Smt G Premalatha

I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Suryapet

Suryapet, PDJ Court Complex · Suryapet · Telangana

Smt G Premalatha, I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Suryapet, is posted at Suryapet, PDJ Court Complex, Suryapet, Telangana, India. 173 court orders on record since 2022. 10 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles SC cases.

173

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

SC.POCSO/107/2019 Acquitted

STATE OF TELANGANA Kodad town vs Sheik Mastan

13 Apr 2023

Page 1 of 11

Sessions Case No. 107 of 2019

FAST TRACK COURT, Suryapet

IN THE COURT OF THE SPL.FAST TRACK COURT FOR DISPOSAL

OF RAPE AND POCSO ACT CASES, SURYAPET.

(DAETD, THIS, THE 13 th DAY OF APRIL, 2023)

PRESENT: SMT.G.PREMALATHA, I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE: FAC: SPL.SESSIONS JUDGE.

SESSIONS CASE No. 107 OF 2019

IN CRIME NO. 31 of 2019 (P.S. Kodad Town) Name of the Station Sub-Inspector of Police, Kodad Town. House Officer Names of the accused Shaik Masthan, S/o. Tajuddin, Age: 22 years, Occ: Auto driver, R/o. Chinna Masjid Bazaar, Nayanagar, Kodad town. Offences charged U/sec., 354 IPC and sec., 11 r/w 12 of POCSO Act-2012. Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the Judge Found not guilty.

Sentence or order Accused is found not guilty for the offences U/sec., 354 IPC and sec., 11 r/w 12 of POCSO Act-2012 and accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. Unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed, after expiry of appeal time. Whether the accused is Sri. Banala Vijay Kumar, Advocate. defended during trial? By whom?

N.B: Sri. K. Ram Reddy, Additional Public Prosecutor has conducted the prosecution case. :: J U D G M E N T ::

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kodad Town laid Charge sheet against the accused in Cr. No. 31 of 2019 for the offence punishable

U/sec., 354 IPC & Sec. 11 r/w 12 of POCSO Act-2012.

Page 2 of 11

Sessions Case No. 107 of 2019

FAST TRACK COURT, Suryapet

2.The case of the prosecution in brief is:

i.On 26.01.2019 at 17.00 hours complainant came to Kodad town Police station and lodged a complaint stating that some female students are studying in their college in various courses by residing in

Anurag Hostel, Nayanagar, Kodad town. On 26.01.2019 at 09.00 hours, their security guard namely Koti Reddy made phone call to him and informed that in the midnight of 25/26.01.2019 one unknown person (accused) criminally trespassed into their women hostel in room no. 5 by jumping the beside house wall, he laid beside one student i.e.,

Banothu Tejaswini and behaved with her in ugly manner and tried to outrage her modesty, all off a sudden, she woke up and made cries, on hearing the same one Aparna Sukanya, Sharanya, Divya Reddy, Harika

Reddy, Haritha and Sai Sri also wake up and made cries, on hearing the same the said unknown person fled away by leaving his cell phone. On that he rushed to the hostel and enquired about the incident and then he came to Police station and lodged a complaint to take legal action against concerned person.

ii.On receipt of the above complaint, L.W-18/S. Kranthi

Kumar, SI of Police, Kodad Town Police station registered the case in

Cr. No. 31/2019 for the offence U/Sec. 354 IPC & Sec. 11 r/w 12 of

POCSO Act-2012.

iii.During the course of investigation, LW-18 examined the complainant and watch man as LWs-1 and LW-2 at Police station and recorded their statements. Further LW-14 visited scene of offence situated at Anurag ladies hostel, Nayanagar, Kodad town and

Page 3 of 11

Sessions Case No. 107 of 2019

FAST TRACK COURT, Suryapet conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of panchas i.e., LWs-11 and 12 and drawn rough sketch. On requisition of LW-14,

LW-13/M. Esther Rani, Woman Sub-Inspector of Police, Huzurnagar examined and recorded the statement of the victim girl. Thereafter

LW-18 verified the CCTV footages which are erected in the Hostel and identified the accused as one Masthan and collected the same from hostel authorities.

iv.Subsequently LW-17/B. Srikanth Goud, Sub-Inspector of

Police, Kodad town took up further investigation of this case from LW- 18 as he is in training at Hyderabad and verified the investigation done by him and it found on proper lines. On 14.02.2019, LW-17 arrested the accused and sent him to judicial remand. After completion of the investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence

U/sec., 354 IPC and sec., 11 r/w 12 of POCSO Act-2012.

3. Basing on the charge sheet, this case was taken on file by the I

Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Nalgonda for the offences U/sec., 354

IPC and sec., 11 r/w 12 of POCSO Act-2012 against the accused and summons was issued to him. Thereafter, the case was made over to this court consequent to establishment of this court for disposal in accordance with law. On appearance of the accused before this court, he was supplied with the copies of relevant documents. Thereafter, the accused was examined under Section 228 (1) Cr.P.C charges for the offences U/sec., 354 IPC and sec., 11 r/w 12 of POCSO Act-2012 are framed against accused, read over and explained to him, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

Page 4 of 11

Sessions Case No. 107 of 2019

FAST TRACK COURT, Suryapet

4. During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 10 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.15 were marked.

5. After closing the prosecution side evidence, accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied the incriminating material available against him and reported no defence evidence.

6. Heard both sides.

7. Now the point for determination is:

i. “Whether the victim girl was below the age of 18 years as on the date of commission of alleged offence?”.

ii. “Whether the accused outraged the modesty of the victim girl by entering into the room of victim girl and committed the offence U/sec., 354 IPC.

iii. “Whether the accused has committed the offence U/sec., 11 r/w 12 of POCSO Act, 2012?”

8. In order to establish its case, the prosecution has examined

PWs.1 to 10. PW.1 is the complainant. PW-2 is the night watch man, who gave information of above said incident to PW-1. PW-3 is the victim girl. PWs-4, 5 and 9 are the eye witnesses to the incident. PW.6 is the witness for scene of offence panchanama. PW-7 is the Woman

Police Constable, who recorded the statements of LWs-3 to 10. PW-8 is the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kodad, who conducted Test identification Parade. PW-10 is the Investigating Officer.

9)Point no.1:

Now the initial burden is on the prosecution to prove that the victim girl was below the age of 18 years as on the date of commission of alleged offence.

Page 5 of 11

Sessions Case No. 107 of 2019

FAST TRACK COURT, Suryapet

Learned counsel for the accused submitted that as per the

Bonafide certificate of the victim girl which is marked as Ex.P15, it was issued on 15.06.2019, whereas charge sheet was filed on 29.04.2019 i.e., prior to the date of issuance of bonafide certificate. Hence the said certificate cannot be considered. Learned counsel for the accused also submitted that as per Ex.P1/ complaint also the age of the victim girl was 18 years old, hence she is not a minor and not below the age of 18 years as on the date of alleged offence. Learned Additional Public

Prosecutor argued that initially the charge sheet was returned for non of filling of age certificate to prove the age of the victim girl. Later charge sheet was re-submitted along with age certificate i.e., Ex.P15 /Bonafide certificate, hence the submission of the counsel need not be considered.

Ex.P15 was issued by Principal of Anurag college, Kodad, but the said principal was not cited as witness in the charge sheet and he was not examined by the prosecution. Except marking Ex.P15/Bonafide certificate issued by principal of Anurag college, Kodad the prosecution has not examined the concerned principal who issued the same, hence without examining the concerned principal the same cannot be considered. As per the version of the victim girl she is B-tech student and prosecution could not file her SCC certificate or birth certificate etc., to prove her age. Moreover the age of the victim girl in the complaint is mentioned as 18 years old, in her section 161 Cr.P.C.

statement also the age of the victim girl is mentioned as 18 years old and the remaining witnesses Sec., 161 Cr.P.C. statements also reveals

Page 6 of 11

Sessions Case No. 107 of 2019

FAST TRACK COURT, Suryapet the same. In the absence of the above document and oral evidence which is not in favour of the prosecution and prosecution has failed to prove the age of the victim girl as below 18 years old.

10) When the prosecution has failed to prove the age of the victim girl as below the 18 years the POCSO Act-2012 does not apply to this case and for the remaining offence the burden is on the prosecution, the prosecution has to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence U/sec., 354 IPC beyond reasonable doubt and the prosecution cannot take the advantage of the presumption provided under act and this case will be treated like other IPC cases.

11. POINT NO. 2:

To prove that the accused outraged the modesty of the victim girl, the evidence of the victim girl is crucial to the case. In her chief examination she stated that in the year 2019 when she was studying B-

Tech first year she staying in the ladies hostel and her room number was 5. On 25.01.2019 she slept in her room along LWs-4 to 10 in the midnight around 3.00 AM when she was asleep, accused came, slept beside her, laid his hand on her chest and tried to outrage her modesty. She woke up and raised an alarm whereupon. LWs-4 to 10 also woke up and raised hues and cries and they tried to catch him, but he escaped from the door, while he was running away, his mobile phone fell in their room.

12. PW-1, who is complainant of this case, stated that on the above date one unknown person trespassed into room no. 5 of hostel and tried to outrage the modesty of the victim girl by sleeping beside

Page 7 of 11

Sessions Case No. 107 of 2019

FAST TRACK COURT, Suryapet her. LWs-4 to 10 raised hue and cry, then he escaped by jumping over the gate. In the hurry, he forgot his mobile phone.

13. PW-2 who is watchman of Anurag Engineering College ladies hostel, Kodad he came to know that accused tried to molest a girl by holding her neck, whereas PW-4, who is LW-4 sleeping in the room of the victim girl stating that on the date alleged incident around 3.00 AM the accused slept beside PW-3 on her cot and tried to kiss her and when she raised hue and cry, the remaining seven roommates woke up, raised an alarm, on that the accused escaped from dining hall.

14. PW-5, who is cited as eye witness to the incident and roommate of the victim girl also in her chief examination stated that the accused kissed her and PW-9 stated that the accused tried to kiss her. All the above witnesses deposed in different lines and there is no corroboration between the evidence of the victim girl (PW-3) and the witnesses i.e., PWs-1, 2, 4, 5 and 9.

15. The above contradictory evidence of the witnesses is material contradiction, since all the witnesses have given different versions and there is no corroboration between the evidence of PWs-1 to 5 and 9.

Benefit of doubt goes in favour of the accused.

16. With regard to identification of the accused PW-3/victim girl stated that she identified in the Test Identification Parade. During cross examination she stated that on the date of alleged incident they went to bed around 12.00 midnight by switching off the lights. Since it was dark after switching of the lights, the visibility in the room is dull.

Page 8 of 11

Sessions Case No. 107 of 2019

FAST TRACK COURT, Suryapet

17. PW-4 who is cited as eye witness in her chief examination stated that in the morning hours, PWs-1, 2 and matron observed the CC

TV footage. PW-3(victim girl) also during her cross examination stated that CC camera of her hostel recorded the scene of accused and it was shown to her by the police. PW-4 also in her cross examination stated that CC TVs were fixed inside and outside of the hostel. She could not notice the accused when he was fled away from her room. She did not witness the accused trying to kiss PW-3, but she came to know the same through PW-3. PW-9 also stated that she saw the accused in CC camera.

18. PW-10 (Investigating Officer) in his chief examination stated that he verified the CC TV footage in the hostel and identified the accused. During his cross examination he replied that he did not file the footage of CC camera. PW-5, who is cited as eye witness also during her cross examination stated that she saw the accused in CC camera. PW-4, LWs-5 to 7 in their section 161 Cr.P.C. statement stated that the accused is fair complexion, whereas the accused, who is present in the court hall is in white complexion, hence the identity of the accused is also doubtful. Since the police also failed to file CC TV footage of the college.

19. Learned counsel for the accused submitted that the warden of the college is not examined, all the witnesses stated that they have informed to warden of the college initially, but police not examined the warden. Owner of the mobile is not examined and the Investigating

Page 9 of 11

Sessions Case No. 107 of 2019

FAST TRACK COURT, Suryapet

Officer is also in his chief examination admitted all these lacunas and thereby prayed the court to acquit the accused.

20. As per the version of the prosecution witnesses the accused left his mobile at the scene, but police have not seized the said mobile. During cross examination of the Investigating Officer (PW-10), he stated that he has not filed proof showing that the said phone belongs to accused. He replied that the said phone does not contain any SIM card. He did not examine the original owner of the mobile.

Hence, in view of the above lapses on the part of the investigation, the prosecution has failed to prove the identification of the accused.

Merely identified all the witnesses in the court hall and identification of the accused in Test Identification Parade is not useful, since complexion of the accused deposed by the witnesses is not matching with the complexion of the accused .

21. In view of the contradictory evidence of all the witnesses, which are material contradictions and since the identification of the accused is also doubtful as discussed above and non filing of CC TV footage also, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence U/sec., 354 IPC.

22. POINT NO.3:

Since the prosecution has failed to prove the age of the victim, the charge U/sec., 11 r/w 12 of POCSO Act does not survive. Hence, the POCSO Act is not applicable to this case, as such the offence

U/sec., 11 r/w 12 of POCSO Act is not established. In view of above

Page 10 of 11

Sessions Case No. 107 of 2019

FAST TRACK COURT, Suryapet discussion, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused and the accused is entitled for acquittal.

23. In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offences

U/sec., 354 IPC and sec., 11 r/w 12 of POCSO Act-2012 and accordingly he is acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. Unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed, after expiry of appeal time.

(Typed to dictation by Steno, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 13th day of April, 2023).

JUDGE, SPL.FAST TRACK COURT FOR

DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND POCSO ACT CASES,

SURYAPET.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION: PW-1 LW-1 Madhavaram Complainant Bhupathi Rao PW-2 LW-2 Ch. Koti Reddy Night watch man PW-3 LW-3 Banothu Tejaswini Victim PW-4 LW-4 G. Haritha Eye witness PW-5 LW-9 Nelapati Aparna Eye witness PW-6 LW-11 S.Seetharamulu Witness for scene of crime PW-7 LW-15 B. Jyothi, Examined LWs-3 to 10 PW-8 LW-16 B. Priyanka Addl. Judicial First Class

Magistrate, Kodad

PW-9 LW-6 S. Haranya Reddy Eye witness PW-10 LW-18 S. Kranthi Kumar Investigating Officer WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE: None : EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION: Ex.P1 Complaint Ex.P2 Scene of offence panchanama Ex.P3 Rough sketch Ex.P4 Proceedings of TI Parade Ex.P5 Statement of suspect Ex.P6 Statement of LW-5 Ex.P7 Statement of PW-5 Ex.P8 Statement of lW-7 Ex.P9 Statement of LW-8 Ex.P10 Statement of PW-9 Ex.P11 Statement of PW-3 Ex.P12 Statement of LW-10

Page 11 of 11

Sessions Case No. 107 of 2019

FAST TRACK COURT, Suryapet

Ex.P13 First Information Report Ex.P14 Confession panchanama of accused Ex.P15 Bonafide certificate of the victim girl

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE: -Nil- MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED: -NIL-

JUDGE, SPL.FAST TRACK COURT

FOR DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND POCSO ACT CASES,

SURYAPET.

SC.POCSO/107/2019 Acquitted

STATE OF TELANGANA Kodad town vs Sheik Mastan

13 Apr 2023

Page 1 of 11

Sessions Case No. 107 of 2019

FAST TRACK COURT, Suryapet

IN THE COURT OF THE SPL.FAST TRACK COURT FOR DISPOSAL

OF RAPE AND POCSO ACT CASES, SURYAPET.

(DAETD, THIS, THE 13 th DAY OF APRIL, 2023)

PRESENT: SMT.G.PREMALATHA, I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE: FAC: SPL.SESSIONS JUDGE.

SESSIONS CASE No. 107 OF 2019

Finding of the Judge Found not guilty.

N.B: Sri. K. Ram Reddy, Additional Public Prosecutor has conducted the prosecution case. :: J U D G M E N T ::

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kodad Town laid Charge sheet against the accused in Cr. No. 31 of 2019 for the offence punishable

U/sec., 354 IPC & Sec. 11 r/w 12 of POCSO Act-2012.

Page 2 of 11

Sessions Case No. 107 of 2019

FAST TRACK COURT, Suryapet

2.The case of the prosecution in brief is:

i.On 26.01.2019 at 17.00 hours complainant came to Kodad town Police station and lodged a complaint stating that some female students are studying in their college in various courses by residing in

ii.On receipt of the above complaint, L.W-18/S. Kranthi

Kumar, SI of Police, Kodad Town Police station registered the case in

Cr. No. 31/2019 for the offence U/Sec. 354 IPC & Sec. 11 r/w 12 of

POCSO Act-2012.

Page 3 of 11

Sessions Case No. 107 of 2019

FAST TRACK COURT, Suryapet conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of panchas i.e., LWs-11 and 12 and drawn rough sketch. On requisition of LW-14,

LW-13/M. Esther Rani, Woman Sub-Inspector of Police, Huzurnagar examined and recorded the statement of the victim girl. Thereafter

LW-18 verified the CCTV footages which are erected in the Hostel and identified the accused as one Masthan and collected the same from hostel authorities.

iv.Subsequently LW-17/B. Srikanth Goud, Sub-Inspector of

U/sec., 354 IPC and sec., 11 r/w 12 of POCSO Act-2012.

3. Basing on the charge sheet, this case was taken on file by the I

Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Nalgonda for the offences U/sec., 354

Page 4 of 11

Sessions Case No. 107 of 2019

FAST TRACK COURT, Suryapet

4. During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 10 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.15 were marked.

5. After closing the prosecution side evidence, accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied the incriminating material available against him and reported no defence evidence.

6. Heard both sides.

7. Now the point for determination is:

i. “Whether the victim girl was below the age of 18 years as on the date of commission of alleged offence?”.

ii. “Whether the accused outraged the modesty of the victim girl by entering into the room of victim girl and committed the offence U/sec., 354 IPC.

iii. “Whether the accused has committed the offence U/sec., 11 r/w 12 of POCSO Act, 2012?”

8. In order to establish its case, the prosecution has examined

Police Constable, who recorded the statements of LWs-3 to 10. PW-8 is the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kodad, who conducted Test identification Parade. PW-10 is the Investigating Officer.

9)Point no.1:

Now the initial burden is on the prosecution to prove that the victim girl was below the age of 18 years as on the date of commission of alleged offence.

Page 5 of 11

Sessions Case No. 107 of 2019

FAST TRACK COURT, Suryapet

Learned counsel for the accused submitted that as per the

statement also the age of the victim girl is mentioned as 18 years old and the remaining witnesses Sec., 161 Cr.P.C. statements also reveals

Page 6 of 11

Sessions Case No. 107 of 2019

11. POINT NO. 2:

12. PW-1, who is complainant of this case, stated that on the above date one unknown person trespassed into room no. 5 of hostel and tried to outrage the modesty of the victim girl by sleeping beside

Page 7 of 11

Sessions Case No. 107 of 2019

FAST TRACK COURT, Suryapet her. LWs-4 to 10 raised hue and cry, then he escaped by jumping over the gate. In the hurry, he forgot his mobile phone.

Benefit of doubt goes in favour of the accused.

Page 8 of 11

Sessions Case No. 107 of 2019

FAST TRACK COURT, Suryapet

17. PW-4 who is cited as eye witness in her chief examination stated that in the morning hours, PWs-1, 2 and matron observed the CC

Page 9 of 11

Sessions Case No. 107 of 2019

FAST TRACK COURT, Suryapet

Officer is also in his chief examination admitted all these lacunas and thereby prayed the court to acquit the accused.

Hence, in view of the above lapses on the part of the investigation, the prosecution has failed to prove the identification of the accused.

22. POINT NO.3:

Since the prosecution has failed to prove the age of the victim, the charge U/sec., 11 r/w 12 of POCSO Act does not survive. Hence, the POCSO Act is not applicable to this case, as such the offence

U/sec., 11 r/w 12 of POCSO Act is not established. In view of above

Page 10 of 11

Sessions Case No. 107 of 2019

FAST TRACK COURT, Suryapet discussion, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused and the accused is entitled for acquittal.

23. In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offences

(Typed to dictation by Steno, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 13th day of April, 2023).

JUDGE, SPL.FAST TRACK COURT FOR

DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND POCSO ACT CASES,

SURYAPET.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Magistrate, Kodad

Page 11 of 11

Sessions Case No. 107 of 2019

FAST TRACK COURT, Suryapet

Ex.P13 First Information Report Ex.P14 Confession panchanama of accused Ex.P15 Bonafide certificate of the victim girl

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE: -Nil- MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED: -NIL-

JUDGE, SPL.FAST TRACK COURT

FOR DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND POCSO ACT CASES,

SURYAPET.

SC.POCSO/6/2020 Acquitted

STATE OF TELANGANA, SURYAPET-II vs Mulkalapally Venkanna @ Venkatesh

12 Apr 2023

IN THE COURT OF THE SPL.FAST TRACK COURT FOR DISPOSAL OF

RAPE AND POCSO ACT CASES, SURYAPET.

(DATED, THIS, THE 12th DAY OF APRIL, 2023)

PRESENT: SMT. G.PREMALATHA,

I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE:

SESSIONS CASE No. 06 OF 2020

IN

CRIME NO. 63 of 2019

(P.S. Suryapet II Town)

Name of the Station Inspector of Police, Suryapet II Town. House Officer Names of the accused Mulkalapally Venkanna @ Venkatesh, S/o. Yellaiah, Age: 22 years, Occ: Car Driver, R/o. Athmakur (S) village and mandal. Offences charged Under Section 366, 344, 376 IPC and Sec. 4 and 6 of POCSO Act-2012. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the Judge : Found not guilty.

Sentence or order Accused is found not guilty for the offences under Sections 366, 344, 376 IPC and Sec. 4 and 6 of POCSO Act-2012 and accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. Unmarked case property if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. Whether the accused is : Sri. K. Dharmarjun, Advocate. defended during trial? By whom?

N.B: Sri K. Ram Reddy, Additional Public Prosecutor has conducted the prosecution case.

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

1. The Inspector of Police, Suryapet II Town P.S., laid Charge sheet against the accused in Cr. No. 63 of 2019 for the offences punishable under sections 366, 344, 376 IPC and Sec. 4 and 6 of POCSO Act-2012.

Page 2 of 7

Sessions Case No. 06 of 2020

FAST TRACK COURT, Suryapet 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is:

i).On 21.01.2021 at 09.20 hours the complainant-cum-father of victim girl came to Suryapet II Town Police station and lodged complaint stating that he had two daughters and one son. He performed marriages of his both daughters. His younger daughter, in connection 10th class exams she came to their house. On 03.04.2019 attended English exam in ZPHS,

Athmakur (S), she and her friends went to Suryapet for watching movie.

His mother accompanied them to Suryapet. At 02.30 pm, all of them went to Navya Theatre, tickets were completed. As such his daughter along with his daughter’s friend went to Alankar Theater by keeping remaining persons at Navya Theater by saying that they will see the tickets. There his daughter went to a kirana shop by keeping her daughter’s friend at

Alankar theatre and his daughter did not return back. His daughter’s friend0 informed the same to him. They searched for his daughter at the houses of his relatives and friends, but she was not traced. Finally he requested to trace out his daughter.

ii).On receipt of the above complaint, L.W-18/B. Bixapathi, Sub-

Inspector of Police, Suryapet II Town was registered a case in Cr.No.

63/2019 U/h Girl Missing and took up the investigation.

iii).During the course of investigation, LW-18 examined and recorded the statements of witnesses as LWs-1 to 3 at police station. On 15.06.2019 examined and recorded the statement of LW-4/friend of victim girl. In which she corroborated the statement of LWs-1 to 3 and in addition she stated that earlier one Mulakapally Venkanna/accused kidnapped the victim girl.

Page 3 of 7

Sessions Case No. 06 of 2020

FAST TRACK COURT, Suryapet iv).As per statement of LW-4, LW-18 altered the section of law from Girl missing to 363 IPC and conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of LWs-8 and 9 and drawn rough sketch.

v).On 21.06.2019, LW-18 visited the rented house of accused. By seeing the police, accused escaped from the place. Traced the victim girl and brought her to police station. On his requisition, LW-17/G. Vasavi

Datha, WSI of police, Suryapet recorded the statement of the victim girl.

In which the victim girl stated that about two years back, her villager/accused used to follow her on the name of love and promised her that he would marry her. At first she refused to love him. After some days she also fell in love with him. By knowing the same to her parents, they decided to perform her marriage with their caste person. In the month of

December-2018, he took her to Hyderabad. On that a case has been registered in Athamakur(S) police station against him. On 10.03.2019 her parents performed her marriage with one Umesh of Vemulapally village.

On 02.04.2019 he met her in their village and stated that he want to live with her and directed to come to Suryapet on 03.04.2019. As per his direction on 03.04.2019 after completion of exam she stated with her parents that she want to go to cinema at Suryapet along with her friends.

Her parents agreed and directed her grandmother along with her to

Suryapet. At about 02.30 pm, she along with her friends and her grandmother came to Navya theatre for matinee show. As per her plan she along with LW-5 went to Alankar theatre by keeping her grandmother and two other friends at Navya theatre. Keeping LW-5 at Alankar theatre she went to a kirana shop near Alankar theatre and made phone call and informed about her location. On that the accused came to her and both of them went to Alair. There he took two portion in the house of LW-7 on

Page 4 of 7

Sessions Case No. 06 of 2020

FAST TRACK COURT, Suryapet rent Rs.2000/- per month and in that house he participated in sexual intercourse with her several times.

vi).Basing on the contents of the victim girl, LW-18 added the section of law U/Sec. 343, 376 and Sec. 4 and 6 of POCSO Act-2012 to

U/Sec. 363 IPC. Later he sent the victim girl to Government General

Hospital, Suryapet for examination, where LW-14/Dr. B. Madhavi, CAS,

Govt. General Hospital, Suryapet examined the victim girl and collected vaginal smear slides and the same was forwarded to FSL, Hyderabad.

vii).Further LW-19/K. Shivashankar, Inspector of police, Suryapet town, took up the investigation. After during the course of investigation, he re-examined and re-recorded the statement of LWs-1 to 4.

viii).On his requisition, LW-6/Principal of Model School, Athmakur (S) village, issued date of birth certificate of the victim girl, as per the certificate the date of birth of the victim girl is 16.08.2004, as she is a minor. He visited second scene of offence situated at Alair village, where the accused wrongfully confined the victim girl in rented house. He conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of LWs-10 and 11 and drawn rough sketch and recorded the statement of house owner as

LW-7.

ix).On reliable information, on 25.06.2019 at 09.45 hours, LW-19 along with his staff rushed to RTC new bus stand, Suryapet, arrested the accused and interrogated him. He conducted confession-cum-seizure panchanama-cum-seizure panchanama in the presence of LWs-12 and 13 and seized LENOVA company mobile having Idea SIM and brought the accused to police station. Issued arrest memo against the accused. He sent the accused to Government General Hospital, Suryapet for potency test, where LW-15/Dr. S. Vijay Kumar, C.A.S., Government General

Page 5 of 7

Sessions Case No. 06 of 2020

FAST TRACK COURT, Suryapet

Hospital, Suryapet conducted potency test against the accused. After he sent the accused to judicial custody.

x).After collecting FSL report and all material documents and completion of investigation LW-19 filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence 366, 344, 376 IPC and Sec. 4 and 6 of POCSO Act-2012.

3.Basing on the charge sheet, this case was taken on file for the offence punishable under sections 366, 344, 376 IPC and Sec. 4 and 6 of

POCSO Act-2012 against the accused and summons were issued to him. On appearance of the accused before this court, he was supplied with the copies of relevant documents. Thereafter, the accused was examined under Section 228 (1) Cr.P.C. charges for the offences under Sections 366, 344, 376 IPC and Sec. 4 and 6 of POCSO Act-2012 are framed against accused, read over and explained to him, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.15 were marked.

5.After closing the prosecution side evidence, accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied the incriminating material available against him and reported no defence evidence.

6.Heard both sides.

7.Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the accused has committed the offence under Sections 366, 344, 376 IPC and Sec. 4 and 6 of POCSO Act-2012”?

Point:

8.In order to establish its case, the prosecution has examined

PWs.1 to 3. PW.1 is father of the victim girl. PW-2 is mother of the victim girl. PW-3 is victim girl. PW-4 is Investigating Officer.

Page 6 of 7

Sessions Case No. 06 of 2020

FAST TRACK COURT, Suryapet

9.P.Ws-1 and 2, who are parents of the victim girl deposed that they do not know anything about this case. Police did not examine and not recorded their statement and they were declared that as hostile by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor. During their cross examination, they denied all the suggestions put to them and nothing material is elicited in favour of the prosecution.

10.PW-3, who is the victim girl deposed that she does know the accused and she does not know anything about this case. Police did not examine and not recorded her statement and she was declared as hostile by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. During her cross-examination, she denied all the suggestions and nothing material is elicited in favour of the prosecution.

11.The material witnesses PWs.1 to 3, whose evidence is crucial to the case, did not support the case of prosecution in any manner and they completely turned hostile. In view of the above evidence, the sole testimony of PW.4/Investigation Officer is no way helpful to the case of prosecution to attribute the guilt to the accused, as such the accused are entitled for acquittal.

12.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offences under Sections 366, 344, 376 IPC and Sec. 4 and 6 of POCSO Act-2012and accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. Unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

(Typed to dictation by Steno, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 12th day of April, 2023).

JUDGE, SPL.FAST TRACK COURT FOR

DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND POCSO ACT

CASES, SURYAPET.

Page 7 of 7

Sessions Case No. 06 of 2020

FAST TRACK COURT, Suryapet

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION:

PW-1 LW-1 U. Lingamallu Complainant-cum father of victim girl PW-2 LW-3 U. Padama Mother of victim girl PW-3 LW-5 XXX Victim girl PW-4 LW-18 B. Bixapathi Investigating Officer

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE: None

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1 Signature of PW-1 on complaint Ex.P2 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-1 Ex.P3 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-2 Ex.P4 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-3 Ex.P5 Complaint Ex.P6 First Information Report Ex.P7 Section alteration memo Ex.P8 CDF-I Ex.P9 Rough Sketch-I Ex.P10 CDF-II Ex.P11 Rough Sketch-II Ex.P12 Confession-cum-seizure panchanama Ex.P13 Preliminary report along with final opinion Ex.P14 FSL report Ex.P15 Potency Certificate

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE: -NIL- MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED: -NIL-

JUDGE, SPL.FAST TRACK COURT FOR

DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND POCSO ACT

CASES, SURYAPET.

SC.POCSO/6/2020 Acquitted

STATE OF TELANGANA, SURYAPET-II vs Mulkalapally Venkanna @ Venkatesh

12 Apr 2023

IN THE COURT OF THE SPL.FAST TRACK COURT FOR DISPOSAL OF

RAPE AND POCSO ACT CASES, SURYAPET.

(DATED, THIS, THE 12th DAY OF APRIL, 2023)

PRESENT: SMT. G.PREMALATHA,

I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE:

SESSIONS CASE No. 06 OF 2020

IN

CRIME NO. 63 of 2019

(P.S. Suryapet II Town)

Finding of the Judge : Found not guilty.

N.B: Sri K. Ram Reddy, Additional Public Prosecutor has conducted the prosecution case.

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

Page 2 of 7

Sessions Case No. 06 of 2020

FAST TRACK COURT, Suryapet 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is:

Athmakur (S), she and her friends went to Suryapet for watching movie.

ii).On receipt of the above complaint, L.W-18/B. Bixapathi, Sub-

Inspector of Police, Suryapet II Town was registered a case in Cr.No.

63/2019 U/h Girl Missing and took up the investigation.

Page 3 of 7

Sessions Case No. 06 of 2020

Datha, WSI of police, Suryapet recorded the statement of the victim girl.

Her parents agreed and directed her grandmother along with her to

Page 4 of 7

Sessions Case No. 06 of 2020

FAST TRACK COURT, Suryapet rent Rs.2000/- per month and in that house he participated in sexual intercourse with her several times.

vi).Basing on the contents of the victim girl, LW-18 added the section of law U/Sec. 343, 376 and Sec. 4 and 6 of POCSO Act-2012 to

U/Sec. 363 IPC. Later he sent the victim girl to Government General

Hospital, Suryapet for examination, where LW-14/Dr. B. Madhavi, CAS,

Govt. General Hospital, Suryapet examined the victim girl and collected vaginal smear slides and the same was forwarded to FSL, Hyderabad.

LW-7.

Page 5 of 7

Sessions Case No. 06 of 2020

FAST TRACK COURT, Suryapet

Hospital, Suryapet conducted potency test against the accused. After he sent the accused to judicial custody.

3.Basing on the charge sheet, this case was taken on file for the offence punishable under sections 366, 344, 376 IPC and Sec. 4 and 6 of

4.During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.15 were marked.

5.After closing the prosecution side evidence, accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied the incriminating material available against him and reported no defence evidence.

6.Heard both sides.

7.Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the accused has committed the offence under Sections 366, 344, 376 IPC and Sec. 4 and 6 of POCSO Act-2012”?

Point:

8.In order to establish its case, the prosecution has examined

PWs.1 to 3. PW.1 is father of the victim girl. PW-2 is mother of the victim girl. PW-3 is victim girl. PW-4 is Investigating Officer.

Page 6 of 7

Sessions Case No. 06 of 2020

FAST TRACK COURT, Suryapet

(Typed to dictation by Steno, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 12th day of April, 2023).

JUDGE, SPL.FAST TRACK COURT FOR

DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND POCSO ACT

CASES, SURYAPET.

Page 7 of 7

Sessions Case No. 06 of 2020

FAST TRACK COURT, Suryapet

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION:

PW-1 LW-1 U. Lingamallu Complainant-cum father of victim girl PW-2 LW-3 U. Padama Mother of victim girl PW-3 LW-5 XXX Victim girl PW-4 LW-18 B. Bixapathi Investigating Officer

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE: None

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION:

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE: -NIL- MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED: -NIL-

JUDGE, SPL.FAST TRACK COURT FOR

DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND POCSO ACT

CASES, SURYAPET.

SC.POCSO/11/2017 Acquitted

State of Telangana vs Burra Gopala Krishna

12 Apr 2023

IN THE COURT OF THE SPL.FAST TRACK COURT FOR DISPOSAL OF

RAPE AND POCSO ACT CASES, SURYAPET

(DATED, THIS, THE 12th DAY OF APRIL, 2023)

PRESENT: SMT.G.PREMALATHA

I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE:

FAC: SPL.SESSIONS JUDGE

SESSIONS CASE No. 11 OF 2017

IN

CRIME NO. 184 of 2016

(P.S Nadigudem)

Name of the Station House : Sub-Inspector of Police, Nadigudem P.S. Officer Names of the accused : A1.Burra Gopala Krishna S/o. Ramulu, Age:19 years, Occ: Student R/O Vailasingaram village of Ananthagiri mandal.

A2.Burra Naresh S/o. Srinu , Age 19 yrs, Occ: student R/O Vailsingaram village of Ananthagiri mandal . Offences charged : Under Sections 354-D, 323, 506 IPC and Sec.11 r/w 12 of POCSO Act -2012. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the Judge : Found not guilty.

Sentence or order In the result, accused no. 1 is found not guilty for the offences U/sec., 354-D, 323, 506 IPC and sec., 11 r/w 12 of POCSO Act and accused No.2 is found not guilty for the offence U/sec., 323 r/w 34 IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. Unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. Whether the accused is : Sri. Banala Vijaya Kumar, Advocate defended during trial? By whom?

N.B: Sri K. Ram Reddy, Additional Public Prosecutor has conducted the prosecution case.

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Nadigudem P.S., laid Charge sheet against the accused in Cr. No. 184 of 2016 for the offences punishable

Page 2 of 6

Sessions Case No. 11 of 2017

FAST TRACK Court, Suryapet under sections 354-D, 323, 506 IPC and Sec.11 r/w 12 of POCSO Act - 2012.

2. The case of the prosecution nutshell that:

i).On 21.11.2016 at 18.30 hours, the de facto complainant- father of victim girl came to PS. Nadigudem and lodged a complaint stating his younger daughter is studying 9th class at ZPHS, Vailasingaram village. Since some time accused No.1 used to follow his daughter while she was going to school and returned to house and harassed her as she will love to him. On 19.11.2016, the victim girl informed the same to him and his wife, on that his nephew went to the accused No.1 on 20.11.2016 and asked him about the said matter, then the accused No.1 quarreled with him and after he along with accused No.2 went to the house of

Sathyanarayana/LW-2 at about 17.30 hours and both were beat to him with hands and accused No.1 is bit to Sathyanarayana right hand little finger with teeth. In the result, he have received blood injury on his right hand little finger. Hence the complaint requested to take legal action against the accused Nos.1 and 2.

ii).Basing on the above complaint, LW-14/V. Narayana Reddy,

Sub-Inspector of Police, Nadigudem Police station was registered a case in Cr. No. 184 of 2016 for the offence U/Sec. 354-D, 323, 506 r/w 34 IPC and Sec. 11 r/w 12 of POCSO Act-2012 and took up investigation.

iii).During the course of investigation, LW-14 examined the complaint as LW-1 and injured as LW-2 and recorded their statements.

Immediately he sent LW-2 to Government Hospital. Later he rushed to

Vailasingaram village and examined and recorded the statement of LWs- 4 to 7. He conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of

LWs-8 and 9 and drawn rough sketch.

Page 3 of 6

Sessions Case No. 11 of 2017

FAST TRACK Court, Suryapet iv).On his requisition, LW-13/Smt. M. Estheru Rani, WSI of

Police, Huzurnagar, examined and recorded the statement of victim girl as LW-3. On his requisition, LW-10/School Assistant in ZPHS,

Vailasingaram, issued study and conduct certificate of the victim girl.

v).On 25.11.2016, LW-14 arrested the accused Nos.1 and 2 and sent them to JFCM, Kodad for judicial remand. On 25.11.2016, LW- 11/Dr. S. Sanjay Kumar, Medical Officer, CHC, Nadigudem has issued medical certificate of LW-2. On 02.12.2016, LW-12/Sri. J. Srinivasarao,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Huzurnagar recorded the Sec. 164

Cr.P.C. statement of the victim girl.

vi).After collecting all material documents and completion of investigation LW-14 filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence 354-D, 323, 506 IPC and Sec.11 r/w 12 of POCSO Act -2012.

3.This case was taken on file by the I Additional District and

Sessions Judge, Nalgonda for the offences under sections 354, 323, 506

r/w 34 IPC and Sec.12 of POCSO Act -2012 against the accused Nos.1 and 2 and summons were issued to them. On appearance of the accused

Nos.1 and 2 before this court, they were supplied with the copies of relevant documents. Thereafter, the accused Nos.1 and 2 were examined under Section 228 (1) Cr.P.C. charges for the offences under 354, 323, 506 r/w 34 IPC and Sec.12 of POCSO Act -2012 are framed against accused Nos.1 and 2, read over and explained to them, for which the accused Nos.1 and 2 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution,

P.Ws.1 to 10 are examined, Ex.P1 to P.14 are marked.

5.After the prosecution side evidence was closed the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. for which they denied the incriminating material on record and reported no defence evidence.

Page 4 of 6

Sessions Case No. 11 of 2017

FAST TRACK Court, Suryapet

6.Heard both sides.

7.Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution proved the guilty of the accused Nos.1 and 2 beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence under Section 354-D, 323 r/w 34, 506 IPC and Sec.12 of POCSO Act -2012 against accused?”

8. Point:

In order to establish its case, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 10.

PW.1 is complaint-cum-father of victim. PW.2 is victim girl. PW.3 is injured and eye witness. PWs.4 to 6 are eye witnesses. PWs.7 and 8 are panch witnesses. PW.9 is investigating officer. PW.10 is medical officer.

9.P.W.1, who is the de facto complainant-cum-father of the victim girl deposed in his evidence that he knows both the accused. In 2016, PW.2 was studying 9th class in their village. Nobody molested and assaulted his daughter in the name of love. Police did not examine and not recorded his statement.

10.PW-2 /victim girl deposed in her evidence that she did not know both the accused. In the year 2016, she was studying 9th class in their village. Nobody molested and assaulted her in the name of love.

Police did not examine her and not recorded her statement.

11.PW-3, who is injured deposed in his evidence that on 19.11.2016 while the victim girl was going to school, A1 was teasing her and threatening her to love him. PW.1 revealed the same to him. On 20.11.2016 he questioned the accused No.1 for teasing the victim girl and A1 replied that he would kill PW.3. On the same day evening, while he was feeding grass to his cattle, both A1 and A2 came to his house and beat him with their hands on his head. A1 bite his right hand little finger due to which he lost his nail. On the following day he went to police station. Police examined him and recorded his statement.

Page 5 of 6

Sessions Case No. 11 of 2017

FAST TRACK Court, Suryapet

12.PWs-4 to 8, testified in their evidence that they do know both the accused Nos.1 and 2 and they do not know anything about this case. Police did not examine them and not recorded their statements.

13.PWs.1, 2, 4 and 5 to 8, who were declared as hostile by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor in their cross examination, they denied all the suggestions put to them and nothing material is elicited in favour of the prosecution.

14.The material witnesses PWs.1 to 3, whose evidence is crucial to the case, did not support the case of prosecution in any manner and they completely turned hostile. In view of the above evidence, the testimony of PWs.3/Injured, PW.9/Investigating Officer and

PW.10/Medical officer, without corroboration, is no way helpful to the case of prosecution to attribute the guilt to the accused, as such the accused are entitled for acquittal.

15. In the result, the accused No. 1 is found not guilty for the offences U/sec., 354-D, 323, 506 IPC and Sec., 11 r/w 12 of POCSO Act and accused No.2 is found not guilty for the offence U/sec., 323 r/w 34

IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. Unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

(Typed to my dictation by the stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 12 th day of April, 2023).

JUDGE, SPL.FAST TRACK COURT FOR

DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND POCSO ACT

CASES, SURYAPET.

Page 6 of 6

Sessions Case No. 11 of 2017

FAST TRACK Court, Suryapet

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION:

PW-1 LW-1 G. Pullaiah Complainant-cum-father of the victim girl PW-2 LW-3 XXXX Victim girl PW-3 LW-2 B. Sathyanarayana Injured and Eyewitness PW-4 LW-4 V. Aruna Eyewitness PW-5 LW-5 V. Savithri Eyewitness PW-6 LW-6 Ch. Maneesha Eyewitness PW-7 LW-8 G. Veerababu Panch witness PW-8 LW-9 G. Venkateswarlu Panch witness PW-9 LW-14 V. Narayana Reddy Investigating Officer PW-10 LW-11 Dr. S. Sanjay Kumar Medical Officer

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE:

None

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1 Signature of P.W.1 on complaint Ex.P2 161 Cr.P.C statement P.W.1 Ex.P3 161 Cr.P.C statement P.W.2 Ex.P4 161 Cr.P.C statement P.W.4 Ex.P5 161 Cr.P.C statement P.W.5 Ex.P6 161 Cr.P.C statement P.W.6 Ex.P7 Signature of PW.7 on scene of offence panchanama Ex.P8 Complaint Ex.P9 First Information Report Ex.P10 Panch for Scene Ex.P11 Rough Sketch Ex.P12 Bonafide certificate Ex.P13 Medical certificate Ex.P14 Injury certificate

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

-NIL-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

--NIL--

JUDGE, SPL.FAST TRACK COURT FOR

DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND POCSO ACT

CASES, SURYAPET.

Order Record 88 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
SC.POCSO/177/2020	SHO THUNGATHURTHY vs Mahankali Rajesh	20 Apr 2023	Judgement	Acquitted
SC.POCSO/104/2020	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Dasari Mahesh @ Abhi	18 Apr 2023	Judgement	Acquitted
SC.POCSO/107/2019	STATE OF TELANGANA Kodad town vs Sheik Mastan	13 Apr 2023	Judgement	Acquitted
SC.POCSO/6/2020	STATE OF TELANGANA, SURYAPET-II vs Mulkalapally Venkanna @ Venkatesh	12 Apr 2023	Judgement	Acquitted
SC.POCSO/11/2017	State of Telangana vs Burra Gopala Krishna	12 Apr 2023	Judgement	Acquitted
SC.POCSO/162/2019	Uppala Nagaraju vs Mulakalapally Venkanna	12 Apr 2023	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/153/2018	Rupavath Balu vs Bhukya Ravinder	10 Apr 2023	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/218/2020	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Bandari Sunil	10 Apr 2023	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/230/2020	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Erra Srikanth	31 Mar 2023	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/15/2018	D.supraja vs Kothapally Naresh	29 Mar 2023	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/106/2018	Puligilla Mallaiah vs Gullagattu Kranthi	29 Mar 2023	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/27/2019	Chappidi Ramesh@ Ramesh Babu vs Yerramalla Narismha	28 Mar 2023	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/144/2018	Ramishetty Dhanalaxmi vs Ithagani Gopi	28 Mar 2023	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/46/2019	Smt Bandi Rambai vs Chattu Kranthi	27 Mar 2023	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/109/2017	SHO SURYAPET TOWN vs Gandamalla Sandeep	27 Mar 2023	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/110/2018	Chinthala Nagamani vs Chinthalachervu Gopi	27 Mar 2023	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/216/2018	Bathini Renuka vs Koppera Gopi	27 Mar 2023	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/180/2018	Banothu Biksham vs Bhukya Seetharam	24 Mar 2023	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/166/2018	Gyara Jayamma vs Pidamarthi Prabhu	23 Mar 2023	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/230/2018	Medishetti Devi Priya vs Vanaparthy Rajashekar	23 Mar 2023	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/111/2020	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Venepally Nikhil	17 Mar 2023	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/111/2020	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Venepally Nikhil	16 Mar 2023	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/148/2018	Chirra Saidulu vs Vallapudasu Madhu	16 Mar 2023	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/173/2021	STATE OF TELANGANA SHO MATTAMPALLY vs Palle Sunil	16 Mar 2023	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/48/2020	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Lakavath Ramesh	15 Mar 2023	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/58/2022	STATE OF TELANGANA SHO KODAD TOWN vs Shaik Moulali	15 Mar 2023	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/178/2018	SHO Palakeedu vs Panasa Vijay	15 Mar 2023	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/148/2021	STATE OF TELANGANA SHO KODAD TOWN vs Bhukya Tarun	14 Mar 2023	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/35/2022	STATE OF TELANGANA SHO KODAD TOWN vs Gudepu Veerababu	02 Mar 2023	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/29/2018	I.Venkataramana vs Kandukuri saidulu	28 Feb 2023	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/215/2018	Narsingoju Vishwarupa Chary vs Mallikeswarapu Venkateswarlu	28 Feb 2023	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/13/2018	PS Mattapally vs Mandan Venugopal @ Gopal	21 Feb 2023	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/70/2020	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Giri Gopi	17 Feb 2023	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/43/2018	Cherukupally Divya vs Dharavath Gopi	14 Feb 2023	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/7/2021	SHO MATTAMPALLY vs Keesara Ramesh	08 Feb 2023	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/16/2018	SHO Neredcharla vs Pathuri Tirupathi Rao	06 Feb 2023	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/3/2016	SHO NEREDUCHARLA vs Malleboina Ramesh	19 Jan 2023	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/189/2019	Kodirekka Latha vs Thiragamalla Venkateshwar Rao @ Kondalu	19 Jan 2023	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/99/2019	Karnati Veeramma vs Jakkampudi Naveen	17 Jan 2023	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/116/2015	P.S.Nadigudem vs Mende Venkanna	07 Jan 2023	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/92/2020	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Bantu Gopi	30 Dec 2022	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/44/2018	The State of Telangana vs Sankarasetti Gopi	29 Dec 2022	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/26/2021	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Macha Mallesh @ Mallaiah	23 Dec 2022	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/122/2018	Kotha Sowmya vs Shaik Raheem	23 Dec 2022	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/205/2018	Kasthala Nageswar Rao vs Bachalakuri Harish	23 Dec 2022	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/6/2019	SHO KODAD TOWN vs Gopi reddi Saireddy	21 Dec 2022	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/39/2020	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Shaik Subhani	16 Dec 2022	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/51/2019	Neelakantham Manohar vs Kudumula Vinay	16 Dec 2022	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/114/2020	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Chinthakayala Jejelu	16 Dec 2022	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/139/2021	STATE OF TELANGANA SHO HUZURNAGAR vs Velpula Babu	16 Dec 2022	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/186/2020	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Garla Sunil	16 Dec 2022	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/27/2020	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Ande Venkatesh @ Venkateshwarlu	15 Dec 2022	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/89/2019	Gundagani Narayana vs Kasarla sandeep	15 Dec 2022	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/138/2018	Thatikonda Narayanamma vs Mudusu Mahesh @ Lazar	15 Dec 2022	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/142/2018	Narikadapa Gopal vs Pallerla Masthyagiri @ Machagiri	15 Dec 2022	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/226/2018	Vanam Shekhar vs BOddu Nagarjuna	14 Dec 2022	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/238/2020	STATE OF TELANAGANA vs Gade Mahesh	08 Dec 2022	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/69/2019	Thanneeru Swathi vs Katakam Narsimha Swamy@Swamy	31 Oct 2022	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/96/2019	BAnothu Ramya vs Akula Arvaiah	12 Oct 2022	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/97/2020	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Pallepangu Ranjith	28 Sep 2022	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/217/2020	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Barpati Laxmaiah	27 Sep 2022	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/88/2021	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Peddi Gopi	23 Sep 2022	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/178/2016	Shaik Gousya vs Pamoju Surendera Chary	16 Sep 2022	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/131/2021	STATE OF TELANGANA SHO CHILKUR vs Vskumma durgarao	01 Sep 2022	Order	—
SC.POCSO/61/2022	STATE OF TELANGANA SURYAPET RURAL vs Balemla Malliswamy	30 Aug 2022	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/24/2022	STATE OF TELANGANA SHO KODAD TOWN vs Thuraka Sreenivas	29 Aug 2022	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/40/2019	Bhookya Nikitha vs Bhokya Kotesh	29 Aug 2022	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/210/2019	Thupakula Niranja Reddy vs Ragam Nagaraju	29 Aug 2022	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/155/2021	STATE OF TELANGANA SHO KODAD TOWN vs Donthagani Nagaraju	16 Aug 2022	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/171/2017	Gundepangu Rajyam vs Vinakallu @ Enakollu Sai Kumar	29 Jul 2022	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/218/2019	The State of Telangana, vs Perumandla Vinay	29 Jul 2022	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/25/2021	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Gandamalla Anil	28 Jul 2022	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/56/2019	Malothu Latha vs Bhukya Ramesh	28 Jul 2022	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/117/2020	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Narala Harish @ Chinni	28 Jul 2022	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/155/2019	SHO PS SURYAPET II TOWN vs Orsu Kalyan	27 Jul 2022	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/227/2018	Uyyala Shirisha vs Ganta Somanadham	27 Jul 2022	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/240/2018	Somagani Gopaiah vs Pithani Sai Kiran	27 Jul 2022	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/120/2017	The State of Telangana vs Maddela Gopi	26 Jul 2022	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/147/2017	The State of Telangana vs Sampangi Naresh	26 Jul 2022	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/223/2018	Nannepangu Ankitha vs Lakkapaka Narender	22 Jul 2022	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/110/2021	STATE OF TELANGANA SHO GARIDEPALLY vs Banothu Sai	18 Jul 2022	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/29/2017	Lunavath Sandhya vs Golli Prasanna Kumar	15 Jul 2022	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/30/2018	The State of Telangana vs Karingula venu	12 Jul 2022	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/221/2019	THe State of Telangana, vs Shaik Rafi	29 Jun 2022	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/94/2019	Shaikm Meerabhee vs Shaik Rafi	28 Jun 2022	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/20/2019	Bora Venkatamma vs Dhanda Sathish	23 Jun 2022	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/210/2017	B.LINGAMMA vs NAGIRE NAGARAJU	20 Jun 2022	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/222/2018	Malavath Kumar vs Malavath Kumar	13 Jun 2022	Judgement	—

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Apr 2023		16
Mar 2023		42
Feb 2023		14
Jan 2023		8
Dec 2022		34
Oct 2022		4
Sep 2022		10
Aug 2022		10
Jul 2022		28
Jun 2022		7

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Smt G Premalatha handled?

Smt G Premalatha has handled 173 court orders since 2022 at Suryapet, PDJ Court Complex. The average disposal rate is 16 orders per month.

What types of cases does Smt G Premalatha hear?

Based on available records, Smt G Premalatha primarily handles Criminal matters (Sessions Cases) at Suryapet, PDJ Court Complex.

Where is Smt G Premalatha currently posted?

Smt G Premalatha is posted as I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Suryapet at Suryapet, PDJ Court Complex, Suryapet, Telangana.

Are judgments by Smt G Premalatha available online?

Yes. 10 judgments by Smt G Premalatha are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Smt G Premalatha dispose cases?

Smt G Premalatha disposes approximately 16 cases per month, based on 173 orders handled over their tenure at Suryapet, PDJ Court Complex.

Since when is Smt G Premalatha serving?

Smt G Premalatha has been serving at Suryapet, PDJ Court Complex since 2022.

Case Types

SC 100%

Posting History

Jun 2022 — Apr 2023

I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Suryapet · 85 orders
Jun 2022 — Jun 2022

I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Suryapet
Jun 2022 — Apr 2023

Fast Track Special Court for expeditious Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases, Suryapet · 88 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 10

Other Judges at this Court

Smt. P.lakshmi Sarada

Prl District and Sessions Judge-cum-Chairman, LRAT...

394 orders

P.siva Rama Prasad

Fast Track Special Court for expeditious Trial and...

1 orders

Smt. Rajitha Gopu

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Suryapet

636 orders

N.Apurva Ravali

I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Suryapet

93 orders

Ms. Manchala Mamatha

II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Suryapet

67 orders

Farheen Kouser

Senior Civil Judge, Suryapet

374 orders

← View all judges at Suryapet, PDJ Court Complex