Sri G.Venkateswarlu

APKR240000772024

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR SPEEDY TRIAL OF

OFFENCES UNDER THE PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM

SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT, 2012, KRISHNA AT MACHILIPATNAM

Present: Sri G. Venkateswarlu,

Spl. Judge for Speedy Trial of Offences

under the POCSO Act, 2012,

Krishna, Machilipatnam.

Wednesday this the 29th day of April, 2026

Spl.S.C.No.27/2024

(Cr.No.218/2023 of Kuchipudi Police Station)

Name of the Complainant: The State, Rep. by the Sub Divisional Police Officer, Gudivada.

Name of the accused: Kolusu Vijayachandra @ Nani, S/o.Srinivas, age 32 years, Caste:Yadava, D.No.6-85, Karakampadu Village H/o.Ayyanki Village, Movva Mandal, Krishna District.

Nature of Offences: Under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC and Sec.6 of POCSO Act, 2012 against the accused.

Plea of the accused: Pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the Judge: Accused is found not guilty.

Sentence or order: In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the charges punishable under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC and Secs.5(j)(ii)(l) r/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012. Hence, he is acquitted U/s.235 (1) of Cr.P.C for the said charges. His bail bonds shall stand canceled after expiry of six months period as per section 437-A of 2 APKR240000772024

Cr.P.C. The unmarked non-valuable property i.e. the cloths of accused viz., (1) Full hands shirt, and (2) Cotton Lungi and the cloth of victim girl viz., cotton nighty, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Prosecution Conducted by: Sri M.V.Narasimha Rao, Special Public Prosecutor, Special Judge for Speedy Trial of Offences under the POCSO Act, 2012, Krishna, Machilipatnam.

Name of the Defence : Sri K.N.Anjaneyulu Counsel

This Spl. Sessions Case coming on 17.04.2026 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri M.V.Narasimha Rao, Special Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri K.N.Anjaneyulu, Advocate for accused and having stood over to this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The State, represented by the Sub Divisional Police Officer,

Gudivada, laid the charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.218/2023 of Kuchipudi Police Station for the offences punishable U/s.376(2)(n) of

Indian Penal Code (for short IPC) and Sec.6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short POCSO Act, 2012) against the accused.

Case of the Prosecution:

2)The case of the prosecution in brief is that PW1 is the victim girl.

PWs.2 and 3 are her parents. When the victim girl was six years old, her mother/PW2 suffered from ill-health. On that the elder sister of

PW2 i.e. LW.4, took the victim girl to their house situated in

Chinamuthevi village. The victim girl now is aged about 17 years and studying Intermediate II year. LW.4 is blessed with two daughters and their marriages were performed. The accused is 2nd son-in-law of LW.4 3 APKR240000772024 and he used to visit the house of LW.4 and talk with the victim girl. He developed intimacy with the victim girl by saying deceitful words that he loves her and she is very beautiful.

3)In the month of February, 2023, at about 08:00 a.m., in the absence of inmates in the house of LW.4 and when the victim girl was alone present in the house, the accused came to their house, caught hold her hand, pushed her onto the cot and had sex with her forcibly without her will and consent. Likewise, the accused used to visit the house of victim girl in the absence of inmates and had sex with her forcibly several times.

4)While the matter stood thus, on 05.12.2023, at about 05:00 a.m., the victim girl suffered from Epilepsy. On that she was shifted to a RMP doctor by car. Later, she was shifted to Ravi Neuro Hospital,

Vijayawada and admitted in the hospital, for treatment. Having come to know about the same, the parents of the victim girl rushed to the hospital. While giving treatment to the victim girl, the doctor observed the water formation in her body and referred her to a lady doctor. After examination, the doctor informed to the parents of the victim girl that the victim girl was 8 months pregnant. The victim girl was discharged from the hospital on 07.12.2023 and the parents of the victim girl were advised to take her to the Government Hospital. On enquiry, the victim girl revealed the facts to her parents.

5)Again on the night of 07.12.2023, the victim girl suffered from

Epilepsy. On that initially she was shifted to New Government Hospital,

Vijayawada and later to Old Government Hospital, Vijayawada. While undergoing treatment in Old Government Hospital, she gave birth to a female baby. LW.15/WHC, SHO, OPPS recorded the statement of PW2 4 APKR240000772024 as the victim girl was unable to give her statement. LW.15 forwarded the same to SHO, Kuchipudi P.S. on the point of jurisdiction.

6)Basing on the victim hospital intimation and statement of PW2/the defacto-complainant, LW.17/S.I. of Police registered a case in Crime

No.218/2023 under Secs.376(2)(n) of IPC, Sec.6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and issued FIR. He submitted the original FIR to the Court and copies thereof to the officers concerned. Thereafter, PW4/SDPO, Gudivada took up investigation in this case. During the course of investigation, he got recorded the statement of the victim girl through LW.16/WSI of

Police. He examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. He arrested the accused on 10.12.2023 and got recorded his confession statement and seized cloths of accused under the cover of mediators report and sent him for judicial remand. After completion investigation, he filed charge sheet.

7)The cognizance of offences was taken U/s.376(2)(n) of IPC and

Secs.5(j)(ii), (l) r/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 against the accused.

8)On receipt of summons, the accused made his appearance through his counsel. Copies of documents relied upon by the prosecution were furnished to him in compliance of Sec.207 Cr.P.C. The accused was examined under section 228 Cr.P.C, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. After hearing both sides, charges punishable under section 376(2)(n) of IPC and Secs.5(j)(ii)(l) r/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 were framed against accused. The contents of the charges were read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

9)To prove its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.16.

5 APKR240000772024

10)After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C. with regard to incriminating material in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, read-over and explained to him in

Telugu for which he denied. When the accused was called upon to enter his defence, he reported no defence evidence.

11)Now the points for determination are; (1)Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of accused for the charges punishable under section 376(2)(n) of IPC and Secs.5(j)(ii)(l) r/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 beyond reasonable doubt?

(2)To what relief?

12)Heard the arguments of the learned Special Public Prosecutor and learned defence counsel. Perused the material record.

Point No.1: Appreciation of Evidence:

13)In this case, PW1/the victim girl, PW2/the defacto-complainant and mother of victim girl and PW3/the father of victim girl did not support the case of the prosecution. The evidence of PW1 is that she was brought up by LW.4 since her childhood till 2023. Some differences arose in between the accused and his wife. On that her parents, she and LW.4 went to the police station and reported the matter. The police obtained the signature of PW2 on a white paper. Thereafter, the WSI of

Police came to their (PW1) home and obtained her signature and the signature of LW.4 on a white paper. Ex.P.1 is her signature on the statement recorded by the WSI of Police. Thereafter, they were taken to the Court in Movva and there she and her parents gave statement to the Magistrate at the instance of the police. At that time, she was 6 APKR240000772024 studying Intermediate II Year and now she is studying Degree II Year.

She has been suffering from Epilepsy.

14)The evidence of PW2/the mother of victim girl is also on the same lines as that of her daughter/PW1. She further deposes that the police obtained her signature on a white paper. Ex.P.3 is her signature on the statement recorded by police. Thereafter the WSI came to their (PW2) home and obtained the signature of PW1 and the signature of

LW.4 on a white paper. Thereafter, they were taken to the Court in

Movva and there she, PWs.1 and 3 gave statements to the Magistrate at the instance of police.

15)The evidence of PW3/the father of the victim girl is also on the same lines as that of his daughter/PW1 and wife/PW2.

16)PWs.1 to 3 with one voice said that the police did not examine them in this case. The learned Special Public Prosecutor cross- examined PWs.1 to 3 by taking permission from the court as they turned hostile to the prosecution case, but nothing useful was elicited in their cross-examination to support the case of the prosecution except marking Exs.P.2, P.4 and P.5 their previous section 161 Cr.P.C., statements respectively. The learned Spl. Public Prosecutor could not elicit anything in favour of the prosecution by cross-examining PWs.1 to

3. The previous statements of PWs.1 to 3 marked under Exs.P.2, P.4 and P.5 cannot be used to corroborate the prosecution case as they are useful to contradict the witnesses. Therefore, mere marking of previous statements recorded U/s.161 Cr.P.C is not sufficient to rope the accused with the offence. Whatever elicited in the cross-examination confronting previous statements of PWs.1 to 3 is of no avail to the case of the 7 APKR240000772024 prosecution. PWs.1 to 3 denied the suggestions given by the learned

Special Public Prosecutor as to the case of the prosecution.

17)The evidence of PW3, who was S.D.P.O., Gudivada and the investigating officer in this case is that on 08.12.2023, LW.17 phoned and informed him that he received hospital intimation from the old

Government General Hospital, Vijayawada along with statement of

PW2. On his instructions, LW.17 registered the above statement as a case in Cr.No.218/2023 under Secs.376(2)(n) of IPC and Sec.6 of

POCSO Act, 2012 and issued FIR. Ex.P.6 is the statement of PW2.

Ex.P.7 is the FIR. LW.17 submitted the original FIR to the Court and copies thereof to the officers concerned. He visited Kuchipudi Police

Station and received the copy of FIR and perused the same. On verification it was found that on 08.12.2023 at about 1:54 A.M., PW1 got admitted in old Government General Hospital, Vijayawada and the

Medical Officer who treated her, identified Teenage Pregnancy. On that the Medical Officer sent hospital intimation to the SHO, OPPS, old

GGH, Vijayawada. Thereupon LW.15/WHC recorded the statement of

PW2 and forwarded the same to SHO, Kuchipudi P.S. on the point of jurisdiction.

18)PW4 deposes that on 09.12.2023, he along with LW.16/WSI visited old GGH, Vijayawada and as per his instructions, LW.16 examined PW1 and recorded her statement under Ex.P.2 under the cover of videography and handed over the same to him for further investigation. He examined PW2 and recorded her statement. At the time of recording statement, she handed over one nighty belongs to

PW1 which was worn by her at the time of commission of offence and the same was seized under the cover of police proceedings. He 8 APKR240000772024 examined PW3 and LW.4 and recorded their statements. He visited the scene of offence situated at China Muthevi Village in the presence of mediators/LWs.9 and 10, inspected the scene of offence. The scene of offence is situated in the house of LW.4. He drew rough sketch of the scene of offence under Ex.P.8. He also took photos (6 in number) of the scene of offence under Ex.P.9. He observed the scene of offence and got drafted crime scene observation report under Ex.P.10 and found no incriminating material. On his requisition, LW.11/Head Master

Z.P.High School issued Study certificate of PW1/victim Girl under

Ex.P.11. As per Ex.P.11, her date of birth is 07.05.2007.

19)PW4 further deposes that on 10.12.2023, he received information from LW.17 about apprehension of accused. He visited

Kuchipudi P.S., interrogated the accused in the presence of mediators/LWs.9 and 10 and got recorded confession statement of accused. He seized the cloths of the accused worn at the time of commission of offence by providing another dress to him. He arrested the accused. He sent the accused for medical examination and later sent him for judicial remand. On 03.01.2024, he received wound certificate of accused from LW.13 under Ex.P.12. He forwarded the

M.Os preserved by the Medical Officers and cloths of the victim girl to the RFSL, Vijayawada. On his requisition, JMFC, Avanigadda recorded the statements of PWs.1 to 3 under Sec.164 Cr.P.C. Later, as per the order of this Court, the victim, her daughter and accused were sent to

DNA test. He received RFSL report under Ex.P.13. He received medico legal examination report of the victim girl from LW.12 under

Ex.P.14. As per Ex.P.14, LW.12 opined that "victim by name Bhargavi delivered a line Female child of weight 1.7 Kg., on 09.12.2023. Baby is in NIC4 in V/U preterm and they were not willing to take the baby and they were willing to give to ICDS. Patient was discharged on 9 APKR240000772024 27.01.2024. Later he received final opinion of the accused from LW.13 under Ex.P.15 and LW.13 opined that “the above sent samples are of human origin and he may be potent”. He also received DNA report from

LW.14 under Ex.P.16. LW.14 opined that "the Autosomal STR analysis conclusively proves that Kolusu Vijayachandra @ Nani (source of item no.3) i.e. the accused, is the biological father of Female child of Maganti

Bhargavi (source of item no.2) and whose biological mother is Maganti

Bhargavi (source of item no.1). After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet. PWs.2 and 3 stated before him as in Exs.P.4 and P.5

Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statements respectively. In his cross-examination, he denied the suggestions given by the learned defence Counsel as to the case of the accused.

20)The learned Special Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of LW.4/Arepu Srilakshmi, LW.5/Yara Prabhakara Rao,

LW.6/Jogi Venkaiah, LW.7/Yara Satyavati, LW.8/Jogi Srirama Murthy,

LW.9/Shaik Raheemunnissa, LW.10/Tumuluri Prabhakara Rao,

LW.11/Vakkalagadda Som Prasad, LW.12/Dr.Ch.Ganga Devi,

LW.13/Dr.N.Lara, LW.14/Sri G.Reena Susan, LW.15/Smt R.Sujatha,

LW.16/Smt P.Naga Kalyani, LW.17/Sri D.Sandeep, S.I. of Police, submitting that no purpose will be served even if they are examined, except wasting the precious time of the court. The learned Special

Public Prosecutor would argue that after filing this case the parties entered into compromise out of the court and that’s why the material witnesses turned hostile to the case of prosecution. But, as per the DNA report, the accused is the biological father of the female child of the victim girl. So, the case may be decided on merits. The learned defence Counsel would argue that the material witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution. The only witness who supported the case of the prosecution is PW4 the investigating officer. Basing on 10 APKR240000772024 the evidence of PW4 and the DNA report, the accused cannot be convicted. So, the accused may be acquitted for the said charges.

21)The learned defence counsel in support of his contention, placed reliance on the Judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court and other

Hon’ble High Courts referred to herein. The Hon’ble Madras High Court

in Crl.A.No.641/2021 in Krishnaraj @ Thangaraj Vs. State rep. By

Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Tirupattur District,

held that:

“13. Therefore, in the absence of any other evidence, we cannot sustain the conviction on the basis of the DNA test reports alone, especially in view of the infirmities that we have pointed out as regards the collection, packing and preservation of the blood samples.”

22) The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Crl.A.No.306/2016 in

Suresh Devidas Malche Vs. The State of Maharashtra, held that:

“7. Positive DNA report can be of great significance, where there is supporting evidence, depending of course on the strength and quality of that evidence, even if it is positive, it cannot conclusively fix the identity of the miscreant, but, if the report is negative, it would conclusively exonerate the accused from the involvement of charge. The science of DNA is at a developing stage and when the Random Occurrence Ratio is not available for Indian Society, it would be risky to act solely on a positive DNA report, because only if the DNA profile of the accused matches with the foetus, it cannot be considered as a conclusive proof of paternity. Contrarily, if it is solitary piece of evidence with negative result, it would conclusively exclude the possibility of involvement of the accused in the offence. The positive DNA report cannot be therefore accepted by the trial Court in isolation, i.e. as sole piece of evidence to record the conviction of 11 APKR240000772024 accused under Sections 376, 366 of Indian Penal Code.” “10. We have considered the ocular evidence as well as the scientific evidence. As regards the ocular evidence is concerned, at the cost of repetition, we would like to say that P.W.4 and P.W.5 are not trustworthy as they have changed their statements in the cross. When the ocular evidence was not supporting, conviction ought not to have been based only on the DNA test report i.e. medical report. Therefore, the finding and conclusion in the judgment by the learned Trial Court is perverse and not based on the legal principles. Therefore, it deserves to be set aside. The appeal deserves to be allowed.”

23)The Hon’ble Chattisgarh in CRA.No.1790/2019 in Vijan Mandal

Vs. State of Chhattisgarh held that:

“38. On the basis of the above evidence analysis, we find that the trial court, after the victim (PW-1) and her family members turned hostile, convicted the appellants on the basis of the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of CrPC and the DNA test report, due to which, the prosecution case against the appellants is not found to be proved beyond doubt and there is lack of clear, sufficient and reliable evidence for conviction. In such a situation, the judgment in question is not found to be sustainable.

39. Accordingly, the three appeals are allowed. The impugned judgment is hereby set aside and the appellants are acquitted of the charges levelled against them.”

24)The learned defence counsel also placed reliance on some other judgments i.e. the Judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in

Crl.A.No.1252/2011 in Krishan Kumar Malik Vs. State of Haryana,

12 APKR240000772024

Crl.A.No.1149/2008 in Rajesh Patel Vs. State of Jharkhand, and the

Judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court inCrl.Appeal

No.100570/2022 (A) in State of Karnataka Vs. Sri Nagesh. The said judgments are not referred to herein as they are not applicable to the facts of the case on hand.

25)By way of amendment to Cr.P.C. 2005, Section 53A was introduced which enables DNA profiling in the code and authorized with the help of medical practitioner, the collection of DNA from the body of the accused and the victims for investigation. It is also settled law that

DNA has been majorly used for finding the parentage of the child in both the civil and criminal cases. It is used for the presumption provision under Sec.112 of Indian Evidence Act. It is the court which decides whether the DNA evidence is accurate and proper. The discretionary power in the Court is because there is no specific regulation or guidelines regarding admissibility of DNA as evidence. The

DNA tests are not to answer the ultimate question, but to answer or articulate a particular fact to smoothen the investigation. DNA tests might answer the fact that rape occurred or not and might also help in the identification of the perpetrator, but is not the sole decider based on which judgment can be announced. The DNA is one of the important tools to identify whether the accused has or has not committed the particular crime. The significance and reliability of DNA are because of its unique character.

26)The Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan in S.B.Criminal Leave to

Appeal No.667 of 2024 in State of Rajasthan, Vs. Shyam Kumar, held that:

“13.Similarly, in the case of Bhagwan Bairwa Vs. State of Rajasthan while deciding D.B.Criminal Appeal No.357/2022 13 APKR240000772024

dated 02.02.2023, the Division Bench of this Court has held

in Para No.11 as under:-

11. Apart from this, a DNA report is merely an opinion of the expert and evidentiary value of the DNA is only corroborative. On the basis of such a corroborate piece of evidence, no conviction can be recorded in absence of substantial evidence particularly when the prosecutrix and her family members have not supported the prosecution case. The medical expert also did not find any sign of sexual assault on the person of the prosecutrix. It may also be noted that DNA is a developing science and the chance of human error in the results cannot be ruled out. Thus, conviction solely based upon DNA report is not safe. We fortify our view from the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Manoj and Ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh MANU/SC/0711/2022”

27)The Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh in Sanjeev Kumar

Vs. State of H.P., held that:- “DNA report cannot be considered as a conclusive proof of guilt of accused.” “52. Like all other opinion evidence, the probative value accorded to DNA evidence also varies from case to case, depending on facts and circumstances and the weight accorded to other evidence on record, whether contrary or corroborative. This is all the more important to remember, given that even though the accuracy of DNA evidence may be increasing with the advancement of science and technology with every passing day, thereby making it more and more reliable, we have not yet reached a juncture where it may be said to be infallible. Thus, it cannot be said that the absence of DNA evidence would lead to an adverse inference against a party, especially in the presence of other cogent and reliable evidence on record in favour of such party”.

14 APKR240000772024

28)In Premjibhai Bachubhai Khasiya V/s. State of Gujarat and

Anr. (2009 Cri. L. J. 2888), held that:

“Evidence Act (1 of 1872) Ss.3, 45 DNA report Positive report can be of great significance where there is supporting evidence. However, such report cannot be accepted in isolation i.e. as sole piece of evidence to record conviction in rape case. ”

29)In Ranjitsingh Brahmajeetsingh Sharma Vs. State of

Maharashtra and another (2005) 5 SCC 294, it was held that:

"24. It is thus clear that positive DNA report can be of great significance, where there is supporting evidence, depending of course on the strength and quality of that evidence. If the DNA report is the sole piece of evidence, even if it is positive, it cannot conclusively fix the identity of the miscreant, but, if the report is negative, it would conclusively exonerate the accused from the involvement or charge.

25. The science of DNA is at a developing stage and when the Random Occurrence Ratio is not available for Indian Society, it would be risky to act solely on a positive DNA report, because only if the DNA profile of the accused matches with the foetus, it cannot be considered as a conclusive proof of paternity. Contrarily, if it is solitary piece of evidence with negative result, it would conclusively exclude the possibility of involvement of the accused in the offence.

26. The DNA Science and Report is founded on probability theory. When the profiles of accused and foetus/child are consistent, it only shows a probability as per Random Occurrence Ratio. Obviously, it cannot be treated as conclusive proof and cannot be made use of as sole basis of conviction in a criminal case, more so when the Random Occurrence Ratio is not available of Indian Society." 15 APKR240000772024 30)The Hon’ble Apex Court in a decision reported in AIR 2003

SUPREME COURT 3609 in State of Punjab Vs. Karnail Singh, held that:

“The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. The paramount consideration of the court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented. A. miscarriage of justice which may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent”.

31)As seen from the record, it is obvious that after filing this case the parties entered into compromise and that’s why the material witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution. As per the judgment of

Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in Bhagwan Bairwa Vs. State of

Rajasthan referred above, a DNA report is merely an opinion of the expert and evidentiary value of the DNA is only corroborative. On the basis of such a corroborate piece of evidence, no conviction can be recorded in absence of substantial evidence particularly when the prosecutrix and her family members have not supported the prosecution case.

32)Further, the prosecution has not examined LW.14/the Scientific

Officer, who conducted DNA examination to the accused, victim girl and and female child and issued DNA report. As stated supra, the learned

Spl. P.P. has given up LW.14 and the medical officers along with other witnesses. When the matter was compromised out of the court and the material witnesses i.e. PWs.1 to 3 the defacto-complainant and her 16 APKR240000772024 parents did not support the case of the prosecution, basing on the evidence of PW4/the investigating officer, the accused cannot be convicted and it is difficult to record the conviction for the said charges.

On over all consideration of entire material on record and in view of the above said Judgments , it is not safe to convict the accused for the said charges. In such situations, the entire case of the prosecution crumbles. On over all consideration of entire material on record, there is no cogent, convincing and substantial evidence on record to establish the complicity of the accused. So, it can be held that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of accused for the charges punishable

U/s.376(2)(n) of IPC and Secs.5(j)(ii)(l) r/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, this point is answered accordingly.

Point No.2:

33)In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the charges punishable under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC and Secs.5(j)(ii)(l) r/w 6 of

POCSO Act, 2012. Hence, he is acquitted U/s.235 (1) of Cr.P.C for the said charges. His bail bonds shall stand canceled after expiry of six months period as per section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The unmarked non- valuable property i.e. the cloths of accused viz., (1) Full hands shirt, and (2) Cotton Lungi and the cloth of victim girl viz., cotton nighty, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr-III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 29th day of April, 2026.

Spl. Judge for Speedy Trial of Offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Krishna, Machilipatnam.

17 APKR240000772024

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE:

PW1: Victim girl- None- PW2: M.Vani PW3: M.Yesubabu PW4: P.Seekanth, S.D.P.O., Gudivada.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE:

Ex.P.1: Signature of PW1 on the statement --Nil-- recorded by WSI of Police. Ex.P.2: Section 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW1 Ex.P.3: Signature of PW2 on the statement recorded by Police. Ex.P.4: Section 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW2 Ex.P.5: Section 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW3 Ex.P.6: Statement of PW2 Ex.P.7: FIR in Cr.No.218/2023 Ex.P.8: Rough Sketch of the scene of offence Ex.P.9: Photos (6 in number) of the scene of offence Ex.P.10: Crime Scene observation report Ex.P.11: Study certificate of victim girl/PW1 Ex.P.12: Wound Certificate of accused Ex.P.13: RFSL Report Ex.P.14: Medico Legal Examination Report of the victim girl Ex.P.15: Final opinion of the accused Ex.P.16: DNA report.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED: - Nil-

Spl. Judge for Speedy Trial of Offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Krishna, Machilipatnam.

1

In the Court of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate

Vijayawada.

Present: ­ Sri G. Venkateswarlu, III­Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.

Monday this the 29th day of April, 2019

Calendar Case No.19/2014

Between:

State Sub­Inspector of Police, Krishnalanka P.S., Vijayawada City.… Complainant.

AND

Mallu Leela Mohan Babu, S/o.Venkateswarlu, 26 Yrs., Vaddera, Dr.No.951, Church Road, Back side of Church, Roy Nagar, Gannavaram. Driver of Lorry bearing No.AP 16 X 8827.… Accused. 

This case coming before me on 26.04.2019 for final hearing in the presence of Smt J.Vijaya Lakshmi, Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant/ Prosecution, and of Sri V.Raja Ratnam, Counsel for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day the Court delivered the following: ­

J U D G M E N T

1.The state represented by the S.I of Police, Krishnalanka P.S., Vijayawada city laid the charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.808/2013 of

Krishnalanka P.S., for the offenses u/s.304­ A &, 338 IPC and U/s.134 (a) and (b) r/w Sec.187 of M.V.Act. 

2.The gravamen of the charge sheet is that on 05.12.2013 at about 08.00 PM the accused being the driver of the crime lorry bearing registration number AP16

X 8827 while proceeding from Screw bridge side towards Netaji Bridge side drove the lorry in a rash and negligent manner with high speed without blowing horn and when the lorry reached near Geeta Nagar katta Krishnalanka, Vijayawada the lorry dashed Honda Activa bearing registration number AP16 CE 4060 which was proceeding ahead. Due to which the rider Dodda Sunitha (herein after called as deceased) and the pillion rider PW2 of the two wheeler fell down on the road and sustained severe injuries. Having come to know of the accident over phone PW1 rushed to the scene of the offence and shifted both the injured to KIMS Hospital,

Vijayawada. But the deceased succumbed to the injuries at 08.45 PM while 2 undergoing treatment. Subsequently on the report presented by PW1, LW12(G.

Srinivas) the SI of Police, Krishnalanka PS registered the FIR under sections 304­

A and 337 IPC and investigated into the case. During the course of investigation he arrested the accused on 09.12.2013 and sent him for judicial custody. LW11

Dr. Sonylal treated PW2 and issued wound certificate opining that the injuries are grievous in nature. After completion of the investigation LW12 laid the charge sheet. Thus the accused is liable for punishment for the offences U/ss.304­ A IPC for causing the death of the deceased and under section 338 IPC for causing grievous injuries to PW2 due to his rash and negligent driving of the crime lorry and u/s.134(a) and ( b) r/w section 187 of MV.Act for not rendering medical aid to the injured and not reporting the accident to the Police soon after the accident.

3.The cognizance of offences was taken against the accused U/ss.304­A IPC and 338 IPC and under Sec.134(a) and (b) r/w Sec.187 of M.V Act by my learned predecessor.

4.On appearance of the accused, the case copies were furnished to him as contemplated U/s.207 Cr.P.C.

5.The accused was examined U/s.251 Cr.P.C for the said offences stating the substance of accusation leveled against him in the charge sheet, read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he denied the accusation and claimed to be tried. 

6.The points that arise for consideration are:

1.Whether the accused is driver of the crime lorry and he drove the same in rash and negligent manner with high speed and caused the accident?

2.Whether the accused failed to comply the provisions under section 134 (a) and (b) r/w Sec.187 of M.V.Act?

7.To prove its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 6 and got marked

Exs.P1 to P5.On behalf of the defense Ex.D1 was marked through PW3. 

3

8.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined

U/s.313 Cr.P.C with regard to incriminating material appearing against the accused in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, read­over and explained to him in Telugu for which the accused denied. When the accused was called upon to enter his defense, he reported no defense evidence.

9.Heard the arguments of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned defense counsel . Perused the material record.

Point No.1

Indisputably in the accident that took place on 05.12.2013 at about 08.00 PM near Geeta nagar Katta, Krishnalanka, Vijayawada the deceased died instantaneously and where as PW2 sustained grievous injuries. Subsequently on the report presented by PW1, LW12 registered the FIR u/ss. 304­ A IPC and 337

IPC, investigated into the case and laid the charge sheet. The point for consideration is whether the accused is the driver of the crime lorry and he drove the same in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and hit the Honda

Activa Scooty of the deceased from its behind and caused instantaneous death of the deceased and also caused grievous injuries to PW2.

10.The case of the accused is total denial entire prosecution case. 

11.The evidence of PW1 the defacto complainant, the husband of the deceased and one of the hearsay witnesses is that the deceased Sunitha is his wife. She died in a lorry accident on 05.12.2013. PW2 his sister in law informed him of the accident. Immediately he rushed to Polyclinic Hospital, Vijayawada and by that time his wife died. Subsequently he presented Ex.P1 report to the police. In his cross examination it was elicited that he presented Ex.P1 report on the next day of the accident i.e 05.12.2013 at about 12.30 PM. The accident took place on 04.12.2013 at about 07.00 PM. His brother Maruthi Kumar went to the scene of the offense, saw the crime lorry bearing registration number AP16 X 8827 and told the said number to him. So he mentioned the said number in his report. The 4 police scribed Ex.P1 report. He did not go to the scene of offence. He did not see the crime vehicle. He has not filed MVOP in the court for compensation. 

12.The evidence of PW2 the injured and the eye witness to the accident is that the deceased Sunitha is her co­sister. The deceased died in an RT accident that took place on 04.12.2013 at about 07.00 PM at screw bridge, Vijayawada. At that time the deceased was riding the Activa Scooty and she was pillion rider. They were retuning from Vedika function hall to their home and when they reached screw bridge a lorry coming speedily on their back side hit their scooty. As a result the deceased fell down towards right side and where as she fell down towards left side of the road. She sustained bleeding injury on the right side of forehead, right hand and right leg. A person got down the crime lorry and came to her. Mean while the public gathered there and they informed of the accident to her husband and mother from her phone. Subsequently she was shifted to Vijaya

Super Specialaity Hospital, Vijayawada in 108 ambulance. After two days she came to know that the deceased died instantaneously. She can identify the said person who came to her from the lorry. The accused present in the court is the said person who came to her at that time from the lorry. But she can’t say whether the said person is the driver of the crime lorry or not. She doesn’t know the registration number of the crime lorry. 

13.In the cross examination of PW2 it was elicited that the deceased was holding the driving license at that time. She doesn’t know the registration numbers of the vehicles of the deceased and her husband. She did not see the damage of the scooty immediately after the accident. The scene of offence is busy area with vehicular traffic at that time of the accident. They were going at a speed of 30 to 40 KMPH at the relevant time. They were going a little bit aside to the middle of the road on the left side at the relevant time. The vehicles were plying on the road at that time. The police did not conduct TI parade to identify the accused driver. 

5

14.The evidence of PW3 one of the eye witnesses to the accident is that he did not know the deceased D. Sunitha. He witnessed the accident that took place on 04.12.2013 at 08.00 PM at Geeta Nagar katta, Vijayawada. A tipper lorry bearing registration number AP16 X 8827 while proceeding from Benz circle side towards

Screw bridge side with high speed recklessly without blowing horn hit Honda

Activa from back side which was proceeding in the same way. Due to which the pillion rider of the two wheeler fell towards left side and rider of the two wheeler fell under the rear tyres of the crime tipper lorry. The rear tyres of the crime lorry ran over the stomach of the rider of the two wheeler. He was proceeding in the same way on the bike at that time. The crime lorry over took him and hit the

Honda Activa. After the accident the public gathered there. He also kept his bike

aside and went there. The public pulled out the women from under the rear tyres of the crime lorry and called108 ambulance. The said lady vomited and unable to take breath. She sustained injuries to the hands and legs. The other lady who was pillion rider sustained injury at the eye and also sustained abrasions on the hands and legs. Later they were shifted to Hospital in 108 ambulance. The driver of the crime tipper lorry after the accident got down the lorry and came into the public. He saw the driver of the crime lorry at that time and he can identify him if he sees him again. The accused present in the court is the driver of the crime lorry. In his cross examination it was elicited that he knows PW1 since four years.

He doesn’t remember whether the police examined him in this case or not. He did not state to the police as in Ex.D1. PW1 told him about the facts of the case briefly on 22.10.2013. He did not witness the accident. He doesn’t know how he was cited as witness in this case.

15.The evidence of PW4 one of the mediators for the crime scene observation report and inquest report is that on 05.12.2013 Krishnalanka Police called him to the scene of offense situated at Geeta Nagar Katta. He noticed a scooter bearing registration number AP16 CE 4060 and the crime lorry bearing registration number AP16 X 8827. But the deceased or the injured were not present there.

6

The scooter was damaged and lying on the road. There were blood stains. The police observed the crime scene and drafted Ex.P2 crime scene observation report in the presence of him and LW6(G.Someswara Rao). On the same day at 08.00

AM the police held inquest over the corpse of the deceased in GGH, Vijayawada in the presence of him and LWs 6 and 8(G.Someswara Rao and K.Seshadri Kumar) and drafted Ex.P3 inquest report. In his cross examination it was elicited that he doesn’t know who scribed Exs.P2 and P3. Exs.P2 and P3 were not read over to him. 

16.The evidence of PW5 the medical officer is that on 05.12.2013 on the requisition of the police he conducted the PM examination over the dead body of the deceased D.Sunitha and found ante mortem external and internal injuries mentioned in Ex.P4 PM report issued by him. He is of the opinion that the cause of the death to the best of his knowledge is due to multiple injuries and the approximate time of death is 12 to 18 hours prior to PM examination. 

17.The evidence of PW6 who was MVI, Vijayawada is that on 06.12.2013 on the requisition of the police he inspected the crime vehicle bearing registration number AP16 X 8827 (HGV) in the premises of the police station and found no damages. He put the said vehicle to road test and found that the brakes are even in action and in good working condition. He issued Ex.P5 accident report. He is of the opinion that the accident occurred was not due to any prior mechanical defects of the vehicle involved in the accident . In his cross examination it was elicited that the police did not give any requisition to inspect the two wheeler. 

18.The learned APP has given up LWs 3,5,6 and 8(G. Seshu Kumar, G.

Ramesh Babu, G. Someswara Rao and K. Seshadri Kuamr). The prosecution could not examine LWs11 and 12(Dr. P.E. Sonylal and G. Srinivas) in spite of taking several adjournments even though it is an old identified case of 2014. As per the prosecution version LW3 is one of the eye witnesses to the accident. LW5 is the brother of the deceased and hearsay witness. LW6 is one of the mediators for crime scene observation report. LW8 is one of the mediators for inquest report.

7

LW11 is the medical officer who treated PW2 and issued wound certificate. LW12 is the investigating officer who registered the case, investigated into and laid the charge sheet.

19.In the motor accident cases the evidence of direct eye witnesses to the accident plays pivotal and vital role to establish the rash and negligent driving of the accused/driver and to identify the accused. The evidence of other witnesses, such as hearsay witnesses, mediators for the crime scene observation report, inquest report, Motor Vehicle Inspector, Medical officer and the investigation officer is of no avail when the direct eyewitnesses are not examined or when the evidence of direct eye witnesses could not bring home the guilt of the accused for the said offences.

20.It is not out of place to mention that in most of the contested cases the prosecution is not evincing any interest to examine the material witnesses on some pretext or other in spite of taking several adjournments for months together and years together. After giving lot of time to the prosecution to examine the witnesses, the court is closing the evidence of witnesses. Thereafter the prosecution simply filing some Crl.M.Ps to reopen the prosecution evidence and to recall the witnesses. Even after allowing the said Crl.M.Ps the prosecution is not examining the witnesses on some ground or the other.

21.Further as stated supra PW2 deposed that after the accident the accused got down the crime lorry and came to her. But she can’t say whether the accused is the driver of the crime lorry or not. Like wise as afore said PW3 in his chief examination deposed that after the accident the accused driver of the crime tipper lorry got down the lorry and came into the public. But where as in his cross examination he unequivocally admits that he did not witness the said accident.

He doesn’t remember whether the police examined him in this case or not. Ex.D1 was marked in the cross examination of PW3. Ex.D1 is the entire section 161

Cr.p.c statement of PW3. He further says that he doesn’t know how he was cited as witness in this case. That apart undisputedly PWs 2 and 3 did not have prior 8 acquaintance with the accused i.e before the said accident. As per the prosecution version the accident took place at about 08.00 PM. The prosecution witnesses did not speak about the presence of electrical lights in the scene of offence. Likewise as seen from the rough sketch of scene of offence the I.O. has not shown the presence of electrical lights in the scene of offence. 

22.Our Hon’ble High Court in a decision reported in 2009 (2) ALT (Crl.) 128 (AP) in Piginaraji Ranga Rao V. State of A.P held that; “crucial aspect whether identity of accused established or not –Prosecution witnesses have no prior acquaintance with accused –Name of accused not mentioned in Ex.P­1 as the driver of lorry­ driver, after stopping the lorry running away from the place of accident, shows witnesses had no opportunity to have a good look at accused­ Obligatory on the part of investigating officer to hold Test Identification Parade which would establish the case of prosecution beyond reasonable doubt­ Primary object to holding Test identification Parade to enable witnesses to identify persons involved in the offence who were not previously known to them­ courts below not considered the issue in proper perspective­ same resulted in miscarriage of justice­ Findings of lower court perverse and same set aside­ Conviction against petitioner/accused set aside­ Criminal Revision Petition allowed.”

23.Our Hon’ble High Court in a decision reported in 2010 (3) ALT (Crl.) 169 (AP) in K.Rajaiah vs.State of Andhra Pradesh held that; “Test Identification Parade­By the very nature, Test Identification Parade of accused for the first time in court is a very weak piece of evidence and cannot be made as basis for conviction where witnesses are total strangers to accused­ Each case has to be decided on its own facts and circumstances­ (Legal position discussed)­ If the accused is already known to the identified witnesses, there is no need to hold TIP­ Evidence of witnesses also looses importance if accused have already been shown to the witnesses

before their examination­ Test Identification parade should be held at the

earliest possible opportunity.”

24.As held by our Honorable High Court in the Judgment referred to above the very nature of Test identification parade held on accused for the first time in the court is very weak piece of evidence and cannot be made as basis for conviction where the witnesses are total strangers to the accused.

25.Apart from that as LWs 11 and 12 are not examined the material documents such as the FIR, rough sketch of the scene of offence, wound certificate of PW2 are not marked as Exhibits. 

9

26.Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the light of the evidence let in, in view of the above said Judgments and for the foregoing reasons, it is held that basing on the testimony of prosecution witnesses, the criminal liability cannot be fastened upon the accused for the offence U/s.304­A IPC. The prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence U/s.304­

A IPC beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was the driver of the crime lorry and he drove the same in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and caused the accident. Hence, this point is answered in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.

POINT No.2:

27.It has already been held in the above point that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence U/s.304­A IPC that the accused is the driver of the crime lorry and he drove the same in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and caused the said accident. As the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence U/s.304­

A IPC the question of accused rendering medical aid to the injured and reporting the accident to the police soon after the accident as per Sec.134(a) and (b) r/w

Sec.187 of M.V.Act does not arise. Hence this point is answered in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.

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

U/Sec.304­(A), 338 of IPC and Sec.134(a) and (b) r/w Sec.187 of M.V.Act. Hence accused is acquitted U/s.255 (1) Cr.PC for the said offences. His bail bonds shall stand cancelled after expiry of Six months period as per Sec.437­A Cr.P.C. As per the charge sheet, no property was seized. Hence, no order as to property.

Dictated to the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on

this the 29th day of April, 2019.

III Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.

10

Appendix of evidence Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution: ­For Accused: ­None.

P.W.1: D.Kamalakar Rao P.W.2: D.Anuradha P.W.3: B.Rama Mohan Reddy P.W.4: N.Srinivas P.W.5: G.Siva Rami Reddy P.W.6: G.Naga Murali

Documents Marked

For Prosecution: ­ Ex.P1: Report of P.W.1 Ex.P2: Crime scene observation report Ex.P3: Inquest report Ex.P4: P.M report Ex.P5: Accident report

For Accused:­

Ex.D1:161 Cr.P.C Statement of P.W.3.

Material Objects: ­­NIL­­

III Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.

11

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF III-ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VIJAYAWADA.

C.C.No.19/2014

Apprehen- Date ofReleased onCommence-Closure of Taken on filesion of Result Offencebailment of trialtrial accused 05.12.201307.01.201429.04.201409.12.201331.07.201812.04.1929.04.19 Between:-

State Sub-Inspector of Police, Krishnalanka P.S., Vijayawada City.… Complainant.

AND

Mallu Leela Mohan Babu, S/o.Venkateswarlu, 26 Yrs., Vaddera, Dr.No.951, Church Road, Back side of Church, Roy Nagar, Gannavaram. Driver of Lorry bearing No.AP 16 X 8827.… Accused.

Nature of Offence : U/Sec.304-A, 338 IPC and U/s.134 (a) and (b) r/w.sec. 187 of M.V.Act.

Finding of the court : Found not guilty.

Sentence or Order:

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Sec.304 (A), 338 of IPC and U/s. 134 (a) and (b) r/w.sec. 187 of M.V.Act. Hence accused is acquitted U/s.255 (1) Cr.PC for the said offences. His bail bonds shall stand cancelled after expiry of Six months period as per section 437-A Cr.P.C. As per the charge sheet, no property was seized. Hence, no order as to property.

Explanation for the delay:

The case was taken on file on 07.01.2014. On 29.04.2014 copies of documents furnished to the accused. On 23.03.2015 accused was examined U/Sec.251 Cr.P.C. From time to time the case stands posted for service of summons of L.Ws.1 to 3. On 31.07.2018 P.W.1 was examined and got marked Ex.P.1. On 13.8.2018 P.W.2 was examined. On 17.9.2018 Crl.M.P.No. 1662/2018 filed U/s. 311 Cr.P.C and the same was allowed on costs and condition. P.W.1 was cross-examined. On 22.10.2018 P.W.3 was examined in chief. A.P.P has given up L.W.5. On 13.12.2018 P.W.3 B.W pending. P.W.4 was examined and got marked Exs.P.2 and P.3. APP has given up L.Ws.6 and 8. On 26.12.2018 P.W.5 was examined and got marked Ex.P.4. P.W.3 B.W pending. On 22.01.2019 P.W.3 B.W pending. P.W.6 was examined and got marked Ex.P.5. L.Ws.11 and 12 are absent. Summons unserved on them inspite of conditional order even though it is an old case of 2014, hence their evidence was closed. On 11.2.2019 on petition B.W against P.W.3 was recalled. P.W.3 was cross-examined and got marked Ex.D.1.

Crl.M.P.No.230/19 was filed U/s. 311 Cr.P.C and the same was allowed on condition. On 12.4.2019

L.Ws.11 and 12 absent, summons unserved on them inspite of conditional order even though it is an old case of 2014, hence the evidence of L.Ws.11 and 12 was closed. Crl.M.P.No.230/19 was closed. Prosecution evidence was closed and posted for Section 313 Cr.P.C examination. On 15.04.2019 the accused was examined U/s. 313 Cr.P.C and posted for arguments. On 22.4.2019 heard the arguments of the learned defence counsel. On 26.4.2019 heard the arguments of the learned A.P.P. On 29.04.2019 judgment pronounced. Hence, the delay.

III-Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. Copies Submitted to:

1) The Hon’ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada.

2) The Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada City.

APKR240001932022

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR SPEEDY TRIAL OF

OFFENCES UNDER THE PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM

SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT, 2012, KRISHNA AT MACHILIPATNAM

Present: Sri G. Venkateswarlu,

Spl. Judge for Speedy Trial of Offences under the POCSO Act, 2012, Krishna, Machilipatnam.

Friday, this the 08th day of May, 2026

Spl.S.C.No.708/2022

(Cr.No.168/2022 of Gudivada II Town Police Station)

Name of the Complainant:The State represented by the Sub Divisional Police Officer, Gudivada Sub Division, Gudivada, Krishna District.

Name of the accused:Vinukonda Swapna, W/o.Ramesh, Age 30 years, Caste: SC-Madiga, Goodmanpeta, Gudivada, Krishna District.

Nature of Offences:Under section 363 of Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 against the accused.

Plea of the accused:Pleaded not guilty

Finding of the Judge:Accused is found not guilty

Sentence or order:In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the charges punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 376(3), 363, 341 of IPC and Secs.5(l) r/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012. Hence, accused is acquitted U/s.235 (1) of Cr.P.C for the said charges. Her bail 2 APKR240001932022 bonds shall stand canceled after expiry of six months period as per section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The unmarked non-valuable property i.e. the cloths of accused viz., (1) Top, (2) Chunni, (3) Legging and (4) Underwear; and the cloths of victim boy viz., (1) Full hands Shirt, and (2) Short, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Prosecution Conducted by:Sri M.V.Narasimha Rao Special Public Prosecutor

Name of the Defence :Smt D.Lakshmi Kumari CounselSri K.S.N.Murthy

This Special Sessions Case came on 05.05.2026 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri M.V.Narasimha Rao, Special Public Prosecutor for the State and of Smt D.Lakshmi Kumari, Sri K.S.N.Murthy, Advocates for accused and having stood over to this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The State, represented by the Sub Divisional Police Officer,

Gudivada Sub Division, laid the charge sheet in Cr.No.168/2022 for the offences punishable under section 363 of Indian Penal Code (for short

IPC) and Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short POCSO Act, 2012) against the accused.

Case of the Prosecution:

2)The case of the prosecution in brief is that PW1/the defacto- complainant is the father of victim boy. PW2/the victim boy is studying 8th class. The husband of accused habituated to all vices and neglected her. The victim boy used to play with the children of the accused and 3 APKR240001932022 other children at the house of accused. The accused developed close intimacy with the victim boy to fulfill her sexual desire. About one month ago, in the absence of her husband and children, the accused invited the victim boy to her house, laid him on the cot, removed his clothes, fell on him and inserted his penis into her vagina and had sexual intercourse with him. Later, the accused threatened the victim boy that she would file a theft case against him, if he revealed the same to anyone. Due to fear, the victim boy did not disclose the matter to anyone. Like wise, the accused had sexual intercourse with him twice in her house. Since then she had developed affection on the victim boy and decided to take him to anywhere with intent to fulfill her sexual desires with him.

3)On 19.07.2022, at about 14:00 hours, the accused invited the victim boy to her house and when the boy went to her house, she induced him that she was going to village and requested him to accompany her up to Gudivada Bus stand. But, the victim boy refused her request. On that the accused induced the victim boy that she already informed to his parents and his parents expressed their consent to take him. So saying the accused took the victim boy to Vijayawada and from there to Chintal in Rangareddy District, Telangana State and kept him in a rented room of LW.9 for seven days and had sex with him for several times. When the victim boy was found missed, PW1 presented report to the police.

4)Basing on the report of PW1, LW.19/S.I. of Police registered a case in Crime No.168/2022 under Section 363 of IPC and issued FIR.

He forwarded the original FIR to the Court and copies thereof to the officers concerned. During the course of investigation, he examined 4 APKR240001932022 the witnesses and recorded their statements. On 26.07.2022, the victim boy and the accused were traced out in Chintal at Hyderabad and they were brought to the police station.

5)Thereafter, PW4/Inspector of Police took up further investigation in this case. He got recorded the statement of the victim boy through

LW.18/S.I. of Police. Basing on the statement of the victim boy, he re- registered the case by adding Sec.365 of IPC and Secs.4 and 6 of

POCSO Act in this case and submitted altered FIR to the Court and copies thereof to all the officers concerned. On 26.07.2022, PW4 arrested the accused, got recorded her confession statement in the presence of mediators and sent her for judicial remand. He got recorded Sec.164 Cr.P.C. statement of victim boy through LW.17/JMFC,

Gudivada.

6)Basing on the statement of the witnesses, he deleted sections 365 of IPC, Secs. 4 and 8 of POCSO Act and added Sec.8 of POCSO

Act in this case and filed memo into the Court. Subsequently,

LW.21/the SDPO took up further investigation in this case. After completion of investigation, he laid charge sheet against the accused.

Thus, accused is liable for punishment for the offences punishable

U/s.363 of IPC and Sec.6 of POCSO Act, 2012.

7)The cognizance of offences was taken under section 363 of IPC,

Sec.6 of POCSO Act, 2012 against the accused.

8)On receipt of summons, the accused made her appearance through her counsel. Copies of documents relied upon by the prosecution were furnished to her in compliance of Sec.207 Cr.P.C.

5 APKR240001932022

The accused was examined under section 228 Cr.P.C, she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. After hearing both sides, charges punishable under sections 376(2)(n), 376(3), 363, 341 of IPC and

Secs.5(l) r/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 were framed against the accused.

The contents of the charges were read over and explained to her in

Telugu, for which she denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

9)To prove its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.18.

10)After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C. with regard to incriminating material in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, read-over and explained to her in

Telugu for which she denied. When the accused was called upon to enter her defence, she reported no defence evidence.

11)Now the points for determination are; (1)Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of accused for the charges punishable under sections 376(2)(n), 376(3), 363, 341 of IPC and Secs.5(l) r/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 beyond reasonable doubt?

(2)To what relief?

12)Heard the arguments of the learned Special Public Prosecutor and learned defence counsel. Perused the material record.

Point No.1: Appreciation of Evidence:

13)In this case, PW1/the defacto-complainant and father of victim boy, PW2/the victim boy and PW3/the mother of victim boy did not support the case of the prosecution. The evidence of PW1 is that on 6 APKR240001932022 19.07.2022, their son/PW2 did not go to School, so he beat PW2. On that PW2 left the house without informing to them. They searched for him, but in vain. So they went to the police station and reported the matter. The police obtained his signature on a white paper. Ex.P.1 is his signature on the report, dt.19.07.2022. After one week, PW2 returned home and told that he went to the house of his uncle in Hyderabad and having come to know of this case, he came back. The police took PW2 to the Welfare Officer and he gave statement there at the instance of police. Subsequently, PW2 was taken to the Court in Kaikaluru and there he gave statement to the Magistrate at the instance of police. At that time, PW2 was studying VIII Class. Now, PW2 completed

Intermediate I Year.

14)The evidence of PW2/the victim boy is that his parents scolded him as he was not studying. So he went to the house of their relatives in Hyderabad without informing to his parents. After one week, he came to know through his relatives that when he was not seen, his parents filed a case. Thereafter, he returned home and informed the same to his parents. The police took him to the Child Welfare Officer in

Gudivada. There a person in civil dress obtained his signature on a white paper. Ex.P.3 is his signature on the statement recorded by the

S.I. of Police. Subsequently, he was taken to the Court in Kaikaluru and there he gave statement to the Magistrate at the instance of the police.

At that time, he was studying VIII Class. Now, he completed intermediate I Year.

15)The evidence of PW3/the mother of the victim boy is also on the same lines as that of her husband/PW1 and son/PW2.

7 APKR240001932022

16)PWs.1 to 3 with one voice said that the police did not examine them in this case. The learned Special Public Prosecutor cross- examined PWs.1 to 3 by taking permission from the court as they turned hostile to the prosecution case, but nothing useful was elicited in their cross-examination to support the case of the prosecution except marking Exs.P.2, P.4 and P.5 their previous section 161 Cr.P.C., statements respectively. The learned Spl. Public Prosecutor could not elicit anything in favour of the prosecution by cross-examining PWs.1 to

3. The previous statements of PWs.1 to 3 marked under Exs.P.2, P.4 and P.5 cannot be used to corroborate the prosecution case as they are useful to contradict the witnesses. Therefore, mere marking of previous statements recorded U/s.161 Cr.P.C is not sufficient to rope the accused with the offence. Whatever elicited in the cross-examination confronting previous statements of PWs.1 to 3 is of no avail to the case of the prosecution. PWs.1 to 3 denied the suggestions given by the learned

Special Public Prosecutor as to the case of the prosecution.

17)The evidence of PW4, who was Inspector of Police, Gudivada II

Town PS and one of the investigating officers in this case is that on 19.07.2022 on the written report presented presented by the defacto- complainant/PW1 to LW.19/SI of Police under Ex.P.6, LW.19 registered a case in Cr.No.168/2022, u/Sec.363 of IPC of Gudivada II Town P.S., and issued FIR under Ex.P.7. LW.19 submitted the original FIR to the

Court and copies thereof to the officers concerned. On the same day,

LW.19 examined PW1 and recorded his statement. On 20.07.2022,

LW.19 visited the 1st scene of offence situated in new Goodmenpeta at

Gudivada, observed the 1st crime scene and got drafted crime scene observation report under Ex.P.8. LW.19 drew 1st rough sketch of the scene of offence under Ex.P.9. LW.19 examined PW3, LWs.3 to 5 and 8 APKR240001932022 recorded their statements. Basing on their statements, LW.19 handed over the CD file to him and he took up further investigation in this case.

18)PW4 deposes that on 26.07.2022, he along with his staff and mediators i.e. LWs.12, 13 and LW.18/Child Welfare Officer visited the 2nd scene of offence situated in Chinthal at Hyderabad. There he secured PW2 and accused. LW.18/Child Welfare Officer recorded the statement of PW2 under Ex.P.4. He got drafted the confession statement of the accused and seized the cloths of the accused and

PW2 worn at the time of commission of offence under the cover of mediators report. Basing on the confession statement of the accused, he arrested her and sent her to medical examination and later sent her to the Court for remand.

19)PW4 deposes that basing on the statement of the witnesses, he deleted Sec.365 IPC and Secs.4 and 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and added

Sec.8 of POCSO Act in the case and filed memo into the Court. On 27.07.2022, he along with his staff and above said mediators visited the 2nd crime scene of offence situated in Chintal at Hyderabad. He observed the 2nd crime scene and got drafted 2nd crime scene observation report under Ex.P.10 and drew rough sketch of the 2nd scene of offence under Ex.P.11. He examined LWs.7 to 11 and recorded their statements. Basing on statement of PW2, he added

Sec.365 IPC and Secs.4 and 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 in the case and issued altered FIR under Ex.P.12 and submitted the original altered FIR to the Court and copies thereof to the officers concerned. On his requisition the LW.14/Principal of Narayana E.M. High School,

Gudivada, issued study certificate of the victim boy under Ex.P.13. As per Ex.P.13, his date of birth is shown as 11.06.2008. On his requisition, 9 APKR240001932022

LW.17/JMFC, Gudivada recorded the statement of the victim boy. He sent the preserved M.Os of victim boy and accused collected by the doctors to RFSL, Vijayawada for chemical examination.

20)PW4 further deposes that on his transfer, LW.21/SDPO took up further investigation. LW.21 received the wound certificate of the PW2 from LW.15 under Ex.P.14 and wound certificate of the accused under

Ex.P.15 from LW.16. LW.21 also received RFSL report under Ex.P.16.

Basing on the RFSL Report, LW.21 received final opinion of victim boy under Ex.P.17 from LW.15. LW.15 opined that there is nothing to suggest that above person is incapable of performing sexual act. LW.21 received final opinion of accused under Ex.P.18 from LW.16. LW.16 opined that there is no recent sexual exposure, no external vaginal injuries but vagina admitting 2 fingers, accused married and has 4 kids.

Hence clinical possibility of sexual intercourse with minor boy cannot be ruled out. After completion of investigation, LW.21 laid the charge sheet in this case. PWs.1 and 3 stated before him as in Ex.P.2 and P.5

Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statements respectively. In his cross-examination, he denied the suggestions given by the learned defence Counsel as to the case of the accused.

21)The learned Special Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of LW.3/Manepalli Johnbabu, LW.4/Manepalli Kranthi Kumar,

LW.5/Kuncheti Parimala, LW.7/Palli Siva Kanaka Prasad, LW.8/Deekala

Raju, LW.9/Patha Sathemma, LW.10/Patha John Wesley,

LW.11/Pottigarala Venkatesh, LW.12/Dokkumala Prasad, LW.13/Bogadi

Arjunarao, LW.14/Smt G.Vijaya Kumari, LW.15/Dr.B.N.V.Jaya Krishna,

LW.16/Dr.O.Aruna Kumari, LW.17/Sri Ch.Kishore Kumar, JMFC,

Gudivada, LW.18/Sri P.Gowtham Kumar, LW.19/Sri V.Rajendra Prasad, 10 APKR240001932022

LW.21/Sri N.Satyanandam, S.D.P.O., Gudivada submitting that no purpose will be served even if they are examined, except wasting the precious time of the court. The learned Special Public Prosecutor would argue that after filing this case the parties entered into compromise out of the court and that’s why the material witnesses turned hostile to the case of prosecution. So, the case may be decided on merits. The learned defence Counsel would argue that the material witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution. The only witness who supported the case of the prosecution is PW4 one of the investigating officers. Basing on the evidence of PW4, the accused cannot be convicted. So, the accused may be acquitted for the said charges.

22)Further, the prosecution did not even examine the medical officers i.e., the Doctor who examined the victim boy and issued wound certificate and final opinion and the Doctor who examined the accused and issued wound certificate and final opinion, to establish the commission of rape. Mere marking of the said documents through the

Investigating Officer is of no significance. Because, marking of the document is entirely different from proving its probative value. To prove the probative value of the document, the person who issued the document should be examined as witness. In rape cases, the prosecution has to establish that the semen or blood of the accused was found on the genital organs of the victim on the cloths and the DNA of the said semen or blood must be connected to the DNA of the accused. As such, the DNA profile should be conducted to the accused by taking her blood sample. The prosecution sans making any efforts or taking any steps to connect the accused with the said rape, simply closed the evidence of the medical officers.

11 APKR240001932022

23)As stated supra, PW1/the defacto-complainant and father of victim boy, PW2/the victim boy and PW3/the mother of victim boy did not support the case of the prosecution. The only witness, who supported the case of prosecution is PW4 one of the Investigating

Officers. As seen from the record, it is obvious that after filing this case the parties entered into compromise and that’s why the material witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution. When the matter was compromised out of the court and the material witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution, basing on the evidence of PW4 one of the Investigating Officers, the accused cannot be convicted and it is difficult to record the conviction for the said charges. In such situations, the entire case of the prosecution crumbles. On over all consideration of entire material on record, there is no cogent, convincing and substantial evidence on record to establish the complicity of the accused. So, it can be held that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of accused for the charges punishable

U/ss.376(2)(n), 376(3), 363, 341 of IPC and Secs.5(l) r/w 6 of POCSO

Act, 2012 beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, this point is answered accordingly.

Point No.2:

24)In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the charges punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 376(3), 363, 341 of IPC and

Secs.5(l) r/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012. Hence, accused is acquitted

U/s.235 (1) of Cr.P.C for the said charges. Her bail bonds shall stand canceled after expiry of six months period as per section 437-A of

Cr.P.C. The unmarked non-valuable property i.e. the cloths of accused viz., (1) Top, (2) Chunni, (3) Legging and (4) Underwear; and the cloths 12 APKR240001932022 of victim boy viz., (1) Full hands Shirt, and (2) Short, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 08th day of May, 2026.

Spl. Judge for Speedy Trial of Offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Krishna, Machilipatnam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE:

PW1: M.Prem Kumar- None- PW2: Victim girl PW3: M.Navaratna Kumari PW4: V.Durga Rao, Inspector of Police

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.P.1: Signature of PW1 on the report, dt.19.07.2022. -Nil- Ex.P.2: Section 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW1 Ex.P.3: Signature of PW2 on the statement reported by SI of Police Ex.P.4: Section 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW2 Ex.P.5: Section 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW3 Ex.P.6: Report of PW1 Ex.P.7: FIR in Cr.No.168/2022 Ex.P.8: Crime scene observation report Ex.P.9: 1st Rough sketch of the scene of offence Ex.P.10: 2nd Crime scene observation report Ex.P.11: Rough sketch of the 2nd scene of offence Ex.P.12: Altered FIR Ex.P.13: Study certificate of the victim boy Ex.P.14: Wound certificate of the victim boy Ex.P.15: Wound certificate of the accused Ex.P.16: RFSL Report Ex.P.17: Final opinion of victim boy Ex.P.18: Final opinion of accused 13 APKR240001932022

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:- -Nil-

Spl. Judge for Speedy Trial of Offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Krishna, Machilipatnam.

In the Court of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate

Vijayawada.

Present: ­ Sri G. Venkateswarlu, III­Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.

Monday this the 25th day of April, 2019

Calendar Case No.710/2013

Between:

State Sub­Inspector of Police, Krishnalanka P.S., Vijayawada City.… Complainant.

AND

Sk.Jiyasuddin, S/o.Irfan, 21 Yrs., Muslim, Kajurath Hati Village, Khandosh Thana, Badvan District. West Bengal. Diver of lorry bearing No.WB 41 F 9373.… Accused. 

This case coming before me on 24.04.2019 for final hearing in the presence of Smt. J.Vijaya Lakshmi, Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant/Prosecution, and of Sri M.Venkateswara Rao, Counsel for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day the Court delivered the following: ­

J U D G M E N T

The state represented by the SI of Police, Krishna lanka PS, Vijayawada city laid the charge sheet against the accused in crime no.605/2013 of Krishnalanka PS for the offenses u/s.304­ A IPC and u/s. 134(a) and (b) r/w section 187 of MV.Act. 

2.The gravamen of the charge sheet is that on 05.09.2013 at about 11.30 AM the accused being the driver of the crime lorry bearing registration no. WB 41 F 9373 while proceeding from PNBS, Vijayawada side towards Prakasham Barrage side drove the lorry in a rash and negligent manner with high speed without blowing horn and when the lorry reached near Sitammanvari padalu area on NH­65 road, the lorry dashed Gumma

Ankammarao ( herein after called as the deceased) who was standing on the southern side of NH­65 road near Seneswaralayam by stopping the auto rickshaws that are proceeding towards Prakasham barrage in order to go to his native village. Due to which the deceased fell down and the crime lorry ran over the stomach of the deceased. As a result the December sustained fatal injuries and died instantaneously. Subsequently on the report presented by PW1, PW4 registered the FIR u/s.304­ A IPC and investigated into the case. During the course of investigation he arrested the accused on 12.09.2013 and sent him for judicial custody. After completion of the investigation he laid the chargesheet. Thus the accused is liable for punishment for the offenses u/s.304­ A IPC for causing the death of the deceased due to his rash and negligent driving of crime lorry and u/s. 134(a) and (b) r/w section 187 of MV.Act for his failure to render medical aid to the injured and not reporting the accident to the police soon after the accident. 

3.The cognizance of offenses was taken against the accused U/s.304­ A IPC and under sec.134(a) and (b) r/w sec. 187 of MV.Act by my learned predecessor.

4.On appearance of the accused, the case copies were furnished to him as contemplated U/s.207 Cr.P.C

5.The accused was examined U/s. 251 Cr.p.c for the said offences stating the substance of accusation leveled against him in the charge sheet, read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he denied the accusation and claimed to be tried.

6.The points that arise for considering are:

1) Whether the accused is driver of the crime lorry and he drove the same in rash and negligent manner with high speed and caused the accident?

2) Whether the accused failed to comply the provisions under section 134 (a)and (b) r/w section 187 of MV.Act?

7.To prove its case, the prosecution examined Pws 1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P1 to

P8.

8.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/s.313 Cr.p.c with regard to incriminating material appearing against the accused in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, read­over and explained to him in Telugu for which the accused denied. When the accused was called upon to enter his defense, he reported no defense evidence.

9.Heard the arguments of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned defense counsel. Perused the material record. 

Point. No.1:

10.Indisputably in the accident that took place on 05.09.2013 near Seneswaralayam near Sitammavari Padalu on NH­65 road the deceased died instantaneously.

Subsequently on the report presented by PW1, PW4 registered the FIR u/s.304­ A IPC and investigated into the case and laid the charge sheet. The point for consideration is whether the accused is the driver of the crime lorry and he drove the same in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and caused the accident. 

11.The case of the accused is total denial of entire prosecution case.

12.PW1 the defacto complainant did not fully support the case of the prosecution. His evidence is that he is working in a barber shop. He doesn’t know the deceased

G.Ankamma rao. The accident took place near by their shop at Seetammavari Padalu.

When he was in barber shop the public running towards the scene of offense. When he asked them what happened they told about the accident. So he also went there. By the time he went there the deceased died. Subsequently the police came there and prepared a report and obtained his signature therein. The police had readover the report to him

before obtaining his signature therein. Ex.P1 is the report. In his cross examination it

was elicited that the police came to their( PW1) barber shop and obtained his signature on Ex.P1 report. He stated to the police that he came to know the accident through the public. 

13.The evidence of PW2, Medical officer is that on 06.09.2013 on the requisition of the police he conducted PM examination over the corpse of deceased G.Ankamma rao and found antemortem external and internal injuries mentioned in Ex.P2 PM report issued by him. He is of the opinion that the cause of the death is due to crush injury and the approximate time of the death is about 24 hours prior to PM examination.

14.The evidence of PW3 who was the MVI, Vijayawada is that on 19.09.2013 on the requisition of the police he inspected the crime vehicle bearing registration no. WB 41 F 9373(HGV) in the premises of the police station and found no damages. He put the said vehicle to road test and found that the foot brakes are even in action and in good working condition. He issued Ex.P3 accident report. He is of the opinion that the accident occurred was not due to any prior mechanical defects of the vehicle involved in the accident.

15.The evidence of PW4 who was SI of Police, Krishnalanka PS and the investigating

Officer in this case is that on 05.09.2013 on the report presented by PW1 under Ex.P1 he registered the case u/s.304­ A IPC and issued Ex.P4 FIR. He went to the scene of offense situated at Seetammavari Padalu near Seneswara Temple, Krishnalanka, observed the crime scene in the presence of the mediators Lws 7 and 8 ( N.Venkaiah and T.Appa rao) and drafted Ex.P5 crime scene observation report and also prepared Ex.P6 rough sketch of the scene of the offense. He shifted the corpse of the deceased G.Ankamma Rao to

GGH, Vijayawada. He also got shifted the crime vehicle bearing registration no. WB 41 F 9373 Lorry to the PS. On the next day he held inquest over the corpse of the deceased in the presence of Lws 7 to 9( N.Venkaiah, T.Appa Rao and T.Suresh) and drafted Ex.P7

Inquest report. He examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. He issued requisition to doctor to hold autopsy. On 12.09.2013 the accused came to the PS and surrendered before him. He seized the photocopies of DL Of the accused, RC, permit and insurance papers from the accused. The accused presented a report as to the manner of the accident under Ex.P8. He arrested the accused and sent him for remand. He issued requisition to the MVI to inspect the crime vehicle. Later he received PM report, accident report and after completion of the investigation he laid the charge sheet. In his cross examination it was elicited that the accused presented Ex.P8 report to him on 12.09.2013 . As seen from Ex.P8 report at the signature of the accused the date 11.09.2013 was mentioned. He says that the accused might have prepared Ex.P8 report on 11.09.2013. There is no mention in the charge sheet that the accused surrendered

before him and presented a report. 

16.The learned APP has given up LW3/ G. Lakshmi. The prosecution could not examine Lws 2 and 4 to 9( B.Gopi, A.Anajiah, A.Swamy Babu, G.Koteswara Rao,

N.Venkaiah, T.Apparao and T.Suresh) inspite of taking several adjournments even though it is an old identified and target case of 2013. As per the prosecution version LW2 is the only eye witness to the accident. LW3 is the wife of the deceased, LW4 is the father in law of the deceased, LW5 is the brother in law of the deceased, LW6 is the nephew of the deceased and they are hearsay witnesses. Lws 7 and 8 are the mediators for the crime scene observation report. LW9 is the mediator for the inquest report. 

17.In the motor accident cases the evidence of direct eye witnesses to the accident plays pivotal and vital role to establish the rash and negligent driving of the accused / driver and to identify the accused. The evidence of the other witnesses, such as hearsay witnesses, mediators for the crime scene observation report, inquest report, Motor

Vehicle Inspector, Medical officer and the Investigating Officer is of no avail when the direct eye witnesses are not examined or when the evidence of direct eye witnesses could not bring home the guilt of the accused for the said offense. 

18.It is not out of place to mention that in most of the contested cases the prosecution is not evincing any interest to examine the material witnesses on some pretext or other in spite of taking several adjournments for months together and years together. After giving lot of time to the prosecution to examine the witnesses, the court is closing the evidence of witnesses. Thereafter the prosecution simply filing some Crl.M.PS to reopen the prosecution evidence and to recall the witnesses. Even after allowing the said Crl.M.Ps the prosecution is not examining the witnesses on some ground or the other.

19.Further in this case the owner of the crime lorry is a material witness because he is competent to speak as to who was the driver of the crime lorry at the time of the accident. PW4 the Investigating Officer for the reasons best known to him did not choose to examine the owner of the crime lorry as a witness in this case. Like wise he did not choose to seize the trip sheet or way bill etc from the crime lorry to establish the identity of the accused driver. As afore said LW2 is the only eye witness to the accident. But the prosecution could not examine him. The prosecution witnesses did not speak about the rash and negligent driving of the accused driver. 

20.Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the light of the evidence let in and for the foregoing reasons, it is held that basing on the testimony of prosecution witnesses, the criminal liability cannot be fastened upon the accused for the offense

U/s.304­ A IPC. The prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence U/s. 304­ A IPC beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was the driver of the crime lorry and he drove the same in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and caused the accident. Hence, this point is answered in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.

Point No.2:

21.It has been already held in the above point that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offense u/s.304­ A IPC that the accused is the driver of the crime lorry and he drove the same in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and caused the said accident. As the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offense u/s.304­ A IPC the question of accused rendering medical aid to the injured and reporting the accident to the police soon after the accident as per section 134(a) and (b) r/w 187 of MV.Act does not arise. Hence this point is answered in favour of the accused and against the prosecution

22.In the result the accused is found guilty for the offenses punishable U/s.304­ A IPC and section 134(a) and (b) r/w 187 of MV. Act. Hence the accused is acquitted U/s.255 (1)

Cr.p.c for the said offenses. His bail bonds shall stand cancelled after expiry of six months period as per section 437­ A Cr.P.C. As per the charge sheet, no property was seized.

Hence, no order as to property.

Typed to my dictation by the typist, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 25th day of April, 2019.

III Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution: -For Accused: -None.

P.W.1: G.Thyaga Raju P.W.2: G.Siva Rami Reddy P.W.3: B.V.Murali Krishna P.W.4: G.Srinivas

Documents Marked

For Prosecution: -For Accused: - --NIL—

Ex.P.1:Report Ex.P.2: P.M report Ex.P.3: MVI report Ex.P.4: F.I.R in Cr.No.605/2013 of Krishnalanka P.S.,

Ex.P.5: Crime scene observation report. Ex.P.6: Rough sketch. Ex.P.7: Inquest report. Ex.P.8: Accused report.

Material Objects:- Nil.

III Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF III-ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VIJAYAWADA.

C.C.No.710/2013

Apprehen- Date ofReleased onCommence-Closure of Taken on filesion of Result Offencebailment of trialtrial accused 05.09.201312.11.201311.03.201612.09.201313.02.201918.04.1925.04.19 Between:-

State Sub-Inspector of Police, Krishnalanka P.S., Vijayawada City.… Complainant.

AND

Sk.Jiyasuddin, S/o.Irfan, 21 Yrs., Muslim, Kajurath Hati Village, Khandosh Thana, Badvan District. West Bengal. Diver of lorry bearing No.WB 41 F 9373.… Accused.

Nature of Offence : U/Sec.304-A U/s. 134 (a) and (b) r/w.187 of M.V.Act

Finding of the court : Found not guilty.

Sentence or Order:

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Sec.304 (A) of IPC and Under Section 134 (a) and (b) r/w. Section 187 of M.V. Act. Hence accused is acquitted U/s.255 (1) Cr.P.C for the said offences. His bail bonds shall stand cancelled after expiry of Six months period as per section 437-A Cr.P.C. As per the charge sheet, no property was seized. Hence, no order as to property.

Explanation for the delay:

The case was taken on file on 12.11.2013. On 11.03.2016 copies of documents furnished to the accused. On 29.08.2018 accused was examined U/Sec.251 Cr.P.C. From time to time the case stands posted for service of summons of L.Ws.1 to 3. On 24.9.2018 L.Ws.1 and 2 absent, summons unserved on them inspite of conditional order though it is an old target case of 2013, hence their evidence was closed. On 15.10.2018 L.Ws.3 to 9 absent, summons unserved on them inspite of conditional order even though it is an old target case of 2013, hence their evidence was closed. On 13.11.2018 L.Ws.10 to 12 absent, summons unserved on them inspite of conditional order even though it is an old target case of 2013, hence the evidence of L.Ws.10 to 12 was closed. Prosecution evidence was closed and posted for Sec. 313 Cr.P.C examination. On 19.11.2018 accused absent, his counsel absent, hence issued NBW against the accused. On 27.11.2018

Crl.M.P.No. 1928/2018 filed U/s. 311 Cr.P.C and the same was allowed on condition. Prosecution evidence

was reopened. On 26.12.2018 accused NBW pending. Crl.M.P.No.2128/18 was filed U/s. 70 (2) Cr.P.C and the same was allowed. NBW against the accused was recalled. On 6.2.19 L.W.1 present but not ready to give evidence on the ground of ill-health. Bind over L.W.1. L.Ws.2 and 3 absent, but summons served on L.W.3, hence issued BW to L.W.3, summons unserved on L.W.2 inspite of conditional order even though it is an old target case of 2013, hence the evidence of L.W.2 was closed. On 13.2.2019 P.W.1 was examined and got marked Ex.P.1. APP has given up L.W.3. Crl.M.P.No. 1928/2018 was closed. Crl.M.P.No.239/19 filed U/s.311 Cr.P.C and the same was allowed on condition. On 27.2.2019 L.Ws.7 to 9 absent, but summons served on them, hence issued BW to L.Ws.7 to 9. Crl.M.P.No.335/19 filed U/s. 311 Cr.P.C and the same was allowed on condition. On 29.3.2019 P.W.2 was examined and got marked Ex.P.2. On 18.4.2019 P.Ws.3 and 4 are examined and got marked Ex.P.3 to P.8 marked. B.Ws. Unexecuted against L.Ws.7 to 9 inspite of conditional order even though it is an old identified and target case of 2013, hence evidence of L.Ws.7 to 9 was closed. Crl.M.P.Nos. 239/19 and 335/19 are closed. Prosecution evidence was closed and posted for Sec. 313 Cr.P.C examination. On 23.4.2019 accused was examined U/s. 313 Cr.P.C and posted for arguments. On 25.04.2019 heard the arguments of the learned A.P.P and the learned defence counsel. On 25.04.2019 judgment pronounced. Hence, the delay.

III-Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. Copies Submitted to:

1) The Hon’ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada.

2) The Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada City.

APKR240000732025

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR SPEEDY TRIAL OF

OFFENCES UNDER THE PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM

SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT, 2012, KRISHNA AT MACHILIPATNAM

Present: Sri G. Venkateswarlu,

Spl. Judge for Speedy Trial of Offences

under the POCSO Act, 2012,

Krishna, Machilipatnam.

Tuesday this the 05th day of May, 2026

Spl.S.C.No.71/2025

(Cr.No.265/2024 of Challapalli Police Station)

Name of the Complainant: The State, Rep. by the Sub Inspector of Police, Challapalli Police Station.

Name of the accused: Pagolu Naveen Kumar, S/o.Srinivasarao, 24 years, Caste: Rajaka, Pagolu Village, Challapalli Mandal.

Nature of Offences: Under Sections 447, 324, 354-D, 506 of IPC and Sec.12 of POCSO Act, 2012 against the accused.

Plea of the accused: Pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the Judge: Accused is found not guilty.

Sentence or order: In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the charges punishable under Sections 354-D, 366, 324, 506 of IPC and Secs.11(iv) r/w 12 of

POCSO Act, 2012. Hence, he is acquitted U/s.235 (1) of Cr.P.C for the said charges. His bail bonds shall stand canceled after expiry of six 2 APKR240000732025 months period as per section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The un-marked non- valuable property i.e. rock (Konda

Raayi) and cloths of victim girl viz., (1) Blood stained shirt and (2)

Chunni, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Prosecution Conducted by: Sri M.V.Narasimha Rao, Special Public Prosecutor, Special Judge for Speedy Trial of Offences under the POCSO Act, 2012, Krishna, Machilipatnam.

Name of the Defence : Sri S.Bala Subrahmanyam Counsel

This Spl. Sessions Case coming on 29.04.2026 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri M.V.Narasimha Rao, Special Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri S.Bala Subrahmanyam, Advocate for accused and having stood over to this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The State, represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Challapalli

PS, laid the charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.265/2024 for the offences punishable U/ss.447, 324, 354-D, 506 of Indian Penal Code (for short IPC) and Sec.12 of Protection of Children from Sexual

Offences Act, 2012 (for short POCSO Act, 2012) against the accused.

Case of the Prosecution:

2)The case of the prosecution in brief is that PW1/the defacto- complainant is the victim girl. PW2 is the mother of victim girl. The victim girl is aged about 17 years. She is the only daughter to her parents. She studied up to 10th Class. In the year 2022, the accused 3 APKR240000732025 kidnapped her by deceitful words that he loves her and will marry her.

When she found missed, her parents presented report to the police.

3)Basing on the report of PW1, PW3/S.I. of Police registered a case in Crime No.225/2022 under Section 363 of IPC, Secs.11 r/w 12 of

POCSO Act, 2012 and issued FIR. He submitted the original FIR to the

Court and copies thereof to the officers concerned. During the course of investigation, he examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. Police traced the victim girl and handed over her to her parents. Since then she has been residing with her mother and she did not talk with the accused. The accused demanded her to talk with him, followed her and sexually harassed her by saying “Nuvvante Naaku

Istam”. But, the victim girl did not talk to him.

4)On 12.05.2024, at about 03:00 p.m., the victim girl, her mother and her grandmother were present in the house, the accused called her to come out. Then they came out. When the mother of victim girl questioned the accused as to why he came there, the accused quarreled with her. Then the accused took a piece of brick and threw it on her. The piece of brick hit her on the right side of her head and she sustained bleeding heady injury. On that the victim girl shouted loudly.

On hearing cries of victim girl, the neighbours came there and on seeing them the accused threatened her to kill her and escaped from there. Thereafter, the victim girl/PW1 presented a report to the police.

5)Basing on the report of PW1, LW.14/A.S.I. of Police registered a case in Crime No.265/2024 under Sections 447, 324, 354-D, 506 of

IPC, Sec.12 of POCSO Act, 2012 and issued FIR. He submitted the original FIR to the Court and copies thereof to the officers concerned.

During the course of investigation, LW.14 sent the victim girl to the

Government Hospital in Challapalli, for treatment. He examined the 4 APKR240000732025 witnesses and recorded their statements. On 13.05.2024, LW.14 visited the scene of offence situated at the house of the complainant along with the mediators. He seized the brick piece that was used by the accused at the scene of offence under the cover of mediators report. He also seized the blood stained cloths of victim girl.

6)Thereafter, PW3/S.I. of Police took up further investigation in this case. On 15.05.2024, he served Sec.41-A of Cr.P.C. notice to the accused. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet. Thus, the accused is liable for punishment for the offences under Sections 447, 324, 354-D, 506 of IPC and Sec.12 of POCSO Act, 2012.

7)The cognizance of offences was taken U/ss.324, 354-D, 506 of

IPC and Secs.11(iv) r/w 12 of POCSO Act, 2012 against the accused.

8)On receipt of summons, the accused made his appearance through his counsel. Copies of documents relied upon by the prosecution were furnished to him in compliance of Sec.207 Cr.P.C. The accused was examined under section 228 Cr.P.C, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. After hearing both sides, charges punishable under sections 354-D, 366, 324, 506 of IPC and Secs.11(iv) r/w 12 of

POCSO Act, 2012 were framed against accused. The contents of the charges were read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

9)To prove its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.10.

10)After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C. with regard to incriminating material in the 5 APKR240000732025 evidence of prosecution witnesses, read-over and explained to him in

Telugu for which he denied. When the accused was called upon to enter his defence, he reported no defence evidence.

11)Now the points for determination are; (1)Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of accused for the charges punishable under sections 354-D, 366, 324, 506 of IPC and Secs.11(iv) r/w 12 of POCSO Act, 2012 beyond reasonable doubt?

(2)To what relief?

12)Heard the arguments of the learned Special Public Prosecutor and learned defence counsel. Perused the material record.

Point No.1: Appreciation of Evidence:

13)In this case, PW1/the defacto-complainant and victim girl and

PW2/the mother of victim girl did not support the case of the prosecution. The evidence of PW1 is that on 12.05.2024, some disputes arose in between them and the accused with regard to a boundary. Thereupon she and her mother went to the police station and reported the matter. The police obtained her signature on a white paper. Ex.P.1 is her signature on the report, dt.12.05.2024.

Subsequently, the WSI of Police came to their (PW1) home and obtained her signature and signature of PW2 on a white paper. Ex.P.2 is her signature on the statement recorded by WSI of Police. Later, she was taken to the Court in Avanigadda and there she gave statement to the Magistrate at the instance of police. At that time, she completed X

Class. Thereafter, she studied up to Intermediate and stopped her further studies. Subsequently, her parents performed her marriage.

14)The evidence of PW2/the mother of victim girl is also on the same lines as that of her daughter/PW1.

6 APKR240000732025

15)PWs.1 and 2 with one voice said that the police did not examine them in this case. The learned Special Public Prosecutor cross- examined PWs.1 and 2 by taking permission from the court as they turned hostile to the prosecution case, but nothing useful was elicited in their cross-examination to support the case of the prosecution except marking Exs.P.3 and P.4 their previous section 161 Cr.P.C., statements respectively. The learned Spl. Public Prosecutor could not elicit anything in favour of the prosecution by cross-examining PWs.1 and 2. The previous statements of PWs.1 and 2 marked under Exs.P.3 and P.4 cannot be used to corroborate the prosecution case as they are useful to contradict the witnesses. Therefore, mere marking of previous statements recorded U/s.161 Cr.P.C is not sufficient to rope the accused with the offence. Whatever elicited in the cross-examination confronting previous statements of PWs.1 and 2 is of no avail to the case of the prosecution. PWs.1 and 2 denied the suggestions given by the learned

Special Public Prosecutor as to the case of the prosecution.

16)The evidence of PW3, who was S.I. of Police and the investigating officer in this case, is that on 12.05.2024, on the written report presented by the defacto-complainant/PW1 to LW.14/ASI under

Ex.P.5, LW.14 registered a case in Cr.No.265/2024 for the offences under Sections 447, 324, 506, 354-D of IPC and Section 12 of POCSO

Act and issued FIR under Ex.P.6. LW.14 submitted the original FIR to the court and copies thereof to the officers concerned. LW.14 examined

PW2, LWs.3 to 5 and recorded their statements. LW.14 sent the victim girl/PW1 to the Government Hospital, Challapalli for medical examination. On 13.05.2024, LW.14 visited the scene of offence situated at the house of complainant along with mediators/LWs.9 and 10 and observed the same and seized the piece of cement rock, blood stained chunni, blood stained shirt and got drafted crime scene 7 APKR240000732025 observation report under Ex.P.7 and drew rough sketch of the scene of offence under Ex.P.8. There he examined LWs.6 and 7 and recorded their statements.

17)PW3 further deposes that on 14.05.2024, he (PW3) received CD file from LW.14 and took up further investigation in this case. He perused the CD file, verified the investigation done by LW.14 and found it on correct lines. On 15.05.2024, accused came to the police station and surrendered before him. He served notice under Section 41-A of

Cr.P.C to the accused. On his requisition, LW.12/WSI of Police recorded the statement of the victim girl/PW1 in the house of victim girl under the cover of videography. On 18.06.2024, he obtained wound certificate of the victim girl from LW.11 under Ex.P.9. LW.11 opined that the injuries sustained are simple in nature. On 18.07.2024, on his requisition, LW.8/Head Master of ZPH school issued study certificate of the victim girl under Ex.P.10. As per Ex.P.10, her date of birth is 22.08.2007. On 19.07.2024, on his requisition, LW.13/JMFC,

Avanigadda recorded the statement of victim girl under Sec.164 Cr.P.C.

After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused. PW2 stated before him as in Ex.P.4 Sec.161 Cr.P.C.

statement. In his cross-examination, he denied the suggestions given by the learned defence Counsel as to the case of the accused.

18)The learned Special Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of LW.3/Neelam Nageswara Rao, LW.4/Thota Srinivasarao,

LW.5/Kosuru Pandu, LW.6/Thota Pramila, LW.7/Thota Malleswari,

LW.8/Polavarapu Jayanthi, LW.9/Choragudi Sarala, LW.10/Adapa Veera

Venkata Ravi Prasad, LW.11/Dr.C.Prasanna, LW.12/Katta Hymavathi,

LW.13/Sri Lanke Gopinadh, JMFC, Avanigadda, LW.14/Sri N.N.Purna

Chandra Rao, submitting that no purpose will be served even if they are 8 APKR240000732025 examined, except wasting the precious time of the court. The learned

Special Public Prosecutor would argue that after filing this case the parties entered into compromise out of the court and that’s why the material witnesses turned hostile to the case of prosecution. So, the case may be decided on merits. The learned defence Counsel would argue that the material witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution. The only witness who supported the case of the prosecution is PW3 the investigating officer. Basing on the evidence of

PW3, the accused cannot be convicted. So, the accused may be acquitted for the said charges.

19)As stated supra, PW1/the defacto-complainant and victim girl and

PW2/the mother of victim girl did not support the case of the prosecution. The only witness, who supported the case of prosecution is PW3/the Investigating Officer. As seen from the record, it is obvious that after filing this case the parties entered into compromise. When the matter was compromised out of the court and the material witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution, basing on the evidence of

PW3/the Investigating Officer, the accused cannot be convicted and it is difficult to record the conviction for the said charges. In such situations, the entire case of the prosecution crumbles. On over all consideration of entire material on record, there is no cogent, convincing and substantial evidence on record to establish the complicity of the accused. So, it can be held that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of accused for the charges punishable U/ss.354-D, 366, 324, 506 of IPC and Secs.11(iv) r/w 12 of POCSO Act, 2012 beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, this point is answered accordingly.

Point No.2:

20)In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the charges punishable under Sections 354-D, 366, 324, 506 of IPC and Secs.11(iv) 9 APKR240000732025 r/w 12 of POCSO Act, 2012. Hence, he is acquitted U/s.235 (1) of

Cr.P.C for the said charges. His bail bonds shall stand canceled after expiry of six months period as per section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The un- marked non-valuable property i.e. rock (Konda Raayi) and cloths of victim girl viz., (1) Blood stained shirt and (2) Chunni, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr-III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 05th day of May, 2026.

Spl. Judge for Speedy Trial of Offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Krishna, Machilipatnam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE:

PW1: Victim girl - None-

PW2: T.Sivakumari

PW3: Ch.China Babu, S.I. of Police

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE:

Ex.P.1: Signature of PW1 on the- Nil - report, dt.12.05.2024 Ex.P.2: Signature of PW1 on the statement recorded by WSI of Police. Ex.P.3: Section 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW1 Ex.P.4: Section 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW2 Ex.P.5: Report of PW1 Ex.P.6: FIR in Cr.No.265/2024 Ex.P.7: Crime scene observation report Ex.P.8: Rough sketch of the scene of offence. Ex.P.9: Wound Certificate of the victim girl Ex.P.10: Study Certificate of the victim girl 10 APKR240000732025

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED: - Nil-

Spl. Judge for Speedy Trial of Offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Krishna, Machilipatnam.