Sri. D. Chiranjeevulu

1 Spl.S.C.2/2016

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER

PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT-CUM-I

ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, ADILABAD.

Present : Sri D.Chiranjeevulu, Spl.Judge for trial of cases under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act-cum-I Addl. Sessions

Judge, Adilabad.

Thursday, this the 25th day of April, 2019

Spl.S.C.No.2/2016

Name of the Complainant: State of Telangana through Sub Inspector of Police, P.S.Ramakrishnapur. Name of the Accused: Janagama Srinivas S/o Banaiah, Age: 28 yrs., Caste: Golla, Occ: Attender in St.Alphonsa School, Ramakrishnapur R/o Ramakrishnapur. Offence under section: U/Sec. 354-A IPC and Sec.8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Plea of the accused: Not Guilty Finding: Guilty Sentence or Order: In the result, the accused is found guilty of the offences punishable under sections

U/Sec. 354-A IPC, Sec.8 of Protection of

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

MO1/CD shall be destroyed on expiry of appeal time. Accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of THREE YEARS and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) in default of payment of fine he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of SIX Months for offence punishable

U/sec. 354-A IPC.

No separate sentence is imposed for the offence punishable U/sec. 8 of

Protection of Children from Sexual

Offences Act, 2012 in view of Section 42 of

Protection of Children from Sexual

Offences Act, 2012 which provides for 2 Spl.S.C.2/2016 alternate punishment.

Name of the counsel for: Sri.M.RamanaReddy,Addl.Public prosecutionProsecutor Name of the counsel for: Sri. Y.Vishnubhagawan. Defence

This case coming on 15.04.2019 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.M.Ramana Reddy, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri. Y.Vishnubhagawan, Advocate for accused and on hearing both sides the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, P.S.Ramakrishnapur filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.354-A IPC and Sec.8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 in

Cr.No.121/2015 of P.S.Ramakrishnapur.

2. The allegations of the prosecution are that on 01.09.2015 at about 1430 hours defacto complainant/Suroju Rajendra Prasad came to police station, Ramakrishnapur and lodged a complaint stating that on 31.08.2015 his daughter namely Tejaswini aged 9 yrs., studying 4th standard went to St.Alphonsa School, Ramakrishnapur where the school attender Janagama Srinivas (accused) herein opened the locks of the room of school, taken his daughter into the room and outraged her modesty and in the mean time school Madam called Srinivas then he left the place. On that they approached school

Management who assured them to remove Srinivas from school and requested to take necessary action.

Basing on the above complaint, LW.11/Assistant Sub Inspector of Police has registered a case in Cr.No.121/2015 U/sec. 354-A IPC and Sec. 8 of POCSO Act 2012 issued FIR, submitted the original FIR.

LW11 visited the scene of offence and in the presence of panchas 3 Spl.S.C.2/2016 conducted CDF panchanama, drawn rough sketch. LW12/Sub

Inspector of Police took up further investigation, verified the investigation done by LW11 and found it on correct lines and on 03.09.2015 apprehended the accused wherein he confessed to have committed the offence and after obtaining relevant documents and after completion of investigation LW12 filed charge sheet against the accused for the said offences.

3.This court took cognizance of the offences U/Sec.354-A IPC and

Sec.8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 against the accused. On his appearance, copies of documents were furnished to him as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

4.After hearing both sides and on perusal of the record, charges

U/Sec. 354-A IPC and Sec.8 of Protection of Children from Sexual

Offences Act, 2012 are framed against accused, read over and explained to him in Telugu language for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5To prove its case prosecution has examined PW’s 1 to 7 and got exhibited Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 and MO.1.

6.After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused is examined U/sec.313 Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating material and circumstances appearing against him but he denied the same and reported no evidence on his behalf. Thus, there is no oral or documentary evidence adduced on behalf of accused.

7.Heard the arguments of both the sides.

8. Now the point that arises for determination is:

4 Spl.S.C.2/2016 “Whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of the accused for the charges framed U/Sec. 354-A IPC and Sec.8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 beyond all reasonable doubt?”

POINT:

9.Here the case of the prosecution is that on 01.09.2015 at about 1430 hours defacto complainant/Suroju Rajendra Prasad came to police station, Ramakrishnapur and lodged a complaint stating that on 31.08.2015 his daughter namely Tejaswini aged 9 yrs., studying 4th standard went to St.Alphonsa School, Ramakrishnapur where the school attender Janagama Srinivas (accused) herein opened the locks of the room of school, taken his daughter into the room and outraged her modesty and in the mean time school Madam called Srinivas then he left the place. On that they approached school Management who assured them to remove Srinivas from school and requested to take necessary action. Basing on the above complaint, LW.11/Assistant

Sub Inspector of Police has registered a case in Cr.No.121/2015

U/sec. 354-A IPC and Sec. 8 of POCSO Act 2012 issued FIR, submitted the original FIR. LW11 visited the scene of offence and in the presence of panchas conducted CDF panchanama, drawn rough sketch.

LW12/Sub Inspector of Police took up further investigation, verified the investigation done by LW11 and found it on correct lines and on 03.09.2015 apprehended the accused wherein he confessed to have committed the offence and after obtaining relevant documents and after completion of investigation LW12 filed charge sheet against the accused for the said offences

10.PW1/S.Rajendra Prasad deposed that on 31.08.2015 at morning hours they sent LW2/victim and another daughter to school and returned back after School hours. By that time LW2 was studying in 5 Spl.S.C.2/2016 4th class and disclosed him and LW3 stating that on that day when she went to School the accused who is working as Attender took away to Nursery class room and hugged her and pinched her at her waist and that time the LW5/Jeena, Teacher of that School called the accused, on that he left her. He further deposed that on the next day morning they went to school and complained to the Principal and the

Principal assured that they would take necessary action against him.

Thereafter he filed a complaint/Ex.P1, dt.01.09.2015 with Police,

Ramakrishnapur.

11.PW2/Suroju Tejaswini the victim girl deposed that in the year 2015 she studied 4th class and her younger sister studied 1st class.

On 31.08.2015 at morning hours as usual she went to the School in first trip of Auto Rickshaw, the accused opened the doors of the class rooms and called her to the Nursery class room and the accused closed the doors after she entered inside and accused hugged her and pinched on her waist with sexual intent. She further deposed that accused did not allow her y younger sister to gain entry into that room and on that LW5/Jeena called the accused on that he left the place. She further deposed that she could not inform the Head Master as the accused threatened her against giving any report.

12.PW3/Jeena the Accountant in Alfhonsa School, Ramakrishnapur deposed that on 31.08.2015 at about 08.30 A.M he came to school and has seen the accused all alone and called him and by that time he was opening the doors of the class rooms one after the other he called him and seen some children are playing on the premises. He further deposed that he came to know of the incident on the next day 6 Spl.S.C.2/2016 on the information of PW1 and PW1 told him that the accused hugged

PW2 in the class room but he has not seen the accused hugging PW2.

He further deposed that there was crowd on the occasion of Rakhi festival on that day and on question by Court he deposed that there was a crowd because of this incident.

13.PW4/Mohammad Jani deposed that on 01.09.2015 at 02.30 PM he received complaint/Ex.P1 from PW1, basing on it he registered a case in Cr.No.121/2015 for the offence U/Sec.354-A IPC and Sec.8 of

POCSO Act and issued FIR/Ex.P2. He further deposed that he examined and recorded the statement of PW1, LW3/S.Laxmi and

LW4/S.Laxmi, visited the scene of offence and examined and recorded the statements of PW3 and LW6/Alfhonsa and later secured the presence of LW8/P.D.Rajendra Prasad and LW9/T.Ramakrishna and conducted CDF panchanama/Ex.P3 by drawing rough sketch in their presence and collected the date of birth certificate of PW1 from LW6.

14. PW5/S.Sateesh Kumar deposed that at about 3 years back on requisition of police Ramakrishanpuar he went to Mancherial police station and videographed the recording of statement of PW2 by one woman S.I/ LW10/Suman Reddy. Accordingly he recorded and handed over the CD to Investigating officer. MO1 is Compact Disc.

15.PW6/Devidas the then Sub Inspector of Police, Ramakrishnapur deposed that on 3.09.2018 he received CD file from PW4, examined and recorded the statement of LW10/S.Suman Reddy and on same day at about 11.30 A.M apprehended the accused and on interrogation accused voluntarily confessed about commission of 7 Spl.S.C.2/2016 offence. Thereafter he handed over the CD file to LW13/G.Rakesh, Sub

Inspector of Police, Ramakrishnapur for further investigation. He further deposed that LW13 got recorded 164 CrPC statement of PW2 through Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Luxettipet and he collected bonafide cum date of birth certificate from LW6/Alphonsa, Head

Mistress of Alphonsa School. Bonafide certificate is Ex.P4 and after completion of investigation filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable U/sec.354 A IPC and Sec.8 of POCSO Act.

16.PW7/Jaisemaria deposed that she received summon from this court to produce the date of birth particulars of PW2 and accordingly she produced the original School admission register today before this court as directed by this court under the authorization/Ex.P5 and she also produced attested true copy of relevant page of admission register/Ex.P6 and as per Ex.P6 the date of birth of PW2 is 20.11.2006 and the Admission No.915.

17.Here the evidence of PW2 is most crucial and according to her version on 31.08.2015 during morning hours as usual she went to the school in the first trip of auto rickshaw and by that time accused was opening the doors of the class rooms and then the accused called her to the Nursery class room and the accused closed the doors and later he entered inside and hugged her and pinched on her waist with sexual intent and the accused did not allow her younger sister to gain entry into that room. On that LW5 called the accused then the accused left the place and here it may be noted that even she could not inform the Head Master as she was subjected to intimidation by accused not to inform any one.

8 Spl.S.C.2/2016

18.Learned defence counsel comments that PW2 did not raise any cries but here it may be noted LW5 has already called the accused and as such she kept quiet and moreover she was already subject to criminal intimidation by the accused not to inform any one and if she raises cries probably she was under impression that the accused may go to any worst extent. Learned defence counsel further comments that she has not stated about the accused closing all the doors before hugging but it is a minor omission and it does not affect the core of the prosecution case and another contention equally fallacious is that she did not inform either to her classmates or class teacher or class leader or Principal. It is true in the normal circumstances one would inform atleast to her close friend or class teacher but here the situation is peculiar and due to fear of accused she did not even raise cries and in that event expecting Pw2 to inform either to classmates or class teacher or class leader does not arise.

19.Here any victim girl like PW2 would immediately inform her parents and here she informed her father who is examined as PW1 and another contention is that there was no possibility at all for such incident but the learned defence counsel failed to produce any evidence that there was no possibility. Here it may be recalled that it was opening hours for the school and PW2 was early bird and she came to the school in the first trip of auto rickshaw and the accused took full advantage of loneliness and asked her to come to Nursery class room confirming that nobody would be available inside the

Nursery class room and this innocent PW2 walked into his trap unsuspectingly.

9 Spl.S.C.2/2016

20.Learned defence counsel further comments that PW1 her father has not stated about the accused hugging PW2 or about accused pinching on her waist but here the victim is PW2 not PW1 and PW2 has categorically stated and this minor omission does not go to the root of the case and the same need not be blown out of proportion.

21.PW3/Jeena, Accountant in the said school and she also deposed that she has seen the accused all alone and called him and by that time he was opening the doors of the classrooms one after the other.

Learned defence counsel comments that PW3 has not seen the accused hugging PW2 and here the offence took place inside the

Nursery class room and absolutely there was no chance for PW3 to see the accused hugging PW2. Learned defence counsel further comments that there were students by that time as per the version of

PW3 but here the incident took place inside the Nursery class room and there was no body inside the Nursery class room and if at all there were any students inside the class room the accused would not have taken her to that Nursery class room.

22.Learned defence counsel further contends that PW1 foisted a case to sully the image of the school but here it may be noted Pw2 is girl aged 12 years and PW1 as a father is under obligation to protect not only his own family prestige but also the dignity of his daughter/PW2 and no responsible father would place the dignity of his own daughter and family prestige at stake for such silly reason and moreover PW1 gains nothing by sullying the image of the school and another contention not less ridiculous is that one week prior to the 10 Spl.S.C.2/2016 alleged incident some ABVP workers came to their school with a request for grant of permission to tie Rakhees on the occasion of

Raksha bandhan but the Management did not allow them and for that reason the case was foisted but absolutely it has nothing to do with the offence committed against PW2 and left with no other tenable defence the accused took to this feeble defence as a last straw.

23.Further as per the evidence of PW3 the Accountant in said

Alfhonsa school, Ramakrishnapur says the accused was removed from the job because of this incident and it shows that the school management having been thoroughly satisfied with his criminal conduct removed the accused from the job in a damage control exercise and to save the institution from any further damage to its reputation because of such bad elements like accused. Learned defence counsel comments that FIR does not show about the accused pinching her but as rightly pointed by learned Addl. Public Prosecutor

FIR is not a Encyclopedia to contain all and full particulars and moreover the evidence of the victim girl before the Court is substantial evidence and further as per Section 29 and 30 of

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 the burden lies on the accused and it is for the accused to establish that he never had such criminal intent but here no such evidence is placed by the accused either by examining himself or any other witness.

24.I have carefully examined the oral and documentary evidence available on record and the evidence available on record establishes the sexual assault caused to the victim the by the accused and the evidence further establishes offence punishable under Section 8 of

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and accordingly 11 Spl.S.C.2/2016 accused is found guilty of the offences U/sec.354-A and 8 of

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The point is answered accordingly.

25. In the result, the accused is found guilty of the offences punishable under sections U/Sec. 354-A IPC, Sec.8 of Protection of

Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and accordingly he is convicted of the said offences under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C. MO1/CD shall be destroyed on expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him and after

correction pronounced by me in open court this the 25 th day of April, 2019.

I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE

ADILABAD.

26.Accused is questioned with regard to quantum of sentence and he stated that he lost his father and he got widowed mother totally depending on him and there is nobody else to take care of her except himself and he is aged now 36 yrs., and still un-married and he is in jail in this case for some time and he has been attending all the adjournments all these four years and he seeks lenient view. Having regard to the above mitigating circumstances and having regard to

Section 42 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of THREE YEARS and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) in default of payment of fine he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of SIX Months for offence punishable U/sec. 354-A IPC.

No separate sentence is imposed for the offence punishable

U/sec. 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 in 12 Spl.S.C.2/2016 view of Section 42 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 which provides for alternate punishment.

Accused is informed of his right to appeal before Hon’ble High

Court and he is also further informed about his right to get free Legal

Aid, in case, he prefers appeal. The free copy of judgment is furnished to the accused.

Half of the fine amount ie., Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand only) if realized either in full or in part shall be paid to victim/PW2 towards compensation to the victim girl on expiry of appeal time and this compensation amount payable U/sec.357 CrPC would be in addition to the compensation amount payable U/sec.33(8) of

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 r/w Rule 7 of

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Rules, 2012 which provides for compensation for the loss and injury suffered by the victim child/PW2 as a result of offence committed against her by the accused.

Office is directed to take necessary steps for payment of victim compensation as provided under Rule 7 of Protection of Children from

Sexual Offences Rules, 2012 addressing a letter to Secretary, District

Legal Services Authority, Adilabad.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him and after

correction pronounced by me in open court this the 25 th day of April, 2019.

I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE

ADILABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution For Defence PW1Suroju Rajendra Prasad/complainant & father of victim. PW2Suroju Tejaswini/victim.

13 Spl.S.C.2/2016

PW3Jeena/circumstantial witness. PW4Md.Jani/1st investigating officer. PW5Siddam Sathish Kumar/Photographer. PW6A.Devidas/investigating officer who filed charge sheet. PW7Jaisemaria/Head master.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.P1Complaint.-Nil- Ex.P2FIR Ex.P3CDF along with rough sketch. Ex.P4Bonafide certificate. Ex.P5Authorization letter. Ex.P6Attested true copy of relevant page of admission register.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MO.1 - Compact Disc

I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE

ADILABAD

1 Spl.S.C.No.11/2016

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER

PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT-CUM-I

ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, ADILABAD.

Present : Sri D.Chiranjeevulu, Spl.Judge for trial of cases under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act- cum-I Addl. Sessions Judge, Adilabad.

Thursday, the 25th day of April, 2019

Spl.S.C.No.11/2016

Name of the Complainant: State of Telangana through Sub Inspector of Police, P.S.Adilabad II Town.

Name of the Accused: Mulkuwar Sai S/o Kistu @ Kistanna, Age: 19 yrs., Caste: Rajaka, Occ: Student R/o Subashnagar, Adilabad.

Offence under section: 448, 354-D, 509, 506 IPC and Sec. 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Plea of the accused: Not Guilty Finding: Not Guilty Sentence or Order: In the result, the accused is found not guilty of the offences punishable U/sec.448, 354-D, 509, 506 IPC and Sec.12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and accordingly accused is acquitted of the said offences under section 235(1) Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled. MO1/CD shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Name of the counsel for: Sri.M.RamanaReddy,Addl.Public prosecutionProsecutor Name of the counsel for: Sri.Rajitha Reddy. Defence

This case is coming on 25.04.2019 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.M.Ramana Reddy, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and of Smt.Rajitha Reddy, Advocate for accused and on hearing both sides the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S Adilabad II Town filed charge sheet against accused for the offence punishable under sections 448, 354-D, 509, 506 IPC and Sec.12 of Protection of Children from Sexual

Offences Act, 2012 in Cr.No.240/2015 of P.S Adilabad II Town.

2 Spl.S.C.No.11/2016

2. The allegations of the prosecution are that on 12.07.2015 at about 2015 hours the complainant/Gaddam Pushpa came to Police station and lodged a complaint stating that her daughter namely

Mounika aged 17 yrs., is studying Intermediate in Government Junior

College (Girls) Adilabad and her daughter used to go to college and return from college one Sai (accused) herein used to follow her daughter and teased her saying to talk and threatened her to kill, on that her daughter informed the same to her and inturn her husband informed the same to father of Sai who reprimanded Sai but the Sai criminally trespassed into her house and forced her daughter to talk and threatened to kill her and as such she requested for taking necessary action.

Based on the above report, LW-12/N.Venkata Swamy, Inspector of Police, Adilabad II Town has registered a case in Cr.No.240/2015

U/Sec.448, 354-D, 509, 506 IPC and Sec.12 of POSCO Act 2012 and issued FIR. During the course of investigation examined and recorded the statements of witnesses and in the presence of mediators ie.,

LW8 and LW9 conducted CDF panchanama and on 16.07.2015 apprehended the accused and on interrogation he confessed to have committed the offence and after obtaining relevant certificates and after completion of investigation filed charge sheet against accused for the above said offences.

3.This court took cognizance of the offences U/sec.448, 354-D, 509, 506 IPC and Sec.12 of Protection of Children from Sexual

Offences Act, 2012 against accused. On his presence, copies of documents were furnished to him as required under Section 207

Cr.P.C.

3 Spl.S.C.No.11/2016

4.After hearing both sides and on perusal of the record, charges

U/sec.448, 354-D, 509, 506 IPC and Sec.12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 are framed against accused, read over and explained to him in Telugu language for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5To prove its case prosecution has examined PW’s 1 to 10 and got exhibited Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 and MO1.

6.After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused is examined U/sec.313 Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating material and circumstances appearing against him but he denied the same and reported no evidence on his behalf. Thus, no oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of accused.

7.Heard arguments of both the sides.

8. Now the point that arises for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution brought home the guilt of the accused for the charges U/sec.448, 354-D, 509, 506 IPC and Sec.12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 beyond all reasonable doubt?”

POINT:

9.Here it is the case of the prosecution that on 12.07.2015 at about 2015 hours the complainant/Gaddam Pushpa came to Police station and lodged a complaint stating that her daughter namely

Mounika aged 17 yrs., is studying Intermediate in Government Junior

College (Girls) Adilabad and her daughter used to go to college and return from college one Sai (accused) herein used to follow her daughter and teased her saying to talk and threatened her to kill, on that her daughter informed the same to her and inturn her husband 4 Spl.S.C.No.11/2016 informed the same to father of Sai who reprimanded Sai but the Sai criminally trespassed into her house and forced her daughter to talk and threatened to kill her and as such she requested for taking necessary action. Based on the above report, LW-12/N.Venkata

Swamy, Inspector of Police, Adilabad II Town has registered a case in

Cr.No.240/2015 U/Sec.448, 354-D, 509, 506 IPC and Sec.12 of POSCO

Act 2012 and issued FIR. During the course of investigation examined and recorded the statements of witnesses and in the presence of mediators ie., LW8 and LW9 conducted CDF panchanama and on 16.07.2015 apprehended the accused and on interrogation he confessed to have committed the offence and after obtaining relevant certificates and after completion of investigation filed charge sheet against accused for the above said offences.

10.To establish the offences punishable U/sec.354-D, 509 and 506

IPC the prosecution must establish the following ingredients:

Section 354-D stalking

1) Any man who—

1. follows a woman and contacts, or attempts to contact such woman to foster personal interaction repeatedly despite a clear indication of disinterest by such woman; or

2. monitors the use by a woman of the internet, email or any other form of elec- tronic communication, commits the offence of stalking 1 ;

Provided that such conduct shall not amount to stalking if the man who pur-

sued it proves that—

1. it was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime and the man accused of stalking had been entrusted with the responsibility of

prevention and detection of crime by the State; or

2. it was pursued under any law or to comply with any condition or re-

quirement imposed by any person under any law; or

3. in the particular circumstances such conduct was reasonable and jus- tified.

(2) Whoever commits the offence of stalking shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine; and be punished on a second or subsequent 5 Spl.S.C.No.11/2016 conviction, with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine.

506. Punishment for criminal intimidation —

Whoever commits, the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with

imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both;

If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc.—and if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute, unchastity to a woman, shall be

punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to

seven years, or with fine, or with both.

509. Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman —

Whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any word, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object, intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be seen, by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.

11. Now coming to the evidence part PW1/G.Pushpa the mother of the victim girl deposed that about 3 years back victim/LW2(PW2) told her that the accused used to follow her and later she informed the same to village elders and in cross examination she further says that she has not mentioned either time or date in Ex.P1 and she has not referred to the presence of LW4 and LW5 in Ex.P1 and the scribe of

Ex.P1 has not read over the contents to her before he obtained her signatures and here it may be noted according to the victim she (PW2) herself scribed Ex.P1 and the scribe of Ex.P1 has not read over the contents to them and it is doubtful whether there is any other report apart from Ex.P1 and whether Ex.P1 is hit by Section 161 CrPC and another important circumstance here in this case is according to

PW2 the victim used to go to college along with her friends and classmates ie., Renuka and Sushma by walk but for the reasons best 6 Spl.S.C.No.11/2016 known to the investigating officer they are not examined and even according to this PW2 there is no material clinchingly to establish from which point the accused used to stalk her and talk to her.

12. PW3/G.Radha outright turned hostile and though she was declared hostile and cross examined by the learned Addl. Public

Prosecutor nothing substantial was elicited except marking Ex.P2 her 161(3) Cr.P.C statement. Here this PW3 is crucial witness but she failed to support the prosecution case and PW4/A.Vasanth is another circumstantial witness and he also turned hostile and failed to support the prosecution version and he denied to have stated before police as in Ex.P3/his 161(3) CrPC statement.

13. Insofar as PW5 is concerned he speaks about his videographing of recording of statement of PW2 by LW11 and it does not help the prosecution case in any manner.

14. PW6/K.M.Ahmad Kousar is Head Master and he speaks about

Ex.P4/bonafide certificate and here it may be noted he issued Ex.P4 on oral request and he does not even remember who made the oral request and normally certificate like Ex.P4 would be issued basing on some entries in the admission register but here the said Admission

Register was not produced before the Court and this PW6/Head

Master fairly admits in cross examination that he does not know on what basis her date of birth was entered in the Admission Register and he was not working in that school by the time of her joining 8th standard in that school and the learned defence counsel contends that the victim girl fell short of majority just by one week only and she 7 Spl.S.C.No.11/2016 relied on a ruling of Apex Court reported in Jarnail Singh Vs., State of Haryana 2013 CRI.L.J.3976 and there it is held:

The highest rated option available, would conclusively determine the age of a

minor. In the scheme of Rule 12(3), matriculation (or equivalent) certificate of the concerned child, is the highest rated option. In case, the said certificate is

available, no other evidence can be relied upon. Only in the absence of the

said certificate, Rule 12(3), envisages consideration of the date of birth

entered, in the school first attended by the child. In case such an entry of date of birth is available, the date of birth depicted therein is liable to be treated as

final and conclusive, and no other material is to be relied upon. Only in the

absence of such entry, Rule 12(3) postulates reliance on a birth certificate

issued by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat. Yet again, if

such a certificate is available, then no other material whatsoever is to be taken

into consideration, for determining the age of the child concerned, as the said

certificate would conclusively determine the age of the child. It is only in the

absence of any of the aforesaid, that Rule 12(3) postulates the determination

of age of the concerned child, on the basis of medical opinion.

15. PW7/M.Mahender panch witness turned hostile and he denied about Adilabad II Town police asking him to act as panch witness while drafting rough sketch. Here it may be noted the investigation in this case as conducted by PW10 is totally shabby and the investigating officer/PW10 while speaking about his registering

Ex.P6/FIR, visiting the scene of offence, examining the witnesses, conducting CDF panchanama deposed in cross examination that he has not examined the friends of victim girl or her school mates and no reasons are forthcoming as to why this so called investigating officer did not choose to examine either her schoolmates or her friends or atleast inmates of the houses of surrounding houses as noted in Ex.P5 and in cross examination he fairly admits that he has not examined the inmates of the houses and here even according to the version of victim and prosecution version the accused used to make phone calls to the victim but still the so called investigating officer did not bother 8 Spl.S.C.No.11/2016 to seize mobile phones of the accused or victim nor he secured call data in which event the prosecution case would have been strengthened.

16. Another major flaw is here the way leading to the college is situated in thickly populated area as admitted by PW10 and it creates a doubt in such thickly populated area whether the accused can indulge in any such acts. Further this PW10 has not specifically mentioned the timings during which the accused had a talk with victim girl nor the date or time and in so far as statement of PW3 and

PW4 are concerned there are several corrections and PW10 admits that there are corrections regarding date in the statements and PW10 further says that he has not filed any document to show that the victim girl was studying intermediate during relevant period.

17. PW8 is panch and his evidence is not much useful. PW9 is constable and she speaks about recording statement of victim. Here according to ExP1 version her husband ie., husband of PW1 informed the father of the accused and he warned the accused and since then the accused stopped stalking her but her entire chief examination version is totally silent about the same ie., about her husband informing the father of the accused and it all creates a doubt whether there was any such stalk at any material point of time and as rightly pointed by the defence counsel independent material witnesses turned hostile and the evidence of PW1 and PW2 suffers from several infirmities, improbabilities and inconsistencies and the evidence does not conclusively establish whether Ex.P1 report is the only report or whether there is any other report given by PW1 or PW2 and whether

Ex.P1 is hit by Section 161 of CrPC.

9 Spl.S.C.No.11/2016

18.I have carefully examined the oral and documentary evidence and in my considered view the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused for any of the offences he has been charged beyond reasonable doubt and benefit of doubt should necessarily go to the accused and accused is entitled for acquittal.

The point is answered accordingly.

19. In the result, the accused is found not guilty of the offences punishable U/sec.448, 354-D, 509, 506 IPC and Sec.12 of Protection of

Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and accordingly accused is acquitted of the said offences under section 235(1) Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled. MO1/CD shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him and after

correction pronounced by me in open court this the 25 th day of April, 2019.

I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

ADILABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution For Defence PW1Gaddam Pushpa/complainant. PW2Gaddam Mounika/victim. PW3Ralla Radha/circumstantial witness. PW4Amela Vasanth/circumstantial witness PW5K.Thirupathi Reddy/videographer. PW6 K.M.Ahmeed Kouser/Head Master who issued bonafide certificate. PW7Mekala Mahender/panch for CDF. PW8G.Janardhan Reddy/panch for CDF. PW9J.Bharathi/Woman Police Constable.

10 Spl.S.C.No.11/2016

PW10N.Venkata Swamy/investigating officer.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.P1Complaint. -Nil- Ex.P2161 CrPC statement of PW3. Ex.P3161 CrPC statement of PW4. Ex.P4Bonafide certificate. Ex.P5CDF panchanama. Ex.P6First Information Report.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MO1: Compact Disc.

I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

ADILABAD.

1 Spl.S.C.86/2015

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER

PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT-CUM-I

ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, ADILABAD.

Present : Sri D.Chiranjeevulu, Spl.Judge for trial of cases under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act- cum-I Addl. Sessions Judge, Adilabad

Monday, the 22nd day of April, 2019

Spl.S.C.No.86/2015

Name of the Complainant: State of Telangana through Sub Inspector of Police, P.S Dandepalli.

Name of the Accused: Chunchu Rajanna S/o Mallaiah, Age: 27 yrs., Caste: Perika, Occ: Home Guard No.884 r/o Velganoor.

Offence under section: U/sec.448, 354 IPC and Sec.8 and 10 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012

Plea of the accused: Not Guilty Finding: Not Guilty Sentence or Order: In the result, the accused is found not guilty of the offences punishable U/sec.448, 354 IPC and Sec.8 and 10 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and accordingly he is acquitted of the said offences under section 235(1) CrPC. Bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled.

Name of the counsel for: Sri.M.RamanaReddy,Addl.Public prosecutionProsecutor Name of the counsel for: Sri C.Sudhakar Reddy. Defence

This case coming on 15.04.2019 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.M.Ramana Reddy, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri.C.Sudhakar Reddy, Advocate for accused and on hearing both sides the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Dandepally filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable U/sec.448, 354 IPC and Sec.8 and 10 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 in Cr.No.80/2015 of P.S. Dandepalli.

2 Spl.S.C.86/2015

2. The allegations of the prosecution are that on 25.08.2015 at about 1700 hrs., the complainant/Billakuri Manasa D/o Late Narsaiah @ Bapu aged 16 yrs., Caste: Perika, Occ: Inter second year student lodged a Telugu written report stating that her parents died during her childhood and since then she is residing with her brothers at Velganur village in their house and on 25.08.2015 at about 1230 hrs., while she was alone in the house her neighbor Chunchu Rajanna s/o Mallaiah came to their house in drunken state and when she got afraid and tried to escape from the house by closing the doors on that he came from backside and caught hold of her hand and insulted her modesty, then she beat him with a book and escaped from his clutches and went to their neighbours house and informed to Motapalkula

Mamatha D/o Mogili about the matter and on her advise she informed the same to her aunty Bilakuri Kalavathi.

Basing on the said report, LW-12/Sub Inspector of Police has registered a case in Cr.No.80/2015 U/Sec.448, 354 IPC and Sec.8 of

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and issued FIR.

During the course of investigation, LW-27 examined and recorded the statement of LW1, filed requisition to LW10 and got recorded 161

CrPC statement, visited the scene of offence and in the presence of

LW8 and LW9 ( B.Bhuchaiah, Chunchu Kishan) drawn rough sketch of scene of offence. On 25.08.2015 apprehended the accused and during course of interrogation he voluntarily confessed about the commission of offence. After collecting relevant documents and after completion of investigation filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable U/sec.448, 354 IPC and Sec.8 and 10 of

POCSO Act, 2012.

3 Spl.S.C.86/2015

3. This court took cognizance of the offence punishable U/sec.448, 354 IPC and Sec.8 and 10 of Protection of Children from Sexual

Offences Act, 2012 against the accused. On his presence, copies of documents were furnished to him as required under Section 207

Cr.P.C.

4.After hearing both sides and on perusal of the record, charges for offences punishable U/sec.448, 354 IPC and Sec.8 and 10 of

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 are framed against accused, read over and explained to him in Telugu language for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5To prove its case prosecution has examined PW1 to PW7 and got exhibited Ex.P1 to Ex.P5.

6.After completion of prosecution evidence, accused was examined U/sec.313 Cr.P.C with regard to the incriminating material and circumstances appearing against him but he denied the same and reported no evidence on his behalf. Thus, no oral and documentary evidence is adduced on behalf of accused.

7.Heard the arguments of both sides.

8. Now the point that arises for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused for the offences U/sec.448, 354 IPC and Sec.8 and 10 of POCSO Act beyond all reasonable doubt?”

POINT:

4 Spl.S.C.86/2015

9.Here the case of the prosecution is that on 25.08.2015 at about 1700 hrs., the complainant/Billakuri Manasa D/o Late Narsaiah @

Bapu aged 16 yrs., Caste: Perika, Occ: Inter second year student lodged a Telugu written report stating that her parents died during her childhood and since then she is residing with her brothers at Velganur village in their house and on 25.08.2015 at about 1230 hrs., while she was alone in the house her neighbor Chunchu Rajanna s/o Mallaiah came to their house in drunken state and when she got afraid and tried to escape from the house by closing the doors on that he came from backside and caught hold of her hand and insulted her modesty, then she beat him with a book and escaped from his clutches and went to their neighbours house and informed to Motapalkula

Mamatha D/o Mogili about the matter and on her advise she informed the same to her aunty Bilakuri Kalavathi. Basing on the said report,

LW-12/Sub Inspector of Police has registered a case in Cr.No.80/2015

U/Sec.448, 354 IPC and Sec.8 of Protection of Children from Sexual

Offences Act, 2012 and issued FIR. During the course of investigation,

LW-27 examined and recorded the statement of LW1, filed requisition to LW10 and got recorded 161 CrPC statement, visited the scene of offence and in the presence of LW8 and LW9 ( B.Bhuchaiah, Chunchu

Kishan) drawn rough sketch of scene of offence. On 25.08.2015 apprehended the accused and during course of interrogation he voluntarily confessed about the commission of offence. After collecting relevant documents and after completion of investigation filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable

U/sec.448, 354 IPC and Sec.8 and 10 of POCSO Act, 2012.

10.PW1/B.Manasa is the prime witness in this case and victim girl and according to her version on 25.08.2015 at about 12.30 P.M when 5 Spl.S.C.86/2015 she was alone in her house the accused went to her house in a drunken condition indulged in obscene talk and caught hold of her hand and attempted to commit rape on her and then she came out from the room and went to the house of LW2/Mamatha her neighbour and later accompanied by LW3/Kalavathi she returned back to the house and in the meanwhile the accused left the place and alter she lodged complaint/Ex.P1 and according to her she was studying 2nd year intermediate at Karimela College, Luxettipet.

11.PW2/M.Mamatha is immediate neighbour to the victim girl/PW1 and according to the prosecution this PW2 has seen the accused following the victim to her house but this PW2 the independent witness and neighbour to the house of PW1 turned hostile and failed to support the prosecution version to the expected level and on her being declared hostile she denied to have stated before police as in

Ex.P2/161(3) CrPC statement, she further denied that PW1 approached her panicked over the behaviour of the accused towards her and when she enquired PW1 told her that the accused attempted to commit rape on her in a drunken condition and in cross examination this PW2 further says whatever happens it would be audible to them as her house and house of PW1 are situated side by side and she came to know of it through PW1 only and according to her PW1 went to her around 12.30 to 1.00 P.M.

12.PW3/B.Kalavathi circumstantial witness deposed that on 25.08.2015 PW1 came while running while weeping from the house of

PW2 around 12.30 P.M or 1.00 P.m and when she enquired her she told her that the accused went to their house and attempted to ravish her and in cross examination this PW3 further deposed that the 6 Spl.S.C.86/2015 distance between her house and house of PW1 would be 100 yards and on that date she went to the village of Chandraiah having come to know of his death and it takes one hours to go to Venkatraopet by bus and the funeral rites of the deceased Chandraiah was performed by 10.00 A.M.

13.PW4/B.Bhumaiah deposed that about 3 years back on one day at 12.30 P.M when he was returning from his fields PW1 was found at the house of PW3 by weeping and on enquiry she disclosed him that the accused went to their house and attempted to ravish her.

14.PW5/Chunchu Kishan speaks about his presence when the police observed scene of offence and prepared CDF panchanama/Ex.P3.

15.PW6/N.Ravinder speaks about Ex.P4/Bonafide certificate wherein the date of birth of the victim was mentioned as 10.08.1999.

16.PW7/Md.Sadiq Pasha is Circle Inspector of Police and investigating officer in this case and he speaks about his registering

Ex.P5/FIR, visiting the scene of offence, examining PW2 to PW4, LW4 and LW5 (Billakuri Shekar, Pettam Venkati), securing PW5 and

LW8/Battula Buchaiah and conducting CDF panchanama.

17.Here according to her version in FIR marked as Ex.P5 she freed herself after hitting the accused with a book in her hand and later went to the house of her neighbour Mamatha and on her advice she later went to the house of Kalavathi ie., PW3 and she has given the exact verbatim at obscene language used by the accused and as seen 7 Spl.S.C.86/2015 from Ex.P5/report he stated “nenu neeku bava naitha intlo evaru lera, emi chesthunnavu antu tedaga matladinadu” but in this verbatim no obscenity can be gathered and according to her version before the

Court he caught hold of her hand from backside but in her Ex.P5 she says that she beat him with books in her hand and later went to the house of Mamatha ie., PW2 but this PW2 failed to support her version or the version of prosecution and she turned hostile and denied to have stated as in Ex.P2 and she even denied about PW1 approaching her in a panicked condition due to misbehaviour of the accused and even according to her she first approached PW2 but this PW2 failed to support her version even to the minimum extent and though corroboration is not rule of law, here the evidence available on record shows that there is prior enmity between the prosecuting party and the accused and in the light of prior differences it is not safe to rely on the sole uncorroborated testimony of PW1 more so when it suffers from several inherent improbabilities, inconsistencies and infirmities and according to the defence version LW4/Billakuri Shekar was behind this false case and LW4 nursed a grudge against the accused who is employed as Home Guard and so he got this case foisted ploying her.

PW3 als admitted in cross examination that there were land disputes between her deceased husband and said Chunchu Bhojanna and according to the defence version at the instance of Bhojanna a hurt case was registered against her husband and that PW3 was deposing in the wake of prior disputes and strained relationship between their family and the family of the accused and as rightly contended by the learned defence counsel the distance between her hose and house of

PW1 is 100 yards and PW3 also admitted in her cross examination and according to the defence version that on that day PW3 went to the village of Chandraiah having come to know of his death and she 8 Spl.S.C.86/2015 also admitted in cross examination that she went to the village of said

Chandraiah having come to know of his death on that date ie., on 25.08.2015 and she further admits that it takes one hour to go to

Venkatapur by bus and funeral rites of deceased Chandraiah was performed by 10.00 A.M and in that event it is doubtful whether she could return back to her house by the time the offence alleged took place and further according to the defence version in the back ground of strained relationship between them a case was foisted through

PW1 and this PW3 admits there are already criminal cases against her deceased husband and Bhojanna and therefore in the light of admitted prior differences there is every chance for this witness to implicate the accused.

18.The evidence of PW4 is only a hear say evidence and learned defence counsel contends that what he stated before police is not stated when the police examined him and he came up with an improvised version and the evidence of PW5 is not much useful since he only speaks about Ex.P3/panchanama and according to him he do not know the details of the case till he acted as panch witness.

19.PW6 speaks about Ex.P4/Bonafide certificate. PW7 is the investigating officer and here one more crucial aspect of the matter is if any such offence took place against this PW1 the normal conduct and demeanour of the victim girl like PW1 would be serious and appealing but in the instant case this PW1 the so called victim girl has been laughing throughout her deposition and her demeanor is recorded in her deposition also and the evidence adduced does not establish the guilt of the accused for the offences U/sec.448, 354 IPC and Sec.8 and 10 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 9 Spl.S.C.86/2015 2012 and reasonable doubt creeps into the prosecution version and the benefit of doubt should necessarily go to the accused. Point is answered accordingly.

20.In the result, the accused is found not guilty of the offences punishable U/sec.448, 354 IPC and Sec.8 and 10 of Protection of

Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and accordingly he is acquitted of the said offences under section 235(1) CrPC. Bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him and after correction

pronounced by me in open court this the 22 nd day of April, 2019.

I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE

ADILABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution For Defence PW1Billakuri Manasa/complainant-victim. PW2Motapalukula Mamata/eye witness. PW3B.Kalawathi/circumstantial witness. PW4BillakuriBhumaiah/circumstantial witness. PW5Chunchu Kishan/panch witness for scene of offence panchanama. PW6N.Rajender/Incharge Head Master, ZPSS Velganur. PW7Md.Sadiq Pasha/Investigating officer.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.P1Complaint.-Nil- Ex.P2161 CrPC statement of PW2. Ex.P3CDF alogn with rough sketch. Ex.P4Bonafide certificate. Ex.P5FIR.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-NIL- 10 Spl.S.C.86/2015

I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

ADILABAD .

1 Spl.C.C.No.6/2016

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES

UNDER ELECTRICITY ACT -CUM-I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS

JUDGE, ADILABAD.

Present : Sri D.Chiranjeevulu, Spl.Judge for trial of cases under Electricity Act, - cum-I Addl. Sessions Judge, Adilabad.

Wednesday, the 20th day of March, 2019.

Spl. C.C.No.6/2016.

Name of the Complainant: State of Telangana through Sub Inspector of Police, Mudhole.

Name of the Accused:Appala Hanumandlu S/o Kotaiah, Age: 30 yrs., Caste:M/kapu, Occ:Agrl., R/o Gannora village of Mudhol mandal.

Offence under section:U/sec.429 IPC and Sec.135 of Indian Electricity Act. Plea of the accused:Not Guilty Finding:Not Guilty Sentence or Order:In the result, accused is found not guilty of the offences punishable under section 429 IPC and Sec.135 of Indian Electricity Act and accordingly he is acquitted of the said offences under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled. MO1 and MO2 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Name of the counsel for:Sri.M.Ramana Reddy, Addl. Public Prosecutor prosecution

Name of the counsel for:Sri.B.Grahesh, Advocate for accused. Defence

This case coming on 18.03.2019 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.M.Ramana Reddy, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri.B.Grahesh, Advocate for accused and on hearing both sides the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Mudhole filed charge sheet against accused for the offences punishable U/sec.429 IPC and Sec.135 of

Indian Electricity Act in Cr.No.08/2016.

2. The allegations of the prosecution are that on 22.01.2016 at about 1030 hours, the complainant/Appala Ushanna came to police 2 Spl.C.C.No.6/2016 station, Mudhole and lodged a complaint stating that on 21.01.2016 his cow was set free in order to graze in the outskirts of village but the cow did not return and he searched for it but in vain and on 22.01.2016 at about 8.00 A.M came to know through Appala Saya

Reddy that his cow is found dead in the maize field of Appala

Hanumandlu due to electric shock and requested to take necessary action.

Basing on the said report, LW-12 has registered a case in

Cr.No.08/2016, U/sec. 429 IPC & Sec.135 of Indian Electricity Act-2003 and issued FIRs to all concerned officers and took up the investigating. During the course of investigation examined and recorded the statements of witnesses and after collecting relevant documents and after completion of investigation filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable U/sec.429 IPC and

Sec.135 of Electricity Act.

3.This court took cognizance of the offences under Sec.429 IPC and Sec.135 of Indian Electricity Act against the accused. On his presence, copies of documents were furnished to him as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

4.After hearing both sides and on perusal of the record, charges

U/sec. 429 IPC and Sec.135 of Indian Electricity Act are framed against accused, read over and explained to him in Telugu language for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5To prove its case prosecution has examined PW1 to PW11 and got exhibited Ex.P1 to Ex.P11 and MO.1 and MO2.

3 Spl.C.C.No.6/2016

6.After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused is examined U/sec.313 Cr.P.C with regard to the incriminating material and circumstances appearing against him but he denied the same and reported no evidence on his behalf. Thus, no oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of accused.

7.Heard the arguments of both the sides.

8. Now the point that arises for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution brought home the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable U/sec.429 IPC Sec.135 of Indian Electricity Act beyond all reasonable doubt?”

POINT:

9. Here the case of the prosecution is that on 22.01.2016 at about 1030 hours, the complainant/Appala Ushanna came to police station,

Mudhole and lodged a complaint stating that on 21.01.2016 his cow was set free in order to graze in the outskirts of village but the cow did not return and he searched for it but in vain and on 22.01.2016 at about 8.00 A.M came to know through Appala Saya Reddy that his cow is found dead in the maize field of Appala Hanumandlu due to electric shock and requested to take necessary action. Basing on the said report, LW-12 has registered a case in Cr.No.08/2016, U/sec.

429 IPC & Sec.135 of Indian Electricity Act-2003 and issued FIRs to all concerned officers and took up the investigating. During the course of investigation examined and recorded the statements of witnesses and after collecting relevant documents and after completion of investigation filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable U/sec.429 IPC and Sec.135 of Electricity Act.

10.But coming to the evidence part PW1/A.Ushanna the defacto complainant deposed that he went and found his cow dead due to 4 Spl.C.C.No.6/2016 electric burn injuries in the fields of accused and in cross examination he further deposed that he has not handed over any ownership certificate to the police to establish the ownership of the accused over the said land where the cow was lying dead with electric burn injuries and further deposed in cross examination that he does not know reading and writing Telugu and it is also not understandable whether he signed it and surprisingly in one breath he says that it is the land of the accused and again in another breath he says that he took the land on lease and cultivating and it is specific contention of the accused that the accused never took that land on lease and here the prosecution has not filed any lease deed also to establish that the accused took the land on lease and moreover the person who gave the land on lease to the accused is also not examined and it is another worsening aspect of the prosecution case.

11.PW2/A.Anitha is no other than wife of PW1 and naturally she also speaks the same language of her husband and in cross examination she too fairly admitted that she has not handed over any ownership certificate to the police and police themselves scribed

Ex.P1 on her information whereas PW1 says Ex.P1 was recorded on his information and it is not known whether Ex.P1 was registered basing on the information of PW1 or PW2.

12.PW3/S.Kistaiah deposed that the accused is not owner of the said land and thus this version of PW3 further ruined the prosecution case and this PW3 further says that he has never seen the accused arranging any police and thus this version of PW3 destroys the prosecution case.

5 Spl.C.C.No.6/2016

13.PW4/A.Hanmandlu deposed that he does not know anything about this case and police never examined him and on being declared hostile and cross examined by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor he denied to have stated before police as in Ex.P2/161(3) CrPC statement.

14.PW5/K.Srinivas also turned hostile and failed to support the prosecution case and on being declared hostile and cross examined by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor he denied to have stated

before police as in Ex.P3/161(3) CrPC statement.

15.PW6/S.Narsa Reddy also turned hostile and with great difficulty his signature part alone is marked as Ex.P4 and nothing was elicited in the cross examination by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor from this PW6.

16.PW7/D.Manohar also turned hostile and he also failed to support the prosecution case and his signature part alone is marked as Ex.P5 and nothing was elicited in the cross examination by the learned Addl.

Public Prosecutor.

17.PW8/B.Vilas fairly admits that there is no date and time on

Ex.P6 and he has not handed over any receipt to the police and it is another worsening aspect of the prosecution case.

18.PW9/Ismail Shareef another crucial witness ie., Assistant

Engineer, Telangana State Northern Power Distribution Company

Limited in his cross examination deposed that he did not find any unauthorized connection and he cannot say the survey number of the scene of offence and if really there was any such unauthorized 6 Spl.C.C.No.6/2016 connection certainly this PW9 would be in a position to speak about unauthorized connection and this version of PW9 has further ruined the prosecution case.

19.PW10/Dr.N.Ravinder is Veterinary Assistant Surgeon and he speaks about Ex.P9/post mortem examination report and his evidence is not much useful to the prosecution case.

20.PW11/N.Srinivas is investigating officer and his evidence is quiet formal and in cross examination he fairly admitted that wooden nails similar to MO1 and G.I wire similar toMO2 were available in the open market also and here the contention of the defence counsel is that the said cow said to have been died of electric burn injuries does not belong to PW1 at all but still the so called investigating officer/PW11did not bother to place any documentary evidence to establish the ownership of PW1 or PW2 over the said dead cow and in cross examination he further deposed that he has not collected any document to show that the said cow belongs to PW1 only.

21. Thus the prosecution miserably failed to establish the guilt of the accused for any of the offences accused has been charged with and as such accused is entitled for benefit of doubt. The point is answered accordingly.

22.In the result, accused is found not guilty of the offences punishable under section 429 IPC and Sec.135 of Indian Electricity Act and accordingly he is acquitted of the said offences under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled. MO1 and MO2 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

7 Spl.C.C.No.6/2016

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him and after

correction pronounced by me in open court this the 20 th day of March, 2019.

I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

ADILABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution For Defence PW1Appala Ushanna/complainant PW2Appala Anitha/circumstantial witness PW3S.Kishtaiah/circumstantial witness. PW4Appala Hanumandlu/owner of land. PW5K.Srinivas/circumstantial witness. PW6Sama Narsa Reddy/panch for CDF. PW7Dasa Manohar/pancha for CDF. PW8Bachuwar Vilas/photographer. PW9Ismail Sharif/Addl., Asst., Engineer. PW10Dr.N.Ravinder, Vet., Asst., Surgeon. PW11N.Srinivas/investigating officer.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.P1Complaint by PW1.-Nil- Ex.P2161 CrPC statement of PW4 Ex.P3161 CrPC statement of PW5 Ex.P4Signature of PW6 on scene of offence panchanama. Ex.P5Signature of PW7 on scene of offence panchanama. Ex.P6Photographs. Ex.P7CD of photographs. Ex.P8Written report issued by PW9 Ex.P9Postmortem examination report Ex.P10FIR Ex.P11CDF Panchanama

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MO1: six wooden nails. MO2: 150 meters of G.I wire.

I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

ADILABAD.

1 S.C(POCSO) 6/2019

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER

PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT-CUM-I

ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, ADILABAD.

Present : Sri D.Chiranjeevulu, Spl.Judge for trial of cases under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act- cum-I Addl. Sessions Judge, Adilabad.

Tuesday, the 23rd day of April, 2019

S.C (POCSO) No.06/2019

Name of the Complainant: State of Telangana through Sub Inspector of Police, P.S.Adilabad I Town. Name of the Accused: Udari Sandeep S/o Srinivas, Age: 21 yrs., Caste: Gold smith, Occ: Degree student R/o Near Jama Masjid, Ashok Road, Adilabad. Offence under section: U/sec.354-D, 506, 509 IPC and Sec.12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 against accused.

Plea of the accused: Not Guilty Finding: Not Guilty Sentence or Order: In the result, accused is found not guilty of the offences punishable U/sec.354-D, 506, 509 IPC and Sec.12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and accordingly accused is acquitted of the said offences U/sec. 232 Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled.

Name of the counsel for: Sri.M.RamanaReddy,Addl.Public prosecutionProsecutor Name of the counsel for: Sri.Naresh Kumar Joshi, Advocate Defence

This case coming on 22.04.2019 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.M.Ramana Reddy, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri.Naresh Kumar Joshi, Advocate for accused and on hearing both sides the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Police Station Adilabad I Town filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable

U/sec.354-D, 506, 509 IPC and Sec.12 of Protection of Children from

Sexual Offences Act, 2012 in Cr.No.124/2018.

2 S.C(POCSO) 6/2019

2. The allegations of the prosecution are that on 22.05.2018 at about 1400 hrs., the complaint/Rudroji Laxmi Kanth @ Jeevan came to police station and lodged a complaint stating that since few months one Udari Sandeep (accused) herein is threatening his daughter by name Pranaya aged 17 yrs., that he would kill them if her daughter don’t love him and taken photographs with mobile phone in bus and harassed her in bus and threatened her that he would keep the photographs in social media and requested to take necessary action.

Basing on the said report, LW9/Sub Inspector of Police has registered a case in Cr.No.124/2017 U/sec.354-D, 506, 509 IPC and issued FIR. During the course of investigation LW9, visited the scene of offence, examined and recorded the statement of witnesses, prepared CDF in the presence of mediators and on 25.05.2018 collected study cum bonafide certificate of victim and verified the date of birth as 16.07.2000. On 05.06.2018 apprehended the accused wherein he confessed to have committed the offence. After collecting relevant documents and after completion of investigation

LW9/Sub Inspector of Police filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable U/sec.354-D, 506, 509 IPC and Sec.12 of

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

3.This court took cognizance of the offences U/sec.354-D, 506, 509 IPC and Sec.12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences

Act, 2012 against accused. On his presence, copies of documents were furnished to him as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

4.After hearing both sides and on perusal of the record, charges

U/sec. U/sec.354-D, 506, 509 IPC and Sec.12 of Protection of Children 3 S.C(POCSO) 6/2019 from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 are framed against accused, read over and explained to accused in Telugu language for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5To prove its case prosecution has examined PW1 to PW3 and got exhibited Ex.P1 to Ex.P3.

6.After completion of prosecution evidence, since there is no incriminating material appearing against the accused, examination of accused U/sec.313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with.

7.Heard the arguments of both the sides.

8. Now the point that arises for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the charges framed U/sec.354-D, 506, 509 IPC and Sec.12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 beyond all reasonable doubt?”

POINT:

9.Here the case of the prosecution is that on on 22.05.2018 at about 1400 hrs., the complaint/Rudroji Laxmi Kanth @ Jeevan came to police station and lodged a complaint stating that since few months one Udari Sandeep (accused) herein is threatening his daughter by name Pranaya aged 17 yrs., that he would kill them if her daughter don’t love him and taken photographs with mobile phone in bus and harassed her in bus and threatened her that he would keep the photographs in social media and requested to take necessary action.Basing on the said report, LW9/Sub Inspector of Police has registered a case in Cr.No.124/2017 U/sec.354-D, 506, 509 IPC and issued FIR. During the course of investigation LW9, visited the scene of offence, examined and recorded the statement of witnesses, prepared CDF in the presence of mediators and on 25.05.2018 4 S.C(POCSO) 6/2019 collected study cum bonafide certificate of victim and verified the date of birth as 16.07.2000. On 05.06.2018 apprehended the accused wherein he confessed to have committed the offence. After collecting relevant documents and after completion of investigation

LW9/Sub Inspector of Police filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable U/sec.354-D, 506, 509 IPC and Sec.12 of

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

10.But coming to the evidence part PW1/R.Laxmi Kanth @ Jeevan father of victim girl and the defacto complainant deposed that the accused here in is his son-in-law and he never gave any complaint to police and police never examined him and on being declared hostile and cross examined by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor he went a step further and denied to have stated before police as in

Ex.P1/161(3) CrPC statement.

11.PW2/R.Jyothi is no other than wife of PW1 and mother of PW3 and she also goes the same way and deposed that accused is her son in law and she does not know anything about this case and on being declared hostile and cross examined by the learned Addl. Public

Prosecutor she denied to have stated before police as in Ex.P2/161(3)

CrPC statement.

12.PW3/R.Pranaya the victim girl and crucial witness to this case deposed that accused is her husband and accused married her on 16.01.2019 with the blessing of her parents and got it registered and he does not know why PW1 lodged a complaint against the accused and further deposed that she does not know anything about this case and she gave a tutored version before Magistrate as tutored by her 5 S.C(POCSO) 6/2019 brother and on being declared hostile and cross examined by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor she denied to have stated before police as in Ex.P3/161(3) CrPC statement.

13.Since these three crucial witnesses for prosecution outright turned hostile to the prosecution case learned Addl. Public Prosecutor with no other option left to him has given up all remaining witnesses ie., LW4 to LW9. Thus the prosecution miserably failed to establish the guilt of the accused for any of the offences he has been charged with and as such accused is entitled for clean acquittal. The point is answered accordingly.

14.In the result, the accused is found not guilty of the offences punishable U/sec.354-D, 506, 509 IPC and Sec.12 of Protection of

Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and accordingly accused is acquitted of the said offences U/sec. 232 Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him and after

correction pronounced by me in open court this the 23 rd day of April, 2019.

I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

ADILABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution For Defence PW1RudrojiLaxmiKanth@ Jeevan/complainant-father of victim. PW2Rudroji Jyothi/mother of victim girl. PW3Rudroji Pranaya/ victim girl.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: Ex.P1161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1-Nil- Ex.P2161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2 Ex.P3161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3 6 S.C(POCSO) 6/2019

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-NIL-

I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

ADILABAD .