B.Prathima

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. SESSIONS JUDGE : JANGAON

Present :- Smt. B. PRATHIMA , Prl. Sessions Judge, Jangaon.

Tuesday, the 21st day of April, 2026

Criminal Appeal No.1 of 2024

in

CC 344 of 2016

Between:

Muddasani Shravani D/o Pramodpal Reddy, Age: 32 years, Occ: Pvt. Employee, R/o H.No:5-33/2, Budda Nagar, Bodduppal, KV.Ranga Reddy District.

…Appellant.

And

Gajula Premsagar S/o Sundaraiah, Age: 60 years, Occ: Business, R/o H.No:2-8- 127/88, Housing Board Colony, Hyderabad Road, Jangaon.

…Respondent

Aggrieved by the Judgment of Conviction and Sentence dated 17.01.2024

passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Jangaon.

Calendar Case No.344 of 2016

Between:

Gajula Premsagar S/o Sundaraiah, Age: 60 years, Occ: Business, R/o H.No:2-8- 127/88, Housing Board Colony, Hyderabad Road, Jangaon Town of Warangal District. …Complainant

And

Page 2 of 24 Crl. Appeal 1 of 2024 in CC 344 of 2016

Principal Sessions Judge, Jangaon

Muddasani Shravani D/o Pramod Reddy, R/o H.No:2-4-1450/4, Ashok Colony, Hanamkonda, Warangal District.

…Accused. This Criminal Appeal having come before me for hearing in the presence of Sri P.V.Satyanarayana, Advocate for the Appellant and Sri S.Srinivas, Advocate for Respondent and having heard them, this Court made the following:

-: J U D G M E N T :-

1. The Criminal Appeal is filed under Sec. 374 (2) Cr.P.C. by the

Appellant seeking to set aside the Judgment of Conviction passed by the

Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jangaon in CC 344 of 2016

dt.17.01.2024 sentencing the Appellant to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of Six months and to pay compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six lakhs only) and in default of payment of compensation to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of Two months.

2. Sole Appellant was tried in CC 344 of 2016 for committing offence punishable under Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1889 and was convicted as above.

3.Parties are hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the Trial

Court in CC No.344 of 2016.

Brief case of the Complainant before the Trial Court:

4.1Complainant and Accused are well acquainted with each other since one year through father of Accused. Accused approached Complainant herein and

Page 3 of 24 Crl. Appeal 1 of 2024 in CC 344 of 2016

Principal Sessions Judge, Jangaon

requested a hand loan of Rs 6,00,000/- for clearing debts. Complainant advanced

Rs. 6,00,000/- ( Rupees six lakhs only) to Accused about six months back. After receipt of loan amount, accused promised to repay the loan amount within two months.

4.2Accused promised to repay the salary amount (Sic) within 2 months to complainant. Accused failed to repay the salary amount in spite of several demands made by the Complainant. On repeated requests made by complainant, accused issued a cheque bearing 503825 dt.01-08-2016 for Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six lakhs only) drawn on Andhra Bank Nakkalagutta Branch in favour of the Complainant towards legally enforceable debt. Said transaction took place at the house of Complaint.

4.3Complainant presented the cheque in Andhra Bank, Jangaon Branch for collection on 01-08-2016. The Bank returned the cheque on 01-08-2016 with the endorsement Memo as "Funds Insufficient” and issued Memo to that effect.

Complainant got issued a legal notice to the Accused by registered post with acknowledgment due on 6-8-2016, informing about the bouncing of cheque and demanded to make the payment. The Registered post to accused was served on 08-08-2016. Accused gave reply legal notice denying issuance of the cheque.

Accused issued cheque knowing full well about insufficient funds in her account.

Accused failed to pay the cheque amount within stipulated time of 15 days.

Hence, accused is liable for punishment under Section 138 R/W Sec. 142 of N.I.

Act. Complaint is filed within one month from the date of cause of action on 23- 8-2016, within limitation. Hence, the complaint.

Page 4 of 24 Crl. Appeal 1 of 2024 in CC 344 of 2016

Principal Sessions Judge, Jangaon

5.Cognizance of the complaint was taken by the Trial Court for the offence under Section 138 & 142 of NI Act and it was numbered as CC 344 of 2016 and summons were issued for appearance of Accused.

6.On receipt of summons, accused appeared before the Trial Court, case

Copies were furnished to him, accused engaged a counsel to defend him. In his examination under Section 251 CrPC, accused pleaded Not Guilty and claimed to be tried.

7.It is seen that Complainant examined himself as PW1 and his son

G.Pranay Sagar as PW2 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P5. Accused examined herself as DW1 and got marked Ex.D1

8.The defence of accused as gathered from his examinations under Sec.251

CrPC and under Sec.313 CrPC and the tenor of cross-examination and testimony of accused herself as DW1 is denial of any hand loan transaction. It is also seen from the cross-examination of DW1 that accused denied issuing subject cheque to the complainant, but stated that complainant proved her cheque.

9.Learned trial Judge framed the following points for determination:

1. Whether the complainant has discharged his initial burden that accused has issued Ex.P1 cheque in discharge of legal enforceable debt?

2. Whether the accused has proved by cogent evidence that she has not issued Ex.P1 cheque in discharge of legally enforceable debt to the complainant?

Page 5 of 24 Crl. Appeal 1 of 2024 in CC 344 of 2016

Principal Sessions Judge, Jangaon

3. Whether the complainant has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence U/S 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

10.Learned trial Judge after thorough appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, observed that as per accused the subject cheque Ex.P1 belongs to her and it also contains her signature, it is the case of accused that she did not hand over the cheque in question to the complainant, but absolutely no explanation is given by the accused as to how the cheque came to be passed into the hands of complainant, except that she came to know about her cheque being in possession of complainant through Ex.P3, the presumption U/S 139 has to be drawn.

11.Learned Trial Judge had drawn the presumption U/S 139 of NI Act and observed that presumption is rebuttable presumption and burden is on accused to rebut the presumption by adducing probable defence.

12.Learned counsel next observed that the mere plea of accused she is not aware how her blank cheque went into the hands of complainant cannot readily and naively be accepted and swallowed by courts, the laudable commercial morality which the legislature seeks to usher by introduction of section 138 in to statute book will be frustrated and stultified.

13.Learned trial Judge further observed that if the complainant had misused the cheque or fabricated the cheque, any prudent person will take action and immediately protest, need not wait till the conclusion of trial, that there is discrepancy in the evidence of PW2 regarding when the cheque was given to

Page 6 of 24 Crl. Appeal 1 of 2024 in CC 344 of 2016

Principal Sessions Judge, Jangaon

complainant but said discrepancy is not sufficient to discard the entire evidence, that the Citations relied upon by the accused are not relevant.

14.Learned Trial Judge concluded that accused failed to rebut the presump- tion in favor of the complainant and held the accused guilty for the offence U/S 138 of NI Act and sentenced to undergo punishment as stated above.

15.Aggrieved by the Judgment of conviction and the Sentence imposed,

Appellant/Accused preferred this Appeal with the following grounds:

Grounds of Appeal:

1. The conviction of accused is contrary to law, weight of evidence, probabilities of the case.

2. Trial court ought to have observed that respondent/complainant failed to discharge the initial burden which lies upon him, that there existed any debt, much less legally enforceable debt and that

Ex.P1 cheque was issued in discharge of such legally enforceable debt.

3. Trial Court ought to have observed that complainant have no such financial capacity to lend Rs.6 lakhs to accused for clearing her debts in the month of February, 2016 and it is not supported by any evidence.

Page 7 of 24 Crl. Appeal 1 of 2024 in CC 344 of 2016

Principal Sessions Judge, Jangaon

4. Trial court ought to have observed that the statement of complainant in affidavit of chief-examination that transaction took place in the presence of elders, is nothing but a development.

5. Accused is entitled for benefit of doubt for non-citing the names of such elders in the complaint and for non-examination of said elders.

6. Trial Court ought to have observed that after receipt of Ex.P3 legal notice, accused got issued Ex.D1 reply notice, calling upon respon- dent/complainant to furnish copy of cheque for verification and to give proper reply, but complainant without complying Ex.D1 reply notice, filed the complaint suppressing said fact which tantamounts to discharging the presumption U/S 139 of NI Act and burden of proving Ex.P1 cheque shifted to the complainant.

7. Trial Court ought not to have given weightage to the evidence of

PW2 as he is none other than son of complainant and is planted witness and his presence is not pleaded in the complainant or averred in the chief-affidavit of PW1.

8. Trial Court failed to observed that there are material contradictions between the evidence let in by PW1 and PW2 which falsifies the case of the complainant.

Page 8 of 24 Crl. Appeal 1 of 2024 in CC 344 of 2016

Principal Sessions Judge, Jangaon

9. Trial Court ought to have observed that complainant failed to prove the accusation and committing of charged offence by the accused beyond any reasonable doubt.

10.Trial court ought to have considered the relevancy of the citations relied upon by the accused.

16. Notice of this Appeal was given to the Learned Counsel for Complainant who appeared.

17.No additional evidence is adduced by either side in this Criminal Appeal.

18.Heard both side counsel.

Written Arguments filed by Appellant/Accused:

19.Learned counsel for accused/Appellant in his written arguments submitted that Section 139 of NI Act deals with presumption in favor of Holder of cheque, that said presumption is rebuttable presumption, that in case Basalingappa vs.

Mudibasappa AIR 2019 SC 1983, Hon’ble Apex Court enumerated the following principles:

i)Once execution of cheque is admitted, S.139 mandates presumption that the cheque was for discharge of any debt or other liablity.

Page 9 of 24 Crl. Appeal 1 of 2024 in CC 344 of 2016

Principal Sessions Judge, Jangaon

ii)The presumption U/S 139 is a rebuttable presumption and the onus is on the accused to raise the probable defense. The standard proof of rebutting the presumption is that of preponderance of probabilities.

iii)To rebut the presumption, it is open for the accused to rely on evidence led by him or accused can also rely on the materials submitted by the complainant in order to raise probable defense. Inference of preponderance of probabilities can be drawn not only from the material brought on record by the parties, but also by reference to the circumstances upon which they rely.

iv)It is not necessary for the accused to come in the witness box in support of his defence. Section 139 imposes an evidentary burden and not pursuasive burden.

20.DW1 in her cross-examination admitted her signature on Ex.P1, but denied the borrowal of any amount from complainant. The presumption which to be drawn is a rebuttable presumption. Though accused gave reply notice to the notice given by the complainant asking upon the complainant to furnish copy of subject check and other documents related to subject check, complaint failed to comply the same, the complaint failed to get marked reply notice and non- marking of reply notice is fatal on part of complainant and it shows that the complaint was filed prematurely.

21.Regarding the debt/non-existence of debt, learned counsel submitted that the accused could elucidate the following statements in cross-examination of

Page 10 of 24 Crl. Appeal 1 of 2024 in CC 344 of 2016

Principal Sessions Judge, Jangaon

PW1 and these statements are not convincing. The statements according to leanred counsel are -

1)“ I do not remember the exact date”

2)“ I maintain records of my transaction as I am doing real estate business”

3)“ I have not filed any document to show that I have lent the said amount to the accused”.

22.Learned counsel submitted that it is not the case of respondent/complainant that PW2 son of PW1 was present at the time of transaction, that neither complaint nor chief-affidavit of PW1 gives date of transaction, but for the first time the complainant deposed in his cross-examination that accused approached him for loan in the month of

February, 2016, it is nothing but a development by complainant, there is no whisper either in the complaint or Ex.P3 legal notice about presence of witnesses and it is also a development, that according to complainant he is acquainted with accused through her father, but as per PW2 in his cross-examination accused is known to his father through their family friend Ch.Madhusudhan Reddy.

23.According to complainant, Ex.P1 cheque was issued by accused after 6 months, he gave the amount, but according to PW2, subject cheque was given to

PW1 on the date of giving money, thus, there is ambiguity on this statement on which date PW1 advanced amount to accused, that the trial court without considering the evidence which raises a probable defence, which rebutted the

Page 11 of 24 Crl. Appeal 1 of 2024 in CC 344 of 2016

Principal Sessions Judge, Jangaon

presumption, erroneously held that complainant proved the guilt of accused.

Learned counsel for accused further submitted that amount is not meagre amount to lend without any instrument and no prudent man will believe such huge amount of Rs.6 lakh will be advanced without obtaining any instrument and that accused successfully rebutted the presumption.

Gist of Written arguments filed by Learned counsel for Complainant:

24.The foundational facts of complainant’s case are clear, natural and consistently spoken by PW1 and PW2. The accused and her father being well acquaintained with complainant, accused approached complainant and requested for hand loan of Rs.6 lakhs for clearing debt and said transaction was based on trust and personal acquaintance, that accused agreed to repay the amount within 2 months, but failed to honor the commitment and on repeated demands accused issued a cheque, it was dishonored on presentation, the accused entered into witness box as DW1 and filed reply notice and got it marked as Ex.D1, but failed to adduce any probable defence, once the signature on cheque is admitted, the statutory presumptions U/S 118 and 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act automatically comes into operation in favor of complainant.

25.Learned counsel for complainant further submitted that, burden shifts upon to accused to rebut the presumption, the standard required for rebutting the presumption is prepondence of probabilities, but even that burden has not been discharged by the accused, mere denial of liability or taking inconsistent pleas cannot amount to rebuttal of statutory presumption and the defence must be supported by acceptable evidence and which defence miserably failed.

Page 12 of 24 Crl. Appeal 1 of 2024 in CC 344 of 2016

Principal Sessions Judge, Jangaon

26.Learned counsel for complainant relied upon the authority of Hon’ble

Supreme Court in Rajesh Jain v. Ajay Singh (2023 LiveLaw (SC) 866) and submitted that in case it was categorically held that once presumption under

Section 139 arises, the evidential burden lies on the accused and unless such burden is discharged, complainant is not required to prove the transaction independently, that Hon’ble Court further observed that questioning the complainant’s capacity or source of funds without rebutting the presumption is legally unsustainable.

27.Learned counsel for complainant that complainant cannot be exepcted to lead independent evidence to prove the debt, that once issuance of cheque is admitted, unless the accused discharges the burden, the presumption stands in favor of the complainant and in support of his argument relied on

(1) D.Swornapushpam v. A.Raj Kumar Manu/TN/1490/2017 (2) Basalingappa

v. Mudibasappa AIR 2019 SC 1983 and (3) Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel v. State of

Gujarat 2019 SCC Online SC 389 and (4) P.Rasiya v. Abdul Nazar 2022 SCC

Online SC 1131.

28.Learned counsel for complainant further submitted that even partial admission by the accused is sufficient to draw presumption, that Hon’ble Supreme

Court in Rajesh Jain v. Ajay Singh, placing reliance on Bir Singh v Mukesh

Kumar (2019) 4 SCC 197, held that mere admission of signature on the cheque is sufficient to attracts presumption, even if the accused disputes filing up of contents. Learned counsel further submitted that trial court meticulously considered all the above legal principles and rightly concluded and sought to dismiss the Appeal.

Page 13 of 24 Crl. Appeal 1 of 2024 in CC 344 of 2016

Principal Sessions Judge, Jangaon

29. The points that arise for determination in this appeal are –

1. Whether the impugned Judgment of the learned Prl. Junior Civil

Judge-Cum-Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Jangaon is manifestly

erroneous and whether the Learned trial Judge failed to appreciate

the oral and documentary evidence on record in the right

perspective?

2. Whether the Complainant succeeded in proving the guilt of the

accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under

Sec.138 of NI Act, 1889?

3. Whether the impugned Judgment in CC.No.344 of 2016 dt.17.01.2024 is sustainable?

Points No.1 & 2:

30.According to the complainant, himself and accused are well acquaintained with each other since one year through father of accused, that accused and her father approached complainant for hand loan of Rs.6 lakhs for clearing debts, same was considered by complainant and he advanced hand loan of Rs.6 lakhs to accused about 6 months back, that after receipt of loan amount, accused promised to repay the loan amount with in 2 months and accused issued cheque bearing No.503825 dt.01.08.2016 for Rs.6 lakhs drawn on Andhra Bank,

Nakkalagutta Branch, accused went to house of complainant along with her father.

31.In her chief-examination, Accused stated that she has no necessity to borrow the amount, she has no acquaintance with complainant till she received the notice from the complainant, that herself and her father visited house of

Page 14 of 24 Crl. Appeal 1 of 2024 in CC 344 of 2016

Principal Sessions Judge, Jangaon

complainant and the complainant procured blank cheque and fabricated the same and she never issued cheque bearing No. 503835 in favor of complainant. Thus, accused denied issuance of cheque in favor of complainant. It is important to note that accused did not dispute that her cheque was not in the hands of complainant.

Thus, the statutory presumption U/S 139 of NI Act has to be invoked. Burden is only on the accused to rebut the presumption. However, complainant has begun the case and examined himself as PW1.

32. In view of rival arguments and rival contentions of both sides, this Court being the final court shall re-appreciate the oral and documentary evidence available on record and see if the impugned judgment is sustainable or not.

33.To constitute an offence under Sec.138 of N.I. Act, complainant shall establish the following:

Accused issued Ex.P1 cheque dt.01.08.2016 on drawn on Andhra Bank where accused maintained his account.

Ex.P1 cheque had been issued in discharge, in whole or in part, of legal debt of Rs.6, 00,000/- by accused to the complainant.  Ex.P1 cheque has been presented in the Bank within the period of its validity.

Ex.P1 cheque so issued, when presented for encashment, was returned unpaid/dishonoured vide Ex.P2 Cheque retrun Memo for the reason ‘Funds insufficient”.

Page 15 of 24 Crl. Appeal 1 of 2024 in CC 344 of 2016

Principal Sessions Judge, Jangaon

The payee of the cheque i.e., Complainant issued Ex.P3 legal notice dt.06.08.2016 within 30 days from the receipt of information by him from the Bank regarding the return of cheque, calling upon the accused to pay the cheque amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of legal notice.

The drawer of the cheque/Accused failed to make the payment within 15 days of receipt of aforesaid legal notice of demand.

34.Firstly, coming to the date of advancing hand loan amount of

Rs.6,00,000/- by the complainant to the accused. It is a fact that the complaint does not mention the alleged date of advacing hand loan to the accused. It merely alleges that the handloan was advanced 6 months back.

35.As per record, complaint was filed before the JFCM Court in the month of

September, 2016. As per the complaint, complainant advanced hand loan to the accused about 6 months back. When reckoned, the date of advancing hand loan comes to February or March, 2016 approximately. Coming to chief-affidavit of

PW1, it is also silent on the date of advancing hand loan, but in his cross-examination, PW1 deposed that accused and her father approached him for hand loan in the month of February, 2016, but he do remember the exact date.

36.Complainant examined his son as PW2 as witness to the hand loan transaction. Chief-affidavit of PW2 is also silent on the date when the hand loan transaction was advanced. It is seen that both PW1 and PW2 affirmed that after receipt of loan amount, accused promised to repay the loan amount within 2 months, but failed to repay the loan amount and on repeated requests of

Page 16 of 24 Crl. Appeal 1 of 2024 in CC 344 of 2016

Principal Sessions Judge, Jangaon

complainant, accused issued cheque bearing No.503825. Coming to cross-examination of PW2, he deposed that the cheque was given to PW1 on the date of giving money and he presented the cheque in the bank. Part of this statement to the extent that cheque was given to PW1 on the date money was given is contradicting the version of complainat. According to the complainant, the cheque was issued on the date when it was issued i.e, and not when the hand loan was borrowed.

37.Coming to Ex.P3 legal notice dt.06.08.2016 got issued by complainant. As per this legal notice, it was addressed to the accused and the facts narrated in the complaiant are mentioned in this legal notice dt.06.08.2016. It is averred in this legal notice that accused approached complainant for hand loan of Rs.6 lakh for clearing debts and considering the request, complainant advanced hand loan of

Rs.6 lakhs to accused about 6 months back, promising to repay the loan amount within 2 months but failed to repay the loan amount and on repeated requests, accused issued cheque bearing No.503825 dt. towards discharge of said debt.

38.It is seen that in this legal notice also exact date of advancing loan amount is absent, but all through the case of complainant, it is his case that he advanced loan 6 months prior to issuance of Ex.P1 cheque dt.01.08.2016 and it comes to some where in the month of February 2016, which is the date given by PW1 in his cross-examination. The facts and circumstances, according to which accused successfully brought out in rebutting the presumption U/S 139 of NI Act are -

1. Complainant has no instrument or document in proof of advancing such huge amount of Rs.6 lakhs to accused.

Page 17 of 24 Crl. Appeal 1 of 2024 in CC 344 of 2016

Principal Sessions Judge, Jangaon

2. Complainant failed to give exact date when he advanced the loan amount to accused.

3. Complainant gave legal notice Ex.P3, to which accused gave Ex.D1 reply notice calling upon the complainant to send a copy of cheque and other documents, but complainant failed to send the cheque Ex.P1 and other documents which probablizes case of the accused that the complainant had fabricated the cheque.

4. According to PW1 complainant, he advanced loan in the month of

February 2016 and that cheque was issued to him after 6 months but PW1 failed to give date when cheque was handedover to him and on the other hand PW2 son of PW1, who is his examined as alleged witness stated that the cheque was issued on the same day when the money was given.

39.Firstly, coming to the date of advancing loan amount, no doubt neither the complainant nor chief-affidavit of PW1 gives the exact date of advancing loan to accused. PW1 admits that there was no document in writting in proof of advancing loan of Rs.6 lakh but said fact do not answer the question as to why the accused has to give her cheque to the complainant. Regarding the reply notice given by accused to the complainant calling upon the complainant to furnish copy of cheque and other documents, it is seen from Ex.D1 Reply notice dt.19.08.2016, that accused denied borrowing any loan of Rs.6 lakh from the complainant. She even denied any acquaintance with complainant. In this reply notice, accused sought for furnishing copy of cheque and other documents, if any

Page 18 of 24 Crl. Appeal 1 of 2024 in CC 344 of 2016

Principal Sessions Judge, Jangaon

related to the subject matter, including the cheque return memos for verification of signature on the document and the cheque.

40.It is seen from the legal notice dt.06.08.2016 that it is not the case of the complainant that there was any instrument in writing in proof of advancing hand loan of Rs.6 lakh. The only document refered to in said notice is Ex.P1 Cheque bearing No.503825 dt.01.08.2016 drawn on Andhra Bank, Nakkalagutta Branch.

These particulars are sufficient as the negotiable instrument in this case is Ex.P1

Cheque, which according to the complainant pertains to the account maintained by the accused. Said particulars are enough to reply whether the cheque in question belongs to accused or not. Hence, non-furnishing of copy of cheque in this case, as sought in the reply notice of accused, does not discredit the claim of complainant on the loan transaction.

41.Nextly, coming to the contradiction in the statements of PW1 and PW2 regarding the date of issuance of cheque, according to complainant, hand loan was given in the month of Feburary, 2016 by the complainant to accused and accused promised to repay the loan amount to the complainant wihin 2 months, but accused failed to repay the loan amount and after repeated requests, accused issued cheque Ex.P1 cheque. It is a fact that the complaint and chief-affidavit of

PW1 are silent as to when Ex.P1 cheque was issued but it is very clear all thorugh the evidence of PW1 and PW2 and is also consistent that Ex.P1 cheque in question dt. 01-08-2016 was issued six months after the loan transaction. It is evident from Ex.P1 cheque that it is dated 01-08-2016. This contention of PW1 is consistent from the beginning and the legal notice also is to said effect.

Page 19 of 24 Crl. Appeal 1 of 2024 in CC 344 of 2016

Principal Sessions Judge, Jangaon

42.It is also the argument of learned counsel for accused that at the time of alleged hand loan transaction, PW1 did not state about the presence of any witness much less his son PW2, either in his complaint or in his chief-affidavit. It is seen from the complaint and chief-affidavit of PW1 that he had not spoken about presence of any witness at the time of hand loan transaction. Complainant produced his son as PW2 as witness to the transaction. According to PW2, himself and his father both do Real estate business. The residential address of

PW2 and PW1 is shown as the same. Hence, it is not uncommon for a family member to be present at the time of hand loan transaction, more particularly when PW2 son of PW1 is also shown doing the same real estate business as that of his father. Thus, non-mentioning of PW2 as witness to the loan transaction either in the complainant or chief-affidavit of PW1 is not fatal to the case of complainant.

43.Nextly, it is the agrument of the learned counsel for accused that for the reasons best known to the complaintant, complainant did not exhibit the reply notice given by him and it was got marked by the accused as Ex.D1. Admittedly, there was exchange of notices between PW1 and accused. PW1 issued Ex.P3 legal notice dt.06.08.2016 to the accused, to which accused gave reply notice under Ex.D1 dt.19.08.2016 denying any hand loan transaction and she sought for cheque copy. It is already discussed above that PW1 did not give any reply to this reply notice nor furnished any copy of cheque.

44.It is a fact that Ex.A1 cheque pertains to the accused and it is an admitted fact. Hence, the cheque being from the account of accused with given cheque

No.503825, a copy of it need not be furnished on the asking of the accused. So

Page 20 of 24 Crl. Appeal 1 of 2024 in CC 344 of 2016

Principal Sessions Judge, Jangaon

far as other documents are concerned, PW1 stated that the transaction is oral transaction and there was no document in proof of advancing any hand loan. The burden now again is on the accused to give an explanation as to how her cheque being a negotiable instrument came into the hands of PW1, if not towards discharge of legally enforceable debt. There is absolutely no single statement either in the evidence of accused who examined herself as DW1 or by way of suggestions in the cross-examination of PW1/PW2 for PW1 possessing the cheque of accused. Very significantly, there is solitary statement of accused to the effect that herself and her father visited house of complainant and the complainant procured blank cheque and fabricated the same into Ex.P1.

45.It is not the case of accused that she had lost the cheque or that she had issued any notice to her Banker to the effect that her cheque in question bearing

No.503825 was missing and to stop clearing the cheque. There was absolute inaction on part of DW1 regarding the subject cheque. This court observes that mere possessing of Ex.P1 cheque in the hands of the holder is sufficient to draw a presumption that the cheque was issued towards discharge of legally enforceable debt, the amount of which is mentioned in the cheque in favor of the payee.

46.Though it is not necessary that the account holder should admit the signature on the cheque to draw a presumption under Seciton 139 NI Act, in the present case, in her cross-examination DW1 when confronted with Ex.P1 cheque, admitted the signature on the cheque as her signature. Of course, DW1 stated that the handwriting in which the blanks are filled in the cheque does not belong to her. Thus, this is not a case where the cheque belongs to the account holder, but signature is denied. It is a case where the cheque in question is admitted as

Page 21 of 24 Crl. Appeal 1 of 2024 in CC 344 of 2016

Principal Sessions Judge, Jangaon

belonging to DW1 and DW1 also admitted that she signed on the cheque. Thus, burden is more on the accused to establish in what circumstances she had to give

Ex.P1 then alleged blank signed cheque in favor of the complainant.

47.Further, as rightly observed by the trial Court, DW1 is not an illeterate person and she completed M.Tech (Master of Technology), in the year 2015.

Regarding lodging complaint before police or Bank about misplacing of cheque,

DW1 in her cross-examination stated that until she received notice from complainant, she did have knowledge of misplacment of her cheque leaf, that she issued reply notice Ex.D1 for sending a copy of cheque so as to take action regarding misplacment of cheque leaf, but as she did not receive any copy, she did not take any action before the bank or police. This explanation for inaction part of DW1 is absolutely not acceptable. To lodge a complaint with her Banker or police, mere missing of cheque bearing No.503825 is sufficient.

48.At this stage, it is observed that a question was also put to DW1 asking when she presented her seven cheque leaves which were issued prior to Ex.P1 and the cheque leaves which were issued after Ex.P1, for which DW1 answered that she cannot say. Evidently, accused did not produce her Bank statement to show that the cheques with immediate/consequent serial numbers before and after Ex.P1 cheque, were presented in her Bank account for clearing during a particular period or on a particular date, to show that Ex.P1 subject cheque was not issued on 01.08.2016 and that presentation of said cheque was not in line with presentation of her other cheques. All these facts are well within the knowledge of DW1 as it is her Bank account and Ex.P1 cheque is one of the

Page 22 of 24 Crl. Appeal 1 of 2024 in CC 344 of 2016

Principal Sessions Judge, Jangaon

cheques from the cheque book issued by her banker and she cannot plead that she is not aware of missing of Ex.P1 cheque until she recieved Ex.P3 legal notice.

49.Thus, DW1 having best available evidence with her, failed to file her bank statment to raise a probable defence regarding issuance of Ex.P1 cheque to the complainant. On the other, from the statement of DW1 that she along with her father went to the house of accused and complaiant procured her cheque and fabricated it into Ex.P1, the only conclusion to be drawn is that accused volunatarily handed over Ex.P1 cheque to the complainant and the presumtption has to be drawn that accused issued Ex.P1 cheque towards discharge of legally enforceable debt. Thus, viewed in any angle, DW1 failed to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of NI Act.

50.The evidence adduced by the complainant established that there was legally enforceable debt between PW1 and accused i.e., Rs.6 lakh borrowed by accused from the PW1 in the month of February, 2016, that towards discharge of said legally enforceable debt, accused gave Ex.P1 cheque dt.01.08.2016 for Rs.6 lakhs to the complainant, that said cheque was presented in Andhra Bank account of complainant on 01.08.2016 on which the cheque was drawn, that the cheque was returned dishonored vide Ex.P2 cheque return memo for the reason ‘funds insufficient’ in the Bank Account of accused.

51.Complainant admittedly, got issued Ex.P3 legal notice dt.06.08.2016 as required U/S 138 of NI Act calling upon the accused to pay the amount within 15 days on receipt of the notice, that the legal notice was received by the accused and she gave reply vide Ex.D1 on 19.08.2016, which was received by the counsel

Page 23 of 24 Crl. Appeal 1 of 2024 in CC 344 of 2016

Principal Sessions Judge, Jangaon

for complainant on 22.08.2016, that the complainant/PW1 filed complaint on

12.09.2016 within stipulated period mandated U/S 138 of NI Act and even after filing the complaint, accused failed to pay the cheuqe amount and committed the offence punishable under section 138 of NI Act. Thus, the trial court had come to right conclusion that accused committed offence punishable U/S 138 of NI

Act. I do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned Judggment of the

Trial Court. These points are decided against the appellant/accused.

Point No.3:

52.In view of the findings given in Points No. 1 & 2, the Criminal Appeal shall be Dismissed.

53.IN THE RESULT, Criminal Appeal is Dismissed confirming the

Conviction and Sentence dt.17.01.2024 passed by the Principal Junior Civil

Judge-cum-JMFC, Jangaon against the appellant/accused in CC No.344 of 2016.

Accused is appraised of her right to prefer Appeal/Revision before the Hon’ble

High Court against this Judgment. On enquiry, accused stated that she got means to enagage a counsel to prefer Appeal/Revision before the Hon’ble High Court against the Judgment and accused is also appraised of free Legal Aid and to approach District Legal Services Authroity if needed.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-III, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced

by me in open Court on this the 21st day of April, 2025.

Sd/-

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

JANGAON.

Page 24 of 24 Crl. Appeal 1 of 2024 in CC 344 of 2016

Principal Sessions Judge, Jangaon

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

--Nil--

Sd/-

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

JANGAON.

IN THE COURT OF THE FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT FOR

EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL AND DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND PROTECTION OF

CHILDREN AGAINST SEXUAL OFFENCES (POCSO) ACT CASES AT

JANGAON.

PRESENT: SMT. B. PRATHIMA

Prl. Sessions Judge, Jangaon. FAC: Spl Judge for expeditious trial and disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases,

JANGAON

Tuesday, 31 st DAY OF MARCH, 2026

SC (POCSO) No.2 of 2024

: The State of Telangana through Sub-Inspector of Name of the Complainant Police, Devaruppala.

: Nalla Kranthi S/o Kistaiah, Age: 25 years, Name of the Accused Caste: Madiga, Occ: Car Driver, R/o Neermal Village of Devaruppula Mandal, Jangaon District.

: Section 306 IPC and Sec.11 r/w 12 of POCSO Offences Under Section Act.

: NOT GUILTY Plea of the Accused : NOT GUILTY Finding of the Court : IN THE RESULT, Accused is found Not Sentence or Order

Guilty for the offences punishable under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code and Section 11 read with 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

Accordingly, Accused is acquitted under

Page 2 of 17 SC POCSO 2 of 2024

SPL JUDGE, JANGAON

Section 235(1) of CrPC. Bail bonds of the Accused stand canceled subject to Section 437-A of CrPC.

The Case property, MO1- Light pink color Chunni shall be destroyed by the police after expiry of appeal time and MO2 - Oppo Reno 7 pro cell phone shall be given to the actual owner after expiry of appeal time by the Police and to file proof thereof.

: Sri K.Harischandra Prasad Counsel for Prosecution I/C Spl. Public Prosecutor : Sri G. Naga Rajeshwar Rao Counsel for Defence

This case came before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. K.Harischandra Prasad, Spl. Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri G. Naga Rajeshwar Rao, Counsel for Accused; and after hearing both sides and after perusing the material on record to till this day, this Court delivered the following:

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1.Sole accused stands charged for the offences under Sec.11 r/w 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short ‘POCSO Act’) and U/Sec. 306 of Indian Penal Code I.e., stalking the minor victim girl and abetting her to commit suicide.

Case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:

2.1Daughter of complainant is studying intermediate in ABV college, Jangaon.

About 4 months back, their villager Nalla Kranthi took their minor daughter, upon which complaint was lodged in PS Devaruppala and the accused was sent to jail. After

Page 3 of 17 SC POCSO 2 of 2024

SPL JUDGE, JANGAON

release, accused was moving around their house and created panic. On 01.04.2023, at night accused talked with her daughter and threatened her that she has to marry him or else she should die. Complainant’s daughter informed the same to complainant.

Complainant assured her daughter that they will go to police station and on the next day they will file case. Today i.e., 02.04.2023 at 09-30 AM, her daughter informed that she is going to take bath and went into bathroom but did not come out.

Complainant’s mother opened the bathroom and found that complainant’s daughter committed suicide by hanging to rod with chunni. Complainant requested to take necessary action.

2.2Basing on the above complaint, LW15 T.Sadanandam ASI of PS Devaruppula registered a case vide Cr.No.39/2023 U/Sec. 306 IPC, Section 11 r/w 12 of POCSO

Act, 2012 and issued FIR and sent copies to all the concerned and took up investigation.

2.3During the course of investigation, LW15 examined and recorded 161 CrPC statements of LW1 Mother of deceased. Later, he visited mortuary, Area Hospital,

Jangaon and secured the presence of LW2 Grand mother of deceased, LW3 Younger brother of deceased, LW4 Younger uncle of deceased, LW5 Deceased Elder uncle and LW6 Pagidipally Dilish and also examined and recorded their statements. LW6

Pagidipally Dilish photographed the dead body of deceased, inquest over the dead body of deceased was held in the presence of mediators LW7 Doodala Ramathara,

LW8 Vadlakonda Prashanth and LW9 Vadlakonda Yadagiri, referred dead body of deceased for Post Morterm to Area Hospital, Jangaon to know the exact cause of death.

2.4LW15 proceeded to the scene of offence at the house complainant situated at

Neermala village. There he secured presence of two mediators LW10 Malipeddi

Srinivas Reddy and LW11 Meda Venkatesh, in their presence incorporated the

Page 4 of 17 SC POCSO 2 of 2024

SPL JUDGE, JANGAON

physical features of the scene in CDF. Subsequently, LW16 M.Ramesh, SI of Police,

PS Devaruppula took up investigation of this case, verified the investigation done by

LW15 and found it on proper lines.

2.5LW14 Dr.T.Mallesh, Civil Assistant Surgeon, District Hospital, Jangaon held autopsy over the dead body of deceased and issued PME report. Basing on the PME report, LW14 issued final opinion as to the cause of death of deceased as ‘Due to

Mechanical Asphyxia due to hanging’. On 12.04.2023, on receiving reliable information LW15 and his staff apprehended accused Nalla Kranthi and secured the presence of LW12 Chintha Parusharamulu and LW13 Gadari Srikanth. On interrogation, accused confessed to have committed the offence and accused produced his cell phone from which he chatted in True Caller app with deceased.

Police seized 1 cell phone Model Oppo Reno 7 Pro from accused under confession cum seizure panchanama in the presence of same witnesses and at about 02-00 PM, issued arrest memos.

2.6The evidence collected during the course of investigation establishes that accused committed offences punishable U/Sec.306 Indian Penal Code and Sec.11 r/w 12 of POCSO Act.

3.The case was taken on file for the offences U/Sec. 306 Indian Penal Code and

Sec.11 r/w 12 of POCSO Act against accused by the Prl. Sessions Court, Jangaon and was transferred to Fast Track Special Court for Expeditious Trial and Disposal of

Rape and POCSO Act cases for disposal in accordance with law.

4.After hearing learned Spl. Public Prosecutor and Learned counsel for the accused, charges for the offences under Sections 306 Indian Penal Code and Sec.11 r/w 12 of POCSO Act were framed against accused, read over and explained to him in

Telugu, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The plea of the accused

Page 5 of 17 SC POCSO 2 of 2024

SPL JUDGE, JANGAON

is one of total denial.

5.To prove the guilt of the accused for the offences under Section 306 Indian

Penal Code and Sec.11 r/w 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, during the course of trial, prosecution examined PW1 to PW11 and got marked

Ex.P1 to P12 and Material objects MO1 and MO2.

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, accused was examined U/Sec.313 CrPC explaining the incriminating evidence appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and denied the same and reported no defence evidence. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of accused.

7.I have gone through the written arguments filed by learned counsel for accused.

Learned counsel for accused relied upon the following Authorities and I have gone through them -

1. Vaibhav Vs. State of Maharastra, 2025: BHC-NAG:424.

2. Kamaruddin Dastagir Sanadi Vs. State of Karnataka Crl. Appeal No.551 of 2012.

3. Kanchan Sharma Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, Crl. Appeal

No.1022 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.7554 of 2019).

4. Nipun Aneja and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, Crl. Appeal No.654 of 2017.

8.The defence of accused as gathered from his examination under section 229

CrPC, his examination under Section 313 CrPC and the tenor of cross-examination of prosecution witnesses is one of total denial. Accused took stand that due to caste

Page 6 of 17 SC POCSO 2 of 2024

SPL JUDGE, JANGAON

differences and previous disputes, false case is foisted against the accused. Thus, accused denied any love angle between him and the deceased victim girl.

9. The point for determination is -

Whether prosecution proved the guilt of accused for the offences punishable under Sec.306 IPC and Sec.11 r/w 12 of POCSO Act, 2012, Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:

10.According to the prosecution, deceased victim girl was studying intermediate 2nd year in ABV Junior College, Jangaon, daily she used to go college by bus and return home by bus, on seeing deceased, accused Nalla Kranti developed lust on her, stalked her and followed her by saying delusion words that he loves her and he will marry her knowing that she was minor and was under lawful guardianship of her parents, that due to constant stalking and following of accused, after few days victim girl fell in love with accused, they started to talk with each other, they used to meet at college of deceased, on knowing the same, LW1 mother of victim girl warned deceased to stop her love affair with accused, but deceased did not hear her mother and continued to talk with deceased.

11.It is also the case of prosecution that on 19.12.2022, accused kidnapped the deceased and a case was registered against accused in Crime No.194/2022 for the offences U/S 363, 354(D) IPC and Section 11 r/w 12 of POCSO Act, 2012 at PS

Devarappula, subsequently deceased was traced on 21.12.2022, accused was arrested on 31.12.2022 and was sent to judicial remand, later accused was released on bail, that after release on bail i.e., on 01.04.2023, accused went to house of deceased and threat- ened her to marry him or else to commit suicide, on the same day night deceased in- formed the same to her mother, PW1 Mother of victim girl told deceased that on the

Page 7 of 17 SC POCSO 2 of 2024

SPL JUDGE, JANGAON

next day they will go to PS Devaruppala, but deceased due to constant harassment of accused and his abetment, vexed with her life, on 02.04.2023 at about 09-30 AM, committed suicide by hanging with her chunni to rod available in the bathroom.

To prove the charge U/Sec. 306 IPC, prosecution should establish that accused harassed the deceased and abetted her to commit suicide, on 02.04.2023 at about 09-30 AM, deceased committed suicide by hanging herself to a rod with chunni in the bathroom of her house.

To prove the offence U/Sec. 11 r/w 12 of POCSO Act, prosecution should establish that prior to death of deceased on 02-04-2023, accused harassed the deceased sexually and mentally in the name of love.

12.The case of prosecution is based entirely on circumstantial evidence. PW1 is mother of victim girl. She deposed that she got two children, her husband died long back due to ill health, her daughter aged 17 years was studying intermediate 2nd year, that on 19.12.2022 accused took her daughter to Hyderabad to his aunt’s house, on the next day morning she lodged complaint with PS Devaruppula, accused was arrested and sent to judicial remand, after release accused used to make rounds of her house, on 01.04.2023, accused threatened his daughter to marry him or else to die, her daughter came to house and told her about the same, she told her daughter that they will lodge complaint on the next day to police and not to be afraid.

13.PW1 further deposed that on the next day i.e., 02.04.2023, at about 09-30 AM, her daughter went to bathroom for having bath, but her daughter did not return, on suspicion her mother opened door of bathroom and found that her daughter committed suicide by hanging herself to a rod in bathroom with her chunni. Thus, according to the prosecution, after accused was released from jail, he used to make rounds at house of PW1, that on 01.04.2023 i.e., one day prior to victim girl committing suicide,

Page 8 of 17 SC POCSO 2 of 2024

SPL JUDGE, JANGAON

accused threatened her daughter to marry him or else to die. According to PW1 her daughter victim girl was minor at the time of incident.

14.PW1 was thoroughly cross-examined by the learned counsel for accused. It was elicited in the cross-examination of PW1 that her son is younger than her daughter by 15 months and they were studying with a gap of one academic year, it was suggested to PW1 that her daughter was not minor as on the date of alleged offence, PW1 denied the same. Questions were put to PW1 suggesting that her daughter do not appear to have committed suicide as her legs were shown touching the floor in the photograph taken by the police and filed into record. PW1 in her cross-examination deposed that her daugher went to bath room before 09-30 AM and before 10-00 AM, her mother observed that victim committed suicide. When asked to give the height of the roof in the bathroom, PW1 deposed that she cannot say the height of the bathroom, but stated that the roof of bathroom cannot be touched by a person without help of a stool.

15.At this stage a photograph taken from the Court file was shown to PW1 and she was questioned about the photograph. PW1 stated that the photograph belongs to her daughter and her daughter was seen hanging in the bathroom. When suggested that the foot of her daughter was touching the ground, PW1 denied the same. According to the accused, the photograph was taken when the deceased was found hanging and when the body was not shifted to the ground. PW1 was suggested the same and significantly

PW1 answered that as her daughter already died, they did not make any efforts to bring her daughter (body of her daughter) to the ground by removing the chunni (ligature).

16.PW1 further deposed that neighbors and elders visited and tested her daughter and decided that her daughter died, tongue of her daughter was protruding from the mouth and it was a sign of death. Thus, according to PW1, the tongue of her daughter was protruding, neighbors came and saw the dead body and tested if there was any

Page 9 of 17 SC POCSO 2 of 2024

SPL JUDGE, JANGAON

life, but they all concluded that deceased had died. PW1 did not state anything about any one trying to shift the dead body.

17.It was suggested to PW1 that they intentionally caused the death of victim and showed it as suicide and filed false case against the accused, PW1 denied said suggestion. What all PW1 stated in her chief-examination about accused makings rounds of her house after his release from jail, accused threatening her daughter to marry him or else to die, were suggested as false and PW1 denied the same. It was further suggested to PW1 that accused did not take his daughter to Hyderabad to his aunt’s house and PW1 denied said suggestion.

18.PW2 is Brother of deceased. His evidence is on the lines of testimony of PW1.

He also deposed that his sister went missing on 19.11.2022, they went to police

Devarauupula and lodged complaint stating that they are having suspicion on accused as accused put tattoo of his sister with her date of birth on his hand, on the same day evening i.e., 20.12.2022 his sister returned back to their house, they came to know that accused arrested by police.

19.PW2 further deposed that on 01.04.2023 night, his sister came home and told that accused threatened her to marry him or otherwise to die, his mother consoled her by stating that they can lodge a complaint with police on the next day, on the next day victim went to washroom for bathing and did not return for a long time and her grand mother went and saw, his sister committed suicide by hanging herself to the iron rod with her chunni. It is important to note here that the testimony of PW2 does not speak anything about accused moving around the house of PW1 after he was released from jail. This, evidence of PW2 is confined to the fact of accused threatening to marry him or else to die and the same being informed by victim girl to her mother. Thus, what all

PW2 had spoken against the accused as told by his sister, was the alleged information given by the deceased to her mother PW1 who in turn allegedly informed PW2.

Page 10 of 17 SC POCSO 2 of 2024

SPL JUDGE, JANGAON

20.PW2 was thoroughly cross-examined by the learned counsel for accused. PW2 was questioned in his cross-examination as to how many days accused moved around their house and followed the victim girl, PW2 answered that he cannot give the number of days, they intimated to police orally, he do not know if any complaint was lodged but they also intimated to the parents of accused. It was suggested to PW2 that death of his sister was a ‘Paruvu Hathya’ i.e., ‘Honor Killing’ and that it is not a suicide, PW2 denied the same.

21.PW3 is Grand mother of deceased and mother of PW1. She deposed that accused took her grand daughter somewhere, PW1 lodged complaint with PS

Devaruppula, accused was arrested and and he released on bail, after some days her grand daughter informed her through phone that after the accused was released on bail, he is coming to the area and making rounds of their house, on that she went to her daughter’s house, she noticed that accused was making rounds, victim came into house by weeping and informed that accused threatened her to marry him or else to die, she told the victim that they will give complaint on the next day to the police and asked her not to worry, on the next day at about 09-00 AM to 09-30 AM, victim girl went to bath room for having bath, but she did not return for 20 mins, on suspicion she opened the door and found that her grand daughter committed suicide by hanging herself to a rod in bathroom with her chunni.

22.PW3 was thoroughly cross-examined by learned counsel for accused. It was suggested to PW3 that she did not state to police about accused making rounds of the house of PW1 and she noticing the same and her grand daughter coming to house by weeping and tell her that accused threatened her to marry him. These, two statements are made according to the case of prosecution and according to the suggestions given to PW3 in her cross-examination that she failed to make said statement but police in her 161 CrPC statement. PW10 is investigating officer, who recorded the statements of

Page 11 of 17 SC POCSO 2 of 2024

SPL JUDGE, JANGAON

PW1 to PW4, however, it was not tried to be elicited in the cross-examination of PW3 by the learned counsel for accused that PW3 omitted to make above statement before him in the 161 statement of CrPC recorded by him. Thus, learned counsel for accused failed to prove that PW3 for the first time stated before the court she saw accused making rounds of house of PW1, when victim girl came to house by weeping and told her that accused threatened to marry him or else to die. However, these two statements of PW3 are not sufficient to come to conclusion of guilt against the accused.

23.Nextly, PW3 was questioned about the Crime Scene. She deposed that roof of bathroom cannot be touched by the person without the help of a stool, the roof of bathroom is asbestos sheet with iron rods, she was the first person who observed that the victim committed suicide, she did not make any efforts to save the victim as victim died by then, she suspected death of victim as the tongue of victim girl came out and saliva was coming out, she did not observe whether legs of victim girl were touching the ground or not.

24.It is very important to note that PW3 grand mother of victim girl found that victim girl did not come outside the bathroom within 20 minutes of victim girl entering into the bathroom, she went to the bathroom and found the victim girl hanging to a rod in the bathroom, but no efforts were made by PW3 or her parents or her brother or the neighbors to shift the victim girl to the ground. The reason given by them is that they had come to conclusion that the victim girl had died. It is observed that generally in such cases, the person who died by hanging will be first shifted to ground. It is the case of accused that the foot of the victim girl when she was found hanging were touching the floor. When confronted with photographs, PW1 denied the foot of victim girl touching the ground, where as PW3 grand mother of victim girl stated that she did not observe whether the legs of victim girl were touching the ground or not.

25.PW5 is the inquest panch witness. He deposed that about 2 years back, he went

Page 12 of 17 SC POCSO 2 of 2024

SPL JUDGE, JANGAON

to Area Hospital, Jangaon after coming to know about the death of Manisha to see her, there police called himself and LW8 V.Prashanath and LW9 V.Yadagiri, in their presence, police held inquest over the dead body of Manisha, police prepared panchanama himself and 2 other panchas signed on the panchanama. Through PW5, prosecution got marked Ex.P2 as Panchanama. They Panchas came to prima faice opion that Manisha died due to harassment by Nalla Kranthi. In her cross-examination,

PW5 deposed that they came prior to holding inquest, policed asked them to check, if there are any injuries on the the dead body and she did not find any injuries.

26.PW6 is examined as second witness for crime scene panchanama. He deposed that about one year back in the afternoon, he was in village, Police Devaruppula called him when he was going on the road to his fields near vagu in their village, there police obtained his signatures on some white papers, he do not know what was written on those papers, police did not conduct any panchanama in their presence. PW6 turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution.

27.PW7 and PW8 are examined as the two witnesses in whose presence accused was said to have confessed his guilt, basing on which police recovered Oppo Reno 7 pro from the possession of accused. Both PW7 and PW8 turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution.

28.PW9 is the Medical officer in this case. Through PW9, prosecution got marked

Ex.P8 as PME report. According to the PW9, on 02.04.2023 at 02-00 PM, he received requisition from Inspector of police, Devaruppula to conduct autopsy over the dead body of Bathini Manesha, the dead body was identified by police Devaruppula, he commenced PME at 02-00 PM and found the following Ante Mortem Injuries -

1. Single ligature mark seen in front of neck, which is extending into upwards and backwards upto both side below the ears Mastoid artrum.

2. There is gap seen back side between ends of ligature mark.

Page 13 of 17 SC POCSO 2 of 2024

SPL JUDGE, JANGAON

3. Length of ligature mark 24 CM.

4. Width of ligature mark 3 CM.

5. Petechial hemorrhages seen on ligature mark surrounding skin.

6. Colour of ligature mark in Blackish.

7. No fractures seen in Hyoid bone.

29.PW9 gave his final opinion on cause of death of victim girl as due to “Mechanical Asphyxia due to hanging” and the approximate time of death was 04 to 06 hours prior to conducting PME. In his cross-examination, PW9 deposed that he received requisition from police in writing along with copy of Inquest panchanama.

PW9 deposed that it is not necessary that in cases of hanging, there should always be fracture of Hyoid bone. Evidently, as per PME report of deceased, no fractures were seen. PW9 admitted that in cases of homocide, there is chance of the lungs getting congested. Thus, evidence of PW9 is to the effect that there was ligature mark on the neck of deceased, which is blackish in color and the cause of death is “Mechanical

Asplyxia due to hanging”. When this evidence is appreciated with evidence of PW1 and PW2, cause of death of victim girl appears to be “hanging by neck”.

30.PW10 and PW11 are investigating officers in this case, who deposed on the lines of charge sheet filed by them. Interestingly, PW10 investigating officer in his cross-examination deposed that they took photographs from three angles and two photographs from one angle, one photograph out of five photographs is from scene of offence showing the girl hanging and it is seen from the photograph that the legs of the girl are touching the floor.

31.Nextly, PW10 was questioned on the cause for the girl’s legs touching the floor.

PW10 deposed that he cannot say if within the time of commission of suicide and the

Page 14 of 17 SC POCSO 2 of 2024

SPL JUDGE, JANGAON

time of taking photographs, there is no chance for the girl’s legs to touch the floor and if there is no disturbance of the stool by the side of the girl. Evidently, Ex.P10 Crime

Scene Panchanama was prepared after the dead body of victim was shifted from the scene. It was suggested to PW10 that there was opportunity to conduct inquest at the scene of offence, but he purposefully did not conduct inquest at the scene of offence and destroyed the evidence from the crime scene purposefully to safe guard PW1,

PW10 denied said suggestions.

32.It is important to note that PW10 allegedly seized MO1 Chunni and MO2 Oppo

Cell phone from the scene of offence under Ex.P10 panchanama. In his cross- examination, PW10 admitted that the seizure of phone is not shown in crime scene panchanama. It is important to note here that this phone, that according to prosecution this phone was seized from the possession of accused on his confession. It is not the case of prosecution that the girls’s phone was also seized from the accused. It was suggested to PW10 that there was suspicion that death of victim girl was a homicidal death and they they intentionally did not conduct investigation in that direction, that

PW1 was having caste feeling and due to that she lodged a false complaint against the accused. PW10 denied all said suggestions.

33.PW11 is second investigating officer in this case. His role is confined to apprehending the accused and recording confession statement of accused and to seizure of MO2 Oppo Cell phone from accused. PW11 deposed that on 12.04.2023, he received CD file from PW10, he verified the investigation done by him and found it on correct lines, on 12.04.2023 he apprehended the accused at Neermala village, when accused was about to confess his guilt, he secured the presence of two mediators PW7 and PW8, on their enquiry accused confessed his guilt, recorded the confession statement of accused and seized MO2 cell phone, he effected the arrest of accused and produced him before the court. Through PW11, prosecution got marked Ex.P12 as

Page 15 of 17 SC POCSO 2 of 2024

SPL JUDGE, JANGAON

relevant admissible portion in the confession statement of accused leading to seizure of

MO2. PW11 further deposed that after collecting the autopsy report and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

34.It was suggested to PW11 in his cross-examination that accused did not make any confession and he did not seize MO2, PW11 denied said suggestion. Evidently, as to what evidence is collected from the seized MO2 mobile phone of accused is not stated by the prosecution. There is investigation atleast to show that accused was using particular phone with particular SIM number.

35.Coming to Ex.P11 5 color photographs along with CD, learned counsel for accused raised objection for marking on the ground that certificate U/S 65B Indian

Evidence Act is not filed. However, among these 5 photographs, learned counsel for accused relied upon one photograph which admittedly was taken at the scene of offence. This photograph is crucial to the case. It is seen that the deceased girl was hanging with her two feet touching the floor and there is a stool at a side.

36.It is not the case of prosecution that bathroom room was bolted from inside or that the door was break opened when PW3 grandmother of the deceased girl went to the bathroom even after her granddaughter did not come out after 20 minutes and that she found the door bolted from inside. It is strange that there is no investigation in that direction. When a person goes for bath to bathroom, naturally the door will be bolted from inside. Absence of any oral or documentary evidence on the door being bolted when the deceased was found hanging creates a suspicion on the very cause of death of deceased.

37.This Court observes that in cases of hanging, the feet do not touch the floor, of course unless the dead body was shifted after detecting the hanging. The photograph clearly depicts the two feet of the girl touching the floor of the bathroom. It is for the

Page 16 of 17 SC POCSO 2 of 2024

SPL JUDGE, JANGAON

prosecution to explain as to how such a person can die by hanging in such position. It is elicited from PW1 and PW3 that they did not try to shift the deceased, as tongue of the victim girl was protruding, they came to conclusion that victim girl died. All these facts raises doubt on the death of deceased by suicidal hanging. Even, if it is concluded that the case is one of suicide, the evidence on record is not absolute and not sufficient to hold that the accused in any manner aided or abetted the deceased by way of any act or gestures in the act of deceased committing suicide by hanging by neck. I hold that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offences with which he was charged or for any other offence.

38.IN THE RESULT, Accused is found Not Guilty for the offences punishable under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code and Section 11 read with 12 of Protection of

Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

Accordingly, Accused is acquitted under Section 235(1) of CrPC. Bail bonds of the Accused stand canceled subject to Section 437-A of CrPC.

The Case property, MO1 Light pink color Chunni shall be destroyed by the police after expiry of appeal time and MO2 Oppo Reno 7 pro cell phone shall be given to the actual owner after expiry of appeal time by the Police and to file proof thereof.

Dictated to the Stenography knowing Typist, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court, on this the 31st day of March, 2026.

Sd/-xxx

SPL. JUDGE FOR POCSO ACT CASES

JANGAON

Page 17 of 17 SC POCSO 2 of 2024

SPL JUDGE, JANGAON

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW1 : Mother of Victim girl -NONE- PW2 : Brother of Victim girl PW3 : Grand Mother of Victim girl PW4 : Narsing PW5 : D.Ramatara PW6 : Malipeddi Srinivas Reddy PW7 : Chinthala Parusharamulu PW8 : Gadari Srikanth PW9 : Dr.T.Mallesh PW10: T.Sadanandam PW11 : M.Ramesh

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1 : Complaint Ex.P2 : Death Panchanama. Ex.P3 : Signature of PW6 on Crime Detail Form. Ex.P4 : Signature of PW7 on Confession Statement and Recovery panchanama. Ex.P5 : Signature of PW7 on Confession Statement and Recovery panchanama. Ex.P6 : Signature of PW8 on Confession Statement and Recovery panchanama. Ex.P7 : Signature of PW8 on Confession Statement and Recovery panchanama. Ex.P8 : PME report. Ex.P9 : FIR Ex.P10: Scene of offence panchanama along with rough sketch. Ex.P11: 5 color photographs along with CD. Ex.P12: Relevant admissible portion in the confession statement of accused leading to seizure of MO2.

FOR DEFENCE :

- None -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MO1 - Chunni. MO2 - Oppo Reno 7 pro cell phone.

Sd/-xxx

SPL. JUDGE FOR POCSO ACT CASES

JANGAON

IN THE COURT OF THE FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT FOR

EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL AND DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND PROTECTION OF

CHILDREN AGAINST SEXUAL OFFENCES (POCSO) ACT CASES AT

JANGAON.

PRESENT: SMT. B. PRATHIMA

Prl. Sessions Judge, Jangaon. FAC: Spl Judge for expeditious trial and disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases,

JANGAON

Wednesday, 25 th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

SC (POCSO) No.3 of 2023

: The State of Telangana through Sub-Inspector of Name of the Complainant Police, Ghanpur(W).

: Burla Sai Krishna @ Sai S/o Raju, Age: 22 Name of the Accused years, Caste: Mudiraj, Occ: Centering works, R/o H.No:5-53, Chagal of Chanpur(W) Mandal.

: Section 354-A(i)(ii), 354-D, 448 IPC and Sec.11 Offences Under Section r/w 12 of POCSO Act.

: NOT GUILTY Plea of the Accused : NOT GUILTY Finding of the Court : IN THE RESULT, Accused is found Not Sentence or Order Guilty for the offences punishable under Section 354-A(i)(ii), 354-D, 448 of Indian Penal Code and Sec.11 r/w 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

Accordingly, Accused is acquitted under Section 235(1) of CrPC. Bail bonds of the Accused stand canceled subject to Section 437-A

Page 2 of 18 SC POCSO 3 of 2023

SPL JUDGE, JANGAON

of CrPC.

The marked Case property, MO1-Realme (Light sky blue color) cell phone shall be given to the actual owner after expiry of appeal time and to file proof thereof.

: Sri K.Harischandra Prasad Counsel for Prosecution I/C Spl. Public Prosecutor : Sri S. Srinivas Counsel for Defence

This case came before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. K.Harischandra Prasad, Spl. Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri S. Srinivas, Counsel for Accused; and after hearing both sides and after perusing the material on record to till this day, this Court delivered the following:

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1.Sole accused stands charged for the offences U/Sec. 354-A(i)(ii), 354-D, 448 of

Indian Penal Code and Sec.11 r/w 12 of POCSO Act, 2012 for stalking the minor victim girl, trespassing into the house of the minor girl and having physical contact with minor girl (Victim) and for sexually harassing her.

2.Trial is conducted in camera. Names of Complainant, Father of Victim girl,

Mother of Victim girl are given in sealed cover and the cover was apparently opened by my predecessor at the time of taking cognizance of the case and it was again kept confidential and the names of victim and her relative witnesses are verified from the sealed cover, while conducting in camera proceedings.

Case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:

Page 3 of 18 SC POCSO 3 of 2023

SPL JUDGE, JANGAON

3.1On 08.10.2022 at 02-00 PM, the defacto complainant, victim girl came to PS

Ghanpur(W) and lodged a Telugu written complaint, the contentions of which are follows:

“ 1. The defacto complainant is victim girl. Accused used to call the victim girl from his mobile No.9182511484 to her mobile

No.9100228174. Accused harassed victim girl psychologically, pressuring the victim girl to talk with him and to love him. Accused used to threaten the victim girl, if she fails to phone, he will kill her parents. Accused used to stalk the victim girl wherever she went. 5 months prior to lodging the complaint, LW3 father of victim girl and

LW4 Mother of victim girl, went to their agricultural well. Accused

Krishna trespassed into the house of victim girl and she was alone in her house, he touched and kissed her and also beat her.

2. Accused took photos and videos of victim girl in his mobile phone without the knowledge of the victim and used to threaten her saying that he will share her photos and video of victim girl in socialmedia. Due to fear, she did not inform about it to her parents.

On 08.10.2022, victim girl gathered courage and narrated the issue to her parents and lodged complaint.

3.2Basing on the above complaint, LW14 B.Sravan Kumar, SI of Police, PS

Ghanpur (W) registered a case vide Cr.No.247/2022 U/Sec. 354(A), 354 (D), 448 IPC and Sec.11 r/w 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012, issued FIR and dispatched the copies to all concerned and took up investigation.

3.3During the course of investigation, on the instructions of LW14,

LW2 P.Manasa, WPC 1740 of P.S. Ghanpur [W] examined and recorded statement of

Page 4 of 18 SC POCSO 3 of 2023

SPL JUDGE, JANGAON

victim girl and the same was videographed in her mobile phone. Later, LW14 examined and recorded statements of LW2 P.Manasa, WPC 1749 of PS Ghanpur(W),

LW3 Father of victim girl and LW4 Mother of victim girl. Later, LW14 visited the scene of offence i.e., house of LW1 at Chagal village, observed the scene minutely and incorporated physical features of the scene in crime detail form in the presence of mediators LW9 Shette Kumar and LW10 Sheete Muthaiah. Later, LW14 examined and recorded statements of LW5 Shette Beeramma and LW6 Shette Laxmi. LW14 addressed a letter to Inspector of Police, Barosa Center, Hanamkonda to examine and record her statement.

3.4Later, LW14 visited Kasthooribha Girls School cum Hostel, Tharigoppula now at Mansingh thanda, Narmetta, Jangaon District and gave a requisition to issue date of birth certificate of victim girl/LW1. Accordingly, LW7 Rajitha, Special Officer,

KGBV Tharigoppula issued Study, Conduct & Date of Birth Certificate of victim girl and also gave Attested Admissions & Withdrawals Register, vide Admn. No.430, dt.10.10.2022 and date of birth of victim girl as 16-09-2006. LW14 examined and recorded statement of LW7 Rajitha, Special Officer, KGBV Tharigoppula.

3.5While making efforts to apprehend the accused, on reliable information on 11.10.2022, LW14 along with his force apprehended the accused at his house at

Chagad village at 09-30 AM and he secured the presence of mediators LW11 Ponna

Rajesh and LW12 Akula Nagaraju. On interrogation, accused revealed his name as

Burla Sai krishna @ Sai S/o Raju, Age: 22 yrs, Caste: Mudiraj, Occ: Centering works, R/o. H.Nod:5-53, Chagal of Ghanpur [W] Mandal and voluntarily confessed his guilt in commission of this offence.

3.6After reducing the confession of accused in writing, LW14 secured the presence of LW8 Shankapaly Manikanta and collected videos, photos of victim from accused mobile phone U/Sec.65 [B] [4] [C] of Indian Evidence Act. LW14 seized

Page 5 of 18 SC POCSO 3 of 2023

SPL JUDGE, JANGAON

Real me Mobile Phone SIM Nos.9182511484, 9542181422 from accused in the presence of LW11 Ponna Rajesh and LW12 Akula Nagaraju under cover of confession cum seizure panchanama. Later, LW14 examined and recorded statement of LW8 Shankapaly Manikanta and recorded their statement.

3.7LW14 brought the apprehended accused along with seized Real me Mobile

Phone SIM No.9182511484, 9542181422 pertaining to accused to PS at 11-30 AM, he made necessary entries in the relevant records with effect to the arrest of accused by issuing arrest form. The grounds of arrest of accused have been intimated to his family members. On same day i.e., on 11.10.2023, accused was produced before the

Hon'ble Court and was sent to judicial remand.

3.8LW14 submitted a requisition to the Principal District Magistrate, Jangaon (Sic. Prl. Junior Civil Judge cum Judicial Magistrate of Fist Class, Jangaon to summon the defacto complainant/victim girl/LW1 and to record her statement

U/Sec.164 CrPC. On requisition, LW13/Hon'ble Magistrate summoned LW1, examined and recorded her statement.

3.9From the evidence collected during the course of investigation it is established that accused committed offences punishable U/Sec.354-A (i) (ii), 354-D, 448 Indian

Penal Code and Sec.11 r/w 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

4.The case was taken on file for the offences U/Sec. 354-A (i) (ii), 354-D, 448

Indian Penal Code and Sec.11, 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences

Act, 2012 against accused by the Prl. Sessions Court, Jangaon and was transferred to

Fast Track Special Court for Expeditious Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act cases for disposal in accordance with law.

5.After hearing learned Spl. Public Prosecutor and Learned counsel for accused,

Page 6 of 18 SC POCSO 3 of 2023

SPL JUDGE, JANGAON

charges for the offences under sections 354-A(i) (ii), 354-D, 448 of Indian Penal Code and Sec.11 r/w 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 were framed against accused, read over and explained to him in Telugu, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The plea of the accused is one of total denial.

6.To prove the guilt of the accused for the offences under Section 354-A (i) (ii), 354-D, 448 Indian Penal Code and Sec.11 r/w 12 of Protection of Children from

Sexual Offences Act, 2012, during the course of trial, prosecution examined PW1 to

PW9 and got marked Ex.P1 to P11. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of accused.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, accused was examined U/Sec. 313

Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating evidence appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses.

8.Heard arguments on behalf of Learned counsel for accused. Learned counsel for accused submitted that the evidence of PW1 does not inspire the degree of confidence required for sustaining conviction, that PW1 failed to specify the exact date, time or circumstances of the alleged incident that accused misbehaved with victim girl and that there is no corroborative medical evidence of alleged physical assault, that according to the prosecution, victim girl’s grand mother was present and she is a natural witness to the circumstances, but she was not examined by the prosecution without any reason.

9. Learned counsel for accused further submitted that the alleged harassment was repeated through phone calls, photographs and electronic interactions but no call data, no electronic chat records, no independent electronic verification was done before the

Page 7 of 18 SC POCSO 3 of 2023

SPL JUDGE, JANGAON

Hon’ble Court and investigating officer failed to collect such primary evidence, which

is best available evidence and non-production of the same justifies drawing an adverse inference against the prosecution. Coming to the evidence of PW3, learned counsel

for accused submitted that she is only hearsay evidence, similarly, PW4 is examined as

neighbor and she did not witness the incident and his evidence remains general in nature and no other independent witness was examined.

10.Learned counsel for accused further submitted that testimony of PW6 relating to age proof does not conclusively establish minority of the victim girl, the original date of birth certificate was not obtained from statutory authority, that there is incom- plete and defective investigation, that the investigating lapses go to the root of the prosecution case, materially affecting the credibility of their case.

11.In support of his argument learned counsel for accused relied upon the follow- ing authorities:

1. Dilawar Singh Virdi Vs State of Chattisgarh (2014) Cri LJ 4944;

2. Manirul Islam @ Manirul Zaman Vs State of Assam and Anr, (2021) CriLJ 3339;

3. Muhammed Annas Vs State of Kerala Crl MC No.9215 of 2022.

12. The point for determination is -

Whether prosecution proved the guilt of accused for the offences

punishable under Sec.354-A (i) (ii), 354-D, 448 IPC and Sec.11

r/w 12 of POCSO Act, 2012,Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

Page 8 of 18 SC POCSO 3 of 2023

SPL JUDGE, JANGAON

POINT:

13.According to the prosecution, accused Burla Sai Krishna was attracted towards the minor victim girl/LW1, that daily accused used to call victim girl from his mobile

No.9182511484 to victim girl’s mobile No.9100228174 and harassed her psychologically to talk with him and to love him, that accused used to threaten the victim girl that if she fails to phone call him, he will kill her parents, that accused used to stalk the victim girl wherever she went, that 5 months prior to lodging the complaint, LW3 father of victim girl and LW4 Mother of victim girl, went to their agricultural well, in their absence, accused trespassed into house of victim girl when she was alone in her house, he touched and kissed her and also beat her, that accused took photos and videos of victim girl in his mobile phone without the knowledge of the victim girl and used to threaten her saying that he will share her photos and videos in social media, that due to fear, she did not inform about it to her parents, that on 08.10.2022, victim girl gathered courage and narrated the issue to her parents and lodged complaint.

To prove the charge U/Sec. 354-A(i)(ii) IPC, prosecution should establish that prior to 08-10-2022, accused followed the victim minor girl and contacted her through his phone and harassed her psychologically to love him and also trespassed into the house of victim girl, touched her and kissed her and also took photos and videos in his mobile without her knowledge and threatened her by saying that if she do not call him, he will share her photos and videos in social media.

To prove the offence U/Sec. 354-D IPC, prosecution should establish that 5 months prior to lodging the complaint on 08.10.2022, at about 02-00 PM, accused assaulted or used criminal force on the victim girl with an intention to outrage her modesty.

Page 9 of 18 SC POCSO 3 of 2023

SPL JUDGE, JANGAON

To prove the offence U/Sec. 448 IPC, prosecution should establish that 5 months prior to lodging the complaint on 08.10.2022, at about 02-00 PM, accused illegally trespassed into the house of victim girl and touched her and kissed her, took her photos and videos in his mobile without her knowledge and threatened her by saying that, if she do not call him, he will share her photos and videos in social media.

To prove the offence U/Sec. 11 r/w 12 of POCSO Act, prosecution should establish that accused followed and harassed the minor victim girl in the name of love and trespassed into the house of victim girl and touched her and kissed her, took her photos and videos in his mobile without her knowledge and threatened her by saying that, if she do not do phone calls to him, he will share her photos and videos in social media.

14.The case of accused as gathered from his examination under section 228 Cr.PC, his examination under Section 313 CrPC and the tenor of cross-examination of prosecution witnesses is one of denial. On the other hand a stand is taken by the accused that it is the victim girl who used to like the posts put by accused in his

Facebook and Instagram accounts, that it is the victim girl who called the accused through Whatsapp video calls and threatened the accused with dire consequences and that there were disputes between their family and family of accused and to settle the scores a false case is foisted against the accused. It is to be seen how far the prosecution succeeded in bringing home the guilt of the accused for the offences U/S 354-A(i)(ii), 354-D, 448 of IPC and Section 11 r/w 12 of POCSO Act, 2012.

15.PW1 is the Victim girl herself. She deposed that accused is her villager, her date of birth is 16.09.2006, at the time of incident she was studying 10th class at KGVB

Tharigoppula during the year 2022-2023. Thus, as of the year 2022-23, PW1 completed 16 years and was running 17 years of age. PW1 stated that accused who is

Page 10 of 18 SC POCSO 3 of 2023

SPL JUDGE, JANGAON

her villager used to telephone her from Mobile No.9182511484 to her cell phone

No.9100228174, that accused used to call her and asked her to love him and threatened to kill her and her parents if she wont accept his love, that accused also used to follow her for the last 5 months prior to the date of lodging complaint.

16.PW1 further deposed that one day when her parents went to agricultural well, accused entered into her house and kissed her and also touched her on her waist, accused beat her for not loving him and also threatened to kill her and her parents if she fails to love him back and talk to him on phone, that due to fear she did not tell her parents. PW1 further deposed that accused threatened her to share the photos which he took without her notice and to make them viral in social media, on that she informed her parents and lodged the complaint. PW1 further deposed that her statement was recorded and videographed by woman constable and she was also examined by the

Magistrate.

17.PW1 was thoroughly cross-examined by the learned counsel for accused. It was elicited in the cross-examination of PW1 that house of her uncle is located on the backside of her house, that house of Shetti Muthaiah is located in front of her house and one Goud persons’ house is located on the right side and there is road on the left side. Thus, the house of PW1 victim girl is located in the midst of residential houses with road on left side. It is also elicited in the cross-examination of PW1 that accused has to pass in front of her house to reach his house and that accused daily goes on his motor cycle.

18.When suggested that there were disputes with the accused regarding passing of motorcycle through their house, PW1 denied the same. She further stated that she do not know if panchayat was held regarding passing motorcycle of accused and if their family paid Rs.1,000/- to village elders.

19.Nextly, PW1 was questioned about Facebook and Instagram accounts. PW1

Page 11 of 18 SC POCSO 3 of 2023

SPL JUDGE, JANGAON

stated that for sometime she had said accounts, but she closed them as her mobile was damaged. When suggested that Facebook and Instagram accounts were active till lodging complainant by her and that she purposefully deactivated them to seclude evidence at the advice of police, PW1 denied all said suggestions. She further denied that police took her cell phone and verified the Facebook and Instagram accounts and instructed her to delete those accounts. When suggested that she liked the posts put by accused in his Facebook and Instagram accounts, PW1 denied the same and added that she called the accused through Whatsapp video call on the threats of accused. She denied that she used to call accused two or three times. She stated that she talked with accused on Whatsapp for 5 months. The tenor of cross-examination of PW1 shows that though accused suggested that it was PW1 who was behind the accused, the manner in which PW1 claims that she talked with accused on Whatsapp for 5 months, which statement of PW1 remained uncontradicted, leads to inference that PW1 and accused were in contact with each through social media on their phones.

20.It was further elicited in the cross-examination of PW1 that her grand mother was also living along with her parents. She deposed that when accused touched her, she raised cries and her grand mother came and on seeing her grand mother, accused fled away. Interestingly, when questioned if her grand mother discloses about the incident to her parents, PW1 answered that her grandmother did not disclose the incident to her parents. She gave the reason that as accused threatened to kill her, if she discloses to any one, she did not disclose the incident to her parents. This court observes that it is not the case of PW1 that accused also threatened her grandmother from disclosing the incident. This grandmother of PW1 is not examined by the prosecution. The entire case of PW1 that accused called her on phone, stalked her, and threatened her by trespassing into her house of posting the photos and videos on social media was suggested as false by the Accused and PW1 denied the same.

21.PW3 is mother of victim girl. She deposed that one year back, while her

Page 12 of 18 SC POCSO 3 of 2023

SPL JUDGE, JANGAON

daughter was studying 10th class at KGVB, Narmetta, accused used to telephone her daughter from his mobile phone and harassed her daughter telling her daughter to love him and also threatened her daughter, that accused used to follow her daughter for the last 5 months and accused trespassed into their house when PW1 was alone and misbehaved with her daughter by touching her waist and kissed her, that accused used to stalk her and her daughter revealed the same to her.

22.PW3 was thoroughly cross-examined by the learned counsel for accused. When questioned if police took cell phone of her daughter, PW3 answered that police took cell phone of her daughter. PW3 was also suggested that due to family disputes they foisted a false case and accused did not either stalk or threaten or make any contact and did not trespass into their house or commit any illegal act, PW3 denied all said suggestions.

24.PW2 is examined as Women Constable who recorded the 161 CrPC statement of PW1. PW2 deposed that on the instructions of LW14 Sravan Kumar, she recorded the 161 CrPC statement of PW1 at Ghanpur police station and the same was videographed in mobile. Through PW2, prosecution got marked Ex.P2 CD containing the statement of victim, subject to objection raised by the learned counsel for accused that Section 65B certificate is not appended. Evidently, the mobile phone in which the statement was recorded or its memory card are not filed. The statement is apparently copied into a CD and is filed. Such copied CD should be appended with a certificate under section 65B of Indian Evidence Act and without such certificate, the CD cannot be considered.

25.PW4 is examined as neighbor of victim girl as well as accused. PW4 deposed that victim and accused are his neighbors, that accused used to sit on the payal (Aurgu) of the house of victim girl and harass the victim to love him, that accused used to work one day and take rest for four days, that when the parents of victim went to their

Page 13 of 18 SC POCSO 3 of 2023

SPL JUDGE, JANGAON

agricultural fields, accused came to the house of victim and called the victim, at that time he came and asked accused why he came in the absence of parents of victim and is calling her, on that accused abused him in filthy language by saying ‘Nekendukay

Lanjamunda’, she revealed the same to the parents of victim after they arrived.

Significantly, PW4 does not speak about accused entering into the house of PW1 or accused returning from inside the house of PW1.

26.According to PW4, there was exchange of conversation between her and accused, that when accused called the victim she came out and questioned the accused as to why he came in the absence of parents of victim and why he is calling her. This statement of PW4 totally demolishes the case of the prosecution. According to the prosecution, accused trespassed into the house of PW1, whereas as per evidence of

PW4, she saw accused standing out the house of PW1 and call the victim girl so loudly that she heard it and questioned the accused as to why he is calling the victim girl. In her cross-examination, PW4 deposed that parents of victim girl came to know that accused was following the victim girl even before she informed them.

27.PW5 is examined as Photographer who was entrusted by the police to take photos from Realme mobile phone of accused. PW5 deposed that on 11.10.2022, SI of

Ghanpur entrusted him to take out the photos from the Realme mobile phone of accused and copy the Whatsapp screen record and photos of the whatsapp of the victim into a CD, accordingly, he took soft copy from the mobile phone of accused, made a CD containing the Whatsapp screen record and photos and handed over the CD along with Sec.65B Certificate to SI, Ghanpur. Through PW5, prosecution got marked

Ex.P3 as CD containing photos and Ex.P4 as Section 65-B Indian Evidence Act certificate.

28.Charge-sheet is totally silent as to the contents of the CD and the contents of the photographs. Evidently, neither the investigation officer nor later the prosecution took

Page 14 of 18 SC POCSO 3 of 2023

SPL JUDGE, JANGAON

printouts of the photographs in the CD and the CD was apparently not played in the open court. The deposition of PW5 does not contain any endorsement to the effect that Ex.P3 was played in the open court and it contains particular photographs.

Evidently, the contents of CD were not confronted to PW1 or PW2 or PW3 to elicit the identity of the persons if any seen in those photographs. Thus, mere marking of CD is absolutely of no use to the prosecution.

29.PW6 is examined as the person who issued Date of Birth certificate of the victim girl. She deposed that on 10.10.2022 SI of police, Ghanpur came to their school and submitted a requisition for furnishing the copy of date of birth of PW1, accordingly, she issued Date of Birth Certificate of victim basing on their admission register and in the the admission register number of victim/PW1 is 430 and as per record date of birth of PW1 is 16.09.2006. Through PW6, prosecution got marked.

Requisition given by the police as Ex.P5. Study, Conduct and Date of Birth certificate of victim issued on 10.10.2022 as Ex.P6 and attested copy of admission register containing particulars of PW1 as Ex.P7. Thus, according to PW6, the date of birth of victim girl is 16-09-2006. The age of the victim girl by the date of lodging complaint comes to just 16 years.

30.PW7 is one of the two panch witnesses in whose presence police were said to have conducted the crime scene panchanama. PW7 deposed that on 08.10.2022, at 03- 00 PM, at the house of PW1, police came and noted down the boundaries and prepared rough sketch of the house of victim in his presence and in the presence of LW10

S.Muthaiah. In his cross-examination, PW7 deposed that he do not know the contents of Crime Detail Form panchanama but a rough sketch was drawn, he belongs to the caste of PW1 and he is his agnate, that on the southern side of house of accused, victim girl’s house is situated. When suggested that he is deposing false because victim girl is his agnate, PW7 denied the same.

Page 15 of 18 SC POCSO 3 of 2023

SPL JUDGE, JANGAON

31.PW8 is examined as one of the two panch witnesses in whose presence accused was said to have confessed his guilt basing on which police also seized MO1 Cell phone of accused. PW8 deposed that on 11.10.2022, at 09.45 AM, while he was going on his work police Ghanpur were present at the house of accused/B. Saikrishna situated at Chagal village, that on the request of police, Ghanpur they enquired accused and on enquiry, accused confessed that he harassed the victim physically and mentally by obtaining her photos with him and other photos and forced her to love him, otherwise he threatened to kill her parents and also to make viral her photos in social media, that police seized one Realme mobile phone of accused before them under the cover of panchanama of confession and seizure, that police read over the panchanama to them and they put their signatures in the panchanama.

32.Through PW8, prosecution got marked Ex.P9 as relevant portion of confession and seizure panchanama, dated 11.10.2022 and MO1 as Realme cell phone in light sky blue color and it bears the panch chit signed by him and LW12 Akula Nagaraju.

Thus, PW8 totally supported the case of the prosecution. Basing on the confession of accused, prosecution got marked Ex.P9 as relevant admissible portion of confession and seizure panchanama dated 11.10.2022 leading to seizure of MO1 Realme cell phone allegedly pertaining to the accused.

33.It is seen from the cross-examination of all the witnesses that there is not a single suggestion given to the witnesses that accused was not having any cell phone.

PW1 in her statement specifically stated that accused was having cell phone

No.9182511484 and she was using cell phone No.9100228174. There is no single suggestion to PW1 suggesting that accused was not having cell phone with mobile

No.9182511484. Thus, it is a fact that accused at relevant point of time was using cell phone No.9182511484.

34.PW9 is the investigating officer who deposed on the lines of charge sheet filed

Page 16 of 18 SC POCSO 3 of 2023

SPL JUDGE, JANGAON

by him.

35.Except the fact that accused was using cell phone at the relevant point of time and that there was conversion between PW4 and accused and that accused used to visit the house of PW1 by sitting on the payal (Arugu) of house of PW1, no other act is proved against the accused. Further, prosecution has to satisfy the court as to why the investigating agency failed to collect the call data record and the contents of phone of

PW1 and why the investigating agency did not verify if victim girl’s Facebook and

Instagram Account contain any evidence.

36.The evidence of victim girl PW1 and her mother PW3 is not sufficient to cometo a conclusion that accused was stalking the victim girl and he entered into her house and behaved with the victim girl in an inappropriate manner. It is to noted that there is presumption U/S 29 of POCSO Act. It is to be presumed that accused had culpable mental state on his part to commit said acts which are punishable under

POCSO Act, unless the contrary is proved. This Court observes that in the first place, prosecution failed to establish that there was any sort of association or acquaintance between PW1 and accused, so as to draw presumption under POCSO Act. I hold that this is a fit case to give benefit of doubt to accused and I hold that prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

35.IN THE RESULT,Accused is found Not Guilty for the offences punishable under Section 354-A(i)(ii), 354-D, 448 of Indian Penal Code and Sec.11 r/w 12 of

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

Accordingly, Accused is acquitted under Section 235(1) of CrPC. Bail bonds of the Accused stand canceled subject to Section 437-A of CrPC.

The marked Case property, MO1-Realme cell phone (Light sky blue color) shall be given to the actual owner after expiry of appeal time and to file proof thereof.

Page 17 of 18 SC POCSO 3 of 2023

SPL JUDGE, JANGAON

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in

the Open Court, on this the 25th day of February, 2026.

Sd/-xxx

SPL. JUDGE FOR POCSO ACT CASES

JANGAON

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW1 : Victim girl -NONE- PW2 : P.Manasa PW3 : Mother of Victim girl PW4 : Shette Lasmi PW5 : Shankapally Manikanta PW6 : Rajitha PW7 : Shette Kumar PW8 : Ponna Rajesh PW9 : B.Sravan Kumar

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1: Complaint Ex.P2: CD containing the statement of victim Ex.P3: CD containing photos Ex.P4: Section 65-B Indian Evidence Act certificate Ex.P5: Requisition letter Ex.P6: Study conduct and Date of Birth certificate of victim Ex.P7: Attested copy of Admission Register Ex.P8: CDF with rough sketch Ex.P9: Relevant Portion of Confession and Seizure panchanama Ex.P10: FIR Ex.P11: 164 CrPC statement of victim girl.

Page 18 of 18 SC POCSO 3 of 2023

SPL JUDGE, JANGAON

FOR DEFENCE :

- None -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MO1 – Realme cell phone

Sd/-xxx

SPL. JUDGE FOR POCSO ACT CASES

JANGAON

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM-

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE COURT AT JANGAON

Present: Smt. B. PRATHIMA

Chairman, MACT-cum-Prl. District Judge Jangaon

Monday, the 27 th day of April, 2026

M.V.O.P.No. 60 of 2023

Between:

1. Pittala Revathi W/o Late Ashok, Age: 28 years, Occupation: Housewife.

2. Pittala Manaswi D/o Late Ashok, Age: 6 years, Occupation: Student.

3. Pittala Srikruthi D/o Late Ashok, Age: 6 years, Occupation: Student.

[Petitioners 2 & 3 being minors represented by their natural Mother/guardian Pittala Revathi i.e., petitioner No.1]

4. Pittala Mallaiah S/o Venkataiah, Age: 65 years, Occu: Agriculture.

All are R/o Shivunipally village, Ghanpur Station Mandal, Jangaon District.

…Petitioners AND

1. Kola Harikumar S/o Narsaiah, Age: 30 years, Occupation: Driver of crime vehicle DCM vehicle bearing No.AP36X6456,R/o. Shivunipally village, Ghanpur Station Mandal, Jangaon District.

2. Koluvula Jagadeeshwar S/o Saraiah, Aged: Major, Occupation: Owner of crime vehicle, R/o. 1-92, Thogarrai, Duggondi, Jangaon.

3. Royal Sundaram General Insurance Co. Ltd., represented by its Branch Manager, Branch Office at H.No.2-10-1425, 1st Floor above Bank of Baroda lane beside Court Complex, Jyothinagar, Karimnagar.

4. Royal Sundaram General Insurance Co. Ltd., represented by its Divisional Manager, 1st Floor, H.No.7-1-621/28, 16/3, R.T.Sanjeeva Reddy Nagar, Hyderabad.

…Respondents

Page 2 of 15 MVOP 60 of 2023 PDJ, Jangaon

This petition having come before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri N. Narender, Advocate for petitioners, Respondent No.1 remained exparte, Sri Nune Ravindar, Advocate for Respondent No.2 Sri T. Ravinder Rao, Advocate for Respondents No.3 & 4 and having heard and having stood over for consideration till this day this Court made the following:

-: O R D E R :-

1.This petition is filed under Sec.166(1)(c) Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (in short “MV Act') and the Rules framed thereunder by the petitioners/claimants wife, children and father of deceased Pittala Ashok seeking this Court to award compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- with interest and costs for the death of Pittala

Ashok in Motor Vehicle accident said to have occurred on 13-07-2023 at 1400 hours at UPS School of Venkatadripet village.

Petition averments:

2.1 On 13-07-2023 at 02:00 PM, deceased Pittala Ashok went as labour on

Eicher DCM vehicle bearing No.AP36X6456 to unload PDS rice for mid-day meals at Venkatadripet UPS School, at about 02:00 PM deceased got off from

DCM vehicle and stood at School Gate, while reversing the DCM vehicle into the school through school gate, the vehicle dashed to the deceased due to which, deceased crushed in between the wall gate and vehicle and died on the spot.

2.2On a complaint given by Pittala Revathi wife of deceased Pittala Ashok,

Police Chilpur registered a case in Cr.No.134/2023 under Sec. 304-A of IPC against respondent No.1 driver of DCM vehicle bearing No.AP36X6456.

Page 3 of 15 MVOP 60 of 2023 PDJ, Jangaon 2.3At the time of accident, deceased was aged 31 years, he was hale and healthy, he was working as Hamali in CMS Ghanpur and used to earn Rs.30,000/- per month, which he was contributing for the welfare of his family. Due to sudden and untimely death of deceased, petitioners became orphans and lost their financial support, affection and guidance of the deceased. Petitioners were put to shock and mental agony. The accident took place only due to the negligence of

R1. R1 is the driver of DCM vehicle bearing No.AP36X6456, R2 is its owner and

R3 & R4 are insurance company are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- to petitioners together with interest and costs.

Counter averments of Respondent No.2:

3.1Petitioners are put to strict proof about age, avocation and income of deceased and the manner of accident. This respondent is not aware about the relationship of petitioners with Pittala Ashok and deceased was Hamali and he has been working in CMS Ghanpur since 12 years and was earning Rs.1,000/- per day.

3.2R2 is not aware if R1 was driver of crime vehicle without valid license. R2 is owner of crime vehicle and he is insured the same with R3 insurance company, hence R2 is not liable to pay any compensation.

Written Statement of Respondents No.3 & 4:

4.1All the material allegations made in the petition are false. The manner of accident in which it is alleged to have occurred is denied putting the petitioners to strict proof of the same.

Page 4 of 15 MVOP 60 of 2023 PDJ, Jangaon 4.2Respondent No.2 has not informed about the accident, particulars of deceased to the Insurance Company as required under Sec.134 of M.V.Act. Police concerned did not inform respondent No.3 about the accident as required under

Sec.158 (6) of M.V. Act.

4.3It is mandatory on part of owner/driver to inform about the accident within reasonable time to the insurer of the vehicle about the accident and so also the police concerned to forward all relevant documents to the insurer concerned within 30 days from the date of information, but both of them failed to comply the same. This respondent No.3 seeks protection under Sec.147, 149 and 170 of M.V.

Act and Sec. 64(v) of Insurance Act. The compensation claimed by the petitioners is highly excessive. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

5.Respondent No.1 remained absent and was set exparte.

6.On the basis of the above pleadings, following issues have been settled for trial on 08-08-2024:

1. Whether the accidental death of deceased/Pittala Ashok is occurred

due to accident took place on 13-07-2023 at about 1400 hours at UPS

School, Venkatadripet village of Chilpur Mandal of Jangaon

District due to rash and negligent driving of the driver/R1 Eicher

DCM van bearing Reg. No.AP36X6456?

2. Whether the Respondent No.1 was holding valid and effective driving license at the time of alleged incident ?

3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for the compensation. If so, to what amount and from whom?

4. To what relief?

Page 5 of 15 MVOP 60 of 2023 PDJ, Jangaon

7.During the course of enquiry, 1st petitioner examined herself as PW1 and also examined eye-witness to the accident as PW2 and got marked Ex.P1 to P5.

On their behalf, Respondents No.3 & 4 Insurance Company examined their

Manager as RW1 and also examined Junior Assistant, DTO, Warangal as RW2 and got marked Ex.B1 to B4.

8.Respondents No.3 & 4 Insurance Company filed petition IA 190/2025 under Sec.170 of the M.V. Act and the same was allowed on 28-03-2025.

9.Heard both side counsel. I have perused the written arguments filed on behalf of petitioners and R3 & R4 insurance company.

Issues No.1 & 2:

10.This issue concerns the vehicle involved and the manner in which the accident occurred. According to petitioner, on 13-07-2023 at 02:00 PM, deceased

Pittala Ashok as labour went on Eicher DCM vehicle bearing No.AP36X6456 to unload PDS rice for mid-day meals at Venkatadripet UPS School, at about 02:00

PM deceased got off from said DCM vehicle and stood at School Gate, while reversing the DCM vehicle into the school through school gate, the vehicle dashed to the deceased resulting which the deceased got crushed between the wall gate and vehicle and died on the spot.

11.Respondents No.3 & 4 insurance company filed written statement putting the petitioners to strict proof of the involvement of the vehicle and the manner of accident. As involvement of vehicle, is denied by the respondents, it is to be seen how far petitioners established their case.

Page 6 of 15 MVOP 60 of 2023 PDJ, Jangaon

12.In support of their case, 1st petitioner examined herself as PW1 and got marked the crime record as Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 to prove the manner of accident. Chief affidavit of PW1 is reiteration of the facts pleaded in the petition. PW1 was thoroughly cross examined by the learned counsel for R3 and R4. Evidently,

PW1 is not an eye-witness to the accident and she is the complainant who lodged the complaint before Police. She deposed that the accident took place at

Venkatadripet village at 02:00 pm. When suggested that the driving license of

DCM van driver expired prior to the accident, PW1 pleaded ignorance of said facts. No other suggestion was put to PW1 regarding the manner of accident of the vehicle involved in the accident.

13.Petitioners also examined PW2 as an eye-witness to the accident. He filed his chief affidavit affirming that on 13.07.2023 at 02:00 pm himself, deceased

Pittala Ashok went on labour on Eicher DCM vehicle bearing No.AP36X6456 to unload PDS rice for mid-day meals at Venkatadripet UPS School, that at about 02:00 PM they got off from said DCM vehicle and deceased stood at School Gate, while reversing the DCM vehicle into the school through school gate, the DCM vehicle dashed to the deceased due to which deceased got crushed between the wall gate and vehicle and died on the spot, that he witnessed the accident, that police Chilpur recorded his statement and police registered a case in

Cr.No.134/2023 against driver of DCM vehicle.

14.In his cross-examination by the learned counsel for R2, it was suggested to

PW2 that he was not present at the time of accident and he was giving false evidence. PW2 denied the same. In his cross-examination by learned counsel for

R3 and R4, PW2 deposed that he is working as Hamali on the offending DCM van, deceased is his relative, he was present on the other side of the vehicle while

Page 7 of 15 MVOP 60 of 2023 PDJ, Jangaon the DCM vehicle was taking reverse. When suggested that the accident occurred due to negligence of deceased, PW2 denied the same. This evidence of PW2 remained incredible.

15.On their part, R3 & R4 insurance company examined their Manager as

RW1 and got marked Ex.B1. RW1 filed his chief affidavit affirming that the

DCM vehicle is a heavy transport vehicle and that the driver has to possess HMV driving license whereas the driver of crime vehicle at the time of alleged accident on 13-07-2023 was not possessing driving license to drive heavy transport vehicle and as such R1 driver of DCM van was not having effective and valid driving license. Thus, there was breach of contract and violation of Ex.R1 policy and their insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation.

16.Coming to cross examination of RW1 by the learned counsel for petitioners suggested that R1 was having valid driving license to drive Eicher van which suggestion was denied by RW1. There was no cross-examination by RW1 by learned counsel for R2.

17.Coming to the crime record, Petitioners got marked Ex.P1 to P5. Ex.P1 is

FIR along with complaint. As per this complaint, it was lodged on 13-07-2023 and it was received in police station at 08:30 PM, basing on which a case in

Cr.No.134/2023 U/S. 304A IPC. This complaint also gives the same manner of the accident and specifically alleges that while the DCM van driver was taking the vehicle in reverse and Pittala Ashok got down from DCM van to unload the rice in the school and he was standing at the school gate, that in the process of reversing the vehicle driver of DCM van dashed the vehicle to Pittala Ashok who was standing at the gate and the deceased was crushed between the gate and DCM van and died on the spot.

Page 8 of 15 MVOP 60 of 2023 PDJ, Jangaon

18.ExP2 is certified copy of inquest report as per which Police Chilpur held inquest over the dead body of the deceased to know the cause of his death and the prima-facie cause of death of deceased was arrived at as negligent manner of driving of DCM van driver while reversing the vehicle resulting in spot death of the deceased on 13-07-2023.

19.Ex.P3 is Postmortem Examination Report dated 14-07-2023 as per which deceased sustained injuries in a road traffic accident and died on the spot due to head injury, which relate to subject accident.

20.Ex.P4 is Crime Details Form along with Rough Sketch. As per this Crime

Details Form, the accident occurred when the driver of the DCM van reversing the vehicle to enter into school gate.

21.Ex.P5 is certified copy of Charge Sheet, which is the report of investigation done by the police concerned. As per this Charge Sheet, the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent manner of driver of DCM van bearing

No.AP36X6456 while reversing the vehicle.

22.Respondents No.3 & 4 apart from exhibiting insurance policy as Ex.B1 also summoned RW2 to give evidence about driving license particulars of respondent No.1 driver of DCM van and got marked Ex.B2 to Ex.B4. RW2 deposed that as per their record, Kola Harikumar s/o Narsaiah, date of birth 05- 01-1994, R/o 6-135, Shivunipally, Ghanpur Station, Jangaon was issued driving license for LMV – non transport on 28-01-2026 which is valid till 27-01-2036, that said person was also issued driving license for LMV – Transport vehicle on 05-03-2024 which is valid till 04-03-2029, that as on 13-07-2023 Kola Harikumar was having driving license to drive LMV-non transport.

Page 9 of 15 MVOP 60 of 2023 PDJ, Jangaon

23.RW2 further stated that vehicles with gross weight upto 7500 kg are categorized as LMV, that he produced Form-24B register of vehicle bearing No.

AP36X6456 and as per said document, gross weight of said vehicle is 11950 kg and it is a Goods carriage and to drive said vehicle, Heavy Goods Vehicle driving license is required, that with the driving license issued to Kola Harikumar, he is not authorized to drive said vehicle.

24.Ex.B2 is copy of authorization letter issued in favour of RW2 by DTO,

Warangal and Ex.B3 is extract of driving license of Kola Harikumar and Ex.B4 is

Form-24 extract of vehicle bearing No.AP36X6456. These documents show that as on the date of accident, R1 driver of DCM van was having driving license to drive only LMV whereas, the DCM van was having gross weight of 11,950 kgs.

Thus, DCM van is a heavy motor vehicle.

24.Thus, the evidence on record sufficiently establishes that R1 driver of

DCM van due to his rash and negligent manner while reversing the DCM van which was loaded with PDS rice for distribution in School, dashed the deceased who was standing by the wall due to which deceased was crushed between the wall and the DCM van resulting in his instantaneous death. The manner in which deceased was crushed to death clearly shows that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of R1 driver of DCM van bearing No.AP36X6456 and that too without possessing valid driving license. These Issues were decided accordingly in favour of petitioners.

Issue No.3:

25.A finding is given in Issues No.1 & 2 that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of R1 driver of DCM van bearing No.AP36X6456

Page 10 of 15 MVOP 60 of 2023 PDJ, Jangaon and without possessing valid driving license. An objection was taken by R3 & R4 with regard to driving license that, as per their record, R1 Kola Harikumar s/o

Narsaiah was issued driving license for LMV – non transport on 28-01-2026 which is valid till 27-01-2036 and that said person was also issued driving license for LMV – Transport vehicle on 05-03-2024 which is valid till 04-03-2029 i.e., the vehicles with gross weight upto 7500 kg are categorized as LMV. RW2 stated that as on 13-07-2023 R1/Kola Harikumar was having driving license to drive

LMV-non transport and he produced Form-24B register of vehicle bearing

No.AP36X6456 and as per said document, gross weight of said vehicle is 11950 kg and it is a good carriage and to drive said vehicle, Heavy Goods Vehicle driving license is required, that with the driving license issued to Kola Harikumar, he is not authorized to drive said vehicle.

26.Learned counsel for Petitioners in his arguments submitted that the driver is not required to have separate transport endorsement on license in vehicle light motor under Section 221 of Motor Vehicles Act. This Court observes that the

DCM vehicle in question is not a light motor vehicle as per the evidence given by

RW2 and they also exhibited Ex.B4 Form-24 as per which the vehicle is a heavy transport vehicle which requires heavy vehicle transport license. Hence, the argument for learned counsel for petitioners that respondent No.1 was having license for driving light motor vehicles and separate endorsement is not required as transport on the license is not denied. Hence I hold that R1 is not having valid and effective driving license at the time of accident on 13-07-2023.

27.Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that directions can be given to the insurance company to first pay the claim amount and later recover the same from owner and driver of the crime vehicle.

Page 11 of 15 MVOP 60 of 2023 PDJ, Jangaon

28.This Court observes that the accident occurred on 13-07-2023 which is governed by new Motor Vehicle Act, w.e.f. 01-04-2022 and hence the doctrine of

Pay and Recover is not applicable in this case. Hence, as there is clear violation in terms and conditions of insurance policy in as much as R1 was not having valid or effective driving license at the time of accident, the insurance company though is having valid insurance coverage, is not liable to pay any compensation. Hence, the petition against R3 and R4 is to be dismissed and R1 being driver, R2 being registered owner are jointly and severally liable to pay just compensation to the petitioners for the death of the deceased Pittala Ashok in the accident.

29.Coming to the “Just compensation” to which the petitioners are entitled to, adhering to the guidelines given in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport

Corporation reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104, three aspects to be decided are 1)

Age of the deceased at the time of accident, 2) Income of the deceased and 3)

Multiplier applicable. To assess the loss of earnings and future earnings and the loss of dependency, the guidelines given in National Insurance Company Vs

Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 shall be followed.

30.Firstly, coming to the age of the deceased, according to petitioners, the deceased was aged 31 years at the time of the accident. To prove the age of the deceased, petitioners did not file any age proof documents. The crime record

Ex.P1 FIR, Ex.P2 Inquest report, Ex.P3 Post Mortem Examination report, Ex.P5

Charge sheet gives the age of the deceased at the time of accident as 31 years.

Hence, I am inclined to fix the age of deceased as 31 years at the time of accident.

31.Petitioners claimed that deceased used to do hamali work in CMS Ghanpur and used to earn Rs.30,000/- per month, however, no evidence is produced to prove the avocation and income of deceased. However, considering that even an

Page 12 of 15 MVOP 60 of 2023 PDJ, Jangaon unskilled labour as per Telangana Government Minimum Wages Rules 1948 w.e.f.

01-10-2021 is getting a minimum wage of Rs.400/- per day. The minimum monthly rate in case of daily wage employees is calculated for 26 days. Thus, the income of the deceased per month comes to Rs.400/- * 26 = Rs.10,400/- p.m.

32.Coming to the number of dependents, the petition is filed by the widow, two minor daughters and father of deceased Pittala Ashok. As the deceased was the husband and son of petitioners No.1 and 4 respectively and as he left behind 4 dependents on him by the date of accident, personal expenses of deceased will be 1/4th and contribution to the family will be 3/4th as laid down in Sarla Verma case

33.As per the schedule given in Sarla Verma’s case, the multiplier applicable to persons aged between 31 to 35 years is ‘16’ and in the instant case as the age of the deceased at the time of accident is arrived at 31, the relevant multiplier to be applied is ‘16’.

32.In view of the Judgment of the Apex Court in National Insurance

Corporation vs. Pranay Sethi 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC), petitioners would be entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and first petitioner is entitled to Rs.40,000/- towards filial consortium.

If the deceased had been alive he would have a prospective future and the earnings would have increased. As deceased was not on permanent job and though employment is a temporary employment, the increase in future prospects will be by 40% as the deceased was aged less than 40 years. The compensation to which the petitioners are entitled to is calculated as under:

Page 13 of 15 MVOP 60 of 2023 PDJ, Jangaon

Description Calculation Amount in Rs.

Income per monthRs.10,400/-10,400/-

Income per annumRs.10,400 x 121,24,800/-

Future prospects at 40%(124800 x 40/100) = 49,920/- 1,24,800 + 49,9201,74,720/-

Personal expenses @1/4thRs.1,74,720 / 443,680/-

Contribution to family 3/4thRs.43,680 x 31,31,040/-

Multiplier16

Compensation on applying multiplier 1,31,040 x 1620,96,640/-

Consortium to petitioner No.140,000/-

Funeral Expenses15,000/-

Loss of Estate15,000/-

Total Compensation 21,66,640/-

33.Thus, the “Just compensation” to which the petitioners are entitled to from respondents No.1 and 2 is Rs.21,66,640/- (Rupees Twenty-one lakhs Sixty-six thousand Six hundred Forty only). This Issue is answered accordingly.

Issue No.4:

34.In view of the findings given in Issues No.1 to 3, I hold that respondents

No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay a compensation of

Rs.21,66,640/- (Rupees Twenty-one lakhs Sixty-six thousand Six hundred Forty only) and with proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5 % per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit.

Page 14 of 15 MVOP 60 of 2023 PDJ, Jangaon

35.The petition is dismissed against Respondents No.3 and 4 insurance company.

36.IN THE RESULT, the claim is Allowed partly with costs and interest in favor of the claimant and Award is passed in the following terms:

1. Respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay a compensation of Rs.21,66,640/- (Rupees Twenty-one lakhs Sixty-six thousand Six hundred Forty only) with proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit.

2. Respondents No.1 and 2 shall deposit said Compensation amount within two months from the date of Award.

3. The petition is dismissed against Respondents No.3 and 4/insurance company.

4. Out of total compensation awarded, an amount of Rs.16,66,640/- (Rupees Sixteen lakhs Sixty-six thousand Six hundred Forty only)is apportioned in favour of petitioner No.1, An amount of Rs.2,00,000/- each (Rupees Two lakh only) each is awarded in favour of petitioners No.2 and 3 (minors).

5. On such deposit of the compensation amount, petitioner No.1 is entitled to withdraw an amount of Rs.14,66,640/- (Rupees Fourteen lakhs Sixty-six thousand Six hundred Forty only) with entire proportionate interest and costs and the remaining amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs only) shall be kept in her name in a Nationalized Bank in the form of interest generating Fixed Deposit for a period of two years.

6. The awarded amount of petitioner Nos.2 and 3 (minors) shall be kept in Fixed Deposit in any Nationalized Bank till they attain majority.

7. An amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) is awarded in favour of petitioner No.4. On such deposit, petitioner No.4 is permitted to withdraw entire amount apportioned in his favour.

8. Petitioner shall pay the deficit Court fee, if any undertaken to be paid later at the time of registration of petition, and over and above the

Page 15 of 15 MVOP 60 of 2023 PDJ, Jangaon compensation amount claimed, within fifteen (15) days from today. Decree be prepared accordingly.

9. Advocate’s fee is fixed at Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only).

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, Corrected and Pronounced by

Me in open Court on this the 27th day of April, 2026.

Sd/-XXXX

PRL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

JANGAON.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PETITIONERS: FOR THE RESPONDENTS:

PW1 : Pittala RevathiRW1 : Sanjeeva Aniervedi PW2 : Edunuri BixapathiRW2 : N. Vijender Reddy

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PETITIONERS:

Ex.P1Dt. 13-07-2023Certified copy of FIR along with complaint.

Ex.P2Dt. 14-07-2023Certified copy of Inquest Report.

Ex.P3Dt. 14-07-2023Certified copy of Post Mortem Examination Report.

Ex.P4Dt. 13-07-2023Certified copy of Crime Detail Form.

Ex.P5Dt. 29-09-2023Certified copy of Charge Sheet.

FOR THE RESPONDENTS:

Ex.B1Certified copy of Insurance Policy.

Ex.B2Copy of authorized letter issued in favour of DTO.

Ex.B3Driving License of Kola Harikumar.

Ex.B4Form-24 extract of vehicle bearing No.AP36X6456.

Sd/-XXXX

PRL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

JANGAON.

IN THE COURT OF THE FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT FOR

EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL AND DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND PROTECTION OF

CHILDREN AGAINST SEXUAL OFFENCES (POCSO) ACT CASES AT

JANGAON.

PRESENT: SMT. B. PRATHIMA

Prl. Sessions Judge, Jangaon. FAC: Spl Judge for expeditious trial and disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases,

JANGAON

Tuesday, 31 st DAY OF MARCH, 2026

SC (POCSO) No.11 of 2023

: The State of Telangana through Sub-Inspector of Name of the Complainant Police, Devaruppala.

: Nalla Kranthi S/o Kistaiah, Age: 25 years, Name of the Accused Caste: Madiga, Occ: Car Driver, R/o Neermal Village of Devaruppula Mandal, Jangaon District.

: Section 354-D, 363 IPC and Sec.11 r/w 12 of Offences Under Section POCSO Act.

: NOT GUILTY Plea of the Accused : NOT GUILTY Finding of the Court : IN THE RESULT, Accused is found Not Sentence or Order

Guilty for the offences punishable under Section 354-D, 363 of Indian Penal Code and Section 11 read with 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

Accordingly, Accused is acquitted under

Page 2 of 12 SC POCSO 11 of 2023

SPL JUDGE, JANGAON

Section 235(1) of CrPC. Bail bonds of the Accused stand canceled subject to Section 437-A of CrPC. There is no case property in this case.

: Sri K.Harischandra Prasad Counsel for Prosecution I/C Spl. Public Prosecutor : Sri G. Naga Rajeshwar Rao Counsel for Defence

This case came before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. K.Harischandra Prasad, Spl. Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri G. Naga Rajeshwar Rao, Counsel for Accused; and after hearing both sides and after perusing the material on record to till this day, this Court delivered the following:

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1.Sole accused stands charged for the offences U/Sec. 354-D, 363 of Indian Penal

Code and Sec.11 r/w 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 which are the offence of kidnapping and stalking minor victim girl.

Case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:

2.1Complainant is having two children. One daughter and one son. Her daughter is studying intermediate in ABV college, Jangaon. On 19.12.2022 at 09-00 AM, her daughter and son as usual went to college and only her son came in the evening at 07-00 PM. Complainant questioned her son about her daughter. Her son answered that his sister came to him and stated that she is going home as her classes completed at 04-00 PM and you come home and left the college. Her daughter did not come home.

She enquired about her daughter but could not trace out her daughter. Her daughter was wearing violet color chudidhar, white color pant, blue color sweater. Complainant

Page 3 of 12 SC POCSO 11 of 2023

SPL JUDGE, JANGAON

requested to take necessary action.

2.2Basing on the above complaint, LW10 M.Ramesh, SI of Police, PS

Devaruppula registered a case in Cr. No.194/2022 U/Sec. 363 IPC and issued FIR and sent copies to all the concerned and took up investigation.

2.3During the course of investigation, LW10 examined and recorded 161 CrPC statements of LW1 Mother of victim girl and LW2 Brother of victim girl at PS

Devaruppula and proceeded to the scene of offence i.e., Neermala village in the presence of two mediators LW7 Md. Razak and LW8 Md.Sazahan and incorporated the physical features of scene in Crime Detail Form.

2.4While efforts were in progress, on 21.12.2022 at 07-00 PM, LW3 victim girl came to PS and disclosed her identity. LW4 S.Rajakumari, WPC 1689 of PS

Palakurthy examined and recorded 161 CrPC statement of victim girl. LW10 addressed a requisition letter to LW6 P.Umarani, Superintendent, Woman & Child

Welfare Sakhi Center, Jangaon for safe custody of victim girl and LW6 joined at her safe custody at Sakhi Center. After recording 161 CrPC statement of Victim girl,

LW10 added the section of law 354(D) IPC and Section 11 r/w 12 of POCSO Act, 2012 to Section 363 IPC and submitted Section adding report to Hon’ble Court and copies to all concerned.

2.5LW10 addressed a requisition to LW5 Kankaraju, Principal of ABV Junior

College, Jangaon to furnish date of birth certificate of LW3 victim girl. LW5 issued

Attested SSC Memo as per the records of college. On receiving reliable information on 31.12.2022, LW10 apprehended the accused at his house at Neermal village at 08-00 AM and on interrogation, accused confessed to have committed the offence and he was brought to PS at 09-30 AM and LW10 issued arrest memo.

Page 4 of 12 SC POCSO 11 of 2023

SPL JUDGE, JANGAON

2.6From the evidence collected during the course of investigation, it is established that accused committed an offences punishable U/Sec.363, 354-D Indian Penal Code and Sec.11 r/w 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

3.The case was taken on file for the offences U/Sec. 363, 354-D Indian Penal

Code and Sec.11 r/w 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 against accused by the Prl. Sessions Court, Jangaon and was transferred to Fast Track

Special Court for Expeditious Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act cases for disposal in accordance with law.

4.After hearing learned Spl. Public Prosecutor and Learned counsel for the accused, charges for the offences under Sections 363, 354-D Indian Penal Code and

Sec.11 r/w 12 of POCSO Act were framed against accused, read over and explained to him in Telugu, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The plea of the accused is one of total denial.

5.During the course of trial, prosecution examined PW1 to PW7 and got marked

Ex.P1 to P9.

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, accused was examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating evidence appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, he denied the same and reported no defence evidence. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of accused.

7.I have gone through the written arguments filed by learned counsel for accused.

Learned counsel for accused relied upon the following Authorities -

1. Tilku @ Tilak Singh Vs. The State of Uttarakhand, 2025 INSC 226 : (2025) 1 Law Herald (SC) 683.

Page 5 of 12 SC POCSO 11 of 2023

SPL JUDGE, JANGAON

2. Manak Chand @ Mani Vs. The State of Haryana, 2023 AIR(SC) 5600.

3. Keerti Gupta and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, Misc. Bench

No.4158 of 2016.

4. Mohammad Chand Vs. State of Haryana, (2018) 2 JCC 828.

8.The defence of accused as gathered from his examination under section 229

CrPC, his examination under Section 313 CrPC and the tenor of cross-examination of prosecution witnesses is one of total denial and a stand is taken that due to caste differences and previous disputes, false case is foisted against the accused.

9. The point for determination is -

Whether prosecution proved the guilt of accused for the offences

punishable under Sec.363, 354-D IPC and Sec.11 r/w 12 of

POCSO Act, 2012,Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:

10.According to the prosecution, during the month of December, 2022, LW3 victim girl was studying Intermediate 2nd Year in ABV Junior College, that since one year before lodging the complaint, victim used to go college and return from college by bus, accused Nalla Kranti used to follow her by saying delusive words that he loves her, after few days victim girl fell in love with accused, they started to talk to each other, they used to meet at college of LW3, on knowing the same, LW1 mother of victim girl warned the victim girl not to repeat such things, but victim girl did not hear her mother and repeated to do the same, accused tattoed victim girl’s name on his hand, LW2 brother of victim girl on knowing the same, admonished her and stated that he will say to his mother.

Page 6 of 12 SC POCSO 11 of 2023

SPL JUDGE, JANGAON

11.It is also the case of prosecution that on 19.12.2022, accused called victim girl and asked her to come to bus stand after completion of college and they will go somewhere and get married, victim girl after completion of her college, went to bus stand, accused took her to Hyderabad by Bus, they both proceeded to house of aunt of accused (pinni) at Ramanthapur, aunt of accused explained them not to marry, as it was night they stayed there and on the next day afternoon at 12-30 PM, they returned to Jangaon, accused dropped her at Jangaon bus stand, victim girl did not report sexual harassment on her by the accused.

To prove the charge U/Sec. 363 IPC, prosecution should establish that on 19.12.2020 at about 04-00 PM, accused kidnapped the minor victim girl from her house situated at Neermala Village of Devaruppula Mandal by enticing her in the name of love and took her to Hyderabad.

To prove the offence U/Sec. 354-D IPC, prosecution should establish that on 19.12.2020, at about 04-00 PM, accused stalked minor victim girl in the name of love.

To prove the offence U/Sec. 11 r/w 12 of POCSO Act, prosecution should establish that accused stalked the minor victim girl in the name of love and harassed her sexually in the name of love.

12.The case of prosecution is based on direct as well as circumstantial evidence.

PW1 is mother of victim girl, she stated that her husband died long back due to ill health, her son was studying intermediate 1st year and her daughter was studying intermediate 2nd year in ABV Junior College, Jangaon, they used to go to college together from their village.

13.Regarding what happened on the date when her daughter went missing, PW1 deposed that on 19.12.2022, her son and daughter as usual went to college, only her

Page 7 of 12 SC POCSO 11 of 2023

SPL JUDGE, JANGAON

son returned home, on enquiry her son stated that after completion of classes her daughter returned home told him him to come after his classes. PW1 deposed that they enquired for her daughter but in vain, on the next day they went to PS Devaruppula and lodged complaint and stated that they had suspicion on accused, on the same day victim girl came back to their house. Through PW1 prosecution got marked Ex.P1 as the complaint dt.20.12.2022 lodged by her. A perusal of Ex.P1 complainant shows that it contains the same allegations made by PW1 before the court. However, Ex.P1 complaint does not mention the name of any suspect or the accused as the suspect.

14.PW2 is younger brother of victim girl. At the time of giving evidence before the court, he is shown to be aged 18 years and studying B.Tech. PW2 deposed that in the year 2022 he was studying intermediate 1st year and LW3 victim girl was studying intermediate 2nd year, they used to go to college in RTC Bus together from their village, on 19.12.2022, they went to college together, at about 04-00 PM, his sister informed that she was going back home and left the college and after completion of exam, he went to his house at about 07-00 PM, his mother asked him why his sister did not come, then they enquired with the relatives and could not trace the whereabouts of the victim, on the next day they lodged complaint stating that they had suspicion on accused, as accused tattoed name of his sister with her date of birth.

15.Both PW1 and PW2 were thoroughly cross-examined by the learned counsel

for accused. The exact date of birth of victim girl was not given by PW1 and PW2 in

their evidence. They both stated that victim girl was studying intermediate 2nd year.

Thus, the age of victim girl in the year 2022 appears to be 17 years. The evidence of

LW3 victim girl could not be recorded as she reportedly died by committing suicide.

16.PW6 is examined as Principal of ABV Junior College, Jangaon. Through PW6, prosecution got marked Ex.P3 as Attested copy of SSC Certificate of Victim girl. PW6 deposed that in the year 2022, SI of police Devarappula asked him to give date of birth

Page 8 of 12 SC POCSO 11 of 2023

SPL JUDGE, JANGAON

particulars of their student i.e., Victim girl in a sealed cover and he gave the same to police. Learned counsel for accused raised objection for marking Ex.P3 on the ground that it is attested copy of SSC Certificate of Victim girl. This court observes that original certificate will be with college authorities and the SSC Certificate given by them as true copy can be received as evidence.

17.As per Ex.P3, date of birth of victim girl is given as 30.09.2005. When calculated, the age of victim girl in the month of December, 2022 comes to 17 years 3 months. Thus, victim girl is on the cusp of attaining majority at the time she went missing. The evidence of PW1 and PW2 has to be appreciated keeping in mind that at the time of incident, the victim herself was aged more than 17 years and the accused is shown to be aged around 24 years. It is important to note that Ex.P1 complaint does not mention the name of any suspect or the accused as a suspect. PW1 gave the reason of non-mentioning the name of accused in the complaint as for the sake of future of her daughter, she did not mention the name of accused. In her cross-examination,

PW1 deposed that her son and daughter used to go college at 09-00 AM and return home at 07-00 PM. She denied that she lodged false complaint and she is deposing false.

18.Coming to cross-examination of PW2, he deposed that himself and his mother went to police station. PW2 was questioned regarding the time taken for recording his statement. PW2 answered that he do not remember the time taken for recording his statement.

19.PW2 further deposed that about 10 students i.e., himself and his sister and others used to come from their village to ABV Junior college, Jangaon, his class room in the college was in the ground floor where as the class room of victim was located on the top floor, the exam was a slip test, he was writing the exam in the college ground, her sister informed him that she is going home, the college timings are from 09-00 AM

Page 9 of 12 SC POCSO 11 of 2023

SPL JUDGE, JANGAON

to 04-45 PM depending upon the group, he is MPC student where as his sister was

CEC student.

20.It was suggested to PW2 that his sister did not inform him anything and they did not search any places and he did not go to his house at 07-00 PM. It was further suggested to PW2 that accused did not put any tattoo of the victim with her date of birth on his hand. PW2 denied all said suggestions. Interestingly, when questioned if they had searched any place for her sister on that day, PW2 answered that they did not search any place. It is seen from the evidence of PW1 and PW2 that both stated that they enquired about their daughter/sister with their their relatives and could not trace the whereabouts of the victim girl. It is not their case that they searched for the victim girl on that day night. Thus, it is apparent that there was no search made for the vicitm girl from the time she was allegedly found to be missing. It was elicited in the cross- examination of PW2 that SC colony where accused resides is on one side of the road and house of PW1 is located on the one side of the road. This court observes that

Accused and victim are residing so proximate to each other, there is every possibility for them to have acquaintance with each other.

21.PW3 is examined as Multipurpose Assistant, Sakhi Center, Jangaon, who deposed about victim girl being brought to Sakhi Center. She deposed that on 21.12.202 around 12-30 PM, WPC from Devarappula brought victim girl to Sakhi

Center, they have short stay shelter at Sakhi Center, victim girl was sent to them under a covering letter by SI Devarappula to lodge the victim girl in the center for that night, they lodged her for that night. In her cross-examination, PW3 deposed that police did not examine her. She further stated that only if victim girl is not interested to go to her parents house, the victim girl will be lodged with them. According to the prosecution, in this case after the victim girl was traced, she was lodged for the night at Sakhi

Center. Accused tried to bring before the Court that even after the victim girl returned

Page 10 of 12 SC POCSO 11 of 2023

SPL JUDGE, JANGAON

back by herself, she did not show interest to go to her parents and as she was not willing to go to her parents house, she was taken to Sakhi Centre for stay in the night after she returned back.

22.PW4 is examined as one of the two witnesses in whose presence police were said to have conducted the crime scene panchanama. It is not the case of prosecution that crime scene panchanama would offer any clues regarding the alleged kidnap of victim girl.

23.PW5 is Woman Police constable who reportedly examined and recorded the 161 CrPC statement of victim girl. She deposed that on 21.12.2022, their SI gave instructions to him to record the statement of missing girl i.e., victim girl, she recorded her statement at Jangaon police station under section 161 CrPC and she handover the statement to SI of police, her SI recorded her statement. In her cross-examination,

PW5 deposed that she recorded the statement of the victim girl when she was brought to police station around 06-00 PM, there was no written instructions to her and her SI did not give any 161 CrPC proforma. Evidently, 161 CrPC statement of victim girl/deceased do not contain the crime number, police station and date of examination of recording the statement. PW5 further deposed that at the time of recording statement, only herself and victim girl were present.

24. PW7 is the investigating officer, who deposed on the lines of charge sheet filed by him.

25.There is only the evidence of PW1 and PW2, which is not direct evidence.

None is examined to speak about the victim girl and the accused talking to each other on that day or that the victim girl was last seen in the company of accused. Even, regarding the kidnapping of victim girl and accused taking victim girl to the house of aunt of accused, there is absolutely no evidence. The aunt of accused is not examined

Page 11 of 12 SC POCSO 11 of 2023

SPL JUDGE, JANGAON

by the prosecution. The evidence on record is absolutely not sufficient to hold that accused kidnapped the minor victim girl. In the first place, there is no evidence of anyone kidnapping the victim girl.

26.Coming to the other two aspects i.e. stalking a minor girl i.e., Kidnapping of victim girl in this case, there is no evidence in support of said fact also. There is no single statement of PW2 that he saw accused interacting with his sister when they were going to college or returning from college, so that PW2 entertained a suspicion against the accused. The evidence of PW1 and PW2 at the most is superficial evidence and it is not even hearsay evidence. I hold that there is absolutely no evidence to find the accused guilty of any offence.

27.IN THE RESULT, Accused is found Not Guilty for the offences punishable under Section 354-D, 363 of Indian Penal Code and Section 11 read with 12 of

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

Accordingly, Accused is acquitted under Section 235(1) of CrPC. Bail bonds of the Accused stand canceled subject to Section 437-A of CrPC. There is no case property in this case.

Dictated to Stenography knowing Typist, Transcribed by him, Corrected and

Pronounced by Me in the Open Court, on this the 31st day of March, 2026.

Sd/-xxx

SPL. JUDGE FOR POCSO ACT CASES

JANGAON

Page 12 of 12 SC POCSO 11 of 2023

SPL JUDGE, JANGAON

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: PW1 : Mother of Victim girl -NONE- PW2 : Brother of Victim girl PW3 : P.Uma Rani PW4 : Md.Razak PW5 : Rajkumari PW6 : K.Kanakaraju PW7 : M.Ramesh

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1: Complaint Ex.P2: Crime Detail Form along with rough sketch. Ex.P3: Attested copy of SSC Certificate of B.Manisha along with Covering letter of police Ex.P4: FIR Ex.P5: Scene of offence panchanama along with rough sketch Ex.P6: 161 CrPC statement of victim girl Ex.P7: CD Ex.P8: The Section Addition Memo Ex.P9: 164 CrPC statement of victim girl

FOR DEFENCE :

- None -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- None -

Sd/-xxx

SPL. JUDGE FOR POCSO ACT CASES

JANGAON