Smt. Chittibomma Ashalatha

1 of 13 SC No.529 of 2019

IN THE COURT OF FAST TRACK SPECIAL JUDGE FOR EXPEDITIOUS

TRIAL AND DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND POCSO ACT CASES,

MEDCHAL-MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT AT NEREDMET.

Friday, this the 15th day of May, 2026

Present:Smt. CHITTIBOMMA ASHALATHA

Fast Track Special Judge For Expeditious Trial And Disposal Of Rape And POCSO Act Cases Medchal-Malkajgiri District At Neredmet

Sessions Case No. 529 of 2019

1 Name of the complainantThe State of Telangana through Inspector of Police, Keesara Police Station 2 Name of the accusedMunigadapa Swamy, S/o.Late Yadagiri, Aged 20 years, Occ:Private Employee, R/o.H.No.1-76, SC Colony, Nagaram Village, Keesara Mandal, Medchal District.

3 Offences complained ofUnder Sections 417, 366, 376 of IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act , 2012.

4 Crime No. & Name of Police 370 of 2017 of PS Keesara Station 5 Plea of the accusedPleaded not guilty 6 Finding of the CourtFound not guilty.

7 Sentence or orderIn the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences under Section 417, 366, 376 of IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act, with which, he is charged, and he is accordingly, acquitted of the said offences, under Section 235(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. His bail bonds shall stand canceled after expiry of appeal time.

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. P.Srinivasa Chary, Special Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri. Rahul Mishra, Learned Counsel for the accused and upon hearing both sides and perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

2 of 13 SC No.529 of 2019

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

1.The Inspector of Police, Keesara Police Station has filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No. 370 of 2017 for the offences punishable under Section 417, 366, 376 of IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act , 2012.

2. The case of the prosecution as alleged in the charge sheet in brief is:

The complainant / mother of the victim/LW1 gave complaint on 05.10.2017 at 13:30 hours stating that on 04.08.2017 her daughter went to school and did not return, then she searched for her daughter and she came to know that the accused M. Swamy forcibly took her daughter and engaged in sexual intercourse with her without her consent and requested to take necessary action. Basing on the said petition, LW13/R.

Ravinder, Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Keesara registered a case in Cr.No.370 of 2017 under Section 417, 366, 376 of IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act, 2012. During the course of investigation, LW14/Sri. K. Chandra Shaker, Inspector of Police, PS

Kushaiguda recorded the statements of LW1/mother of victim, LW3/father of victim and LW5/witness. Later, LW14 addressed a letter to the Woman Inspector of Police to record the statement of LW2/victim who recorded the same, and then he referred the victim girl for medical examination through woman PC No.6988, where LW9 / Dr.

Radhika, Assistant Professor, conducted medical examination, collected material objects and sent the same to the FSL for analysis and report and that on 07.10.2017 at 10:30 hours, LW14 on credible information, apprehended the accused at SC Colony,

Nacharam, on interrogation, the accused admitted his guilt, therefore, the confession statement of the accused was recorded by securing the presence of LW6/Anjaneyulu

3 of 13 SC No.529 of 2019

and LW7 / Samba Shivudu and then the accused produced before the court for judicial custody and then LW14 handed over the CD file to LW15/Sri.M.Surendar, Inspector of Police, Keesara PS who took up further investigation, during the course of such investigation, the material objects collected from the victim girl were referred to the

FSL, where LW10 / Dr. S. Gouthami analysed and issued report and that he referred the accused for potency test, where LW11/Dr. Sharavan Kumar, Chairman Medical

Board, Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad, conducted potency test and issued report.

LW15 got recorded 164 Cr.P.C statement of the victim girl through Learned

Magistrate by filing a requisition. LW15 collected FSL report, the final opinion and

the bonafide certificate from LW8 / School Correspondent. The investigation reveals that the accused is neighbor of the victim/LW2 developed friendship with the victim and frequently contacting her. On 04.08.2017, he forcibly took her to Yadagirigutta, he performed marriage by tying a nuptial thread (Mangalsutra) around her neck then, took the victim to Bhuvanagiri kept there for 15 days, then to Jai Bhavani Coir

Industry in Rampally Village while residing there, as laborers for 22 days, the accused repeatedly engaged in forced sexual intercourse with the minor victim without her consent and that later the victim’s parents traced them on 05.10.2017 on their arrival the accused fled away. Thus, the accused is committed an offence and liable punishable under Section 417, 366, 376 of IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act, 2012.

Hence, the charge sheet.

3.Originally, the above charge sheet was filed in the Court of Hon’ble

Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Cyberabad where it was registered as S.C.No. 529 of

4 of 13 SC No.529 of 2019

2019 and later, the same was transferred to this Court, on being designated as the

Special Court for trial of cases under the POCSO Act, for trial.

4.Copies of documents were supplied to the accused as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. Upon consideration of the material on record and after hearing the learned Special Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused charges under Sections 417, 366, 376 of IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act , 2012 were framed against the accused, read over and explained to him, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.The prosecution, to prove its case against the accused, got examined PW1 to

PW4 and got exhibited Ex.P1 to Ex.P12.

6.PW1/Smt. N. Shreya, Woman Inspector of Police who recorded the statement of the Victim. PW2 and PW3 are the panch witnesses. PW4/Sri.M. Surender,

Inspector of Police, Keesara Police Station is the Investigating Officer in this case.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, when the accused was examined under

Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with reference to the incriminating material appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, he denied the same. He, however, did not choose to adduce any evidence on his behalf.

8.It is contended that the Learned Special Public Prosecutor, that the victim was a ‘child’ i.e., below the 18 years as on the date of commission of offence upon her and that the evidence on record is quite consistent and reliable and that there is also medical evidence in this case therefore, the accused can be convicted for the offences, with which, he is charged.

5 of 13 SC No.529 of 2019

9.On the other hand, it is contended by the learned Counsel for the accused that the victim was not a child as on the date of commission of alleged offence upon her and that the material witnesses were not examined and that there is no material on record to show that the accused has committed the alleged offence with which he is charged, hence basing on the evidence of PW4 alone, the accused cannot be convicted and he is entitled for acquittal.

10.On the basis of rival contentions, the following points are framed for determination:

1. Whether the victim was a ‘child’ as defined in Section 2(1)(d) of

the POCSO Act as on the date of commission of alleged offence upon her?

2. Whether the prosecution is able to prove its case against the accused for

the offence under Section 417, 366, 376 of IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act,

with which, he is charged?

3. To what relief ?

Point No.1 :

11.The allegation made against the accused is that, the accused committed sexual assault upon the victim which is an offence punishable under Section 4 of the POCSO

Act. From this provision it is obvious that the victim must be a child. Section 2(1)(d) of the POCSO Act defines 'child' as any person below the age of eighteen years. The burden is, therefore, on the prosecution to prove that the victim was a 'child' i.e., below the age of eighteen years, as on the date of commission of alleged offence upon her. In the charge sheet, the age of the victim is mentioned as 15 years. Further, as to the complaint the victim is aged 15 years. To support the version, PW4/Sri.M.

Surender, Inspector of Police, Keesara Police Station exhibited Ex.P12/Bonafide

Certificate of the victim, as to which the date of birth of victim/LW2 was on

6 of 13 SC No.529 of 2019

04.08.2002. The complaint is dated 05.10.2017. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that the victim was a ‘child’ as on the date of commission alleged offence upon her.

As there is no denial from the accused regarding the age of the victim girl thus this court considers that the victim was a ‘child’ i.e., below 18 years which is within meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of POCSO Act, as on the date of commission of alleged offence upon her. Thus, this point is answered accordingly in favour of the prosecution.

Point No.2:

12.The allegation made against the accused that the accused being neighbour to the victim, he developed acquaintance with her, taking advantage of the same under the guise of love and promise of marriage, he took the victim girl to Yadagirigutta and performed marriage by tying a nuptial thread (Mangalsutra) around her neck then he forcibly engaged in sexual intercourse with the victim without her consent and thereafter, her parents rescued the victim from the accused, thereby the accused committed punishable offence.

13.It is pertinent to note that on perusal of record, Police filed report that whereabouts of LW1 to LW3 are not known as to the docket dated 10-09-2024, basing on the said report the learned Special Public Prosecutor closed the evidence of LW1 to

LW3/ Victim and her parents. Further the police filed report stating that LW4 and

LW5 are not residing in the given address and are of Bihar State, as to the docket

dated 24-12-2025, basing on the said report the learned Special Public Prosecutor

closed the evidence of LW4 and LW5/ witnesses.

7 of 13 SC No.529 of 2019

14.To prove the case of the prosecution, the Woman Inspector of Police / Smt. N.

Shreya is examined as PW1 who stated before this court that on 05.10.2017, she received oral instructions from the Inspector of Police/LW14/Sri. K. Chandra Sekhar to record the statement of the victim/LW2, accordingly she reached Police Station

Keesara and recorded the statement of the victim at the Police Station, Keesara in the presence of the mother of the victim. PW1 further stated that the victim has stated

before her that “One Swamy got acquainted with her and that he started harassing her

in the name of love and that the victim accepted the proposal made by the accused and that on 04.08.2017 the said Swamy came and proposed that they should go away and get married and that accused took her to Yadagirigutta and took one room and kept her there. PW1 further stated that on 07.08.2017 at Yadagirigutta, he married her then he took her to Bhongir Bus stop and nearby he took one room on rent and they lived there for 15 days and that the accused was doing mason work for livelihood and again the accused brought her to RL Nagar, Rampally there he took a room and that they already married 15 days ago, the accused forcibly had sexual intercourse with her without her will. PW1 further stated that the victim further stated before her that then the accused took her to his maternal uncle's village, i.e., Garkapatla Village,

Markuk Mandal, there he kept her in a hut and that on 05.10.2017 her parents came there and the accused run away seeing them and then her parents brought her to the

Police Station.”

8 of 13 SC No.529 of 2019

15.During cross-examination, PW1 admitted that the time of recording the statement of the victim is not mentioned. PW1 denied the suggestion that she has recorded false statement of the victim on the instructions against the accused.

16.Later, the panch witness //D. Anjaneyulu, is examined as PW2 who stated that he knows LW7/R. Sambashivudu and he visited Keesara Police Station because his lorry was there, at that time, the Sub-Inspector of Police requested him to sign on a paper stating that, the accused married a girl, therefore he signed. PW2 admitted his signature on scene of offence panchanama – cum-seizure panchanama, hence the said signature of PW2 is marked as Ex.P1. PW2 further stated that no scene of offence cum seizure panchanama was conducted.

16. Later the another panch witness /R. Sambashivudu is examined as PW3 who stated in his chief examination that he went to Keesara PS on his personal work about 3 to 4 years back and that himself and PW2 signed on the instructions of the CI of

Police, Keesara and that they do not know the said documents. PW3 identified his signatures on the scene of offence panchanama and the confession panchanama the said signatures of PW3 are marked as Ex.P1 and Ex.P3.

17.With the above noticed evidence of prosecution witnesses / PW2 and PW3, the

Learned Special Public Prosecutor sought permission of this court to declare the said

PW2 and PW3 as hostile as they did not support the version of the prosecution.

Perused the record and permitted by this court. Thereafter, the learned Special Public

Prosecutor cross examined the PW2 and PW3 but failed to elicit anything from them except denied suggestions.

9 of 13 SC No.529 of 2019

18.Later, Sri. M. Surendar, Inspector of Police, Keesara Police Station stated in his chief examination as PW4 that on 05.10.2017, LW13/R. Ravinder, SI of Police

Keesara received a complaint given by the mother of the victim/LW1 registered it as a case in Crime No.370 of 2017 under sections 417, 366, 376 of IPC and Section 4 of

POCSO Act and issued the FIR and later, LW14/Sri. K. Chandra Shekhar, Inspector of

Police took up the CD file from LW13 and that during the course of investigation,

LW14 recorded the statements of LW1, LW3/father of victim and LW5/witness. PW4 further stated that LW14 directed PW1 to record the statement of LW2/victim, who recorded the same then LW14 referred the victim girl for medical examination through woman PC No. 6988, where LW9 / Dr. Radhika of Gandhi Hospital,

Secunderabad, conducted the medical examination and collected material objects to be sent to the FSL for analysis and report. PW4 further stated that on 07.10.2017 at 10:30 hours, LW14, on credible information, apprehended the accused at SC Colony,

Nacharam on interrogation, the accused admitted his guilt, thereby the confession statement of the accused was recorded in the presence of LW6/Anjaneyulu and LW7 /

Samba Shivudu and that the accused produced before the court and remanded to judicial custody later LW14 handed over the CD file to him. PW4 further stated that during the course of further investigation, the material objects collected from the victim girl were referred to the FSL, where LW10/Dr. S. Gouthami had conducted the analysis and issued report and that he referred the accused for potency test, where

LW11/Dr. Sharavan Kumar, Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad, conducted such test and issued report. PW4 further stated that he got recorded 164 Cr.P.C statement of the

10 of 13 SC No.529 of 2019

victim girl through Learned Magistrate by filing a requisition and that after the collection of the FSL report, the final report from LW9, and the bonafide certificate from LW8 / School and completion of the investigation, he filed charge-sheet.

19.PW4 exhibited Ex.P4 is the complaint dated 05.10.2017. Ex.P5 is the FIR

dated 05.10.2017. Ex.P6 is the confession panchanama. Ex.P7 is the scene of offence

cum seizure panchanama. Ex.P8 is the final opinion. Ex.P9 is the medical examination of the victim girl. Ex.P10 is the potency test medical certificate of the accused. Ex.P11 is the FSL report dated 18.12.2017 and Ex.P12 is the bonafide certificate dated 27.07.2019.

20.During the cross examination of PW4 denied the suggestion that he conducted table investigation without verifying the statements of the witnesses and that the accused is no way connected with this case and that the accused never committed any offence and that charge sheet is filed falsely.

21.As already noticed above Police filed report stating that whereabouts of LW1 to LW3 /parents of victim and victim are not known as to the docket dated 10-09- 2024, basing on the said report the learned Special Public Prosecutor closed the evidence of LW1 to LW3/ Victim and her parents. Further the police filed report stating that LW4 and LW5 are not residing in the given address and are of Bihar State, as to the docket dated 24-12-2025, basing on the said report the learned Special Public

Prosecutor closed the evidence of LW4 and LW5/ witnesses.

22.On considering the evidence of PW1, the same is regarding recording Sec.161

Cr.P.C statement of the Victim/LW2 which is part of the investigation. The evidence

11 of 13 SC No.529 of 2019

of PW2 and PW3, who are Panch witnesses, did not support the version of the prosecution. The other evidence remained on record is the evidence of PW4 who is the Investigating Officer. His evidence to the effect of registering the case by the Sub-

Inspector of Police, examining the witnesses and his filing of charge sheet after investigation, which is formal in nature and do no way connect the accused with the alleged offences with which he is charged.

23. In these circumstances, the accused cannot be held guilty of the offences, with which, he is charged. Thus, this point is answered against the prosecution and in favour of the accused.

Point No.3: To What relief ?

24.As held in Point No.2, the prosecution failed to prove it’s case against the accused, hence, he is to be acquitted of the offences, with which, he is charged.

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences under Section 417, 366, 376 of IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act, with which, he is charged, and he is accordingly, acquitted of the said offences, under Section 235(1) of the Code of

Criminal Procedure. His bail bonds shall stand canceled after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 15 th day of May, 2026.

Fast Track Special Judge for Expeditious Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act cases,

Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Neredmet.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

12 of 13 SC No.529 of 2019

Prosution Name of the Witness Description / Role Witness No. PW1Smt. N. ShreyaWoman Inspector of Police

PW2Sri. D. AnjaneyuluPanch Witness for scene of offence

PW3Sri. R. SambashivuduPanch Witness for Confession Panchanama

PW4Sri. M. SurenderInspector of Police / Investigating Officer

DEFENCE WITNESS

Prosution Witness No. Name of the Witness Description / Role

DW-None--Nil-

EXHIBITED DOCUMENTS

Exhibit No. Description of the Exhibit Proved / Attested by

Signature of PW2 on the scene of offence Ex.P1PW2 panchanama cum seizure panchanama

Signature PW3 on the scene of offence Ex.P2PW3 panchanama

Ex.P3Signature of PW3 on the confession panchanamaPW3

Ex.P4Complaint dated 05.10.2017PW4

Ex.P5First Information Report (FIR) dated 05.10.2017PW4

Ex.P6Confession panchanamaPW4

Ex.P7Scene of offence cum seizure panchanamaPW4

Ex.P8Final OpinionPW4

Ex.P9Medical examination of the victim girlPW4

Ex.P10Potency test certificate of accusedPW4

13 of 13 SC No.529 of 2019

Exhibit No. Description of the Exhibit Proved / Attested by

Ex.P11FSL report dt:18-12-2017PW4

Ex.P12Bonafide certificate dated 27.07.2018PW4

MATERIAL OBJECTS

Material Object No. Description of the Exhibit Proved / Attested by

-Nil--Nil--Nil-

Fast Track Special Judge for Expeditious Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act cases, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Neredmet.

1 of 13 SC No.529 of 2019

IN THE COURT OF FAST TRACK SPECIAL JUDGE FOR EXPEDITIOUS

TRIAL AND DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND POCSO ACT CASES,

MEDCHAL-MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT AT NEREDMET.

Friday, this the 15th day of May, 2026

Present:Smt. CHITTIBOMMA ASHALATHA

Fast Track Special Judge For Expeditious Trial And Disposal Of Rape And POCSO Act Cases Medchal-Malkajgiri District At Neredmet

Sessions Case No. 529 of 2019

1 Name of the complainantThe State of Telangana through Inspector of Police, Keesara Police Station 2 Name of the accusedMunigadapa Swamy, S/o.Late Yadagiri, Aged 20 years, Occ:Private Employee, R/o.H.No.1-76, SC Colony, Nagaram Village, Keesara Mandal, Medchal District.

3 Offences complained ofUnder Sections 417, 366, 376 of IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act , 2012.

4 Crime No. & Name of Police 370 of 2017 of PS Keesara Station 5 Plea of the accusedPleaded not guilty 6 Finding of the CourtFound not guilty.

7 Sentence or orderIn the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences under Section 417, 366, 376 of IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act, with which, he is charged, and he is accordingly, acquitted of the said offences, under Section 235(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. His bail bonds shall stand canceled after expiry of appeal time.

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. P.Srinivasa Chary, Special Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri. Rahul Mishra, Learned Counsel for the accused and upon hearing both sides and perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

2 of 13 SC No.529 of 2019

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

1.The Inspector of Police, Keesara Police Station has filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No. 370 of 2017 for the offences punishable under Section 417, 366, 376 of IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act , 2012.

2. The case of the prosecution as alleged in the charge sheet in brief is:

The complainant / mother of the victim/LW1 gave complaint on 05.10.2017 at 13:30 hours stating that on 04.08.2017 her daughter went to school and did not return, then she searched for her daughter and she came to know that the accused M. Swamy forcibly took her daughter and engaged in sexual intercourse with her without her consent and requested to take necessary action. Basing on the said petition, LW13/R.

Ravinder, Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Keesara registered a case in Cr.No.370 of 2017 under Section 417, 366, 376 of IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act, 2012. During the course of investigation, LW14/Sri. K. Chandra Shaker, Inspector of Police, PS

Kushaiguda recorded the statements of LW1/mother of victim, LW3/father of victim and LW5/witness. Later, LW14 addressed a letter to the Woman Inspector of Police to record the statement of LW2/victim who recorded the same, and then he referred the victim girl for medical examination through woman PC No.6988, where LW9 / Dr.

Radhika, Assistant Professor, conducted medical examination, collected material objects and sent the same to the FSL for analysis and report and that on 07.10.2017 at 10:30 hours, LW14 on credible information, apprehended the accused at SC Colony,

Nacharam, on interrogation, the accused admitted his guilt, therefore, the confession statement of the accused was recorded by securing the presence of LW6/Anjaneyulu

3 of 13 SC No.529 of 2019

and LW7 / Samba Shivudu and then the accused produced before the court for judicial custody and then LW14 handed over the CD file to LW15/Sri.M.Surendar, Inspector of Police, Keesara PS who took up further investigation, during the course of such investigation, the material objects collected from the victim girl were referred to the

FSL, where LW10 / Dr. S. Gouthami analysed and issued report and that he referred the accused for potency test, where LW11/Dr. Sharavan Kumar, Chairman Medical

Board, Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad, conducted potency test and issued report.

LW15 got recorded 164 Cr.P.C statement of the victim girl through Learned

Magistrate by filing a requisition. LW15 collected FSL report, the final opinion and

the bonafide certificate from LW8 / School Correspondent. The investigation reveals that the accused is neighbor of the victim/LW2 developed friendship with the victim and frequently contacting her. On 04.08.2017, he forcibly took her to Yadagirigutta, he performed marriage by tying a nuptial thread (Mangalsutra) around her neck then, took the victim to Bhuvanagiri kept there for 15 days, then to Jai Bhavani Coir

Industry in Rampally Village while residing there, as laborers for 22 days, the accused repeatedly engaged in forced sexual intercourse with the minor victim without her consent and that later the victim’s parents traced them on 05.10.2017 on their arrival the accused fled away. Thus, the accused is committed an offence and liable punishable under Section 417, 366, 376 of IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act, 2012.

Hence, the charge sheet.

3.Originally, the above charge sheet was filed in the Court of Hon’ble

Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Cyberabad where it was registered as S.C.No. 529 of

4 of 13 SC No.529 of 2019

2019 and later, the same was transferred to this Court, on being designated as the

Special Court for trial of cases under the POCSO Act, for trial.

4.Copies of documents were supplied to the accused as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. Upon consideration of the material on record and after hearing the learned Special Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused charges under Sections 417, 366, 376 of IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act , 2012 were framed against the accused, read over and explained to him, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.The prosecution, to prove its case against the accused, got examined PW1 to

PW4 and got exhibited Ex.P1 to Ex.P12.

6.PW1/Smt. N. Shreya, Woman Inspector of Police who recorded the statement of the Victim. PW2 and PW3 are the panch witnesses. PW4/Sri.M. Surender,

Inspector of Police, Keesara Police Station is the Investigating Officer in this case.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, when the accused was examined under

Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with reference to the incriminating material appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, he denied the same. He, however, did not choose to adduce any evidence on his behalf.

8.It is contended that the Learned Special Public Prosecutor, that the victim was a ‘child’ i.e., below the 18 years as on the date of commission of offence upon her and that the evidence on record is quite consistent and reliable and that there is also medical evidence in this case therefore, the accused can be convicted for the offences, with which, he is charged.

5 of 13 SC No.529 of 2019

9.On the other hand, it is contended by the learned Counsel for the accused that the victim was not a child as on the date of commission of alleged offence upon her and that the material witnesses were not examined and that there is no material on record to show that the accused has committed the alleged offence with which he is charged, hence basing on the evidence of PW4 alone, the accused cannot be convicted and he is entitled for acquittal.

10.On the basis of rival contentions, the following points are framed for determination:

1. Whether the victim was a ‘child’ as defined in Section 2(1)(d) of

the POCSO Act as on the date of commission of alleged offence upon her?

2. Whether the prosecution is able to prove its case against the accused for

the offence under Section 417, 366, 376 of IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act,

with which, he is charged?

3. To what relief ?

Point No.1 :

11.The allegation made against the accused is that, the accused committed sexual assault upon the victim which is an offence punishable under Section 4 of the POCSO

Act. From this provision it is obvious that the victim must be a child. Section 2(1)(d) of the POCSO Act defines 'child' as any person below the age of eighteen years. The burden is, therefore, on the prosecution to prove that the victim was a 'child' i.e., below the age of eighteen years, as on the date of commission of alleged offence upon her. In the charge sheet, the age of the victim is mentioned as 15 years. Further, as to the complaint the victim is aged 15 years. To support the version, PW4/Sri.M.

Surender, Inspector of Police, Keesara Police Station exhibited Ex.P12/Bonafide

Certificate of the victim, as to which the date of birth of victim/LW2 was on

6 of 13 SC No.529 of 2019

04.08.2002. The complaint is dated 05.10.2017. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that the victim was a ‘child’ as on the date of commission alleged offence upon her.

As there is no denial from the accused regarding the age of the victim girl thus this court considers that the victim was a ‘child’ i.e., below 18 years which is within meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of POCSO Act, as on the date of commission of alleged offence upon her. Thus, this point is answered accordingly in favour of the prosecution.

Point No.2:

12.The allegation made against the accused that the accused being neighbour to the victim, he developed acquaintance with her, taking advantage of the same under the guise of love and promise of marriage, he took the victim girl to Yadagirigutta and performed marriage by tying a nuptial thread (Mangalsutra) around her neck then he forcibly engaged in sexual intercourse with the victim without her consent and thereafter, her parents rescued the victim from the accused, thereby the accused committed punishable offence.

13.It is pertinent to note that on perusal of record, Police filed report that whereabouts of LW1 to LW3 are not known as to the docket dated 10-09-2024, basing on the said report the learned Special Public Prosecutor closed the evidence of LW1 to

LW3/ Victim and her parents. Further the police filed report stating that LW4 and

LW5 are not residing in the given address and are of Bihar State, as to the docket

dated 24-12-2025, basing on the said report the learned Special Public Prosecutor

closed the evidence of LW4 and LW5/ witnesses.

7 of 13 SC No.529 of 2019

14.To prove the case of the prosecution, the Woman Inspector of Police / Smt. N.

Shreya is examined as PW1 who stated before this court that on 05.10.2017, she received oral instructions from the Inspector of Police/LW14/Sri. K. Chandra Sekhar to record the statement of the victim/LW2, accordingly she reached Police Station

Keesara and recorded the statement of the victim at the Police Station, Keesara in the presence of the mother of the victim. PW1 further stated that the victim has stated

before her that “One Swamy got acquainted with her and that he started harassing her

in the name of love and that the victim accepted the proposal made by the accused and that on 04.08.2017 the said Swamy came and proposed that they should go away and get married and that accused took her to Yadagirigutta and took one room and kept her there. PW1 further stated that on 07.08.2017 at Yadagirigutta, he married her then he took her to Bhongir Bus stop and nearby he took one room on rent and they lived there for 15 days and that the accused was doing mason work for livelihood and again the accused brought her to RL Nagar, Rampally there he took a room and that they already married 15 days ago, the accused forcibly had sexual intercourse with her without her will. PW1 further stated that the victim further stated before her that then the accused took her to his maternal uncle's village, i.e., Garkapatla Village,

Markuk Mandal, there he kept her in a hut and that on 05.10.2017 her parents came there and the accused run away seeing them and then her parents brought her to the

Police Station.”

8 of 13 SC No.529 of 2019

15.During cross-examination, PW1 admitted that the time of recording the statement of the victim is not mentioned. PW1 denied the suggestion that she has recorded false statement of the victim on the instructions against the accused.

16.Later, the panch witness //D. Anjaneyulu, is examined as PW2 who stated that he knows LW7/R. Sambashivudu and he visited Keesara Police Station because his lorry was there, at that time, the Sub-Inspector of Police requested him to sign on a paper stating that, the accused married a girl, therefore he signed. PW2 admitted his signature on scene of offence panchanama – cum-seizure panchanama, hence the said signature of PW2 is marked as Ex.P1. PW2 further stated that no scene of offence cum seizure panchanama was conducted.

16. Later the another panch witness /R. Sambashivudu is examined as PW3 who stated in his chief examination that he went to Keesara PS on his personal work about 3 to 4 years back and that himself and PW2 signed on the instructions of the CI of

Police, Keesara and that they do not know the said documents. PW3 identified his signatures on the scene of offence panchanama and the confession panchanama the said signatures of PW3 are marked as Ex.P1 and Ex.P3.

17.With the above noticed evidence of prosecution witnesses / PW2 and PW3, the

Learned Special Public Prosecutor sought permission of this court to declare the said

PW2 and PW3 as hostile as they did not support the version of the prosecution.

Perused the record and permitted by this court. Thereafter, the learned Special Public

Prosecutor cross examined the PW2 and PW3 but failed to elicit anything from them except denied suggestions.

9 of 13 SC No.529 of 2019

18.Later, Sri. M. Surendar, Inspector of Police, Keesara Police Station stated in his chief examination as PW4 that on 05.10.2017, LW13/R. Ravinder, SI of Police

Keesara received a complaint given by the mother of the victim/LW1 registered it as a case in Crime No.370 of 2017 under sections 417, 366, 376 of IPC and Section 4 of

POCSO Act and issued the FIR and later, LW14/Sri. K. Chandra Shekhar, Inspector of

Police took up the CD file from LW13 and that during the course of investigation,

LW14 recorded the statements of LW1, LW3/father of victim and LW5/witness. PW4 further stated that LW14 directed PW1 to record the statement of LW2/victim, who recorded the same then LW14 referred the victim girl for medical examination through woman PC No. 6988, where LW9 / Dr. Radhika of Gandhi Hospital,

Secunderabad, conducted the medical examination and collected material objects to be sent to the FSL for analysis and report. PW4 further stated that on 07.10.2017 at 10:30 hours, LW14, on credible information, apprehended the accused at SC Colony,

Nacharam on interrogation, the accused admitted his guilt, thereby the confession statement of the accused was recorded in the presence of LW6/Anjaneyulu and LW7 /

Samba Shivudu and that the accused produced before the court and remanded to judicial custody later LW14 handed over the CD file to him. PW4 further stated that during the course of further investigation, the material objects collected from the victim girl were referred to the FSL, where LW10/Dr. S. Gouthami had conducted the analysis and issued report and that he referred the accused for potency test, where

LW11/Dr. Sharavan Kumar, Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad, conducted such test and issued report. PW4 further stated that he got recorded 164 Cr.P.C statement of the

10 of 13 SC No.529 of 2019

victim girl through Learned Magistrate by filing a requisition and that after the collection of the FSL report, the final report from LW9, and the bonafide certificate from LW8 / School and completion of the investigation, he filed charge-sheet.

19.PW4 exhibited Ex.P4 is the complaint dated 05.10.2017. Ex.P5 is the FIR

dated 05.10.2017. Ex.P6 is the confession panchanama. Ex.P7 is the scene of offence

cum seizure panchanama. Ex.P8 is the final opinion. Ex.P9 is the medical examination of the victim girl. Ex.P10 is the potency test medical certificate of the accused. Ex.P11 is the FSL report dated 18.12.2017 and Ex.P12 is the bonafide certificate dated 27.07.2019.

20.During the cross examination of PW4 denied the suggestion that he conducted table investigation without verifying the statements of the witnesses and that the accused is no way connected with this case and that the accused never committed any offence and that charge sheet is filed falsely.

21.As already noticed above Police filed report stating that whereabouts of LW1 to LW3 /parents of victim and victim are not known as to the docket dated 10-09- 2024, basing on the said report the learned Special Public Prosecutor closed the evidence of LW1 to LW3/ Victim and her parents. Further the police filed report stating that LW4 and LW5 are not residing in the given address and are of Bihar State, as to the docket dated 24-12-2025, basing on the said report the learned Special Public

Prosecutor closed the evidence of LW4 and LW5/ witnesses.

22.On considering the evidence of PW1, the same is regarding recording Sec.161

Cr.P.C statement of the Victim/LW2 which is part of the investigation. The evidence

11 of 13 SC No.529 of 2019

of PW2 and PW3, who are Panch witnesses, did not support the version of the prosecution. The other evidence remained on record is the evidence of PW4 who is the Investigating Officer. His evidence to the effect of registering the case by the Sub-

Inspector of Police, examining the witnesses and his filing of charge sheet after investigation, which is formal in nature and do no way connect the accused with the alleged offences with which he is charged.

23. In these circumstances, the accused cannot be held guilty of the offences, with which, he is charged. Thus, this point is answered against the prosecution and in favour of the accused.

Point No.3: To What relief ?

24.As held in Point No.2, the prosecution failed to prove it’s case against the accused, hence, he is to be acquitted of the offences, with which, he is charged.

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences under Section 417, 366, 376 of IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act, with which, he is charged, and he is accordingly, acquitted of the said offences, under Section 235(1) of the Code of

Criminal Procedure. His bail bonds shall stand canceled after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 15 th day of May, 2026.

Fast Track Special Judge for Expeditious Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act cases,

Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Neredmet.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

12 of 13 SC No.529 of 2019

Prosution Name of the Witness Description / Role Witness No. PW1Smt. N. ShreyaWoman Inspector of Police

PW2Sri. D. AnjaneyuluPanch Witness for scene of offence

PW3Sri. R. SambashivuduPanch Witness for Confession Panchanama

PW4Sri. M. SurenderInspector of Police / Investigating Officer

DEFENCE WITNESS

Prosution Witness No. Name of the Witness Description / Role

DW-None--Nil-

EXHIBITED DOCUMENTS

Exhibit No. Description of the Exhibit Proved / Attested by

Signature of PW2 on the scene of offence Ex.P1PW2 panchanama cum seizure panchanama

Signature PW3 on the scene of offence Ex.P2PW3 panchanama

Ex.P3Signature of PW3 on the confession panchanamaPW3

Ex.P4Complaint dated 05.10.2017PW4

Ex.P5First Information Report (FIR) dated 05.10.2017PW4

Ex.P6Confession panchanamaPW4

Ex.P7Scene of offence cum seizure panchanamaPW4

Ex.P8Final OpinionPW4

Ex.P9Medical examination of the victim girlPW4

Ex.P10Potency test certificate of accusedPW4

13 of 13 SC No.529 of 2019

Exhibit No. Description of the Exhibit Proved / Attested by

Ex.P11FSL report dt:18-12-2017PW4

Ex.P12Bonafide certificate dated 27.07.2018PW4

MATERIAL OBJECTS

Material Object No. Description of the Exhibit Proved / Attested by

-Nil--Nil--Nil-

Fast Track Special Judge for Expeditious Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act cases, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Neredmet.

1 of 12 Spl.SC No.41 of 2021

IN THE COURT OF FAST TRACK SPECIAL JUDGE FOR EXPEDITIOUS

TRIAL AND DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND POCSO ACT CASES,

MEDCHAL-MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT AT NEREDMET.

Friday, this the 08th day of May, 2026

Present:Smt. CHITTIBOMMA ASHALATHA

Fast Track Special Judge For Expeditious Trial And Disposal Of Rape And POCSO Act Cases Medchal-Malkajgiri District At Neredmet

Sessions Case No. 41 of 20 21

1 Name of the complainantThe State of Telangana through Assistant Commissioner of Police, Malkajgiri Division, Rachakonda 2 Name of the accusedRevalli Vijay S/o.Revalli Yesu, Aged 19 years, Occ:Intermediate R/o.2-4-28/5A, Near Select, Old Alwal, Alwal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, N/o.Thummampeta Village, Achampet Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District 3 Offences complained ofUnder Section 366, 376(2)(n) IPC and Section 5 read with 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 4 Crime No. & Name of Police 624 of 2020 of PS Malkajgiri Station 5 Plea of the accusedPleaded not guilty 6 Finding of the CourtFound not guilty.

7 Sentence or orderIn the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences under Section 366, 376(2)(n) of IPC and Section 5(l) read with Section 6 of POCSO Act, with which, he is charged, and he is accordingly, acquitted of the said offences, under Section 235(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. His bail bonds shall stand canceled after expiry of appeal time.

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. P.Srinivasa Chary, Special Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri. G. Srinivas, Learned Counsel for the accused and upon hearing both sides and perusing the material on record and having stood over for

2 of 12 Spl.SC No.41 of 2021

consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

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

1.The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Malkajgiri Division, Rachakonda has filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.624 of 2020 for the offences punishable under Section 366, 376(2)(n) IPC and Section 5 read with 6 of POCSO

Act, 2012.

2. The case of the prosecution as alleged in the charge sheet in brief is: The

Sub-Inspector of Police, Malkajgiri PS Sri.J. Venkat Reddy, / LW21 received a petition on 20.09.2020 at 18:00 hours from the mother of the victim/LW1 stating that about two months back, affected with an ulcer on her right leg ankle and she got admitted in Shivanand Hospitals, Kukatpally, during that time, her daughter / victim informed her that LW4 / her junior paternal uncle reprimanded her when she (victim) found with the accused and she will not stay in the house till she discharged from the hospital and further informed that she will come back to home after she discharged from the hospital but even she discharged from the hospital the victim girl did not come to home, she searched in the area but of no use. Later, on 18.09.2020 she made a phone call to her daughter's boyfriend and classmate, on phone who replied that her daughter's health was not good and he took her to hospital for treatment and will bring her home on 19.09.2020. Thereafter, her daughter did not bring to home, and his phone was switched off. Hence the complainant requested to take necessary action.

Based on the said contents of the petition, LW21 registered a case in Cr. No. 624 of 2020 under Section 366 IPC and took up investigation. During the course of

3 of 12 Spl.SC No.41 of 2021

investigation, LW21 examined and recorded the statements of mother, junior paternal uncle and aunt /LW1 to LW4. LW21 visited the scene of offence at Malkajgiri, and secured the presence of two panch witnesses LW11/Prem Kumar and LW12/Srikanth conducted scene of offence panchanama and drew rough sketch. On 02.10.2020, the victim was traced, brought her to the Police Station along with LW1 to LW3. The victim girl explained the sexual exploitation committed upon her. Thereafter, LW21 referred the victim girl for medical examination to Government Hospital, Malkajgiri, where LW17/Dr. Sarah Seemen conducted the medical examination of the victim and issued report. LW17 collected vaginal swabs to send to FSL for analysis. LW17 conducted age determination test and opines that the victim was aged 16-17 years.

Later, LW20/Smt. G. Rajitha, Woman Inspector of Police, Saroornagar, recorded the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of the victim girl. Then, LW21 filed the section alteration memo before the concerned court by adding the sections of law under Section 376(2)

(n) of IPC and Section 5 read with 6 of POCSO Act. Later, on 03.10.2020 at 10:00 hours, the accused apprehended and brought him to the Police Station, on interrogation by LW22/Sri. N. Shyam Prasad Rao, ACP, the accused confessed his guilt, and the confession statement of the accused was recorded in the presence of

LW15/B. Renuka and LW16/E. Srinivas, in pursuance of the said confession, LW22 seized motorcycle, bearing registration No. TS10-ET-2994 from the possession of the accused under the cover of confession cum seizure panchanama. LW22 re-recorded the statements of witnesses and also recorded the statements of LW9 and LW10 friends of victim. Later, LW22 collected the FSL report and got recorded the Sec.164

4 of 12 Spl.SC No.41 of 2021

Cr.P.C. statement of the victim girl by filing a requisition before LW19/Learned

Magistrate. The investigation reveals that the accused proposed to her and made her

believe that he would marry her and that without allowing her to attend college with an intention to enjoy her physically, he took her to parks and other entertainment places on the motorcycle of his elder brother. Even after being reprimanded, the accused continued to follow her and made her believe that he liked her and would marry her. Later, the accused instigated the victim to stay at the house of LW10 only till he came and took her. On 15.09.2020, the accused went to the house of LW10 and took her to the house of LW9 on his motorcycle. Then, on 18.09.2020, the accused went to the house of LW9 and took the victim along with him on the motorcycle to a shed, roofed with asbestos located at Alwal, they both stayed there for 14 days.

During their stay, the accused, in the name of love and marriage lured her with his words and had committed sexual intercourse with her even her refusal thereby committed punishable offence. Hence, the charge-sheet.

3.Originally, the above charge sheet was filed in the Court of Hon’ble

Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Cyberabad at LB Nagar, where it was registered as

SC.No.41 of 2021 and later, the same was transferred to this Court on being

designated as the Special Court for trial of cases under the POCSO Act, for trial.

4.Copies of documents were supplied to the accused as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. Upon consideration of the material on record and after hearing the learned Special Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused charges under Sections 366, 376(2)(n) of IPC and Section 5(l) read with Section 6 of POCSO

5 of 12 Spl.SC No.41 of 2021

Act, 2012 were framed against the accused, read over and explained to him, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.The prosecution, to prove its case against the accused, got examined PW1 to

PW4 and got exhibited Ex.P1 to Ex.P14.

6.PW1 is the mother of the victim. PW2 is the victim. PW3 is the Aunt of the victim. PW1 to PW3 did not support the case of prosecution. PW4/Sri. J. Venkat

Reddy, Sub-Inspector of Police, Malkajgiri Police Station is the Investigating Officer in this case.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, when the accused was examined under

Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with reference to the incriminating material appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, he denied the same. He, however, did not choose to adduce any evidence on his behalf.

8.It is contended that the Learned Special Public Prosecutor, that the victim was a ‘child’ i.e., below the age of 18 years as on the date of commission of offence upon her and that her evidence is quite consistent and reliable and that there is also medical evidence in this case therefore, the accused can be convicted for the offences, with which, he is charged.

9.On the other hand, it is contended by the learned Counsel for the accused that the victim was not a child as on the date of commission of alleged offence upon her and all the prosecution witnesses did not support the case of prosecution and that there is no evidence on record to say that the accused has committed the alleged offence

6 of 12 Spl.SC No.41 of 2021

hence basing on the evidence of Investigating officer / PW4 alone, the accused cannot be convicted and he is entitled for acquittal.

10.On the basis of rival contentions, the following points are framed for determination:

1. Whether the victim/PW2 was a ‘child’ as defined in Section 2(1)(d) of

the POCSO Act as on the date of commission of alleged offence upon her?

2. Whether the prosecution is able to prove its case against the accused for

the offence under Section 366, 376(2)(n) of IPC and Section 5(l) read with

Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012, with which, he is charged?

3. To what relief ?

Point No.1:

Whether the victim/PW2 was a ‘child’ as defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the POCSO

Act as on the date of commission of alleged offence upon her?

11.The allegation made against the accused is that, the accused committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault upon the victim/PW2 which is an offence under

Section 5(l) read with Sec.6 of the POCSO Act. From this provision it is obvious that the victim must be a ‘child’. Section 2(1)(d) of the POCSO Act defines 'child' as any person below the age of eighteen years. The burden is, therefore, on the prosecution to prove that the victim was a 'child' i.e., below the age of eighteen years, as on the date of commission of alleged offence upon her. In the charge sheet, the age of the victim is mentioned as 15 years. Further, as to the complaint the victim is aged 18 years.

However, the Learned counsel for the accused did not suggest Sri. PW4/Sri. Ch.

J.Venkat Reddy, Sub-Inspector of Police, Malkajgiri Police Station, that the victim was not a ‘minor’ as on the date of alleged offence or suggesting any other date as her date of birth. PW4 exhibited Ex.P12 is the age certificate of victim as to which the victim is aged about 16-17 years, as on the date of the complaint filed on 20.09.2020.

7 of 12 Spl.SC No.41 of 2021

Therefore, it can be safely concluded that the victim was a ‘child’ as on the date of commission alleged offence upon her. As there is no denial from the accused regarding the age of the victim girl, thus this court considers that the victim was a ‘child’ i.e., below 18 years which is within meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of POCSO

Act, as on the date of commission of alleged offence upon her. Thus, this point is answered accordingly in favour of the prosecution.

Point No.2:

Whether the prosecution is able to prove its case against the accused for the offence

under Section 366, 376(2)(n) of IPC and Section 5(l) read with Section 6 of

POCSO Act, 2012, with which, he is charged?

12.The allegation made against the accused is that the accused abducted the victim from the lawful guardianship and sexually assaulted her, thereby the accused committed punishable offence. To prove the case of the prosecution, the mother of the victim is examined as PW1 who stated before this court that LW2 is her co-sister,

LW3 is the husband of LW2. LW5 is her daughter and that LW3/ her brother in law filed this complaint when LW5 / victim went missing and she came back home after two days and told that she went to her aunt's house (pinni) and that the police did not examine and record her statement. Later, the victim is examined as PW2 who stated

before this court that PW1 is her mother and that LW3 her junior paternal uncle filed

this complaint when she went missing and that she came back to home after two days and told to her mother that she went to her relatives house and that police did not examine and record her statement. Later, the Aunt of the victim is examined as PW3 who stated before this court that PW1 is her co-sister, LW3 is the daughter of PW1,

8 of 12 Spl.SC No.41 of 2021

and that she does not know anything about that case and that police did not examine and record her statement and that she does not know who gave this complaint.

13.With these evidence of prosecution witnesses/PW1 to PW3, the Learned

Special Public Prosecutor sought permission of this court to declare the said PW1 to

PW3 as hostile as they did not support the version of the prosecution. Perused the record and permitted by this court. Thereafter, the learned Special Public Prosecutor cross examined the PW1 to PW3 but failed to elicit anything from them except marking their respective 161 Cr.P.C statements as Ex.P2 to Ex.P4.

14.Later, PW4/Sri J. Venkat Reddy, Sub-Inspector of Police, Malkajgiri PS stated in his chief examination that on 20.09.2020 at 1800 hours he received a petition from the mother of the victim/LW1 and as per the contents of the petition, he registered a case in Cr.No. 624 of 2020 under section 366 IPC and took up investigation and during the course of investigation he examined and recorded the statements of LW1 to

LW4 and on the next day he visited the scene of offence at Malkajgiri and secured the presence of two panchas LW11/ Prem Kumar and LW12 / Srikanth, conducted scene of offence panchanama and prepared rough sketch and CDF and that on 02.10.2020 the victim traced at Old Alwal and brought her to the Police Station along with LW1 to LW3 and the victim girl explained the sexual exploitation committed upon her and thereafter he referred the victim girl for medical examination to the Government hospital Malkajgiri, where Dr. Sarah Seemen/LW17 conducted the medical examination of the victim and issued report and that LW17 collected vaginal swabs and sent by him to FSL and LW17 conducted an age determination test and opined

9 of 12 Spl.SC No.41 of 2021

that the victim was aged 16-17 years. PW4 further stated that LW20/Smt. G. Rajitha,

Woman Inspector of Police, Saroornagar recorded the Sec.161 Cr.P.C Statement of the victim girl and he filed section alteration memo before the concerned court by adding the sections of law under section 376(2)(n) of IPC and Section 5 read with 6 of

POCSO Act and that on 03.10.2020 at 10:00 hours he apprehended the accused and brought him to the Police Station and produced him on interrogation by LW22/Sri. N.

Shyam Prasad Rao, ACP, the accused confessed his guilt and the same recorded by

LW22 by securing the presence of LW15 / B. Renuka and LW16 /E. Srinivas and in pursuance of the said confession, LW22 seized motor cycle from the possession of the accused under the cover of seizure panchanama and that LW22 re-recorded the statement of witnesses and also recorded the statements of LW9/friend of victim and

LW10/friend of victim and later LW22 collected the FSL report and got recorded the 164 Cr.P.C Statement of the victim girl by filing requisition before LW19/Learned

Magistrate and after completion of entire investigation and collection of all

documents, he filed the charge sheet. PW4 exhibited Ex.P4 is the complaint dated 20.09.2020. Ex.P5 is the First Information Report dated 20.09.2020. Ex.P6 is the CDF including rough sketch dated 21.09.2020. Ex.P7 is the scene of offence panchanama along with rough sketch. Ex.P8 is the confession cum seizure panchanama. Ex.P9 is the medical examination of victim girl. Ex.P10 is the final opinion. Ex.P11 is the

Potency test certificate of accused. Ex.P12 is the age certificate of victim. Ex.P13 is the FSL report dated 18.11.2020 and Ex.P14 is the section alteration memo. During the cross examination of PW4 denied the suggestion that he conducted table

10 of 12 Spl.SC No.41 of 2021

investigation without verifying the statements of the witnesses and that the accused is no way connected with this case and that the accused never committed any offence and that charge sheet is filed falsely.

15.On considering the evidence of PW1 to PW3, who are mother, aunt of victim and the victim themselves did not support the version of the prosecution and the evidence remained on record is only the evidence of PW4 who is the Investigating

Officer. His evidence to the effect of visiting the scene of offence, examining the witnesses by him and filing of charge sheet after investigation, which is formal in nature and do no way connect the accused with the alleged offences with which he is charged.

16.As noticed above, the evidence of PW1 to PW3 is not supported by the version of the prosecution, in these circumstances, the accused cannot be held guilty of the offences, with which, he is charged. Thus, this point is answered against the prosecution and in favour of the accused.

Point No.3: To What relief ?

16.As held in Point No.2, the prosecution failed to prove it’s case against the accused, hence, he is to be acquitted of the offences, with which, he is charged.

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences under Section 366, 376(2)(n) of IPC and Section 5(l) read with Section 6 of POCSO Act, with which, he is charged, and he is accordingly, acquitted of the said offences, under Section 235(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. His bail bonds shall stand canceled after expiry of appeal time.

11 of 12 Spl.SC No.41 of 2021

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 8 th day of May, 2026.

Fast Track Special Judge for Expeditious Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act cases,

Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Neredmet.

APPENDIX

WITNESSES EXAMINED

Prosution Name of the Witness Description / Role Witness No. PW1XXXXMother of the victim / Informant

PW2XXXXVictim

PW3XXXXAunt of the victim

PW4Sri. J. Venkat ReddySub-Inspector of Police / Investigating Officer

DEFENCE WITNESS

Prosution Witness No. Name of the Witness Description / Role

DW-None--Nil-

EXHIBITED DOCUMENTS

Exhibit No. Description of the Exhibit Proved / Attested by

Ex.P1Section 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW1PW1

Ex.P2Section 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW2PW2

Ex.P3Section 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW3PW3

Ex.P4Complaint dated 20.09.2020PW4

Ex.P5First Information Report (FIR) dated 20.09.2020PW4

Ex.P6CDF including rough sketch dated 21.09.2020PW4

Ex.P7Scene of offence panchanama with rough sketchPW4

12 of 12 Spl.SC No.41 of 2021

Exhibit No. Description of the Exhibit Proved / Attested by

Ex.P8Confession cum seizure panchanamaPW4

Ex.P9Medical examination of victim girlMedical Officer /PW4

Ex.P10Final opinionMedical Officer/PW4

Ex.P11Potency test certificate of accusedMedical Officer/PW4

Ex.P12Age certificate of victimPW4

Ex.P13FSL report dated 18.11.2020PW4

Ex.P14Section alteration memoPW4

MATERIAL OBJECTS

Material Object No. Description of the Exhibit Proved / Attested by

-Nil--Nil--Nil-

Fast Track Special Judge for Expeditious Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act cases, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Neredmet.

1 of 7

Crl.MP.No.294 of 2025 in

Spl.SC No.66 of 2018

IN THE COURT OF FAST TRACK SPECIAL JUDGE FOR EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL

AND DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND POCSO ACT CASES, MEDCHAL-MALKAJGIRI

DISTRICT AT NEREDMET.

Friday, this the 08th day of May, 2026

Present:Smt. CHITTIBOMMA ASHALATHA

Fast Track Special Judge For Expeditious Trial And Disposal Of Rape And POCSO Act Cases Medchal-Malkajgiri District At Neredmet

Crl.MP.No.294 of 2025

in

SC No.66 of 2018

Between: Bumagari Raju, Aged 40 years, Occ:Electrician R/o.H.No.42-141/1, Mg Colony,

Moulali, Medchal-Malkajgiri District....Petitioner/Accused

//AND// The State of Telangana Represented through PP

SHO PS Kushaiguda ...Respondent/Complainant

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Smt. G. Jalaja, Learned Counsel for the petitioner/accused and Sri. P.Srinivasa Chary, Special Public

Prosecutor for the Respodent/State and upon hearing both sides and perusing the

material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

:: O R D E R ::

1.This is petition filed by the petitioner under Section 311 of Cr.P.C to recall the evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW7 for the purpose of further cross examination in the interest of justice.

2.It is stated by the petitioner/accused in the petition that, the main SC is for further evidence of prosecution and that petitioner/accused submits that his earlier counsel, who conducted that the trial had untouched many contradictions, omissions apparent on the face 2 of 7

Crl.MP.No.294 of 2025 in

Spl.SC No.66 of 2018 of record inspite of the fact which accused intend to brought on the record during the course of trial are not put to the PW1 and PW2.

3.It is further stated by the petitioner/accused that though it is settled law, witnesses can be recalled, re-examined at the whims and fancies of the parties, but for the mistakes committed by earlier counsel, which present counsel could able to point out, and if the same are not brought on record by conducting further cross-examination of PW1, PW2, and PW7, serious prejudice shall be caused to the petitioner/accused. If the witnesses, PW1, PW2 and

PW7 are recalled for the purpose of cross-examination, no prejudice shall be caused to the respondent/complainant, in contrary, petitioner/accused shall be suffered in placing the best material to substantiate his defence. Hence, this petition.

4.Counter filed by the Learned Special Public Prosecutor that the petition filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 311 of Cr.P.C seeking recall of PW1, PW2 and PW7 is devoid of merits and abuse of process of law and is liable to be dismissed. The above witnesses were already examined and cross-examined at length before this court and that the petitioner was represented by the counsel and was afforded full and adequate opportunity to cross-examine all the said witnesses and that the plea now taken that the cross examination was not effective is vague and an afterthought. The petitioner has failed to point out any specific contradiction, omission or material fact which is required to be elicited by recalling the witnesses. Mere assertions that material contradictions exist without specifying their nature, do not satisfy the mandatory requirements of Section 311 of Cr.P.C.

5.It is well settled law that Section 311 Cr.P.C cannot be invoked to fill up the lacuna or to give a party a second opportunity after appreciating the evidence already on record as held by our Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajaram Prasad Yadav vs. State of Bihar, reported 3 of 7

Crl.MP.No.294 of 2025 in

Spl.SC No.66 of 2018 in (2013) 14 SCC 461 and Natasha Singh vs. CBI reported in 2013 (5) SCC 741 held that, recall of witnesses cannot be permitted merely because better questions could have been asked earlier. PW1 is the husband of victim, LW2 is the victim, recalling them for further cross examination would result in secondary victimization, mental trauma and harassment our Hon’ble Supreme Court in State, NCT of Delhi vs. Shivkumar Yadav reported in 2016 2 SCC 402 cautioned repeated recall of witnesses particularly in sensitive cases causes harassment and trauma and must not be permitted casually. In the present case, being tried by a Special Court under POCSO Act, which mandates expeditious disposal Our Hon’ble

Supreme Court in State of Karnataka vs. Tarkari Shivanna reported in 2014 (8) SCC 913 emphasized that sexual offence trial should be conducted swiftly and unnecessarily recall of witnesses must be avoided. The trial has already progressed substantially, presently posted for cross-examination of medical officer/PW7. Therefore, permitting recall of earlier witnesses would unnecessarily delay the trial and defeat the object and purpose of the act.

Our Hon’ble High Court of Telangana in K. Anji Reddy vs State of Telangana reported in 2019 SCC Online TS 1232 and G. Venkat Rao vs State of Telangana reported in 2022

SCC Online TS 456 consistently held that, recall of victim, witnesses in POCSO cases must be viewed with great caution and cannot be allowed in absence of exceptional and compelling circumstances. No prejudice will be caused to the petitioner/accused, if recall is refused; whereas allowing the same would cause grave grave prejudice to the victim and the prosecution. The reasons stated in the petition are not bonafide. The present petition is filed only to protract the proceedings. Hence sought to dismiss the petition, in the interest of justice.

4 of 7

Crl.MP.No.294 of 2025 in

Spl.SC No.66 of 2018

6.Heard the arguments submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused and learned Spl. Public Prosecutor.

7. Now the point for consideration is :

Whether the petitioner/accused is entitled for the relief to recall

PW1/complainant/husband of victim woman, PW2/victim woman and

PW7/Medical Superintendent, Chairman, Medical Board, Gandhi Hospital,

Secunderabad for further cross examinaton as prayed for. ?

Point :

8.It is the case of the petitioner/accused that his earlier counsel could not conduct cross examination of PW1, PW2 and PW7 and there are many contradictions and omissions apparent on the face of record which had untouched, hence this petition to recall the evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW7 for the purpose of further cross examination in the interest of justice.

9.On the other hand, it is contended by the learned Special Public Prosecutor that as per the settled position of law, as per the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court and

Hon'ble High Court, in the sexual offence trial and the provisions under POCSO Act, 2012

mandates expeditious disposal of cases, discouraging recall of material witnesses, such as ‘victim’ cannot be allowed in the absence of exceptional circumstances and that this petition is filed only to protract the case proceedings and the petition is devoid of merits and that recalling PW1, who is husband of the victim, PW2/victim and PW7/medical officer for further cross-examination would result in secondary victimization and harassment. Hence, sought for dismissal of the petition.

10.On perusal of record, PW1 is husband of the victim, PW2 is the victim woman and

PW7 is Medical Officer, who is Professor, Head, Department of Forensic Medicine at

Gandhi Medical College, Secunderabad. On careful perusal, PW1 is examined in chief 5 of 7

Crl.MP.No.294 of 2025 in

Spl.SC No.66 of 2018

before this court on 18.03.2021, he exhibited Ex.P1/complaint dated 18.12.2016 and he was

cross-examined by the learned counsel for the accused. Similiarly, on the same day, PW2 already examined in chief and cross. PW7 who is the medical officer is examined in chief on 17.02.2025 and he exhibited Ex.P6 medical certificate stating that, “there is nothing to suggest that the accused is impotent.” PW7 was already cross-examined by the learned counsel for the accused.

11.As rightly pointed out by the learned special public prosecutor, the witnesses PW1,

PW2 and PW7 were cross-examined at length, filing of the present application before this court, when the main SC is at the stage of further evidence of prosecution i.e., summons to

LW8 and LW9 who are Police officials, is devoid of merits and protract the main SC proceedings.

12.On further careful perusal of the record, it clearly discloses that sufficient opportunity was given to the learned counsel for accused to cross-examine PW1, PW2 and PW7 and he accordingly cross-examined those witnesses at length, specifically, husband of the victim/PW1 and the victim/PW2. As rightly pointed by the learned Spl.PP the petitioner/accused failed to specify the nature of the evidence sought to be elicited from

PW1, PW2, and PW7. The reason stated by the petitioner/accused in the petition is that, “there are material omissions and contradictions apparent on the face of the record, earlier counsel of the petitioner, who conducted the trial, had untouched, which the petitioner intend to brought on record. If this petition is not allowed, he shall be handicapped in placing the best material to substantiate his defence.” The said reason stated by the petitioner/accused in the opinion of this court is bald, vague, and do not satisfy the mandatory requirement contemplated under Section 311 of Cr.P.C.

6 of 7

Crl.MP.No.294 of 2025 in

Spl.SC No.66 of 2018

13.On further careful persual of record, the charges under Sections 344, 384, 376(2)(n) of IPC have been framed on 18.12.2020 Further, as rightly pointed out by the learned special PP and as per the settled position of law by our Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble

High Court, recall of witnesses in the cases of offences against woman, must be taken with great caution and such recall cannot be permitted in the absence of exceptional and compelling circumstances. Further, as held in the decisions cited and relied by the learned

Special Public Prosecutor in the counter that, recall of victim woman and husband of victim for further cross-examination, leads to secondary victimization.

14.Further, it is duty of the court that victim woman must not be called repeatedly to testify in the court. In the present case, it is not the case of the petitioner/accused that, this court did not give any opportunity to him to conduct cross-examination of the material witnesses.

15.Hence, by considering the contents of the petition, the counter, the rival contentions of both the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused and learned Special Public Prosecutor, the oral and documentary evidence on record, as per the provisions of IPC and the settled proposition of law, this court considers that as petitioner/accused did not specify what are aspects which are allegedly untouched by his earlier counsel, therefore, there are no merits in this application filed by the petitioner/accused to recall the witnesses i.e.,PW1, PW2 and PW7 for the purpose of further cross-examination. The main case is of the year 2018 which is at the stage of further evidence of prosecution/summons to LW8 and LW9 considers that, this petition is filed to drag on the case proceedings. Thus, this petition is liable to be dismissed. The point is answered accordingly against the petitioner/accused.

7 of 7

Crl.MP.No.294 of 2025 in

Spl.SC No.66 of 2018

In the result, the petition is dismissed. No costs.

Typed to my dictation by the steno, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 08 th day of May, 2026.

Fast Track Special Judge for Expeditious Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act cases, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Neredmet.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

- NIL-

Fast Track Special Judge for Expeditious Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act cases, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Neredmet.