Sri D. Venkatesh

Prl District and Sessions Judge, Karimnagar

Karimnagar, PDJ Court Complex · Karimnagar · Telangana

Sri D. Venkatesh, Prl District and Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, is posted at Karimnagar, PDJ Court Complex, Karimnagar, Telangana, India. 868 court orders on record since 2024. 15 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles MVOP, SC, CC cases.

868

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

SC.POCSO/6/2024 Acquitted

xxx/SHO,PS, Karimnagar III town vs Thandra Vinay @ vinnu

10 Feb 2026

1 of 22 SC (POCSO) No. 6 of 2024

IN THE COURT OF THE II-FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT FOR EXPEDITIOUS

TRIAL AND DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND POCSO ACT CASES ::AT:: KARIMNAGAR.

PRESENT: SRI D. VENKATESH,

I ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE,

KARIMNAGAR.

FAC: II Fast Track Special Court for Expeditious Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases,

KARIMNAGAR.

TUESDAY, 10 th DAY OF February, 2026

SC (POCSO). No. 6 of 20 24

State of Telangana through NAME OF THE The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Karimnagar III Town, COMPLAINANT Cr.No.357/2023.

A1: Thandra Vinay @ Vinnu, S/o. Raju, Age: 19 years, Occ: Sale Raise Company Brand Promotee, Cheerala, R/o. Kisan Nagar, Karimnagar.

NAME OF ACCUSED

A2: Mothe Sai @ Sai Kiran, S/o. Shankar, Age: 20 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.10-5-718/1/1, Kisan Nagar, Karimnagar.

Under Sec.366, 376(3) of IPC and Sec. 4 of POCSO Act

OFFENCES UNDER SECTION

against A1 and Sec.366 r/w 109 of IPC against A2.

PLEA OF THE ACCUSED Pleaded Not guilty. FINDING OF THE COURTFound Not Guilty. In the result, accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/s. 366, 376(3) of IPC and Sec. 4 of POCSO Act and Sec.366 r/w 109 of IPC. Accordingly, they are acquitted U/s. 235(1) CrPC.

SENTENCE

Bonds and bail bonds of accused stands cancelled subject to section 437-A of Cr.PC. The Real me mobile phone shall be sold and sale proceeds shall be confiscated to state after expiry of appeal time. COUNSEL FOR Sri M.Rajesham, Spl. Public Prosecutor.

PROSECUTION

Sri K.Prashanth Kumar, Ch.Kiran Kumar &

COUNSEL FOR DEFENCE

M.Sudhakar, Advocates.

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 10-02-2026 in the presence of Sri M.Rajesham, Spl. Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri K.Prashanth Kumar, Ch.Kiran Kumar & M.Sudhakar, Advocates for Accused ; and after hearing both sides and after perusing the material on record to till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

2 of 22 SC (POCSO) No. 6 of 2024

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

1.Accused No.1 stands charged for the offence punishable 366, 376(3) of IPC and Sec. 4 of POCSO Act for having committed rape, criminal intimidation and sexual harassment on the victim girl and Accused No.2 stands charge for the offence punishable U/Sec.366 r/w 109 of IPC for abetment.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE PROSECUTION CASE :

2.On 29-12-2023, at 09:30 AM, LW.1/Father of the victim girl filed Police report alleging that his elder daughter (Victim girl of age 17 years) was studying intermediate second year in Trinity College. On 28-12-2023 while death anniversary of his father was performed and they were busy in the function, his daughter victim girl left the home at about 09:00 PM. Though they searched for her in the house of relatives and neighbors, her where about could not be known.

Since his daughter was found missing from home, he filed complaint.

3.Basing on the Police report, LW.16/K.Kanakaiah Goud (Sub Inspector of

Police, P.S. Karimnagar III Town) registered a case in Cr.No. 357/2023, U/Sec. 363 of IPC and issued FIR.

4.On 01-01-2024, victim girl was found missing and on enquiry, she disclosed that accused deceived her, took her to Guntur, where he married her by exchanging Garlands and committed sexual intercourse.

5.He examined and recorded the statement of LW1-Father of victim girl. He visited scene of offence, secured the presence of LW7-V.Sathish and LW8-

K.Suman and conducted scene of offence panchanama. He got recorded the statement of LW3-Victim girl with the help of LW4-K.Kala and the same was

3 of 22 SC (POCSO) No. 6 of 2024

videographed with the help of LW5-B.Vijayalaxmi (WHC No.3078). Basing on the statement of the victim girl, the provision of law was altered from 363 of IPC to 366, 376(3) of IPC and Sec. 4 of POCSO Act and Sec.366 r/w 109 of IPC against accused No.1 and 2.

6.Based on the section alteration, LW17-V.Srinivas (S.I of police, Karimnagar III

Town) took up further investigation and got verified the investigation conducted by LW16 and found to be it on proper lines. He referred the victim girl to

Government Hospital for medical examination. He preserved the material objects of the victim girl and forwarded them to FSL for analysis and report. He examined and recorded the statements of LW1-Father of victim, LW2-Mother of victim, LW4-K.Kala and LW5-B.Vijayalaxmi.

7.On 01-01-2024, he apprehended accused No.1 and on interrogation in the presence of mediators, accused No.1 voluntarily confessed the commission of offence. In pursuance of his confession, he seized one Realme phone under the cover of panchanama. On 02-01-2024, he apprehended accused No.2, and on interrogation, accused No.2 voluntarily confessed the commission of offence. As such, they were arrested and sent for judicial remand.

8.He filed a requisition before LW6-Y.Venu Madhav for issuance of date of birth particulars of the victim girl and got collected the study, conduct and date of birth certificate of the victim girl. He also got collected the date of birth certificate of accused No.1. He referred the accused No.1 and 2 to medical examination; for potency test of accused No.1.

4 of 22 SC (POCSO) No. 6 of 2024

9.He filed a requisition before Hon’ble JFCM, Karimnagar to record Sec.164

Cr.P.C statement of the victim girl and got recorded the same.

10.After completion of investigation, collecting the FSL report, potency certificate, he filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 and 2 for the offence punishable U/Sec. 366, 376(3) of IPC and Sec. 4 of POCSO Act and Sec.366 r/w 109 of IPC.

11.Upon filing of final report U/Sec.173 of Cr.P.C. by the Sub-Inspector of police, Karimnagar III Town, I Addl. District and Sessions Judge taken cognizance of offence U/Sec. 366, 376(3) of IPC and Sec. 4 of POCSO Act and Sec.366 r/w 109 of IPC against the accused No.1 and 2. The case was transferred to II Fast Track

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

12. On appearance of Accused No.1 and 2 before this Court, copies of case documents are furnished to Accused as required U/s.207 Cr.P.C. On considering the entire material available on record, a charge for the offence U/Sec. 366, 376(3) of IPC and Sec. 4 of POCSO Act and Sec.366 r/w 109 of IPC were framed against the Accused No.1 and 2. It was read over and explained to them in Telugu to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried for the charge.

13.To prove its case, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW10 and got marked

Ex.P1 to P15.

14.After completion of the examination of the witnesses, accused No.1 & 2 were called upon to explain the incriminating circumstances that are appearing in

5 of 22 SC (POCSO) No. 6 of 2024

the evidence of prosecution witnesses as required U/Sec.313 (1) (b) of Cr.P.C.

Accused No.1 and 2 has denied the evidence. They did not choose to produce any defence witness on their behalf.

15.Heard arguments on both sides.

Now the point that would arise for determination is :

16.Whether the prosecution proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable U/Sec. 366, 376(3) of IPC and Sec. 4 of POCSO Act against

Accused No.1 and Sec.366 (3) r/w 109 of IPC against accused No.2 ?

17. According to case of the prosecution, on 28-12-2023 at about 09:00 PM victim girl was found missing. After her father filed police report, victim girl was traced on 01-01-2024. It was alleged that on 28-12-2023 accused No.1 abducted the victim girl with an intention to marry her and forced for illicit intercourse.

Prosecution alleged that accused took the victim girl to Keshavapatnam with the help of his friend accused No.2 and from there he took her to Warangal and thereafter to Khammam and from Khammam, he took her to Guntur where accused married the victim girl by exchanging the Garlands on 30-12-2023.

However, after father of the victim girl filed report, accused No.1 cannot handle the situation as he was instructed by his parents to go to Karimnagar; returned to

Karimnagar and dropped the victim. In order to prove the allegations against accused No.1 and 2; prosecution examined PW1 to 10.

18.PW1 was father of the victim girl and PW3 is the victim girl. PW1 father of the victim girl and PW5 victim girl in their evidence deposed that on 28-12-2023,

6 of 22 SC (POCSO) No. 6 of 2024

while the family was busy in the death anniversary of the Grandfather of the victim girl, she was found missing at 09:00 PM. Though PW1 searched for the victim, they could not found her. Further, he even found missing cash and clothes of the victim. As such, he approached the police and filed complaint by expressing suspicion against the accused No.1.

19.PW1 further deposed that on 01-01-2024, victim was traced and on enquiry she disclosed that accused No.1 with the help of accused No.2 took her to

Keshavapatnam from there accused No.1 took her to Khammam from there to

Guntur where they exchanged Garlands and on the information given by his parents, they informed about the registration of the case.

20.During the course of cross examination, PW1 admitted that he filed complaint after the victim girl went to friends house without intimation. However, he admitted that she returned on 01-01-2024. When he was questioned where the victim girl was taken to Warangal, Khammam or Guntur, he pleaded ignorance.

He also pleaded ignorance victim girl married to accused No.1. PW5 victim girl in her evidence deposed that while she was studying intermediate second year, accused No.1 used to follow her in the name of love. However, he gathered mobile number of her mother and started calling her. She deposed that on 28-12- 2023 on the ocassion of death anniversary of her grand father while she was present at home, she received phone call from accused No.1 and asked her to come out otherwise he would kill her parents. She deposed that accused No.1 and 2 came to her house and forcefully took her when they were no body was present at home.

7 of 22 SC (POCSO) No. 6 of 2024

21.She deposed that accused No.1 forcefully committed sexual intercourse and thereafter accused No.2 brought a car and accused No.1 took her in the said car to Keshavapatnam, from Keshavapatnam bus stop accused No.1 took her to

Warangal in the bus from there he took to Khammam and from Khammam he took her to Guntur. She also deposed that accused No.1 took her to a temple at

Guntur and exchanged the Garlands forcefully as it was a marriage. When she repeatedly cried, accused No.1 called his mother who informed him about the case filed for which he brought and dropped at his house.

22.During the course of cross examination, accused could able to elicit material information from PW5. PW5 categorically admitted that the statement which was confronted to police and Sec.164 Cr.P.C statement which was confronted was also not given by her. However, she denied the suggestion of accused not kidnapped her. During further cross examination, PW5 admitted that on 28-12-2023 she went to her friends house for night studies in view of function at home and accused No.1 never forcefully took her or committed sexual intercourse.

23.According to case of the prosecution, accused kidnapped the victim girl as they were love in with each other by taking advantage of a ceremony at their home. Victim went with accused No.1 and accused No.1 with the help of accused

No.2 took her to Guntur where they got exchanged the Garlands as if they got married but later they came to know about case filed by PW1 for which accused

No.1 dropped at her home. Though PW1 & PW5 supported the prosecution case initially but when they were subjected to cross examination, they admitted that no incident occurred and accused No.1 never abducted the victim girl. Accused

8 of 22 SC (POCSO) No. 6 of 2024

No.1 has been charged for the offence punishable U/s.366 and 376 of IPC. Apart from the above provisions, he was also charged for the offence punishable U/s.4 of POCSO Act. For the reason of victim not completed the age of 18 years as on the date of the alleged offence. In view of charge under the provisions of POCSO act, the prosecution is duty bound to establish the victim as a child as required

U/s.2 (1)(d) of POCSO Act.

24.In order to establish victim as a child, prosecution relied upon the evidence of the victim and also the evidence of the Principal of Jyothismathi Academy where the victim studied. PW5 in her evidence deposed that her date of birth was 23-11-2006 and she was studying BSC honours as on the date of her evidence.

According to prosecution the alleged offence of rape took place on 28-12-2023.

When the said date is taken into consideration, apparently victim was aged 17 years and has not completed the age of 18 years. However, the oral evidence of

PW1 is not sufficient enough to believe the prosecution case. In order to establish the age of the victim, prosecution further examined Principal of Jyothismathi

Academy.

25.PW4-Y.Venu Madhav was the Principal of Jyothishmathi Academy. In his evidence deposed that on 15-03-2024, he received a requisition from Karimnagar

III Town police station requesting to issue date of birth particulars of the victim girl who studied in their school. Accordingly, he verified the records and issued birth certificate of the victim and also with extract of School Admission Register.

He deposed that as per the records the school records victim girl date of birth was 23-11-2006. Further, she studied from 1st class to 10th class. PW4 exhibited

9 of 22 SC (POCSO) No. 6 of 2024

the birth certificate as Ex.P3 and extract of school admission register as Ex.P4 and copy of 10th class marks sheet issued by CBSE board as Ex.P5.

26.During the course of cross examination, PW4 admitted that Ex.P3 was issued after verifying the school admission register. Further PW4 produced the original school admission register showing the victim girl admission register

No.2491. However, PW4 denied the suggestion of issued the certificate on the formal request of the police.

27.According to prosecution, victim girl who was pursuing graduation deposed her date of birth. In addition, the prosecution examined PW4 who produced the

Admission Register and issued Study, Conduct and birth certificate. It discloses the date of birth of the victim. However, the date of birth mentioned on the

Admission register vide Ex.P3 has been compared with original school admission register which substantiate the prosecution case. Subsequently in addition to the above evidence; the investigating officer collected the copy of 10th class marks sheet of the victim girl issued by CBSE board. When the date of birth referred in the 10th class marks sheet of the victim; it is the same date which is referred in

Ex.P3 and P4 documents. Though PW4 and 5 were subjected to cross examination by learned counsel, he failed to elicit any material.

28.As the accused has been charged under the provisions of POCSO Act, prosecution with an intention to prove the victim as a child examined PW4 and 5.

They also exhibited Ex.P3 to P5 documents. As a settled proposition of law, the age of victim or a child needs to be proved by following a procedure laid down

10 of 22 SC (POCSO) No. 6 of 2024

U/s.94 of Juvenile Justice Act. Under sec.94 age of a juvenile can be proved by producing actual date of birth certificate issued by Municipal Authority or registrar of birth. Secondly, it can be proved by actually producing the 10th class marks sheet of the victim of the child. In the absence of any of the above documents, the child can be subjected to medical examination and by taking the expert evidence she can be proved to be a child. In the present case, the prosecution has produced the 10th class marks sheet issued by CBSE board.

Further the original admission register has been produced by the PW4 which categorically shows about entry of date of birth in the original register while victim was admitted into the school. Nothing was elicited by learned counsel for the accused during cross examination. Secondly, no contrary has been produced to disbelieve or reject the contents of Ex.P3 to P5. In view of the credible evidence of PW4 and 5 coupled with Ex.P3 to P5, it is very much in accordance with Sec.94 of Juvenile Justice Act. Their appears no reason for rejecting their version. Therefore, by considering the evidence of PW4 and 5 coupled with Ex.P3 and P5, it can be said that prosecution could able to prove the victim as a child who have not completed the age of 18 years as required U/s.2(1)(d) of POCSO

Act.

29. PW2-K.Kala was the Women Police Officer who recorded the statement of the victim girl by following the procedure of Sec.24 of POCSO Act. PW2 in her evidence deposed that on 01-01-2024, as per the instructions of Inspector of police, Karimnagar I Town to record Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement in Cr.No. 357/2023 of P.S. Karimnagar III Town. She recorded the statement. She deposed that she

11 of 22 SC (POCSO) No. 6 of 2024

visited Karimnagar III Town police station and recorded the statement at woman barock within the police station premises. She deposed that recording of the statement was videographed by LW5-B.Vijaya Laxmi (Women Head Constable).

Later, she handed over the record to Inspector of police. During the course of cross examination, she admitted she received requisition from Inspector of police on the same day. She admitted visited Karimnagar III Town police station at 06:00

PM and recorded the statement. She admitted the absence of victim parents at the time of recording of statement. She denied the suggestion of not authorized to record statement of the victim and statement was prepared at police station on the request of her superiors.

30.PW3-B.Vijaya Laxmi was the women head constable No.3078 of Karimngar

III Town police station. PW3 in her evidence deposed that on 01-01-2024, as per the instructions of Inspector of police Karimnagar I Town to record Sec.164 Cr.P.C statement of the victim girl in connection to Cr.No.357/2023 of P.S Karimnagar III

Town. PW2 recorded the statement. She deposed that recording of statement was videographed by her as per the instructions of police by using her mobile phone. She deposed that she transferred the file into CD and handed over to

Inspector of police along with Sec.65-B Indian evidence certificate vide Ex.P2.

During the course of cross examination, PW3 admitted not stated to police that she videographed by using her personal mobile phone. She admitted not mentioned the IMEI number of the mobile phone used to record the statement.

She also admitted not mentioned about issuance of certificate in her statement.

12 of 22 SC (POCSO) No. 6 of 2024

However, she denied the suggestion of never videographed recording of statement and she was giving false evidence on the instructions of superiors.

31.As can be seen from the record, Sec.24 of POCSO Act imposes the duty on the investigating agency to get the statement of the victim girl recorded with women police officer not less than the cadre of sub inspector of police. The provision was created with an intention to take extra care so that confidentiality of a child would be taken care. In the present case, the investigating officer by complying the Sec.24 of POCSO Act, sent a requisition to Karimnagar I Town police station where PW2 was working. Since PW2 is a women police officer in the cadre of SI of police and basing on the requisition from investigating officer, she visited Karimnagar III Town police station and recorded the statement.

Further, PW3 who was the head constable videographed the recording of the statement which was a procedure complied U/s.24 of POCSO Act. The evidence of PW2 and 3 is completely in compliance of the procedure laid down U/s.24 of

POCSO Act. Further, PW2 and 3 categorically deposed about the procedure adopted by them. Though they were subjected to cross examination, learned counsel for the accused failed to elicit any material. They being the police officers deposed about the procedure followed, their version need not be disbelieved or discarded. Since the evidence of PW2 and 3 is in compliance to the procedure, it needs to be taken into consideration.

32.PW6-V.Sathish was the mediator for recording scene of offence panchanama. PW7-K.Ganesh for the mediator for recording confession cum seizure panchanama. PW6 in his evidence deposed that on 29-12-2023 at about

13 of 22 SC (POCSO) No. 6 of 2024

12:30 Noon, SI of police Karimnagar III Town called him and LW8 to scene of offence and conducted the scene of offence panchanama by noting the details of crime scene and drafted rough sketch and later obtained his signature on the panchanama proceedings. He also deposed that since victim girl was kidnapped the panchanama was conducted. PW6 exhibited the CDF as Ex.P6. During cross examination, PW6 admitted that he used to reside in the same locality but victim was not relative to him. He admitted that house of LW8 was situated to adjacent to victim house. He denied the suggestion of no panchanama was conducted but obtained his signature at police station.

33.PW7-K.Ganesh in his evidence deposed that on 01-01-2024 at 09:30 PM,

Inspector of police Karimnagar I Town police station called him to police station where accused NO.1 was present in their custody. He deposed that on the request of police they enquired with accused No.1 and he voluntarily confessed kidnapped the victim girl and enjoyed sexually as they were love with each other and intended to marry. He deposed that in pursuance of confession of accused

No.1, he seized one Realme mobile phone which was used to speak with the victim girl. PW7 admitted the panchanama proceedings under Ex.P6 and material object as MO.1.

34.During the course of cross examination, PW7 admitted that he was resident of Kisan Nagar where victim and accused used to live. He admitted that victim belongs to his caste. He admitted that one police constable requested to enquire him to accused No.1 and panchanama was conducted at police station. When he

14 of 22 SC (POCSO) No. 6 of 2024

was questioned about IMEI number of mobile phone, he pleaded ignorance.

However, he denied the suggestion of no panchanama was conducted and no property seized.

35.As can be seen from the record, prosecution examined PW6 to prove the scene of offence panchanama. PW6 categorically deposed about the panchanama conducted in his presence. Though the evidence of PW6 was credible, no incriminating evidence was found at scene of offence. Secondly, victim was found missing from their house on 28-12-2024. On the next day morning after filing the case, the panchanama was recorded by then victim was not traced. Secondly, prosecution alleged that accused committed sexual intercourse with the victim girl at his house. Further no panchanama was conducted at the house of the accused. When no incriminating material was found at the house of the victim and no panchanama was conducted at the house of the accused; the evidence of PW6 is may not help to prosecution case. The evidence of PW7 is convincing and trustworthy. Further PW7 deposed about the confession made by accused No.1.

36.During the course of cross examination, PW7 admitted that the panchanama was recorded within the police station premises when accused was present in the custody of the police. When the Ex.P6 panchanama is taken into consideration, it categorically shows that it was conducted at police station but the alleged mobile phone has been seized from the accused. According to prosecution, the mobile phone has been used by accused to speak with the victim girl. Even it is believed that accused has used to speak with victim girl, it is not

15 of 22 SC (POCSO) No. 6 of 2024

believable because no call date record has been produced by the prosecution.

Further, there is no material available on record to believe that MO.1 mobile phone belongs to accused. Thirdly, the mobile phone was already available with accused which he has produced and they have not visited any place or discovered any object for proper compliance of Sec.67 of Indian Evidence Act. Since confession of accused is hit by Sec.25 and 26 of Indian Evidence Act; while custody of the police the evidence of PW7 and P6 may not be of much help to prosecution case.

37. According to prosecution case, accused after kidnapping the victim, took to his house where he committed sexual intercourse. In view of the charge U/s.376 of IPC and Sec.4 of POCSO Act, victim was referred for medical examination after she was traced. In order to prove the Medical examination report of the victim girl, prosecution examined the medical officer who examined the victim girl as

PW8.

38.PW8-Dr.Anasuya in her evidence deposed that on 01-01-2024, she received the requisition from Inspector of Police requesting to examine the victim girl in connection to Cr.No.357/2023. Accordingly, she examined her on the same day at about 09:30 PM. She deposed that she found no external injuries on external genetelia. She deposed that no blood stains or semen were found on the person of the victim. She said to have collected Vaginal swab, vaginal smear, vaginal wash and pubic hair from the victim. She deposed that she preserved the clothes of the victim and handed over to police. Samples were sent to FSL for analysis and after receiving the FSL report, she opined final opinion stating that there was

16 of 22 SC (POCSO) No. 6 of 2024

recent intercourse. PW8 exhibited Medical examination report as Ex.P7, Final opinion as Ex.P8 and FSL report as Ex.P9.

39.During the course of cross examination, PW8 admitted that age of the victim was noted basing on the information given by the victim. She admitted that FSL report was received in February 2024. She denied the suggestion of not examined the victim and basing on the formal request she issued final opinion.

40.As discussed Supra, accused raped the victim girl after he was taken from her home in the same night. Further the victim was subjected to medical examination after she was traced on 01-01-2024. The alleged offence of rape was occurred on 28-12-2023. There is a gap of 3 to 4 days from the date of sexual intercourse and examination of the victim. Further PW8 who gave opinion categorically deposed there was recent intercourse. Ex.P9 was FSL report.

Perusal of the FSL report shows that human semen and Spermatozoa were detected in item No.2 which is glass side and dried smear. Further the cotton swab and Turbid liquid which are item No.1 and 3 were found with Human semen but spermatozoa were detected. Though the human semen and spermatozoa were detected in item No.2; the sperms were subjected to DNA Test. Since DNA can be available from spermatozoa, there would be possibility of confirming the commission of rape by accused. No doubt, semen has been detected from the vaginal swab, that it is not sufficient enough to believe that the semen belongs to accused. Secondly, medical examination report or final opinion are contrary to victims evidence.

17 of 22 SC (POCSO) No. 6 of 2024

41.During the course of cross examination, victim admitted that accused has not raped her; that herself was confirming that accused has not raped, it is highly unsafe to rely upon the medical examination report and the FSL report. No doubt, Ex.P15 potency certificate of accused No.1 confirm that there was nothing to suggest that he cannot perform sexual act and accused was potency to perform sexual act that itself is not sufficient enough for offence of rape.

42.PW9-K.Kanakaiah Goud was the SI of police who registered the case and carried part of investigation. PW9 in his evidence deposed that on 29-12-2023 at 09:30 AM, he received report from LW1-Father of the victim girl. Basing on which, he registered a case in Cr.No.357/2023 U/s.363 of IPC and issued FIR. During investigation, he examined and recorded the statement of LW1. He visited the scene of offence and conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of two mediators. On 01-01-2024, parents of the victim girl came to police station along with victim and accused No.1. He got recorded the statement of the victim girl with the help of LW4-K.Kala. Recording of the statement was videographed by LW5-Vijaya Laxmi. Basing on the statement of the victim girl, he altered the provision of law from 363 of IPC to 366, 376(3) r/w 109 of IPC and Sec.4 of POCSO

Act and issued alteration memo. Later, he handed over the CD file to inspector of police for further investigation.

43.PW10-V.Srinivas was the investigating officer who filed the charge sheet against the accused. PW10 in his evidence deposed that he received the CD file from SI of police on 01-01-2024 and verified the investigation. He referred the victim to Government hospital for medical examination. He examined and

18 of 22 SC (POCSO) No. 6 of 2024

recorded the statements of LW1-father of victim girl, LW2-mother of victim girl

LW4-K.Kala, LW5-Vijaya laxmi. He visited scene of offence and conducted the scene of offence panchanama in the presence of two mediators. He arrested the accused No.1. On interrogation, he voluntarily confessed the commission of offence in the presence of two mediators. In pursuance of his confession, he produced Realme mobile phone containing one sim car which was seized under the cover of panchanama. On 02-01-2024, he apprehended accused No.2 and on interrogation in the presence of same mediators, he voluntarily confessed the commission of offence. In pursuance of his confession, he seized the unregisered

Baleno car which was used for transportation. He arrested and sent accused No.1 and 2 to judicial remand.

44.He also referred the accused No.1 to Government Hospital for potency examination. He addressed a letter to LW6-venu Madhav requesting to furnish date of birth particulars of the victim girl and collected the same. He also collected the SSC marks memo of accused No.1 to ascertain the age. He filed the requisition before II Addl. JFCM, Karimnagar requesting to record Sec.164 Cr.P.C statement of the victim girl and got recorded the same. He got forwarded the seized samples to FSL through ACP, Karimnagar for analysis. After receiving the

FSL report, medical examination report and potency report and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused. However, he denied the suggestion of filed false report basing on the table investigation and both accused are no way concerned with the allegations levelled.

19 of 22 SC (POCSO) No. 6 of 2024

45. As can be seen from the record, prosecution alleged kidnap and rape of the victim girl by accused No.1 with the help of accused No.2. Accused No.2 is charged for abetting accused No.1 in kidnapping and commission of rape. Though prosecution examined PW1 to 10 and most of the witnesses supported the prosecution case, the material witnesses who are victim and her father failed to support the prosecution case. No doubt, PW1 and 5 initially supported the prosecution case and deposed that accused abducted her but PW1 is not an eyewitness to the incident. The police report vide Ex.P1 itself suggest that out of suspicion the name of accused No.1 was mentioned by PW1. It means PW1 is a circumstantial witness and he can be considered as first informant who set the law into motion after victim was found missing. Admittedly, victim was found missing from home on 28-12-2023. There was a function at their home on the same night. PW1 and 2 categorically admitted the presence of several relatives at home on such night. Further the investigating officer has not examined any one of them. Secondly, the cross examination of PW5 would suggest any amount of doubt as to forcefully kidnapped by accused No.1.

46.In the present case, PW5 is said to be aged about 17 years and was pursuing her intermediate. She cannot be expected to be a small child who can be threatened to go with accused No.1. Secondly, she was not kidnapped from an unknown place where no body was present. When a function was going on home and several relatives were present at home, possibility of accused No.1 going to the house of the victim and forcefully taking the victim away from home raise the suspicion in the mind of the court. PW5 can certainly raise alarm if accused No.1

20 of 22 SC (POCSO) No. 6 of 2024

was taking forcefully. Maintaining silence by PW5 creates doubt over PW5.

According to prosecution case, accused No.2 abetted accused No.1 to kidnap the victim and raped her. It is alleged that accused No.2 took the victim and accused

No.1 in his car to Keshavapatnam and dropped them at Keshavapatnam bus stop from where accused No.1 and the victim girl went to Warangal and Khammam.

However, the investigating officer has not seized the car which was used by accused No.2 to drop accused No.1 and the victim girl. It also proves fatal to prosecution case. When role of accused No.2 as dropping the victim and accused

No.1 amounting to abetment, he may not be fastened in the absence of vehicle for transportation. Therefore, non seizure of the car would certainly effect the prosecution case. Having scrutinizing oral and documentary evidence produced by prosecution available on record, it is not sufficient enough to believe case of the prosecution that accused No.1 kidnapped the victim with the assistance of accused No.1 and committed sexual intercourse. Therefore, it can be said that prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of accused No.1 and 2.

Accordingly, the point is answered in the negative.

47.In the result, accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/s. 366, 376(3) of IPC and Sec. 4 of POCSO Act and Sec.366 r/w 109 of

IPC. Accordingly, they are acquitted U/s. 235(1) CrPC. Bonds and bail bonds of accused stands cancelled subject to section 437-A of Cr.PC. The Real me mobile phone shall be sold and sale proceeds shall be confiscated to state after expiry of appeal time.

21 of 22 SC (POCSO) No. 6 of 2024

Dictated to Stenographer Gr-III (Contract), transcribed by him; corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 10 th day of February, 2026.

I Addl. Sessions Judge, Karimnagar FAC: II Fast Track Court for expeditious trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases, Karimnagar.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE :

PW1 : Father of the victim girl. -NONE- PW2 : K.Kala. PW3 : B.Vijayalaxmi. PW4 : Y.Venu Madhav. PW5 : Victim girl. PW6 : V.Sathish. PW7 : K.Ganesh. PW8 : Dr.Anasuya. PW9 : K.Kanakaiah Goud. PW10 : V.Srinivas.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1: Is the signature on the complaint filed by PW1. Ex.P2: Is the Sec.65-B Indian Evidence Certificate by PW3. Ex.P3: Is the Bonafide certificate by PW4. Ex.P4: Is the extract of school admission register. Ex.P5: Is the 10th class marks sheet of the victim issued by CBSE board. Ex.P6: Is the Signature on the CDF by PW6. Ex.P7: Is the medical examination report. Ex.P8: Is the final opinion. Ex.P9: Is the FSL report. Ex.P10: Is the FIR. Ex.P11: Is the alteration memo. Ex.P12: Is the study certificate of the victim girl from Trinity college. Ex.P13: Is the copy of SSC marks memo of accused No.1. Ex.P14: Is the requisition given to Jyothismathi Academy for Date of birth particulars of the victim girl. Ex.P15: Is the potency certificate of the accused. Ex.P16: Is the scene of offence panchanama.

22 of 22 SC (POCSO) No. 6 of 2024

FOR DEFENCE : -NIL-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED :

MO.1 : Is the Realme mobile phone.

I Addl. Sessions Judge, Karimnagar FAC: II Fast Track Court for expeditious trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases, Karimnagar.

SC.POCSO/37/2024 Acquitted

State of Telangana vs Mohammed Majid Hussain

12 Mar 2026

1 of 19 SC (POCSO) No. 37 of 2024

IN THE COURT OF THE I-FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT FOR EXPEDITIOUS

TRIAL AND DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND POCSO ACT CASES ::AT::

KARIMNAGAR.

PRESENT: SRI D. VENKATESH,

I ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE,

KARIMNAGAR.

FAC: I Fast Track Special Court for Expeditious Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases,

KARIMNAGAR.

THURSDAY, 12 th DAY OF MARCH, 2026

SC (POCSO). No. 37 of 20 24

State of Telangana through

NAME OF THE

The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Karimnagar II Town,

COMPLAINANT

Cr.No.484/2024. Mohammed Majid Hussain, S/o. Mohammed Hussain, Age: 26 years, Occ: Auto Driver, R/o. H.No. 7-4-8/1, NAME OF ACCUSED Near Women Degree College, Kashmeergadda, Karimnagar Town at Road No.1, Srinagar Colony, Karimnagar Town & District.

OFFENCES UNDER Under Sec.292, 115(2) of BNS and Sec. 8 of POCSO SECTIONAct.

PLEA OF THE ACCUSED Pleaded Not guilty. FINDING OF THE COURTFound Not Guilty. In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec. 292, 115(2) of BNS and Sec. 8 of POCSO Act. Accordingly, he is acquitted SENTENCEU/s. 258 (1) of BNSS. Bonds and bail bonds of accused stands cancelled subject to section 481 of BNS. The unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. COUNSEL FOR Sri Panjala Kumaraswamy,( Spl. Public Prosecutor).

PROSECUTION

COUNSEL FOR DEFENCESri Md. Javeed Hussain, Advocates.

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 27-02-2026 in the presence of Sri Panjala Kumaraswamy, Spl. Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri Md.Javeed Hussain, Advocates for Accused ; and after hearing both sides and after perusing the material on record to till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

2 of 19 SC (POCSO) No. 37 of 2024

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

1.Accused stands charged for the offence punishable U/Sec. 292, 115(2) of

BNS and Sec. 8 of POCSO Act for causing hurt, public nuisance and sexual assault on the victim girl.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE PROSECUTION CASE :

2.On 17-07-2024 at 05:00 PM, LW1-Mother of the victim girl filed police report alleging that on 10-07-2024 at 04:00 PM, she along with her son and daughter (aged 14 years) and elder sister went to the house of the accused and her sister in law who is wife of her brother as she suffered ill health. It was alleged that while she and her sister were speaking with sister in law, accused who is brother of sister in law came there and abused them in filthy language asking to go out. Further, he caught hold of her daughter’s hand and pushed her away. He kept his hand on he chest and pressed by behaving indescently. However, daughter was sent outside.

While she was standing outside, accused went there and slapped on her. Since accused committed nuisance, simple hurt and sexual assault on the victim, she filed police report.

3.Basing on the Police report, LW.11/Mansoor Khan (Sub-Inspector of Police,

P.S. Karimnagar II Town) registered a case in Cr.No.484/2024, U/Sec. 292, 115(2) of BNS and Sec. 8 of POCSO Act and issued FIR.

4.During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statement of LW1-Mother of the victim. Further he got examined and recorded the statement of LW3-Victim girl with the help of LW9-V.Vanisri (WHC 1354) and the same was videographed with the help of LW10-M.Latha (WPC No.546).

3 of 19 SC (POCSO) No. 37 of 2024

5.He visited scene of offence, secured the presence of LW6-K.Ravinder and

LW7-Md. Rafeeq Ahmed and drafted the Crime Detail Form.

6.He filed a requisition before JFCM (Excise), Karimnagar with a request to record Sec.183 BNSS statement of the victim girl and got recorded the same.

7.On 22-07-2024, he issued notice U/s.35 (3) of BNSS and instructed him to appear before the Court on receipt of summons. Further investigation was taken up LW12-D.Chandra Shekar (SI of police, P.S. Karimnagar II Town).

8.After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec. 292, 115(2) of BNS and Sec. 8 of POCSO Act.

9.Upon filing of final report U/Sec.173 of Cr.P.C. by the Inspector of police,

Karimnagar II Town, I Addl. District & Sessions Judge taken cognizance of offence

U/Sec. 292, 115(2) of BNS and Sec. 8 of POCSO Act against the accused. The case was transferred to I Fast Track Special Court for Expeditious Trial and

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

10. On appearance of Accused before this Court, copies of case documents are furnished to Accused as required U/s.230 of BNSS. On considering the entire material available on record, a charge for the offence U/Sec. 292, 115(2) of BNS and Sec. 8 of POCSO Act was framed against the Accused. It was read over and explained to him in Hindu to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried for the charge.

4 of 19 SC (POCSO) No. 37 of 2024

11.To prove its case, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW9 and got marked

Ex.P1 to P9.

12.After completion of the examination of the witnesses, accused was called upon to explain the incriminating circumstances that are appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses as required U/Sec.351 (1) (b) of BNSS. Accused has denied the evidence. He did not choose to produce any defence witness on his behalf.

13.Heard arguments on both sides.

Now the point that would arise for determination is :

1. “Whether PW-2/victim girl was under eighteen years of age and a MINOR in the year 2010 as under section 2 (1) (d) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012”?

2. “Whether the Prosecution prima facie proved the guilt of the Accused for the offence under Sec. 292, 115(2) of BNS and Sec. 8 of POCSO Act and if so whether accused could able to rebut the presumption available under Sec.29 and 30 of POCSO Act beyond reasonable doubt ” ?

POINT No. 1 :-

14.According to prosecution case, the first informant is mother of the victim girl.

Accused is none other than brother of sister in law of this first informant. First informant and her sister went to the house of the accused to console sister in law who suffered ill health and was discharged from hospital. However, in view of disputes between brother of this first informant and sister of the accused who were husband and wife, accused said to have created nuisance. According to prosecution case, accused misbehaved with the victim girl and with an intention commit sexual assault on the victim girl placed his hand on her chest. As such,

5 of 19 SC (POCSO) No. 37 of 2024

mother of the victim girl filed police report. According to prosecution case, victim was aged 14 years as on the date of offence as she was born on 23-10-2010.

15.Admittedly, accused is charged under the provisions of BNS and for the reason of victim being a child who have not completed the age of 18 years, the charge U/s.8 of POCSo Act has been included as against the accused. In view of charge under the provisions of POCSO Act, the prosecution is duty bound to establish victim as a child as required U/s.2 (1) (d) of POCSO Act. In order to prove the victim as a child, prosecution examined victim, her mother and school principal who issued date of birth of the victim.

16.PW1-Mother of victim girl in her evidence deposed that on 10-07-2024, she along with her sister, her daughter and son went to her sister in law to console her.

At that time, accused misbehaved with the victim girl. During cross examination,

PW1 admitted that her daughter school timings are from 08:30 AM to 04:30 PM.

Though PW1 has not spoken about age of the victim girl, by questioning with regard to school timings of the victim, she could prima facie disclose that her daughter was school going child. No doubt, school going child need not be below the age of 18 years but with an intention to prove the age of the victim, the testimony of the victim assumes importance in addition to the documentary evidence.

17.PW2-Victim girl in her evidence deposed that her date of birth is 23-10-2010 and she was studying 10th class in Nawabs International school. She also deposed that she was studying 9th class as on the date of the incident. She also admitted

6 of 19 SC (POCSO) No. 37 of 2024

that her school timings are from 08:30 AM to 04:30 PM. The oral evidence of PW2 would disclose her date of birth.

18.Further, in addition to the oral evidence of PW1, the prosecution examined

Principal of Nawabs International School where the victim used to study as PW4.

PW4-Khaja Munavaruddin in his evidence deposed that on 02-11-2024, he received requisition from SI of police Karimnagar II Town requesting to issue date of birth certificate of the victim girl in connection to Cr.No. 484/2024 of P.S. Karimnagar II

Town. He deposed that he verified the school records and furnished the study, conduct and date of birth of the victim girl. According to PW4, victim date of birth was 23-10-2010 and her admission number was 1375. He exhibited the certificate as Ex.P2 along with extract of admission register from the school as Ex.P3. During cross examination, PW4 denied the suggestion of issuance of the certificate falsely and victim never studied in their school.

19. As can be seen from the record, the oral evidence of the victim who disclosed her date of birth is very much in accordance with the oral evidence of PW4. It also disclose about the date of birth basing on the school admission register. No doubt, the extract of school admission register is produced; but the source of recording date of birth in admission register is not disclosed by PW4. Since victim appears to have born in the year 2010, obviously she would be having date of birth certificate issued from concerned municipality or register of birth. However, investigating officer could not able to collect the same.

20.According to sec.94 of juvenile justice Act which reads :-

7 of 19 SC (POCSO) No. 37 of 2024

Section 94. Presumption and determination of age.

(1) Where, it is obvious to the Committee or the Board, based on the appearance of the person brought before it under any of the provisions of this Act (other than for the purpose of giving evidence) that the said person is a child, the Committee or the Board shall record such observation stating the age of the child as nearly as may be and proceed with the inquiry under Section 14 or Section 36, as the case may be, without waiting for further confirmation of the age.

(2) In case, the Committee or the Board has reasonable grounds for doubt regarding whether the person brought before it is a child or not, the Committee or the Board, as the case may be, shall undertake the process of age determination, by seeking evidence by obtaining -

(i) the date of birth certificate from the school, or the matriculation or equivalent certificate from the concerned examination Board, if available; and in the absence thereof;

(ii) and only in the absence of (i) and (ii) above, age shall be determined by an ossification test or any other latest medical age determination test conducted on the orders of the Committee or the Board;

Provided such age determination test conducted on the order of the Committee or the Board shall be completed within fifteen days from the date of such order.

(3) The age recorded by the Committee or the Board to be the age of person so brought before it shall, for the purpose of this Act, be deemed to be the true age of that person.

21.The above provision of law categorically speaks about the required documentary evidence for proving juvenility of a child. A birth certificate issued by

Municipality or a Date of birth recorded on the matriculation certificate are the primary documents to be considered for the purpose of juvenility. In the absence of the said documents, the court needs to rely upon the report of radiologist.

22.After going through the above provision of law, it categorically speaks about the procedure of proving date of birth of a child. Further, the victim in the present

8 of 19 SC (POCSO) No. 37 of 2024

case is said to be a child and prosecution is duty bound to establish her as a child.

As such, Section 94 of Juvenile Justice Act would be very much applicable.

Though Sec.94 speaks about the procedure; in the present case investigating officer has not complied with such procedure. No doubt, there is a study, conduct and date of birth certificate coupled with the extract of admission register but without proving the source of recording of date of birth in the school admission register, the document cannot be relied upon. No doubt, victim is aged 14 years and even she admitted to be aged 15-16 years where there is a huge gap of 3 to 4 years of her majority, the appearance of a child is not sufficient enough when Sec.2 mandates proof of a child. Since in the present case prosecution failed to establish victim as a child and as the oral evidence of PW2 and 4 is not supported by the documentary evidence as required U/s.94 of Juvenile Justice Act, she cannot be said to be a child and it can be said that prosecution failed to prove the victim as a child as required U/s.2(1)(d) of POCSO Act. Accordingly, the point is answered in the negative.

POINT NO. 2 :

23.PW1 is the mother of the victim girl. She is the first informant who set the criminal law into motion. PW1 in her evidence deposed that on 10-07-2024 she along with her sister and her children went to her sister in law’s house who is wife of elder brother of this first informant. She deposed that while they were speaking with her sister in law, accused who is brother of her sister in law came and quarreled with them by keeping in mind the disputes between sister in law of this first informant and brother of this first informant. She also deposed that accused

9 of 19 SC (POCSO) No. 37 of 2024

abused brother of this first informant in filthy language. When her daughter who is victim was recording the video of the quarrel with the mobile phone, accused snatched the mobile phone, pushed her away and thrown mobile phone on ground.

She further deposed that victim fell down and he teared the clothes of the victim.

Accused placed his hand on her chest by misbehaving with the victim. She deposed that she intervened and kicked the accused. Further, he abused them and quarreled with them and threatened with dire consequences for which, she filed the police report Ex.P1.

24.During the course of cross examination, PW1 admitted that the incident occurred on 10-07-2024 and the report was filed on 17-07-2024. PW1 admitted about the dispute took place with her Sister in law family when she was admitted into the hospital in May 2024 and since then there was no proper talking terms.

She admitted that her sister in law was admitted into the hospital for 5 to 6 days and was referred to Hyderabad for better treatment. PW1 admitted that the incident occurred at the house of the accused. She admitted that family of her sister in law lived in the ground floor and there were two more portions in the first floor. PW1 admitted that her sister in law filed the complaint against this first informant and her sister for which a case in Cr.No.477/2024 was registered. PW1 denied the suggestion of accused never abused or committed sexual assault on the victim girl but false complaint was filed by accused family.

25.PW2-victim girl in her evidence deposed that on 10-07-2024 at 04:00 PM, she along with her mother, brother and Aunt went to the house of accused to

10 of 19 SC (POCSO) No. 37 of 2024

console her who suffered ill health. She deposed that while they were speaking, accused came and quarreled with them by keeping in mind the quarrels in mind between his sister and uncle of this victim. She also deposed that when she was recording the video of the quarrel with the mobile phone, accused pushed her away, snatched the mobile phone and thrown on ground. She also deposed that when she fell down, he tore her clothes, placed his hand on her chest and pressed by misbehaving with her. She also deposed that her mother intervened and rescued her. Later, accused slapped her by caught holding her hand stating that he would rape her but she was rescued.

26.During cross examination, PW2 admitted that she has not stated to police in her 161 Cr.P.C statement that she videographed the quarrel and accused snatched the mobile phone. She admitted not stated to police in her 161 Cr.P.C statement that accused tear her clothes and proclaimed to rape her. PW2 admitted that sister of the accused filed complaint against PW1 and her elder sister on 12-10-2024 for which a case in Cr.No.477/2024 was registered. PW2 also admitted about ill health of accused sister and admitted into the hospital. PW2 denied the suggestion of accused never misbehaved with her but false case was filed against him to counter blast the case filed by accused family against mother of this victim.

27.PW3 is uncle of the victim girl. He is none other than brother in law of the accused. PW3 in his evidence deposed that on 10-07-2024 while he was on duty, his sister along with victim and her brother went to the house of his in laws to see his wife who suffered ill health. He deposed that accused quarreled with sisters of

11 of 19 SC (POCSO) No. 37 of 2024

this PW3 by keeping in mind quarrels with PW3 and his wife. He also deposed that he was attending video call at the time of the incident and at that time accused pushed the victim girl who was on video call. Thereafte, he came to know that accused quarreled with PW1 and threatened them for which PW1 filed complaint.

During cross examination, PW3 admitted that he married in the year 2016 and living separately from his wife after 7 months of marriage. He admitted ill health of his wife and she admitted into hospital in May 2024. He admitted that he did not stated to police in his 161 Cr.P.C statemnet that he was attending video call with the victim girl. PW3 denied the suggestion of filed false case against the accused to counter blast the case filed by accused family against PW1 and sister of this witness.

28.As can be seen from the record, PW2 is the victim girl and PW1 is her mother. Though PW3 is examined by the prosecution, he is not an eyewitness to the incident, he is a circumstantial witness who received the information from PW1 and others about the incident. Perhaps PW3 being the husband of sister of the accused might have examined by the investigating officer. Pw1 in her evidence admitted filing of police report on 17-10-2024.

29.Ex.P1 is the police report categorically refers to the incident that took place at the house of accused at about 04:00 PM. However, PW1 and 2 admitted about the case filed by family of accused against PW1 vide Cr.No.477/2024 of P.S.

Karimnagar II Town. The case was filed by accused family was prior in point of time immediately after the incident. The learned counsel for accused could able to elicit

12 of 19 SC (POCSO) No. 37 of 2024

material information that was not disclosed by PW1 and 2 before the investigating agency. On the other hand, accused also produced the CC of FIR in filing charge sheet in Cr.No.477/2024.

30.Perusal of the Ex.D1 shows that it was filed by Taslim Fathima on 11-07- 2024. It refers to incident dt.10-07-2024 at 04:00 PM. When the FIR and present case is considered, it also refers to incident that occurred on 10-07-2024 at 04:00

PM. It means the cause of action for both the cases aroused at the same time.

Further, Ex.P1 and D1 would cumulatively suggest quarrel between both the parties for which each party filed case against each other. For the reason of accused family suffered grievous injury, they appears to have approached the police immediately and set the criminal law into motion. After about one week of such incident, victims family approached the police station by filing the present complaint.

31.According to PW1 and 2, when PW1 family were speaking with accused sister, accused came there and quarreled with them. They also deposed that accused misbehaved with the victim girl by keeping his hand on the chest of the victim girl. Accused is charged for the offence punishable U/s.8 of POCSO Act.

Whereas, during the course of cross examination; PW1 and 2 admitted not stated to police in their 161 Cr.P.C statement about the victim making video call and was picturizing the quarrel. This is a material piece of evidence which would certainly damage the prosecution case. If really PW2 was recording the quarrel with the mobile phone, what prevented the PW1 in handing over the video to police.

13 of 19 SC (POCSO) No. 37 of 2024

Secondly, PW1 and 2 deposed about tearing of clothes of the victim by the accused. However, PW1 neither handed over the toned clothes to police nor the investigating officer seized such clothes. These two material omissions would consequently affect the case of the prosecution.

32.The allegations made by PW1 against the accused are serious in nature.

The allegations are made when accused misbehaved with the child of aged 14 years. The contents of the report would suggest the cognizable offence. However, there is an enormous delay of 7 days in filing of the police report. If really the alleged incident of sexual assault of a child of 14 years took place, what prevented the victims family from approaching the police station. When the accused family approached the police station for assault on them by victims family, nothing prevented PW1 to file counter case or the present case immediately against them.

Since the allegations are also serious in nature.

33.The subject matter of Cr.No.477/2024 is basing on bodily offence. Whereas, subject matter of present case is an offence against the child. Both are equally important and serious in nature. When accused family could file complaint for offence against body; similarly victim family could also file complaint for the offence against a child. Further, the victim family is not acted upon immediately but there is a delay of 7 days. No explanation offered by PW1 or PW2 for filing delayed complaint. Secondly, police report is a print out printed which appears to be prepared as an after thought. In view of material omissions admitted by PW1 and 2 and in view of enormous delay in filing of the complaint police report, it is highly

14 of 19 SC (POCSO) No. 37 of 2024

unsafe to rely upon the testimony of PW1 and 2. In these circumstances, the evidence of Pw1 and 2 needs corroboration from independent witness.

34.In order to corroborate the version of PW1 and 2, prosecution examined PW3 who is brother of the victim girl. Though PW3 supported the prosecution case, he is not eyewitness to the incident. Secondly, PW3 is interested witness who got disputes with his wife which is admitted. When PW3 is brother of the first informant and he got disputes with his wife, certainly he would support the testimony of PW1.

In such circumstances, he cannot be considered to be an independent witness for corroboration. Therefore, his evidence cannot be relied upon.

35.Ex.P1 is the police report filed by PW1. The incident occurred at the house of the accused. PW1 and 2 in their evidence admitted that incident occurred at the house of the accused and house of accused consists of two floors. The family of accused lives in ground floor and there is first floor with two portions. However, the investigating officer has not examined the tenants or landlord of scene of offence house to atleast believe the occurrence of the incident. If really serious incident was committed against the victim girl, there would be certainly neighbours available who would disclose about the occurrence of the incident. The evidence of PW1 and 2 would suggest that some part of alleged incident occurred within the house of accused when PW2 came out of the house, accused came out and slapped the victim girl. When this continue incident occurred outside of the house, certainly somebody would witness the incident. Secondly, whenever there will be quarrel, the byepassers or neighbors come out of their house to witness the quarrel or the

15 of 19 SC (POCSO) No. 37 of 2024

incident. Further, house of the accused consists of two floors where some others would also reside in the first floor. In such circumstances, the neighbors and other residents live in the first floor would certainly come out by listening the quarrel.

However, no body was examined by the investigating officer. When there is sufficient opportunity of witnessing the incident by some others and sufficient opportunity of availability of neighbors, they were not examined which would certainly affect the prosecution case. Secondly, the filing of case in Cr.No.477/2024 by accused family suggest the version of PW1 and 2 unreliable. Therefore, the version of PW1 and 2 cannot be accepted.

36.In order to prove the occurrence of the incident and establish scene of offence, prosecution examined the mediator for recording scene of offence panchanama as PW5. PW5-K.Ravinder in his evidence deposed that one year back, while he was proceeding along Road No.1 Sri nagar colony, police obtained his signature on some papers. He deposed that no panchanama was conducted in his presence. Though he admitted his signature on crime detail form, he denied conductance of panchanama proceedings. For the reason of PW5 not supported the prosecution case, he was cross examined by learned Spl. PP but failed to elicit any material. PW5 denied the suggestion of conducting the panchanama in his presence at Kashmirgadda locality. Therefore, it can be said that prosecution failed to prove the scene of offence panchanama.

37.PW7-V.Vanisri was alleged to be women police officer who recorded the statement of the victim girl. PW6 in her evidence deposed that on 17-07-2024, as

16 of 19 SC (POCSO) No. 37 of 2024

per the instructions of SI of police PS. Karimnagar II Town, she recorded the 161

Cr.P.C statement of the victim girl in connection to Cr.No.484/2024 of P.S.

Karimnagar II Town within the police station premises. Recording of the statement was videographed by LW10-Latha who is women police officer. Mother of the victim girl was present at the time of recording of the statement. Later, she handed over the statement to SI of police.

38.PW7-M.Latha was alleged to be woman police officer who videographed the recording of the statement of the victim girl. PW7 in her evidence deposed that on 17-07-2024, as per instructions of SI of police, PW6 recorded the statement of the victim girl in connection of Cr.No.484/2024. Accordingly, she videographed the recording of statement of victim girl with her mobile phone on the instructions of SI of police within the police station premises. Later, she transferred the videograph file into CD and handed over to SI of police.

39.Since the evidence of PW6 and 7 was in compliance to the sec.24 of POCSO

Act, which is a mandatory provision, the endevour of investigating officer in securing the presence of PW2 and getting recorded the statement cannot be found fault with.

40.PW8-Mansoor Khan was alleged to be investigating officer who carried material part of investigation. PW8 in his evidence deposed that on 17-07-2024, he received the report from LW1-mother of the victim girl. Basing on which he registered a case in Cr.No.484/25024 U/s.292, 115(2) of BNS and Sec.8 of POCSO

Act and issued FIR. During investigation, he examined and recorded the

17 of 19 SC (POCSO) No. 37 of 2024

statements of LW1-mother of victim, LW2-Aunt of victim, LW4-uncle of victim. He got recorded the statement of the victim girl with the help of LW9-Vanisri and the recording of the statement was videographed by LW10-Latha. He visited the scene of offence and conducted the scene of offence panchanama in the presence of mediators. On 20-07-2024, he issued notice U/s.35 (2) of BNS to accused and isntructed him to appear before the court on receipt of summons. He filed a requisition before JMFC Excise Karimnagar with a request to record Sec.183 of

BNSS statement of the victim girl and got recorded the same. Thereafter, he handed over the CD file to SI of police who collected the date of birth certificate of the victim girl and filed charge sheet.

41.During cross examination, PW8 admitted that the alleged incident occurred 7 days prior to filing of the report and 3 persons came to police station for filing the report. PW8 admitted that on 11-07-2024 sister of the accused by name Taslim

Fathima filed complaint against first informant of this case and one Ahmed for which a case in Cr.No.477/2024 was registered vide Ex.D1. PW8 admitted not referred about the case in Cr.No.477/2024 in the present case though it was registered 7 days prior to present complaint. Further, PW8 admitted the material omissions that were deposed by PW1 and 2 in their evidence. PW8 admitted not examined owner of scene of offence house and has not collected the CCTV footage from scene of offence. He admitted not collected the mobile of the victim. He denied the suggestion of filed false case against the accused basing on the false complaint filed by the first informant in counter blast of the case filed by sister of this accused.

18 of 19 SC (POCSO) No. 37 of 2024

42.The evidence of PW8 in the given circumstances assumes much importance.

PW8 is admittedly the investigating officer. He registered the case and carried material part of investigation. PW8 deposed about the investigation conducted by him. However, during cross examination, PW8 admitted material omissions that were elicited by learned counsel for accused during cross examination of PW1 and

2. With the help of PW8, learned counsel could prove the omissions. The omissions elicited are material in nature which would certainly effect the case of the prosecution. Admittedly, case in Cr.No.477/2024 was filed by sister of the accused. The said case was filed immediately after the incident. Whereas there is a delay in filing of the present complaint. In these circumstances, deliberations cannot be ruled out.

43.The delay of 7 days is not a small period to be excluded. Secondly, no explanation offered by victims family for filing delayed complaint. Though the evidence of PW1 and 2 is in accordance with the prosecution case, for the reason of eliciting material information during cross examination which was even admitted by Investigating officer; and the evidence of PW1 and 2 is not supported by any independent witness, it is highly unsafe to rely upon their evidence for rendering conviction. Therefore and for the aforementioned reasons, the contention of prosecution case cannot be accepted. Accordingly, the point is answered in the negative.

44.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.

292, 115(2) of BNS and Sec. 8 of POCSO Act. Accordingly, he is acquitted U/s.

258 (1) of BNSS. Bonds and bail bonds of accused stands cancelled subject to

19 of 19 SC (POCSO) No. 37 of 2024

Section 481 of BNSS. The unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation on my Laptop to Stenographer Gr-III (Contract), corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 12 th day of March, 2026. I Addl. Sessions Judge, Karimnagar FAC: I Fast Track Court for expeditious trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases, Karimnagar.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE :

PW1 : Mother of the victim girl. -NONE- PW2 : Victim girl. PW3 : Uncle of the victim girl. PW4: Khaja Munavaruddin. PW5: K.Ravinder. PW6: Vanisri. PW7: M.Latha. PW8: Mansoor Khan. PW9: D.Chandra Shekar.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1: Is the signature on the complaint filed by PW1. Ex.P2: Is the study, conduct of victim by PW4. Ex.P3: Is the extract of admission register by PW4. Ex.P4: Is the requisition by PW4. Ex.P5: Is the sign on the CDF by PW5. Ex.P6: Is the FIR. Ex.P7: Is the requisition for Sec.183 of BNSS statement of the victim girl. Ex.P8: Is the scene of offence panchanama. Ex.P9: Is the Sec.183 of BNSS statement of the victim girl. FOR DEFENCE : Ex.D1 : Is the FIR in Cr.No. 477/2024. MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED : -Nil- I Addl. Sessions Judge, Karimnagar FAC: I Fast Track Court for expeditious trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases, Karimnagar.

SC.NDPS/15/2025 Acquitted

State of Telangana vs Niraj Kumar

22 Apr 2026

1 of 22 SC(NDPS) No. 15 of 2025

IN THE COURT OF I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE

KARIMNAGAR

PRESENT: SRI D. VENKATESH,

I ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE,

KARIMNAGAR.

WEDNESDAY THE 22 nd DAY OF APRIL, 2026

SC (NDPS) No. 15 of 2025

NAME OF THE State of Telangana through

COMPLAINANT

The Sub-Inspector of Police, PS. KNR-I Town. NAME OF ACCUSED A-1.Niraj Kumar s/o.Shambu Kamait, age: 19 years, occ: Coolie R/o.Ward No.13, Parsa Birbal, Surjapur, Supaul, Pratapganj, Bihar State now at Ashoknagar, Karimnagar.

A-3: Dilendar Kumar S/o.Amlesh Rishidhar, 29 years, Maha Dalith, occ: Coolie, R/o.Bagharipur Parwej village, Ward No.14, Adheriya Dist.Hibar state now at Dhobiwada, Karimnagar.

OFFENCES UNDER Under Sec. 8 (c) r/w 20 (b) (ii) (B), 27 of NDPS

SECTION

Act, 1985 PLEA OF THE ACCUSED Not Guilty

FINDING OF THE COURTNot Guilty

SENTENCE/RESULTIn the result, Accused No.1 and 3 are found not guilty for the offence u/Sec 8(c) R/w. 20 (b)(ii)(B) and 27 of NDPS Act. Accordingly Accused No.1 and 3 are acquitted u/Sec.258 of BNSS. Bonds and bail bonds of Accused No.1 and 3 stands cancelled subject to Section 481 of BNSS. MO.1 to MO.3are ordered to be sold and sale proceeds shall be confiscated to State after the expiry of appeal period. M.O.4 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

2 of 22 SC (NDPS) No. 15 of 2025

COUNSEL FOR Sri D.Sharath, Addl. Public Prosecutor

PROSECUTION

COUNSEL FOR DEFENCESri Md.Javeed Hussain, and Sri.G.Ajay, advocates for accused.

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 22-4--2026 in the presence of Sri D. Sharath, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri Md.Javeed Hussain, and Sri.G.Ajay, for Accused persons, after hearing both sides and after perusing the material on record to till this day this Court delivered the following:

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

1.Accused No.1 to 3 stands charged for the offence under Sec. 8 (c) r/w

Sec. 20 (b) (ii) (B) of NDPS Act of 1985 for possessing Ganja a Narcotic Drug of 1 KG 180 Grams.

Brief facts of the Prosecution case:

2.It was alleged by the prosecution that on 27-02-2025 at 9:00 AM,

LW.1/Bhasker Reddy (Sub-Inspector of Police, PS. KNR-I Town) filed complaint alleging that on the same day, he received information about illegal transportation of Ganja. Believing the information to be true, he appraised his

Superiors as required u/Sec.42 (2) of NDPS Act, made GD entry, sent a requisition to Tahsildar (KNR-Urban) requesting for deputation of mediators through LW.2/Basheer Khan (Police Constable). He also secured the presence of LW.5/MD.Ahmed Pasha (Fruit Vendor) for weighing the property with weighing machine. He along with LW.2/Basheer Khan, LW.3/Sampath,

LW.4/M.Kumara Swamy (Police Constables) rushed to Ambedkar Stadium,

3 of 22 SC (NDPS) No. 15 of 2025

Main Gate, Karimnagar and found three persons under suspicious circumstances with bags in their hands. Accordingly, he apprehended them and on search found a parcel containing Ganja. Since possession and sale of

Ganja is an offence, he interrogated accused No.1 to 3. Accused No.1 to 3 voluntarily confessed the commission of offence. In pursuance of their confession, he seized 1 KG 180 Grams of Ganja, one Vivo Mobile Phone from the possession of accused No.1, one I-Phone 12 from the possession of accused No.2 and one Vivo Mobile Phone from the possession of accused No.3 under the cover of panchanama. He got photographed the panchanama proceedings with the help of LW.6/M. Kranthi Kumar (Police constable). Basing on the panchanama, S.I of Police filed complaint. Basing on the complaint,

LW.11/B. Koteshwar (Inspector of Police, PS. KNR-I Town) registered a case in

Cr.No. 186/2024 u/Sec.8 (c) R/w. 20 (b)(ii)(B), 27 of NDPS Act and issued FIR.

3.During the course of investigation, LW.11/B. Koteshwar (Inspector of

Police) examined and recorded the statements of LW.1/Bhasker Reddy,

LW.2/Basheer Khan, LW.3/Sampath and LW.4/Kumara Swamy (Police

Constables), LW.5/MD Ahmed Pasha, LW.6/K.Kranthi Kumar. He arrested the accused and sent them to judicial remand. He visited scene of offence and conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of LW.9/G. Ravi

Kumar, LW.10/D. Buchi Malla Reddy. On 02-04-2025, he filed a requisition

before II Addl. J.F.C.M, Karimnagar requesting to draw samples and conduct

inventory. Accordingly, he got prepared the inventory through II Addl. J.F.C.M

4 of 22 SC (NDPS) No. 15 of 2025

and forwarded the seized samples to FSL for analysis. After collecting FSL report and completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 3 for the offence punishable u/Sec.8 (c) R/w. 20 (b)(ii)(B), 27 of NDPS Act.

4.This Court taken cognizance of offence U/s. 8 (c) R/w.20 (b)(ii)(B), 27 of

NDPS Act against the Accused No.1 to 3 and issued Summons. The case against Accused No.2 is separated as SC No.24/2025.

5. On appearance of Accused No.1 to 3 before the Court, copies of case documents are furnished to them as required U/s.230 of BNSS. They were explained of accusation as required U/s.251 of BNSS. charge for the offence

U/s.8 (c) R/w.20 (b)(ii)(B), 27 of NDPS Act framed and read over. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

6. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined PW.1 to PW.7 and got marked Ex.P1 to P17 and M.O.1 to 4.

7.After completion of the examination of the witnesses, Accused No.1 and 3 were called upon to explain the incriminating circumstances that are appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses as required U/Sec.351 of

BNSS. Both Accused denied the evidence. They did not choose to produce any defence witnesses on their behalf.

8.Heard arguments on both sides.

5 of 22 SC (NDPS) No. 15 of 2025

9.Now the point that arise for determination is:

1) Whether the Search and Seizure conducted by S.I of Police (PS. KNR-I Town) was in accordance with Sec. 42 and 43 of NDPS Act?

2) Whether the Prosecution could able to prove the guilt of Accused

No.1 and 3 beyond doubt for the offence punishable u/Sec. 8 (c) R/w.

20 (b)(ii)(B) & 27 of NDPS Act and if so whether the Accused No.1 and 3 could able to rebut the Presumption as required u/Sec. 54 of NDPS Act?

POINT NO.1 AND 2:

10.It is the case of the prosecution that on 27-03-2025 at about 9:00 AM, while the Sub-Inspector of Police, KNR-I Town PS was present, he received information about illegal transportation of Ganja towards Bus Stand,

Karimnagar. As such he along with his staff proceeded to scene of offence.

He found the accused No.1 to 3 to be in possession of the Ganja in a parcel.

Since the possession of Ganja itself is an offence, Sub-Inspector of Police secured the presence of the two mediators for conducting the panchanama.

Basing on the request made by S.I of Police; Mandal Revenue Officer, KNR-

Urban sent two mediators who visited the scene of offence and S.I of Police conducted panchanama in the presence of mediators.

11.In order to prove the allegations against the accused No.1 and 3, the prosecution got examined the S.I of Police who conducted confession-cum- seizure panchanama of accused as PW.1. In addition to S.I of Police, prosecution got examined the mediator for recording the confession-cum-

6 of 22 SC (NDPS) No. 15 of 2025

seizure panchanama to prove the confession-cum-seizure panchanama of accused No.1 and 3 as PW.3. Prosecution further examined PW.2 and PW.6 as the Police Constables who assisted S.I of Police during the course of search and seizure.

12.PW.1/U. Bhasker Reddy (S.I of Police, PS. KNR-I Town) in his evidence deposed that on 27-03-2025 at 9:00 AM, he received information about illegal transportation of Ganja towards Bus Stand. Accordingly, he appraised his

Superiors, secured the presence of two mediators and weighing machine; and proceeded to Ambedkar Stadium Main Gate. While he was conducting vehicle checking, he found three persons proceeding infront of the Stadium. He apprehended them and on questioning, they disclosed their identity and they being in possession of Ganja. As such he conducted confession-cum-seizure panchanama, weighed the property found with accused No.1 to 3 and seized the contraband under the cover of panchanama. He also deposed that he seized one mobile phone from each accused during the course of panchanama and photographed the procedure with the help of LW.6/Kranthi Kumar. He deposed that he submitted a report under Sec. 57 of NDPS Act to Superiors and later filed complaint which is marked as Ex.P1.

13.During the course of cross examination, PW.1 admitted that the information submitted to Superiors vide Ex.P6 do not disclose the despatch number of the office. He deposed that he received information at about 8:00

7 of 22 SC (NDPS) No. 15 of 2025

AM and visited scene of offence at about 11:30 AM. He admitted that accused persons were not proceeding on vehicles and he has not examined any independent witness from scene of offence. He admitted that scene of offence is a busy locality. He admitted not mentioned on the panchanama as to where the panchanama got printed. However, he deposed that he got typed the panchanama with the help of Typist. He admitted that scene of offence is situated backside of KNR-I Town Police Station. PW.1 denied the suggestion of filed false case against the accused persons.

14.To support the version of PW.1; prosecution examined PW.3/Karre

Narsaiah as mediator for conducting confession-cum-seizure panchanama of

Accused No.1 and 3. PW.3 in his evidence deposed that on 27-03-2025 at 10:30 AM, his office received requisition and accordingly, he along with

LW.7/Zabi Hussain proceeded to scene of offence. He deposed that they found accused No.1 to 3 in the custody of Police. He deposed that when they enquired, accused No.1 to 3 voluntarily confessed commission of offence. In pursuance of their confession, S.I of Police got weighed the property available with accused No.1 and found it to be 1 KG 180 Grams. He deposed that S.I of

Police conducted confession-cum-seizure panchanama and seized dry Ganja along with one Vivo Mobile Phone from accused No.1, one I-Phone 12 from accused No.2 and another Vivo Mobile Phone from accused No.3 under the

8 of 22 SC (NDPS) No. 15 of 2025

cover of panchanama. PW.4 admitted the panchanama proceedings and seizure of material object as Ex.P3 to P5.

15.During the course of cross examination, PW.3 admitted not handedover the copy of requisition to Police and scene of offence was a busy locality. He denied the suggestion of not disclosed during the panchanama that the contraband parcel was available with accused No.1. He deposed that panchanama was typed at scene of offence and its printout was obtained with a Printer. When he was questioned as to where the printout was taken, he pleaded ignorance. He admitted the presence of scene of offence on the backside of Police Station. He denied the suggestion of accused never confessed the commission of offence and no property was seized.

16.As can be seen from the record, the evidence of PW.1/S.I of Police who conducted the panchanama is on the same lines of his panchanama proceedings. PW.3 being the mediator who assisted him while conducting panchanama also supported the version of PW.1. PW.1 and PW.3 categorically deposed about apprehension of Accused No.1 to 3 by Police

before conducting the panchanama and during the course of panchanama,

accused No.1 to 3 confessed to have committed the offence and seizure of contraband from them. Though PW.1 and PW.3 are Public Servants, they categorically supported the version of prosecution and their evidence is very much in accordance with the prosecution case. Though PW.1 and PW.3 are

9 of 22 SC (NDPS) No. 15 of 2025

subjected to cross examination, learned counsel for accused failed to elicit any material to disbelieve their version. No doubt some minor discrepancies were elicited with regard to formal procedure but the credible evidence of PW.1 and

PW.3 inspires confidence.

17.In addition to the evidence of PW.1 and PW.3, the prosecution examined the Police Officer who accompanied the S.I of Police for patrolling and who apprehended the accused No.1 to 3 as PW.2. PW.2/S.Sampath in his evidence deposed that on 27-03-2025 at about 9:00 AM, Sub-Inspector of

Police received information and as such he along with LW.2/Basheer Khan,

LW.4/Kumara Swamy accompanied him. He deposed that while conducting vehicle check, they found three persons infront of Ambedkar Stadium. They stopped them and on enquiry, they revealed their identity and that they were in possession of Ganja in the bags. As such S.I of Police secured the presence of mediators and conducted panchanama. He deposed that the property was weighed and found to be 1 KG 180 Grams which was seized under the cover of panchanama.

18.During the course of cross examination, PW.2 admitted the presence of several Government Offices nearby scene of offence and it was a busy place.

He admitted that accused persons were proceeding by walk and they have not searched any other persons who were proceeding by walk. PW.2 admitted that accused persons do not know Telugu Language and panchanama was

10 of 22 SC (NDPS) No. 15 of 2025

scribed by S.I of Police. However, he denied the suggestion of never apprehended the accused, no panchanama was conducted and no property was seized from the possession of accused and false case was filed against the accused for statistical purpose.

19.In addition to the evidence of PW.1 to PW.3, prosecution examined the

Police Constable who assisted PW.1 by taking photographs during the course of panchanama as PW.6. PW.6/M. Kranthi Kumar in his evidence categorically deposed about accompanying PW.1 to scene of offence and apprehension of accused persons. He deposed that S.I of Police conducted panchanama in the presence of mediators and seized 1 KG 180 Grams of Ganja. He deposed that he clicked photographs during the course of panchanama vide Ex.P8 and P9.

Accused failed to elicit any material during cross examination.

20.In addition to the evidence of the above mediators and the S.I of Police, prosecution examined the observer who weighed the Ganja during the course of panchanama proceedings as PW.4. PW.4/MD Ahmed Pasha in his evidence deposed that on 27-03-2025 as per the instructions of KNR-I Town

Police, he went to Ambedkar Stadium for weighing the property and as per the instructions of Police, he weighed the property with weighing machine which was found to be 1800 Grams. During cross examination, PW.4 admitted that he sell vegetables and fruits in a cart and there are several fruit carts available nearby Ambedkar Stadium. He denied the suggestion of never weighed the

11 of 22 SC (NDPS) No. 15 of 2025

property but was giving false evidence on the instructions of Police as he is involved in several cases.

21.According to the case of prosecution on 27-03-2025, PW.1 after receiving information about illegal transportation of Ganja, rushed to scene of offence, Karimnagar where he found accused No.1 to 3 in possession of the contraband of about 1180 Grams. As all the accused were found in possession of Ganja which is a Narcotic Substance and as the place of apprehension was a road which is a public place, he got conducted panchanama and seized contraband. PW.1 in capacity of the Police Officer categorically deposed about apprehension of accused along with 1180 Grams of Ganja. His version was supported by the mediator for recording confession- cum-seizure panchanama and the Police constable who assisted him as PW.2 and PW.3.

22.The evidence of PW.1 to PW.3 categorically speaks about prosecution case. All the witnesses corroborated with each other with regard to apprehension of accused and panchanama conducted. Though the learned counsel for accused No.1 and 3 cross examined PW.1 to PW.3, they failed to elicit any material. In the present case, PW.1 to PW.3 are the Public Servants.

Having apprehended the accused with contraband and to comply the provisions under the NDPS Act, PW.1 secured the presence of PW.3 and conducted the panchanama in his presence which cannot be found fault with.

12 of 22 SC (NDPS) No. 15 of 2025

In addition to the evidence of PW.1, mediator for panchanama who was examined as PW.3 also supported the prosecution case. The evidence of

PW.3 who deposed about the seizure of 1180 Grams of Ganja and 3 mobile phones from accused No.1 to 3 cannot be ignored. When the evidence of

PW.1 to PW.3 is read cumulatively, it inspire confidence and further accused miserably failed to elicit any material to disbelieve the same.

23.According to prosecution case, during the course of panchanama, PW.1 secured the presence of PW.6 for taking photographs during the course of panchanama. PW.6 categorically deposed about accompanying PW.1 and on his instructions, clicked photographs which were subsequently printed and handed over to S.I of Police. Though PW.6 supported the prosecution case, the evidence of PW.6 is silent as to where he got printed the photographs. No doubt PW.6 issued Sec. 63 (4) of BSA certificate, it is silent with regard to the object used for taking photograph and object used for getting print of the photograph. When Ex.P8 is a positive photograph which was taken using a mobile phone, it is the duty of PW.6 to disclose the description of the mobile phone apart from disclosing the particulars of the Printer used for printing the photographs. In the absence of such material particulars reflected on Sec. 63 (4) of BSA Certificate, it cannot be taken into consideration.

24.According to prosecution case, accused No.1 to 3 were found in possession of contraband near Ambedkar Stadium which is a public place. In

13 of 22 SC (NDPS) No. 15 of 2025

view of apprehension of accused No.1 to 3 in a public place with the contraband, the Investigating Officer secured the presence of two mediators and conducted panchanama by seizing the contraband. PW.1 to PW.3 admitted scene of offence as a public place surrounded by public offices. In view of apprehending the accused persons in a public place with Ganja, the relevant provision that would apply in the given circumstances is Sec. 42 and 43 of NDPS Act.

Section 42 of NDPS Act, 1985: Power of entry, search, seizure and arrest

without warrant or authorization.— (1).Any such officer (being an officer superior in rank to a peon, sepoy or constable) of the departments of central excise, narcotics, customs, revenue intelligence or any other department of the Central Government including paramilitary forces or armed forces as is empowered in this behalf by general or special order by the Central Government, or any such officer (being an officer superior in rank to a peon, sepoy or constable) of the revenue, drugs control, excise, police or any other department of a State Government as is empowered in this behalf by general or special order of the State Government, if he has reason to believe from persons knowledge or information given by any person and taken down in writing that any narcotic drug, or psychotropic substance, or controlled substance in respect of which an offence punishable under this Act has been committed or any document or other article which may furnish evidence of the commission of such offence or any illegally acquired property or any document or other article which may furnish evidence of holding any illegally acquired property which is liable for seizure or freezing or forfeiture under Chapter VA of this Act is kept or concealed in any building, conveyance or enclosed place, may between sunrise and sunset,--

14 of 22 SC (NDPS) No. 15 of 2025

(a) enter into and search any such building, conveyance or place;

(b) in case of resistance, break open any door and remove any obstacle to such entry;

(c) seize such drug or substance and all materials used in the manufacture thereof and any other article and any animal or conveyance which he has reason to believe to be liable to confiscation under this Act and any document or other article which he has reason to believe may furnish evidence of the commission of any offence punishable under this Act or furnish evidence of holding any illegally acquired property which is liable for seizure or freezing or forfeiture under Chapter VA of this Act; and

(d) detain and search, and, if he thinks proper, arrest any person whom he has reason to believe to have committed any offence punishable under this

Act:Provided that in respect of holder of a license for manufacture of manufactured drugs or psychotropic substances or controlled substances granted under this Act or any rule or order made thereunder, such power shall be exercised by an officer not below the rank of sub-inspector:Provided further that if such officer has reason to believe that a search warrant or authorization cannot be obtained without affording opportunity for the concealment of evidence or facility for the escape of an offender, he may enter and search such building, conveyance or enclosed place at any time between sunset and sunrise after recording the grounds of his belief.

(2)Where an officer takes down any information in writing under sub-section (1) or records grounds for his belief under the proviso thereto, he shall within seventy-two hours send a copy thereof to his immediate official superior.

Sec. 43. Power of seizure and arrest in public place:—Any officer of any of the departments mentioned in section 42 may—

15 of 22 SC (NDPS) No. 15 of 2025

(a) seize in any public place or in transit, any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or controlled substance in respect of which he has reason to believe an offence punishable under this Act has been committed, and, along with such drug or substance, any animal or conveyance or article liable to confiscation under this Act, any document or other article which he has reason to believe may furnish evidence of the commission of an offence punishable under this Act or any document or other article which may furnish evidence of holding any illegally acquired property which is liable for seizure or freezing or forfeiture under Chapter VA of this Act;

(b) detain and search any person whom he has reason to believe to have committed an offence punishable under this Act, and if such person has any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or controlled substance in his possession and such possession appears to him to be unlawful, arrest him and any other person in his company.

Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, the expression “public place” includes any public conveyance, hotel, shop, or other place intended for use by, or accessible to, the public.

25.As can be understood from reading Sec. 43 of NDPS Act, any Officer of any Department may seize in any public place any article which he has reason to believe that the person has been committed an offence punishable under

Chapter-IV. For the purpose of search and seizure, the Officer may detain any person whom he has reason to believe to have committed an offence punishable under Chapter-IV. If such person has any Narcotic Drug in his possession and such possession appears to him to be unlawful, arrest him.

16 of 22 SC (NDPS) No. 15 of 2025

26.After going the above provision of law, it can be understood that Sec. 43

(b) speaks about search and seizure of the contraband whenever a person is found to be in possession of any narcotic substance in a public place. Sec. 50 of NDPS Act envisages a duty on the person proceeding with search and seizure as to right of the accused to be searched in the presence of any

Gazetted Officer. Accordingly in the present case as the accused was found in possession of Ganja, PW.1 secured the presence of mediators and conducted panchanama.

27.According to Sec.52 of NDPS Act, the Officer arresting shall give reasons for arrest of the accused person. Sec. 52 (2) speaks about disposal of the person arrested and articles seized. The evidence of PW.1 and PW.7 with regard to arrest and remanding of accused to judicial custody is credible.

Further it is not in dispute. However the subsequent situation of Sec. 52 (3) and (4) appears to have not complied properly.

28.PW.1 was the Investigating Officer who apprehended accused No.1 to 3; conducted panchanama and filed complaint. Though PW.1 deposed that he deposited the seized property before Malkana with R. Sammaiah (ASI of

Police), no document is placed before this Court. Even PW.7 has not filed any document to show that the property was kept in the safe custody. PW.7 in his evidence deposed that after registration of the case, he filed a requisition

before II Addl. J.F.C.M, KNR for conducting Inventory and forwarded the

17 of 22 SC (NDPS) No. 15 of 2025

property to FSL. He deposed that he examined and recorded the statements of witnesses. He filed a requisition before Addl. J.F.C.M (KNR) requesting to conduct Inventory proceedings and draw samples. Accordingly, J.F.C.M (KNR) conducted Inventory by drawing samples on the same day. The samples were forwarded to FSL for analysis. He deposed that after receiving the FSL report, he filed charge sheet.

29.Ex.P11 is the requisition filed by PW.7 before II Addl. J.F.C.M. Ex.P12 and P13 are Annexure-I and Annexure-II. Ex.P14 is the certification of the II

Addl. J.F.C.M (KNR) with regard to drawing of samples, Dt. 11-04-2025. The

Presiding Officer, Addl. J.F.C.M (KNR) certified about the correctness of

Inventory on Annexure No.I and II on 11-04-2025. However, there is no material on record as to the fate of the seized property from the date of its seizure. In view of these material discrepancies, it is not safe to rely upon such

FSL report.

30.As can be seen from the record, the oral evidence of PW.1 as an

Investigating Officer coupled with oral evidence of PW.2 who assisted him and

PW.3/mediator for seizure of material object is convincing. Though accused cross examined these witnesses, he could able to elicit some minor information with regard to scene of offence as a busy locality and language of accused but it is not material so as to reject the entire prosecution case. Their evidence is corroborated with each other. In addition, their evidence was also supported

18 of 22 SC (NDPS) No. 15 of 2025

by PW.4 to PW.6 but the evidence of PW.6 as a Photographer is not in accordance with the mandatory provision Sec. 63 (4) of BSA.

31.According to PW.1 to 3, all the accused were apprehended and panchanama was conducted by PW.1. The contraband was found to be 1 KG 180 Grams according to PW.1 and PW.4. PW.4 is said to be the person who weighed the property. In fact PW.4 supported the prosecution case but when the photographs vide Ex.P8 are taken into consideration, it is silent with regard to weighing of the property. Secondly, only a blue colour plastic cover can be seen in the hands of accused No.1 but it is not known whether said cover consists of dry Ganja as deposed by PW.1 to PW.3.

32.After the procedure of seizure of material object, subsequent procedure would be Sec. 52-A of NDPS Act. In fact it was complied by PW.7 and he categorically deposed about filing of requisition, production of property and conducting of Inventory proceedings. In fact, PW.7 exhibited the photographs that were taken during the Inventory proceedings which was marked as

Ex.P15. When the photographs are perused, there appears a cover containing dry Ganja leaves on a weighing machine. However, weight of the property is not visible in the photographs to believe that 1 KG 180 Grams of Ganja was produced before Presiding Officer and she drawn 50 Grams towards sample.

No doubt the Inventory report under Ex.P14 categorically shows produced property, sample collected and remaining property available. When the

19 of 22 SC (NDPS) No. 15 of 2025

photographs do not reflect the said quantity, mere reflection in Ex.P14 would not suffice.

33.In the present case, the prosecution alleged that the seized sample was sent to FSL and FSL report confirmed that the seized sample was Ganja.

Prosecution also marked the FSL report through PW.7 as Ex.P17. The FSL report has been marked in the present case following procedure under Sec.

294 of Cr.P.C. Though the marking of FSL report under Sec. 294 cannot be found fault with but for the reason of delay in sending the sample to FSL and as there is a lacuna in forwarding the contraband, it is not safe to rely on such

FSL report.

34.Sec. 52-A of NDPS Act is a mandatory provision. It is in continuation and in compliance of Sec. 55 of NDPS Act. In the present case, neither Sec.

55 nor Sec. 52-A appears to have complied with. Though the evidence of

PW.1 to PW.6 speaks about the apprehension of accused No.1 and 2 and seizure of contraband, for the reason of subsequent contravention of the procedure, makes the case of prosecution unreliable. It is the duty of the

Investigating Officer to comply with mandatory provisions of Sec. 52-A and 55 of NDPS Act. In the present case, the Investigating Officer failed to explain the reason for not complying Sec. 52 (3) and (4). Further he even failed to explain the reason for not sending the samples to FSL sooner as required u/Sec. 52 and 52-A of NDPS Act. Since the provisions under Sec. 52 and 52-A are not a

20 of 22 SC (NDPS) No. 15 of 2025

formality but mandatory and for the reason of its non-compliance, prosecution case has to be doubted.

35.Sec. 52, 55 and Sec. 52-A of NDPS Act are the mandatory provisions.

Their non-compliance certainly affect the case of prosecution. Therefore and for the aforementioned reasons; it can be said that prosecution failed to prove the guilt of Accused beyond doubt and benefit can be extended in their favour.

In such circumstances, it can be said that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of Accused beyond doubt for raising the presumptions u/Sec. 54 of NDPS.

Accordingly, the point No.1 and 2 are answered.

36.In the result, Accused No.1 and 3 are found not guilty for the offence u/Sec 8(c) R/w. 20 (b)(ii)(B) and 27 of NDPS Act. Accordingly Accused No.1 and 3 are acquitted u/Sec. 258 of BNSS. Bonds and bail bonds of Accused

No.1 and 3 stands cancelled subject to Section 481 of BNSS. MO.1 to MO.3 are ordered to be sold and sale proceeds shall be confiscated to State after the expiry of appeal period. M.O.4 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist. Corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this 22 nd day of April, 2026.

I ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE

KARIMNAGAR.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution: For Defence:

PW.1: U.Bhaskar Reddy PW.2: S.Sampath

21 of 22 SC (NDPS) No. 15 of 2025

PW.3: K.Narsaiah PW.4: Md.Ahmed Pasha PW.5: G.Ravikumar PW.6: M.Kranthi Kumar PW.7: B.Koteshwar

EXHBITS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1Is the police complaint

Ex.P2 Is Requisition sent to Tahasildar

Ex.P3 Is marked portion of confession-cum-seizure panchanama of A1

Ex.P4 Is marked portion of confession-cum-seizure panchanama of A2

Ex.P5Is marked portion of confession-cum-seizure panchanama of A3

Ex.P6Is the information submitted to Inspector of police

Ex.P7Is scene of offence panchanama

Ex.P8Is three positive photographs along with pen drive.

Ex.P9Is Sec.65-B certificate

Ex.P10Is FIR

Ex.P11Is Requisition filed before II Addl.JFCM for Inventory.

Ex.P12Is Annexure No.I

Ex.P13Is Annexure No.II

Ex.P14Is certification u/sec.52-A of NDPS Act.

Ex.P15Is 5 positive photographs during Inventory.

Ex.P16Is letter addressed to FSL.

Ex.P17Is FSL report

For Defence: -NIL-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

M.O.1: Blue colour VIVO Cell

M.O.2: I phone

22 of 22 SC (NDPS) No. 15 of 2025

M.O.3: Vivo mobile

M.O.4: Sample of Ganja.

I ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE

KARIMNAGAR.

SC.POCSO/33/2023 Acquitted

Father of victim girl vs A1.Mohammed Mahaboob Ali Avez

24 Mar 2026

1 of 20 SC (POCSO) No. 33 of 2023

IN THE COURT OF THE II-FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT FOR

EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL AND DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND POCSO ACT

CASES ::AT:: KARIMNAGAR.

PRESENT: SRI D. VENKATESH,

I ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE,

KARIMNAGAR.

FAC: II Fast Track Special Court for Expeditious Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases,

KARIMNAGAR.

TUESDAY, 24 th DAY OF MARCH, 2026

SC (POCSO). No. 33 of 20 23

State of Telangana through

NAME OF THE

The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Karimnagar III

COMPLAINANT

Town, Cr.No.111/2023. Mohmmed Mahaboob Ali @ Avez, S/o. Khaja Masood Ali, Age: 42 years, Occ: Business, R/o.

NAME OF ACCUSED

H.No.6-1-183, NN Garden, Ashok Nagar locality of Karimnagar District.

OFFENCES UNDER Under Sec.324, 506, 354-A of IPC and Sec. 7 r/w SECTION8 and sec. 9 r/w 10 of POCSO Act.

PLEA OF THE ACCUSED Pleaded Not guilty. FINDING OF THE COURTFound Not Guilty. In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec. 324, 506, 354-A of IPC and Sec. 7 r/w 8 and sec. 9 r/w 10 of POCSO Act. Accordingly, he is acquitted U/s.

SENTENCE

235 (1) CrPC. Bonds and bail bonds of accused stands cancelled subject to section 437-A of Cr.P.C. MO1- CD shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. COUNSEL FOR Sri M.Rajesham,( Spl. Public Prosecutor).

PROSECUTION

COUNSEL FOR DEFENCESri E.Madhusudhan Rao, Advocate for Accused.

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 11-03-2026 in the presence of Sri M.Rajesham, Spl. Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri E.Madhusudhan Rao, Advocates for Accused ; and after hearing both sides and after perusing the material on record to till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

2 of 20 SC (POCSO) No. 33 of 2023

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

1.Accused stands charged for the offence punishable U/Sec. 324, 506, 354-A of IPC and Sec. 7 r/w 8 and sec. 9 r/w 10 of POCSO Act for causing hurt, criminal intimidation, sexual harassment and assault on the victim girl.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE PROSECUTION CASE :

2.On 02-04-2023 at 09:30 AM, LW1-Father of Victim girl filed police report alleging that he got married to one MD. Ashraf Unnisa in the year 2015 and they blessed with the victim girl in the year 2020. Thereafter, due to some disputes with his wife, they obtained divorce in July 2022.

Since their daughter was a child, she was handed over to his wife for care. Thereafter, his wife married the accused who is Resident of

Karimnagar in October 2022. Since then she started residing at

Karimnagar with her husband and victim.

3.It was further alleged that first informant received the message in his Whats’ App through one of the relative by name Shami informing that they received the information about accused being the second husband of wife of this first informant was harassing the victim girl being step daughter. After receiving the information, he along with father in law went to the house of the accused. On 29-03-2023, his daughter/victim girl was taken from her custody and came to Khammam. On enquiry victim girl disclosed that accused being her step father bite her and caused burn injuries. Immediately, he admitted his daughter in

3 of 20 SC (POCSO) No. 33 of 2023

Government Hospital, Khammam and filed complaint before Khammam I

Town police station.

4.Basing on the Police report, LW.13/N.Chitti Babu (Inspector of Police,

P.S. Khammam I Town) registered a case in Cr.No.1/2023, U/Sec. 292, 115(2) of BNS and Sec. 8 of POCSO Act and issued FIR.

5.During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statement of LW1-Victim. He sent the victim girl to Government Hospital,

Khammam for medical examination. He got recorded the statement of the victim girl with the help of LW6-N.Sandhya and the same was videographed with the help of LW7A.Komuraiah. Further he got examined and recorded the statement of LW5-SK.Raziya and LW6-

N.Sandhya. Thereafter, he obtained permission from Commissioner of police, Khammam for transferring the case file to Karimnagar on the point of jurisdiction. After receiving the CD file by SHO Karimnagar I

Town police station, LW14-Ch.Narsimha Rao (SI of Police, Karimnagar I

Town) registered the case in Cr.No.111/2023 U/s. 324, 506, 354-A of IPC and Sec. 7 r/w 8 and sec. 9 r/w 10 of POCSO Act and issued FIR.

6.He examined and recorded the statement of LW1-Victim girl and

LW2-Mother of the victim girl. Thereafter, he transferred the CD file to

Karimnagar III Town police station on the point of jurisdiction. After receiving the CD file LW15-P.Srinivasa Rao re-registered the case for the

4 of 20 SC (POCSO) No. 33 of 2023

offence punishable U/s. 324, 506, 354-A of IPC and Sec. 7 r/w 8 and sec.

9 r/w 10 of POCSO Act.

7.He visited scene of offence, secured the presence of LW9-M.Anil and LW10-B.Nani and drafted the Crime Detail Form. He collected Date of birth certificate of the victim girl which was issued by Registrar of births and deaths Municipality, Khammam.

8.He filed a requisition before JFCM, Karimnagar with a request to record Sec.164 Cr.P.C statement of the victim girl and got recorded the same.

9.On 20-05-2023, he issued notice U/s.41-A Cr.P.C and instructed him to appear before the Court on receipt of summons.

10.After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec. 324, 506, 354-A of IPC and

Sec. 7 r/w 8 and sec. 9 r/w 10 of POCSO Act.

11.Upon filing of final report U/Sec.173 of Cr.P.C. by the Inspector of police, Karimnagar III Town, I Addl. District & Sessions Judge taken cognizance of offence U/Sec. 324, 506, 354-A of IPC and Sec. 7 r/w 8 and sec. 9 r/w 10 of POCSO Act against the accused. The case was transferred to II Fast Track Special Court for Expeditious Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act cases for disposal in accordance with law.

5 of 20 SC (POCSO) No. 33 of 2023

12. On appearance of Accused before this Court, copies of case documents are furnished to Accused as required U/s.207 of Cr.P.C. On considering the entire material available on record, a charge for the offence U/Sec. 324, 506, 354-A of IPC and Sec. 7 r/w 8 and sec. 9 r/w 10 of POCSO Act was framed against the Accused. It was read over and explained to him in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried for the charge.

13.To prove its case, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW10 and got marked Ex.P1 to P12.

14.After completion of the examination of the witnesses, accused was called upon to explain the incriminating circumstances that are appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses as required

U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. Accused has denied the evidence. He did not choose to produce any defence witness on his behalf.

15.Heard arguments on both sides.

Now the point that would arise for determination is :

Whether the prosecution proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable U/Sec. 324, 506, 354-A of IPC and Sec. 7 r/w 8 and sec. 9 r/w 10 of POCSO Act against Accused ?

16. According to prosecution case, accused is step father of the victim girl as he married the victim girl Mother after she was divorced by the

6 of 20 SC (POCSO) No. 33 of 2023

first informant. Accused subjected the victim to cruelty by biting on her thigh and burnt her body. However, first informant being father of the victim girl, received the information about the situation of the victim girl and she being harassed by the accused as step father, he rescued the victim and found her with injuries. Further, victim disclosed him about the harassment committed by the accused.

17. According to prosecution case, victim is aged about 2 ½ years as on the date of the alleged incident as she was born on 17-05-2020. Since victim is said to be a child who have not completed the age of 18 years, prosecution is duty bound to establish victim as a child as required U/s.2 (1) (d) of POCSO Act. In this regard, there is an evidence of PW1 as father of the victim who deposed about age of the victim and date of birth of the victim. PW1 in his evidence deposed that victim was born on 17-05-2020. In addition to the evidence of PW1; prosecution further examined mother of the victim girl but she has not disclosed anything as to date of birth of the victim. However, investigating officer has collected the date of birth of the victim girl.

18.Ex.P8 is the date of birth issued by registrar of birth. Perusal of the document shows that victim was born on 17-05-2020. Since the document was issued by proper authority and it categorically speaks about the victims birth and parents particulars, it needs to be taken into consideration. Secondly, date of birth is a proper document for proving

7 of 20 SC (POCSO) No. 33 of 2023

date of birth of the victim girl as required U/s.94 of Juvenile Justice Act.

When the document is considered under the light of oral evidence of

PW1; the victim needs to be believed as a child and it can be said that prosecution proved that victim as a child as required U/s.2 (1)(d) of

POCSO Act.

19. PW1-Father of the victim girl in his evidence deposed that he was married to mother of the victim girl in the year 2015 and they blessed with victim girl on 17-05-2020. He deposed that due to differences between wife and husband, they obtained divorce in July 2022. However, victim girl was given to mother during separation and thereafter, his wife was married to accused in October 2022. PW1 further deposed that on 28-03-2023, he received photograph of his daughter on his mobile phone

Whats’ App where he found his daughter with contusion and one side redness in the face. Thereafter, he came to know that his divorced wife called one of the relative and informed that accused would kill the victim and asked to save. After knowing about the same, he along with father of his divorced wife went to Karimnagar and rescued the victim. On enquiry victim disclosed that she was bitten by accused. When they saw the victim, they found injuries and as such, she was admitted into the hospital and filed complaint which is Ex.P1.

20. During the course of cross examination, PW1 admitted that he used to meet father of his first wife now and then even after they

8 of 20 SC (POCSO) No. 33 of 2023

divorced. He deposed that he came to know from the local people marriage of the accused with his wife. He admitted that his first wife parents house is situated at a distance of one KM from his house and he was having knowledge about his wife living at Karimnagar. He admitted not handed over mobile phone along with the complaint to police at

Khammam.

21.He deposed that he seen his daughter as received from his wife at

Karimnagar on 29-03-2023. He admitted that he went to Khammam on the same day and observed injuries on the victim girl. He admitted that he took his daughter to hospital at Khammam on 30-03-2024 and his daughter was admittted into hospital for 3 to 4 days. He admitted that medical officer at the hospital informed police on 01-04-2023 who visited the hospital and thereafter, he filed complaint on 02-04-2023. He admitted that complaint was scribed by one of the police officer at police station. PW1 denied the suggestion of got influenced the medical officer to obtain injury certificate of the victim girl. He denied the suggestion of never visited Karimnagar on 29-03-2023 but false case was filed against accused in collusion with his wife.

22.Victim girl was examined as PW2. PW2 in her evidence deposed that while she was present with her mother at grand fathers house at

Khammam, accused came to her and; pinched and bitten her. She deposed that he used to call accused as Abbu and he bitten and pinched

9 of 20 SC (POCSO) No. 33 of 2023

her only once. She admitted that her mother was present and she has not obstructed or disputed with him. She admitted that her mother was also staying at grand fathers house since then. When victim was questioned as to place of receiving injury, she has shown she was bitten on her chest and thighs. She denied the suggestion of giving evidence on the instructions of her father as PW1.

23.Step mother of victim girl was examined as PW3. PW3 in none other than wife of PW1 whom he married the mother of the victim girl.

PW3 in her evidence deposed that on 28-03-2023 PW1 received information about the accused harassing the victim girl. As such, he along with grand father of the victim went to Karimnagar and brought child to Karimnagar. She deposed that they noticed injuries on the victim girl and as such, she was taken to hospital and later filed complaint.

24. During cross examination, PW3 admitted that she was not practicing doctor but she completed her MBBS. She denied the suggestion of worked as medical practitioner at Government Hospital,

Khammam and false case was filed as against the accused basing on the false report.

25.Natural mother of the victim girl was examined as PW5. She is none other than wife of accused as on the date of the alleged incident.

PW5 in her evidence deposed that on 22-10-2022 she married the accused after divorce of PW1. She deposed that she was living with her

10 of 20 SC (POCSO) No. 33 of 2023

parents at Khammam from the last 1 ½ year as she got disputes with accused. However, she has not supported the prosecution case. She deposed that she do not anything about the case and accused never misbehaved with the victim girl. For the reason of PW5 not supported the prosecution case, she was cross examined by learned Spl. PP but failed to elicit any material.

26.To corroborate the version of PW1, prosecution examined Khaja

Masiuddin who was locality person as PW6. PW6 in his evidence deposed that he was tenant of accused but he do not know anything about this case. He even pleaded ignorance with regard to wife of accused and her child who is the victim. For the reason of PW6 not supported the prosecution case, learned Spl. PP cross examined him, but failed to elicit any material. PW6 denied the suggestion of supporting the accused out of compromise.

27.According to prosecution case, after PW1 and 5 got divorced, PW1 married PW3 and PW5 married the accused. PW1 deposed that as victim was a child, she was handed over to the custody of the mother PW5 at the time of their separation. According to prosecution, PW5 used to live with accused and victim at Karimnagar. The alleged incident of sexual assault occurred at Karimnagar at the house of the accused. It mean the possibility of sexual assault or harassment knowing to PW1 who is a resident of Khammam is remote. He has to be informed either by PW5 as

11 of 20 SC (POCSO) No. 33 of 2023

PW1 is a natural father or through relatives. In the present case, prosecution contended that PW1 received information from his relatives who was informed by PW5 about accused harassing the victim girl.

Though PW1 categorically deposed about receiving information, visiting

Karimnagar rescued the victim, apparently no material is placed before this court to believe that PW1 received information. Though PW1 admitted that he have handed over the photographs which he received from relatives to police, no such evidence is placed before this court.

Though PW1 subsequently produced the photographs, they were not marked into evidence.

28.In order to prove the injuries, prosecution examined the medical officer who treated the victim girl as PW9. PW9-Dr.Teja Reddy in her evidence deposed that on 02-04-2023, he received requisition from

Inspector of Police, Karimnagar III Town requesting to examine the victim girl in connection to Cr.No. 01/2023. Accordingly, she examined the victim girl who noted the following injuries (I) two to three cigar marks on chest. (ii) multiple bite marks over breast. (iii) multiple bite marks on both thighs. She deposed that all the injuries were about 20-30 days old and she issued the injury certificate vide Ex.P5.

29. During cross examination PW9 admitted that the hospital of the injuries was disclosed by father of the victim girl. She admitted that the injuries were normal and were healing and as such, she has not noted

12 of 20 SC (POCSO) No. 33 of 2023

with regard to the treatment. She admitted not verified with hospital records with regard to alleged treatment given to victim at Government

Hospital, Khammam. She admitted that police will be informed whenever any one was admitted into the hospital under medico legal case. She denied the suggestion of PW3 influenced her and under the influence of PW3 exhibited Ex.P5 was issued.

30.The oral evidence of PW9 categorically speaks about different injuries that were observed on the victim girl. There are different types of injuries at different places. The oral evidence of PW9 is in accordance with the oral evidence of PW1 who is father of the victim girl. However, their evidence is not in accordance with the evidence of the victim girl who is a child of aged 3 years. During the course of evidence of PW2 as a victim girl deposed that she was pinched and bitten by accused at

Khammam and she has not disclosed with regard to burn injuries by the accused.

31. Admittedly, PW1 or PW3 are not eyewitness to the incident. The evidence of PW2 as a victim girl and PW5 mother of the victim girl assumes importance. PW5 would be the proper witness to witness the act committed by the accused as she was the wife as on the date of the incident. However, except the evidence of PW1, there is no other convincing evidence on record. No doubt, the evidence of PW1 as father of the victim girl cannot be ignored but his evidence is not supported by

13 of 20 SC (POCSO) No. 33 of 2023

the victim girl. Secondly, the victim evidence has changed the game with regard to incident occurred at Khammam and accused has pinched only once. After the incident occurred at Khammam, there was no situation of PW1 rescuing the victim girl from Karimnagar. Secondly,

PW5 admitted that she was residing at her parents house from the last 1 ½ years and no alleged incident tried by the prosecution. In view of the inconsistent evidence of PW2 & PW5, the testimony of PW1 cannot be believed. Secondly, his evidence is not supported by the mobile phone messages which he received in his mobile phone. Secondly, his evidence is not supported by any other witnesses. Thirdly, non-examining his father in law who accompanied to Karimnagar proves fatal. In these circumstances, the testimony of PW2 needs to be corroborated.

32.PW2 being victim girl though deposed that accused pinched and bite her, her evidence as a child of 2 to 3 years cannot be taken into consideration because tutoring cannot be ruled out in view of separation of PW1 and 5. A child of 2 to 3 years can be tutored by his father as she was living with him. Secondly, he is divorced from mother of the victim girl. Thirdly, he subsequently married PW3 who is the medical officer.

No doubt, he deposed about presence of injuries which were also supported by the medical evidence but in the absence of corroboration to the evidence of PW1 and non examining any independent witness and no

14 of 20 SC (POCSO) No. 33 of 2023

support from PW5; it is highly unsafe to rely upon the testimony of PW1 and the testimony of child witness.

33. Prosecution examined PW6 as an independent witness to prove the injuries PW1 visited Khammam and rescued the victim girl. However,

PW6 has not suppported the prosecution case. Though he was tenant of accused, his evidence that he do not know anything about this case, made his version futile. Therefore, the evidence of PW6 is of no help to prosecution case.

34.PW4-Shaik Raziya was women police officer who videographed the recording of statement of the victim while examining by PW7. PW4 in her evidence deposed that on 02-04-2023 as per the instructions of

Inspector of Police, she went to Bharosa Center, Khammam where PW7 recorded statement of victim girl and she videographed the recording of the statement and handed over to Inspector of Police.

35. PW7-N.Sandhya was WSI of police. In her evidence she deposed that on 02-04-2023 she received requisition from CI of police Khammam I

Town requesting to record Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of the victim girl in connection to Cr.No.01/2023. Accordingly, she visited the Bharosa

Center Khammam and recorded the statement of the victim girl in the presence of the mother. Later, she handed over the statement to police.

32.During cross examination PW7 admitted received requisition for recording the statement of the victim girl but she has not handed over

15 of 20 SC (POCSO) No. 33 of 2023

the requisition to the police. She admitted the presence of victims mother while recording the statement. She admitted not stated to police in her 161 Cr.P.C statement as to on whose instructions she recorded the statement. She admitted not wearing the uniform at the time of the recording of the statement and she came to know from Inspector of police translator was mother of the victim girl. She denied the suggestion of victim never disclosed anything in her statement but prepared the statement in collusion with the Translator. The evidence of

PW4 and 7 is completely in compliance of the procedure laid down U/s.24 of POCSO Act.

36. Prosecution examined mediator for recording scene of offence panchanama as PW8. PW8-Anil Kumar in his evidence deposed that on 111-05-2023 at about 03:00 PM, police called him for conducting panchanama and conducted panchanama in his presence. He deposed that police noted the details of crime scene, drafted rough sketch and later obtained his signature. PW8 admitted the panchanama proceedings. During cross examination, PW8 admitted that one police constable was asked to sign on the proceedings to his house. He admitted scene of offence No.1 not situated while going his home. He denied the suggestion of no panchanama was conducted but he signed on written papers on the request of police. Prosecution examined PW8 to prove scene of offence. However, no incriminating evidence was found at scene of offence. Though PW8 supported the prosecution, for the

16 of 20 SC (POCSO) No. 33 of 2023

reason of not finding incriminating material; formal evidence of PW8 may not be help to prosecution case.

37.PW10-P.Srinivas Rao was SI of police who re-registered the case and carried material part of investigation. PW10 in his evidence deposed that on 11-05-2023, he received the CD file after it was transferred from

Karimnagar I Town police station. He re-registered the case in

Cr.No.111/2023 U/s.324, 506, 354-A of IPC, Sec.7 r/w 8 and Sec.9 r/w 10 of POCSO Act and issued FIR. During investigation, he visited scene of offence and conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of two mediators. He examined and recorded the statement of witnesses.

He collected the date of birth certificate of the victim girl from Municipal

Corporation, Khammam. He filed a requisition before II Addl. JFCM,

Karimnagar requested to record Sec.164 Cr.P.C statement of the victim girl and got recorded the same. He issued notice U/s.41-A Cr.P.C to accused. He apprehended the accused on 23-05-2023. However, he instructed to appear before the court on receipt of summons. After completion of investigation, he filed the charge sheet.

38.PW11-N.Chitti Babu was the Inspector of Police who actually registered the case basing on the report filed by PW1 father of the victim girl. PW11 in his evidence deposed that on 02-04-2023 at about 09:30

AM, he received the complaint from LW1-Father of the victim girl. Basing on which, he registered a Zero FIR No.01/2023 U/s.324, 506, 354-A of

17 of 20 SC (POCSO) No. 33 of 2023

IPC, Sec.7 r/w 8 and Sec.9 r/w 10 of POCSO Act and issued FIR. During investigation, he got recorded the statement of the victim girl with the help of LW6-N.Sandhya (Woman SI of police, P.S. Khammam II Town). He sent the victim girl to Government Hospital, Khammam for medical examination. Later, he addressed a letter to Commissioner of police,

Khammam requesting to transfer the case file to Karimnagar on the point of jurisdiction.

39.During the course of cross examination, PW10 admitted that they received FIR transferred from Khammam District on the point of jurisdiction along with statements of LW1 to 3. PW10 admitted first informant received telephonic information through Whats’ App as disclosed in the statement. He admitted not collected screenshot or particulars of the call from PW1. He admitted that victim used to speak in

Hindi language and he spoke with the victim girl. He admitted that 161

Cr.P.C statement is in Telugu language and name or signature of translator is not present in her 161 Cr.P.C statement. He admitted that that medical certificate of the victim was issued by Government Hospital,

Khammam. He admitted victim was admitted into the hospital on 02-04- 2023. He admitted that first informant was within the custody of PW1 from 29-03-2023 to 02-04-2023. He denied the suggestion of filed false case against accused basing on the table investigation. During the course of cross examination, PW11 admitted that on 02-04-2023 he

18 of 20 SC (POCSO) No. 33 of 2023

recorded the statement of the complainant. PW11 admitted that victim was admitted into the hospital at the time of the complaint as stated by

PW1. However, he denied the suggestion of filed false case against the accused in collusion with the complainant.

40.As can be seen from the record, prosecution charged the accused for causing simple hurt, criminal intimidation and sexual assault on a child of aged 3 years. In order to prove the allegations, prosecution examined father of the victim girl, mother of the victim girl and the victim girl. Admittedly, the case was initially registered at Khammam.

Subsequently, it was transferred to Karimnagar on the point of jurisdiction. Further, there is a delay in filing of the police report.

41.According to PW1, he came to Karimnagar to rescue the victim on 29-03-2023. Whereas, the police report was filed on 02-04-2023. There is a delay of 4 days in filing of the complaint. Though PW1 deposed that victim was admitted into the hospital, the evidence of medical officer do not suggest that victim was admitted into the hospital for 3 to 4 days.

Secondly, she deposed that victim was admitted into the hospital for one day. Even if it is believed that victim was admitted into the hospital, the medical evidence would suggest that medical officer is under obligation to inform the police officer whenever the medico-legal case is received.

However, neither PW9 or 7 nor PW1 taken steps to file complaint or inform the police though victim suffered burn injuries with cigarette. For

19 of 20 SC (POCSO) No. 33 of 2023

the reason of unexplained delay prosecution case needs to be doubted.

Secondly, there appears disputes between mother of the victim girl and

PW1 for which reason they got divorced. Further, PW5 after marrying the accused also appears to have not living with accused as she got disputes with even accused. PW2 herself admitted that she was living at

Khammam at her grandparents house which is also deposed by PW5. In view of differences between both parties, and disputes, false implication cannot be ruled out. No doubt, there is a credible medical evidence in the present case, but without the support of victim or her mother who is actual witness to witness the commission of offence by the accused, it is highly unsafe to rely upon the testimony of PW1. In these circumstances, the court is of the opinion that prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond doubt and benefit can be extended in favour of the accused. Accordingly, the point is answered in the negative.

42.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec. 324, 506, 354-A of IPC and Sec. 7 r/w 8 and sec. 9 r/w 10 of POCSO Act. Accordingly, he is acquitted U/s. 235(1) Cr.P.C. Bonds and bail bonds of accused stands cancelled subject to section 437-A of

Cr.P.C. MO1 CD shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to Stenographer Gr-III (Contract), transcribed by him; corrected

and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 24th day of March, 2026.

I Addl. Sessions Judge, Karimnagar FAC: I Fast Track Court for expeditious trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases, Karimnagar.

20 of 20 SC (POCSO) No. 33 of 2023

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE :

PW1 : Father of the victim girl. -NONE- PW2 : Victim girl. PW3 : Step mother of the victim girl. PW4: Shaik Razia. PW5: Mother of the victim girl. PW6: Khaja Masiuddin. PW7: N.Sandhya. PW8: Anil Kumar. PW9: Dr.Teja Reddy. PW10: P.Srinivas Rao. PW11: N.Chitti Babu.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1: Is the complaint filed by PW1. Ex.P2: Is the Sec.65-B Indian Evidence Act Certificate. Ex.P3: Is the 161 Cr.P.C statement by PW3. Ex.P4: Is the 161 Cr.P.C statement by PW6. Ex.P5: Is the signature on the scene of offence panchanama by PW8. Ex.P6: Is the signature on the scene of offence panchanama by PW8. Ex.P7: Is the injury certificate by PW9. Ex.P8: Is the requisition. Ex.P9: Is the FIR by PW10. Ex.P10: Is the copy of Birth certificate of the victim girl by PW10. Ex.P11: Is the Sec.164 Cr.P.C statement of the victim girl. Ex.P12: Is the FIR by PW11. Ex.P13: Is the requisition for recording Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of the victim girl. Ex.P14: Is the letter addressed to Commissioner of Police, Khammam.

FOR DEFENCE : -NIL-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED : MO.1 : Is the CD. I Addl. Sessions Judge, Karimnagar FAC: I Fast Track Court for expeditious trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases, Karimnagar.

MVOP/69/2024

Gunti Padma vs Ram Lal Soni

17 Apr 2026

1 of 17 MVOP No. 69 of 2024

IN THE COURT OF THE CHAIRMAN MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS

TRIBUNAL – CUM - I ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, KARIMNAGAR

PRESENT: D. VENKATESH

CHAIRMAN (MACT) - CUM-I ADDL. DIST. JUDGE ,

KARIMNAGAR.

FRIDAY THIS THE 17th DAY OF APRIL, 2026.

M.V.O.P No. 69 of 2024

Between:

1.Gunti Padma W/o.Late Srinivas, age: 45 years, occ: Household,

2.Gunti Sai Vineela, D/o.Late Srinivas, age: 22 years, occ: Pvt.employee

3.Gunti Sai Vardhan W/o.late Srinivas, age: 18 years and odd months, occ; Student

4.Gunti Buchamma w/o.late Veeraiah, age: 70 years, occ: Household,

All are native residents of H.No.4-7-85/C, Bheemunipatam, Jyothinagar, Somanpalle, NTPC A.P.Colony, Ramagundam mandal, Peddapally district.

Presently residing in H.No.10-3-290, Vidyanagar, Karimnagar town proper.

…Petitioners // AND //

1.Ram Lal Soni, S/o.Gordhan Lal, age: 43 years, occ: Driver of the lorry bearing No.RJ-20-GC-0887, R/o.Fathegarh (v) H.No.1-27/B Taluq: PIRAWA District: Jhalawar, State Rajastan- 326 036.

2.Rajesh Kumar Carpenter, S/o.Bhagwan Singh, age; Major, occ: Business, owner of the lorry bearing No.RJ-20-GC-0887, R/o.Rajput colony, H.No.1-45-201Rangbari, Indrapura Kota, State Rajastan.

3.National Insurance Company Ltd., R/by its Manager, Policy Issuing Office name and address: Jhalawar Branch; H.No.2/388 near Reserve police Lines, Jhalawar State; Rajasthan.

4.National Insurance Company Limited, R/by its Divisional Manager,

2 of 17 MVOP No. 69 of 2024

Divisional Office: Karimnagar, H.No.2-3-184/A, 2nd floor, Kaman to Bus stand road, Karimnagar, State: Telangana.

…Respondents

PETITION FILED U/SEC. 166 (1) (c) OF M.V. ACT.

This petition coming before me for final hearing on 17-3-2026 in the presence of Sri D.Thirupathi, Advocate for Petitioner and Sri G.Sathyanarayana Reddy, Advocate for Respondent No.3, and Respondent No.1 and 2 set exparte; after hearing both sides and perusing the material on record till this day, this court delivered the following:-

:: O R D E R ::

1.This is a claim petition filed by the Petitioners No.1 to 4 U/s. 166 (1) (c) of MV Act against Respondents No.1 to 4 claiming compensation of

Rs.28,00,000/- on the account of death of the deceased Gunti Srinivas in a road traffic accident, Dt.25-10-2023 at 4:34 PM near Indian Oil Corporation

Limited at Kundanpalli Bus Stop involving Lorry bearing No. RJ-20-GS-0887 driven by Respondent No.1 and owned by Respondent No.2. The petition is filed against driver of offending vehicle, owner of vehicle and insurer of Lorry bearing No. RJ-20-GS-0887 for causing the accident and death of the deceased.

The brief facts of the Petitioner’s case:

2.It is the case of the claim Petitioners that on 25-10-2023 morning, the deceased went to attend his duties as casual labour at NTPC Plant. After completion of his duties while the deceased was returning to Kanagarthi (v), he remembered of a personal work at Kundapalli (v). As such he boarded an

Auto Rikshaw. When the Auto reached IOCL Petrol Pump, Kundanpalli Bus

3 of 17 MVOP No. 69 of 2024

Stop Junction, he got down the Auto. While he was crossing the road, he was dashed by a Lorry bearing No. RJ-20-GS-0887 driven by Ramlal Soni (Respondent No.1) in rash and negligent manner. As a result of the accident, deceased fell down and suffered severe injuries to head and other parts of the body. Deceased died instantaneously.

3.It is further case of the Petitioners that after the accident, wife of the deceased by name Gunti Padma filed Police report on 25-10-2023 before

Anthergaon Police Station. A case in Cr. No. 117/2023 for the offence punishable U/Sec.304-A IPC was registered. After thorough investigation and in view of the death of the deceased, a charge sheet was laid for the offence

U/Sec.304-A of IPC against Ramlal Soni who is none other than Respondent

No.1 before Addl. J.F.C.M (Godavarikhani).

4.According to the claim petitioners; the deceased was Husband of

Petitioner No.1, father of Petitioner No.2, 3 and son of Petitioner No.4. He was aged about 45 years as on the date of accident. He was hale and healthy at the time of the accident. He was a casual labour in NTPC by profession and used to earn an amount of Rs.18,000/- to Rs.20,000/- per month. He used to contribute his income to his family. Due to the accident, they have been deprived of the future earnings. According to the claim petitioners, the accident occurred due to rash and negligent act of the Respondent No.1 and the Lorry was insured with Respondent No.3 Company, owned by

4 of 17 MVOP No. 69 of 2024

Respondent No.2, they are jointly and severally liable for payment of compensation.

5. Notice of the petition was issued to Respondents No.1 to 4. Respondent

No.1 and 2 did not choose to file counter and were set Ex-Parte. Respondent

No.3 and 4 filed their counter.

The brief averments of the counter filed by Respondent No.3 and 4:

6.Respondent No.3 denied the claim of the petitioners. They denied the manner of accident, rashness and negligence on the part of the Respondent

No.1. They also denied the age, income and occupation of the deceased.

According to the Respondent No.3, the accident occurred due to negligence of the deceased who tried to cross the road negligently without observing movement of the vehicles on the main road and has not taken any precautions.

7.The contention of the Respondent No.3 is that the Petitioner shall prove the pleaded accident, negligence of the rider of the offending vehicle, issuance of insurance policy, compliance of policy conditions by the owner of vehicle, valid and effective driving license to the Driver of Lorry. Respondent

No.3 claimed the compensation to be excessive and also claimed the Driver of the Lorry was not holding valid driving license at the time of accident. The

Respondent No.3 claimed protection u/Sec. 147 to 149 of MV Act and sought permission for taking defenses u/Sec. 170 of MV Act. Since the Respondents

5 of 17 MVOP No. 69 of 2024

has not complied with Sec. 158 (6) of MV Act, the company is not liable for payment of compensation and finally prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

8.Basing on the aforesaid pleadings the following issues are settled for trail by my predecessor:

1. Whether the deceased Gunti Srinivas died in motor vehicle accident occurred on 25-10-2023 at 4-34 P.M., near Indian Oil Corporation Limited at Kundanpalli Bus stop Junction, on the Rajeev Rahadhaari Road leading from Karimnagar to Ramagundam?

2. Whether the deceased died in motor vehicle accident dt.25-10- 2023 due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of lorry bearing No.RJ-20-GC-0887 driven by Respondent No.1 ?

3. Whether the petitioners No.1 to 4 are entitled for compensation of Rs.28,00,000/- from the Respondents No.1 to 3 on the account of death of the deceased Gunti Srinivas in accident dt.25-10-2023 ?

4. To what relief?

9.During trial, PW-1 is examined Ex.A1 to A9 are marked on behalf of petitioners. B.Lingamurthy and S.Narayana are examined as PW.2 and PW.3 and Ex.A1 to A13 are marked. On behalf of the respondents RW.1 is examined and Ex.B1 copy of insurance policy is marked.

10.Heard both sides. Perused the record.

ISSUE NO.1 & 2:

11.According to the claim Petitioners, they are wife, children and mother of the deceased. On 25-10-2023, deceased went to attend his duties. While he

6 of 17 MVOP No. 69 of 2024

was returning and crossing a road, he was dashed by a Lorry bearing No. RJ- 20-GS-0887 driven by the Driver of the Lorry in high speed. As a result of the accident, the deceased died instantaneously. According to claim Petitioners, as the Driver of the Lorry has driven the vehicle in negligent manner and caused death of the deceased, they being family members of the deceased needs to be compensated. Whereas Respondent No.3 Company vehemently objected the claim on the ground of Respondent No.1 not holding valid driving license and violations on the part of Respondent No.2.

12.Claim Petitioners examined Petitioner No.1 as PW.1 to prove the death of the deceased and their eligibility. They also examined eye witness to the incident as PW.2 and Labour Contractor of the deceased as PW.3.

Respondent No.3 company did not choose to examine any witness but got marked the copy of insurance policy as Exhibit B1.

13.PW.1/Gunti Padma is the Petitioner No.1. She deposed that on 25.10.2023, her husband went to attend his duties and while returning he met with an accident at about 4:34 PM near IOCL, Kundanpalli Bus Stop. As a result of the accident, deceased suffered injuries to head and other parts of the body. Deceased died instantaneously.

14.PW1 exhibited certified copy of FIR in Cr.No.117/2023 of PS.

Anthergaon for the offence u/Sec. 304-A of IPC vide Ex A1. It is the prima- facie proof of the accident. Ex.A3 is CC of Inquest report. Ex.A4 is CC of

PME report. Ex.A5 is CC of Charge Sheet filed in Cr.No. 117/2023. Ex.A6 is

7 of 17 MVOP No. 69 of 2024

CC of MVI Report. Ex.A2 is CC of Crime Detail Form. Perusal of Ex.A1 shows that FIR was lodged by wife of the deceased. Ex.A1 categorically says that while the deceased was crossing the road, the Driver of the Lorry got dashed the deceased. The FIR categorically shows the registration number of the Lorry that caused the accident. Since the alleged incident occurred during day time and death of the deceased was caused instantaneously, the report was filed on the same day at about 10:30 PM. Since deceased died in the accident, filing of Police report after 5 to 6 Hours cannot be found fault with.

As all the family members would be under grief and accompany the deceased, the family reporting the accident with some delay needs to be taken into consideration and such reasons cannot be ignored. Since there is no delay in filing of FIR, it needs to be taken into consideration and no reason to disbelieve the Ex.P1/Police Report.

15.According to the PW.1, the deceased who is her husband died. Ex.A3 is the Inquest panchanama conducted on the dead body of the deceased on 26-10-2023 at Govt. Hospital Mortuary, Godavarikhani. Ex.A4 is the CC of

PME report of the deceased. The PME report categorically says that several antemortem injuries were present on the head and other parts of the deceased. The PME Report speaks about the lacerated injuries and crush injuries on head and face. It also speaks about the haemorrage. The Medical

Officer who conducted PME opined that the death of the deceased was caused due to head injury.

8 of 17 MVOP No. 69 of 2024

16. According to PW.1, the deceased died in road traffic accident. PW.1 filed Police report to that effect. Subsequently and after the death of the deceased, inquest panchanama and PME was conducted over the dead body of the deceased which categorically confirm the death as a result of injuries caused in road traffic accident. Inquest panchanama and PME Report categorically speaks about the injuries found on the dead body of the deceased. Further the mediators opined that deceased died due to the antemortem injuries suffered in the road traffic accident. Since the injuries noted in the PME Report were found on the head and Medical Officer opined death as the result of multiple injuries, there appears no reason to disbelieve and reject the documents.

17.In addition to Ex.A1 and A3, PW.1 also exhibited the CC of Charge

Sheet in Cr.No. 117/2023. Perusal of the charge sheet shows that the case in

Cr.No. 117/2023 was filed against Ramlal Soni for the offence punishable u/Sec. 304-A of IPC. According to the Charge Sheet, the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of Respondent No.1 who drove the Lorry.

PW.1 deposed that the accident took place due to negligence of Respondent

No.1. However, Respondent No.1 and 2 did not choose to file counter nor disputed the accident. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve Ex.A1 and

A3.

18.Ex.A6 is MVI report. MVI Report was prepared in Cr.No. 117/2023 of

PS. Anthergaon. MVI examined the Lorry bearing No. RJ-20-GS-0887. It

9 of 17 MVOP No. 69 of 2024

speaks about finding no damages and brake system was intact. It confirm that the Lorry was driven by Ramlal Soni and owned by Respondent No.2.

Further the Lorry was insured with Respondent No.3 Company. In view of the

Ex.A6, there cannot be any dispute with regard to Respondent No.1 driving the vehicle and the Lorry insured with Respondent No.3 Company. MVI opined that the accident occurred not due to mechanical defects of the vehicle. In view of the report of MVI, finding no damages or intact brake system, it would be the rashness or negligence on the part of Respondent

No.1 in causing the accident.

19.In addition to the oral evidence of PW.1, claim Petitioner examined eye witness to the incident as PW.2. PW.2/Linga Murthy in his evidence deposed that on 25-10-2023 at about 4:30 PM, while he was present near Kundanapalli

Bus Stop, he observed that the deceased got down from Auto and was crossing the road. He deposed that meantime the offending Lorry came in high speed from Peddapalli side, dashed the deceased who was crossing the road which resulted in his death. He also deposed that he called the Police who visited scene of offence, found the Identity Card of the deceased and informed the relatives.

20.During the course of cross examination, PW.2 admitted the presence of divider on road and the Lorry was proceeding towards Godavarikhani. He admitted that the deceased was crossing the road and accident occurred after crossing the divider. He admitted that the scene of offence road was busy

10 of 17 MVOP No. 69 of 2024

road but deceased is not related to him. However, he denied the suggestion of never witnessed the accident but was helping the deceased family. The evidence of PW.2 as an eye witness to the incident cannot be ignored.

21.According to claim Petitioners, the deceased was a third party to the accident and as the accident occurred due to negligent driving of Driver of the

Lorry. Respondent No.3 company which insured the Lorry is liable to pay compensation. IN order to substantiate their case, they examined PW.1 and

PW.2 and also got marked charge sheet. Charge sheet shows the negligence on the part of Respondent No.1 who who was Driver of the Lorry. In addition,

Ex.A2/Crime Detail Form categorically shows the scene of offence on middle of the road at a junction. When the scene of offence was a junction where four roads were meeting, it is the duty of the Driver to be vigilant and cautious.

Secondly, the accident took place at around 4:30 PM, where sufficient amount of light would be available. Respondent No.1 will be having sufficient opportunity to see the deceased who was crossing the road. If Respondent

No.1 was cautious and vigilant, he would have averted the accident. The oral evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 coupled with Ex.A1 to A6 clinchingly establish the death of the deceased and role of Respondent No.1 in the accident.

Accordingly, issue No.1 and 2 are answered in the affirmative.

ISSUE NO.3:-

22.According to the claim Petitioners, the deceased died in the road traffic accident, Dt. 25-10-2023 because of the negligent driving of Driver of the

11 of 17 MVOP No. 69 of 2024

Lorry. PW.1 deposed that the deceased was aged 45 years as on the date of accident and he used to earn an amount of Rs.18,000/- to Rs.20,000/- per month by working as Casual Labour in NTPC. Due to the accident, the deceased died and the Petitioners being the wife and children of the deceased lost the income of the deceased which the deceased used to contribute for the welfare of the family. Though the age of the deceased is shown to be 45 years, no document is produced to believe the same. In such circumstances, the tribunal has to depend upon the criminal case record. According to the case record in Cr.No. 117/2023 the approximate age of deceased is shown as 48 years. PW.1 in her cross examination admitted about referring the age of deceased as 48 years in the Police report. Though claim petition shows the age of deceased as 45, in view of the admission of PW.1 supported by PME

Report which is not in much dispute, it can be believed and accepted.

23.According to PW1, the deceased used to earn an amount of

Rs.18,000/- to Rs.20,000/- per month by working as a Casual Labour in

NTPC. In order to substantiate their contention, claim Petitioners examined the Labour Contractor as PW.3. PW.3/S. Narayana in his evidence deposed that he was a Labour Contractor running the business in the name of Elini

Engineering Works. He deposed that deceased worked as Casual Labour in

NTPC for about 20 years. He deposed that deceased Gross Salary was

Rs.19,580/-. For 26 working days. PW.3 exhibited Wage Register extract and

Salary Pay Slips of the deceased as Ex.A7 to A13. During cross examination,

PW.3 admitted not filed any document to show that he entered into agreement

12 of 17 MVOP No. 69 of 2024

with employees for payment of JAC Allowance. He admitted that the employees are not concerned with the NTPC and labour will be paid wages as per the agreement through Bank. He admitted that the labour will be paid

Advance Allowance if required which will be deducted from their wages. PW.3 denied the suggestion of supporting the claim Petitioners in view of death of the deceased.

24.In order to counter the case of the claim Petitioners, Respondent No.3

Company examined Asst. manager, Legal as RW.1. RW.1/Sampath Kumar in his evidence deposed that the accident occurred due to negligence of the deceased who crossed the road without observing the vehicles. However, he deposed that the offending Lorry was insured with their Company which was valid from 19-02-2023 to 18-02-2024 vide Ex.B1. During cross examination,

RW.1 admitted policy in force as on the date of accident. He denied the suggestion of accident took place due to negligence of Respondent No.1 and there was no contributory negligence on the part of deceased.

25.According to PW.1, deceased used to earn an amount of Rs.20,000/- per month. Her version is supported by PW.3 who was a Labour Contractor.

Though PW.3 has not produced any document with regard to his business, the documents vide Ex.A7 to A13/Salary pay slips and Wage Register would prima-facie disclose the relationship. Secondly, deceased was not a permanent employee of NTPC Organization where his credential can be collected. Since he was said to be a casual labour whose services will be

13 of 17 MVOP No. 69 of 2024

engaged by organization in respect of unskilled works that needs to be performed within the plant, the version of PW.3 cannot be ignored. Thirdly, his evidence is supported by Wage Register. Therefore, there appears no reason to disbelieve his version subject to number of working days.

26.According to PW.3, deceased was paid an amount of Rs.19,580/- per month for 26 working days. No doubt the wage slips and register would disclose different payments per each month, his admission that the labour will be paid for number of working days attended, that needs to be taken into consideration. Since deceased was casual labour and appears to be contract employee, he needs to be considered as a labour with earnings of Rs.18,000/- per month approximately subject to mandatory deductions and per day wage.

Therefore, this Tribunal inclined to consider the income of the deceased basing on Ex.A7 to A13.

27.The income of the deceased is taken as Rs.18,000/- per month. In view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma case, 1/4th of his income is to be deducted towards personal expenses, as he got 4 family members survived, Rs.18,000/-X 1/4th = Rs.4895/- (Rs.18,000/- actual income – Rs.4,500/- deduction @ 1/4th ) = Rs.13,500/-.

28.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance

Company Ltd Vs. Pranay Sethi and others 2017 ACJ 2700whereintheir

Lordships held as follows “In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the

14 of 17 MVOP No. 69 of 2024

warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component.

29.The deceased was working as self employed, and 45 years as on the date of accident, he is entitled for 25% of actual income as future prospects.

By relying on the above citation the petitioners are entitled for 25% future prospects. As such Rs.3375/- is awarded towards future prospects. Thus the total income of the deceased per month comes to Rs.13,500/- + Rs.3375/- =

Rs.16,875/- per month. Hence, the annual income of deceased comes to

Rs.2,02,500/- (Rs.16,875/- X 12).

30. As per the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Varma

vs Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in 2009 ACJ 1298.

Their lordships guided with the multiplier and multiplicand. In the present case, the age of the deceased is shown as 48 years. The multiplier that applies is (13). Therefore, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.2,02,500/- X 13 multiplier = Rs.26,32,500/-. As per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in

Pranay Sethi case their lordships also directed to take the enhancement of 10% on the conventional heads in every three years as held “Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/-

15 of 17 MVOP No. 69 of 2024

respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years”.

31. In view of the discussion made above, the total compensation that can be awarded to the petitioner under various heads is concluded as follows:

Sl.HeadsCalculations No.

1. IncomeRs.18,000/-

2.Age of the deceased 48

3. Deduct 1/4th towards personal expensesRs.4,500/-

4.Add 25% future prospectsRs.3375/-

5.Multiplier13

6.Income X MultiplierRs.2,02,500/-X 13 =Rs.26,32,500/-.

7.Loss of estate/loss of dependency15,000+1500

8.Loss of Consortium40,000+4000

9.Funeral Expenses15,000+1500

TOTAL:Rs.27,09,500/-

32.As discussed supra, the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Respondent No.1 who is driver of the Lorry bearing No.RJ-20-GC- 0887 Respondent No.2 being owner of the vehicle and Respondent No.3 & 4 being the insurance company and as the insurance was in force as on the

16 of 17 MVOP No. 69 of 2024

date of accident i.e.25-10-2023, Ex.B1; therefore, Respondents No.1 to 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay the above said compensation to the petitioners. Accordingly, issue is answered in the affirmative.

ISSUE NO.4:

33.In view of answered issue No.1 to 3 in favour of claim petitioners; the claim petition is t to be allowed.

34.In the result, this petition is partly allowed.

2. Compensation Awarded: Petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.27,09,500/- (Rupees Twenty seven lakhs nine thousand five hundred only) with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization with proportionate costs.

3.Liability: Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are liable to pay awarded amount to the petitioners jointly and severally.

4.Apportionment: Petitioner No.1 is apportioned @ 70% i.e.

Rs.18,96,650/-, Petitioners No.2 and 3 are apportioned @ 10% i.e.

Rs.2,70,950/- each and petitioners No.4 is apportioned @ 10% i.e.

Rs.2,70,950/-.

5. Withdrawal: Petitioners No.1 is entitled to withdraw 50% of the amount apportioned and remaining amount is ordered to be kept in F.D. for 2 years.

Petitioners No.2 to 4 are at liberty to withdraw the awarded amount after expiry of appeal period.

6.Advocate fee is fixed Rs.5,000/-.

7.Time for deposit: 30 days.

Typed to my dictated directly on computer, and after corrections pronounced by me in open court on this 17 th day of April, 2026.

CHAIRMAN( M.A.C.T.) – CUM-

I ADDL. DIST. JUDGE,

KARIMNAGAR.

17 of 17 MVOP No. 69 of 2024

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Petitioners: For Respondents:

PW.1: G.PadmaRW.1: V.Sampath kumar PW.2: B.Lingamurthy PW.3: S.Narayana

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Petitioner:

Ex.A1: CC of FIR in Crime No.117/2023 of P.S.Anthergoan

Ex.A2: CC of Crime Details Form

Ex.A3: CC of Inquest

Ex.A4: is CC of Post Mortem Examination report

Ex.A5: is CC of charge sheet

Ex.A6: is Cc of MVI report

Ex.A7: is Pay slips of deceased

Ex.A8: is Format for wage register

Ex.A9: is Extract of wage Register from 26-8-2023 to 25-9-2023

Ex.A10: is Extract of wage Register from 26-9-2023 to 30-9-2023

Ex.A11: is Extract of wage Register from 1-10-2023 to 25-10-2023

Ex.A12: is Salary pay slip for September, 2023

Ex.A13: is Salary pay slip for October, 2023.

For Respondents:

Ex.B1: Copy of Insurance Policy

CHAIRMAN( M.A.C.T.) – CUM-

I ADDL. DIST. JUDGE,

KARIMNAGAR.

Order Record 843 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
CRLRP/34/2025	GHOUSUDDIN vs M/S K.V.K GRANITES R/BY KAILASAM VENKATA KRISHNA REDDY	15 May 2026	ORDER	—
SC.NDPS/15/2025	State of Telangana vs Niraj Kumar	22 Apr 2026	JUDGMENT	Acquitted
MVOP/69/2024	Gunti Padma vs Ram Lal Soni	17 Apr 2026	JUDGMENT	—
AS/45/2024	Thoodi Srinivas vs Thoodi Mahesh	10 Apr 2026	JUDGMENT	—
CMA/16/2025	Chetari Rajyalakshmi vs Samala Padma	10 Apr 2026	JUDGMENT	—
MVOP/356/2024	Gurrala Ramulu @ Ramu vs Daram Karunakar Reddy	06 Apr 2026	ORDER	—
MVOP/184/2025	Muddamalla Hymavathi vs Ramesh Venkatasubbu	01 Apr 2026	Lokadalat Award	—
MVOP/211/2025	Gunja Sammaiah vs Muduthanapalli Ranjith	01 Apr 2026	Lokadalat Award	—
MVOP/218/2025	Kondaparthi Raghu alias Raghu Venu vs Pidugu Ramesh	01 Apr 2026	Lokadalat Award	—
MVOP/219/2025	Kummari Roja Rani vs Pidugu Ramesh	01 Apr 2026	Lokadalat Award	—
MVOP/257/2025	Bukya Sunitha vs Farookh Khan	01 Apr 2026	Lokadalat Award	—
MVOP/275/2024	Akula Jaya Sri vs Goski @ Goshika Srikanth	01 Apr 2026	Lokadalat Award	—
MVOP/293/2024	Namita Rani Giri vs Kotte Sai Charan	01 Apr 2026	Lokadalat Award	—
MVOP/297/2024	Rapolu Kishan Rao vs Mohammed Aatif Mohiuddin	01 Apr 2026	Lokadalat Award	—
MVOP/298/2024	Rapolu Swarupa vs Mohammed Aatif Mohiuddin	01 Apr 2026	Lokadalat Award	—
MVOP/410/2025	Vemulavada Sarala alias Pamulaparthi Sarala vs Mohammed Rafik	01 Apr 2026	Lokadalat Award	—
MVOP/480/2025	Ganta Renuka vs Shiva Prasad	01 Apr 2026	Lokadalat Award	—
MVOP/481/2025	Ganta Vanamma vs Shiva Prasad	01 Apr 2026	Lokadalat Award	—
MVOP/482/2025	Ganta Renuka vs Shiva Prasad	01 Apr 2026	Lokadalat Award	—
MVOP/65/2020	KAVVAMPALLI VENKATASWAMY vs VILASAGARAM RAJESH @ RAJU	31 Mar 2026	JUDGMENT	—
SC.POCSO/7/2025	State of Telangana vs Pidathala Sunil	31 Mar 2026	JUDGMENT	Acquitted
SC.POCSO/19/2025	State of Telangana vs Aggoju Keshav	31 Mar 2026	JUDGMENT	Acquitted
SC.POCSO/9/2024	xxx /SHO PS Karimnagar I Town vs Neelam Veeranna @ Raghu	30 Mar 2026	JUDGMENT	Acquitted
AS/31/2024	Maruka Manga vs Pudari Nirmala (Died) per LR	26 Mar 2026	JUDGMENT	—
MVOP/242/2024	Godala Ganga vs Bapurao Prabhu Surnar	26 Mar 2026	JUDGMENT	—
CC/426/2024	State of Telangana vs A-1 Boora Yadhagiri	26 Mar 2026	JUDGMENT	—
CMA/26/2025	Srigiri Kanakaiah vs Kompalli Rayamallu	24 Mar 2026	JUDGMENT	—
SC.POCSO/15/2024	xxx/SHO,PS,Kothapalli vs Gaddam Kumaraswamy @ Pillitla Vamshi	24 Mar 2026	JUDGMENT	Acquitted
SC.POCSO/33/2023	Father of victim girl vs A1.Mohammed Mahaboob Ali Avez	24 Mar 2026	JUDGMENT	Acquitted
AS/26/2024	Vavilala Narahari vs Baggarapu Shankar	23 Mar 2026	JUDGMENT	—
MVOP/112/2024	Mitta Prakash vs Varna Shravan	23 Mar 2026	JUDGMENT	—
G.W.O.P/12/2023	Badri Venu Madhav vs Sadula@Badri Soujanya	23 Mar 2026	JUDGMENT	—
MVOP/321/2024	Karamtothu @ Karantothu Raju vs Thangallapally Sadaiah	18 Mar 2026	JUDGMENT	—
SC.NDPS/1/2020	P.Srinivasa Rao, Sub Inspector of Police vs A1.Yerravalli Hussain Sha	18 Mar 2026	JUDGMENT	—
SC.NDPS/4/2024	K.Srikanth, SI of police, Manakondur vs Kamutam Bhumesh	18 Mar 2026	JUDGMENT	—
CC/82/2024	State of Telangana vs Shekar Pitla	17 Mar 2026	OTHER	—
CC/94/2024	State of Telangana vs Mahesh Suddala	16 Mar 2026	JUDGMENT	—
CC/279/2024	Perumandla sampath vs Bodipalli Bhagyamma	12 Mar 2026	JUDGMENT	—
SC.POCSO/37/2024	State of Telangana vs Mohammed Majid Hussain	12 Mar 2026	JUDGMENT	Acquitted
AS/33/2024	Butti Eshwaraiah (Died) vs Butti Santhosham (Died)	10 Mar 2026	JUDGMENT	—
AS/44/2024	Madapathi Narender Rao vs Vangala Muralikrishna	10 Mar 2026	JUDGMENT	—
CC.APT/10/2025	State of Telangana vs Mohammad Yakub	09 Mar 2026	OTHER	—
MVOP/284/2023	Bolli Rakesh vs Kotha Thirupathi Reddy	06 Mar 2026	JUDGMENT	—
MVOP/285/2023	Bolli Vasantha vs Kotha Thirupathi Reddy	06 Mar 2026	JUDGMENT	—
MVOP/286/2023	Bolli Ashwitha vs Kotha Thirupathi Reddy	06 Mar 2026	JUDGMENT	—
MVOP/89/2024	Solanki Keerthana vs Praveen Saha	03 Mar 2026	JUDGMENT	—
MVOP/368/2022	Jella Raju vs Mahammadu Rafi	28 Feb 2026	IA Order	—
AS/8/2024	Manzoor Ahmed Khan vs Md. Jameeluddin Ahmed	27 Feb 2026	JUDGMENT	—
AS/35/2024	Dasari Rajeshwari vs Dasari Durgaiah	27 Feb 2026	JUDGMENT	—
MVOP/328/2022	Kashetty Himabindu vs Md.Mukhtar Alam	27 Feb 2026	JUDGMENT	—
CC/322/2024	State of Telangana vs Kantem Thirupathi	27 Feb 2026	JUDGMENT	—
AS/20/2024	Theegala Radhamma vs Muppidi Prabhakar Reddy (Died)	26 Feb 2026	JUDGMENT	—
SC.POCSO/9/2025	State of Telangana vs Mohammed Sirajuddin alias Faisal	26 Feb 2026	JUDGMENT	Acquitted
OS/10053/2016	Kataveni Karunakar vs Kataveni Madhavi	25 Feb 2026	JUDGMENT	—
G.W.O.P/14/2025	Kolluri Rekha vs Kolluri Raghukukmar	25 Feb 2026	JUDGMENT	—
MVOP/298/2023	Atla Mallika vs Lingala Sai Krishna Reddy	20 Feb 2026	JUDGMENT	—
MVOP/77/2024	Chitukuri Latha vs Kallepelli Harish	19 Feb 2026	JUDGMENT	—
MVOP/143/2024	Akarapu Karunakar Reddy vs Edula Swamy	19 Feb 2026	JUDGMENT	—
MVOP/179/2024	Marala Venkateshwarlu vs Marala Vanaja	17 Feb 2026	ORDER	—
CC/152/2024	State of Telangana vs Srinivas Chiramshetty	10 Feb 2026	JUDGMENT	—
SC.POCSO/6/2024	xxx/SHO,PS, Karimnagar III town vs Thandra Vinay @ vinnu	10 Feb 2026	JUDGMENT	Acquitted
MVOP/255/2023	Nuthi Vijaya Laxmi vs Shahid Raza	06 Feb 2026	JUDGMENT	—
MVOP/254/2024	Elavena Sharada @ Elaboina Sharada vs Rohith Kumar	05 Feb 2026	JUDGMENT	—
CC/2/2025	State of Telangana vs Jajala Ramanna	05 Feb 2026	JUDGMENT	—
CC/398/2024	Bollabathula Shivasager vs Thalla Laxminarasaiah	05 Feb 2026	JUDGMENT	—
CMA/8/2025	Busa Anjaiah vs Ganta Anjaiah	04 Feb 2026	JUDGMENT	—
CMA/21/2025	Busa Anjaiah vs Ganta Anjaiah	04 Feb 2026	JUDGMENT	—
MVOP/198/2023	Baribaddala Mallesham vs Garampalli Santhosh @ Santhosh Kumar	04 Feb 2026	JUDGMENT	—
MVOP/38/2024	Radhika Bolla vs Saini Srinivasa Rao	03 Feb 2026	JUDGMENT	—
CC/105/2024	Deputy Range Officer, Kodimial Section vs A1 Puli Swapna	30 Jan 2026	JUDGMENT	—
SC.POCSO/5/2025	State of Telangana vs Namani Satyanarayana	30 Jan 2026	JUDGMENT	—
SC.POCSO/4/2025	State of Telangana vs Marka Tharun	30 Jan 2026	JUDGMENT	Acquitted
SC.POCSO/191/2020	Kothuri Jyothi vs Dikonda Prem Kumar	30 Jan 2026	JUDGMENT	Acquitted
CRLA/7/2025	Mohammed Younus Khan vs State through Public Prosecutor, Dist and Sessions Court, Karimnagar	29 Jan 2026	JUDGMENT	—
SC.POCSO/31/2024	State of Telangana through Inspector of Police, PS.KNR-II Town vs Gurram Sampath	29 Jan 2026	JUDGMENT	—
CC/187/2024	State through PS Chandurthy vs Rapalli Gangadhar	28 Jan 2026	JUDGMENT	—
CC/359/2024	State of Telangana vs Kurra Sammaiah	28 Jan 2026	JUDGMENT	—
CC/402/2024	Moodu Raju vs Gajula Prasad	28 Jan 2026	JUDGMENT	—
CC/164/2024	State of Telangana vs Babburi Sai kumar-A1	21 Jan 2026	JUDGMENT	—
CC/88/2025	Singireddy Raneel vs A1 Dula Bala Goud	19 Jan 2026	JUDGMENT	—
CRLA/29/2024	Annaladasu Bhoomaiah vs Annaldasu alias Bandi Shobharani	12 Jan 2026	JUDGMENT	—
SC.NDPS/21/2022	T.Lakshmi babu, SI of police, PS, Karimnagar II town vs Ramagiri Anil kumar	09 Jan 2026	JUDGMENT	—
MVOP/61/2024	Marka Srinivas vs Kalvala Venu Kumar	08 Jan 2026	Lokadalat Award	—
MVOP/218/2024	Dayyala Mallaiah vs Dharmaji Arun Kumar	08 Jan 2026	JUDGMENT	—
MVOP/329/2025	Gyani Kurash alias Gyani Devi alias Jhanvi Devi vs Guvvala Guruprasad	08 Jan 2026	Lokadalat Award	—
SC.POCSO/38/2023	XXX/S.H.O P.S Gangadhara vs Sampangi Prem Kumar	07 Jan 2026	JUDGMENT	—
SC.NDPS/1/2021	V.Madavi vs Gulla Kumaraswamy	31 Dec 2025	JUDGMENT	—
SC.POCSO/28/2024	State of Telangana through SI of Police, PS.Chigurumamidi vs Mamidi Nagraju	31 Dec 2025	JUDGMENT	—
CC/367/2024	Mittapalli Ravinder vs Cheekatla Rajaiah	30 Dec 2025	JUDGMENT	—
G.W.O.P/8/2025	PERMANDLA KANUKAIAH vs PERUMANDLA MAMATHA	30 Dec 2025	JUDGMENT	—
SC.POCSO/20/2023	xxx/SHO,PS,Keshavapatnam vs Pachimatla Rakesh	30 Dec 2025	JUDGMENT	—
MVOP/310/2024	Ragalla Harshavardhan vs Rasheed Md @ Shaik Rasheed	22 Dec 2025	Lokadalat Award	—
AS/19/2025	Mandala Ahalya vs Bayyapu Sharada	19 Dec 2025	JUDGMENT	—
MVOP/301/2024	Nakka Himaja vs Ramelli Jagadishwar @ Jagdish	19 Dec 2025	Lokadalat Award	—
MVOP/319/2025	Vengaldas Raju vs Shivkumar Singh	19 Dec 2025	Lokadalat Award	—
SC.POCSO/3/2024	XXX/The S.HO P.S Veevanka vs Mudrakola Raju	19 Dec 2025	JUDGMENT	—
CRLA/14/2024	Nangi Srinivas vs The State through Public Prosecutor, Karimnagar.	18 Dec 2025	JUDGMENT	—
CC/128/2024	State of Telangana vs Abbanaveni Devaiah	12 Dec 2025	JUDGMENT	—
CRLA/1/2025	THOOMULA VENKAT RAO vs THUMULA RAJESHWAR RAO	12 Dec 2025	JUDGMENT	—
CRLA/21/2024	Nalla Ramanareddy vs State through Public Prosecutor, Sessions Court, Karimnagar	12 Dec 2025	JUDGMENT	—

Showing 100 of 843 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

May 2026		1
Apr 2026		18
Mar 2026		27
Feb 2026		23
Jan 2026		17
Dec 2025		31
Nov 2025		23
Oct 2025		65
Sep 2025		32
Aug 2025		45
Jul 2025		58
Jun 2025		37

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Sri D. Venkatesh handled?

Sri D. Venkatesh has handled 868 court orders since 2024 at Karimnagar, PDJ Court Complex. The average disposal rate is 74 orders per month.

What types of cases does Sri D. Venkatesh hear?

Based on available records, Sri D. Venkatesh primarily handles Criminal matters (Sessions Cases, Criminal Cases) and Motor Accident matters (Motor Accident Claims) and Civil matters (Appeal Suits, Original Suits) at Karimnagar, PDJ Court Complex.

Where is Sri D. Venkatesh currently posted?

Sri D. Venkatesh is posted as Prl District and Sessions Judge, Karimnagar at Karimnagar, PDJ Court Complex, Karimnagar, Telangana.

Are judgments by Sri D. Venkatesh available online?

Yes. 15 judgments by Sri D. Venkatesh are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Sri D. Venkatesh dispose cases?

Sri D. Venkatesh disposes approximately 74 cases per month, based on 868 orders handled over their tenure at Karimnagar, PDJ Court Complex.

Since when is Sri D. Venkatesh serving?

Sri D. Venkatesh has been serving at Karimnagar, PDJ Court Complex since 2024.

Case Types

MVOP 36%

SC 27%

CC 11%

AS 8%

ARBEP 8%

OS 5%

EP 4%

CMA 2%

Posting History

Apr 2025 — Apr 2025

Prl District and Sessions Judge, Karimnagar
Apr 2024 — Present

I Addl District and Sessions Judge · 753 orders
Apr 2024 — Present

I - Spl. Sessions Judge of FTC for POCSO Cases · 64 orders
Apr 2024 — Present

II - Spl. Sessions Judge of FTC for POCSO Cases · 51 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 11

Other Judges at this Court

Mr. S Shiva Kumar

Prl District and Sessions Judge, Karimnagar

154 orders

Smt.C.Pavani

Chairman LRAT- cum -II Addl District and Sessions...

8 orders

Smt. A. Neeraja

Spl Judge for Trial of cases under SCs and STs Act...

580 orders

J.Kavitha

Judge Family Court cum IV Addl District and Sessio...

474 orders

Mr. Yashwant Singh Chauhan

Prl. Junior Civil Judge -cum- Judicial Magistrate...

0 orders

Ms. Damerla Preethi

I Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- I Additional...

1,206 orders

Sri Chirag Mehta

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class Mobile...

717 orders

Sri Banothu Rajeshwar

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Tra...

437 orders

Sri. Jamana Venkata Satya Raj Kiran

II Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- II Addition...

579 orders

Smt K Rani

Senior Civil Judge Karimnagar

40 orders

Nama Santosh Kumar

Spl Judge for Trail of SPE and ACB Cases -cum- VI...

7 orders

← View all judges at Karimnagar, PDJ Court Complex