1 OF 7 S.S.C.No. 96 OF 2020
IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER
PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT-CUM-
I-ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, WARANGAL
Monday, this the 23rd day of May, 2022.
PRESENT: Sri B.Suresh,
Special Judge for Trial of Cases under
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act-cum-I-Addl.Sessions Judge Warangal.
SPL. SESSIONS CASE No.96/2020 in Crime No.209/2020 of P.S. Inthezargunj.
1.Name and description of the :The State of Telangana rep. by complainant.Sub Inspector of Police, Inthezargunj P.S.
2.Name and description of the :Ketharashi Vishnu, S/o.Ramesh, accusedAge: 18 years, Caste: Madiga, Occu: Business, R/o.H.No.10-1- 111/2, Girmajipet, Warangal.
3.Offences charged:Offences punishable under Sec.354D of I.P.C., Sec.11 r/w 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
4.Plea of the accused:Pleaded not guilty.
5.Finding of the Court: Accused is found not guilty for the charges under Sec.354D of I.P.C., Sec.11 r/w 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Accordingly, the accused is acquitted under Sec.232 of Cr.P.C. The bonds and bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for six months, as provided under Sec.437A Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.
6.Conviction,sentenceor :Acquittal acquittal
7.Name of the Counsel for the :Sri M.Satyanarayana, prosecutionAddl.P.P.
8.Name of the Counsel for :Sri C.Vidya Sagar Reddy, accusedAdvocate
This case is coming on 20-05-2022 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri M.Satyanarayana, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State/complainant and of Sri C.Vidya Sagar Reddy, Counsel for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:
2 OF 7 S.S.C.No. 96 OF 2020
J U D G M E N T
1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Inthezargunj P.S., filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.209/2020 for the offences under
Sec.354D of I.P.C., and Sec.11 r/w 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
2.The brief averments of the charge sheet, as per the S.I.of Police,
Inthezargunj P.S., are that on 28-07-2020 at 15:00 hours, PW1 / defacto complainant was the mother of the victim girl came to the
Police Station and lodged a report stating that her daughter was aged about 14 years and studying 9th Class in Golden Threshold
High School, Girmajipet, Warangal; and since three months, her neighbour i.e., accused herein was following her daughter demanding to love him as he is loving her; and that on 27-07-2020 at about 17:00 hours, the accused came infront of house of PW1 in a drunken condition, abused her in filthy language, threatened her daughter to love him, as such, she lodged a report requesting to take necessary action against the accused.
3.The said report is registered as a case in Crime No.209/2020 for the offence under Sec.354D of I.P.C., and Sec.11 r/w 12 of POCSO
Act and investigated into it. During the course of investigation, the
Investigating Officer herein i.e., M.Srinivas (LW10), S.I.of Police examined PW1, recorded her statement and thereafter, he sent a requisition to the Inspector of Police, Incharge of Barosa Center,
Hanamkonda, Warangal Urban for recording the statement of 3 OF 7 S.S.C.No. 96 OF 2020 victim girl, accordingly, D.Sreelaxmi (LW4) examined the victim girl and recorded her statement; K.Srilatha (LW5) Videographed the statement of victim girl and thereafter, he visited the scene of offence situated at the house of PW1, secured the presence of
Eega Raju (LW3), examined him and recorded his statement and thereafter, observed the scene of offence and prepared the scene of offence panchanama in the presence of mediators i.e., Ellavula
Jayapal (LW6) and Kommu Suresh (LW7).
4.On 29-07-2020, on reliable information with regard to the presence of the accused at his house, M.Srinivas (LW10), S.I.of
Police, rushed to the house of the accused and apprehended him and interrogated him, at that time, he voluntarily confessed to have committed this offence and thereafter, he was brought to the
Police Station, affected his arrest and send him to the Court for remand. On 02-08-2020, M.Srinivas (LW10), filed a requisition
before the II-Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Warangal (LW9) for recording
the statement of the victim girl, accordingly, LW9 (Kum.Rita
Lalchand), recorded the statement of the victim girl. During the course of investigation, M.Srinivas (LW10) visited Golden
Threshold High School, Girmajipet, Warangal and obtained the date of birth certificate of the victim girl.
5.So, through the investigation, it establishes the fact that the accused herein has committed an offence punishable under
Sec.354D of I.P.C., and Sec. 11 r/w 12 of POCSO Act.
4 OF 7 S.S.C.No. 96 OF 2020
6.My learned predecessor took cognizance for the offences punishable under Sec.354D of I.P.C., Sec.11 r/w 12 of Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 against accused, secured the presence of the accused, supplied him with the copies of documents as provided under Sec.207 of the Cr.P.C., examined him under Sec.228(1) Cr.P.C. After hearing the learned Addl.P.P., the charges under Sec.354D of I.P.C., Sec.11 r/w 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 against the accused was framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
7.In its attempt to prove the complicity of the accused, the prosecution has examined PW1 and PW2, marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P3.
Understandably, as all the material witnesses turned hostile to the prosecution, the learned Addl.P.P. has given up the evidences of
Eega Raju (LW3), D.Sreelaxmi (LW4), K.Srilatha (LW5), Ellavula
Jayapal (LW6), Kommu Suresh (LW7), Mohmad Khaleel (LW8),
Kum.Rita Lalchand (LW9) and M.Srinivas (LW10). As there is no incriminating material appearing against the accused in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, his examination under
Sec.313 Cr.P.C. is dispensed with.
8.Heard the arguments of the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and the counsel for the accused.
5 OF 7 S.S.C.No. 96 OF 2020
9.Now the point for determination in this matter is whether the accused herein being a neighbour of victim girl, in the name of love, following the victim girl and also demanding her to love him and in a drunken condition he went in front of the house of the victim girl and abused their family members and threatened the victim girl to love him, as such, whether the prosecution herein could bring home the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under Sec.354D of I.P.C., and Sec.11 r/w 12 of
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 beyond all reasonable doubt ?”
10. Point: PW1 who is none other than the mother of the victim girl and PW2 is the victim girl herein. Whereas, the evidence of PW1 is that about one year back, there was a small quarrel between the family of the accused and her family with regard to their vegetable business; and on the advice of neighbors, she went to the Police Station and lodged a report against the accused and she just signed on the complaint, but she does not know the contents of the complaint and Ex.P1 is her signature on the complaint.
11. The victim girl i.e., PW2 stated that she do not know anything about the facts of this case and no one harassed her in the name of love.
12. As PW1 and PW2 failed to support the case of the prosecution, they have declared hostile and cross examined. In the cross examination, they stated that they did not state before the Police that the accused was harassing the victim girl and he came in a 6 OF 7 S.S.C.No. 96 OF 2020 drunken condition before their house and abused them in filthy language stating that the victim girl should love him as in Ex.P2 and Ex.P3. So, the mother of the victim girl as well as victim girl failed to support the case of the prosecution with regard to the accused harassing the victim girl and also abusing them in filthy language and threatening them that the victim girl should love him.
13. So, on careful perusal of the evidence of PW1 and PW2 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P3, there is no incriminating evidence appearing against the accused to establish the guilt of the accused for the charges alleged against him. Hence, the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt as the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The Point is, accordingly, answered in favour of the defence and against the prosecution.
14. In the result, accused is found not guilty for the charges under
Sec.354D of I.P.C., Sec.11 r/w 12 of Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Accordingly, the accused is acquitted under Sec.232 of Cr.P.C. The bonds and bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for six months, as provided under
Sec.437A Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.
(Dictated to Stenographer Grade – III, after her transcription, corrected and
pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 23rd day of May, 2022).
Sd/-.
SPECIAL JUDGE FOR PROTECTION OF
CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT
CUM- I ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,
WARANGAL.
7 OF 7 S.S.C.No. 96 OF 2020
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE : PW1 :Mother of the Victim-None- PW2 :Victim Girl
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1: Signature of PW1 on the Report, dated: 28-07-2020 Ex.P2: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW1 Ex.P3: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW2
FOR DEFENCE: Nil
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED: - Nil -.
Sd/-.
SPECIAL JUDGE FOR PROTECTION OF
CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT-CUM-
I-ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,
WARANGAL.