 13 Crl. Appl. No. 63 of 2019 committing of such theft, or in order to the effecting of his escape after the committing of such theft, or in order to the retaining of property taken by such theft”.

12.The prosecution cited 7 witnesses, out of which examined P.Ws.1 to 5. P.W.1 is the complainant, P.Ws.2, 3 are the mediators for the confession and seizure of M.O.1, P.W.4 is the mediator for the scene of observation and P.W.5 is the Investigating Officer. It is the consistent case of the prosecution that on 07.02.2017 at about 9.00 PM when the complainant/P.W.1 was proceeding by walk beside Novapan Company by talking over phone on the main road, 3 unknown persons came on the bike, they approached him and snatched away his cell phone but except the evidence of P.W.1 and the mediator-P.W.4, there is no other incriminating evidence as such the evidence of P.W.1 has to be examined carefully.

13.P.W.1 deposed that on 07.02.2017 when he was going on the road by talking over phone, at about 9.00 PM three persons came on the bike and they pulled his cell phone, when he did not incline to give the phone 8of 13 Crl. Appl. No. 63 of 2019 they beat him with hands indiscriminately by caught holding thereafter he went to his village but after two days he came to Patancheru and gave report to the police. As per this witness he got fear as a result he first went to his home and again he came back after two days and gave report to the police, he identified those three persons who beat him who took away his cell phone and the accused persons have taken away his cell phone by beating him and he lodged Ex.P1-report. During the cross-examination it is elicited that he studied up to Intermediate and on his instructions police prepared the report. He admitted that he gave report after two days of the incident. Even though he denied that he did not gave the identification particulars of the accused but on careful perusal of Ex.P1 and the statement of this witness recorded under

Section 161 Cr.P.C no where he mentioned about the identity particulars of the accused and whether he can identify those offenders or not.

He also admitted that police did not conduct the Test Identification

Parade and he denied the suggestions that the accused is no way concerned but he is deposing false that his cell phone was taken away by the accused persons and admittedly he did not observe the vehicle number on which the offenders came and took away his cell phone.

9of 13 Crl. Appl. No. 63 of 2019

14.P.Ws.2 and 3 are the crucial witnesses for the prosecution as they are the mediators for the confession and seizure of M.O.1-cell phone from the accused possession but both these witnesses clearly deposed that the accused persons never confessed any offence and they does not know anything about this case but police obtained their signatures on white papers. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor cross-examined both these witnesses but nothing is elicited as such both these mediators’ evidence is of no avail to the prosecution case.

15.P.W.4 is the mediator for the scene of observation. He testified that on 10.02.2017 police conducted the scene of offence observation in their presence by drawing rough sketch under Ex.P2. During the cross-examination it is elicited that he does not know the contents of the panchanama but he denied the suggestion that police never conducted panchanama in his presence but only at the request of the police he signed on Ex.P1 at the Police Station.

16.P.W.5 is the Investigating Officer. He deposed that on 09.02.2017 at about 8.15 hours, S.H.O. received the complaint-Ex.P1 and registered 10of 13 Crl. Appl. No. 63 of 2019 a case in Crime No. 54/2017 and issued F.I.R-Ex.P3 and investigation took up by him. During the course of investigation he examined P.W.1 at the Police Station and rushed to the scene of offence place where he conducted the scene of observation in the presence of P.W.4 and

L.W.3-Ramulu, while the investigation was in progress on 14.02.2017 he apprehended the accused, on interrogation they confessed in the presence of mediators P.Ws.2, 3 as such he seized M.O.1 by recording the confession Ex.P4 but as stated above both the mediators for the confession are turned hostile, even otherwise the confession made in the presence of police officer is not admissible as per Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act. During the cross-examination it is elicited that the complaint was given after two days of the incident. Even though the Police Station is about 2 kms., away from the scene of offence and he sent the F.I.R to the court after 4 days of the registration as such it is clear that there is delay in registering the F.I.R and sending the same to the court. It is also elicited in his cross-examination that there is a correction in Ex.P1 about the date and it is mentioned in Ex.P1 that some unknown offenders committed the offence. It is also stated that

P.W.1 did not state in Ex.P1 or in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C that he undergone treatment for two days and thereafter he 11of 13 Crl. Appl. No. 63 of 2019 lodged the report as such the reason for the delay stated by the P.W.1 is not correct. P.W.1 also did not give the purchase bills pertaining to his phone. The earliest version mentioned by P.W.1 clearly elicited during the cross-examination of the Investigating Officer that P.W.1 did not state before him that they beat the P.W.1 with hands and he got fear and went to his house, thereafter 2 days of the incident he came to the

Police Station and lodged the report. He has not conducted the Test

Identification Parade, even though the scene of offence place is busy area but no independent witnesses were examined.

17.That on careful analysis of the prosecution case Ex.P1 clearly shows that when P.W.1 was proceeding at about 9.00 PM on 07.02.2017, three persons came on the bike and taken away his cell phone and except this nothing is stated in his complaint or in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C whereas when he deposed before this court first time he stated that those three persons pulled his phone, when he did not incline to give his phone they beat him with hands indiscriminately by caught holding and they took away his phone but admittedly there is no medical evidence and even otherwise

Ex.P1 did not disclose any force by the offenders. The incident occurred 12of 13 Crl. Appl. No. 63 of 2019 on 07.02.2017 at about 9.00 PM whereas the complaint given in the

Police Station on 09.02.2017 at 8.15 PM and P.W.1 clearly stated that he completed his Intermediate and the reasons stated by P.W.1 also not convincing. When both the mediators for the confession and seizure of the M.O.1 are turned hostile, there is nothing against the accused.

Admittedly the incident occurred on 07.02.2017 but P.W.1 examined

before the court on 15.10.2018 and no Test Identification Parade

conducted by the Investigating Officer, the same was admitted by P.W.1 and the Investigating Officer-P.W.5 as such first time identification before the court creates any amount of doubt on the prosecution when P.W.1 did not give any identity particulars in his first report-Ex.P1 or in his statement recorded by the Police. P.W.1 improved his version before the court and stated that 3 persons came, when he inclined to give his phone they beat him with hands indiscriminately by caught holding but the same was not stated in his earliest version-Ex.P1 and even though the incident occurred at busy area but no independent witness examined as such in view of delay and in absence of any seizure evidence it cannot be stated that the prosecution is able to prove the alleged offences beyond all reasonable doubt but the trial court without considering the lacunas in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses 13of 13 Crl. Appl. No. 63 of 2019 wrongly convicted the appellant as such he is clearly entitled for the benefit of doubt, hence this point is answered in favour of the appellant/accused No. 2.

18.In the result, this Criminal Appeal is allowed setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Special Mobile Court, Sangareddy in C.C. No. 152/2017 against the appellant/accused No. 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 356 and 382 I.P.C. The fine amount if any paid shall be returned back to the appellant/accused No. 2.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 29th day of April, 2022.

Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy

Read by:-

Compared by:-

1 POCSO.SC. NO. 66 OF 2016

IN THE COURT OF THE I-ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE

MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY.

Present:-Sri B.Papi Reddy, I-Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy.

MONDAY, THE 07th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2020.

POCSO.S.C. No. 66 of 2016

CRIME NO.103 of 2014

Name of the complainant.The State of Telangana through, Circle Inspector of police, Jogipet.

Description of the accused. Bantu Yadagiri @ Yadul S/o. Durgaiah, Age: 22 yrs, Caste: SC Mala, Occ: B. Tech Student & Private Employee, R/o. Keroor Village, Alladurg Mandal. Charge/s.Under Section 366-A, 376 of IPC of Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2013 and Section 4 of POCSO Act, 2012.

Plead of accused.Pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the judge.Found not guilty.

Sentence or order.The accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable Under Section 366-A, 376 of IPC of Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2013 and Section 4 of POCSO Act, 2012 and accordingly he is acquitted U/S.235(1) Cr.P.C. for the said offence.

Prosecution conducted bySri J. Srinivas Reddy, Public Prosecutor.

Accused defended bySri. P. Bal Reddy, Advocate.

This case is coming on before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.

J.Srinivas Reddy, Public Prosecutor for the state and Sri. P. Bal Reddy,

Advocate for the accused, upon perusing the material on record and upon hearing the arguments the court delivered the following:-

: J U D G M E N T :

The Circle Inspector of police, Jogipet laid charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 366(A), 376 of

IPC and Section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences, 2 POCSO.SC. NO. 66 OF 2016

Act - 2012 ( for short “POCSO Act” ) in Cr. No.103/14 of Alladurg

Police Station with the following averments.

2.The victim in this case P.W1 is aged about 17 years who used to attend her college at Sai Degree College, Jogipet, the accused is a student of B.Tech at Hyderabad and he is doing part time work, the accused used to visit the college where the victim was studying to meet her, even in holidays also the accused came to the village to meet her, as such they both fell in love with each other and used to do phone calls and sending messages, thereafter when the matter was came to the notice of the victim parents they warned her and took her telephone, on knowing the same the accused decided to get marry her, as such on 10-11-2014 the victim left the house for attending the college and went to Lingampally where she met the accused, later they both of them went to Hanuman Temple Saifabad,

Hyderabad where the accused married her by tying talibottu and keeping mettellu, thereafter stayed in the rented room at Hyderabad and leading their matrimonial life as wife and husband, basing on the complaint of the victim father/PW2 the above case was registered by

PW10/Sub Inspector of police, Alladurg police station as a case in Cr.

No. 103/2014 for the offence punishable under Section 366(A) of

IPC, examined and recorded the statement of complainant/P.W.2, thereafter on 13-11-2014 he visited Keroor Village, examined and recorded the statement of LW2/T. Dathamma, on 16-12-2014 PW2,

LW2 came to Alladurg P.S along with PW1 where PW9 examined and recorded the statement of victim/PW1, later PW2 produced the S.S.C 3 POCSO.SC. NO. 66 OF 2016 marks memo of victim/PW1, as such basing on the S.S.C marks memo and statement of victim/PW1 PW10 added the section of law 376 of IPC, Section 4 of POCSO Act, 2012 to already registered offence under Section 366(A) of IPC, thereafter on 16-12-2014

LW15/V. Nagaiah Circle Inspector of Police, Jogipet took up the investigation as the case is grave in nature, examined and recorded the statements of PW2, LW2/T. Dathamma sent the victim girl/PW1 to

Govt. Hospital, Sangareddy for medical examination where the medical officer PW5 examined the victim girl and collected virginal swabs to send the same for FSL, thereafter on 17-12-2014 LW15 secured the presence of mediators PW7, PW8, proceeded to

Kurmaguda, Saidabad and conducted scene of offence panchanama in their presence, LW15 recorded the statement of LW4/M. Pochaiah,

PW3, LW6/Mounika who were the neighbors and house owners, on 22-12-2014 he deputed PW10 to collect the bonafide certificate of the victim girl/PW1, accordingly he visited Sri Sai Degree College,

Jogipet, collected the bonafide certificate from PW4, examined and recorded the statement of PW4, on 23-12-2014 on reliable information PW10 along with his staff apprehended the accused, on interrogation the accused confessed the offence, later the accused was sent to Govt. Hospital, Jogipet for potency test where PW6 conducted potency test and opined that “there is nothing to suggestive that accused is impotent” and preserved the semen of accused for forwarding the same to FSL for analysis, the material objects sent for FSL analysis opined that “the item No. 1 to 4 are examined, human semen and spermatozoa are detected in item No.

4 POCSO.SC. NO. 66 OF 2016 4 but its blood group could not be determined, semen and spermatozoa are not detected on item No.s 1, 2 and 3, as such basing on the FSL report PW6 opined that “decision could not make out on forensic report that rape has occurred” on 26-02-2015

LW12/Sri. B. Sujay, Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narayanakhed recorded the statement of the victim girl/PW1 under Section 164

Cr.P.C, later on 16-04-2016 LW16/K. Venkataiah transferred to

Jogipet Circle and verified the earlier investigation done by LW15 and found the investigation is in proper lines, as such after completion of the entire investigation LW16/K. Venkataiah Circle Inspector of

Police, Jogipet filed the charge sheet against the accused. Hence the charge.

3.This court took cognizance for the offence under Section 366(A), 376 of IPC of Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2013 and

Section 4 of POCSO Act, 2012 and examined the accused under section 228 (1) (b) Cr.P.C, a charge for the offence under Section 366(A), 376 of IPC of Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2013 and

Section 4 of POCSO Act, 2012 framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu but he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.The prosecution examined material witnesses Pws.1 to 10

Exs.P1 to P14 are marked but no material witness chosen to support the prosecution case except the official witnesses, the accused is examined under section 313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating evidence of the official witnesses but he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

5 POCSO.SC. NO. 66 OF 2016

5.Heard both sides, gone through the record of evidence, now the point for determination is:-

Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of

the accused for the offence punishable U/Ss. 366(A), 376

of IPC of Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2013 and

Section 4 of POCSO Act, 2012 beyond all reasonable

doubt?

6. POINT:-

The case of the prosecution is that the accused took the victim/PW1 into a rented room in Saifabad, Hyderabad and indulged into sexual intercourse with PW1 minor thereby a charge for the offence punishable under Section 366(A), 376 of IPC of Criminal Law

Amendment Act, 2013 and Section 4 of POCSO Act, 2012 are framed, but the case of the accused is total denial of the prosecution case. The prosecution in order to prove the framed charge cited (16) witnesses but examined PW1 to PW10 as no material witness chosen to support the prosecution case. PW1 is the victim, PW2 is the complainant and father of the victim girl, PW3 is the house owner where the victim and accused were stayed, PW4 is the principal who issued the bonafide certificate/Ex. P3 of the victim, PW5 is the doctor who examined the victim and issued Ex. P6, PW6 is the doctor who examined the accused and issued issued Ex. P7, PW7, PW8 are the mediators for the scene of offence panchanama, PW9, PW10 are the investigating officers who conducted entire investigation in this case and after completion of entire investigation filed charge sheet.

7.The evidence of the prosecution witnesses is as under.

6 POCSO.SC. NO. 66 OF 2016

PW1 being the victim girl and crucial witness deposed that in the year 2014, she was studying Degree 1st year, at the time of incident her age was recorded as 17 years 4 months as per certificate but her real date of birth is 23rd March, 1996 but in her school records her date of birth is wrongly mentioned as 19-08-1997, she loved the accused who belonged to SC community for which her parents did not agree, on knowing about the affair between her and the accused, her parents did not send her to college for one week and threatened her that they will die if she do not obey them, as such her parents lodged complaint against the accused, on that she called to the police station, then she did not agree to join with her parents, on that she was sent to Govt Home under pretext that she was under 18 years, later police, Magistrate recorded her statement, referred to

Govt. Hospital, Sangareddy, after completion of 18 years she left from the home and thereafter she married the accused. The learned public prosecutor on declaring PW1 as hostile witness cross examined her but nothing is elicited.

8. PW2 who is the complainant and father of the victim, he deposed that on 10-11-2014 his daughter/PW1 went to college in the morning time but she did not returned back to home, they searched for his daughter but not found, as such he went to police station and lodged the report/Ex.P1, after (15) days his daughter called him over phone and informed that she is along with accused at Saidabad,

Hyderabad, then he along with his wife went to his daughter, he asked her why she came to that place but she stated that accused 7 POCSO.SC. NO. 66 OF 2016 brought her and married her, he brought his daughter and accused to the Alladurg police station, police sent his daughter for medical examination, later taken her to Jogipet Court where the Magistrate examined and sent her to rescue home, police examined and recorded his statement.

9. PW3 is the house owner who deposed that he does not know the accused, he does not know PW1, PW2, he does not know anything about this case, as per this witness police not examined him, the learned public prosecutor sought permission to declared this witness as hostile as such his evidence is no avail for the prosecution.

10.P.W4 is the principal of the college where the victim studied, he deposed that on the requisition of S.I Alladurg he issued bonafide certificate of PW1, as per which the victim date of birth is recorded as 19-08-1997, the victim age as on 12-11-2014 is 17 years.

11. P.W.5 is the doctor who examined the victim/PW1, she deposed that on 16-12-2014 on the requisition of Alladurg P.S she examined the victim girl/PW1 and issued Ex. P4/medical certificate, she secured the swabs and smears for FSL examination, thereafter she received Ex.P5/FSL report, thereafter she issued Ex.P6/final opinion, as per which there is no semen and spermatozoa found on vagina swabs and swipes, vagina admitting two fingers, the decision could not make out on forensic report that rape was occurred.

8 POCSO.SC. NO. 66 OF 2016

12.PW6 is the doctor who examined the accused, he deposed that on 23-12-2014 on the requisition of Alladurg P.S he examined the accused and issued Ex.P7/potency certificate by opining that there is nothing to suggest that the accused is impotent and semen sent for

FSL.

13. PW7, PW8 are the mediators for conducting scene of offence panchanama but both of them turned hostile, not chosen to support the prosecution case except identifying their signatures as Ex. P8 to

P11 on scene of observation, rough sketch, they clearly deposed that they does not know anything about this case, police never taken them to Hyderabad for conducting scene of observation.

14.P.W.9, PW10 are the investigating officer who conducted entire investigation and after completion of entire investigation filed charge sheet, Ex.P12 is Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1, Ex. P13/FIR,

Ex.P14/alteration memo.

15. That as seen from the above evidence the main material witness PW1/victim not chosen to support the prosecution case, she deposed that she loved the accused who belongs to SC community as such her parents did not agree and lodged complaint against the accused, as per this witness at that point of time she was not minor, moreover the father of the victim PW2 also not chosen to support the prosecution case in order to prove the framed charge as he clearly deposed that only on the suspicion he lodged Ex.P1 report, even otherwise it is not his version that the accused took away the victim 9 POCSO.SC. NO. 66 OF 2016 when she was minor and no incriminating material deposed as against the accused by the main witness, PW7, PW8 are merely the mediators for the scene of offence panchanama who were also declared as hostile to the prosecution case, as such on permission granted by the court the learned public prosecutor cross examined these witnesses but nothing is elicited except identifying their signatures as Ex. P8 to P11 on scene of observation, rough sketch, when the main material witness PW1 and PW2 turned hostile the examination of other witnesses is of no avail to the prosecution, there is not even a single incriminating evidence against the accused in any of the witness evidence, moreover the victim and accused are leading their matrimonial life as wife and husband, as such by simply relying upon the official witnesses it cannot be said that the prosecution is able to prove the framed charge beyond all reasonable doubt as against the accused. Hence, this point is answered against the prosecution.

16.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 366(A), 376 of IPC of Criminal Law

Amendment Act, 2013 and Sections 4 of POCSO Act, 2012, accordingly he is acquitted under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. for the said charge. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled after expiry of six months. The unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me on this the 07th day of September, 2020.

I-Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge Medak at Sangareddy.

10 POCSO.SC. NO. 66 OF 2016

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE.

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION. DEFENCE.

PW1 Victim Nil.

PW2 P. Kistaiah

PW3 Koteswar Chary

PW4 Y. Srinivas Reddy

PW5 Dr. K. Gayathri

PW6 Dr. K.S. Nagaraju

PW7 D. Mohan Rathod

PW8 M. Shivagonda

PW9 M. Venkatamma

PW10 M. Vijay Mohan

EXHIBITS MARKED.

Ex.P1 Report Nil.

Ex.P2 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3

Ex.P3 Bonafide certificate of PW1

Ex.P4 Medical Certificate

Ex.P5 FSL Report

Ex.P6 Finial Opinion

Ex.P7 Potency Certificate of accused

Ex.P.8 Signature of P.W.7 on the scene observation

Ex.P.9 Signature of P.W.7 on the rough sketch

Ex.P.10 Signature of P.W.8 on the scene observation

Ex.P11 Signature of P.W.8 on the rough sketch

Ex.P12 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1

Ex.P.13 FIR

Ex.P14 Alteration Memo

MATERIAL OBJECTS.

Nil.

I-Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge Medak at Sangareddy.

11 POCSO.SC. NO. 66 OF 2016

1 of 5 Crl.M.P. No. 15 of 2022

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS

JUDGE: MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY

PRESENT: Sri. B. Papi Reddy, Prl. District & Sessions Judge, FAC I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy.

MONDAY, THE 31th DAY OF JANUARY, 2022

Crl.M.P. No. 15 of 2022

IN

Cr. No. 310 of 2021

(P.S. Sangareddy Rural)

Between:-

Gaddam Pundareekam S/o. Late Ramaiah, Age: 39 yrs, Occ: Sanitation work in Sangareddy Municipality, R/o. No. 1-31/1, Pothireddypally village, Sangareddy Mandal and District.

... Petitioner/Accused

AN D

The State of Telangana through, S.H.O. P.S. Sangareddy Rural. … Respondent/Complainant

This petition came up before me for disposal on this day in the presence of Sri. D. Ashok, Legal Aid Counsel for the

Petitioner/Accused and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor

for the Respondent/Complainant through video conference,

upon perusing the material papers available on record and upon hearing both sides, this Court made the following:-

O R D E R

This REGULAR bail petition filed by the Petitioner/Accused under Section 439 Cr.P.C., to enlarge him on bail in Crime No.

310 of 2021 of Sangareddy Rural Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 354-A, 504, 506 of IPC,

Section 9 (n) R/w. Section 10 of POCSO Act, 2012.

2 of 5 Crl.M.P. No. 15 of 2022

2.The case of the prosecution is that, the accused is having two daughter’s(herein victim’s) but he never seen them as his daughters, harassed them sexually, misbehaved with them in the absence of their mother by touching their private parts, forced them to touch his private parts but when they denied the same he forcibly took them to his private parts, threatened them to not to reveal the matter to anyone otherwise he will kill them, on 12-05-2021 due to Covid-19 the mother of the victim was died, thereafter also the accused continued his harassment, as such on 03-09-2021 LW2 left the home but the accused threatened the LW1 and forcibly took her to his private parts to touch the same, she informed the matter to LW3 to LW7 on which they reprimanded the accused but he did not changed his attitude, as such LW1 called LW2 where she along with LW8,

LW9 Sakhi center staff went to their house, basing on the complaint of victim/LW1 the above case was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 354-A, 504, 506 of IPC,

Section 9 (n) R/w. Section 10 of POCSO Act, 2012.

3.The learned legal aid counsel for petitioner/accused submitted that the he is innocent, law abiding citizen and he has not committed any offence but falsely implicated in this case. The accused is in judicial custody since 22-10-2021 and the entire investigation is completed and pending for filing of the charge sheet. He is ready to furnish sureties to the satisfaction of this Court and face the trial and prayed for grant of bail.

3 of 5 Crl.M.P. No. 15 of 2022

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the bail petition.

5. Now the point that arises for determination is:-

Whether the petitioner/accused is entitled for bail, or not?

6. P O I N T :-

The above case was registered on 19-10-2021, the petitioner is in remand since 22-10-2021, that as seen from the

CD file the main material witnesses LW1 to LW14 were cited as examined, once the investigation is completed there is no question of interference into the investigation arises, the learned Legal Aid counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that as (90) days period has been elapsed but charge sheet not filed, as such the petitioner is entitled for mandatory bail and the petitioner is no way concerned with the alleged accusations and falsely implicated in this case. On the other hand, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the Respondent-

State submitted that the allegations alleged against the accused are serious but the charge sheet is not filed, even though the entire investigation has been completed, however as per

Section 167(2) Cr.P.C once the investigating officer has not filed the charge sheet within (90) days the accused is definitely entitled for bail. As per the CD file nothing forthcoming to show that the petitioner has any criminal antecedents except this case, this is the first offence which is hardened one, as such without discussing the evidence in detail and without going into 4 of 5 Crl.M.P. No. 15 of 2022 the merits of the case, this Court felt it appropriate to dispose of the petition, having considering the pandemic situation of spreading Covid-19(3rd wave) prevailing through out the country, completion of substantial part of investigation, nature of the offence, remand period of (90) days the petitioner is entitled for bail. The guilt or innocence of the petitioner would be subject matter of trial. Hence, this point is answered in favour of the petitioner.

7.In the result, this petition is allowed and the petitioner shall be enlarged on bail, subject to the following terms and conditions:

(I) The petitioner shall be released on bail on executing a personal bond for Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum amount to the satisfaction of the

Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sangareddy.

(ii) The petitioner shall appear before the Court personally on each date of hearing till conclusion of trial.

(iii) The petitioner shall not indulge in any similar type of activities in future. If he is indulged in similar type of activities or involved in any other criminal cases in future, liberty granted to him shall stand cancelled automatically.

(iv) The petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses;

(v) The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigating agency.

5 of 5 Crl.M.P. No. 15 of 2022

(vi) The petitioner shall not misuse the liberty granted to him.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 31 st day of January,

2022.

Prl. District Judge, FAC. I Additional District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy.

Copy to:-

1. The Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sangareddy.

2. Sri. D. Ashok, Legal Aid Counsel for Petitioner/Accused.

3. S.H.O. P.S. Sangareddy Rural.