Sri.D.Venkatesh

1 of 15 Spl.SC No. 338 of 2022

IN THE COURT OF THE FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT FOR EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL AND

DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND POCSO ACT CASES MEDCHAL MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT : AT

MEDCHAL

PRESENT:SRI D. VENKATESH, II ADJ,

FAC Fast Track Court for expeditious trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases, Medchal

DATED THIS THE 29 th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

Spl SC No. 338 of 2022

NAME OF THE COMPLAINANT State of Telangana through The Inspector of Police, PS Medchal

NAME OF ACCUSED Magini Kumar S/o. Late Ramanaiah, Aged: 24 Yrs, Occ: Plumber, R/o: Vajpainagar, Chintal. OFFENCES UNDER SECTION354-A, 366-A IPC, Sec 11 r/w 18 of POCSO Act 2012. PLEA OF THE ACCUSED Pleaded Not guilty FINDING OF THE COURTFound not Guilty SENTENCEIn the result,Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 354-A, 366-A of IPC and section 11 r/w 18 of POCSO Act. Accordingly, Accused is acquitted U/s 235(1) of CRPC. Bonds and Bail Bonds of Accused shall stands canceled subject to section 437 (A) of CRPC. COUNSEL FOR PROSECUTIONSri Sham Rao, Addl. Public Prosecutor COUNSEL FOR DEFENCESri G.Srihari Reddy, Legal aid Counsel for Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 12.06.2023 in the presence of Sri. Sham Rao, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri . G.Srihari Reddy, Legal aid Counsel, for accused and 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 stands charged for the offence punishable under Section 354-A, 366-A of

IPC and Sec 11 r/w 18 of POCSO Act 2012.

2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE PROSECUTION CASE ARE: On 02-09-2020 at 8:30 A.M [LW1]- Mother of victim filed police report alleging that her daughter of aged 6 Years was playing at her residence and also near her Beauty Parlour situated near her house.

On 30-08-2020 between 6:30 PM and 7:30 PM, her daughter was found missing. They

2 of 15 Spl.SC No. 338 of 2022

have searched for her but meanwhile she came back to beauty parlour. Since then her daughter was found reluctant in playing outside. On enquiry she revealed that on sunday at 6:30 PM, while she was playing outside, one unknown person came on motor cycle, called her stating that he would buy chocolate. Later he took away her to unknown place, asked her to remove inner wear and her removed his pants. When she got scared and raised alarm, said person left that place informing that her mother would come.

Subsequently one person came and dropped her near her beauty parlour and went away.

Since some unknown person has abducted and disrobed her daughter she filed police report.

3. Basing on the Police Report a case in Cr No. 603 of 2020 U/s.354-A, 366-A of IPC and section 11 r/w 18 of POCSOact was registered.

4.During the course of investigation, [LW14]- S.Ramesh, Inspector of Police, Ps.Pet-

Basheerabad examined and recorded the statements of [LW1]- Mother of the victim, [LW2]- Father of the victim and [LW3]- Victim girl. He got recorded the statement of the victim girl through [LW9]- Roopa. He visited the scene of offence and conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of [LW5]- Ankadala Phagun Rao and [LW6]-

Gundisetti Prasad. Later, he collected CCTV footage from [LW12]- Vasa Ganapathi along with Section 65-B IEA Certificate. He also got recorded the 164 Cr.PC statement the victim. On 03-10-2020, SI of Police received information as to arrest of Accused in connection to Cr No. 661 of 2020 u/s 363, 384 IPC and Sec 7 r/w 8 of POCSO Act and on interrogation he confessed to have committed this offence. As such he filed requisition

before XXII MM for PT warrant and got regularized his arrest in this case. After

completion of investigation, he filed chargesheet.

3 of 15 Spl.SC No. 338 of 2022

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

Medchal Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District taken cognizance of offence U/s.354-A, 366-A of IPC and section 11 r/w 18 of POCSO

05.On appearance of accused before this court and on considering the entire material available on record, a charge for the offence U/Sec.354-A, 366-A IPC and

Sec 11 r/w 18 of POCSO Act 2012 was framed against the accused. It was read over and explained to the accused in Telugu to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried for the charge.

5.To prove its case, the prosecution as many as (10) witnesses examined and list of witnesses examined as PWs.1 to P9 are as under:

(i). Mother of the victim (PW1)

(ii). Father of the victim (PW2)

(iii). Victim Girl (PW3)

(iv).Sri. Paluguna Rao (PW4) Panch witness for confession-cum-seizure panchanama

(v). G.Shyam Kumar (PW5) Panch witness for confession-cum-seizure panchanama

(vi). Sri.E.Roopa (PW6) recorded the Statement of Victim (Vii). P.Jaya Lakshmi (PW7) Nodal Officer, AP & TS – LSA (Viii). Sri. Vasa Ganapathi (PW8) who given 65-B Certificate

(ix). Sri. S.Ramesh, Inspector of police (PW9) Investigating Officer and filed charge sheet

(x). Sri. K.Gowtham, Inspector of police, (PW10) Investigating Officer who apprehended the accused.

06.Heard arguments on both sides.

07. Now the points that arise for determination is:

i.Whether on 30-09-2020 victim girl was under eighteen years of age and

MINORS under section 2 (1) (d) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence

Act, 2012?

4 of 15 Spl.SC No. 338 of 2022

ii.Whether the Prosecution has proved the guilt of the Accused for the offence under Sec. 354-A, 366-A of IPC and Sec 11 r/w 18 of the POCSO Act beyond reasonable doubt?

POINT No.1::

08.Prosecution alleged that Accused have outraged the modesty of the victim girls by disrobing her for which a charge under Sec. 354-A, 366-A of IPC and Sec 11 and 18 of the POCSO Act was framed against them. To attract this offence, one of the essential ingredients to be proved by the Prosecution is that the victim girl shall be considered as a child as on the date of commission of alleged offence under the POCSO Act.

09.Section 2 (1) (d) of the POCSO Act defines the child. Any person below the age of eighteen years is termed as child. Therefore, now it is to be seen whether

PW-3/victim girl was child as on the date of alleged offence under the POCSO Act.

As the criminal jurisprudence in India speaks about the presumption of innocence, burden lies on the prosecution to prove that the Accused committed the offence.

Though, the POCSO Act is a special statute imposing reverse burden on the

Accused, even then, the initial burden shall be on the prosecution. Prosecution is duty bound to prove that the victim is aged below the age of 18 years.

10.According to the case of Prosecution, victim No.1 was aged about 6 years as on the date of incident and she was studying UKG. PW1 being mother and father of the victim deposed that their daughter is aged about 6 Years as on the date of the incident. Even victim on questioning deposed that she was aged 6 years as on the date of incident and she was aged 9 years as on the date of evidence. She was studying UKG. Though she was a student and aged 6 years, the investigating

5 of 15 Spl.SC No. 338 of 2022

agency did not choose to collect any birth record from PW1,2 or the school in which she was studying. However when the appearance of the victim is considered it appears that she was aged about 9 or 10 Years as on the date of incident. Since her appearance appears to be aged less than 18 Years including the formal mental status as per the questions posed by the court, her age has to be considered that she was aged less than 18 years. Further no contrary evidence is placed before the court by the Accused believe the age of victim as more than 18 Years. Thus, the date of birth of PW-3/victim girl is almost remained unrebutted. In view of the prosecution established that victim was aged below 18 years of age as required u/s 2 of the POCSO Act, prosecution case is to be believed holding that the victims are aged below the age of 18 Years. Therefore, the Point No.1 is answered in favour of the Prosecution.

POINT No.2

11.According to the prosecution case, PW3 is the victim girl. PW1 is the mother of girl victim. PW2 is the father of victim. PW1 and 2 in their evidence deposed that on 30-08-2020 their daughter was playing outside of the beauty parlour and

PW1 was in the Parlour. After some time the child was not found and though they searched could not be traced. At about 7:30 PM, their daughter was brought by one person and on enquiry he informed that she was found crying on the road.

PW1 further deposed that when the daughter was found dull for one or two days she questioned her and her daughter disclosed that on the day of her missing the person who took her on motor cycle asked her to remove her inner wear and he removed his pants. When she got panic and cried some by-passers seen her as to where she live and her parents. On her information, they brought her to parlour and dropped. Even PW2 deposed the same terms of PW1. However, it can be

6 of 15 Spl.SC No. 338 of 2022

understood that the evidence of PW1 and 2 is circumstantial in nature. They being the parents of the victim obviously speak in the favour and further they came to know about the alleged incident from their 6 Years daughter. As such they has to be considered as hearsay witness whose evidence cannot be accepted.

12. PW3 is the victim girl and in her evidence she deposed that on 30-08-2020 at 6:30 PM, while she was playing heat her mothers beauty parlour one uncle came and informed that he know her parents and he would take her to them by giving chocolate. Later he took her to some distance to a pond where he removed his pant and inner wear and asked to remove her inner wear. When she started crying he left and fled away. She also deposed that two unknown persons asked as to where she live and on information they dropped at the mothers parlour. On questioning as to identification witness identified the Accused. During the course of cross-examination PW3 admitted presence of her friend while she was alleged to have taken by the Accused. However said friend is not examined. Further according to PW1 to 3 victim was playing in front of parlour of her mother. In such case the victim going with Accused on luring as to taking to parents on the pretext of chocolate does not appear to be considerable. When victim was aware that her mother was in the parlour, question of Accused taking her on the pretext of taking her to parents does not arise.

13.Secondly, PW3 admits about the presence of her friend with her when she was taken by alleged Accused. Investigating agency did not taken steps to examine the said friend. Thirdly, no steps for identification of Accused was taken by the Investigating officer. The identification of the Accused by the victim after two years of the alleged incident is not proper and not believable more

7 of 15 Spl.SC No. 338 of 2022

particularly when the victim is of age 6 years. She identifying the Accused without seeing thereafter is almost remote. It clearly shows that he was shown by the prosecution on the date of evidence. Therefore, the evidence of PW3 does not inspire confidence.

13.PW4 is the mediator for recording scene of offence panchanama. He categorically deposed about the panchanama conducted at beauty parlour. It is the place where beauty parlour is situated. It is the place from where the alleged abduction took place. No scene of offence panchanama was conducted the place where alleged removal of clothes was taken or the place from where the victim was rescued by two unknown persons. Therefore, the evidence of PW4 is of no help to prosecution case.

14. PW5-Shyam Kumar is the mediator for recording confession of Accused.

Though PW5 deposed about the confession of Accused it is hit by section 25 and 26 of Indian evidence Act. Though a motor cycle and mobile phone was seized from the Accused, it was not produced before this court which proves fatal to prosecution case. In the absence of production of motor cycle or mobile phone the evidence of PW5 is of no help to prosecution case.

15.PW6-Roopa is the Woman police officer who recorded the statement of the victim as required under section 22 of POCSO Act. She deposed about she recording the statement of victim on 02-09-2020 at the house of victim at

Subashnagar. Though she deposed about the recording of statement since it was a procedural formality it can be understood to the extent of following the procedure.

8 of 15 Spl.SC No. 338 of 2022

16.PW8-Ganapathi was the CCTV camera installer and he collected the footage. He deposed that he do installation of CCTV Cameras and as per the instructions of SI of Police he has obtained the CCTV footage near by Scene of offence. He deposed that he have seen two persons dropping the victim in the footage. He obtained footage from the DVR and handed over to police. During the course of cross-examination he admitted that he was not the owner of the

CCTV and he collected the footage. As per the evidence of PW8, he was the person for mere obtained the footage of CCTV. His evidence speaks about the footage which may not help the prosecution for fastening the criminal liability.

Further neither the Accused nor the motor cycle was found in the footage for believing the allegation.

17.PW-9- S. Ramesh is the IO who registered the case and conducted part of investigation. He deposed that on 02-09-2020, he received police report from the mother of victim girl, basing on which he registered the case in Cr No 603 of 2020

U/S 354-A,366-A of IPC and section 18 of POCSO Act and issued FIR which is Ex.P9.

18.He further deposed that, he examined and got recorded the statements of the victim girl through women SI of Police. He deposed that he visited Scene of offence and conducted Scene of offence Panchanama in the presence of [LW5]

Phalgun rao and [LW6] G. Prasad. He deposed that he got recorded the statement of the victim and her mother U/s.164 of CRPC through XXII Metropolitan

Magistrate.

19.He deposed that on 03-10-2020, [LW13]-K. Goutham (SI OF POLICE) arrested the Accused and on interrogation, he voluntarily confessed the

9 of 15 Spl.SC No. 338 of 2022

commission of offence. As such he was sent for judicial remand. He filed a requisition before XXII MM for issuance of PT Warrant and got regularized the arrest. After completion of investigation and collecting the certificates, he filed charge sheet. During the course of cross-examination, PW9 admitted about the delay of 3 days in filing the report. He admitted not tracing the persons who brought the victim girl and dropped at the parlour of her mother. He admitted that there are houses at a distance of 300 Meters from FOXSAGAR lake. However he denied the suggestion of false implication of the Accused.

20.As can be seen from the record, the allegation against the Accused is u/s 366 and 354-A of IPC. Since the victim in the case is a child below the age of 18

Years, a charge u/s 18 of POCSO Act was included. The prosecution case says about the incident on 30-08-2020 and the report was filed on 02-09-2020. There is a delay of 3 days in filing the report. No explanation was offered for not filing the report after 3 Days. The reason submitted for delay is that the victim girl revealed the incident on the said day. When the mother is aware of the abduction and they searched for the child, at least they would have filed report in respect of

Abduction since it is also a serious offence. Therefore, the explanation offered is not convincing to believe. The delay is to be answered properly. In the absence of the proper explanation, the prosecution case needs to be doubted for deliberations.

21.The prosecution alleged abduction by Accused. Except the evidence of victim of aged 6 Years, there is no evidence on record to believe their version.

Though the mother and other witnesses spoken about the abduction they are hearsay witnesses. Their evidence cannot be taken into consideration for securing

10 of 15 Spl.SC No. 338 of 2022

conviction. On the other hand, the Investigating officer have not taken any steps as to the secure the presence of the persons who rescued the victim. If they are secured there is a possibility of they witnessing the Accused. Their non examination is fatal to prosecution case because it is the victim who categorically deposed that she was dropped at the Parlour by two uncles by asking her address.

Therefore, their non examination is fatal.

22.Though the prosecution has examined the CCTV Footage collector. His evidence is also formal speaking about the collection of footage which was not in his custody but was collected from a Sweet Shop. The owner of said Sweet shop is not examined. Though PW8 issued the Sec 65-B IEA certificate, since the footage storage device was not with in his custody, he is not the proper authority to issue the certificate.

23.Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Arjun Panditrao Khotkar Vs Kailash

Kushanrao Gorantyal and others held that “We may reiterate, therefore, that the certificate required under Section 65B(4) is a condition precedent to the admissibility of evidence by way of electronic record, as correctly held in Anvar P.V (supra), and incorrectly “clarified” in Shafi Mohammad (supra). Oral evidence in the place of such certificate cannot possibly suffice as Section 65B(4) is a mandatory requirement of the law. Indeed, the hallowed principle in Taylor v. Taylor (1876) 1 Ch.D 426, which has been followed in a number of the judgments of this Court, can also be applied. Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act clearly states that secondary evidence is admissible only if lead in the manner stated and not otherwise. To hold otherwise would render Section 65B(4) otiose.”

24.The above decision of Hon’ble supreme court clarifies that oral evidence cannot be accepted for proving the electronic evidence. Further the person who is

11 of 15 Spl.SC No. 338 of 2022

not the incharge or custodian of electronic record cannot be examined to prove the electronic record. For the mere reason of extracting the content from the

DVR, the person cannot be said to be proper for proving the electronic record.

Therefore, the evidence of PW8 and his Ex P8 is of no help to prosecution case.

25.Since Accused is also charged for the offence u/s 354-A of IPC, it is necessary to read the provision:

354A of IPC- Sexual harassment and punishment for sexual harassment--(1) A

man committing any of the following acts-

(i) physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures; or

(ii) a demand or request for sexual favours; or

(iii) showing pornography against the will of a woman; or

(iv) making sexually coloured remarks, shall be guilty of the offence of sexual harassment. (2) Any man who commits the offence specified in clause (i) or clause (ii) or clause (iii) of sub-section (1) shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. (3) Any man who commits the offence specified in clause (iv) of sub-section (1) shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.]

26.The case of the prosecution as to the abduction of the child is not supported by any evidence. The provision speaks about the physical contact or request for sexual favour. Though the version of PW3 speaks about removal of the clothes, which would fall under sub-clause (ii); except the evidence of victim there is no other evidence. No doubt, the evidence needs to be accepted subject to inspiring confidence.

12 of 15 Spl.SC No. 338 of 2022

27.In addition, though he was also charged for offence u/s 354-A of IPC, when the prosecution failed to prove the allegation of abduction, the charge u/s 354-A have no legs to stand. The simple reason is the charge is based on the version of a child of 6 Years. She deposed that Accused removed his pants and asked the child to remove the clothes. However, her version as to identification after a lapse of two years is not believable. Further her version appear to be tutored one. For the reason of her tutored version and non conducting the identification parade, her identification and version does not inspire confidence. A child of aged 6 Years identifying a person after a lapse of Two or Three Years is completely not believable. Therefore, the version of PW4 is not sufficient enough to accept the prosecution case. As no other corroborative evidence is available to her evidence, it can be said that the charge u/s 354-A of IPC cannot be accepted.

Sec 11 of POCSO Act speaks about the Sexual harassment ::-

A person is said to commit sexual harassment upon a child when such person with sexual intent,--

(i) utters any word or makes any sound, or makes any gesture or exhibits any object or part of body with the intention that such word or sound shall be heard, or such gesture or object or part of body shall be seen by the child; or

(ii) makes a child exhibit his body or any part of his body so as it is seen by such person or any other person; or

(iii) shows any object to a child in any form or media for pornographic purposes; or

(iv) repeatedly or constantly follows or watches or contacts a child either directly or through electronic, digital or any other means; or

(v) threatens to use, in any form of media, a real or fabricated depiction through electronic, film or digital or any other mode, of any part of the body of the child or the involvement of the child in a sexual act; or

(vi) entices a child for pornographic purposes or gives gratification therefor. Explanation.--Any question which involves '[sexual intent" shall be a question of fact.]

28.As can be seen from the record and after going through the above provisions it can be understood that, making a child to exhibit any part of body can constitute an offence. However, prosecution failed to prove that it was the

13 of 15 Spl.SC No. 338 of 2022

Accused who made the victim girl to exhibit her body. Though PW3 as a victim identified the Accused before the court, it is not safe to rely on such identification without the support of any TIP proceedings. A child of 6 Years identifying a person after a period of two Years is not believable. In view of nature of offence and the interest of the prosecution, they tutoring the child cannot be ruled out.

Except the evidence of PW3, there is no other evidence available on record to believe the prosecution case. Though prosecution examined PW1 to 5 and 8, their version is formal and mostly a procedural formality or hearsay. It is not safe to rely on such hearsay evidence for securing conviction. On the other hand investigating agency never choose to take steps for conducting TIP proceedings which is fatal in given circumstances. PW1 filed a report against the Accused with the allegation of accused subjecting victim to sexual assault and sexual harassment and disrobing her. The Police Report categorically speaks about the accused person abducting the victim. However there is no sufficient evidence in respect of abduction.

Though PW3 deposed about the same, in view of her age it is not safe to accept her evidence without corroboration.

29.After excluding the evidence of PW1 to 8, there remains the testimony of

Investigating officer. Since the evidence of PW9 and 10 speaks about the procedure of investigation, it may not help the prosecution in the absence of any substantive corroborative evidence. As already held supra, except the testimony of PW3, there is no other evidence available on record to believe the prosecution case. Therefore, and in view of above discussion, this court is of the opinion that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond doubt. Accordingly, the point is answered in the negative.

14 of 15 Spl.SC No. 338 of 2022

30. IN THE RESULT, Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 354-A, 366-A of IPC and section 11 and 18 of POCSO Act.

Accordingly, he is acquitted U/s 235(1) of CRPC. The unmarked case property is ordered to be returned to Accused after expiry of Appeal time subject to section 437A of CrPC.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him and after corrections, pronounced

by me in open court on this the 29 th day of February, 2024.

FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT FOR EXPEDITIOUS

TRIAL AND DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND POCSO ACT CASES

MEDCHAL MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT AT MEDCHAL

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

PW1 : Mother of the victim

PW2: Father of the victim

PW3:Victim Girl PW4:Paluguna Rao

PW5: G.Shyam Kumar

PW6: E.Roopa

PW7 : P.Jaya Lakshmi

PW8: Vasa Ganapathi

PW9: S.Ramesh, Inspector of police

PW10:K.Gowtham, Inspector of police.

FOR DEFENCE

-NONE-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE

Ex.P1:Complaint -NIL- Ex.P2: Identified Signature of PW4 on panchanama Ex.P3:Signature of Pw5 on Confession cum seizure panchanama Ex.P4: Letter Ex.P5: :65-B IEA Certificate

15 of 15 Spl.SC No. 338 of 2022

Ex.P6:Call date record

Ex.P7:Customer application form

Ex.P8:Certificate given by PW8

Ex.P9:First Information report

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE

-NIL--NIL-

FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT FOR EXPEDITIOUS

TRIAL AND DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND POCSO ACT CASES

MEDCHAL MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT AT MEDCHAL

1 of 10 Spl.SC No. 323 of 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT FOR EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL AND

DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND POCSO ACT CASES MEDCHAL MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT : AT

MEDCHAL

PRESENT:

SRI D. VENKATESH,

II Addl.District and Sessions Judge

FAC Fast Track Court for expeditious trial

and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases,

Medchal

DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024

Spl SC No. 323 of 2017

(On committal by the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal in PRC No.04 of 2017 in Crime No.451 of 2016 of PS Medchal) )

NAME OF THE COMPLAINANT State of Telangana through The Inspector of Police, PS Medchal

NAME OF ACCUSED Lavori Laxman S/o. Late Ramanaiah, Aged: 20 Yrs, Occ: Vagabond, R/o. Near Railway Station, Medchal (M&V) OFFENCES UNDER SECTION354 IPC, Sec 12 of POCSO Act 2012. PLEA OF THE ACCUSED Pleaded Not guilty FINDING OF THE COURTFound not Guilty SENTENCEIn the result,Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 354 of IPC and section 12 of POCSO Act. Accordingly, Accused is acquitted U/s 235(1) of CRPC. Bonds and Bail Bonds of Accused shall stands canceled subject to section 437 (A) of CRPC. COUNSEL FOR PROSECUTIONSri Sham Rao, Addl. Public Prosecutor COUNSEL FOR DEFENCESri E. Srinivas Reddy, Advocate`

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 12.06.2023 in the presence of Sri. Sham Rao, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri. R.Satish Babu, Counsel for accused and 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 stands charged for the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC and

Sec 12 of POCSO Act 2012.

2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE PROSECUTION CASE ARE: On 05-11-2016 at 7:00 P.M [LW1]- Mother of victim filed police report alleging that her neighbour Laxman was following her daughter of aged 10 Years while going to school and on the date of report

2 of 10 Spl.SC No. 323 of 2017

he caught hold of her hand and pulled her while returning from school. Since Accused outraged the modesty of her daughter by committing sexual harassment, she filed police report.

3.Basing on the Police Report [LW7]- P.Ganapathy, PC 4440 of PS Medchal registered a case in Cr No. 451 of 2016 U/s.354 of IPC and section 12 of POCSO Act. He entrusted the investigation to [LW8]- S.Rajashekar Reddy, Inspector of Police , PS

Medchal

4.During the course of investigation, [LW8]- S.Rajashekar Reddy examined [LW-5]

Smt.Samkambley Kavitha and also examined and recorded the statements of [LW1]-

Smt. Shettin Savithri and [LW2]- Baby Rajavardhini. He got recorded the statement of the victim girl through [LW6]- Smt. Usha Rani, ACP Crimes Cyd. He visited the scene of offence and examined and recorded the statements of [LW3]- Smt. Bandi Annapurna and [LW4]- Samkambley Manoj. On 05-11-2016 at 20.30 hours, [LW8]- S.Rajashekar Reddy, arrested the accused. After completion of investigation, he filed chargesheet.

5. Upon filing of final report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. by the Inspector of Police,

Medchal, the learned XV Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Medchal taken cognizance of offence under Section U/Sec.354-D of IPC and Sec 12 of POCSO Act 2012.

After observing the procedural formalities, learned Magistrate committed the case to the Hon’ble Court of Sessions; Ranga Reddy District as the offence punishable under

Section U/Sec.354-D of IPC Sec 12 of POCSO Act 2012 is exclusively triable by the

Hon’ble court of Sessions.

6.On appearance of accused before this court and on considering the entire material available on record, a charge for the offence U/Sec.354-D IPC and Sec 11 r/w 12

3 of 10 Spl.SC No. 323 of 2017

of POCSO Act 2012 was framed against the accused. It was read over and explained to the accused in Telugu to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried for the charge.

7.To prove its case, the prosecution as many as 8 witnesses examined and list of witnesses examined as PWs.1 to 8 are as under:

(i). Mother of the victim (PW1) is the Complainant/Mother of Victim.

(ii). Victim (PW2) is the Victim.

(iii). Smt. Bandi Annapurna (PW3) Eye witness

(iv).Smt. Samkambley Kavitha (PW4) Eye witness

(v). Sri. Samkambley Manoj (PW5) Eye witness

(vi). Sri.P.Ganapathi (PW6) Apprehended the accused.

(Vii). Smt. Usharani (PW7) Recorded the 164 CrPC statements of victim.

(Viii). Sri.M.Kishore (PW8) filed charge sheet. Sri. N. Santosh kumar is the

(ix). Sri. S.Rajashekar (PW9) investigating officer , issued FIR

8. Now the points that arise for determination is:

i. Whether on 05-11-2016 victim girl was under eighteen years of age andMINORS under section 2 (1) (d) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012?

ii. Whether the Prosecution has proved the guilt of the Accused for the offence under Sec. 354-D of IPC and Sec 11 r/w 12 of the POCSO Act beyond reasonable doubt?.

POINT No.1::

09.Prosecution alleged that Accused have outraged the modesty of the victim girl by caught holding the hand of the victim for which a charge under Sec. 354-D of IPC and Sec 11 and 12 of the POCSO Act was framed against Accused. To attract this offence, one of the essential ingredients to be proved by the Prosecution is that the victim girl shall be

4 of 10 Spl.SC No. 323 of 2017

considered as a child as on the date of commission of alleged offence under the POCSO

Act.

10.Section 2 (1) (d) of the POCSO Act defines the child. Any person below the age of eighteen years is termed as child. Therefore, now it is to be seen whether PW-3/victim girl was child as on the date of alleged offence under the POCSO Act. As the criminal jurisprudence in India speaks about the presumption of innocence, burden lies on the prosecution to prove that the Accused committed the offence. Though, the POCSO Act is a special statute imposing reverse burden on the Accused, even then, the initial burden shall be on the prosecution. Prosecution is duty bound to prove that the victim is aged below the age of 18 years.

11.According to the case of Prosecution, victim was aged about 10 years as on the date of incident and she was studying 6th class. PW1 being mother of the victim deposed that her daughter is aged about 18 Years and as on the date of the incident she was studying 5th class. Victim never deposed anything about the incident, her age and remained silent. Though she was a student and aged 10 years, the investigating agency did not choose to collect any birth record from PW1 or the school in which victim was studying. However when the appearance of the victim is considered it appears that she was aged about 18 Years as on the date of recording her evidence. Since the incident happened in 2016, she might by certainly at the age of 10 or 12 Years. However, her appearance appears to be aged less than 18 Years in view of the time gap between the incident and her examination. As such her age has to be considered that she was aged less than 18 years. Further no contrary evidence is placed before the court by the

Accused believe the age of victim as more than 18 Years. Thus, the date of birth of PW-3/ victim girl is almost remained unrebutted. In view of the prosecution established that

5 of 10 Spl.SC No. 323 of 2017

victim was aged below 18 years of age as required u/s 2 of the POCSO Act, prosecution case is to be believed holding that the victims are aged below the age of 18 Years.

Therefore, the Point No.1 is answered in favour of the Prosecution.

POINT No.2

12.According to the prosecution case, PW2 is the victim girl. PW1 is the mother of girl victim. PW1 in her evidence deposed that about 7 to 8 Years back when she returned home from her duties she heard some galata near Medchal Railway station and in that regard police obtained her thumb impression on some papers and she being an illiterate is not aware of the report. PW2 being the victim in her evidence deposed that she do not know anything about the case and police did not examined her.

13.PW3-Annapurna and PW4-Kavitha are alleged to be eyewitness to the incident. They deposed that on 05-12-2016 at 4:30 PM, while victim was returning from school, she was crying. On questioned she informed that Accused teased her. As her mother went to attend the duty victim informed her mother after she returned. As such she informed the police over telephone. They also deposed that after police came there, local people beat the Accused and she informed about

Accused pulling her hand.

14.PW5- Manoj in his evidence deposed that he came to know that Accused pulled the hand of victim about 7 Years back during evening time and he informed the same to police.

6 of 10 Spl.SC No. 323 of 2017

15.According to prosecution case Accused teased the victim by caught holding her hand. The incident occurred on 05-11-2016 evening time for which a case was filed by the mother of the victim on the same day at 7:00 PM. Since the alleged incident occurred at about 4:30 PM and report filed at 7:00 PM, there appears no delay in filing the FIR. Further PW3 and 4 categorically deposed that victim mother was not at home and after she returned from work she filed report. IN view of such proper explanation, the time taken by PW1 in filing FIR cannot be said to be delay.

16.The evidence of PW1 speaks about some galata and she never spoken anything with regard to the alleged harassment or caught holding the hand of victim. Even she did not accepted filing of the report. In addition to such version of PW1, PW2 completely ignored the incident and deposed that she do not know anything about the case. For the reason of PW1 and 2 not supporting the case of prosecution, they were cross-examined by the Prosecution but failed to elicit any material. Even PW1 and 2 denied the suggestion of compromise with the accused.

However, it appears so.

17.PW3 to PW5 deposed that victim informed them about Accused teasing her and as her mother was not present at home, victim informed her mother after she returned from work who filed report. This piece of evidence of PW3 to 5 is of no help of prosecution case. When there is no evidence of victim and her mother, the neighbours speaking and supporting the version of prosecution by saying the date of incident clearly goes to show the tutoring by prosecution. A third person unconnected to the case speaking the date of incident clearly goes to show the tutoring. Further their evidence in

7 of 10 Spl.SC No. 323 of 2017

the absence of proving the police report and in the absence of version of victim is of no help.

18.PW6-Ganapathi is the police constable who apprehended the Accused and produced before the IO. He deposed that on 05-11-2016 CI of Police instructed him to verify at the house if victim as report was received. However when he went there

Accused was not present. Later at about 8:00 PM CI of Police informed him about the presence of Accused. As such he apprehend the Accused and produced before the CI of

Police.

19.PW7-T. Usharani is the Woman Police officer who recorded the statement of the victim as per section 22 of POCSO Act. She deposed that on 05-11-2016 she received telephonic information from Medchal police station to record the statement of the victim. Accordingly, she recorded the statement on the same day and handed over to police. Since the evidence of PW7 is basing on the mandatory provision, her evidence is to be considered in obedience of the provision and compliance of procedure. Therefore, it is formal.

20.PW8-Kishore is the SI of Police who recorded the statements of witnesses and conducted part of Investigation. PW9-Rajasheker reddy is the IO who registered the case. PW9 deposed that on 05-11-2016, he received police report from the mother of victim girl, basing on which he registered the case in Cr No 451 of 2016 U/S 354 of IPC and section 12 of POCSO Act and issued FIR which is Ex.P3. Report is Ex P4.

8 of 10 Spl.SC No. 323 of 2017

21.PW8 deposed that, he examined and got recorded the statements of the victim girl through women Police officer PW7. He deposed that he visited Scene of offence and he got recorded the statement of the victim mother, [LW3]- Annapurna, [LW4]- Manoj, [LW5]- Kavitha. He deposed that he arrested the accused and sent him to judicial remand. During the course of cross-examination, nothing was elicited. However the witnesses denied the suggestion of false implication of the Accused.

22.As can be seen from the record, the allegation against the Accused is u/s 354-D of

IPC. Since the victim in the case is a child below the age of 18 Years, a charge u/s 12 of

POCSO Act was included. The prosecution case says about the incident on 05-11-2016 and the report was filed on same day. There is no delay in filing of FIR. However, the witnesses failed to support the prosecution case. Except the evidence of PW3 to 5, there is no evidence on record to believe their version. Though the other witnesses spoken about the incident, they are hearsay witnesses. Their evidence cannot be taken into consideration for securing conviction. On the other hand, the Investigating officer have not taken any steps as to the secure the presence of the persons who witnessed the incident.

23.Through Accused was also charged for offence u/s 354-D of IPC, when the prosecution failed to prove the allegation of outraging the modesty, the charge u/s 354-D have no legs to stand. The simple reason is the charge is based on the version of a child of 10 Years. Though the incident occurred during day time in the open place, no body witnessed the incident. Even PW3 and 4 deposed that they were informed by victim. For the reason of their tutored version and non conducting the identification parade, their version does not inspire confidence. As

9 of 10 Spl.SC No. 323 of 2017

no other corroborative evidence is available to her evidence, it can be said that the charge u/s 354-D of IPC cannot be accepted.

24.Sec 11 of POCSO Act speaks about the Sexual harassment::-

A person is said to commit sexual harassment upon a child when such person with sexual intent,--

(i) utters any word or makes any sound, or makes any gesture or exhibits any object or part of body with the intention that such word or sound shall be heard, or such gesture or object or part of body shall be seen by the child; or

(ii) makes a child exhibit his body or any part of his body so as it is seen by such person or any other person; or

(iii) shows any object to a child in any form or media for pornographic purposes; or

(iv) repeatedly or constantly follows or watches or contacts a child either directly or through electronic, digital or any other means; or

(v) threatens to use, in any form of media, a real or fabricated depiction through electronic, film or digital or any other mode, of any part of the body of the child or the involvement of the child in a sexual act; or

(vi) entices a child for pornographic purposes or gives gratification therefor. Explanation.--Any question which involves '[sexual intent" shall be a question of fact.]

25.As can be seen from the record and after going through the above provisions it can be understood that, if anybody utters any word or makes any sound, or makes any gesture or exhibits any object or part of body with the intention that such word or sound shall be heard, can constitute an offence.

However, prosecution failed to prove that it was the Accused who uttered any word or caught the hand of the victim. Except the evidence of PW3 and 4, there is no other evidence available on record to believe the prosecution case. Though prosecution examined PW3 to 5, their version is formal and mostly a procedural formality or hearsay. It is not safe to rely on such hearsay evidence for securing conviction.

10 of 10 Spl.SC No. 323 of 2017

26. After excluding the evidence of PW1 to 5, there remains the testimony of

Investigating officer and other police officer. Since the evidence of PW8 and 9 speaks about the procedure of investigation, it may not help the prosecution in the absence of any substantive corroborative evidence. As already held supra, except the testimony of PW3, there is no other evidence available on record to believe the prosecution case. Therefore, and in view of above discussion, this court is of the opinion that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond doubt. Accordingly, the point is answered in the negative.

27. IN THE RESULT, Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 354-D of IPC and section 12 of POCSO Act. Accordingly, he is acquitted U/s 235(1) of CRPC. The unmarked case property is ordered to be returned to Accused after expiry of Appeal time subject to section 437A of CrPC.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her and corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 27 th day of February, 2024.

FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT FOR EXPEDITIOUS

TRIAL AND DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND POCSO ACT CASES

MEDCHAL MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT AT MEDCHAL

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE

PW1: Complainant/Mother of Victim. - None- PW2: Victim PW3: Smt. Bandi Annapurna PW4: Smt. Samkambley Kavitha PW5: Sri. Samkambley Manoj PW6: Sri,P.ganapathi PW7: Smt. Usharani PW8: Sri.M.Kishore PW9: Sri.S.Rajashekar

EXHIBITS MARKED

11 of 10 Spl.SC No. 323 of 2017

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE

Ex.P1:Marked portion of 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW1 Ex.P2: Marked portion of 164 Cr.P.C Statement of PW2 Ex.P3:First Information report Ex.P4:Report

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE

-NIL--NIL-

FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT FOR EXPEDITIOUS

TRIAL AND DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND POCSO ACT CASES

MEDCHAL MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT AT MEDCHAL

1 of 10 Spl.S.C.No.733 of 2016

IN THE COURT OF THE FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT FOR EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL AND

DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND POCSO ACT CASES MEDCHAL MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT : AT

MEDCHAL

PRESENT: SRI D. VENKATESH, II ADJ,

FAC Fast Track Court for expeditious trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases, Medchal

Dated this the 31 st day of January, 2024 .

Spl. SC No. 733 of 2016

(PS Alwal)

NAME OF THE COMPLAINANT State of Telangana through The Inspector of Police, PS Alwal

NAME OF ACCUSED Bandugula Vidhyasagar Vineeth S/o. Vidhyasagar, Aged about 20 years, Occ: intermediate student, caste: SC/Madiga, R/o. H. No. 1173, near Bus stop, Risala Bazar, Sec'bad. Ph. No. 8297768160

OFFENCES UNDER SECTION366-A of IPC and Section 8 of POCSO Act, 2012.

PLEA OF THE ACCUSED Not guilty

FINDING OF THE COURTNot Guilty

SENTENCEIn the result, Accused is not found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 366-A of IPC and section 8 of POCSO Act. Accordingly, he is acquitted U/s 235(1) of Cr.P.C.. Bonds and Bail Bonds of Accused shall stands cancelled subject to section 437 (A) of Cr.P.C.

COUNSEL FOR PROSECUTIONSri. C. Sham Rao, Additional Public Prosecutor Smt. K.N.Shalini Devi, Defence counsel for Accused.

COUNSEL FOR DEFENCE

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. C. Sham Rao,

Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri. Smt. K.N.Shalini Devi, Defence Counsel

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 10 Spl.S.C.No.733 of 2016

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

1.Accused Bandugula Vidhyasagar Vineeth stands charged for the offence u/s.366-

A of IPC and Section 8 of POCSO Act.

2.The Brief facts of the Prosecution Case: On 04-06-2016 at 10.30AM LW1 /Father of the victim filed police report alleging that his daughter/victim girl was aged about 15 years and was a student of 10th class. On 03-06-2016 at 03.00PM she left from home informing that she was going to grandmother’s house. However, she did not reached the grandmother's house and found missing. He searched for her in neighbouring places and relatives but could not be traced, as such he filed police report.

3.Basing on the police report, [LW7]- T.Anand Reddy, Inspector of police, Alwal registered a case crime No. 232 of 2016 under head Girl Missing and issued FIR. He entrusted the investigation to [LW8]- B.Rambabu, Sub-Inspector of police, Alwal.

4.During the course of investigation, [LW8}- B.Rambabu, Sub-Inspector of police,

Alwal. examined and recorded the statements of [LW1]- father of the victim and [LW2]-

Mother of the victim and collected the photographs of the victim girl. He issued notices to all concerned . On the same day he received information about the presence of the victim at Eluru Nacharam Temple, Toopran Mandal. Accordingly, he along with the parents of the victim rushed there and found the victim at the temple along with the accused who fled away. He examined and recorded the statement of the victim. Basing on the statement of the victim, he altered the provision of law from Girl missing to

Section 366-A of IPC and Section 8 of POCSO Act and issued alteration memo. He sent the the girl to Gandhi Hospital for examination.

3 of 10 Spl.S.C.No.733 of 2016

5.On 06-06-2016 at 10.00AM he apprehended the accused at Risalabazar and on interrogation, accused voluntarily confessed the commission of offence. As such accused was sent for judicial remand. After collecting medical reports and completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet for the offence punishable under 366-A of IPC and

Section 8 of POCSO Act.

6. Upon filing of final report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C by the Inspector of Police,

Alwal. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Medchal – Malakjgiri District taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 366-A of IPC and Section 7 r/w. 8 of POCSO Act.

7.On production of Accused before this court and on considering the entire material available on record, a charge for the offence under Section 366-A IPC and Section 7 r/w.

8 of POCSO Act was framed against the Accused. It was read over and explained to the

Accused in Telugu to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried for the charge.

8.To Prove the case, the prosecution as many as (07) witnesses examined and got marked Ex.P1 to P6. The list of witnesses examined as PW1 to Pw7 are as under:-

Father of the victim (PW1) s the Complaint.

Victim girl (PW2)

Rameswari WPC (PW3) who recorded the statement of the victim girl

E.B.Mahender (PW4) is the eye witness

Dr.Swaroopa, Asst. Professor (PW5) Medical Officer

B.Rambabu, Sub-Inspector of police , Alwal (PW6) investigating officer & filed charge sheet.

T.Anand Reddy, Inspector of police, Alwal (PW7) issued FIR 4 of 10 Spl.S.C.No.733 of 2016

9.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 under Section 313 (1)(b) of Cr.P.C. Accused has denied the evidence. He did not choose to produce any defence witness on his behalf.

10.Heard arguments on both sides.

11.Now the Point that arise for determination is:

i.Whether as on 04-06-2016 PW2 /Victim girl was under eighteen years of age and she is minor as required under section 12(1)(d) of the prosecution of Children from Sexual offence Act, 2012 ?

ii.Whether the Prosecution has proved the guilty of the Accused for the offence under Section 366-A of IPC and Section 8 of POCSO Act beyond reasonable doubt. ?

POINT No.1:

12. It is the case of prosecution that Accused kidnapped the victim girl and took her to

Eluru Nacharam temple who is aged about 15 years as on the date of incident and also on date of report. Since Sec 2 specifically speaks about the child, it is obligatory on the part of the prosecution to prove the minor child as on the date of the incident.

According to prosecution victims is aged 15 years. To substantiate the contention, prosecution has not produced any evidence as to Date of Birth of victim. The offence alleged against the Accused is that he kidnapped the victim girl of age 15 years for which a charge under Section 8 of the POCSO Act was framed against him. To attract this offence, one of the essential ingredients to be proved by the Prosecution is that

PW2/victim girl shall be considered as a child as on the date of commission of alleged offence under the POCSO Act. The investigating officer did not choose to collect any record as to the age of the victim girl. Though victim was studying 10th class and possibility of securing Bonafide Certificate from the college, no such document is 5 of 10 Spl.S.C.No.733 of 2016 produced. Even the victim or her parents have never disclosed the age or date of birth of victim. In the absence of providing the age of victim and non production of document as to age of victim below 18 years cannot be accepted. Accordingly, the point is answered in the negative.

POINT No.2:-

13.On 04-06-2016 Father of the victim girl filed police report alleging that his daughter aged 15 years and was studying 10th class was found missing the earlier.

Though he searched for the girl, he could not be traced and as such he filed the report.

Ex.P1 is the police report filed by PW1. Ex.P5 is the FIR issued on 04-06-2016. As can be seen from the FIR, the case was registered under the Head of Girl Missing and subsequently, during the course of investigation, when the victim was traced, she disclosed that she went along with the accused and as such the provision was altered to

Section 366-A of IPC for the reason of victim being 15 years of age, the provisions of

POCSO act has been included. However, the FIR does not disclose the name of the accused and even the report is silent about the suspicion on the accused.

14.PW1/Father of the victim in his evidence deposed that on 03-06-2016 his daughter was found missing and she left from home informing that she was going to grandmother's house. Though he waited till evening she did not turn up and on enquiry, he came to know that victim has not reached the grandmother's home, as such PW1 filed police report on 04-06-2016. PW1 also deposed that he expressed suspicion on accused by name Vineeth and as such he filed report vide Ex.P1. He also deposed that accused came into contact with the victim on facebook and on the date of report the victim and accused were traced at Eluru Nacharam Temple. He also deposed that his daughter informed that the accused took her to the temple. Though the evidence of PW1 speaks 6 of 10 Spl.S.C.No.733 of 2016 about the missing, there is material omission on the part of the PW1 which did not state to the police in his 161 statement. On the other hand, no technical evidence with regard to facebook mobile phone has been seized or produced before this court. It proves fatal to the prosecution case.

15.PW2/ Victim girl in her evidence deposed that on 03-06-2016 she informed mother that she was going to grandmother's house. Vineeth called her over telephone and asked to come to Alwal from there they went to Kompally and spent some time.

Since it was late night she did not go home and as such accused took her to Nacharam temple. She deposed that they went to temple by walk and stayed there near the gate.

She also deposed that she informed the accused that she will not accompany but he took her stating that nothing will happen. Suddenly her father taken them to police station. though, the evidence of PW2 says that accused took her to Nacharam temple forcefully, her evidence to the effect that she came to Kompally from Alwal and met the alleged accused clearly goes to show that she met the alleged accused on her own.

Further, the place from where the alleged accused taken the victim to Nacharam temple is a busy place where the possibility of availability of people round the clock. In such circumstances, the claim of the PW2 that accused forcefully took her to Nacharam temple is not believable. Further the alleged accused took her to temple. If he really intended to make use of the victim , he need not to take he to temple. Therefore, the contention of PW2 is not acceptable and not believable. When she herself says that she came to Kompally on her own, that would not fall within the definition of Section 366-A of IPC.

7 of 10 Spl.S.C.No.733 of 2016

Section 366-A of IPC reads:-

Whoever, by any means whatsoever, induces any minor girl under the age

of eighteen years to go from any place or to do any act with intent that

such girl may be, or knowing that it is likely that she will be, forced or

seduced to illicit intercourse with another person shall be punishable with

imprisonment which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to

fine.

16.On going through the Provision of Law, it can be understood that, the offence under Section 366-a of IPC would attract only when any person by any means induces a minor girl to go from any place with the intention to use her sexually. In the present case, the essential ingredient of minority is not proved. Secondly, porsecution failed to prove the intention of the accused to use victim sexually. Thirdly, inducement to go from the custody of guardian is also not proved. In the absence of necessary ingredient, the offence under Section 366-A of IPC cannot be said to have proved.

17.PW3/ M.Ramwswari is the Police Constable who recorded the statement of the victim, she deposed that as per the instructions of SI of Police , Alwal, she recorded the statement of victim. PW2 deposed that she came into contact with accused at about 7 months back,.On 07-06-2016 he asked her to come out of the house. As such, PW2 left from home informing that she was going to to grandmother's house. After she came to

Kompally, the alleged accused took her her to Nacharam temple. The evidence of PW3 is appears to be formal. Mere recording of the statement is not sufficient and not enough to believe and accept the case of the prosecution.

18.PW4/Mahender was the relative of PW1. He deposed that in 2016, the victim was found missing and as such they searched for her and filed report. later they came to know that accused took her forcefully to Nacharam temple. As such they went there and brought the victim. The evidence of PW4 is circumstantial evidence and he is not an eye 8 of 10 Spl.S.C.No.733 of 2016 witness. He helped PW1 in searching the victim. As such his evidence is formal and no use to the case of the prosecution.

19.PW5/ Dr.Swaroopa Rani was the Associate professor who examined the victim.

She deposed that on 05-06-2016 she received requisition from PS Alwal for examination of victim girl and during her examination, she found her in good condition. No external injuries were found. According to the FSL report semen and spermatozoa were not detected. She also deposed that there were no evidence of intercourse. She exhibited the FSL report as Ex.P2. Since the FSL report is not speaking about the intercourse and even it is not the case of prosecution that victim was subjected to intercourse, the evidence of PW5 is of no help to prosecution case.

20.PW6 / Rambabu is the investigating officer who recorded the statement of witness and filed charge sheet. PW7/ T.Anand Reddy was the CI of Police, Alwal who registered the case after receiving the report from father of victim. Both of them in their evidence deposed that on 04-06-2016 father of the victim filed report basing on which he registered a case in crime No. 232 of 2016 under head Girl missing and issued FIR.

Whereas PW6 deposed that after the registration of the case, the investigation was entrusted to him. He recorded the statements of witnesses and traced the victim at

Eluru Nacharam temple. PW6 exhibited the alteration memo and FSL report. The evidence of PW6 and PW7 is formal in nature which speaks about the manner of the investigation conducted. Basing on the testimony of the PW6 and PW7, accused cannot be convicted.

9 of 10 Spl.S.C.No.733 of 2016

21. According to the prosecution case accused abducted the victim forcefully by taking from Kompally to Eluru Nacharam Temple. PW6 deposed that he traced the victim and accused at Eluru Nacharam Temple. Except his evidence, there is no evidence on record to believe that victim was found in association of the accused. Further the prosecution miserably failed to establish that victim was 11 years of age and she was forcefully taken away by the accused. In the absence of any positive evidence, the prosecution case is not acceptable. Accordingly, point is answered in the negative.

22

22.In the result, Accused is not found guilty for the offence punishable under

Section 366-A of IPC and section 8 of POCSO Act. Accordingly, he is acquitted U/s 235(1) of Cr.P.C.. Bonds and Bail Bonds of Accused shall stands cancelled subject to section 437 (A) of Cr.P.C.

Typed on my dictation by the Stenographer on laptop, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 31 st day of January, 2024.

FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT FOR EXPEDITIOUS

TRIAL AND DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND POCSO ACT CASES

MEDCHAL MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT AT MEDCHAL

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE

PW1 : Mother of victim girl - NONE-

PW2 : Victim Girl

PW3: M.Rameswari

PW4: E.B. Mahender

PW5 :Dr.A.Swaroopa Rani

PW6 :Rambabu

PW7 :T.Anand Reddy 10 of 10 Spl.S.C.No.733 of 2016

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE

Ex.P1:Complainant - Nil-

Ex.P2: Final Opinion of PW5

Ex.P3:Alteration Memo

Ex.P4: FSL report

Ex.P5:Final opinion of PW2

Ex.P6:First Information report issued by PW7

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE

- Nil-

FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT FOR EXPEDITIOUS

TRIAL AND DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND POCSO ACT CASES

MEDCHAL MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT AT MEDCHAL

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

MEDCHAL-MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT AT MEDCHAL.

Present :Sri. D. Venkatesh, II Additional District Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Medchal.

EP No. 536 of 2022

BETWEEN:

HDFC Bank Ltd rep. by Miss Aarthi ChowgaleM/s RBL Bank Ltd rep. byM/s Shriram Transport lFinance Company Ltd rep. by Velpula MuralidharM/S.SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO.LTD., REP BY TEJAVAT KUMARM/s Shriram Transport Finance Co Ltd rep. by P Sampath ReddyM/s Shriram transport Finance Co Ltd rep. by P Sampath ReddyM/s Shriram Transport Finance Co Ltd rep. by Tejavath KumarM/s Shriram Transport Finance Co Ltd rep by P Sampath ReddyM/S.HDFC BANK LTD REP BY P.SRIDHAR REDDYINDUSIND BANK LIMITEDP.SIDDI RAMULU AND ANOTHERM/S. INDUSIND BANK LIMITEDIndusInd Bank Ltd rep. by Suresh BalagaM/S.VISAGE HOLDINGS AND FINANCE PVT LTDHDFC Bank LimitedHDFC BANK LTD REP BYMR.SYED SHAFIUDDINM/S. ADITYA BIRLA FINANCE LIMITED REP.MR. D.SHAREEFM/s HDFC Bank Ltd, rep by Syed ShafiuddinM/S.SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE COMPANY LTD. REP BY ITS B.ANAND RAOM/S.HDFC BANK LTD REP BY SRI VELAMURI VENKATA PAVAN KUMARM/S.INDUSIND BANK LTD REP BY SURESH BALAGAM/s Shriram translport finance Co Ltd rep. by B Anand RaoM/s IndusInd Bank Ltd rep. B. SureshM/S. TVS CREDIT SERVICES LTD REP BY V.V.PAVAN KUMARHDFC BANK LTD REP BY MR.SYED SHAFIUDDINM/S.SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED REP BY K.ARVIND REDDYM/S.INDUSIND BANK LIMITED REP BY BALAGA SURESHM/s Shriram Transport Finance co Ltd rep by Y RajeshM/S. SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO.LTD.Shiram Transport Finance Co. Ltd.M/S.SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED REP BY ITS B.ANAND RAOM/S.SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO. LTD, MR.Y.RAJESHINDUSIND BANK LIMITEDINDUSIND BANK LIMITED REP BY V.SURESHHDFC Bank Ltd rep. by Velamuri venkata Pavan KumarM/S.SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO. LTD REP BY MR.PALAKANDLA GANESH M/s. Shriram City Union Finance Ltd,GPA Holder, N. SrkanthM/S.SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO. LTD REP BY P.GANESH GAURAVM/S.SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO. LTD REP BY GANESH GAURAVTATA MOTRORS FINANCE LTD REP BY HAKIMM/s Shriram Transport Finance Co Ltd rerp. by Y RajeshINDO STAR CAPITAL FINANCE LTD. REP BY MR.SRIKANTH NANNAM/s HDFC Bank Ltd, rep. by Raja AnumoluM/s HDFC Bank Ltd rep. by V V Pavan KumarM/s Shriram Transport Finance Co Ltd rep. by Y RajeshM/S.SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO. LTD REP BY MR.JADAV VISHNU VARDHANK Srinivas goud and anotherM/s Sukndaram Finance Ltd, rep. by G V N RajuM/s Sukndaram Finance Ltd rep. by GVN RajuM/s Shriram Transport Finance co Ltd rep. by Ms B BanuM/s Shriram Transport Finance Co Ltd rep. by Ms BanuM/s Shriram Transport Finance co Ltd rep. by Ms B BanuM/S. SHRIRQAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO, LTD REP BY Y.RAJESHIndus Ind Bank LtdM/s Sundaram Finance Ltd rep. by B Naresh KumarM/S.TVS CREDIT SERVICES LTD REP BY V.V.PAVAN KUMARM/S.KOTAK MAHINDRA PRIME LIMITED REP BYVAMSHI KRISHNA PYATLAM/s Shriram Transport Finance Co ltd rep. by S Sri Hari RaoM/s Shriram Transport Finance Co Ltd rep. by Ms B BanuM/s Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd rep by Chandrfa SekharHDFC BANKM/s. Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd, GPA Holder, M. Srinivas RaoM/s. Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd, GPA Holder, M. Srinivas RaoShyamlal JainM/S.SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE COMPANY LIMITEDM/s Shriram Transport Finance Co Ltd rep. by Md Raheem PashaM/s HDFC Bank Ltd rep. by Syed shafiuddinM/s Karvy Financial Services Ltd rep by Vemula Jeevan DevadasShriram transport finance Co Ltd, rep. by Y.RajeshHDFC Bank Ltd rep. syed ShafiuddinM/S.HDFC BANK LTD REP BY V.VANAKATA PAVAN KUMARM/s IndusInd Bank Ltd rep. by B SiresjM/s IndusInd Bank Ltd rep. by Suresh BalagaM/s.INDUSIND BANK LIMITED REP BY SURESH BALAGAKotak Mahindra Bank ltd rep by Darshanala RaghunandM/S.KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITEDIndusInd Bank LtdHDFC BANK LTDM/S.CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT AND FINANCE COMPANY LTDM/s SBI Cards and Payments Services Pvt Ltd rep. by Immadi Pradeep KumarM/s. Shriram Transport Finance Co.Ltd, GPA Holder Y. RajeshM/S.BAJAJ FINANCE LIMITEDM/s Shriram Transport Finance Co Ltd rep. by YK RajeshM/S.RELIANCE COMMERCIAL FINANCE LTD REP BY B.SATISH KUMARINDO STAR CAPITAL FINANCE LTD. REP BY MR.SRIKANTH NANNAM/S.TVS CREDIT SERVICES LTD REP BY V.V.PAVAN KUMARM/S.RELIANCE COMMERCIAL FINANCE,B.SATISH KUMARM/S.RELIANCE COMMERCIAL FINANCE LTD. REP BY B.CHANDRAKANTHM/S.SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE COMPANYM/S.INDUSIND BANK LIMITED REP BY BALAGA SURESHM/S INDUSIND BANK LIMITEDM/s L and T Finance Ltd rep. by K V Guru PrasadM/s L and T Finance Ltd rep. by K V Guru PrasadHDFC BANK LTD REP BY MR.SYED SHAFIUDDINM/s Shriram Transport Finance Co Ltd rep. by Pentoji GoulikarM/S.KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED REP BY NARENDER MANTURIKOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD REP BY NARENDER MANTURIM/S.SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE REP BY JADAV VISHNU VARDHANM/s Axis Bank Ltd rep. by Sudheer maddeM/s India Infoline Finance ltd, rep. by Buyya shivakanthM/s Indostar capital Finance Ltd rep. by srikanth NannaINDO STAR CAPITAL FINANCE LTD., REP BY SRIKANTHM/S.SHRIRAM FINANCE CO. LTDM/S.SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO. LTD REP BY J.VISHNU VARDHANKOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD REP BY DARSHANALA RAGHUNANDM/S.HDFC BANK LTD REP BY SYED SHAFIUDDINM/s Shriram transport finance Co Ltd rep. J.Vishnu VardhanKOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD REP BY B.NAND KISHOREM/S.SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO. LTD, TARNAKA BRANCH, SECUNDERABADKOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD B.VAMAN RAOM/s Eugia Pharma Specialities Ltd rep by P RavindranathHDFC BANK LTDM/s Shriram Transport Finance Co Ltd rep. by J vishnu VardhanM/s Kotak mahindra bank Ltd rep. by Dershanala RaghunandM/S.SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO. LTD REP BY MR.J.VISHNU VARDHAN.Mahaboob Khan Mohd. anotherHDFC BANK LTD REP BY MR.SYED SHAFIUDDIN ... Decree Holder

And

Aleti Saya ReddyMambapuram Narsh KumarMahipal Reddy and anotherSRINIVAS AND ANOTHERChandra Sekhar Nallaverup and anotherNarsing Rao and anotherMs Divya Sri and anotherNarender Reddy Ch and anotherP Sathi Reddy and anotherG.RAVITEJA REDDYC.KOUSALYA AND ANOTHERP.SIDDI RAMULU AND ANOTHERMR.MOHAMMAD SHARIF AND ANOTHERArkala Lakshman and anotherMANNU DEVI AND ANOTHERJagadish PrasadESWARARAO GULLIPALLIRAVI KUMARB.SUNITHA AND ANOTHERRAMULU BADAVATH AND ANOTHERSAI RAM INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIESVenkata Satya Raghu Rama Raju SayyaparajuAUM EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY REP BY CHANDRA MOHAN AND ANOTHERV.SURENDERMR.K.SREEKANTHDandu Suresh and anotherRaj Rajesh Kumar and anotherRachamalla Pentaiah and anotherMrs Rajagiri Bhanu Rekha and anotherMR.PADALA SIDDI RAMULU AND ANOTHERRayava Madhava Reddy and anotherPuloju Ganesh and anotherMORA SHANKARSHAIK SUBHAHANI BASHABHASKAR REDDY AND ANOTHERMOHAMMED SHARIF AND ANOTHERK Lakshmi Chaaitanya and anotherMR.MOHAMMED MOHSINKonaparthi Brahmam and AnotherR.RANGA RAM AND ANOTHERMR.DURGA PRASAD AND ANOTHERK.YELLESH AND ANOTHERG.Chandra Shekar and AnotherSURARAM RAVINDER AND ANOTHERChityala aravindMR.B.SHYAM AND ANOTHERC. JahangirUMA PATHI PADALA AND ANOTHERMR.TELUGU CHANDRA SHEKAR AND ANOTHERM.SAILUNarsimha Rao and anotherNALLAMALA MADHAVA RAO AND ANOTHERMohd. Ezaz KhanSurya Vamshi Travels rep. byK Lakshmi Chaitanya and anotherSRINIVAS RAO AND ANOTHERMedisetty RameshK Suresh and anotherAttinarapu Narayana and anotherV Balayuya and anotherNarasimha rao and anotherCh Ashok and anotherCH.CHANDRA SEKHAR AND ANOTHERRasool Mahammad and AnotherMeena KUmari and anaotherVENKATESHSHIVA SHNAKARA REDDYM/s Twenty First Century Translines Pvt Ltd rep. by Sivanth and anotherG bhujangam and anotherM/s Twenty First Century Translines Pvt Ltd rep. by SivanathB Udayabhaskara RajuS. Mohan Redy and anotherMohd. Khadar and AnotherVENKATESH ANKALA AND ANOTHERD Pancu and anotherBakul DharodVenkata Rama Mohan Rao Kadali and 2 othersM Komuraiah & 01 anotherShiva Kumar AppaiahJ.VENUGOPALK Raja REddy and anotherNeelam Bikshapathi and anotherKONAPURAJU NAGARAJU AND ANOTHERMahender DurgamNARESH SAMINENIParanada Sri Hari and AnotherA. DORAI NAIDURAGULA YADAGIRI AND ANOTHERG RaveendraG. Gopal and anotherE.SURYACHANDAR RAOShabbir Mohammed and anotherMOHD.GOUSI PASHAKUMMARI KUMAR AND OTHERSMARUMALA KRISHNA VENI AND ANOTHERMR.CHAND SYED AND ANOTHERVALANDAS VEERESH GOUD AND ANOTHERS.SRINIVAS AND ANOTHERR.BHANU REKHA AND ANOTHERKUMMARI MALLESHAM AND ANOTHERsyed Khaleem and anotherMukkarla Dharmaiah and anotherRAMPRASAD REDDY BOMMAREDDYK Surender and anotherU.LAKSHMI NARAYANASURESH REDDYM.RAMA RAJU AND ANOTHERSiva Sankara Rao BM/s Surya Tej Polymers rand two othersHari Shankar Tyagi and anotherMAHESH KUMAR KARUNAM AND 2 OTHERSRENUKA AND ANOTHERKAVURU MURALI MOHAN AND ANOTHERKavali Krishnaiah and anotherMADDI SAIRAJ YADAVP.SHIVAJIEatahadi ravi and anotherSARVARAYA CHOWDARYRAJENDER CHOPPARIMALLESH CHITTAGORI AND ANOTHERSARVARAYA CHOWDARYRamreddygari Srinivas Reddy and anotherRAJESHWARI MATURIU Dana Shiva Kumar and anotherUma Maheshwar KyathamMD.RAZIA BEGIM AND ANOTHERValle Srinu and anotherWaseem akram Mohd. and anotherDUDEKULA ABDUL … Judgment Debtors

D O C K E T O R D E R DT. 22-04-2024

Petitioner/DHR Called absent. No representation made. Process not paid. EP is dismissed for default

Sd/-

II Additional District Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Medchal.

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

MEDCHAL-MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT AT MEDCHAL.

Present :Sri. D. Venkatesh, II Additional District Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Medchal.

EP No. 531 of 2022

BETWEEN:

HDFC Bank Ltd rep. by Miss Aarthi ChowgaleM/s RBL Bank Ltd rep. byM/s Shriram Transport lFinance Company Ltd rep. by Velpula MuralidharM/S.SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO.LTD., REP BY TEJAVAT KUMARM/s Shriram Transport Finance Co Ltd rep. by P Sampath ReddyM/s Shriram transport Finance Co Ltd rep. by P Sampath ReddyM/s Shriram Transport Finance Co Ltd rep. by Tejavath KumarM/s Shriram Transport Finance Co Ltd rep by P Sampath ReddyM/S.HDFC BANK LTD REP BY P.SRIDHAR REDDYINDUSIND BANK LIMITEDP.SIDDI RAMULU AND ANOTHERM/S. INDUSIND BANK LIMITEDIndusInd Bank Ltd rep. by Suresh BalagaM/S.VISAGE HOLDINGS AND FINANCE PVT LTDHDFC Bank LimitedHDFC BANK LTD REP BYMR.SYED SHAFIUDDINM/S. ADITYA BIRLA FINANCE LIMITED REP.MR. D.SHAREEFM/s HDFC Bank Ltd, rep by Syed ShafiuddinM/S.SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE COMPANY LTD. REP BY ITS B.ANAND RAOM/S.HDFC BANK LTD REP BY SRI VELAMURI VENKATA PAVAN KUMARM/S.INDUSIND BANK LTD REP BY SURESH BALAGAM/s Shriram translport finance Co Ltd rep. by B Anand RaoM/s IndusInd Bank Ltd rep. B. SureshM/S. TVS CREDIT SERVICES LTD REP BY V.V.PAVAN KUMARHDFC BANK LTD REP BY MR.SYED SHAFIUDDINM/S.SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED REP BY K.ARVIND REDDYM/S.INDUSIND BANK LIMITED REP BY BALAGA SURESHM/s Shriram Transport Finance co Ltd rep by Y RajeshM/S. SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO.LTD.Shiram Transport Finance Co. Ltd.M/S.SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED REP BY ITS B.ANAND RAOM/S.SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO. LTD, MR.Y.RAJESHINDUSIND BANK LIMITEDINDUSIND BANK LIMITED REP BY V.SURESHHDFC Bank Ltd rep. by Velamuri venkata Pavan KumarM/S.SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO. LTD REP BY MR.PALAKANDLA GANESH M/s. Shriram City Union Finance Ltd,GPA Holder, N. SrkanthM/S.SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO. LTD REP BY P.GANESH GAURAVM/S.SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO. LTD REP BY GANESH GAURAVTATA MOTRORS FINANCE LTD REP BY HAKIMM/s Shriram Transport Finance Co Ltd rerp. by Y RajeshINDO STAR CAPITAL FINANCE LTD. REP BY MR.SRIKANTH NANNAM/s HDFC Bank Ltd, rep. by Raja AnumoluM/s HDFC Bank Ltd rep. by V V Pavan KumarM/s Shriram Transport Finance Co Ltd rep. by Y RajeshM/S.SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO. LTD REP BY MR.JADAV VISHNU VARDHANK Srinivas goud and anotherM/s Sukndaram Finance Ltd, rep. by G V N RajuM/s Sukndaram Finance Ltd rep. by GVN RajuM/s Shriram Transport Finance co Ltd rep. by Ms B BanuM/s Shriram Transport Finance Co Ltd rep. by Ms BanuM/s Shriram Transport Finance co Ltd rep. by Ms B BanuM/S. SHRIRQAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO, LTD REP BY Y.RAJESHIndus Ind Bank LtdM/s Sundaram Finance Ltd rep. by B Naresh KumarM/S.TVS CREDIT SERVICES LTD REP BY V.V.PAVAN KUMARM/S.KOTAK MAHINDRA PRIME LIMITED REP BYVAMSHI KRISHNA PYATLAM/s Shriram Transport Finance Co ltd rep. by S Sri Hari RaoM/s Shriram Transport Finance Co Ltd rep. by Ms B BanuM/s Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd rep by Chandrfa SekharHDFC BANKM/s. Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd, GPA Holder, M. Srinivas RaoM/s. Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd, GPA Holder, M. Srinivas RaoShyamlal JainM/S.SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE COMPANY LIMITEDM/s Shriram Transport Finance Co Ltd rep. by Md Raheem PashaM/s HDFC Bank Ltd rep. by Syed shafiuddinM/s Karvy Financial Services Ltd rep by Vemula Jeevan DevadasShriram transport finance Co Ltd, rep. by Y.RajeshHDFC Bank Ltd rep. syed ShafiuddinM/S.HDFC BANK LTD REP BY V.VANAKATA PAVAN KUMARM/s IndusInd Bank Ltd rep. by B SiresjM/s IndusInd Bank Ltd rep. by Suresh BalagaM/s.INDUSIND BANK LIMITED REP BY SURESH BALAGAKotak Mahindra Bank ltd rep by Darshanala RaghunandM/S.KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITEDIndusInd Bank LtdHDFC BANK LTDM/S.CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT AND FINANCE COMPANY LTDM/s SBI Cards and Payments Services Pvt Ltd rep. by Immadi Pradeep KumarM/s. Shriram Transport Finance Co.Ltd, GPA Holder Y. RajeshM/S.BAJAJ FINANCE LIMITEDM/s Shriram Transport Finance Co Ltd rep. by YK RajeshM/S.RELIANCE COMMERCIAL FINANCE LTD REP BY B.SATISH KUMARINDO STAR CAPITAL FINANCE LTD. REP BY MR.SRIKANTH NANNAM/S.TVS CREDIT SERVICES LTD REP BY V.V.PAVAN KUMARM/S.RELIANCE COMMERCIAL FINANCE,B.SATISH KUMARM/S.RELIANCE COMMERCIAL FINANCE LTD. REP BY B.CHANDRAKANTHM/S.SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE COMPANYM/S.INDUSIND BANK LIMITED REP BY BALAGA SURESHM/S INDUSIND BANK LIMITEDM/s L and T Finance Ltd rep. by K V Guru PrasadM/s L and T Finance Ltd rep. by K V Guru PrasadHDFC BANK LTD REP BY MR.SYED SHAFIUDDINM/s Shriram Transport Finance Co Ltd rep. by Pentoji GoulikarM/S.KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED REP BY NARENDER MANTURIKOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD REP BY NARENDER MANTURIM/S.SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE REP BY JADAV VISHNU VARDHANM/s Axis Bank Ltd rep. by Sudheer maddeM/s India Infoline Finance ltd, rep. by Buyya shivakanthM/s Indostar capital Finance Ltd rep. by srikanth NannaINDO STAR CAPITAL FINANCE LTD., REP BY SRIKANTHM/S.SHRIRAM FINANCE CO. LTDM/S.SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO. LTD REP BY J.VISHNU VARDHANKOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD REP BY DARSHANALA RAGHUNANDM/S.HDFC BANK LTD REP BY SYED SHAFIUDDINM/s Shriram transport finance Co Ltd rep. J.Vishnu VardhanKOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD REP BY B.NAND KISHOREM/S.SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO. LTD, TARNAKA BRANCH, SECUNDERABADKOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD B.VAMAN RAOM/s Eugia Pharma Specialities Ltd rep by P RavindranathHDFC BANK LTD ... Decree Holder

And

Aleti Saya ReddyMambapuram Narsh KumarMahipal Reddy and anotherSRINIVAS AND ANOTHERChandra Sekhar Nallaverup and anotherNarsing Rao and anotherMs Divya Sri and anotherNarender Reddy Ch and anotherP Sathi Reddy and anotherG.RAVITEJA REDDYC.KOUSALYA AND ANOTHERP.SIDDI RAMULU AND ANOTHERMR.MOHAMMAD SHARIF AND ANOTHERArkala Lakshman and anotherMANNU DEVI AND ANOTHERJagadish PrasadESWARARAO GULLIPALLIRAVI KUMARB.SUNITHA AND ANOTHERRAMULU BADAVATH AND ANOTHERSAI RAM INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIESVenkata Satya Raghu Rama Raju SayyaparajuAUM EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY REP BY CHANDRA MOHAN AND ANOTHERV.SURENDERMR.K.SREEKANTHDandu Suresh and anotherRaj Rajesh Kumar and anotherRachamalla Pentaiah and anotherMrs Rajagiri Bhanu Rekha and anotherMR.PADALA SIDDI RAMULU AND ANOTHERRayava Madhava Reddy and anotherPuloju Ganesh and anotherMORA SHANKARSHAIK SUBHAHANI BASHABHASKAR REDDY AND ANOTHERMOHAMMED SHARIF AND ANOTHERK Lakshmi Chaaitanya and anotherMR.MOHAMMED MOHSINKonaparthi Brahmam and AnotherR.RANGA RAM AND ANOTHERMR.DURGA PRASAD AND ANOTHERK.YELLESH AND ANOTHERG.Chandra Shekar and AnotherSURARAM RAVINDER AND ANOTHERChityala aravindMR.B.SHYAM AND ANOTHERC. JahangirUMA PATHI PADALA AND ANOTHERMR.TELUGU CHANDRA SHEKAR AND ANOTHERM.SAILUNarsimha Rao and anotherNALLAMALA MADHAVA RAO AND ANOTHERMohd. Ezaz KhanSurya Vamshi Travels rep. byK Lakshmi Chaitanya and anotherSRINIVAS RAO AND ANOTHERMedisetty RameshK Suresh and anotherAttinarapu Narayana and anotherV Balayuya and anotherNarasimha rao and anotherCh Ashok and anotherCH.CHANDRA SEKHAR AND ANOTHERRasool Mahammad and AnotherMeena KUmari and anaotherVENKATESHSHIVA SHNAKARA REDDYM/s Twenty First Century Translines Pvt Ltd rep. by Sivanth and anotherG bhujangam and anotherM/s Twenty First Century Translines Pvt Ltd rep. by SivanathB Udayabhaskara RajuS. Mohan Redy and anotherMohd. Khadar and AnotherVENKATESH ANKALA AND ANOTHERD Pancu and anotherBakul DharodVenkata Rama Mohan Rao Kadali and 2 othersM Komuraiah & 01 anotherShiva Kumar AppaiahJ.VENUGOPALK Raja REddy and anotherNeelam Bikshapathi and anotherKONAPURAJU NAGARAJU AND ANOTHERMahender DurgamNARESH SAMINENIParanada Sri Hari and AnotherA. DORAI NAIDURAGULA YADAGIRI AND ANOTHERG RaveendraG. Gopal and anotherE.SURYACHANDAR RAOShabbir Mohammed and anotherMOHD.GOUSI PASHAKUMMARI KUMAR AND OTHERSMARUMALA KRISHNA VENI AND ANOTHERMR.CHAND SYED AND ANOTHERVALANDAS VEERESH GOUD AND ANOTHERS.SRINIVAS AND ANOTHERR.BHANU REKHA AND ANOTHERKUMMARI MALLESHAM AND ANOTHERsyed Khaleem and anotherMukkarla Dharmaiah and anotherRAMPRASAD REDDY BOMMAREDDYK Surender and anotherU.LAKSHMI NARAYANASURESH REDDYM.RAMA RAJU AND ANOTHERSiva Sankara Rao BM/s Surya Tej Polymers rand two othersHari Shankar Tyagi and anotherMAHESH KUMAR KARUNAM AND 2 OTHERSRENUKA AND ANOTHERKAVURU MURALI MOHAN AND ANOTHERKavali Krishnaiah and anotherMADDI SAIRAJ YADAVP.SHIVAJIEatahadi ravi and anotherSARVARAYA CHOWDARYRAJENDER CHOPPARIMALLESH CHITTAGORI AND ANOTHERSARVARAYA CHOWDARYRamreddygari Srinivas Reddy and anotherRAJESHWARI MATURI … Judgment Debtors

D O C K E T O R D E R DT. 22-04-2024

Petitioner/DHR Called absent. No representation made. Process not paid. EP is dismissed for default

Sd/-

II Additional District Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Medchal.