Sri. D. Ravindra Sharma

Prl. District and Sessions Judge, KB Asifabad

Asifabad, PDJ Court Complex · Kumuram Bheem Asifabad · Telangana

Sri. D. Ravindra Sharma, Prl. District and Sessions Judge, KB Asifabad, is posted at Asifabad, PDJ Court Complex, Kumuram Bheem Asifabad, Telangana, India. 313 court orders on record since 2022. 10 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles SC, CRLMP, MVOP cases.

313

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

SC.POCSO/68/2018 Acquitted

POLICE EASGAON vs THEEGALA MAHESH

21 Mar 2023

Spl. Sc No.68 of 2018 1/5

IN THE COURT OF THE FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT FOR EXPEDITIOUS

TRIAL AND DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN AGAINST

SEXUAL OFFENCES (POCSO) ACT CASES AT ASIFABAD.

Present:- Sri D. Ravindra Sharma, Prl. Sessions Judge, Asifabad. FAC: Spl Judge for expeditious trial and disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases, at Asifabad

Tuesday, the 21st day of March, 2023

Spl SC 68 of 2018

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

Name of the accused: 1)Teegala Mahesh S/o Rajalingu, Age: 19 years, Caste: Tenugu, Occ: Coolie R/o Gannaram village 2)Pullaboina Srinivas S/o Ramaiah, Age: 35 years, Caste: Tenugu, Occ: Auto driver R/o Gannaram village

Offence under section: Sections 354-A, 290, 323 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 8 of the POCSO Act, 2012

Plea of the accused: Not guilty

Finding: Not guilty

Sentence or Order: In the result, the accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 354-A, 290, 323 r/w 34 of

Indian Penal Code and Section 8 of the

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences

Act, 2012. Accordingly accused No.1 and 2 are acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of the accused No.1 and 2 shall be in force for a period of six months as mandated under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after appeal time.

Name of the counsel for: Sri G.V.S Prasad, prosecutionSpecial Public Prosecutor

Name of the counsel for defence: Sri S.Chandra Kumar, Advocate.

21.03.2023 SplJ,ASF

Spl. Sc No.68 of 2018 2/5

This case coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri G.V.S. Prasad, Special Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri S.Chandra Kumar, learned counsel for accused and on hearing both sides, having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Easgaon has filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 and 2 for the offence Section 354-A, 290, 323 r/w 34 of Indian Penal

Code and Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 01.01.2018 at about 5.30 P.M., the victim girl lodged a report with police, Easgaon stating that on 31.12.2017 at about 9.00 P.M., the accused No.1 forcibly caught hold of her hand and tried to outrage her modesty and accused No.2 intervened and beat her brother Rajesh.

Basing on the said report, the police Easgaon registered a case in Cr.No.01 of 2018, issued FIR and investigated into the matter. On 17.02.2018 the accused

No.1 and 2 were apprehended, on interrogation they confessed to have committed the offence. After completion of investigation, the Sub Inspector of

Police, Easgaon has filed charge-sheet against the accused No.1 and 2 for the offence Section 354-A, 290, 323 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 8 of the

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

3.The Learned I Addl. District Judge, FAC: Spl. Judge for expeditious trial and disposal of rape and protection of children against sexual offences (POCSO)

Act cases, Adilabad took cognizance of the offence under Section 354-A, 290, 323 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 8 of the Protection of Children from

Sexual Offences Act, 2012 . On appearance of accused No.1 and 2, copies of documents were furnished to them as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

Subsequently the case was transferred to this Court as per Proc.Dis.No.820/2022, dt.04.03.2022 of the Prl. District and Sessions Court, Adilabad.

21.03.2023 SplJ,ASF

Spl. Sc No.68 of 2018 3/5

4.After hearing both sides and on perusal of the record, charges for the offence under Section 354-A, 290, 323 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 were framed against the accused No.1 and 2, read over and explained to them in their vernacular language, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.To prove its case, the prosecution has examined PW’s.1 to 7 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P13. The learned Special Public Prosecutor has given up examining the remaining witnesses.

6.After closing of the prosecution evidence, the accused No.1 and 2 are examined under Section 313 CrPC by explaining the incriminating material appearing against them, they denied the same and reported no defence evidence on their behalf, hence defence evidence was closed.

7.Heard the arguments of both sides.

8. Now the point that arises for determination is: “Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused No.1 and 2 for the offence under Section 354-A, 290, 323 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 beyond all reasonable doubt?”

POINT:

9.The prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused has examined the victim girl as PW1. As per her evidence on 31.12.2017 there was a galata when accused

No.1 and 2 and other villagers were dancing at celebration of new year. That her father and accused persons quarreled due to the sounds and songs played by the accused and at the request of her father she went to police station and signed on complaint without knowing the contents. The women police did not record her statement. The brother of the victim girl and eye witnesses to the incident are examined as PW2 to PW6. They deposed that they do not know anything

21.03.2023 SplJ,ASF

Spl. Sc No.68 of 2018 4/5

about this case. The police did not record their statements. Thus PW1 to PW6 completely turned hostile and did not support the prosecution’s case.

10.The investigating officer is examined as PW7. He deposed that on 01.01.2018 at about 5.30 P.M on receiving complaint from PW1, he registered a case in Cr.No.1 of 2018 and issued FIR. He got recorded the statements of the witnesses, conducted CDF before the panchas, sent PW2 to Government hospital, Sirpur, got recorded the statement of victim through the Magistrate, collected the bonafide certificate of the victim girl. That after collecting relevant documents and on completion of investigation, he filed charge-sheet against the accused No.1 and 2 for the offence Sections 354-A, 290, 323 r/w 34 of IPC and

Section 8 of the POCSO Act. As per evidence on record, it is evident that the victim and eye witnesses to the offence PW.1 to PW.6 did not support the case at all and they all were declared as hostile. The evidence of PW7 will not in any way help the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused No.1 and 2, when the material witnesses ie.,the victim/PW1, eye witnesses ie., PW’s.2 to 6 have not supported the case of prosecution. The evidence on record is not proving the offence and also not connecting the accused No.1 and 2 with the alleged offence. Therefore the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused No.1 and 2 beyond reasonable doubt.

In view of the above discussed reasons, this court has no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused No.1 and 2 for the offence Sections 354-A, 290, 323 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and the accused

No.1 and 2 are entitled for acquittal. The point is answered accordingly.

11.In the result, the accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 354-A, 290, 323 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and

Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

21.03.2023 SplJ,ASF

Spl. Sc No.68 of 2018 5/5

Accordingly accused No.1 and 2 are acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused No.1 and 2 shall be in force for a period of six months as mandated under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court this the 21 st day of March, 2023.

SPL. JUDGE FOR POCSO ACT CASES,

ASIFABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution For Defence

PW1XX/victim girl - None - PW2Illasaram Rajesh/eye witness PW3Illasaram Sandeep/eye witness PW4Illasaram Pentakka/eye witness PW5Gaddam Mahesh/eye witness PW6Kannepalli Karthik/eye witness PW7G.Sudhakar/investigating officer

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.P1Signatuer of PW1 on complaint -Nil- Ex.P2Sec. 161 CrPC statement of PW1/victim girl Ex.P3Sec. 161 CrPC statement of PW2 Ex.P4Sec. 161 CrPC statement of PW3 Ex.P5Sec. 161 CrPC statement of PW4 Ex.P6Sec. 161 CrPC statement of PW5 Ex.P7Sec. 161 CrPC statement of PW6 Ex.P8Complaint Ex.P9First information report Ex.P10 CDF along with rough sketch Ex.P11Medical certrificate of PW2 Ex.P12Sec. 164 CrPC statement of victim Ex.P13Bonafide certificate of victim

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- NIL -

SPL. JUDGE FOR POCSO ACT CASES,

ASIFABAD.

21.03.2023 SplJ,ASF

SC.POCSO/1/2019 Acquitted

Police Station Jainoor vs Vagmare Tathagath

17 Apr 2023

S.C (POCSO) No.1 of 2019 1/5

IN THE COURT OF THE FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT FOR EXPEDITIOUS

TRIAL AND DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN AGAINST

SEXUAL OFFENCES (POCSO) ACT CASES AT ASIFABAD.

Present:- Sri D. Ravindra Sharma, Prl. Sessions Judge, Asifabad. FAC: Spl Judge for expeditious trial and disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases, at Asifabad

Monday, the 17th day of April, 2023

SC (POCSO).No.1 of 2019

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

Name of the accused: A1. Vagmare Tathagath S/o. Narsingh, Age: 21 years, Caste: SC Mahar, Occ: Degree Student, R/o. H.No.8-38/1, Powarguda village of Jainoor Mandal.

A2. Paikrao Surender S/o. Dattaji, Age: 23 years, Caste: SC Mahar, Occ: Coolie, R/o. Nanda, Post: Nanda, Taluqa. Korpana Nanda, District. Chandrapur, State: Maharashtra.

Offence under section: Under section 354-D r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012. Plea of the accused: Not Guilty finding: Not Guilty

Sentence or Order: In the result, the accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 354-D r/w 34 of Indian Penal

Code and Section 12 of the Protection of

Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

Accordingly the Accused No.1 and 2 are acquitted under Section 232 Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused No.1 and 2 shall be in force for a period of six months as mandated under section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Name of the counsel for: Sri G.V.S Prasad, prosecutionSpecial Public Prosecutor

Name of the counsel for defence: Sri P.M. Rajeev Reddy, Advocate.

17.04.2023 SplJ,ASF

S.C (POCSO) No.1 of 2019 2/5

This case is coming on 13.04.2023 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri G.V.S. Prasad, Special Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri P.M. Rajeev Reddy, learned counsel for accused No.1 and 2 and on hearing both sides, having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub Inspector of Police, Jainoor has filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 and 2 for the offence Section 354-D r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 21.07.2018 at about 8.30 PM the father of victim girl lodged a report stating that on 18.07.2018 while the victim girls were returning to home from school, the accused persons followed them and insisted them to love and elope with them. That on 21.07.2018 at about 4.45 PM also the accused persons followed the victim girl upto Powarguda village.

Basing on the said report, the police Jainoor registered a case in

Cr.No.129/2018 and investigated into the matter and after completion of investigation, filed charge-sheet against the accused No.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 354-D r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

3.The Learned I Addl. District Judge, FAC: Spl. Judge for expeditious trial and disposal of rape and protection of children against sexual offences (POCSO)

Act cases, Adilabad took cognizance of the offence under Section 354-D r/w 34 of

Indian Penal Code and Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual

Offences Act, 2012. On appearance of accused No.1 and 2, copies of documents were furnished to them as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C. Subsequently the case was transferred to this Court as per Proc.Dis.No.2137/2022, dt.14.06.2022 of Prl. District and Sessions Court, Adilabad.

17.04.2023 SplJ,ASF

S.C (POCSO) No.1 of 2019 3/5

4.After hearing both sides and on perusal of the record, charges for the offence under Section 354-D r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 12 of the

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 are framed against the accused No.1 and 2, read over and explained to them in their vernacular language, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.To prove it’s case, the prosecution has examined PW’s.1 to 7 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P7. The learned Special Public Prosecutor has given up examining the remaining witnesses, since the victims, eye witnesses, her relations and other material witnesses turned hostile to the case of prosecution and did not support the case.

6.Since there is no incriminating material appearing against the accused

No.1 and 2 in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the examination of accused

U/sec.313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with.

7.Heard the arguments of both sides.

8. Now the point that arises for determination is: “Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused No.1 and 2 for the offence under Section 354-D r/w 34 of IPC and Section 12 of the POCSO Act beyond all reasonable doubt?”

POINT:

9.The prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused No.1 and 2, has examined the victim girls as PW.1 to PW.3. The victim girls as PW.1 to PW.3 deposed that they were studying in ZPSS School at Jainoor in 2018. That they used to go to school in the auto. They do not know the accused persons. The accused persons did not commit any offence against them. There were disputes between the father of PW.1 and accused persons, in view of the same he lodged complaint against the accused persons. They do not know the contents of the complaint. Lady constable did not record their statements. They gave

17.04.2023 SplJ,ASF

S.C (POCSO) No.1 of 2019 4/5

statements before the Magistrate at the instance of police. The brother of victim-I is examined as PW.4. He deposed the same version as that of victim girl.

The father of victim-II and victim-III are examined as PWs.5 and 6 respectively.

They also deposed that the accused persons did not commit any offence against the victim girls. That there were disputes between the father of PW.1 and accused persons, therefore father of PW.1 lodged complaint with police. The police did not record their statements. The eye witness to the incident is examined as PW.7. He too deposed the same version as given by victims. Thus all the witnesses PW1 to PW7 turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution in any manner. None of the witnesses examined by prosecution have supported the case and they all were declared as hostile and from their cross- examination also the prosecution could not elicit anything to prove the guilt of the accused No.1 and 2. Since nothing could be elicited in the evidence of PW’s. 1 to 7, the learned Special Public Prosecutor has given up examining the remaining witnesses. Thus there is absolutely no evidence on record to connect the accused

No.1 and 2 with the alleged offence in order to prove their guilt.

In view of the above discussed reasons, this court has no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused No.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 354-D r/w 34 of IPC and Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, thereby the accused

No.1 and 2 are entitled for an acquittal. The point is answered accordingly.

10.In the result, the accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 354-D r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Accordingly the

Accused No.1 and 2 are acquitted under Section 232 Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused No.1 and 2 shall be in force for a period of six months as mandated

17.04.2023 SplJ,ASF

S.C (POCSO) No.1 of 2019 5/5

under section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court this the 17 th day of April, 2023.

SPL. JUDGE FOR POCSO ACT CASES,

ASIFABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution For Defence

PW1XX/victim-I - None - PW2YY/victim-II PW3ZZ/victim-III PW4GG/brother of PW.1 PW5JJ/father of PW.2 PW6KK/father of PW.3 PW7E. Murali/eye witness

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.P1Sec.161 CrPC statement of PW.1-Nil- Ex.P2Sec.161 CrPC statement of PW.2 Ex.P3Sec. 161 CrPC statement of PW.3 Ex.P4Sec.164 CrPC statement of PW.4 Ex.P5Sec.161 CrPC statement of PW.5 Ex.P6Sec.161 CrPC statement of PW.6 Ex.P7Sec.161 CrPC statement of PW.7

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- NIL -

SPL. JUDGE FOR POCSO ACT CASES,

ASIFABAD.

17.04.2023 SplJ,ASF

SC.POCSO/23/2018 Acquitted

POLICE KOWTALA vs MODAMPURI ACHYUTH

28 Mar 2023

SC(POCSO) No.23 of 2018 1/5

IN THE COURT OF THE FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT FOR EXPEDITIOUS

TRIAL AND DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN AGAINST

SEXUAL OFFENCES (POCSO) ACT CASES AT ASIFABAD.

Present:- Sri D. Ravindra Sharma, Prl. Sessions Judge, Asifabad. FAC: Spl Judge for expeditious trial and disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases, at Asifabad

Tuesday, the 28th day of March, 2023

SC (POCSO) No.23 of 2018

Name of the Complainant: State of Telangana through Sub-Inspector of Polilce, PS Kowtala

Name of the accused: Modampuri Achyuth S/o Shankar, Age: 26 years, Caste: Kamsali, Occ: Auto driver R/o Gudlabori village

Offence under section: Sections 354, 354-A of IPC and Section 8 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

Plea of the accused: Not guilty

Finding: Not guilty

Sentence or Order: In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 354, 354-A of Indian Penal Code and Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual

Offences Act, 2012. Accordingly accused is acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as mandated under

Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after appeal time.

Name of the counsel for: Sri G.V.S Prasad, prosecutionSpecial Public Prosecutor

Name of the counsel for defence: Sri B. Satish Babu, Advocate.

This case coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri G.V.S. Prasad, Special Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri B. Satish Babu, learned counsel for accused and on hearing both sides, having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:

28.03.2023 SplJ,ASF

SC(POCSO) No.23 of 2018 2/5

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kowtala has filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence Section 354, 354-A of Indian Penal Code and Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 07.10.2017 at about 6.30 P.M, the father of the victim girl lodged a report with police, Kowtala stating that on 05.01.2017 at about 9.30 P.M, his daughter/victim girl while returning from their elder father house, Modampuri Achyuth (accused) came from back side, caught hold hands of the victim girl, closed her mouth with her chunni and tried to outrage her modesty.

Basing on the said report, the police Kowtala registered a case in Cr.No.96 of 2017, issued FIR and investigated into the matter. On 30.10.2017 apprehended the accused and on interrogation he confessed to have committed the offence.

After completion of investigation, Sub-Inspector of Police, Kowtala has filed charge-sheet against the accused for the offence Section 354, 354-A of Indian

Penal Code and Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

3.The Learned I Addl. District Judge, FAC: Spl. Judge for expeditious trial and disposal of rape and protection of children against sexual offences (POCSO)

Act cases, Adilabad took cognizance of the offence under Section 354, 354-A of

Indian Penal Code and Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual

Offences Act, 2012. On appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C. Subsequently the case was transferred to this Court as per Proc.Dis.No.820/2022, dt.04.03.2022 of Prl.

District and Sessions Court, Adilabad.

28.03.2023 SplJ,ASF

SC(POCSO) No.23 of 2018 3/5

4.After hearing both sides and on perusal of the record, charges for the offence under Section 354, 354-A of Indian Penal Code and Section 8 of the

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

5.To prove its case, the prosecution has examined PW’s.1 to 6 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P9. The learned Special Public Prosecutor has given up examining the remaining witnesses.

6.After closing of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 CrPC by explaining the incriminating material appearing against him, he denied the same and reported no defence evidence on his behalf, hence defence evidence was closed.

7.Heard the arguments of both sides.

8. Now the point that arises for determination is: “Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 354, 354-A of Indian Penal Code and Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 beyond all reasonable doubt?”

POINT:

9.The prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused has examined the victim girl as PW2. As per her evidence about 5 years back there was some galata in their house because she got less marks in the exams, therefore, she went to the house of her relations without informing anybody, without knowing the said fact

PW1 lodged complaint. That the accused did not commit any offence against her and PW1 did not lodge any complaint against the accused.

10.The parents of the victim are examined as PW1 and PW4. They deposed that about 5 years back there was some galata in their house, therefore victim

28.03.2023 SplJ,ASF

SC(POCSO) No.23 of 2018 4/5

went to house of their relations without informing them, without knowing the said fact, PW1 searched for her and went to police station and lodged complaint.

That the accused did not commit any offence against the victim and he did not lodged any complaint against the accused. PW3 deposed that she does not know anything about this case. The accused did not commit any offence against PW2.

Thus PW1 to PW4 completely turned hostile and they did not support the prosecution case.

11.The Assistant Sub-Inspector and Sub-Inspector of Police who are the investigating officers are examined as PW5 and PW6. PW5 deposed that on 08.10.2017 she recorded the statement of the victim girl in police station and the proceedings were videographed by videographer. PW6 deposed that on 07.10.2017 on receiving complaint from PW1, he registered a case in Cr.No.96 of 2017, issued FIR/Ex.P6, conducted crime details form before the panchas, got recorded the statement of victim through videographer, collected the bonafide certificate of the victim girl. PW6 further deposed that on 30.10.2017 apprehended the accused. That after collecting relevant documents and on completion of investigation, he filed charge-sheet against the accused for the offence Sections 354, 354-A of IPC and Section 8 of the POCSO Act. The evidence of PW5 & PW6 will not in any way help the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused, when the material witnesses ie.,the victim/PW2, her father complainant & driver as PW’s.1, 3 and 4 have not supported the case of prosecution. The evidence on record is not connecting the accused with the alleged offence.

Therefore the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

In view of the above discussed reasons, this court has no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence Sections 354, 354-A of Indian Penal Code and Section 8 of the Protection

28.03.2023 SplJ,ASF

SC(POCSO) No.23 of 2018 5/5

of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and the accused is entitled for acquittal. The point is answered accordingly.

12.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 354, 354-A of Indian Penal Code and Section 8 of the Protection of

Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Accordingly the accused is acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as mandated under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court this the 28 th day of March, 2023.

SPL. JUDGE FOR POCSO ACT CASES,

ASIFABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution For Defence

PW1YY/father of victim girl - None - PW2XX/victim girl PW3Dandere Ramdas/eye witness PW4ZZ/mother of victim girl PW5R.Thirumala/Women ASI PW6B.Ashok/investigating officer

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.P1Sec.161 CrPC statement of PW1-Nil- Ex.P2Sec. 161 CrPC statement of PW2/victim girl Ex.P3Sec. 161 CrPC statement of PW3 Ex.P4Sec. 161 CrPC statement of PW4 Ex.P5Complaint Ex.P6First Information Report Ex.P7CDF along with rough sketchComplaint Ex.P8Sec.164 CrPC statemetn of victim girl Ex.P9Bonafide certificate

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- NIL -

SPL. JUDGE FOR POCSO ACT CASES,

ASIFABAD.

28.03.2023 SplJ,ASF

SC.POCSO/48/2019 Acquitted

Through SHO PS Rebbena vs Madhanchiranjeevi

19 Apr 2023

Spl. Sc No.48 of 2019 1/5

IN THE COURT OF THE FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT FOR EXPEDITIOUS

TRIAL AND DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN AGAINST

SEXUAL OFFENCES (POCSO) ACT CASES AT ASIFABAD.

Present:- Sri D. Ravindra Sharma, Prl. Sessions Judge, Asifabad. FAC: Spl Judge for expeditious trial and disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases, at Asifabad

Wednesday, the 19th day of April, 2023

SC (POCSO) No.48 of 2019

Name of the Complainant: State of Telangana through SDPO, Asifabad

Name of the accused: Madhan Chiranjeevi S/o Ramaiah, Age: 23 years, Caste: bare, R/o Kondapalli village of Rebbena

Offence under section: Sections 366-A, 376(2)(i)(n) of IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012

Plea of the accused: Not guilty

Finding: Not guilty

Sentence or Order: In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 366-A, 376(2)(i)(n) of Indian Penal Code and

Section 6 of the Protection of Children from

Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Accordingly the accused is acquitted under Section 235(1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as mandated under section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after appeal time.

Name of the counsel for: Sri G.V.S Prasad, prosecutionSpecial Public Prosecutor

Name of the counsel for defence: Sri B. Satish Babu, Advocate.

This case coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri G.V.S. Prasad, Special Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri B.Satish Babu, learned counsel for accused and on hearing both sides, having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:

19.04.2023 SplJ,ASF

Spl. Sc No.48 of 2019 2/5

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Asifabad has filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable Section 366-A, 376(2)(i)(n) of Indian Penal

Code and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 08.11..2017 at about 12.30 P.M., the father of the victim girl lodged a report with police, Rebbena stating that his daughter/victim girl studying intermediate 2nd year at Asifabad on 07.11.2017 at 09.00 A.M left their house to college and did not return. He searched for her but in vain.

Basing on the said report, the police Rebbena registered a case in Crime

No.141 of 2017, issued FIR and investigated into the matter. On 13.11.2017 at about 06.00 A.M., they apprehended the accused and on interrogation he confessed to have committed the offence. After completion of investigation, Sub

Divisional Police Officer, Asifabad has filed charge-sheet against the accused for the offence Section 366-A, 376(2)(i)(n) of Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

3.The Learned I Addl. District Judge, FAC: Spl. Judge for expeditious trial and disposal of rape and protection of children against sexual offences (POCSO)

Act cases, Adilabad took cognizance of the offence under Section 366-A, 376(2)

(i)(n) of Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from

Sexual Offences Act, 2012. On appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C. Subsequently the case was transferred to this Court as per Proc.Dis.No.669/2022, dt.22.02.2022 of Prl.

District and Sessions Court, Adilabad.

4.After hearing both sides and on perusal of the record, charges for the offence under Section 366-A, 376(2)(i)(n) of Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of

19.04.2023 SplJ,ASF

Spl. Sc No.48 of 2019 3/5

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

5.To prove its case, the prosecution has examined PW’s.1 to 6 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P12. The learned Special Public Prosecutor has given up examining the remaining witnesses, since the victim and her parents turned hostile to the case of prosecution and did not support the case.

7.Heard the arguments of both sides.

8. Now the point that arises for determination is: “Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 366-A, 376(2)(i)(n) of IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act beyond all reasonable doubt?”

POINT:

9.The prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused has examined the victim girl as PW5. As per her evidence about 5 years back there was a galata at her house, therefore her father went to police station and lodged a complaint. That she does not know why PW1 lodged a complaint with the police. That the accused did not comit any offence against her. That the women police recorded her statement but she does not know the contents. Her statement was recorded by the Magistrate at the instance of police. The parents and brother of the victim are examined as PW1 to PW3. They deposed that about 5 years back there was galata at their house, therefore, PW1 lodged a complaint with police. That the accused did not comit any offence against the victim girl. The police did not

19.04.2023 SplJ,ASF

Spl. Sc No.48 of 2019 4/5

record their statement. The circumstantial witness to the incident is examined as

PW4. He deposed that the accused did not engage his auto to take away the victim.the police did not record his statement. Thus PW1 to PW5 completely turned hostile and they did not support the prosecution case.

10.The police official is examined as PW6. He deposed that on 08.11.2017 on receiving complaint from PW1, he registered a case in Cr.No.141 of 2017. That on 12.11.2017 he got recorded the statement of victim through WASI, he altered the section of law. That the LW27/Inspector of police got examined the accused by the doctor. That after receiving relevant documents and on completion of investigation, he filed charge-sheet against the accused for the offence Section 366-A, 376(2)(i)(n) of IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The evidence of PW6 will not in any way help the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused, since the material witnesses ie.,the victim/PW5, her parents/PW1 and PW2, brother/PW3 have not supported the case of prosecution. The evidence on record is not connecting the accused with the alleged offence. Therefore the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

In view of the above discussed reasons, this court has no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence Sections 366-A, 376(2)(i)(n) of Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and the accused is entitled for acquittal. The point is answered accordingly.

11.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 366-A, 376(2)(i)(n) of Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Accordingly the accused is acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in

19.04.2023 SplJ,ASF

Spl. Sc No.48 of 2019 5/5

force for a period of six months as mandated under section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court this the 19 th day of April, 2023.

SPL. JUDGE FOR POCSO ACT CASES,

ASIFABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution For Defence

PW1ZZ/father of victim girl - None - PW2YY/mother of victim girl PW3BB/brother of victim girl PW4Vadai Ravinder/circumstantial witness PW5XX/victim girl PW6K.Naresh Kumar/investigating officer

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.P1Signatuer of PW on complaint, dt.08.11.2017-Nil- Ex.P2Sec.161 CrPC statement of PW1 Ex.P3Sec. 161 CrPC statement of PW2 Ex.P4Sec. 161 CrPC statement of PW3 Ex.P5Sec. 161 CrPC statement of PW4 Ex.P6Sec. 161 CrPC statement of PW5 Ex.P7Complaint Ex.P8First Information Report Ex.P9Section alteration memo Ex.P10Potency test report of accused Ex.P11Medical examinaton report of victim Ex.P12Final report

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- NIL -

SPL. JUDGE FOR POCSO ACT CASES,

ASIFABAD

19.04.2023 SplJ,ASF

CRLMP.BAIL/104/2023

Polavena Ramesh vs SHO, PS Kaghaznagar Town

20 Apr 2023

IN THE COURT OF PRL. SESSIONS JUDGE AT ASIFABAD

PRESENT: SRI D. RAVINDRA SHARMA,

PRL. SESSIONS JUDGE

Thursday, the 20th day of April, 2023

Crl MP No.104 of 2023

in

Crime No.14 of 2023 of PS Kaghaznagar Town

Polavena Ramesh S/o Mallaiah, Age: 36 years, Caste: Tenugu, Occ: SPM contract labour, R/o Nizamuddin colony, Kaghaznagar village & mandal, District Kumurambheem Asifabad

..Petitioner/A1

And

The State of Telangana through the SHO, PS Kaghaznagar Town Represented by Additional Public Prosecutor, Asifabad.

.. Respondent/Complainant

Counsel for Petitioner:Sri R. Ravinder, Advocate.

Counsel for Respondent: Additional Public Prosecutor

This petition coming on this day for final hearing; upon hearing the counsel on record and considering the material on record and having stood over for consideration, this Court has made the following:

O R D E R

1.This is the second bail petition filed under Section 439 CrPC,1973 praying this Court to enlarge the petitioner/accused No.1 on bail.

2.The allegation against the petitioner/accused No.1 is that on 25.01.2023 at about 11.00 A.M., the complainant/Reddy Saramma lodged a report stating that she performed the marriage of her second daughter (Pushpa Latha) with petitioner/accused No.1 in the year 2010. That the petitioner/accused No.1 is addicted to alcohol and used to harass her daughter physically and mentally. That several panchayats were conducted in that regard but petitioner did not change his attitude. On 24.01.2023 also her daughter informed about the harassment made by the petitioner. Due to the said harassment, the deceased vexed with her life and committed suicide by hanging. Basing on the said report, Police

Kaghaznagar Town registered a case in Cr.No.14/2023 and investigation is pending.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contents of the petition, and submits that the petitioner/accused No.1 is in judicial custody since 27.01.2023. Therefore, he prayed this Court to grant bail for the petitioner.

4. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that investigation is almost completed and charge-sheet will be filed.

5.Heard both sides.

6. Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the petitioner/accused No.1 is entitled for grant of bail for the offence Section 498-A, 306 r/w 34 of IPC ?

POINT:-

7. It is evident from the record that the petitioner/accused No.1 is alleged to have been involved in the offence of harassing and ill-treating the deceased resulting committing of suicide by her which is punishable under Section 498-A, 306 r/w 34 of IPC. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that investigation is almost completed, except receiving of FSL reports and after receiving of reports, charge-sheet will be filed soon. When the investigation is completed, there is no chance for the petitioner to influence the witnesses or tamper with the evidence. The petitioner is in judicial custody since 27.01.2023.

No purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner in further judicial custody.

Therefore, the petitioner/accused is entitled for bail.The point is answered accordingly.

8.In the result, the petition is allowed and the petitioner/accused is enlarged on bail on his execution of personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties for likesum each to the satisfaction of the JMFC, Sirpur-T. The petitioner/accused after his release shall appear before the concerned police on every Sunday between 10.00 A.M to 12.00 Noon, till filing of charge-sheet or for (2) months, whichever is earlier.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer and after corrections

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 20th day of April, 2023.

PRL.SESSIONS JUDGE

ASIFABAD

Copy to:

1. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sirpur-T

2. The Superintendent Spl. Sub-Jail, Asifabad

3. The Station House Officer, PS Kaghaznagar Town

4. Sri R. Ravinder, learned counsel for petitioner.

Order Record 304 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
SC/2/2021	Station House Officer, Asifabad vs Taksande Arun	24 Apr 2023	Other	—
CRLMP.BAIL/104/2023	Polavena Ramesh vs SHO, PS Kaghaznagar Town	20 Apr 2023	Order	—
SC/30/2023	Station House Officer, PS Tiryani vs A1. Kova Donderao and another	19 Apr 2023	Other	—
SC.POCSO/48/2019	Through SHO PS Rebbena vs Madhanchiranjeevi	19 Apr 2023	Judgement	Acquitted
CRLMP.BAIL/95/2023	Moulkar Sravan vs CI of police Kaghaznagar rural	17 Apr 2023	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/99/2023	Perugu Vishwas vs SHO, PS Kaghaznagar Rural	17 Apr 2023	Order	—
SC.POCSO/1/2019	Police Station Jainoor vs Vagmare Tathagath	17 Apr 2023	Judgement	Acquitted
SC/22/2023	Station House Officer, PS Wankidi vs Vadgure Bapuji	13 Apr 2023	Other	—
SC/17/2023	Station House Officer, PS Kaghaznagar Rural vs Shaik Yakub	11 Apr 2023	Other	—
SC/18/2023	Station House Officer, PS Easgaon vs Vikram Mandal @ Bikram Mandal	11 Apr 2023	Other	—
SC/19/2023	Station House Officer, PS Sirpur-T vs A1. Chitlam Nagesh and another	11 Apr 2023	Other	—
SC/20/2023	Station House Officer, PS Chinthalamanepalli vs A1. Elkari Anjanna	11 Apr 2023	Other	—
SC/21/2023	Station House Officer, PS Sirpur-T vs Durgam Bheem Rao	11 Apr 2023	Other	—
CRLMP.BAIL/94/2023	Kosari Tirumalesh vs SHO, PS Dahegaon	10 Apr 2023	Order	—
MVOP/59/2021	Durgam Bapu vs Karri Veerabhadra Rao @ Koru Veerabadra Rao	31 Mar 2023	Order	—
SC.NDPS/63/2022	The State of Telangana through PS Jainoor vs Sidam Lethu	31 Mar 2023	Other	—
CRLMP.BAIL/68/2023	Polavena Ramesh vs SHO, PS Kaghaznagar Town	31 Mar 2023	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/73/2023	Durgam Sunil vs CI of Police, Rebbena	31 Mar 2023	Order	—
SC/124/2022	The State of Telangana through PS Lingapur vs Jadhav Manoj	29 Mar 2023	Judgement	—
SC/48/2020	Station House Officer,Tiryani vs Athram Bapu Rao	28 Mar 2023	Judgement	—
CRLMP.BAIL/61/2023	Moulkar Sravan vs SHO, PS Kaghaznagar Rural	28 Mar 2023	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/67/2023	Perugu Vishwas vs SHO, PS Kaghaznagar Rural	28 Mar 2023	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/81/2023	A1. Durgam Thukaram vs SHO, PS Penchikalpet	28 Mar 2023	Order	—
SC.POCSO/23/2018	POLICE KOWTALA vs MODAMPURI ACHYUTH	28 Mar 2023	Judgement	Acquitted
EP/24/2022	M/s. Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited vs Rajanna Chittari	27 Mar 2023	Order	—
EP/28/2022	M/s. Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited vs Mohammad Tajuddin	27 Mar 2023	Order	—
EP/34/2022	M/s. Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd, vs Narender Mamidi and another	27 Mar 2023	Order	—
CC.APT/21/2022	The State of Telangana through PS Rebbena vs Islavath Goriya @ Gopee	24 Mar 2023	Judgement	—
CC.APT/22/2022	The State of Telangana through PS Rebbena vs Islavath Goriya @ Gopee	24 Mar 2023	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/48/2021	The State of Telangana through the Sub Inspector of Police, Kaghaznagar Rural vs Routhu Vijay Kumar	24 Mar 2023	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/72/2023	A1. Kota Manhendar vs SHO, PS Sirpur-T	21 Mar 2023	Order	—
SC.POCSO/68/2018	POLICE EASGAON vs THEEGALA MAHESH	21 Mar 2023	Judgement	Acquitted
EP/10/2023	Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd. vs Sayeed Bin Salam	20 Mar 2023	Order	—
SC.POCSO/2/2019	Police Station Kaghaznagar Town vs Cheneveni @ Chinnaboina Thirupathi	20 Mar 2023	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/81/2018	POLICE JAINOOR vs KANDARE SUKCHAND	16 Mar 2023	Judgement	—
EP/31/2022	M/s. Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited vs Ramesh Munjam	15 Mar 2023	Order	—
SC.POCSO/34/2019	Through SHO PS Chintalamanepalli vs Goleti Nagesh	14 Mar 2023	Judgement	—
EP/6/2023	Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd. vs Boire Vinod	13 Mar 2023	Order	—
MVOP/83/2021	Jatoth Vinod Kumar vs Babar Khan	13 Mar 2023	Judgement	—
CRLMP.BAIL/60/2023	A1. Durgam Thukaram and 3 others vs SHO, PS Penchikalpet	13 Mar 2023	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/54/2023	A1. Jadhav Gopal and another vs SHO, Ps Jainoor	09 Mar 2023	Order	—
EP/3/2023	Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd. vs Lateef Mohammad	08 Mar 2023	Order	—
SC.POCSO/69/2019	The State of Telangana through SHO PS Wankidi vs Telang Raju	08 Mar 2023	Judgement	—
SC/74/2021	Station House Officer, Wankidi vs Vadluri Kishore	06 Mar 2023	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/31/2018	POLICE PENCHIKALPET vs ALLURI NAGESH	06 Mar 2023	Judgement	—
SC/7/2023	Station House Officer, PS Lingapur vs Chawan Suresh	04 Mar 2023	Other	—
SC/8/2023	Station House Officer, PS Lingapur vs A1. Kendre Parameshwar and another	04 Mar 2023	Other	—
SC/9/2023	Station House Officer, PS Jainoor vs A1. Athram Tukaram and 5 others	04 Mar 2023	Other	—
SC/10/2023	Station House Officer, PS Lingapur vs A1. Soyam Srinivas and 10 others	04 Mar 2023	Other	—
SC/11/2023	Station House Officer, Ps Jainoor vs Vagambare Ravi	04 Mar 2023	Other	—
SC/12/2023	Station House Officer, PS Jainoor vs Seedam Bhagwanth and 12 others	04 Mar 2023	Other	—
SC/13/2023	Station House Officer, PS Jainoor vs Bodke Aniketh	04 Mar 2023	Other	—
SC/14/2023	Station House Officer, PS Jainoor vs Jadhav Krishna	04 Mar 2023	Other	—
SC/15/2023	Station House Officer, PS Lingapur vs Rathod Ravinder	04 Mar 2023	Other	—
SC/16/2023	Station House Officer,, PS Sirpur-U vs A1. Syed Shadulla and 2 others	04 Mar 2023	Other	—
MVOP/72/2018	Madireddy Sai Naresh Reddy vs Sahik Shamsheer and 2 others	02 Mar 2023	Order	—
MVOP/131/2018	Rupa Kumari @ Rupa Rai vs Shaik Muzammil Hussain and 2 others	01 Mar 2023	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/43/2023	A5. Durgam Vilas vs CI of Police, Kaghaznagar Rural	01 Mar 2023	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/44/2023	Dongre Prashanth vs SHO, Ps Penchikalpet	01 Mar 2023	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/45/2023	Vagade Ramesh vs SHO, PS Penchikalpet	01 Mar 2023	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/46/2023	A1. Durgam Thukaram and 3 others vs SHO, Ps Penchikalpet	01 Mar 2023	Order	—
MVOP/30/2022	Kudimetha Jangu vs Chellurkar Dinesh	28 Feb 2023	Order	—
MVOP/129/2018	Sathaiah Arsam and another vs Buddha Shiva Krishna and 3 others	28 Feb 2023	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/42/2023	A1. Kota Mahendar and 2 others vs SHO, Ps Sirpur-T	28 Feb 2023	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/47/2023	A1. Jadhav Gopal and 4 others vs SHO, PS Jainoor	28 Feb 2023	Order	—
MVOP/29/2020	Challuri Shireesha vs Kalakuntala Thirupathi	23 Feb 2023	Order	—
EP/21/2022	Dagam Pochaiah vs M. mallaiah	22 Feb 2023	Other	—
MVOP/9/2021	Pitta Lachaiah vs Shaik Nawab Johny	22 Feb 2023	Judgement	—
SC/3/2023	Station House Officer, PS Easgaon vs Samar Biswas and 2 others	22 Feb 2023	Other	—
SC/4/2023	Station House Officer, PS Kaghaznagar Rural vs A1. Gurijala Rajesh and 7 others	22 Feb 2023	Other	—
SC/5/2023	Station House Officer, PS Kaghaznagar Rural vs Badikala Anjaiah	22 Feb 2023	Other	—
SC/6/2023	Station House Officer, PS Asifabad vs Kamte Mallaiah	22 Feb 2023	Other	—
SC/2/2023	Station House Officer, PS Kaghaznagar Rural vs Lingampalli Shekar	21 Feb 2023	Other	—
CRLMP.BAIL/30/2023	A1. Kova Donderao and another vs PS Thiryani	15 Feb 2023	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/35/2023	A1. Lendugure Hanumanthu and 3 others vs SHO, PS Kaghaznagar Rural	15 Feb 2023	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/38/2023	A1. Durgam Thukaram and 3 others vs SHO, PS Penchikalpet	15 Feb 2023	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/39/2023	A8. Vagade Ramesh vs SHO, PS Penchikalpet	15 Feb 2023	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/40/2023	A1. Jadhav Gopal and 4 others vs SHO, PS Jainoor	15 Feb 2023	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/12/2023	A1. Kota Manhendar and 2 others vs SHO, PS Sirpur-T	03 Feb 2023	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/16/2023	Dongre Prashanth vs SHO, PS Penchikalpet	03 Feb 2023	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/20/2023	A5. Durgam Vilas vs CI of Police, Kaghaznagar Rural	03 Feb 2023	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/25/2023	A1. Durgam Thukaram and 3 others vs PS Penchikalpet	03 Feb 2023	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/24/2023	A1. Rathod Ganapathi vs PS Lingapur	02 Feb 2023	Order	—
SC/75/2021	Station House Officer, Easgaon vs Lekuri Santhosh	01 Feb 2023	Judgement	—
SC/58/2021	SHO Kaghaznagar Town vs Taduri Prashanth	31 Jan 2023	Judgement	—
CRLMP.BAIL/22/2023	Choudari Prabhakar vs CI of Police, Kaghaznagar Rural	31 Jan 2023	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/11/2023	Dupam Dileep vs SHO, Bejjur	30 Jan 2023	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/14/2023	A1. Lenugure Hanumanthu and 3 others vs State of Telangana through PS Kaghaznagar Rural	30 Jan 2023	Order	—
MVOP/76/2021	Thayabai Elmule vs Chandrakanth Majhi	27 Jan 2023	Order	—
SC/182/2019	Station House Officer, Asifabad vs Pulugamkar Gurumurthy	27 Jan 2023	Judgement	—
SC/62/2019	Station House Officer, Easgaon vs Bussa Rajesh and another	24 Jan 2023	Judgement	—
CRLMP.BAIL/13/2023	A1. Kova Donderao and another vs State of Telangana through PS Thiryani	24 Jan 2023	Order	—
SC/100/2022	Mahulkar Saroja vs Chunarkar Madhukar	23 Jan 2023	Judgement	—
MVOP/111/2019	Rajamani Kasturi and 3 others vs Kishan Kampelli and another	19 Jan 2023	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/3/2023	A1. Rathod Ganapathi and 4 others vs SHO PS Lingapur	19 Jan 2023	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/5/2023	Kasturi Ramesh vs SHO, PS Rebbena	19 Jan 2023	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/360/2022	Bore Namdev vs SHO, PS Kowtala	17 Jan 2023	Order	—
SC/98/2019	Station House Officer, Rebbena vs Durgam Jyothi and another	11 Jan 2023	Judgement	—
CRLMP.BAIL/1/2023	Devarakonda Santhosh vs SHO, PS Rebbena	11 Jan 2023	Order	—
SC/17/2020	Station House Officer,Rebbena vs Kudikala Rama Krishna and another	10 Jan 2023	Judgement	—

Showing 100 of 304 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Apr 2023		14
Mar 2023		49
Feb 2023		23
Jan 2023		22
Dec 2022		19
Nov 2022		24
Oct 2022		30
Sep 2022		30
Aug 2022		22
Jul 2022		14
Jun 2022		66

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Sri. D. Ravindra Sharma handled?

Sri. D. Ravindra Sharma has handled 313 court orders since 2022 at Asifabad, PDJ Court Complex. The average disposal rate is 29 orders per month.

What types of cases does Sri. D. Ravindra Sharma hear?

Based on available records, Sri. D. Ravindra Sharma primarily handles Criminal matters (Sessions Cases, Criminal Cases) and Motor Accident matters (Motor Accident Claims) and Civil matters (Execution Petitions, Appeal Suits) at Asifabad, PDJ Court Complex.

Where is Sri. D. Ravindra Sharma currently posted?

Sri. D. Ravindra Sharma is posted as Prl. District and Sessions Judge, KB Asifabad at Asifabad, PDJ Court Complex, Kumuram Bheem Asifabad, Telangana.

Are judgments by Sri. D. Ravindra Sharma available online?

Yes. 10 judgments by Sri. D. Ravindra Sharma are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Sri. D. Ravindra Sharma dispose cases?

Sri. D. Ravindra Sharma disposes approximately 29 cases per month, based on 313 orders handled over their tenure at Asifabad, PDJ Court Complex.

Since when is Sri. D. Ravindra Sharma serving?

Sri. D. Ravindra Sharma has been serving at Asifabad, PDJ Court Complex since 2022.

Case Types

SC 35%

CRLMP 28%

MVOP 27%

EP 4%

AS 2%

OS 2%

CC 1%

CRLA 1%

Posting History

Jun 2022 — Apr 2023

Prl. District and Sessions Judge, KB Asifabad · 277 orders
May 2022 — Jun 2022

III Addl. District and Sessions Judge
May 2022 — Apr 2023

Fast track Spl Judge for POCSO act Cases · 36 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 4

Other Judges at this Court

A.Veeraiah

Prl. District and Sessions Judge, KB Asifabad

54 orders

Sri V. Sanketh Mithra

Senior Civil Judge

0 orders

Jakkula Ananthalaxmi

Prl. Junior Civi Judge, Asifabad

20 orders

← View all judges at Asifabad, PDJ Court Complex