Smt.Harisha

1 S.C.No. 340 of 2018

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

DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND POCSO ACT CASES,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B. NAGAR.

Monday, the 14th day of November, 2023.

Present: Smt. Harisha, IX Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum- IX Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar, FAC Special Court for Expeditious Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act cases, R.R.District at L.B.Nagar.

Sessions Case No. 340 of 2018

(Cr.No.162 of 2017 of P.S Yacharam)

1 Name of the complainantThe State of Telangana through the Inspector of Police, P.S Yacharam, Rachakonda 2 Name of the accusedRamavath Chander @ Chandu, S/o Lakpathi, Age: 20 years, Occ: Car Driver, Caste: ST (Lambada), R/o H.No.6-1, Nallavelli Thanda, H/o Nallavelli Village, Yacharam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District 3 Offences charged Under Sections 366, 376 (2)(i)(n) of the Indian Penal Code, Section 5(l) r/w 6 of POCSO Act.

4 Crime No.& Name of the PS 162 of 2017 of P.S Yacharam 5 Plea of the accusedPleaded not guilty.

6 Finding of the CourtFound guilty.

7 Sentence or orderIn the result, the accused is found guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 366, 376(2)(i)(n) of the Indian Penal Code and under section 5(l) r/w 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. Accordingly, he is convicted under Section 235 (2) Cr.P.C for the said offences. In view of Section 42 of POCSO Act,as the victim girl was child at time of offence, the accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Twenty (20) years and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five

Spl. Judge 2 S.C.No. 340 of 2018

Thousand only) and in default of payment of fine amount, he has to further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six (6) months for the offence under Section 5(l) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 which is punishable under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

He is further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of 10(ten years) and pay fine of Rs.5,000/- in default of payment of fine, he has to further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six (6) months for the offence under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code.Both sentences shall run concurrently.

The fine amount of Rs.30,000/- shall be paid to the victim girl/PW1 towards compensation for her pain and suffering. The remand period undergone by the accused from 18.07.2017 to 12.09.2017 shall be set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. The case property i.e. MO. 1 shall be confiscated to state and MOs. 2 to 5 shall be destroyed after the lapse of appeal period.

The Accused is appraised about his right to prefer an appeal before the

Hon’ble High Court and he is further

informed that he will be provided legal aid counsel, if required. Free copy of the judgment is supplied to him.

As the Accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act for committing aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the victim girl, this Court is of the considered opinion that the victim girl has to be compensated for her sufferance both physical and mental and as such an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten lakhs Only) is decided as compensation amount. Therefore, the Secretary, District

Spl. Judge 3 S.C.No. 340 of 2018

Legal Services Authority, is directed to take steps for payment of the said compensation amount of Rs.10,00,000/- to the victim girl at the earliest.

8 Name of the Prosecution Smt. B. Sunitha counsel 9 Name of the counsel for Sri Sk. Mastan Vali the accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Smt. B. Sunitha, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri Sk. Mastan Vali, counsel for the accused and upon hearing both sides and perusing the material on record, this Court delivered the following:

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

1. The Inspector of Police, P.S. Yacharam filed Charge sheet in Cr.No.162 of 2017 against the accused for the offences punishable under Secs.366, 376 (2)(i) of Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual

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

2.It is the case of the prosecution that, on 14-07-2017 received a report from the victim stating that the accused i.e., Ramavath Chander who is aged about 19 years who is resident of her village, followed & pressurized the victim on the pretext of love and marriage and developed sexual relation with her since for the past six months. The accused got acquaintance with the victim, proposed her in the name of love and she accepted the same on his assurance of marriage. Since then accused gradually developed acquaintance with her by making regular phone calls, induced her for the sexual intercourse and they used to have sexual intercourse at her house in the absence of her family members. The parents of the victim came to know about their affair, sent her to Hyderabad with a view to keep her away from the accused. After re-opening of school she returned to her native village and again the accused approached

Spl. Judge 4 S.C.No. 340 of 2018 her and presented her cloths in the name of love and marriage. On 10-07- 2017 at about 22:00 hours, while the victim was on the way to her aunt’s house from her residence bring curry for dinner, the accused sent two of his friends to call the victim to meet him, but she refused. Then the accused who was waiting there gagged cloths in her mouth to prevent her from screaming, forcibly took her to fields and had sexual intercourse with her and thereafter fled away from the scene. The victim returned to home by weeping and on questioning she revealed entire scenario to her parents and on the following day i.e., 11-07-2017 the complainant parents duly accompanied with their community elders held panchayath at accused residence on which the accused confessed to have sexual intercourse with her, but he refused to marry her.

Thus the accused enticed the victim on the pretext of love and marriage and exploited her sexually. Hence, he requested to take necessary action as per the law.

3.Basing on the contents of above complaint the Inspector of Police registered a case in Crime No.162/2017 U/Sec. 376(2)(i), 366 the Indian Penal

Code and Section 4 of POCSO Act-2012 and took up the investigation.

4.During the course of investigation, the Inspector of Police got examined the victim by Women Inspector of Police and she recorded the statement of victim. The Inspector of Police visited the scene of offence caused discreet enquiries into the facts, prepared Crime detail form at the instance in the presence of two mediators i.e., Sabavath Huna and Rathnala Yadagiri. The

Inspector of Police examined the parents of the victim and relatives and elders of their village who stood as panchayathdars and recorded their statements.

The Inspector of Police under requisition to Head Master of the school of the victim collected the bonafide certificate of the victim and as per the certificate the date of birth of the victim is found as 12-02-2005, which reveals that the

Spl. Judge 5 S.C.No. 340 of 2018 victim is 13 years old and she is a minor girl. The Inspector of Police sent the victim girl to the Government Maternity Hospital, where in Dr.Prasanna Laxmi examined the victim, collected the vaginal swabs, smears and her undergarments and clothes to send them to Forensic Science Laboratory.

5. On 18-07-2017 at 07:00 hours, the Inspector of Police apprehended the accused at Maal, Ranga Reddy district and the voluntarily confessed his guilt and while he was in a mood to confess his guilt the Inspector of Police secured the presence of two mediators i.e.,Rathnala Venkatesh and Nagati Venkatesh seized his mobile phone i.e., Samsung Duos small buttons vide sim

No.9948798541. The Inspector of Police along with mediators being guided by the accused proceeded to his residency where the accused shown his garments at the time of commission of offence and seized them at the instance of the confession of the accused in presence of above said panchas. After completion of confession cum seizure panchanama the Inspector of Police brought the accused to Police Station and affected his arrest. Dr. G.Devraj held potency test over the accused and opined that there is nothing to suggest that the accused was not capable to perform sexual act. The Inspector of Police got recorded the statement of victim girl U/Sec.164 Cr.P.C statement by the

Magistrate concerned and got collected the copy of 164 Cr.P.C statement of the

victim.

6.While the investigation was in progress, the Inspector of Police collected the Forensic Science Laboratory report furnished by Dr. S. Gowthami. Basing on the Forensic Science Laboratory report Dr. Prasanna Laxmi opined that “Possibility of Sexual intercourse cannot be ruled out”. After completion of investigation the Inspector of Police filed charge sheet. Thus, the accused has committed the offences punishable under Sections 366, 376(2)(i) of Indian

Spl. Judge 6 S.C.No. 340 of 2018

Penal Code and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences

Act, 2012 (for short ‘the POCSO Act’).

7.The Hon'ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge, R.R.District at L.B.Nagar took cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 366 of the Indian Penal

Code and Sec. 3 r/w 4 of the POCSO Act and registered as Spl.SC. 340 of 2018 and issued summons to accused.

8.On appearance of accused, case copies were furnished to accused

U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C.

9.The Hon'ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge heard on charges and charges were framed against the accused for the offences punishable under sections 366, 376(2)(i)(n) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 5(l) read with 6 of the

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short ‘the POCSO

Act’) and explained to him in his Vernacular language, he pleaded not guilty & claimed to be tried.

10.By virtue of order Dt. 19-02-2020 in vide Dis.No.455/2020 Metropolitan

Sessions Judge, R.R.District at L.B.Nagar made over this case to this court, for

trial and disposal.

11.During course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 14 were examined and Ex.P1 to P17 and Mos. 1 to 5 were marked and police filed report with attested copy of death certificate of LW17/ Dr. Devaraj, hence evidence of

LW17/ Dr. Devaraj is closed and learned Special Public Prosecutor has given up the evidences of the mother of victim, Sabavath Huna who is one of the panch witnesses for scene of offence panchanama and the evidence of one

Rathlavath Venkatesh who is panch witness for confession cum seizure panchanama, even the evidence of learned magistrate who recorded the statement of the victim girl Under section 164 Cr.P.C in this case.

Spl. Judge 7 S.C.No. 340 of 2018

12.On completion of examination of witnesses on behalf of prosecution, accused was examined Under Section 313 Cr.P.C and explained all the incriminating evidences available against him, he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

13.Heard both counsels.

14.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed Written Arguments and argued that in this case Pw1 is the victim, the accused followed the victim on the pretext of love and he developed physical contact with the victim and he promised her to marry her, but after some days the accused refused for marriage with the victim, even on 10-7-2017 in the night hours when the victim was proceeding to the house of her aunt to bring curry for dinner, the accused in this case stopped her in the middle of the way, he closed her mouth and kept a cloth w in her mouth, forcibly took her to the nearby fields and committed rape on her, the victim informed the same to her parents, when the parents of the victim and community elders held panchayath, the accused admitted that he participated in sexual intercourse with the victim, but denied to marry her.

Hence, the victim lodged report before police. In this case all the prosecution witnesses have supported the version of prosecution, the prosecution successfully proved the offences which are charged against the accused, the evidences of Pws.1 to 4 and 9 to 14, the documents Ex.P1, 6 to 17 are totally supporting the version of prosecution, seizure of MOs 1 to 5 proved before the court hence, it can be said that the prosecution successfully proved that the accused has committed the offences charged against the him, she prayed the court to convict the accused.

15. She relied on the following citations:-

i). In Hon'ble Supreme Court in Radhakrishna Nagesh Vs. State of Andhra

Pradesh reported in (2013)(1) SCC 688.

Spl. Judge 8 S.C.No. 340 of 2018

ii). 2017(1) ALD (Crl.) 57 (SC) in between Yogesh Singh of 2013 Vs.

Mahabeer Singh and others wherein it was held that“It is well settled in law that the minor discrepancies are not to be given undue emphasis and the evidence is to be considered from the point of view of trustworthiness. The test is whether the same inspires confidence in the mind of the Court. If the evidence is incredible and cannot be accepted by the test of prudence, then it may create a dent in the prosecution version. If an omission or discrepancy goes to the root of the matter and ushers in incongruities, the defence can take advantage of such inconsistencies. It needs no special emphasis to state that every omission cannot take place of a material omission and, therefore, minor contradictions, inconsistencies or insignificant embellishments do not affect the core of the prosecution case and should not be taken to be a ground to reject the prosecution evidence. The omission should create a serious doubt about the truthfulness or creditworthiness of a witness. It is only the serious contradictions and omissions which materially affect the case of the prosecution but not every contradiction or omission”.

iii). In the state of Punjab Vs. Gurmit Singh (1996) 2 SCC 384, it was held that in cases involving sexual harassment, molestation etc. the court is duty bound to deal with such cases with utmost sensitivity. Minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of a prosecutrix should not be a ground for throwing out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. Evidence of the victim of sexual assault is enough for conviction and it does not require any corroboration unless there are compelling reasons for seeking corroboration. The court may look for some assurances of her statement to satisfy judicial conscience.

It was held that the courts should examine the broader probabilities of a case and not get swayed by minor contradictions or significant discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix, which are not of a fatal nature, to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. If evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence, it must be relied upon without seeking corroboration of her statement in material particulars, if for some reason the court finds it difficult to place implicit reliance on her testimony, it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony, short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The testimony of the prosecutrix must be appreciated in the

Spl. Judge 9 S.C.No. 340 of 2018 background of the entire case and the trial court must be alive to its responsibility and be sensitive while dealing with cases involving sexual molestations.

iv). (special court) Vs. Unknown (decided on 4th day of April 2014) in Crl.

A.No.877 of 2020 from SC No. 241 of 2001 of the additional sessions curt

(special court), Kottayam, the Hon'be High Court of Kerala held as follows:

It was held that Without the fear of making too wide a statement, or of overstating the case, it can be said that rarely will a girl or a woman in India make false allegations of sexual assault on account of any such factor as has been just enlisted. The statement is generally true in the context of the urban as also rural society. It is also by and large true in the context of the sophisticated not so sophisticated and unsophisticated society. Only very rarely can one conceivably come across an exception or two and that too possibly from amongst the urban elites. Because (1) A girl or a woman in the tradition bound non- permissive society of India would be extremely reluctant even to admit that any incident which is likely to reflect on her chastity had ever occurred. (2) she would be conscious of the danger of being ostracized by the society or being looked down by the society including by her own family members, relatives, friends and neighbours, (3) she would have to brave the whole world (4) She would face the risk of losing the love and respect of own husband and near relatives and of her matrimonial home and happiness being shattered. (5) if she is unmarried, she would apprehend that it would be difficult to secure an alliance with a suitable match from a respectable or an acceptable family. (6) it would almost inevitably and almost invariably result in mental torture and suffering to herself. (7) The fear of being taunted by others will always haunt her. (8) she would feel extremely embarrassed in relating the incident to others being overpowered by a feeling of shame on account of the upbringing in a tradition bound society where by and large sex in taboo. (9) the natural inclination would be to avoid giving publicity to the incident lest the family name and family honor is brought into controversy. (10) the parents of an unmarried girl as also husband and members of the husbands family of a married woman, would also more often that not, want to avoid publicity on account of the fear of social stigma on the family name and family honor. (11) The fear of the victim herself being considered to be promiscuous or in some way responsible for the incident investigating agency, to

Spl. Judge 10 S.C.No. 340 of 2018 face the court, to face the cross examination by counsel for the culprit and the risk of being disbelieved act as a deterrent.

v). Bhisen Tyagi Vs. State of Telangana and another reported in 2021(1)

ALD (Crl) 466(TS), their Lord ships held as follows:

The offences relating to POCSO stand on a different footing. The act of sexual offences against children/minors shakes the conscience of the society and creates sense of fear insecurity. Inspite of IPC dealing with sexual offences under chapter XVI which also include offences committed against minor children, a need was felt to enact POCSO Act 2012, which deals with various forms of aggravated penetrative sexual assault as enumerated under section 5 therein, section 6 of the said Act deals with punishment for aggravated sexual assault and prescribes rigorous imprisonment which shall not be less that twenty years, but which may extent to imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for remainder of natural life of that person and shall also liable for fine and death. It can be presumed from greater degree of punishment provided under the POCSO Act, that the menace of sexual offences against children has reached enormous proportions and same needs to be tackled with an iron hand, so as to be deterrent on the offenders.

That POCSO Act is a special law, where presumption of guilt was on the accused, it is presumed that the accused has committed the crime unless he can prove his innocence beyond doubt. The offence is not against the individual child, but is against society.

vi). Imran Shamim Khan V. State of Maharashtra (2019) Imran Shamim

Khan Respondent- State of Maharashtra, she argued that In the said case, the victim had turned hostile, but the court concluded that there was still enough evidence against the accused and the victim seems to have been pressurized to turn hostile and so the onus of proving innocence is on the accused, there is ample evidence to indicate that the victim had rather been sexually assaulted.

In this case the Hon’ble apex court made it clear that under POCSO act the onus of proving the innocence of the accused would shift on the accused even if the victim turns hostile during trial. The reasoning for this decision is that the family members of the victim are convinced by the accused and they in turn

Spl. Judge 11 S.C.No. 340 of 2018 pressure the victim to resile from her statement. The object of POCSO Act is the best interest and well being of the child and not the accused. Section 29 of the

POCSO act shares that it is presumed that the offence is committed unless the contrary is proved.

vii).S.Suresh Vs. State of Tamilnadu (2017) “Section 30 provides the opportunity to the accused to prove his/her innocence thereby making the presumption under section 29 rebuttable. The accused was convicted under the

POCSO Act and he had not rebutted the presumption of Section 29. Therefore, the court observed that the rebuttable presumption also proves the guilt of the accused.

16. The learned counsel for the accused filed written arguments and submitted that in this case PW2, PW3, PW4 are hearsay witnesses and they are relatives witnesses of PW1/victim, and they are interested witnesses and their evidence is not admissible under law as per Section 60 of Indian Evidence Act which says “Hearsay Evidence is not admissible” it was held in 1984(1) SCC 319 & in AIR 2011 SC 760, even PW5, PW6, PW7 and PW8 turned hostile, in this case and they did not support the prosecution case.

17.It is further argued that being educated person Pw1 is aged about 13 years according to Ex.P10, but she mentioned in Ex. P1, her age is 15 years and also she deposed before Pw12 who recorded 161 statement of Pw1 as of 15 years, so it is absolutely false and PW1 has not submitted any proof to show that the accused harassed to her and also she has not submitted any record to show that through which phone number the accused used to talk to her and also she has not submitted any evidence to show which clothes were presented to her by the accused person and also she has not submitted the cloth kept in her mouth by the accused person also the PW1 failed to submit before police in regard to her age, caste and study proof and also she has not mentioned the

Spl. Judge 12 S.C.No. 340 of 2018 names of friends of accused sent to her by accused and also Pw1 has not submitted any proof with regard the allegation that the accused participated sexually intercourse with her, the Pw1 has not mentioned names of elders who conducted panchayath and its proof, even she did not mention in her statement also.

18. He further argued that Pw1 deposed before this Hon'ble court on 21-06- 2022 as Lw6 is her uncle, Lw7 is her caste person, I Knows Lw7 and Lw8, even they are relatives and known persons and also elder persons who panchayath and also eye witness in this case, they did not support her version and they were declared as hostile witnesses, if really this incident has happened, they ought to have deposed before court true facts, according to their evidence they don't know any thing about this case, according to their version it is clearly showing that PW1 filed false case falsely against the accused.

19. The victim/Pw1 deposed before this court that her residence is

Nallavelly Thanda and the same way the Pw3 deposed before this Hon'ble court her residence is Nallavelly village, according to Pw14 the distance between

Nallavelly Thanda to Nallavelly Village is 2 to 3 km, but the Pw4 who is brother of Pw1 deposed in his cross examination as the house of Pw3 is situated to some distance from their house, there are 3-4 houses in between our house and the Pw3 and also the Pw3 deposed in her cross examination as there are two house in between her house and house of Pw1, by these different statements deposed by Pw1, Pw3, Pw4 and Pw14, the version of Pw1 regarding the alleged incident of rape at fields is absolute false and incorrect, according to Ex. P7/Rough Sketch not showing any houses.

20. He further argued that either in Ex.P1 and in 161 and 164 statement of

PW1 and in Ex. P11 no injuries are shown on any part of body of the victim and

Spl. Judge 13 S.C.No. 340 of 2018 same was accepted by Pw1 and Pw13 (Doctor) as per the citation in Crl.L.J page

No.1501 (Bombay) Tukaram Govind Yadav vs. State of Maharastra, and also in another judgment i.e., in 2012 Crl.L.J (NOC) 172 (MP) Pratap vs State of Madya

Pradesh, in this case the Hon’ble Madya Pradesh High court held as “No sign of violence or rape with prosecutrix was found in MLC report. It was also not stated by the prosecutrix in her statement with regard to the act of penetration in her private part offfence of rape not made out” these two judgments are clearly applicable to this case for giving acquittal to the accused by because in this case also there are no sign of violence or rape with prosecutrix was found in

MLC report and Medical report also not mentioned with regard sexual intercourse.

21.He further argued that as in this case there are many contradictions and omissions in the evidences PW nos. 1 to 14, even there is delay of 5 days in lodging of report by the victim, but the investigation officer mentioned that there is no delay. The age of the victim is not properly proved, Pw9 & 10 are interested witnesses, the witnesses Pw.5 to 8 did not support the version of prosecution, it shows that a false case has been foisted against the accused in this case. The accused was allegedly apprehended on 18-7-2017 at 7.00 am, he was produced before the court on the same day at 10.00 am, how in such a short period of time producing the accused before magistrate is possible, it is highly impossible.

22. He further argued that the real facts in this case are in this case are that the brother of victim took hand loan of Rs. 35,000/- from the accused, he did not repay the same, to avoid re payment of said amount with the help of Pw1, he foisted false case against the accused. He further argued that the family members of victim were intending to perform marriage of the victim with the accused, but he refused to marry her, as she was minor, bearing the said

Spl. Judge 14 S.C.No. 340 of 2018 grudges in the mind Pw1 foisted false case, even at present, the accused is a married person and he is having children, with out his fault he is falsely implicated in this case, as the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, he prayed the court to acquit the accused.

He relied on judgments as follows:-

1. Santosh Prasad @ Santosh Kumar Vs the State of Bihar dt 14-02-2020 (Supreme Court of India).

2. Rai Sandeep @ Deepu Vs State of Net of Delhi dt. 07-08-2012 (Supreme Court of India)

3. P. Yuvaprakash Vs State Rep. By Inspector of Police, dated: 18-07-2023 (Supreme court of India)

4. Avtar Singh & Anr Vs State of Punjab, dated: 02-08-2023 (Supreme court of

India)

5. Uday Vs State of Karnataka, dated: 19-02-2003 (Supreme court of India)

6. State of AP Rep. By the PP Vs Sajja Ramakanth and others, dated: 16-11-2022 (High court of Andra Pradesh), Crl.Apl.1164/2009

7. Sate (Nct of Delhi) Vs Raman Kumar on 17-03-2017 (High court of Delhi)

8. The State of Govt. Of Net of Delhi Vs Tufail on 16-07-2019 (High court of

Delhi)

9. Pappu and another Vs State of UP, dated: 27-07-2022

10. Sreekanth Vs State of Kerala, dated: 06-10-2022

11. Mallikarjun Vs State of Karnataka, dated: 23-08-2023.

12. AIR 2006 SC 1800, U/s. 25 of IE Act. Confession to police inadmissible

13. AIR 2005 SC 4352, U/c. 25 of IE Act. Confession cannot be sole basis of conviction

14. 1957 Crl. L.J. 1014, AIR 2001 SC 1512, AIR 2013 SC 3150 Suspicion however strong cannot take the place of proof.

15. 1984 (1) SCC 319, AIR 2011 SC 760.Hearsay evidence is not admissible U/s.

59 of the Indian Evidence Act,

Spl. Judge 15 S.C.No. 340 of 2018

16. 1979 Crl. L.J.51. U/. 154 of Cr.PC, Delay in registering FIR and recording U/s.

161 of Cr.PC caste doubt over the story of prosecution,

17. 1985 Crl. L.J 1773. U/s. 161 of Cr. PC the statement made under was narrated to the witness before he/she entering the box his evidence was held inadmissible,

18. 2000 (1) ALD (crl) 718. Under Section 354 of Cr.P.C merely assault does not amount to outrage of modesty

19. 1985 Crl. L.J 580 Under Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act examination of only interested witness when disinterested witnesses are available it casts doubt on prosecution

20. 1995 Crl. L.J. 3002 Under Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act circumstantial evidence if two views are possible on such evidence view pointing towards innocence of accused is to be adopted

21. 2004 (2) ALT (crl) 29 under section 27 of IE Act confession do not contain signature or thumb impression of accused no credibility to the disclosure statement

22. 1974 SCC (crl) 530, AIR 1964 SC 1563, inconsistent version of the occurrence by prosecution witnesses one version contained in evidence of witnesses in court while the other contained in their statements made before police held accused were rightly acquitted by the high court

23. 2004 SCC (crl) 16 (supp). contradictions inconsistencies exaggerations, embellishments allegation made first time during the course of trail not acceptable

24. 1979 SCC (crl) 323. Non examination of marital witnesses held fatal to the prosecution case under section 231, 242, 244, of Cr.PC.

25. 2012 (2) ALT (crl) 24 (SC). If two views are possible on the basis of evidence the view favorable to accused has to be taken

26. 1996 Crl. L.J 3368.Statement recorded under section 161 of Cr.PC is not admissible in evidence

27. 2001 Crl. L.J 4700. It the complaint is not believed and in the absence of any cogent and independent witness, expect the evidence of close relative and friends a conviction cannot be based

28. 1997 Crl.L.J 324. Lacune in FIR cannot be filed in examination in chief

29. 1994 Crl.L.J 12 (Gauwati),, ingredients of offence not made out

Spl. Judge 16 S.C.No. 340 of 2018

30. 2000(1) ALD (crl) 718.U/s. 354 of Indian Penal Code:- mere assault does not amount to outrage of modesty 2000(1) ALD (crl) 718.

31. 2011 Crl.L.J 4920, 2011 (2) ALD (crl) 965. under section 27 of the Indian

Evidence Act:- Recover on disclosure by accused recovery memos singed by punch witnesses at police station evidence of recovery lose sanctity

32. 2011 (1) SCC (crl) 955.U/s. 27 of the Indian Evidence Act:- disclosure statement of accused recorded by police while accused in police custody -Reiterated not admissible statement made to police can only be used to limit extend provided Under section 27 of Indian Evidence Act and that too only against person making statement and not against co accused persons

33. 2010(3) ALT (crl) 137 (AP) under section 161 & 162 of Cr.P.C:- what is a contradiction what is a omission how to prove a contradiction and omission.

34. DHIRENDRA PATEL ALIAS JONY VS STATE OF UP (HC OF ALLAHABAD,

DATED: 06-02-2019.

35. 1996 CRL. L.J 460 (HC OF ALLAHABAD).

36. 2002 (1) ALT (Crl.) 272 (AP).

37. 2000 (2) ALT (Crl.) 453 (AP).

38. MAFAT LAL & ANR VS THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN (SC) DATED: 28-03-2022.

39. 2017 CRL. L.J. 2117(HC OF UTTARAKHAND).

40. Lalta Prasad vs. State of M.P. reported in AIR 1979 SC 1276, it could not be established that the prosecutrix was ever subjected to any sexual intercourse by the accused against her will. On the other hand, there was the evidence of the

Doctor that when she was examined after the occurrence, the Doctor found old torn hymen and no sign of any rape or any forcefully intercourse with her. That being so, the conviction of the appellant under Section 376 IPC was set aside.

Evidence Act – Sec 60 – Hearsay evidence – meaning – word hearsay is used in various senses – sometimes it means whatever a person is heard to say –

Sometimes it means whatever a person declares on information given by someone else and sometimes it is treated as nearly synonymous with irrelevant – The saying and doings of third person are as a rule, irrelevant, so that no proof of them can be admitted – it is a fundamental rule of evidence under the

Indian Law that hearsay evidence is inadmissible – Hearsay evidence is excluded on the ground that it is always desirable, in the interest of justice, to get the person, whose statement is relied upon, into court for his examination in the

Spl. Judge 17 S.C.No. 340 of 2018 regular way – reasons why hearsay evidence is not received as relevant evidence are: (a) the person giving such evidence does not feel any responsibility – The law requires all evidence to be given under personal responsibility, i.e., every witness must give his testimony, under such circumstance, as expose him to all the penalties of falsehood.

23. Now the points for determination are:- (1).Whether the victim girl was a child as on the date of offence as defined under Section 2 (d) of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act?

(2). Whether the prosecution could able to prove that the accused kidnapped the victim girl who was minor aged by gagging cloth in her mouth to prevent her from screaming and forcibly took her to the fields and thereby forcibly committed rape, whether prosecution could able to prove U/Section 366 of

Indian Penal Code against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt?

(3). Whether the prosecution could able to prove that the accused promised the victim to marry her and participated in sexual inter course repeatedly in the absence of family members of the victim by inducing her on the pretest of love and marriage, whether prosecution could able to prove the offence Under section 376(2) (i) (n) of Indian Penal Code against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt?

(4). Whether the prosecution could able to prove that the accused on assurance of marriage and since then accused committed repeated penetrative sexual assault against the victim girl several times in the absence of her family members by inducing her on the pretext of love and marriage, whether prosecution could able to prove the offence Under section 5(l) punishable under section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, against the Accused beyond all reasonable doubt?

24. Point 1 :-

It is seen from the record that this is a case in Cr.No. 162/2017 dt. 14-07- 2017 based on the report lodged by victim stating that, prior to 6 months her villager by name Ramavath Chander was harassing her in the name of love,

Spl. Judge 18 S.C.No. 340 of 2018 after 3 months she accepted his love, the accused promised to marry her and participated in sexual intercourse, in the absence of her family members the accused used to come to her and he used to participate in sexual intercourse with her. Subsequently, on knowing the love affair of victim and accused the family members of victim sent her to Hyderabad, after reopening of school she again returned to village. Even the accused brought clothes to her and promised to marry her. On 10-7-2017, at 10.00 pm she was proceeding to the house of her aunt to bring the curry for having dinner, in the middle of the way the accused sent his two friends, they called her by stating that the accused was calling her, but she did not go to the accused. In the meanwhile the accused who was present near to them came to her and he kept cloth in her mouth, dragged her to the fields and participated in the sexual intercourse, she returned to her house and informed the same to her parents. On 11-7-2017, in the morning hours the village elders went to the accused and questioned him on which the accused admitted his guilt, but he refused to marry the victim.

She requested to take necessary action.

25.In this case as per Ex. P1 as on the date of lodging of report the accused was 19 years old and victim was 15 years old. In this case the victim was examined before the court on 21-6-2022 deposed that her age was 18 years, as on the date of offence the victim was below the age of 18 years of age. In this case evidence on record shows that Pw11 is examined to support the version of prosecution, he issued Ex.P10, in this case Ex.P10 is the Bonafide certificate issued by Pw11, as earlier he worked as Head Master ZPHS Nallavelli. As on the date of his evidence before the court he retired from service. As per Ex.P10, the date of birth of victim is shown as 12-2-2005. The evidence of Pw11 is supported by the evidence of Pw14, as he collected Ex.P10 during the course of investigation.

Spl. Judge 19 S.C.No. 340 of 2018

26.In this case the defence counsel argued that the victim was major as on the date of lodging of report or even prior to that, but there is no evidence in contrary to the version of Pw1 submitted by the accused to disprove the evidence of Pw1 or Pw11 in regard to age of the victim. There is no rebuttal evidence on behalf of accused to disprove the age of the victim as on the date of alleged incident. Mere oral contentions can not be taken into consideration.

27.At this juncture this court would like to discuss Sec. 2(d) of POCSO Act which reads as under:-

“child” means any person below the age of eighteen years.

As this is an act which came into existence in the year 2012 mainly to protect the children from sexual harassment or sexual exploitation etc., the object of this act i.e., the protection of children from sexual offences Act 2012.

is “An act to protect children from offences of sexual assault, sexual harassment and pornography and provide for establishment of Special courts for trial of such offences and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.”

Hence on considering the above discussion and more particularly the evidences of PW1, PW11 and the document i.e., Ex. P10 this court feels that the prosecution could able to prove that the victim was child as defined Under section 2(d) of POCSO Act hence, this point is answered in favour of the prosecution.

POINT Nos 2 to 4:

28.PW1 who is victim, she deposed that she know the accused in case, she identified the accused, he belongs to her thanda. During the relevant time of incident, she was studying 8 class at ZPHS, Nallavalli village and she was aged about 13 years at the relevant time. During the time she got acquaintance with the in this case, for six months he used to harass her the pretext of love, after 3

Spl. Judge 20 S.C.No. 340 of 2018 months she accepted his love, they used to meet in their house, when nobody was there in her house, they both used to have sexual intercourse, even they used to talk over mobile phones. Later, her parents came to know regarding the same, her parents admonished both of them. Later, she was sent to Hyderabad as there was holidays. Later, after opening of the schools she went back to thanda, at the relevant time also used to follow her. On 10-07-2017, she went to her aunt's house i.e., house of PW3 for curry, the accused sent his two of his friends by names Sudhakar and Sikandar, they informed that accused was calling her, she refused. When she was returning to her house, the accused was besides a wall caught her and he kept a cloth in her mouth and he took her to their field by holding her, he participated in forcible sexual intercourse and he ran away from there. She returned to her home and informed the same to her parents. On 11-07-2017, talks were held before Panchayath elders, the accused agreed his guilt, but he refused to marry her. The accused ran away from there, they waited for three days, but the accused did not turn up. On 14-07-2017, she lodged report before Police i.e., Ex.P1 and she was examined by police and she was referred to hospital for medical test and even, her statement was recorded

before Magistrate.

29. PW2 who is father of the victim, she deposed that, PW1 is his daughter, he knows the accused in this case, he belongs to his village. At about 5 years back, PW1 went to the house of PW3 for curry, it was about 10:00 pm. While she was on the way to the house of Pw3 the accused in this case took his daughter towards the field by keeping a cloth in her mouth, he committed rape on his daughter, after some time his daughter returned home and she was weeping, she informed the same to them. On the next day, they held panchayath, they went to the house of the accused. Later, accused ran away from their village and he went to Hyderabad. Later, PW1 lodged report. One

Spl. Judge 21 S.C.No. 340 of 2018

Ramavath Ramu, Meravath Mangtha, Meravath Chandu, Ramavath Lachya,

Sabavath Panthu, Sabavath Raju were elders of the panchayath. He was examined by police.

30. PW3 who is the aunt of the victim, she deposed that PW2 is her own brother, PW1 is his daughter, She knows the accused, he is resident of her village. At about 5 years back, PW2 sent victim to her house for curry, it was about 10:00 pm, in the middle of way, while she was proceeding to their house.

The accused took the victim with him, he kept a cloth in the mouth of the victim, he took the victim to a field. After half an hour, PW2 called her and asked her regarding victim. She stated to him that victim did not come to her house, they searched here and there, in the midnight of 12:00 am, victim returned to her house by weeping, on enquiry victim informed her parents that the accused with a promise to marry her committed sexual intercourse with her. In the morning, she along with parents of the victim and elders of the village went to the house of the accused and questioned him. They admonished the accused, the accused refused to marry the victim and ran away from his house. Later, report was lodged before Police by victim and her family members. She was examined by Police.

31. PW4 is brother of the victim girl, he deposed that, victim is his younger sister, PW2 is his father, PW3 is his aunt, he know the accused, he belongs to his village, his name is Chandu @ Chander. The incident occurred about 5 years back, his sister was studying 8th standard, the accused used to harass her, later, he proposed her, his sister accepted for the same, later, they came to know regarding their love affair, they admonished the accused, as the accused did not change his attitude they sent the victim to Hyderabad to his senior paternal aunt’s house. After some days she came back to their village, on the relevant day of the incident at 10:00 pm PW1 went to the house of PW3 for curry, in the

Spl. Judge 22 S.C.No. 340 of 2018 middle of the way the accused met her, forcibly took her to a field and committed rape against her, on the same night she returned back to their house by weeping, informed the incident to his parents, on the next day talks were held in presence of elders, accused admitted his guilt but, he refused for marriage, he took three days time, but later he absconded, they went to Police station Yacharam and lodged report. He was examined by Police.

32.PW5 & 6 are circumstantial witnesses/Community elders and Pw7 & 8 are alleged eye witnesses, they did not support the version of prosecution and they were treated as Hostile witnesses.

33. PW9 is one of the panch witnesses for scene of offence, he deposed that at about five years back he along with another panch witness attended the proceedings of Panchanama of scene of offence/Ex.P6 and rough sketch/ Ex.P7 which are marked in his evidence. He totally supported the version of prosecution.

34.PW10 is panch witness for confession cum seizure panchanama, he deposed that he do not have acquaintance with the accused, but he saw him in

Maal bus stand. At about 5 years back, he was proceeding to his village, he was present near Maal bus stand. The accused was present there, police came to him, police were enquiring the accused and he observed the same. The accused admitted his guilt in this case, police seized one Samsung cell phone from the accused and prepared the proceedings of panchanama of confession of the accused in their presence. MO1 is Samsung cell phone seized by police in their presence. Basing on confession of the accused they along with police, the accused proceeded to the house of the accused, police seized one blue colour jeans pant i.e., MO2, Orange colour shirt i.e., MO3, white colour banian i.e., MO4 and Blue colour underwear i.e., MO5 from the house of the accused under

Spl. Judge 23 S.C.No. 340 of 2018 proceedings of seizure, which was prepared in their presence.

35.PW11 is the retired Head master, he deposed that, on 15-07-2017, police

Yacharam came to him and requested to issue Bonafide certificate of the victim, accordingly he issued the same i.e., Ex.P10, as per Ex.P10., and the date of birth of the victim is 12-02-2005.

36.PW12 is the woman Inspector of Police, she deposed that in this case she received telephonic message from Pw14 on 15-07-2017 to record 161 Cr.P.C statement of the victim girl, accordingly she recorded the statement of the same day.

37.PW13 is the Medical officer, Maternity Hospital, she deposed that, on 15- 07-2017 she received requisition from the Inspector of police PS Yacharam to examine victim girl in this case, victim was accompanied by her mother and WPC

No. 6984 of PS Yacharam. She examined her at 06.30 pm on the same day, she collected vaginal smear, cervical smear, vaginal swabs, nail clippings, pubic hair from her and she issued preliminary examination report. Later in this case she also issued final opinion based on the report of Forensic Science Laboratory. In the final opinion she opined that “ the possibility of sexual assault cannot be ruled out”.

38.PW14 is the then Inspector of Police, PS Yacharam, he deposed that on 14-07-2017 at 04.00 pm Pw1 came to police station and lodged report, basing on which he registered case in crime No. 162 /2017 and issued FIR. On the same day he sent requisition to Pw12 for recording the statement of the victim, on the next day she recorded statement of the victim, on 14-07-2017 he recorded statements of Pw2 and and list of witness no.3 in the police station and also

Pw4. On the next day i.e., on 15-07-2017 he visited the scene of offence situated at Nalavelli Thanda, he conducted the proceedings of Ex.P6 and P7 in

Spl. Judge 24 S.C.No. 340 of 2018 presence of Pw9 and another mediator, he also recorded statements of Pw3, 5 to 8. On 15-07-2017 he sent the victim girl for medical examination to Maternity hospital, Koti, Hyderabad, Pw13 examined her and she collected vaginal swabs, vaginal smear, cervical smear, cervical swab, nail clippings, pubic hair, Axillary hair from the victim for sending the same to Forensic Science Laboratory.

examination, she issued preliminary examination report. The material objects were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory through ACP, Ibrahimpatnam vide letter dated: 24-07-2017, Forensic expert analyzed the material objects and issued report, In this case Pw13 also issued final opinion. She opined that “ possibility of sexual assault cannot ruled out”. In this case on 15-07-2017, he filed requisition before Pw11 to issue bonafide certificate of victim, he issued bonafide certificate, as per bonafide certificate date of birth of victim is 12-02- 2005. In this case he filed requisition before IV Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Ibrahimpatnam for recording of 164 CrPC statement of the victim ie., accordingly the magistrate concerned recorded 164 Cr.P.C statement of victim on 11-08-2017 ie.. In this case on 18-07-2017 he apprehended the accused in this case at 07.00 am in Mall village, on interrogation he was about to confess the offence, he called Pw10 and another mediator, in their presence he conducted proceedings of confession of accused, seized MO1 under the proceedings of confession panchanama. Basing on the confession of the accused he stated that he will show the clothes which were kept in his house, he along with panchas and accused proceeded to H.No. 6-1 situated at Nalavelli

Thanda, he seized MOs. 2 to 5 under proceedings of Ex.P9, he brought the accused to the police station, arrested the accused, he forwarded the accused to the medical officer for conducting of Potency test of the accused, the medical officer examined the accused and issued report, he opined that “ there is nothing to suggest that the individual examined is not capable of performing

Spl. Judge 25 S.C.No. 340 of 2018 the act of sexual intercourse”, he produced the accused before IV Metropolitan

Magistrate Court at Ibrahimpatnam, after collecting the necessary documents

in this case he filed charge sheet, he deposited the case property before this court.

39.At this juncture this court would like to discuss the following sections charged against the accused:-

Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code

Kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel her marriage, etc.—Whoever kidnaps or abducts any woman with intent that she may be compelled, or knowing it to be likely that she will be compelled, to marry any person against her will, or in order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, or knowing it to be likely that she will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; [and whoever, by means of criminal intimidation as defined in this Code or of abuse of authority or any other method of compulsion, induces any woman to go from any place with intent that she may be, or knowing that it is likely that she will be, forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person shall be punishable as aforesaid].

Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code :Punishment for Rape:

(1) Whoever, except in the cases provided for in sub-section (2), commits rape, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment of either description for a term which 1 [shall not be less than ten years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine]. (2) Whoever,—

(a) being a police officer, commits rape—

(i) within the limits of the police station to which such police officer is appointed; or

(ii) in the premises of any station house; or

(iii) on a woman in such police officer's custody or in the custody of a police officer subordinate to such police officer; or

(b) being a public servant, commits rape on a woman in such public servant's custody or in the custody of a public servant subordinate to such public servant; or

Spl. Judge 26 S.C.No. 340 of 2018

(c) being a member of the armed forces deployed in an area by the Central or a State Government commits rape in such area; or

(d) being on the management or on the staff of a jail, remand home or other place of custody established by or under any law for the time being in force or of a women's or children's institution, commits rape on any inmate of such jail, remand home, place or institution; or

(e) being on the management or on the staff of a hospital, commits rape on a woman in that hospital; or

(f) being a relative, guardian or teacher of, or a person in a position of trust or authority towards the woman, commits rape on such woman; or

(g) commits rape during communal or sectarian violence; or

(h) commits rape on a woman knowing her to becommits rape on pregnant; or (i) commits rape on a woman when she is under sixteen years of age; or

(j) commits rape, on a woman incapable of giving consent; or

(k) being in a position of control or dominance over a woman, commits rape on such woman; or

(l) commits rape on a woman suffering from mental or physical disability; or

(m) while committing rape causes grievous bodily harm or maims or disfigures or endangers the life of a woman; or (n) commits rape repeatedly on the same woman, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of that person's natural life, and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub-section,—

(a) "armed forces" means the naval, military and air forces and includes any member of the Armed Forces constituted under any law for the time being in force, including the paramilitary forces and any auxiliary forces that are under the control of the Central Government or the State Government;

(b) "hospital" means the precincts of the hospital and includes the precincts of any institution for the reception and treatment of persons during convalescence or of persons requiring medical attention or rehabilitation;

(c) "police officer" shall have the same meaning as assigned to the expression "police" under the Police Act, 1861 (5 of 1861);

(d) "women's or children's institution" means an institution, whether called an orphanage or a home for neglected women or children or a widow's home or an institution called by any other name, which is established and maintained for the reception and care of women or children. [(3) Whoever, commits rape on a woman under sixteen years of age shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than twenty years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of that person's natural life, and shall also be liable to fine:

Spl. Judge 27 S.C.No. 340 of 2018

Provided that such fine shall be just and reasonable to meet the medical expenses and rehabilitation of the victim: Provided further that any fine imposed under this sub-section shall be paid to the victim.]

Section 5 of POCSO Act:-

(a) Whoever, being a police officer, commits penetrative sexual assault on a child --

(i) within the limits of the police station or premises at which he is appointed; or

(ii) in the premises of any station house, whether or not situated in the police station, to which he is appointed; or

(iii) in the course of his duties or otherwise; or

(iv) where he is known as, or identified as, a police officer; or

(b) whoever being a member of the armed forces or security forces commits penetrative sexual assault on a child--

(i) within the limits of the area to which the person is deployed; or

(ii) in any areas under the command of the forces or armed forces; or

(iii) in the course of his duties or otherwise; or

(iv) where the said person is known or identified as a member of the security or armed forces; or

(c) whoever being a public servant commits penetrative sexual assault on a child; or

(d) whoever being on the management or on the staff of a jail, remand home, protection home, observation home, or other place of custody or care and protection established by or under any law for the time being in force, commits penetrative sexual assault on a child, being inmate of such jail, remand home, protection home, observation home, or other place of custody or care and protection; or

(e) whoever being on the management or staff of a hospital, whether Government or private, commits penetrative sexual assault on a child in that hospital; or

(f) whoever being on the management or staff of an educational institution or religious institution, commits penetrative sexual assault on a child in that institution; or

Spl. Judge 28 S.C.No. 340 of 2018

(g) whoever commits gang penetrative sexual assault on a child. Explanation.-- When a child is subjected to sexual assault by one or more persons of a group in furtherance of their common intention, each of such persons shall be deemed to have committed gang penetrative sexual assault within the meaning of this clause and each of such person shall be liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone; or

(h) whoever commits penetrative sexual assault on a child using deadly weapons, fire, heated substance or corrosive substance; or

(i) whoever commits penetrative sexual assault causing grievous hurt or causing bodily harm and injury or injury to the sexual organs of the child; or

(j) whoever commits penetrative sexual assault on a child, which--

(i) physically incapacitates the child or causes the child to become mentally ill as defined under clause (l) of section 2 of the Mental Health Act, 1987 (14 of 1987) or causes impairment of any kind so as to render the child unable to perform regular tasks, temporarily or permanently; 1***

(ii) in the case of female child, makes the child pregnant as a consequence of sexual assault;

(iii) inflicts the child with Human Immunodeficiency Virus or any other life threatening disease or Infection which may either temporarily or permanently impair the child by rendering him physically incapacitated, or mentally ill to perform regular tasks; 1*** 2[(iv) causes death of the child; or]

(k) whoever, taking advantage of a child's mental or physical disability, commits penetrative sexual assault on the child; or

(l) whoever commits penetrative sexual assault on the child more than once or repeatedly; or

(m) whoever commits penetrative sexual assault on a child below twelve years; or

(n) whoever being a relative of the child through blood or adoption or marriage or guardianship or in foster care or having a domestic relationship with a parent of the child or who is living in the same or shared household with the child, commits penetrative sexual assault on such child; or

(o) whoever being, in the ownership, or management, or staff, of any institution providing services to the child, commits penetrative sexual assault on the child; or

Spl. Judge 29 S.C.No. 340 of 2018

(p) whoever being in a position of trust or authority of a child commits penetrative sexual assault on the child in an institution or home of the child or anywhere else; or

(q) whoever commits penetrative sexual assault on a child knowing the child is pregnant; or

(r) whoever commits penetrative sexual assault on a child and attempts to murder the child; or

(s) whoever commits penetrative sexual assault on a child in the course of communal or sectarian violence or during any natural calamity or in similar situations]; or

(t) whoever commits penetrative sexual assault on a child and who has been previously convicted of having committed any offence under this Act or any sexual offence punishable under any other law for the time being in force; or

(u) whoever commits penetrative sexual assault on a child and makes the child to strip or parade naked in public, is said to commit aggravated penetrative sexual assault.

Sec. 6 of POCSO Act Punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault :

(1) Whoever commits aggravated penetrative sexual assault shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than twenty years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of natural life of that person, and shall also be liable to fine, or with death.

(2)******

40.The record shows that Pw1 is the victim, she totally supported the version of prosecution, as per her evidence she was aged about 13 years as on the date of incident, during the cross-examination he was suggested to her that earlier they demanded Rs.5 lakhs from the accused through her paternal aunt but victim denied the said suggestion. It was suggested to her that accused refused to marry her as she was aged about 13 years, even the parents and brother of the accused refused for marriage of the victim with the accused as she was aged about 13 years.

Spl. Judge 30 S.C.No. 340 of 2018

41.Pw2 is father of Pw1 he totally supported the version of Pw1, during the cross-examination he was also suggested that they demanded marriage of victim with the accused, but the accused refused to marry her as she was minor.

Pw3 is sister of Pw2 and she also totally supported the version of prosecution and corroborated the versions of Pw1 & 2. In fact on the relevant day of incident prior to lodging of report the victim was proceeding to the house of

PW3 only for curry, in the middle of the day accused alleged to have forcibly taken the victim to the filed and committed rape on her, during the cross- examination she was also suggested that brother of victim took hand loan of

Rs.35,000/- from the accused, to avoid the said repayment a false case has been foisted against the accused, she denied the same.

42.Pw4 is elder brother of victim he totally supported the versions of PWs.1 to 3, during the cross examination he was also suggested that he took hand loan of Rs.35,000/- from the accused to avoid said repayment they foisted false case, even that as victim was minor the accused himself refused to marry the victim, even that they beat the wife of the accused by name Kalyani and she lodged report before police, but the witnesses denied the suggestions put to him by counsel for the accused.

43.In this case PW5 to 7 did not support the version of prosecution, they were treated as hostile witnesses. Pw9 in this case is one of the panch witnesses for panchanama of scene of offence and rough sketch, he totally supported the version of prosecution. Pw10 is one of the panch witnesses for confession of accused and seizure of MOS.1 to 5, he totally supported the version of prosecution. During the cross-examination he denied the suggestions.

Spl. Judge 31 S.C.No. 340 of 2018

44.Pw11 is the than head master of the school of the victim, who issued

Ex.P10, he totally supported the version of prosecution. During the cross- examination he denied the suggestions. PW12 is Woman Inspector of police who recorded 161 Cr.P.C statement of victim, she supported the version of prosecution. During the cross-examination he denied the suggestions.

45.Pw13 is the Medical Officer who issued Ex.P11 & P13, she examined the victim and issued preliminary examination and final reports pertaining to the victim, as per her evidence the sexual assault cannot be ruled out, she totally supported the version of prosecution. During the cross-examination she denied the suggestions.

46.Finally, PW14 is the investigating officer who totally supported the versions of PW1 to 5 and 8 to 13, he is the person who registered the case basing on Ex.P1, conducted investigation, examined the witnesses, apprehended the accused, conducted the proceedings of confession of accused, seized material objects, sent the victim for medical examination and collected

Ex.P10 and other reports finally filed charge sheet before the court. During the chief examination he supported the version of prosecution. During the cross- examination he denied many suggestions.

47.The version of prosecution shows that the victim was minor as on the date of offence, it is pertinent to note during the cross-examination of PW

no.1 to 4, the defense counsel suggested them that they intended to

perform marriage of the victim with the accused, but as she was aged 13

years and minor the accused refused for marriage even, his family members

also refused for marriage of the accused with the victim. It is pertinent to

note that the arguments of learned counsel for the defense shows that age

of the victim is not proved properly before the court and he denied Ex.P10,

Spl. Judge 32 S.C.No. 340 of 2018

at the same time he suggested the witnesses that as victim was minor the

accused refused to marry her. The accused took both contradictory

versions. Even otherwise this court already discussed in point No.1 that the victim is proved to be minor as on the date of alleged incidents.

48. In this case PW5 to 7 did not support the version of prosecution, they were treated as hostile witnesses. They were shown as community elders and the eye witnesses, this court feels that turning hostile by village elders does not effect the version of victim, because the evidence of PW1 and her family members is proved to be genuine and trustworthy.

49.In this case PW1 to 4 totally supported the version of prosecution, by the evidence of PW9 the scene of offence is brought on record, by the evidence of

PW10 the seizure of Mos.1 to 5 are proved, his evidence is relevant as per

Sec.27 of Indian Evidence Act. The evidence of PW11 as already discussed is found in support of version of prosecution. Evidence of PW12 is corroborating the evidences of PW1 and PW14. In this case PW13 examined the victim on 15- 07-2017 at Government Maternity Hospital Sultan Bazar, she collected Vaginal

Smear Vaginal Swab, Cervical smear, Cervical Swab, male clippings, pubic hair and also axillary hair from the victim, they were sent to Forensic Science

Laboratory for analysis, as per the version of prosecution, last sexual intercourse took place on 10-07-2017, report was lodged on 14-07-2017, the material objects were collected by medical officer on 15-07-2017, so there is every possibility of not detecting any thing the said items, in this case Forensic

Science Laboratory report is negative, but as per Ex.P13 medical officer opined that there is possibility of sexual intercourse cannot be ruled out, it is not only based on the Forensic Science Laboratory report, but it is also based on physical examination of the victim by the medical officer. Mere not finding

Spl. Judge 33 S.C.No. 340 of 2018 anything in the report of Forensic Science Laboratory, it cannot be concluded that no offence took place in this against the minor victim, as already discussed she was examined on 15-7-2017 i.e., after 5 days of alleged sexual intercourse.

In this case the evidence of Pw13 is totally supporting the version of victim, her family members, panchas for scene of offence and confession proceedings, even seizure of case property in this case.

50.At this juncture this court would like to discuss the following citations wherein it was held that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Punjab v.

Gurmit Singh reported in 1996 (2) SCC 384 and in the case of Dattu Ram Rao

Sakhare & others v. State of Maharashtra reported in (1997) 5 SCC 341 “if the testimony of the child witness inspires confidence, it is sufficient to record the conviction”. The evidence of PW1/victim in this case is wholly reliable and inspires confidence.

51.As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunil Kumar

Sambhudayal Gupta v. State of Maharashtra reported in (2010) 13 SCC 657

while appreciating the evidence the Court has to take into consideration

whether the contradictions/omissions had been of such magnitude that

they may materially affect the trial. Minor contradictions, inconsistencies,

embellishments or improvements on trivial matters without effecting the

core of the prosecution case should not be made a ground to reject the

evidence in its entirety.

52.As the evidence of Pw1 is found to be truthful, she deposed before the court in regard to the offences committed by the accused against her. Her evidence is supported by Pws 2 to 4, even the scene of offence is supported by the evidence of PW9, even medical officers supported the version of prosecution, all the evidences of PWs. 1 to 4 & 9 to 14 are totally supporting the version of prosecution. Even it is clearly brought on record that talks were held

Spl. Judge 34 S.C.No. 340 of 2018 in presence of elders and when accused denied for marriage, then victim lodged report before police, so delay in lodging report in cases of rape can not be treated as fatal to the version of prosecution.

53.At this juncture this court would like to discuss Section 29 of the

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 which reads as

follows:- “Where a person is prosecuted for committing or abetting or attempting to commit any offence under Section 3, 5, 7 and Section 9 of the Act, the Special

Court shall presume, that such person has committed or abetted or attempted to commit the offence, as the case may be unless the contrary is proved”.

54. In this case the accused took the defence that brother of victim took hand loan from the accused and to avoid said repayment he got foisted false case against the accused, but accused could not prove the said fact, he did not examine any person on his behalf to prove the said financial transaction, even it is suggested to PW4 that he beat wife of the accused by name Kalyani and a case was registered against him, but no such document is filed before the court, at least copy of FIR to prove the same, the accused failed to rebut the presumption laid down under Section 29 of the Protection of Children from

Sexual Offences Act. The accused has not made any efforts to prove the alleged animosity between himself and PW4 because of which a case was registered against him. The accused has not made any efforts to prove that Pw1/victim falsely foisted false case against the accused. In this case the accused is contending that he lent an amount of Rs.35,000/- to PW4, only to evade the said repayment a false case has been foisted against the accused, but the accused did not adduce any evidence either oral or documentary to prove the said version. Mere suggestion to the witnesses does not prove his innocence. In

Spl. Judge 35 S.C.No. 340 of 2018 view of the above discussion this court holds that points no. 2 to 4 are answered in favour of prosecution.

55.On considering above discussed aspects I feel that prosecution successfully proved the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences punishable U/Secs 366, 376(2)(i) (n) of the Indian Penal Code and under section 5(l) r/w 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.

56.In the result, the accused is found guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 366, 376(2)(i)(n) of the Indian Penal Code and under section 5(l) r/w 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. Accordingly, he is convicted under Section 235 (2) Cr.P.C for the said offences.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 14th day of November, 2023.

IX Addl.Dist., & Sessions Judge-Cum- IX Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar. FAC Special Sessions Judge for Trial and Disposal of case under POCSO, R.R.District at L.B.Nagar

57. Questioning on sentence:

The accused is heard with regard to the quantum of sentence to be imposed to, which the accused stated that he got parents and three daughters, he got obligation to maintain them, he requested the Court to reduce sentence, he prayed to take a lenient view.

Taking into view, the nature of offences , this Court is not inclined to take a lenient view against the accused and to apply the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act of Section 360 Cr.P.C to the accused.

Spl. Judge 36 S.C.No. 340 of 2018

58. Section 42 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 Alternate Punishment speaks as follows: - “When an act or omission constitutes an offence punishable under this

Act and also under Sections 166-A, 354-A, 354-B,354-C, 354-D, 370, 370-A, 375, 376, 376-A, 376AB, 376-B, 376-C, 376-D, 376DA, 376DB or Section 509 of the

Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), then, notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, the offender found guilty of such offence shall be liable to punishment under this Act or under the Indian Penal Code as provides for punishment which is greater in degree”.

59. In view of Section 42 of POCSO Act,as the victim girl was child at time of offence, the accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Twenty (20) years and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five

Thousand only) and in default of payment of fine amount, he has to further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six (6) months for the offence under Section 5(l) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 which is punishable under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual

Offences Act, 2012.

He is further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of 10(ten years) and pay fine of Rs.5,000/- in default of payment of fine, he has to further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six (6) months for the offence under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code. Both sentences shall run concurrently.

60.The fine amount of Rs.30,000/- shall be paid to the victim girl/PW1 towards compensation for her pain and suffering. The remand period undergone by the accused from 18.07.2017 to 12.09.2017 shall be set off under

Section 428 of Cr.P.C. The case property i.e. MO. 1 shall be confiscated to state and MOs. 2 to 5 shall be destroyed after the lapse of appeal period.

Spl. Judge 37 S.C.No. 340 of 2018

61. The accused is appraised about his right to prefer an appeal before the

Hon’ble High Court and he is further informed that he will be provided legal aid

counsel, if required. Free copy of the judgment is supplied to him.

62.As the accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act for committing aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the victim girl, this Court is of the considered opinion that the victim girl has to be compensated for her sufferance both physical and mental and as such an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten lakhs

Only) is decided as compensation amount. Therefore, the Secretary, District

Legal Services Authority, is directed to take steps for payment of the said compensation amount of Rs.10,00,000/- to the victim girl at the earliest.

IX Addl.District & Sessions Judge-Cum-IX Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar. FAC Special Court for Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act cases, R.R.District

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(Witnesses examined)

PW1: Victim PW2: Father of the victim PW3: Aunt of the victim PW4: Brother of the victim PW5: Meravath Chandu PW6: Sabavath Kishan PW7: Ramavath Sudhakar PW8: Ramavath Sikinder Pw9: Rathnala Yadagiri/panch for scene of offence PW10: Nagati Venkatesh/panch for confession PW11: Raghava Chary/Head Master PW12: Smt. Manjula/ Inspector of Police, PW13: Dr.Prasanna Laxmi, Medical Officer PW14: K. Chandra Kumar, Inspector of Police

For the defence: -None-

Spl. Judge 38 S.C.No. 340 of 2018

EXHIBITS MARKED

For the prosecution: Ex.P1: Report Ex.P2: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW5 Ex.P3: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW6 Ex.P4: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW7 Ex.P5: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW8 Ex.P6: Proceedings of panchanama of scene of offence Ex.P7: Rough sketch Ex.P8: Relevant portion in confession panchanama of Accused Ex.P9: Seizure panchanama Ex.P10: Bonafide Certificate of victim Ex.P11: Preliminary Examination report Ex.P12: Forensic Science Laboratory report Ex.P13: Final opinion Ex.P14: First Information Report Ex.P15: Requisition for Section 164 Cr.P.C statement of the victim Ex.P16: Section 164 Cr.P.C statement of the victim Ex.P17: Potency test report

For the defence: -NIL-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MO1: Samsung Cell phone MO2: Blue colour jeans pant MO3: Orange colour shirt MO4: White colour banian MO5: Blue colour underwear

IX Addl.District & Sessions Judge-Cum-IX Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar. FAC Special Court for Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act cases, R.R.District

Spl. Judge

1 S.C.No. 856 of 2017 Dt. 30-08-2023

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

DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND POCSO ACT CASES,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B. NAGAR.

Wednesday, the 30thday of August, 2023 Present: Smt. Harisha, IX Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum- IX Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar, FAC Special Court for Expeditious Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act cases, R.R.District at L.B.Nagar.

Sessions Case No. 856 of 2017

(Cr.No.16 of 2017 of P.S Hayathnagar)

1 Name of the complainantThe State of Telangana through the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Vanasthalipuram Division, Rachakonda Commissionerate 2 Name of the accused A1: Palapati Ramesh Kumar @ Ramesh @ Ravi (The case against A1 is abated)

A2: Mandali Srikanth, S/o Yellaiah, Age: 23 years, Caste: Mudiraj(BC-D), Occ: Cell phone repairer, R/o H.No.1-7, Majeedpur Village, Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District 3 Offences charged against Under Sections 354A(1)(i) punishable Accused no.2 with section 354 A (2), 363 r/w 511 of Indian penal Code and Section 7 punishable with Section 8 of the The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 3(1)(r)(w)

(i) of the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, against Accused No.2.

4 Crime No.& Name of the PS16 of 2017 of P.S Hayathnagar 5 Plea of the Accused No.2 Pleaded not guilty.

6 Finding of the CourtFound guilty.

7 Sentence or orderIn the result, the Accused No.2 is found guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 354A(1) (i) punishable with 354 A(2), 363 r/w 511 of Indian Penal Code and under section 7 punishable Under section 8 of the Protection of Children

Spl. Judge

2 S.C.No. 856 of 2017 Dt. 30-08-2023

from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Accordingly, he is convicted under Section 235 (2) Cr.P.C for the said offences. In view of Section 42 of POCSO Act, as the victim girl was child at the time of offence, the accused is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of Five (05) years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) and in default of payment of fine amount, he has to further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six (6) months for the offence under Section 7 punishable under Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The Accused further is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of Five (05) years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) and in default of payment of fine amount, he has to further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six (6) months for the offence under Section 363 r/w 511 of Indian Penal Code. The Accused no.2 is found not guilty for the offences under Section 3(1) (r)(w)

(i) of the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, accordingly he is acquitted under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C for the offences. All sentences shall concurrently. The remand period undergone by the Accused No.2 from 05-01-2017 to 07-02- 2017, shall be set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. MO1 and 2 shall be confiscated to state and interim custody of MO3 which was already given to its owner shall be made absolute after expiry of appeal period.

The total above fine amounts shall be paid to the victim girl/PW2 towards compensation for her sufferings.

The Accused No.2 is appraised about his right to prefer an appeal before

Spl. Judge

3 S.C.No. 856 of 2017 Dt. 30-08-2023

the Hon'ble High Court and he is further informed that he will be provided legal- aid counsel, if required. Free copy of Judgment is supplied to him.

As the Accused No.2 is found guilty for the offence under Section 7 punishable with section 8 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, this Court is of the considered opinion that the victim girl has to be compensated for her mental sufferance and as such an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Only) is decided as compensation amount. Therefore, the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, is directed to take steps for payment of the said compensation amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the victim girl at the earliest.

8 Name of the prosecution Smt. B. Sunitha counsel 9 Name of the Defence Sri. E. Sreenivas Reddy counsel

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Smt. B. Sunitha Special Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri. E. Sreenivas Reddy, Advocate, counsel for the Accused No.2 and upon hearing both sides and perusing the material on record, this Court delivered the following:

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

1.The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Vanasthalipuram Division,

Rachakonda Commissionerate filed Charge sheet in Cr.No.16 of 2017 of P.S.

Hayathnagar against above named accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 366 r/w 511 of Indian Penal Code and Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short ‘the

POCSO Act’) against the Accused No.1 and 2 and Section 3(1)(r)(w)(i) of the

Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, against the

Accused No.2.

Spl. Judge

4 S.C.No. 856 of 2017 Dt. 30-08-2023

2.This is a case of the Prosecution that, on 04-01-2017 at 18:15 hours received a report from the defacto complainant who is the maternal uncle of the victim in which he stated that his niece who is aged about 15 years studying 9th class at Government High School, Majeedpur. On 04-01-2017 at 17:00 hours after completion of school hours, she was proceeding towards her house by walk. On the way, when she reached near toddy huts at Majeedpur limits, one Mandali Srikanth/A2 and another person by name Palapati

Ramesh/A1 who knows the caste of the victim girl, stopped their car bearing

No. TS 08 UB 6361 at toddy hut. When his niece is proceeding near the car, the said persons tried to kidnap his niece by caught holding her waist and hands and pushed her into the car. When his niece was making hues and cries, on hearing the screams, his villager by name Jagadishwar Goud and teachers of the School and some other people followed them. Then the said persons left her there itself, however the local people chased and caught hold them and noticed that the said persons were in drunken state. Further, the complainant requested to take necessary action into the matter.

3.Basing on the above report the Inspector of Police, PS Hayathnagar registered a case in Crime No.16/2017, U/Sec 354, 366 r/w 511 IPC, Section 12 of Protection of Children from sexual offences Act, 2012 and Section 3(1)(r)(w)

(i) of the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, and sent copies of FIRs to all concerned including the Hon'ble court and took up the investigation.

4.During the course of investigation, the Inspector of Police examined and recorded the statement of maternal uncle of the victim. The Inspector of

Police referred the victim to the Women Inspector of Police, where Women

Inspector of Police examined and recorded the statement of the victim.

Spl. Judge

5 S.C.No. 856 of 2017 Dt. 30-08-2023

Subsequently, the Assistant Commissioner of Police took up further investigation after receipt of proceedings from the Commissioner of Police,

Rachakonda Commissionerate and verified the investigation conducted by the

Inspector of Police. Further, the Assistant Commissioner of Police examined and re-recorded the statement of father of the victim. He also examined and recorded the statements of Anthati Jagadishwar Goud and Karimela

Venkatesh. Later on 05-01-2017, the Assistant Commissioner of Police visited the scene of offence, secured the presence of Kavali Dasharatha, Medipally

Yadagiri, conducted the scene of offence panchanama and drawn rough sketch of the scene of offence. Further, the Assistant Commissioner of Police secured the presence of the witnesses 5 to 10, examined them and recorded their statements. On request, the Tahasildar issued caste certificates of victim and

Accused No.1 and 2. As per the certificates, the victim belongs to SC- Magida caste and the Accused No.1 belongs to SC- Madiga caste and Accused No.2 belong to Mudiraj- BC-D caste. M.Veeresham, Head Master Zilla Parishad High

School issued bonafide certificate of victim, as per bonafide certificate her date of birth is 09-01-2003 aged about 15 years.

5.While the investigation was in progress, the accused persons were brought to PS by Anthati Jagadishwar Goud and Karimela Venkatesh and produced before the Assistant Commissioner of Police. On interrogation, the accused persons were in a mood to confess the offence, immediately the

Assistant Commissioner of Police secured the presence of two mediators i.e., B.

Srisailam and B.Narsimha and recorded confession cum seizure panchanamas of

A1 & A2 and police seized two cell phones i.e., Micromax A 106 mode and MI cell model 2015116 and white colour Swift Dzire car bearing No. TS 08 UB 6361 under cover of panchanama. The Asst. Commissioner of Police effected arrest

Spl. Judge

6 S.C.No. 856 of 2017 Dt. 30-08-2023

of accused persons after explaining the grounds of arrest to them by issuing arrest memo. Thereafter, on completion of investigation the Asst.

Commissioner of Police filed charge sheet before the court. Thus, charge sheet has been filed against the accused persons for the offences punishable under

Sections 354, 366 r/w 511 of Indian Penal Code and Section 12 of the

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short ‘the POCSO

Act’) against the Accused No.1 and 2 and Section 3(1)(r)(w)(i) of the Schedule

Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, against the Accused

No.2.

6.The Hon’ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge, RR District at L.B.Nagar took cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 366 r/w 511 of

Indian Penal Code and Section 7 read with 8 of The Protection of Children from

Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short ‘the POCSO Act’) and Section 3(1)(r)(w)(i) of the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, against the accused No.1 & 2 and registered as Spl. SC.856 of 2017 and issued summons to accused.

7.On appearance of Accused No.1 & 2, case copies were furnished to

Accused No.1 & 2 U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C.

8.The Hon’ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge, RR District at L.B.Nagar, heard on charges and charges were framed against the Accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Secs. 354, 366 r/w 511 of Indian Penal Code and Section 7 read with 8 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short ‘the POCSO Act’) and against A2 for the offences punishable Secs. 354, 366 r/w 511 of Indian Penal Code and Section 7 read with 8 of The Protection of

Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short ‘the POCSO Act’)and Section 3(1)(r)(w)(i) of the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of

Spl. Judge

7 S.C.No. 856 of 2017 Dt. 30-08-2023

Atrocities) Act and explained to them in Telugu , they pleaded not guilty & claimed to be tried. But subsequently Sections of law were altered from Section 354 of Indian Penal Code to Section 354 A(1)(i) which is punishable under section 354 A (2) of Indian Penal Code and 366 r/w 511 of Indian Penal Code to section 363 r/w 511 of Indian Penal code against Accused no.2.

9.By virtue of order vide Dis.No.455/2020, dated: 08-02-2020, Hon’ble

Metropolitan Sessions Judge, R.R.District made over this case to this Court, for trial and disposal.

10.During course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 16 were examined and Ex.P1 to P13, Mos 1 to 3 were marked (due to oversight Ex.P10 is marked twice, initially Ex.P10 i.e., FIR in Cr.No.16/2017 was marked during the evidence of PW15, again crime detail form is marked as Ex.P10 during the evidence of PW16, hence crime detail form is referred as Ex.P10/1 for the sake of convenience, even due to oversight Ex.P12 is marked twice, initially Ex.P12 i.e., relevant portion in confession panchanama of A2 was marked during the evidence of PW16 on 14-9-2022, again Caste certificate of victim is marked during the evidence of PW16 is also marked as Ex.P12 on 18-10-2022 hence, caste certificate of victim is referred as Ex.P12/1 for the sake of convenience ).

In this case Smt Ch. Vijaya/Tahasildar is reported as dead and she issued caste certificate of victim and A1 & A2 her evidence is closed. The learned Spl. P.P has given up the evidences of Smt. Dravida Prasanna Kumari who is circumstantial witness and B. Narsimha who is panch witness for confession and seizure panchanama.

11.On completion of examination of witnesses on behalf of prosecution, accused No.1 & 2 were examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C and explained all the incriminating evidence available against them, they denied the same and

Spl. Judge

8 S.C.No. 856 of 2017 Dt. 30-08-2023

reported no defence evidence. The record shows that on 12-04-2023 police filed attested copy of death certificate of Accused no.1 showing that he died on th February 2023, hence on the relevant day case against A1 was abated. 25

12.Heard both counsels.

13.The learned Special Public Prosecutor filed Written Arguments and argued that in this case all witnesses i.e., Pw1 to 16 are examined, except Pw8 and 9, all supported the version of prosecution, Ex.P1 to P13, are in support of version of prosecution, MO1 to 3 are also marked during the trial, there is no material contradiction or omission in the evidences of prosecution witnesses, if any minor contradiction is found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses that cannot be considered to be fatal to the version of prosecution, the evidences which inspires the confidence in the mind of the court than court can consider all such evidences, prosecution successfully proved the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts.

She relied on citations as follows:-

i). 2017 (1) ALD (Crl.) 57 (SC) between Yogesh Singh of 2013 Vs.

Mahabeer Singh and others.

ii). State of Punjab v/s Gurmit Singh,(1996) 2 SCC 384.

She further argued that “It is well settled in law that the minor discrepancies are not to be given undue emphasis and the evidence is to be considered from the point of view of trustworthiness. The test is whether the same inspires confidence in the mind of the Court. If the evidence is incredible and cannot be accepted by the test of prudence, then it may create a dent in the prosecution version. If an omission or discrepancy goes to the root of the matter and ushers in incongruities, the defence can take advantage of such inconsistencies. It needs no special emphasis to state that every omission cannot take place of a material omission and, therefore, minor contradictions, inconsistencies or insignificant embellishments do not affect the core of the

Spl. Judge

9 S.C.No. 856 of 2017 Dt. 30-08-2023

prosecution case and should not be taken to be a ground to reject the prosecution evidence. The omission should create a serious doubt about the truthfulness or creditworthiness of a witness. It is only the serious contradictions and omissions which materially affect the case of the prosecution but not every contradiction or omission”.

She prayed the court to convict the Accused No.2.

14.The learned counsel for the Accused no.2 argued that in this case prosecution utterly failed to prove the guilt of Accused No.2 beyond all reasonable doubt, there is no proper evidence placed by prosecution against

A2 in this case, eye witness i.e., PW8 did not support the version of prosecution, even Pw9 who is one of the panch witnesses for panchanama of scene of offence did not support the version of prosecution. The prosecution utterly failed to prove the guilt of the Accused no.2 beyond all reasonable doubts, hence he prayed the court to acquit the accused.

He relied on citations as follows and argued that:-

i) . 2019 (2) ALT (Crl.) 104 (SC): It was held that the Evidence of a child witness must be evaluated carefully as the child may be swayed by what others tell him and he is an easy prey to tutoring.

ii). 2017 (1) ALD (Crl.) 308: It was held that a child witness can be easily influenced and tutored – Hence, a very careful standard has to be applied while making assessment of quality of evidence rendered by child witness.

iii). 2006(1) ALD (Crl.) 493(A.P) Hearsay Evidence – Admissibility – Witness had no personal knowledge of harassment, but only stated on hearsay statement of victim regarding harassment meted out by her husband, such evidence not admissible in evidence.

iv) . Ganesh Orng Vs. State of West Bengal and Ors: It was held that in order to attract the statutory presumption under section 29 of POCSO Act the factual foundations with regard to the ingredients of the offence under section 6 of the said Act require to be established in the first place.

Spl. Judge

10 S.C.No. 856 of 2017 Dt. 30-08-2023

However, neither birth certificate nor the school records endorsing the age of the victim has been proved in the present case. No ossification test was conducted with regard to the age of the victim in order to establish that she is a minor. If it presumed that the victim was a minor, the inherent weakness and/or apparent contradictions in the prosecution case itself render the statutory presumption inapplicable.

v). AIR 2002 Supreme Court 3325: Appreciation of evidence - identification of accused - made for first time in court by witnesses after more than two years from date of incident - cannot be relied upon, especially when identification in court is not corroborated either by previous identification in identification parade or any other evidence.

15. Now the points for determination are:-

(i).Whether the victim girl is a child as defined under Section 2 (d) of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act?

(ii).Whether the prosecution could able to prove that the Accused No.2 with an intention to outrage the modesty of the victim by caught holding her waist and hands and pushed her into the car, whether prosecution could able to prove U/Sec. 354 A(1)(i) punishable with section 354 A (2) of Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt?

(iii). Whether the prosecution could able to prove that Accused No.2 attempted to kidnap the victim, whether prosecution could able to prove the offence punishable under Section 363 r/w 511 of Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt?

(iv). Whether the prosecution could able to prove that Accused No.2 with an intention to outrage the modesty of the victim attempted to kidnap her, by caught holding her waist and hands, whether prosecution could able to prove the offence of sexual harassment Section 7 punishable under section 8 of T he

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, beyond all reasonable doubt?

(v). Whether the prosecution could able to prove that the Accused No.2 intentionally insulted or intimidated with intent to humiliate the victim, touched the victim without her consent who belongs to Scheduled Caste with the knowledge that she belongs to Scheduled caste which is an offence under

Spl. Judge

11 S.C.No. 856 of 2017 Dt. 30-08-2023

Sections 3(1)(r)(w)(i) of SC & ST (POA) Act , against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT NO. (i):-

16.It is seen from the record that this is a case in Cr.No.16/2017 dt. 04-01- 2017 based on the report lodged by maternal uncle of the victim stating that the victim is daughter of his elder sister aged about 15 years, she is studying 9th class in Government High School Majidpur Village. On that day at 5.00 Pm after school hours the victim was proceeding from school by walk towards her house situated at Gunthapally, in the middle of the way when she reached toddy hut , knowingly that they belongs to SC caste one mandali Sreekanth i.e., A2 pertaining to Mudiraj caste R/o. Majeedpur Village and one Pallapata Ramesh i.e., A1 in this case came there in Car bearing No.TS 08 U13 6361, they stopped the said car, in the meanwhile victim reached the toddy hut, both of them caught the waist and hands of victim, forcibly they were trying to board the victim in the car, at the same time the victim shouted, the teachers and one

Jagadeesh Goud who were proceeding behind the victim tried to catch them, on which both said persons ran away by leaving the victim, but Jagadeeshwar and some of the villagers chased them and caught them, both said persons were in an intoxicated condition. Hence, he requested to take necessary action.

17.In this case the age of the victim is shown as 15 years as per Ex.P1, in this case police collected bonafide certificate of victim during the course of investigation which is marked as Ex.P5, it was marked through PW10 who is head master of Government Zilla Parshad School, Malkajgiri who earlier worked as Head Master Zilla Parshan School, Majeedpur Village, as per his evidence

PW2/victim was his student at the relevant time, she was studying 9th class as on the date of incident. As per Ex.P5 date of birth of vicitm is shown as 9-1-

Spl. Judge

12 S.C.No. 856 of 2017 Dt. 30-08-2023

2003. The date of incident is 4-1-2017, so as it can be said that as on the date of incident the victim was minor. Admittedly, as per the versions of PW1 & 2 the victim/PW2 was studying in Zilla Parishad School at the relevant time, even as per the evidence of Pw3 who is Sarpanch of Guntapally Village also deposed that victim was student of Zilla Parishad High School, Majeedpur.

18.In this case even the evidence of PW5 shows that she was working as teacher at Zilla Parishad High School School, Majeedpur at the relevant time, victim was her student, as per evidence of PW6 who is alleged eye witness to the incident victim was student of Zilla Parishad High School. The evidence of

Pw7 who was Co-student of victim also supports the version of prosecution that victim was studying in ZPHS School Majeedpur, evidence of Pw8 who was also studying 8th class in ZPHS School, victim was school going child. The evidence of PW10 as already stated supports the version of prosecuted that victim was minor. Evidence of PW11 who is also alleged eye witness shows that victim was school going child at the relevant time. The evidence of PW13, PW14 to 16 also supports the version of prosecution as they corraborated the fact that victim was minor as on the date of incident, she was studying the ZPHS School during the relevant time. Ex.P5 is very clear in regard to age of the victim, Ex.P5 is totally supported by evidence of PW10 and also the remaining witnesses as discussed above supports the version of prosecution to show that the victim was minor as on the date of alleged incident.

19.As at this juncture this court would like to discuss Sec. 2(d) of POCSO Act which reads as under.

“child” means any person below the age of eighteen years.

Spl. Judge

13 S.C.No. 856 of 2017 Dt. 30-08-2023

As this is an act which came into existence in the year 2012 mainly to protect the children from sexual harassment or sexual exploitation etc., the object of this act i.e., the protection of children from sexual offences Act 2012.

It is “An act to protect children from offences of sexual assault, sexual harassment and pornography and provide for establishment of Special courts for trial of such offences and for matters connected therewith or incidental therto.”

On considering the total discussed aspects this court finds that this point is answered in favour of the prosecution.

Points No. (ii) to (iv) :-

20.PW1 in this case who is Maternal uncle of the victim, he deposed that the victim is his elder sister’s daughter, her husband deserted her about 6 or 7 months after the marriage, he was bringing up the victim, in the year 2017, the victim was studying in 9th class in Government High School, Majidpur, the distance between their village and the said school is about a kilometer, the victim was going and coming from the school on foot, he know A1 and A2 and that on 04-01-2017 at about 05:00 P.M the victim came to the house and told him that when she was returning home from the school, on the way, near the turning of toddy huts, two persons of Majidpur came to her, dragged her and pushed her into a car, upon which she cried and on hearing her cries Jagadish

Goud, Shirisha, Mamatha, Chandu and Naveen came to her and on seeing them they fled away by leaving the car there, on the same day he went to

Hayathnagar police station and there he lodged a written report, Police examined him and recorded his statement.

21.PW2 is Victim in this case, she deposed that PW1 is her junior Maternal uncle, she studied up to 9th class, while she was studying in 9th class in

Government High School, Majidpur, she was going to and coming from the

Spl. Judge

14 S.C.No. 856 of 2017 Dt. 30-08-2023

school on foot and that on 04-01-2017 at about 05:00 P.M she was coming home from the school, on the way near toddy huts, Srikanth and Ramesh obstructed her, caught her and pushed her into a car, she cried loudly, then, their villager

Jagadish came there and on seeing him, A1 and A2 left her and the car and fled away, in the meanwhile, their villagers came there, she went to the house and told PW1 about the said incident, PW1 took her to the police station, Police

Madam recorded her statement at Hayathnagar police station, she belong to

Madiga caste.

22.PW3 in this case who is circumstantial witness, he deposed that in the year 2016 at about 5 pm at ZPHS School, Masjidpur/ hamlet of Guntapally village, when girl students were coming, at that time when he was at the shivar of Masjidpur and Guntapally he found one car and bike, he asked A.Jagadishwar

Goud as to what happened, he told him that in the car, in the driver seat there was one person and two others were there and they were taking a girl and while taking the girl made hues, then Jagadishwar Goud also told him that he caught the said persons and informed the same to him as he was the Sarpanch of the village, he informed the information to her maternal uncle/PW1, then he, PW1 and victim went to Hayathnagar police station, the police prepared paper, they were there at police station for two hours, thereafter he was examined by the police.

23.PW4 in this case who is eye witness, he deposed that on 04-01-2017, the school timings of Zilla Parishad High School was 9:30 am to 4:45 pm, he was student in the said school and he was coming from the school at about 4:45 pm, there were four students, the victim girl in the case was going ahead of them at that time, at that time a Shift Dzire car came from their front side, the car was stopped, one person from the car dragged the victim girl, a driver was also

Spl. Judge

15 S.C.No. 856 of 2017 Dt. 30-08-2023

there in the car, the girl was dragged by keeping the hand of the person on the hip of the girl, when the victim girl made hues they started running towards her, at that time Jagadishwar came to the place from Gunthapally, on seeing the said Jagadish, the person stopped his dragging the victim girl, the car was proceeded towards left side and it was returned and went away by leaving the girl at that place, on the next day he was examined by the police.

24.PW5 is working as a teacher in ZPHS School, Majeedpur, she deposed that on 04.01.2017, as usual the school time was over and the school students left the school about 5:00 pm, the students left the school before them, herself and Prasanna teacher were going to the bus stop, at that time, the students who were ahead of them made hues, at that time, a car went in speed manner towards their school, one bike also followed the car, the students then came to them and informed them that the victim girl was asked to get into the car forcibly, then they informed the students that they should not bother as they were there and took the victim girl to her house and left there, on the next day she was examined by the police and her statement was recorded.

25.PW6 who is eye witness in this case, he deposed that on 01-04-2017, since he having agriculture at Majeedpur and he is native of Gunthapally, after going to agriculture work at Majeedpur, he and his wife were coming back, at the stream situated in between the two villages at about 6:30 or 7 pm, they found hues of the students, he stopped his cycle motor, the person who was standing by the side of the car entered into the car, by the time he was caught holding a girl student and on seeing him he left the girl and entered into the car, then the driver took away the car, he was informed by the girl students that the person who entered into the car beat the girl student, immediately he followed the car on his cycle motor, after going to some distance he stopped his cycle

Spl. Judge

16 S.C.No. 856 of 2017 Dt. 30-08-2023

motor in front of the car, the car was stopped, he opened the door of the car and caught hold the driver of the car, he kept the other person inside the car and locked the door, he took the driver Srikanth to the sarpanch and handed over the accused to Sarpanch, thereafter police complaint was given, the maternal uncle of the girl came to the place, the car number is 6361 and it was having Yellow colour plate, he was examined by the police and his statement was recorded.

26.PW7 who is eye witness, she deposed that she is resident of Gunthapally village, he know PW2, who is belonging to her village, at the time of incident she was studying 10th class at ZP High School, Majeedpur, Mamatha was also studied along with her in the said school, Maragoni Chandu was also studied along with her and that on 01.04.2017, at evening time while they were returning from school by walk, one car was stopped, PW2 was dragged towards inside the car. PW2 cried, she do not know the said person who dragged her, it took place about 04:45 pm.

27.PW8 & Pw9 are turned hostile and they did not support the version of prosecution.

28.PW10 who is head master of ZPHS School and who issued Bonafide

Certificate of victim deposed that previously he worked as Headmaster, Zilla

Parishad School, Majeedpur from November, 2013 to July, 2018 and that PW2 was his student at that time, she was studying 9th class, he issued bonafide certificate of PW2.

29.Pw11 who is eye witness, he deposed that on 04-01-2014, the school was closed about 4:45 pm, while they 5 members were going to Guntapally, PW2 was ahead of them, at that time a Shift car was there in front of her, one person got down from the car and tried to drag PW2 into the car, PW2 made hues, they

Spl. Judge

17 S.C.No. 856 of 2017 Dt. 30-08-2023

went in front of the car, in the mean time PW6 came to the place by coming from Masjidpur to go to Guntapally, he stopped his vehicle in front of the car, but, the car was just turned towards left and went away, PW6 followed the car, they informed the matter to their teachers and also to the Sarpanch of the village, on the next day police came to the school and recorded his statement.

30.PW12 is one of the panch witnesses for scene of offence panchanama, he deposed that the incident in the case took place one day prior to the day on 04-01-2017, police came to that place at about 11:00 am, the police called him self and PW9 to the place while they were there at Gram Panchayath office, they were called at chowrastha of Masjidpur, where there was a hut, it was hut kept for sale of Toddy, Police prepared the paper and also prepared sketch and obtained their signature on those papers,.

31.Pw13 is the woman police who examined and recorded the statement of the victim, she deposed that on 05-01-2017, as per the instructions of Inspector of Police, Hayathnagar she recorded the statement of PW2 at Police Station,

Hayathnagar, she handed over the record to the concerned police.

32.PW14 who is panch for confession and seizure panchanama of A1 & A2 and deposed that he has been working as VRO, Hayathnagar, earlier he worked as VRO of Majeedpur, Abdullapurmet Mandal from 2016 to 2020, he know

LW14-B.Narsimha who worked as VRA, on 01-04-2017 on the instructions of his

MRO he along with LW14 – B.Narsimha visited PS Hayathnagar, at that time he saw A1 and A2 in the custody of the police and that on enquiry A1 and A2 confessed commission of the offence and police reduced the same in to writing,

Police also seized Black mobile phone from A1 and White mobile Phone from

A2 and also police informed him that they seized a Swift Dzire white colour Car

Spl. Judge

18 S.C.No. 856 of 2017 Dt. 30-08-2023

bearing No “TS 08 UB 6361”, he along with another panch witness singed on the said proceedings.

33.PW15 is the then Inspector of Police, who issued FIR, he deposed that on 04-01-2017, he received report from PW1, basing on which he registered a case in Cr.No. 16/2017 for the offences punishable under Section 354, 366 read with 511 of IPC and Section 12 of the POCSO Act and Section 3(1)(r) (w)(i) of the

Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and issued

FIR to all concerned, he examined PW1 and recorded his statement and that on his request, PW13 recorded the statement of the PW2/victim, thereafter, he handed over the CD file to Assistant Commissioner of Police for further investigation.

34.PW16 the then Asst. Commissioner of Police, who conducted investigation in this case and filed charge sheet, he deposed that in this case, he received CD file from PW15 on 04-01-2017, on that day he received proceedings from Commissioner of Police, Rachakonda appointing him as

Investigation officer in this case, he re-examined PW1 and recorded statement of PW1, he examined PW6 and PW3, on the relevant day, PW15 produced A1 and A2 produced before him, he in presence of PW14 and another panch witness he conducted the proceedings of panchanama of confession of both the accused in separate proceedings, under the proceedings of confession of

A1, he seized Micromax A106 with two Airtel SIM cards and also white colour

Swift Dzire car bearing number TS 08 6361 and that under confession proceedings of A2 he seized Mi silver colour cell phone with Airtel and Jio SIMs.

He arrested both the accused and produced before VII Metropolitan Magistrate

Court at Hayathnagar, on the next day, he visited scene of offence situated at

Guntapally village of Abdullapurmet mandal, in presence of PW12 and PW9, he

Spl. Judge

19 S.C.No. 856 of 2017 Dt. 30-08-2023

conducted the proceedings of panchanama of scene of offence in Crime Detail

Form, rough sketch, he also secured the presence of PW11, PW4, PW7, PW5 and

List of Witness no.10 and recorded their statements, he deposited the case property in this case, in this case, he collected bonafide certificate of the victim girl from PW10, as per the said certificate, the date of birth of victim is 09-01- 2003, later on his oral request, Tahasildar furnished caste certificate of the victim, as per the said certificate the victim belongs to SC-Madiga caste and even she issued caste certificates of A1 and A2, A1 belongs to SC- Mala and A2 belongs to BC-D community and that on completion of his investigation he filed charge sheet in this case.

35. At this juncture this court would like to discuss the following sections charged against the accused:-

Section 354 A of Indian Penal Code reads as follows:-

354 A. Sexual harassment and punishment for sexual harassment--(1) A man

committing any of the following acts.

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

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

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

(iv) making sexually coloured remarks, shall be guilty of the offence of sexual harassment.

(2) Any man who commits the offence specified in clause (i) or clause (ii) or clause (iii) of sub-section (1) shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

(3) Any man who commits the offence specified in clause (iv) of sub-section (1) shall be `punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.]

Spl. Judge

20 S.C.No. 856 of 2017 Dt. 30-08-2023

Section 363 of Indian Penal Code reads as follows:- Punishment for

Kidnapping:

Whoever kidnaps any person from (India) or from lawful guardian ship, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Section 511 Indian Penal Code:

Punishment for attempting to commit offences punishable with imprisonment for life or other imprisonment—Whoever attempts to commit an offence punishable by this Code with 1[imprisonment for life] or imprisonment, or to cause such an offence to be committed, and in such attempt does any act towards the commission of the offence, shall, where no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such attempt, be punished with 2[imprisonment of any description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-half of the imprisonment for life or, as the case may be, one- half of the longest term of imprisonment provided for that offence], or with such fine as is provided for the offence, or with both

7 of T he Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short

‘the POCSO Act’)

Sexual assault—Whoever, with sexual intent touches the vagina, penis, anus or breast of the child or makes the child touch the vagina, penis, anus or breast of such person or any other person, or does any other act with sexual intent which involves physical contact without penetration is said to commit sexual assault.

8 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short ‘the

POCSO Act’)

Punishment for sexual assault.—Whoever, commits sexual assault, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less

Spl. Judge

21 S.C.No. 856 of 2017 Dt. 30-08-2023

than three years but which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Section 3 of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe (POA) Act.

3. Punishments for offence of atrocities, --- (1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Castes or a Scheduled Tribes, ---

(i). Forces a member of a Scheduled Castes or a Scheduled Tribes to drink or eat any inedible or obnoxious substance;

(ii). Acts with intent to cause injury, insult or annoyance to any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by dumping excreta, waste matter, carcasses or any other obnoxious substance in his premises or neighborhood;

(iii). Forcibly removes clothes from the person of a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or parades him naked or with painted face or body or commits any similar act which is derogatory to human dignity;

(iv). Wrongfully occupies or cultivates any land owned by, or allotted to, or notified by any competent authority to be allotted to, a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or gets the land allotted to him transferred;

(v). Wrongfully dispossesses a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe from his land or premises or interferes with the enjoyment of his right over any land, premises or water;

(vi). Compels or entices a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe to do ‘begar’ or other similar forms of forced or bonded labour other than compulsory service for public purposes imposed by Government;

(vii). Forces or intimidates a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe not to vote or to vote to a particular candidate or to vote in a manner other than that provided by law; (viii)Institutes false, malicious or vexations suit or criminal or other legal proceedings against a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe;

(ix) . Gives, any false or frivolous information to any public servant and thereby causes such public servant to use his lawful power to the injury or annoyance of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe;

(a) puts any inedible or obnoxious substance into the mouth of a member of a Schedule Caste or a Schedule Tribe or forced such member to drink or eat such inedible or obnoxious substance;

(b) dumps excreta, sewage, carcasses or any other obnoxious substance in premises, or at the entrance of the premises, occupied by a member of a Schedule Caste or a Schedule Tribe;

(c) with intent to cause injury, insult or annoyance to any member of a Schedule Caste or a Schedule Tribe, dumps excreta, waste matter, carcasses or any other obnoxious substance in his neighborhood;

Spl. Judge

22 S.C.No. 856 of 2017 Dt. 30-08-2023

(d) garlands with footwear or parades naked or semi naked a member of a Schedule Caste or a Schedule Tribe;

(e) forcibly commits on a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe any act, such as removing clothes from the person, forcible tonsuring of head, removing mustaches, painting face or body or any other similar act, which is derogatory to human dignity;

(x) Intentionally in suits or intimidates with intent to humiliate a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view;

(xi)Assaults or uses forces to any woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe with intent to dishonor or outrage her modesty;

(xii)Being in a position to dominate the will of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and uses that position to exploit the sexually to which she would not have otherwise agreed;

(xiii) Corrupts or fouls the water of any spring, reservoir or any other source ordinarily used by members of the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes so as to render it less fit for the purpose for which it is ordinarily used;

(xiv) Denies a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe any customary right of passage to a place of public resort or obstructs such member so as to prevent him from using or having access to a place of public resort to which other members of public or any section thereof have a right to use or access to;

(xv) Forces or causes a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe to leave his house, village or other place of residence, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extent to five years and with fine.

(f) wrongfully occupies or cultivates any land, owned by, or in the possession of or allotted to, or notified by any competent authority to be allotted to, a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, or gets such land transferred;

(g) wrongfully dispossesses a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe from his land or premises or interferes with the enjoyment of his rights, including forest rights, over any land or premises or water or irrigation facilities or destroys the crops or takes away the produce therefrom.

Explanation.––For the purposes of clause (f) and this clause, the expression “wrongfully”includes— (A) against the person’s will; (B) without the person’s consent; (C) with the person’s consent, where such consent has been obtained by putting the person, or any other person in whom the person is interested in fear of death or of hurt;

Spl. Judge

23 S.C.No. 856 of 2017 Dt. 30-08-2023

or (D) fabricating records of such land;

(h) makes a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe to do“begar” or other forms of forced or bonded labor other than any compulsory service for public purposes imposed by the Government;

(i) compels a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe to, dispose or carry human or animal carcasses, or to dig graves;

(j) makes a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe to do manual scavenging or employs or permits the employment of such member for such purpose;

(k) performs, or promotes dedicating a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe woman to a deity, idol, object of worship, temple, or other religious institution as a devadasi or any other similar practice or permits aforementioned acts;

(l) forces or intimidates or prevents a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe— (A) not to vote or to vote for a particular candidate or to vote in a manner other than that provided by law; (B) not to file a nomination as a candidate or to withdraw such nomination; or (C) not to propose or second the nomination of a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe as a candidate in any election;

(m) forces or intimidates or obstructs a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, who is a member or a Chairperson or a holder of any other office of a Panchayat under Part IX of the Constitution or a Municipality under Part IXA of the Constitution, from performing their normal duties and functions;

(n)after the poll, causes hurt or grievous hurt or assault or imposes or threatens to impose social or economic boycott upon a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or prevents from availing benefits of any public service which is due to him;

(o) commits any offence under this Act against a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe for having voted or not having voted for a particular candidate or for having voted in a manner provided by law;

(p) institutes false, malicious or vexatious suitor criminal or other legal proceedings against a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe;

(q) gives any false or frivolous information to any public servant and thereby causes such public servant to use his lawful power to the injury or annoyance of a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe;

(r) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view;

Spl. Judge

24 S.C.No. 856 of 2017 Dt. 30-08-2023

(s) abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place within public view;

(t) destroys, damages or defiles any object generally known to beheld sacred or in high esteem by members of the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes.

Explanation.––For the purposes of this clause, the expression“object” means and includes statue, photograph and portrait;

(u) by words either written or spoken or by signs or by visible representation or otherwise promotes or attempts to promote feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will against members of the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes;

(v) by words either written or spoken or by any other means disrespects any late person held in high esteem by members of the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes;

(w) (i) intentionally touches a woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a

Scheduled Tribe, knowing that she belongs to a Scheduled Caste or a

Scheduled Tribe, when such act of touching is of a sexual nature and is

without the recipient’s consent;

(ii) uses words, acts or gestures of a sexual nature towards a woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, knowing that she belongs to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe.

Explanation.––For the purposes of sub-clause (i), the expression “consent”means an unequivocal voluntary agreement when the person by words, gestures, or any form of non-verbal communication, communicates willingness to participate in the specific act:

Provided that a woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe who does not offer physical resistance to any act of a sexual nature is not by reason only of that fact, is to be regarded as consenting to the sexual activity:

Provided further that a woman’s sexual history, including with the offender shall not imply consent or mitigate the offence;

(x) corrupts or fouls the water of any spring, reservoir or any other source ordinarily used by members of the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes so as to render it less fit for the purpose for which it is ordinarily used;

(y) denies a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe any customary right of passage to a place of public resort or obstructs such member so as to prevent him from using or having access to a place of public resort to which other members of public or any other section there of have a right to use or access to;

(z) forces or causes a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe to leave his house, village or other place of residence:Provided that nothing contained in this clause shall apply to any action taken in discharge of a public duty;

Spl. Judge

25 S.C.No. 856 of 2017 Dt. 30-08-2023

(za) obstructs or prevents a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any manner with regard to— (A) using common property resources of an area, or burial or cremation ground equally with others or using any river, stream,spring, well, tank, cistern, water-tap or other watering place, or any bathing ghat, any public conveyance, any road, or passage; (B) mounting or riding bicycles or motor cycles or wearing footwear or new clothes in public places or taking out wedding procession, or mounting a horse or any other vehicle during wedding processions; (C) entering any place of worship which is open to the public or other persons professing the same religion or taking part in, or taking out, any religious, social or cultural processions including jatras; (D) entering any educational institution, hospital, dispensary,primary health center, shop or place of public entertainment or any other public place; or using any utensils or articles meant for public use in any place open to the public; or (E) practicing any profession or the carrying on of any occupation, trade or business or employment in any job which other members of the public, or any section thereof, have a right to use or have access to; (zb) causes physical harm or mental agony of a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe on the allegation of practicing witchcraft or being a witch; or (zc) imposes or threatens a social or economic boycott of any person or a family or a group belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to five years and with fine.]

36.The record shows that on 04-01-2017 the maternal uncle of the victim lodged report stating that on the relevant day at 5.00 pm while the victim was returning from school the incident occurred, both the accused in this case tried to kidnap the victim and they dragged her into the car by catching her waist and hands, in the meanwhile the victim raised shouting, on which one

Jagadeeshwar goud and others tried to catch them, both of the said persons them ran away from the spot by leaving the victim, but the said Jagadeeshwar goud and others caught the accused persons. Later, he lodged report before police.

Spl. Judge

26 S.C.No. 856 of 2017 Dt. 30-08-2023

37.During the course of trial he totally supported the version of prosecution, in the cross examination he denied almost all suggestions put to him by the counsel for defence, Ex.P1 is marked during his evidence. PW2 in this case is none other than victim, she deposed before the court that as on the date of incident she was studying 9th class, on 04-01-2017 at 05.00 pm while she was returning from home to school both the accused persons obstructed her, caught her, pushed her into the car, she cried loudly, on which one

Jagadeeshwar her villager/ Pw6 came there on seeing him both accused fled away. In the meanwhile her villagers came there, victim informed the same to

PW1 regarding the incident, Pw1 took her to police station. During the chief examination she totally supported the version of prosecution, During the cross- examination she denied the other suggestions. Even Pw1 totally supported the version of prosecution. During her evidences some omissions are brought on record.

38.Pw3 is Sarpanch of Gunthapally Village he is circumstantial witness, he was informed by PW6 regarding the incident, as per his evidence he along with

PW1 and 2 went to police station Hayathnagar. During the cross-examination he denied the suggestions. Pw4 in this case is one of the eye witnesses of the incident in fact he is also co-student of victim, as per his evidence, at the time of incident one Dezire car came from their front side, car was stopped and victim was dragged towards the car by one person as he kept his hand on the hip of victim, when the victim made hues they started running towards victim, even

PW6 also came there on seeing the Pw6 both of the said persons left victim and left the place. Witness identified A2 in this case as driver of the car and A1 in this case as the person who dragged the victim. During the chief examination he

Spl. Judge

27 S.C.No. 856 of 2017 Dt. 30-08-2023

totally supported the version of prosecution, During the cross-examination he denied the suggestions.

39.Pw5 in this case is teacher of Zilla Parishad High School, Majeedpur where victim used to study, as per her evidence students came to them and informed them that the victim girl was asked by the persons to get into the car forcibly, During the chief examination she totally supported the version of prosecution, During the cross-examination she denied the other suggestions.

40.PW6 in this case is one of the eye witnesses to the incident he totally supported the version of prosecution. As per his evidence, he took A2 in this case to sarpanch and handed over him to the sarpanch, he mentioned the crime vehicle Number as car bearing No.6361. During the chief examination he totally supported the version of prosecution, During the cross-examination he denied the other suggestions.

41.Pw7 is also co-student of victim, as per her evidence on 1-4-2017 while they were returning from school by walk one car stopped there and PW2 was dragged towards the said car. Evidence of PW8 shows that she is also one of the

Co-students, but she turned hostile. PW9 in this case is one of the panch witnesses for panchanama of scene of offence he also turned hostile.

42.The evidence of Pw10 totally supports the version of prosecution as discussed above. The evidence of PW11 totally supports the version of prosecution, he identified A1 & A2 in this case, PW12 totally supported the version of prosecution. Ex.P6 & P7 are marked during his evidence. The evidence of PW13 is in support of version of prosecution. The evidence of Pw14 shows that he is one of the mediators for panchanama of confession of A2 & A1, and seizure of MO1 & 2. He totally supported the version of prosecution. During

Spl. Judge

28 S.C.No. 856 of 2017 Dt. 30-08-2023

the chief examination he totally supported the version of prosecution, During the cross-examination he denied the other suggestions.

43.PW15 is Inspector of Police who, basing on Ex.P1 registered the case, issued FIR, recorded the statement of PW1 and handed over the CD filed to

PW16 for further investigation. He totally supported the version of prosecution.

Pw16 is another investigation officer who after receiving the CD file from

PW15, conducted further investigation filed charge sheet in this case, he even collected caste certificate of A1 & A2 showing that A1 belongs to SC Mala community, A2 belongs to BC-D community. He totally supported the version of prosecution.

44.This court would like to discuss judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta v. State of Maharashtra reported in (2010) 13 SCC 657 while appreciating the evidence the Court has to take into consideration whether the contradictions/omissions had been of such magnitude that they may materially affect the trial. Minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements on trivial matters without effecting the core of the prosecution case should not be made a ground to reject the evidence in its entirety.

45.This court would also like to discuss judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in the case of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh reported in 1996 (2) SCC 384 and in the case of Dattu Ram Rao Sakhare & others v. State of Maharashtra reported in (1997) 5 SCC 341 it was held that “if the testimony of the child witness inspires confidence it is sufficient to record the conviction”. The evidence of PW3/victim is wholly reliable and inspires confidence.

46.In this case as per evidences on record including the version of PW2, it brought on record that on 4-1-2017 while Pw2 was returning from school both

Spl. Judge

29 S.C.No. 856 of 2017 Dt. 30-08-2023

the accused in this case came in a car, they tried to kidnap the victim by catching her hands and waist they tried to make PW2 to get into the car, but as

PW2 cried loudly the co-students and also PW6 interfered, on which both the accused left the victim and escaped but, as per evidence of PW6 he chased and caught A2.

47.In this case there are eye witnesses to the alleged incident Pw1 is circumstantial witness who was informed regarding the incident by PW1 and others, in this case the version of PW2 is totally supported by the evidences of

PW4 who is also a eye witness, Pw6 who is also a eye witness even PW7 who is also eye witness to the incident. The evidence of Pw2 is totally supported by

PW4, 6 etc., All the eye witnesses discussed identified the present accused person. In this case the victim was admittedly student of Zilla Parishad High

School, Majeedpur, the evidence of students of said school is supported by evidence Pw5 who is teacher of PW2 who was working in Majeedpur Zilla

Parishad High School at the relevant time, immediately after the incident student came to them and informed regarding the incident. The evidence of

PW7 supports the version of prosecution she is also alleged eye witness, but she did not identify the accused person. Evidences of PW8 & PW9 did not support the version of prosecution. In this case the scene of offence is supported by evidence of PW12. The said scene of offence is also deposed in the evidences of PW1 to 7.

48.In this case admittedly MOs.1 & 2 were recovered from possession of accused persons, police also seized MO3 in presence of mediators. In this case as per the versions of witnesses except PW8 & 9 others stated that on the relevant day both the accused came in the car i.e., MO3 to Pw2 and they forcibly made the victim to sit in the car, but due to timely invention of Pw6 &

Spl. Judge

30 S.C.No. 856 of 2017 Dt. 30-08-2023

others, the accused persons could not succeed. This court feels that there are minor discrepancies brought on record during the evidence of eye witnesses, but those cannot be taken into consideration as they are not found to be fatal to the version of the prosecution. Even as per the version of victim, she deposed that both A1 & A2 committed alleged offences against her, the evidences which are brought on record except the evidence of PW8 & 9 all totally supported the version of prosecution. As per the above evidences it is clearly brought on record that on the relevant day A2 also caught the victim towards her waist and her hands made her to board into the car. As victim is aged about 15 years, she is minor, the place of offence is a public place where there is intervention of general public, touching the waist of the victim with preparation of kidnapping the child amounts to sexual harassment, the evidence of victim totally supports the version in this aspect. On considering the above discussed facts, these point are answered in favour of prosecution.

At this juncture this court would like to discuss Section 29 of the

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 which reads as

follows:-

“Where a person is prosecuted for committing or abetting or

attempting to commit any offence under Section 3, 5, 7 and Section 9 of the

Act, the Special Court shall presume, that such person has committed or

abetted or attempted to commit the offence, as the case may be unless the

contrary is proved”.

49. In this case the accused No.2 failed to rebut the presumption laid down under Section 29 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. The accused No.2 has not made any efforts to prove the alleged animosity between himself and PW1, 2 because of which a case was registered against him and

Spl. Judge

31 S.C.No. 856 of 2017 Dt. 30-08-2023

another/A1 who is no more. The Accused No.2 has not made any efforts to prove that the maternal uncle of the victim falsely foisted false case against the Accused No.2. This court feels that no family member of victim especially in a country like India will dare to foist false case by putting the future of girl child in danger, because if any case is registered for outraging the modesty of minor girl then there will be social stigma through out her life,no family member will dare to lodge false report unless they really suffers. In view of the above discussion this court holds that point nos. (ii) to (iv) are answered in favour of prosecution.

POINT No. (v) :

50.In this case one of the charges against A2 is framed U/Secs. 3 (1) (r) (w) (i) of the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act , as per the evidence collected by investigating officer i.e., particularly Ex.P13 in which caste of the A2 shown as BC-D Mudiraj, admittedly in this case as per

Ex.P12 the victim belongs to SC-Madiga Caste. But to prove the offence under these provisions the prosecution shall prove before the court that the Accused no.2 committed the offences in points no (ii) to (iv) as above discussed with intention and knowingly that victim belongs to SC-caste, but this point is not properly proved before the court. The prosecution successfully proved Point nos. (i) to (iv), but prosecution failed to prove point no. (v) in this case.

51.On considering above discussed aspects I feel that prosecution successfully proved the guilt of Accused No.2 beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences punishable U/Secs. 354 A(1)(i) punishable under section 354A(2), 363 r/w 511 of Indian Penal Code and under section 7 punishable Under

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

Spl. Judge

32 S.C.No. 856 of 2017 Dt. 30-08-2023

The prosecution failed to prove the offences under Sections 3(1)(r)(w)(i) of the

Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,

52.In the result, the Accused No.2 is found guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 354A(1) (i) punishable with 354 A (2), 363 r/w 511 of Indian

Penal Code and under section 7 punishable Under section 8 of the

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Accordingly, he is convicted under Section 235 (2) Cr.P.C for the said offences.

Dictated to the Stenographer and after correction, pronounced by me,

on this the 30th day of August , 2023.

IX Addl.District & Sessions Judge-Cum-IX Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar. FAC Special Court for Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act cases, R.R.District

53. Questioning on quantum of sentence:

The Accused No.2 is heard with regard to the quantum of sentence to be imposed to, which the accused stated that he is having parents, they are aged persons, he has to look after them, he prayed to take a lenient view. Taking into view, the nature of offences as the offences are against woman and particularly the age of the victim, this Court is not inclined to take a lenient view against the Accused No.2 and to apply the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act or Section 360 CrPC to the Accused no. 2 .

54. Section 42 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012

Alternate Punishment speaks as follows: - “When an act or omission constitutes an offence punishable under this

Act and also under Sections 166-A, 354-A, 354-B,354-C, 354-D, 370, 370-A, 375,

Spl. Judge

33 S.C.No. 856 of 2017 Dt. 30-08-2023

376, 376-A, 376AB, 376-B, 376-C, 376-D, 376DA, 376DB or Section 509 of the

Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), then, notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, the offender found guilty of such offence shall be liable to punishment under this Act or under the Indian Penal Code as provides for punishment which is greater in degree”.

55.In view of Section 42 of POCSO Act, as the victim girl was child at the time of offence, the Accused no.2 is sentenced to undergo Simple

Imprisonment for a period of Five (05) years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) and in default of payment of fine amount, he has to further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six (6) months for the offence under Section 7 punishable under Section 8 of the Protection of

Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

The Accused no.2 further is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of Five (05) years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten

Thousand only) and in default of payment of fine amount, he has to further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six (6) months for the offence under Section 363 r/w 511 of Indian Penal Code.

The Accused no.2 is found not guilty for the offences under Section 3(1)

(r)(w) (i) of the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)

Act, accordingly he is acquitted under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C for the offences.

All sentences shall concurrently.

The remand period undergone by the Accused No.2 from 05-01-2017 to 07-02-2017, shall be set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. MO1 and 2 shall be confiscated to state and interim custody of MO3 which was already given to its owner shall be made absolute after expiry of appeal period. The total above

Spl. Judge

34 S.C.No. 856 of 2017 Dt. 30-08-2023

fine amounts shall be paid to the victim girl/PW2 towards compensation for her sufferings.

56. The Accused No.2 is appraised about his right to prefer an appeal before the Hon'ble High Court and he is further informed that he will be provided legal- aid counsel, if required. Free copy of Judgment is supplied to him.

57.As the Accused No.2 is found guilty for the offence under Section 7 punishable with section 8 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences

Act, this Court is of the considered opinion that the victim girl has to be compensated for her mental sufferance and as such an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Only) isdecided as compensation amount. Therefore, the

Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, is directed to take steps for payment of the said compensation amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the victim girl at the earliest.

IX Addl.District & Sessions Judge-Cum-IX Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar. FAC Special Court for Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act cases, R.R.District

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(Witnesses examined) For the prosecution: PW1: Maternal Uncle of victim PW2: Victim PW3: Karimela Venkatesh PW4: Karimela Naveen PW5: Cherukuri Bharathi PW6: Anthali Jagadishwar Goud PW7: Varadha Sirisha PW8: Varadha Mamatha PW9: Medipally Yadagiri PW10: M. Veeresham PW11: Maragoni Chandu

Spl. Judge

35 S.C.No. 856 of 2017 Dt. 30-08-2023

PW12: Kavali Dasharatha PW13: N. Shreya, Women Inspector of Police PW14: Benbadi Srisailam PW15: J. Narender Goud, Inspector of Police PW16: V. Ravinder Reddy, Assistant Commissioner of Police

For the defence: -None-

EXHIBITS MARKED

For the prosecution:

Ex.P1: Report Ex.P2: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of the PW8 Ex.P3: Signature of PW9 on Crime Detail Form dated 05-01-2017 and rough sketch Ex.P4: Signature of PW9 on rough sketch Ex.P5: Bonafide Certificate Ex.P6: Signature of PW12 on Crime Detail Form and rough sketch Ex.P7: Signature of PW12 on rough sketch Ex.P8: Relevant Portion in confession proceedings of Accused No.1 Ex.P9: Digital colour photographs of car bearing No. TS 08 UB 6361 Ex.P10: First information Report Ex.P10/1: Crime Detail Form Ex.P11: Proceedings of Commissioner of Police Rachakonda dt. 4-1-2017 Ex.P12: Relevant portion in confession proceedings of Accused no.2 Ex.P12/1: Caste certificate of victim Ex.P13: Caste certificates of Accused no.1 and Accused no.2

For the defence: -NIL-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MO1:MI Black colour mobile MO2: MI Silver colour mobile MO3: Swift Dzire Car bearing No. TS 08 UB 6361

IX Addl.District & Sessions Judge-Cum-IX Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar. FAC Special Court for Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act cases, R.R.District

Spl. Judge

1 S.C.No. 466 of 2020

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

DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND POCSO ACT CASES,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B. NAGAR.

Thursday, the 14thday of September, 2023

Present: Smt. Harisha, IX Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum- IX Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar, FAC Special Court for Expeditious Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act cases,R.R.District at L.B.Nagar

Sessions Case No. 466 of 2020

(Cr.No.894 of 2019 of P.S Vanasthalipuram)

1 Name of the complainantThe State of Telangana through the Sub- Inspector of Police, PS Vanasthalipuram 2 Name of the accusedErra Shiva, S/o Somulu, Age: 24 years, Occ: Car Driver, R/o. Near Saibaba Temple, Rajendra Nagar Colony, Nacharam, Hyderabad, N/o. Uyyuru (V & (M), Krishna District.

3 Offences charged Under Sections 363, 354D of Indian Penal Code and Section 11(iv) r/w 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short ‘the POCSO Act’) 4 Crime No.& Name of the PS894 of 2019 of P.S Vanasthalipuram 5 Plea of the accusedPleaded not guilty.

6 Finding of the CourtFound guilty.

7 Sentence or order In the result, the Accused is found guilty of the offences under Sections 354-D, 363 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 11(iv) punishable under section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

In view of Section 42 of POCSO Act,as the victim girl was child at time of offence, hence the Accused is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of three (03) years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand

Special Judge

2 S.C.No. 466 of 2020

only) and in default of payment of fine amount, he has to further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six (6) months for the offence under Section 11(iv) punishable under section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

The Accused is further sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of five (05) years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) and in default of payment of fine amount, he has to further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six (6) months for the offence under Section 363 of Indian Penal Code. Both sentences shall run concurrently.

The remand period undergone by the accused from 06-11-2019 to 19-12- 2019 shall be set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. MO1 shall be confiscated to state after expiry of appeal period.

The Accused is appraised about his right to prefer an appeal before the

Hon’ble High Court and he is further

informed that he will be provided legal aid counsel, if required. Free copy of the judgment is supplied to him.

As the Accused is convicted for the offence under Section 363 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 11(iv) punishable under section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 for committing Sexual harassment against the victim girl, this Court is of the considered opinion that the victim girl has to be compensated for her sufferance and as such an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) is decided as compensation amount. Therefore, the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, is directed to take

Special Judge

3 S.C.No. 466 of 2020

steps for payment of the said compensation amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) to the victim girl at the earliest.

8 Name of the prosecution Smt. B. Sunitha counsel 9 Name of the Defence Sri. J.A. Chandra Shekar counsel

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Smt. B. Sunitha Special Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri. J.A. Chandra Shekar, Advocate for the accused and upon hearing both sides and perusing the material on record, this Court delivered the following:

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

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Chaitanyapuri P.S, filed Charge sheet in

Cr.No.894 of 2019 of P.S. Vanasthalipuram against above named accused person for the offences punishable under Sections 366 (A) of Indian Penal Code and Section 11 r/w 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short ‘the POCSO Act’).

2.This is a case of the Prosecution that, on 03-11-2019 at 2300 hours received report from mother of the victim in which she stated that prior to 10 years their family was migrated to Hyderabad for eking their livelihood and she got one daughter and two sons, her two sons are school going children and her daughter i.e., the victim is staying in the house. On 02-11-2019 at 0500 hours as usually the complainant and her husband went to their works and at that time their sons and daughter were in the house. Later, when they returned back at 14.00 hours and noticed their daughter was not present in the house and they searched for her in the surroundings and also enquired with all their relatives over phone, but could not trace out the whereabouts of their daughter and she was found missing. The complainant further suspected one

Special Judge

4 S.C.No. 466 of 2020

Erra Shiva as responsible for missing of her daughter. Hence, she requested to take necessary action against the accused.

3.On the contents of the above report, the Sub Inspector of Police registered a case in Cr.No.894/2019, Under section 366(A) IPC and took up the investigation.

4.During the course of investigation, the Sub Inspector of Police examined the complainant and recorded her detailed statement. Immediately rushed to the scene of offence and there secured the presence of M. Narsimha & M.

Mahesh, observed the scene minutely, but he did not find any incriminating material, he prepared the scene of offence panchanama and drawn the rough sketch of the scene of offfence in presence of above mediators.

5.While the investigation was in progress, on 03-11-2019 the Sub Inspector of Police received information from Uyyuru Police Station that the missing girl along with one Shiva were in their police station and on the receipt of above information, on 04-11-2019 the Sub Inspector of Police along with staff proceeded to Uyyuru, Krishna District of Andhra Pradesh and brought the missing girl along with Shiva to police station on 05-11-2019.

6.Later, the Sub Inspector of Police collected the Bonafide Certificate of

Victim in which it was mentioned that the age of victim is 20.07.2006 and she is aged 14 years. Basing on the statement of the victim the Sub Inspector of

Police added Section 11 r/w 12 of POCSO Act, 2012 to the existing Section of

Law. Later the Sub Inspector of Police re-examined the complainant and examined father of victim & one P. Mark and recorded their detailed statements.

7.Thereafter, on interrogation by the Sub Inspector of Police, the accused revealed his identity particulars as Erra Shiva/Accused and when he was about

Special Judge

5 S.C.No. 466 of 2020

to confess the guilt, the Sub Inspector of Police secured the presence of V.

Arjun & V. Venkat and recorded the detailed Confession Panchanama of accused. In pursuance of his confession statement, the accused took the Sub

Inspector of Police along with above mediators and staff proceeded near

Jhonson School, Indra Nagar, Nacharam and there the Sub Inspector of Police seized Hero Splendor Plus bearing No. TS08 ET 9792 at the instance of accused under the cover of Seizure Report by duly affixing their signed panch chits.

Later, the Sub Inspector of Police examined and recorded the detailed statement of K. Dinesh who is the owner of the above bike.

8.Later, the Sub Inspector of Police along with accused and seized bike returned back to police station and on establishing the prima facie against the accused, the Sub Inspector of Police affected the apprehension of accused at 1625 hours and produced him before the Court for Judicial Remand.

9.During the course of investigation on the requisition filed by the Sub

Inspector of Police the learned XXIV Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Hayath

Nagar recorded the statment of the victim Under Section 164 Cr.P.C. After completion of investigation, Sub-Inspector of Police filed charge sheet. Thus, the accused has committed offences punishable under Sections 366(A) of

Indian Penal Code and Section 11 r/w 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual

Offences Act, 2012.

10.The Hon'ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge, R.R.District at L.B.Nagar took cognizance for the offences punishable under section 366A of Indian Penal

Code and Section 11 r/w 12 of the POCSO Act against accused and registered as

Spl.SC.No. 466 of 2020 and issued summons to accused.

11.On appearance of accused, case copies were furnished to accused Under

Section 207 Cr.P.C.

Special Judge

6 S.C.No. 466 of 2020

12.By virtue of order Dt. 01-06-2021 in vide Dis.No.1398/2021 Hon'ble

Metropolitan Sessions Judge, R.R.District at L.B.Nagar made over this case to this court, for trial and disposal.

13.Heard on charges and charges were framed against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 354D of Indian Penal Code and

Section 11(iv) r/w 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short ‘the POCSO Act’) and against the accused and explained to him in his vernacular language, he pleaded not guilty & claimed to be tried.

14.During course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution PWs.1 to 8 were examined and Ex.P1 to P9 were marked and the learned Special Public

Prosecutor has given up the evidences of P. Nagaiah, who is father of victim, M.

Mahesh, who is one of the panch witnesses for crime detail form, V. Venkat, who is one of the panch witnesses for confession panchanama of the accused & seizure report and also the evidence of the learned Magistrate, who recorded the 164 Cr.P.C statement of victim.

15.On completion of examination of witnesses on behalf of prosecution, accused was examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C and explained all the incriminating evidence available against him, he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

16.Heard both counsels.

17.The learned Special Public Prosecutor filed Written arguments and argued that the prosecution examined Pws.1 to 8 and got marked Ex.P1 to P9,

MO1, all the evidences placed before the court supports the version of prosecution. The accused in this case without consent of her parents on the pretext of marring the victim took her away on 2-11-2019, he asked the victim to come to Kamalanagar bus stand he met her, took her to Nacharam and

Special Judge

7 S.C.No. 466 of 2020

proceeded to Secunderabad railway station, on 3-11-2019 at 5.00 am they boarded the train and reached Vijayawada at 10.00 am, from there they boarded bus to Uyyuru of Krishna District i.e., Native place of the accused, he took the victim to his brother-in-law’s house, but brother-in-law of accused sent the victim as well as accused to the police station, on which said police made telephonic call to the police of Vanasthalipuram, by that time a report was lodged for missing of the victim, later victim was brought to Hyderabad along with the accused. After completion of investigation police have filed charge sheet against the accused.

18. She relied on the following citations:-

i). Radhakrishna Nagesh Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2013) 11 SCC 688

It was held that "while appreciating the evidence of prosecutrix, the court must keep in mind that the context of the values prevailing in the country, particularly in the rural India, it would be unusual for a women to come up with a false story of being a victim of sexual assault so as to implicate an innocent person. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the accused has rebutted the presumptions contained in sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act.

ii).Yogesh Singh Vs. Mahabeer Singh and others 2017 (1) ALD (Crl.) 57 (SC)

It was held that “It is well settled in law that the minor discrepancies are not to be given undue emphasis and the evidence is to be considered from the point of view of trustworthiness. The test is whether the same inspires confidence in the mind of the Court. If the evidence is incredible and cannot be accepted by the test of prudence, then it may create a dent in the prosecution version. If an omission or discrepancy goes to the root of the matter and ushers in incongruities, the defence can take advantage of such inconsistencies. It needs no special emphasis to state that every omission cannot take place of a material omission and, therefore, minor contradictions, inconsistencies or insignificant embellishments do not affect the core of the prosecution case and should not be taken to be a ground to reject the prosecution evidence. The omission should create a serious doubt about the truthfulness or creditworthiness of a witness. It is

Special Judge

8 S.C.No. 466 of 2020

only the serious contradictions and omissions which materially affect the case of the prosecution but not every contradiction or omission”.

iii).State of Punjab v/s Gurmit Singh (1996) 2 SCC 384.

It was held that in cases involving sexual harassment, molestation etc. the court is duty bound to deal with such cases with utmost sensitivity. Minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of a prosecutrix should not be a ground for throwing out an otherwise reliable prosecution case.

Evidence of the victim of sexual assault is enough for conviction and it does not require any corroboration unless there are compelling reasons for seeking corroboration. The court may look for some assurances of her statement to satisfy judicial conscience. The statement of the prosecutrix is more reliable than that of an injured witness as she is not an accomplice. The court further held that the delay in filing FIR for sexual offence may not be even property explained, but if found natural, the accused cannot be given any benefit thereof.

iv). (special court) Vs. Unknown (decided on 4th day of April 2014) in Crl.

A.No.877 of 2020 the Hon'be High Court of Kerala held as follows:

Without the fear of making too wide a statement, or of overstating the case, it can be said that rarely will a girl or a woman in India make false allegations of sexual assault on account of any such factor as has been just enlisted. The statement is generally true in the context of the urban as also rural society. It is also by and large true in the context of the sophisticated not so sophisticated and unsophisticated society. Only very rarely can one conceivably come across an exception or two and that too possibly from amongst the urban elites. Because (1) A girl or a woman in the tradition bound non- permissive society of India would be extremely reluctant even to admit that any incident which is likely to reflect on her chastity had ever occurred. (2) she would be conscious of the danger of being ostracized by the society or being looked down by the society including by her own family members, relatives, friends and neighbours, (3) she would have to brave the whole world (4) She would face the risk of losing the love and respect of own husband and near relatives and of her matrimonial home and happiness being shattered. (5) if she is unmarried, she would apprehend that it would be difficult to secure an alliance with a suitable match from a respectable or an acceptable family. (6) it would almost inevitably and almost invariably result in mental torture and suffering to herself. (7) The

Special Judge

9 S.C.No. 466 of 2020

fear of being taunted by others will always haunt her. (8) she would feel extremely embarrassed in relating the incident to others being overpowered by a feeling of shame on account of the upbringing in a tradition bound society where by and large sex in taboo. (9) the natural inclination would be to avoid giving publicity to the incident lest the family name and family honor is brought into controversy. (10) the parents of an unmarried girl as also husband and members of the husbands family of a married woman, would also more often that not, want to avoid publicity on account of the fear of social stigma on the family name and family honor. (11) The fear of the victim herself being considered to be promiscuous or in some way responsible for the incident investigating agency, to face the court, to face the cross examination by counsel for the culprit and the risk of being disbelieved act as a deterrent.

She prayed the court convict the accused.

19.On the other hand, learned counsel for accused filed written arguments and argued that in this case prosecution failed to establish the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt, the victim stated differently in her 161 & 164

Cr.P.C statements, as victim is stated different versions before police as well as court, it can be said that a false case has been foisted against the accused, the age of the victim girl is not proved before the court. Even in this case the police did not follow the procedure for determining the age of victim.

He relied on citations reported in :

(i) State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Munna and in Rajesh patel Vs. State of

Jharkhad.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court held in the facts and circumstances that when the age of the victim was not proved conclusively, benefit of doubt was probable.

(ii). Mohd. Ali Iqbal Miya Mohammed Vs. State of Telangana on 21-06-2022,

Special Judge

10 S.C.No. 466 of 2020

It is further argued that on the issue of determination of age of a minor, one only needs to make a reference to Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and

Protection of Children Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the 2007 Rules).

The Rules have been framed under Sec. 68(1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and

Protection of Children) Act, 2000.

It is prayed to acquit the accused.

20.Now the points for determination are:-

(i).Whether the victim girl was a child as defined under Section 2 (d) of

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act as on the date of offence?

(ii).Whether the prosecution could able to prove that on 02-11-2019, the accused induced the victim, aged about 16 years having knowledge that she is minor to come to out of her house and met her at Kamalnagar bus stop and kidnapped her without consent and knowledge of her parents whether prosecution could able to prove the offence under section 363 of IPC against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt ?

(iii).Whether the prosecution could able to prove the offence of Stalking Under

Section 354-D of Indian Penal Code against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt?

(iv). Whether the prosecution could able to prove that accused committed the offence of sexual harassment against the victim, whether prosecution could able to prove the offence Section 11(iv) punishable under section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt?

Point (i)

21.It is seen from the record that this is a case in Cr. No.894/2019, dated 03- 11-2019 based on a report lodged by the mother of the victim, stating that she along with her family members came to Hyderabad from their native village of

Kommala Village, Suryapet Mandal & District at about 10 years back for livelihood, she got two sons and one daughter. Her two sons are school going

Special Judge

11 S.C.No. 466 of 2020

children, her daughter aged about 15 years is staying in the home. As usual on 2-11-2019 at 5.00 A.M, she proceeded for her sweeping work along with her husband, at the relevant time all her children were in the house, in the afternoon hours when she along with her husband returned home at 2.00 pm they found the victim was missing, they searched here and there, she suspected one Erra Shiva who is residing in the neighbouring hut, she requested to take necessary action.

22.In this case the victim is examined as Pw1, she supported the version of prosecution, PW2 is mother of victim she also totally supported the version of prosecution, PW3 is friend of accused he supported the version of prosecution,

Pw4 is one of the panch witnesses for panchanama of crime detail form he totally supported the version of prosecution, PW5 is brother-in-law of Pw2, he totally supported the version of prosecution. Pw6 is one of the panch witnesses for confession of accused and seizure of MO1, he totally supported the version of prosecution. Pw7 is the investigation officer who received report from Pw2 issued FIR conducted investigation and filed charge sheet before the court against the accused, he totally supported the version of prosecution. Finally,

Pw8 is Woman Sub-Inspector of Police who recorded 161 Cr.P.C statement of the victim, she also totally supported the version of prosecution.

23.In this case the investigation officer collected Ex.P9 to support the version of prosecution as victim studied in the said school and discontinued her 6th standard, as per Ex.P9 the date of birth of victim is shown as 20-7-2006. In this case the bonafide certificate of the victim collected by Pw7 clearly shows that as on the date of incident victim was minor. Suggestions were asked to

Pw7 in regard to his collection of bonafide certificate, even that whether he collected any other document to show the age of the victim except Ex.P9, it is

Special Judge

12 S.C.No. 466 of 2020

pertinent to note that the investigating officer has collected Ex.P9 to prove the age of the victim.

24.In this case admittedly, the victim discontinued her studies, at the relevant time she is staying in home, Ex.P9 was issued by Head Master, Zilla

Parshad High School, Vanasthalipuram, Hayathnagar Mandal, no contrary evidence is placed by the accused before the court showing that as on the date of incident victim was major.

25.At this juncture this court would like to discuss Section 2(d) of POCSO

Act which reads as under.

“child” means any person below the age of eighteen years.

As this is an act which came into existence in the year 2012 mainly to protect to protect children from offences of sexual assault, sexual harassment and pornography and provide for establishment of Special courts for trial of such offences and for matters connected therewith or incidental there to.”

On considering the evidence placed before the court i.e., evidences of Pw1 & 2, evidences of Pw7 and 8 shows that victim was minor as on the date of alleged incident. Hence on considering the above discussion this point is answered in favour of prosecution.

POINT Nos (ii) to (iv)

26.PW1 in this case is the victim, she deposed that she studied upto 7th standard, in the year 2019, she was 16 years old and that she knows the accused, that sister of accused also stayed in their locality and the accused used to visit his sister’s house, in the said process she got acquaintance with the accused and started talking together, after passing of some days the accused expressed his love on her, but she did not give any reply, even then the accused continuously expressed his love on which she informed the same to her

Special Judge

13 S.C.No. 466 of 2020

parents, then her parents started searching for matches for her, when she informed to the accused that her parents are searching for matches, on which the accused proposed to go to some other place and marry, on which she also agreed for the same and that on 02-11-2019 the accused asked her to come to

Kamala nagar bus stop and she left her house and went there, the accused met her at Kamalanagar and took her to Nacharam from there to accused took her to Secunderabad Railway Station by an auto and since train was not available, they spent entire night in the Railway station, on 03-11-2019 at about 5:00 am they boarded the train and reached Vijayawada by 10:00 am, thereafter, in

Vijayawada they boarded a bus and took her to native place of the accused

Uyyuru of Krishna district, thereafter brother-in-law of the accused sent her and the accused to Police Station, on which said Police telephoned to PS

Vanasthalipuram, thereafter, Police Vanasthalipuram brought her to

Hyderabad, Police examined her and recorded her statement, her statement was also recorded by Magistrate.

27.PW2 who is mother of victim, she deposed that victim is her daughter, she knows the accused in this case, she identified the accused, sister and brother in law of accused were staying in their locality, they were her neighbors, on 02-11-2019, she returned to home from her work at 2:00 pm by that time, she observed that her daughter was missing, she searched here and there and enquired with neighbors but in vain, on 03-11-2019, she lodged report before Police and that she was examined by Police, on 05-11-2019, she received phone call from the police that police traced out her daughter, she was informed by her daughter that the accused in this case took her daughter to

Sharada nagar and then to Nacharam, later to Secunderabad and from there she was taken to Vijayawada, on the pretext of marrying her, the accused took her

Special Judge

14 S.C.No. 466 of 2020

to Vijayawada, later, police traced them and brought them to Hyderabad, she was examined by Police.

28.PW3 who is circumstantial witness, he deposed that he got acquaintance with the accused about 4 years back, as accused used to come to his barber shop, they became friends, on 02-11-2019 the accused asked him to give his bike to go to Vanasthalipuram, accordingly he gave his bike bearing No. TS 08 ET 9792 Splendor Plus, the accused returned in the evening and gave back his bike, one girl was present with the accused, on his questioning the accused replied that she is known to him, after two days, he came to know that the accused in this case took the said girl to Secunderabad Railway station and to Vijayawada and then to Uyyuru and that he was examined by Police.

29.PW4 who is panch witness for crime detail form, he deposed that at about nearly 3-4 years back, he along with another panch witness attended the proceedings of panchanama of scene of offence in this case.

30.PW5 who is circumstantial witness, he deposed that he identified the accused and that at about 3 years back, the accused in this case kidnapped the victim, he took her to Uyyuru, Vijayawada, later, PW2 lodged report before

Police, later on enquiry with the victim she stated to him that on 02-11-2019,

PW2 and father of the victim went on their work, the accused called the victim to Kamalanagar bus stand and he took the victim on bike to Ramanthapur, left the bike there, went to Secunderabad and boarded a train along with victim to

Vijayawada, later to Uyyuru, later police apprehended the accused and he was examined by Police.

31.PW6 who is one of the panch witnesses for confession panchanama & seizure report, he deposed that he saw the accused on 05-11-2019, on the relevant day, he along with another panch witness attended the proceedings of

Special Judge

15 S.C.No. 466 of 2020

the confession of the accused, the accused voluntarily confessed regarding the offence committed by him in this case, police prepared panchanama of confession of the accused in the police station Vanasthalipuram, the accused further stated that he will show the bike which was kept by him at Nacharam, that further they along with police, accused proceeded to Nacharam and police seized Splendor bike from the said spot shown by the accused, police seized the bike and prepared seizure report in their presence.

32. PW7 in this case is the then Sub-Inspector of Police, who issued FIR deposed that on 03-11-2019, at 23:00 hours he received report from PW2, basing on which he registered a case in Cr.No. 894/2019 and issued FIR, on the same day, he recorded the statement of PW2 in the police station, on the next day he proceeded to the scene of offence situated at Nacharam, in presence of

PW4 and another mediator, he conducted the proceedings of Ex.P2, he returned to police station, basing on credible information, he along with his staff proceeded to Uyyuru village on 05-11-2019, apprehended the victim and the accused and returned to police station, he orally instructed PW8 to record 161 Cr.PC statement of the victim, she recorded the same, he re-examined PW2 and recorded her statement and that in presence of PW6 and another mediator, he recorded the proceedings of panchanama of confession of the accused, basing on his confession he along with panchas and accused proceeded to

Nacharam and seized bike bearing no. TS 08 EP 9792 from PW3, he also recorded statement of PW3, even he recorded the statements of other witnesses including PW5, he arrested the accused and he produced the accused

before XXIV Metropolitan Magistrate court at Hayathnagar, in this case he also

filed Section alteration memo before the Court, he filed requisition before XXIV

Metropolitan Magistrate for recording of 164 Cr.PC statement of the victim, it

Special Judge

16 S.C.No. 466 of 2020

was recorded on 17-01-2020, even he collected bonafide certificate of the victim from Head Master, ZPHS, Vanasthalipuram, as per said certificate, date of birth of the victim is 20-07-2006, on completion of his investigation he filed charge before the Court and deposited the case property before the Court.

33. PW8 the then Woman Sub-Inspector of Police who recorded the 161 statement of the victim, she deposed that on 05-11-2019 she was instructed by

PW7 to record 161 CrPC Statement of victim accordingly, she recorded statement of victim in a separate room in the premises of Vanasthalipuram PS on the same day.

34.It is seen from the record that this is a case in in Cr. No.894/2019, dated 03-11-2019 based on a report lodged by the mother of the victim stating that she along with her family members came to Hyderabad from their native village of Kommala Village, Suryapet Mandal & District. At about 10 years back for livelihood, she got two sons and one daughter. Her two sons are school going children, her daughter aged about 15 years is staying in home. As usual on 2-11- 2019 at 5.00 AM she proceeded for her sweeping work along with her husband, at the relevant time her all children were in the house, in the afternoon hours when she along with her husband when returned home at 2.00 pm, they found the victim was missing, they searched here and there, she suspected one Erra

Shiva/accused who is residing in the neighbouring hut.

35. The records shows that during the trial the victim is examined as PW1, she deposed in support of contents of Ex.P1 lodged by her mother, she reiterated the contents of Ex.P1. During the cross-examination she denied the suggestions. In this case the victim is examined as Pw1, she supported the version of prosecution, PW2 is mother of victim she also supported the version of prosecution, PW3 is friend of accused he supported the version of

Special Judge

17 S.C.No. 466 of 2020

prosecution, infact on 2-11-2019 accused asked his bike to go to

Vanasthalipuram, he gave his bike bearing No. TS 08 ET 9792/ MO1 to the accused, in the evening the accused returned his bike back, at that time he observed one girl was present with the accused, on questioning by him accused replied that she is known to him, later he came to know that accused took the victim girl to the Secunderabad railway station to Vijayawada than to Uyyur.

During the cross-examination he denied the suggestions.

36.Pw4 is one of the panch witnesses for panchanama of crime detail form he totally supported the version of prosecution, PW5 is brother-in-law of Pw2, he totally supported the version of prosecution. Pw6 is one of the panch witnesses for confession of accused and seizure of MO1, he totally supported the version of prosecution. Pw7 is the investigation officer who received report from Pw2 issued FIR conducted investigation, filed charge sheet before the court against the accused, he also arrested the accused in this case, he totally supported the version of prosecution. Finally, Pw8 is Woman Sub-Inspector of

Police who recorded 161 Cr.P.C statement of the victim she totally supported the version of prosecution.

37.In this case the offences charged against the accused are that he has committed offences punishable Under sections 354-D, 363 of Indian Penal Code and Section 11(iv) r/w Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual

Offences Act, 2012 (for short ‘the POCSO Act’), which reads as follows:

354-D. Stalking.--(1) Any man who--

(i) follows a woman and contacts, or attempts to contact such woman to foster personal interaction repeatedly despite a clear indication of disinterest by such woman; or

(ii) monitors the use by a woman of the internet, email or any other form of electronic communication, commits the offence of stalking:

Special Judge

18 S.C.No. 466 of 2020

2. Provided that such conduct shall not amount to stalking if the man who pursued it proves that--

(i) it was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime and the man accused of stalking had been entrusted with the responsibility of prevention and detection of crime by the State; or

(ii) it was pursued under any law or to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by any person under any law; or

(iii) in the particular circumstances such conduct was reasonable and justified.

(2) Whoever commits the offence of stalking shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine; and be punished on a second or subsequent conviction, with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Sec.363 of Indian Penal Code:

Whoever kidnaps any person from India or from lawful guardianship, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Section 11 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012

defines Sexual harassment:-

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

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

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

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

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

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

Special Judge

19 S.C.No. 466 of 2020

(vi) entices a child for pornographic purposes or gives gratification therefor.

Explanation.-Any question which involves "sexual intent" shall be a question of fact.

Section 12 of POCSO Act provides punishment for sexual harassment which

reads as follows:

whoever, commits sexual harassment upon a child shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

38.In this case Pw1 is the victim she deposed that she got acquaintance with the accused and they started talking to the other, one day he expressed his love towards her, but she did not give any reply, the accused continuously expressed his love on which she informed the same to her parents, her parents started searching matches for her, the accused was informed by her regarding the same, the accused proposed to go to some other place and to marry, she agreed for the same, he asked her to come to Kamalanagar bus stand, he met her and took her to Secunderabad railway station as it was night time trains were not available on 3-11-2019 at 5.00 am they boarded train and reached

Vijayawada by 10.00 am thereafter they went to Uyyur Village the native place of accused, as per her evidence she along with accused were sent to the police station by brother-in-law of accused. During the cross-examination she denied the suggestions put to her by counsel for the accused. She was also suggested that prior to 2-11-2019 she never went out along with accused. There is no specific suggestion that on 02.11.2019 she never went along with the accused.

39.Evidence of Pw2 supports the version of victim. Even, it is pertinent to note that Pw3 is friend of accused who provided bike i.e., MO1 to the accused on which the accused brought victim to the place of Pw3 even Pw3 asked the accused regarding the victim on which accused stated that she is known to him.

Special Judge

20 S.C.No. 466 of 2020

He is the witness who has last seen the victim along with the accused and taking of victim by the accused is also supported by evidence of Pw3. Evidence of Pw4, supports the place of offence i.e.,the place from where she left her parents place, the evidence of Pw5 supports the versions of Pw1 & 2 in total.

40.It is pertinent to note that during the evidence of Pw6 the seizure of MO1 from possession of accused was established. During the cross-examination Pw6 denied the suggestions.

41.Pw7 supports the versions of Pws.1 to 6 as he registered the case, conducted investigation, arrested the accused, seized MO1 and later filed charge sheet. Even he collected Ex.P9 from the Head Master ZPHS School,

Vanasthalipuram. The evidence of Pw8 also supports the version of prosecution.

42.In this case the version of Pw1 shows that she got acquaintance with the accused, when her parents for searching for matches, the accused proposed her to go to some other place and to marry on which Pw1 agreed, but this court feels that even though Pw1 gave consent, she herself left the house but as the accused asked her to come along with him and he proposed to go to somewhere and to marry, as per law consent of victim who was minor at the relevant time is not found to be proper consent, as per evidence of Pw1 the accused expressed his love against Pw1, even he continuously expressed his love. even he asked Pw1 to come along with him, on which Pw1 left her house without informing her parents, all these acts comes under the purview of

Sec.363 of IPC. The consent given by victim is not considered to be valid consent as per law. Even Pw3 who provided bike to accused on which the accused brought the victim to Pw3, his evidence is totally in support of the version of prosecution. The Omissions and contradictions pointed out by the defence

Special Judge

21 S.C.No. 466 of 2020

counsel is not found to be fatal to the version of prosecution, as consent given by the minor is not a valid consent as discussed.

43. At this juncture this court would like to discuss the following citation:

As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Punjab v. Gurmit

Singh reported in 1996 (2) SCC 384 and in the case of Dattu Ram Rao Sakhare & others v. State of Maharashtra reported in (1997) 5 SCC 341 “if the testimony of the child witness inspires confidence it is sufficient to record the conviction”. The evidence of PW1/victim is wholly reliable and inspires confidence.

As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunil Kumar

Sambhudayal Gupta v. State of Maharashtra reported in (2010) 13 SCC 657.

It was held that while appreciating the evidence the Court has to take into consideration whether the contradictions/omissions had been of such magnitude that they may materially affect the trial. Minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements on trivial matters without effecting the core of the prosecution case should not be made a ground to reject the evidence in its entirety.

44.This court finds that in this case evidences of Pw1 to 8 are enough to prove that the accused has committed offence of Kidnap, stalking and sexual harassment against the victim.

45. In view of the above discussions in points no. (ii) to (iv) it can be said that prosecution in this case has successfully proved the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts. Hence these points are answered in favour of prosecution.

46.On considering above discussed aspects this court feel that prosecution successfully proved the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences punishable under sections 354-D, 363 of Indian Penal Code and under

Special Judge

22 S.C.No. 466 of 2020

Section 11(iv) punishable under section 12 of the Protection of Children from

Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

In the result, the accused is found guilty of the offences under Section 354-D, 363 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 11(iv) punishable under section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected by me and pronounced by me in

the open Court, on this the 14th day of September, 2023.

IX Addl.Dist., & Sessions Judge-Cum- IX Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar. FAC Special Sessions Judge for Trial and Disposal of case under POCSO, R.R.District at L.B.Nagar L.B.Nagar.

47. Questioning on sentence:

The accused is heard with regard to the quantum of sentence to be imposed to, which the accused stated that he got small children, he got obligation to maintain them, but taking into view, the nature of offences and even the age of the victim this Court is not inclined to take a lenient view against the accused and to apply the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act of Section 360

Cr.P.C to the accused.

Section 42 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012

Alternate Punishment speaks as follows: - “When an act or omission constitutes an offence punishable under this

Act and also under Sections 166-A, 354-A, 354-B,354-C, 354-D, 370, 370-A, 375, 376, 376-A, 376AB, 376-B, 376-C, 376-D, 376DA, 376DB or Section 509 of the

Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), then, notwithstanding anything contained in any

Special Judge

23 S.C.No. 466 of 2020

law for the time being in force, the offender found guilty of such offence shall be liable to punishment under this Act or under the Indian Penal Code as provides for punishment which is greater in degree”.

48. In view of Section 42 of POCSO Act,as the victim girl was child at time of offence hence the Accused is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of three (03) years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten

Thousand only) and in default of payment of fine amount, he has to further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six (6) months for the offence under Section 11(iv) punishable under section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

The Accused is further sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of five (05) years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) and in default of payment of fine amount, he has to further undergo

Simple Imprisonment for a period of six (6) months for the offence under

Section 363 of Indian Penal Code. Both sentences shall run concurrently.

49. The remand period undergone by the accused from 06-11-2019 to 19-12- 2019 shall be set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. MO1 shall be confiscated to state after expiry of appeal period.

50.The Accused is appraised about his right to prefer an appeal before the

Hon’ble High Court and he is further informed that he will be provided legal aid

counsel, if required. Free copy of the judgment is supplied to him.

51.As the Accused is convicted for the offences under Section 363 of Indian

Penal Code and under Section 11(iv) punishable under section 12 of the

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 for committing Sexual

Special Judge

24 S.C.No. 466 of 2020

harassment against the victim girl, this Court is of the considered opinion that the victim girl has to be compensated for her sufferance and as such an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) is decided as compensation amount. Therefore the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, is directed to take steps for payment of the said compensation amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) to the victim girl at the earliest.

Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected by me and pronounced by me in

the open Court, on this the 14th day of September, 2023.

IX Addl.Dist., & Sessions Judge-Cum- IX Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar. FAC Special Sessions Judge for Trial and Disposal of case under POCSO, R.R.District at L.B.Nagar L.B.Nagar.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(Witnesses examined) For the prosecution:

PW1: Victim PW2: Mother of the victim PW3: Dinesh PW4: Narasimha PW5: Pantham Mark PW6: Vangapalli Arjun PW7: Md. Parvez Mohiuddin, Investigating officer PW8: Kamala Bai, Sub Inspector of Police

For the defence: -None-

EXHIBITS MARKED

For the prosecution:

Ex.P1: Report Ex.P2: Crime Detail Form Ex.P3: Relevant portion in confession of the accused Ex.P4: Seizure Report

Special Judge

25 S.C.No. 466 of 2020

Ex.P5: First Information Report Ex.P6: Section Alteration Memo Ex.P7: Requisition for recording 164 Cr.P.C statement of the victim Ex.P8: 164 Cr.P.C statement of the victim Ex.P9: Bonafide certificate of the victim

For the defence: -Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MO1: Splender Bike bearing number TS08 ET 9792

IX Addl.Dist., & Sessions Judge-Cum- IX Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar. FAC Special Court for Expeditious Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act cases, R.R.District at L.B.Nagar

Special Judge

C.M.A.No.36 of 2023

IN THE COURT OF IX ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

L.B.NAGAR, R.R.DISTRICT.

PRESENT:- SMT. HARISHA,

IX Additional District Judge L.B.Nagar R.R.District.

Tuesday, on the 25 th day of March, 2025

C.M.A. No. 36 OF 2023

Between:

Mohammed Yousuf, S/o Mohammed Abdul Hameed, Aged about 63 years, Occ: Business, R/o H.No.3-163, Balapur, Rachakonda, Ranga Reddy District

..Appellant/petitioner/plaintif

AND

Anjaiah, S/o Not known to petitioner/plaintif, Aged about 42 years, Occ: Real Estate Business, R/o H.No.3-86, Mallapur Village, Balapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District

...Respondent/ respondent/defendant

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER DATED

18-01-2023 IN I.A.No. 51 of 2022 IN OS.No. 302 of 2022, PASSED

BY III ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

IN

2 of 36C.M.A.No. 36 of 2023

I.A.NO. 51 OF 2022

IN

O.S.NO. 302 OF 2022

Mohammed Yousuf, S/o Mohammed Abdul Hameed, Aged about 63 years, Occ: Business, R/o H.No.3-163, Balapur, Rachakonda, Ranga Reddy District

...Petitioner/plaintif

AND

Anjaiah, S/o Not known to petitioner/plaintif, Aged about 42 years, Occ: Real Estate Business, R/o H.No.3-86, Mallapur Village, Balapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District

...Respondent/ defendant

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is coming on before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. M.A. Lateef Qureshi Advocate

for Appellant and Sri.S. Mallareddy, Advocate for respondent, on

hearing both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

O R D E R

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by Appellant, who is the petitioner/plaintif in IA No.51 of 2022 in OS.No.302 of 2022 on the file of IIIAddl. Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District against

IX ADJ

3 of 36C.M.A.No. 36 of 2023 its order dated 18-01-2023 dismissed the said petition filed under

Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of CPC.

2. Before the trial court, the appellant herein is petitioner/plaintif while respondent herein are the respondent/ defendant in IA No.51 of 2022 in OS.No.302 of 2022 on the file of

IIIAddl. Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District. For the sake of convenience the parties herein are referred to as they are arrayed

before the trial court.

3. The averments of I.A.No.51 of 2022 in OS.No.302 of 2022 on the file of IIIAddl. Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, in brief, are as follows:

3.1The petitioner/plaintif filed the above suit for grant of perpetual injunction restraining the Respondent and his men, agents, representatives and any other person or persons from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner/ plaintif over the petition schedule property.

IX ADJ

4 of 36C.M.A.No. 36 of 2023 3.2 It is further contended that the petitioner/plaintif is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property as he had purchased the same from previous vendors/AGPA holders by virtue of sale deed vide Document No. 2220 of 2013 registered in SRO

Champapet, after verifying their clear title. He had purchased the petition schedule property under registered sale deed on 30-03- 2013 for the total consideration of Rs. 3,13,500/- (Rupees Three

Lakhs Thirteen Thousand Five Hundred Only).

3.3 It is further contended that the petition schedule property was purchased by him under registered sale deed and he had taken the peaceful possession over the suit schedule property and since then he is enjoying the suit schedule property without any disturbance or any kind of hindrance, and his son is running a real estate business by name and style of "Bala Real Estate Builders and developers" in a Mulgi constructed in the suit schedule property. The petitioner/plaintif was regularly paying the electricity Bills, and property taxes.

IX ADJ

5 of 36C.M.A.No. 36 of 2023 3.4It is further contended that in the month of January, 2022, he started the construction of fencing wall and shelters on the open plot. As soon as he started the construction, the respondent/ defendant along with some goons have started harassing him and demanding Rs. 5,00,000/- from him to start the construction on the petition schedule property. He was forced to give a huge amount to the respondent/defendant and warned that they will take the possession of the property at any cost and their ultimate intention is to dispose him, if he fail to heed his demand.

3.5 It is further contended that all of sudden in the mid night of 4th February, 2022, the Respondent came and entered with JCB in the petition schedule property forcefully demolished the construction by illegally trespassing which is recorded in the CC TV footage. The respondent/defendant threatened the petitioner/ plaintif over the phone and tried to drag him from the Petition schedule property with an intention to take illegal possession of the petition schedule property. By the said CC TV cameras, the above said respondent/ defendant could not succeed and left the

IX ADJ

6 of 36C.M.A.No. 36 of 2023 property by damaging the doors, constructed walls. Upon which in the morning, the petitioner/plaintif went to PS Balapur, the Police

Balapur reached the scene of the ofence and after seeing the

CCTV footage. FIR was issued against the respondent/defendant i.e.. Crime No. 49 of 2022 dated 04.02.2022 under section 427, 448 of IPC and the police Balapur advised him that it is civil dispute.

Hence, he filed the main suit and this petition for interim orders during pendency of the suit.

3.6 It is further contended that the petitioner/plaintif got assessment of schedule property in the Saroornagar municipal office and obtained House No. 15-297/2, paying all taxes as a law abiding citizen. He has made a prima-facie case, having balance of convenience in his favor and if the respondent/defendant is not restrained to interfere with his possession over the petition schedule property, he may be put to irreparable loss and damage.

Hence, he prayed to pass interim orders during pendency of suit.

IX ADJ

7 of 36C.M.A.No. 36 of 2023

4.It is seen from the record that the Counter is filed by the respondent/defendant by denying the averments of the petition and it is contended as follows :- 4.1. The respondent/defendant is one of the legal heirs of the

Original Protected Tenant Kadari Venkaiah of land in Sy.No. 144 and 145 admeasuring Ac 148.35 gts and Ac. 348.35 gts situated at

Village Balapur, Balpur Mandal (now within the municipal limits of

Jalpally). The petitioner/plaintif is claiming plot No. 92 admeasuring 209 sq.yards, in Sy.No. 144A. Kadari Venkaiah and

Vagaira (others) are recorded as Protected Tenants. It is noticed that although the expression "VAGAIRA" (Others) is not tampered, still in issue No.2 (the issue No.2 in Order Copy of Joint Collector in

F2/5402/2013 dated 31-08-2018. page 83 to 89 and filing copy of order with List of Document), the learned Joint Collector found that it is not within the purview of the authorities to decide the lineal descendant of "VAGAIRA" as contemplated Under Section 40 of the Act. It was stated that the Protected Tenants surrendered their lands and their names have been deleted to an extent of Ac.

IX ADJ

8 of 36C.M.A.No. 36 of 2023 338.35 gts. This was challenged and carried up to the Hon'ble

Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court by order dated 17.03.2015 and 29.04.2015 remanded the matter to the Joint

Collector, Ranga Reddy District.

4.2 It is further contended that after the remand, the Joint

Collector took up the enquiry in File No. F2/5402/2013 and disposed of the same by order dated 31-08-2018 and 08-04-2019.

In the said proceeding, this respondent/defendant is arrayed as

Appellant No.4. The learned Joint Collector formulated 4 issues for decision. On issue No. 1: It is found that there is no tampering in the Original Tenancy Register regarding the word "VAGAIRA". On issue No.2: The issue was whether succession was properly granted. On that issue the finding is in negative i.e.. The Learned

Joint Collector set aside the succession. On the third issue: It pertains to Urban Land Celling Act. The Learned Joint Collector held that the land vests in Government. However, the finding on this issue has been stayed by the Hon'ble High Court by order

dated 07.02.2019 In IA No. 1 of 2019 in CRP No. 72 of 2019. The

IX ADJ

9 of 36C.M.A.No. 36 of 2023

Fourth issue: It relates to whether there is surrender of Protected

Tenant's rights. The endorsement that Protected Tenant surrendered his rights was set aside by the Learned Joint Collector at page no.2. Aggrieved by the orders of the Joint Collector, the opposite parties Snehitha Builders Pvt Ltd. and others, filed

CRP.No. 6241/2018 W.P.No. 4213/2019, CRP No. 587/2019. W.P.No.

973/2020 and there is no any order against the Joint Collector orders, CRP No. 72/2019, CRP No. 1464/2019. CRP No.1917/2019 respondent/defendant and others filed and obtained Interim order against issue no.3. Thus, the matter about the Protected Tenancy is beyond doubt. That the Sy.No. 144 and Sy.No. 145 was declared as

Prohibited Properties by the Government of Telangana through

Registration and Stamps Department. The Hon'ble High Court stayed in IA No. 1 of 2019 in CRP No. 72 of 2019 in Joint Collector order in Issue No.3.

4.3. It is further contended that the respondent/defendant and others are original owners and possessors under the P.T Act and

Rules of the land Sy.No. 144 admeasuring Ac. 148-65 Guntas and

IX ADJ

10 of 36C.M.A.No. 36 of 2023

Sy.No.145 admeasuring Ac. 200-00 Guntas, total admeasuring Ac.

348-35 Guntas.

4.4 It is further contended that the petitioner/plaintif purchased the property through Sale Deed No.2220/2013 dated 30.03.2013 from Consenting party Fahad Bin Saleh, Sayeed through their GPA

Holder S.Sandeep Reddy and Shaik Nazeer from Mekala

Rukkamma, N. Pandu. D. Manikyamma Mangamma, N. Shyamala, K.

Suguna, who are no way concerned with the suit schedule property. The petitioner/plaintif with false and fabricated document registered the suit schedule property to get the property and created the house number with House Tax bill, electricity bill for the purpose of the case.

4.5It is further contended that the Government of Telangana (while Combined Andhra Pradesh) through Office of Tahsildhar,

Saroornagar (present now Balapur) issue PT Certificate to the respondent/defendant and his family members for the petition

IX ADJ

11 of 36C.M.A.No. 36 of 2023 schedule property. The petitioner/plaintif does not have any color of right over petition schedule Land.

4.6. It is further contended that the petitioner/plaintif filed this vexatious suit with an only intention to harass and extract amount from this respondent/defendant. The petitioner/ plaintif claims to have purchased the petition scheduled Plot in Sy No. 144/A, if plot number is quoted there must be a lay out otherwise the extent of

Sy.No. 144 is Ac. 148.35 gts. In which portion the alleged plot is located is not known. Hence, the petition schedule property has no identity and no sub division numbers are recorded. Therefore, it is denied that the Plot No. 92 forms plot of Sy. No. 144/A, and that the petitioner/plaintif is in possession of it. Further, in view of

Section 38-D of the Tenancy Act, assuming that the Plot sold is sold by the land owner without ofering the land to the protected tenant, the land cannot be sold to a third party. It is denied that the vendor of the petitioner/plaintif had a title or possession over the suit property and therefore he could not have conveyed better title in favour of the petitioner/plaintif.

IX ADJ

12 of 36C.M.A.No. 36 of 2023 4.7. It is further contended that nothing is placed on record to show that the vendors of the petitioner/plaintif had title to alienate the property to the petitioner/plaintif. In the said Sale

Deed, the source of title is traced through a pass book and an entry in a pass book cannot confer title. When the vendor of the petitioner/plaintif himself did not have title, he could not have conferred title in favour of the petitioner/plaintif. In view of the same, it is denied that the petitioner/plaintif allegedly is in possession albeit without any disturbance. Even according to the petitioner/plaintif the alleged mulgi is not constructed by him.

The schedule of property does not show existence of any structure and therefore the petitioner/plaintif cannot say that there is a mulgi in the suit property.

4.8It is further contended that the petitioner/plaintif is fair enough to admit that the plot is open, if that be so how plot and door number could have been allotted by them. When no structure is existing on the ground it is false to allege that the respondent/ defendant forcibly entered with JCB and demolished the

IX ADJ

13 of 36C.M.A.No. 36 of 2023 structure. The incident allegedly captured by CCTV is fake.

Challenging the case registered by police in Cr No. 49 of 2022, the petitioner/plaintif filed Crl.P.No. 2566 of 2022 and the Hon'ble

High Court directed the police to follow procedure under sec. 41 A

CPC and also direct that the respondent/defendant should not be arrested.

4.9. It is further contended that when there is no structure even as per the schedule, it can not be understood as to how the petitioner/plaintif could pay electricity bill or property tax. It is denied that the petitioner/plaintif is in possession of the suit property as lawful owner allegedly paying tax to Saroornagar

Municipality as the Survey Number mentioned by petitioner/ plaintif is not in jurisdiction of Saroornagar Municipality. The

Municipal number being quoted by the petitioner/plaintif does not exist at all. The Sy No. 144 falls within the municipal jurisdiction of Jalpally Municipality. Thus by producing the tax receipts allegedly issued by Saroornagar Municipality, the petitioner/plaintif has played fraud on the Court.

IX ADJ

14 of 36C.M.A.No. 36 of 2023 4.10. It is further contended that the injunction being a equitable remedy, the relief cannot be extended to a party whose hands are tainted with fraud. When, seriously, title of the petitioner/plaintif is being disputed, in terms of Section 32 of the Specific Relief Act, a bare suit for injunction is not maintainable.

4.11. It is further contended that since the respondent/defendant is legal heir of a protected tenant whose rights are subsisting and who according to Joint Collector, he did not surrender his right, it is reaffirmed that the respondent/defendant is a protected tenant and in terms of Section 34 read with Section 99 of the Andhra

Pradesh (Telangana) Area Tenancy and Agriculture Act, this Court has no jurisdiction. That apart the Municipal Authorities have issued letter No. 07.09.2021 to the respondent/defendant, furnished under the Right to Information Act, in response to the application of the respondent/defendant dated 11.08.2021 vide letter dated 07.09.2021 stating that a case relating to Sy.Nos. 144 and 145 is pending in the Court, all the house numbers are

IX ADJ

15 of 36C.M.A.No. 36 of 2023 canceled. From this letter, it is clear that Sy No. 144 of Balapur village falls within the jurisdiction of Jalpally Municipality.

4.12. It is further contended that there are no proceedings indicating conversion of user of the land in Sy.No. 144 from agriculture to non-agriculture, either under the NALA Act, or under the Land Revenue Act. Hence this Petition schedule property does not exist at all. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the present petition with exemplary costs.

5.The Trial court disposed the IA on 18-01-2023 by dismissing the same.

6. Aggrieved by the said order, the Appellant/petitioner/ plaintif filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal on the following grounds:

i.It is contended that the appellant is the petitioner/ plaintif before the Trial court. That the appellant is the Absolute owner of plot No.92 in Sy.No. 144/A, admeasuring 209 square at scheduled at J.B. Colony, Balapur (V) Saroornagar (M) R.R.District

IX ADJ

16 of 36C.M.A.No. 36 of 2023 having purchased the same in the year 2013, From previous vendors/AGPA holders by virtue of sale deed vide Document

No.2220 of 2013 registered in SRO Champapet, and from the date of the purchase the appellant is enjoying the suit schedule property and as on today he is in possession.

ii.It is contended that the appellant has got assessment of this suit schedule and the concerned authorities after seeing property tax and plot No.92, The door Number was allotted as 15- 297/2 and paid the tax since 2021- 2022, and also allotted the electricity meter and constructed a mulgi and the son of appellant is running business in the said mulgi since 10 years.

iii. It is further contended that in the month of January 2022 appellant started the construction of fencing wall and shelters on the open plot. It is further contended that as soon as he started the construction this Respondent along with some goons has started harassing the appellant by threatening him and demanding Rs.5,00,000/-(Rupees Five Lakhs only) from the appellant to start the construction on the schedule property then he had to give a huge amount to the Respondent and warned that

IX ADJ

17 of 36C.M.A.No. 36 of 2023 they will take the possession of the property at any cost and their ultimate intention is to disposed this appellant from his lawful possession.

iv.It is further contended that all of sudden in the mid- night on 4th February 1022, the Respondent came and entered with JCB in the suit schedule property forcefully demolished the construction by illegal trespassing which is recorded in the CC.TV.

footage and threatened the appellant over the phone and tried to drag him from the schedule property with an intention to take illegal possession of the suit schedule property of the appellant who is in the peaceful, lawful possession and rightful owner. And by the CC.TV. cameras the above said Respondent could not succeeded and left the property by damaging the doors constructed walls. Upon which in the morning the appellant went to P.S. Balapur where the Police Balapur reach the scene of ofence and after seeing the cctv footage an FIR was issued against this

Respondent i.e., Crime No. 49 of 2022 dated 4-02-2022 under section 427, 448 of IPC, and the Police Balapur advise him that it is

IX ADJ

18 of 36C.M.A.No. 36 of 2023 civil dispute, the police cannot interfere and advised to approach the civil court.

v. That the appellant has approached the court and he filed the suit for injunction which is numbered as O.S.No.302 of 2022 and I.A.No.51 of 2022, the trial court after considering the material on record granted interim injunction in favor of the appellant by restrain the respondent/respondent/ defendant not to interfering in the suit schedule property and issued the notice to the respondent/respondent/defendant wherein the respondent/ respondent/defendant has filed his counter and

Written Statement on false and Frivolous grounds and the matter was strongly contested on the I.A.No. 51 of 2022, whereas the trial court marked Ex. P1 to Ex.P20 on behalf of the appellant herein and the same is the part of record of the main suit in O.S.No. 302 of 2022 on the other hand the respondent/ respondent/defendant got marked Ex. R1 to R5 and after hearing both side the lower court was pleased to dismiss the I.A.No. 51 of 2022 on 18-01-2023 aggrieved by the order of the III Junior civil Judge, the petitioner/appellant preferred this present appeal.

IX ADJ

19 of 36C.M.A.No. 36 of 2023 vi. It is contended that the Trial court erred to appreciate the registered document showing the ownership and possession of the appellant, the trial court also failed to appreciate the property tax receipt, electricity bills in the name of the appellant herein, this view of the trial court is absolutely against the facts & documents filed by the appellant, at the stage of interlocutory application, the trial court ought to consider the 3 elements whether the appellant/petitioner is in possession on the day of moving the application for injunction, whether there is prima facie in the claim of the appellant, whether there may be any loss or damage it the injunction is denied.

vii. It is further contended that the appellant/petitioner has proved all the three elements and always capable to proof his case beyond reasonable doubt in the light of oral and documentary evidences, whereas the respondent/defendant has not filed any authentic documents even though Ex-R1 to Ex-R5 is marked, but that documents are not supporting to the case of the respondent/defendant in any dimension.

IX ADJ

20 of 36C.M.A.No. 36 of 2023 viii.It is further contended that there is no reason for the

Trial court to dismiss the injunction order in I.A.No.51 of 2022 in

O.S.No.302 of 2022 granted on 14-2-2022, the trial court has erred

to dismiss the petition without considering the authenticity of the documents EX-P1 to EX-P20 and the alarming necessity of injunction order restraining the respondent/defendants the trial court even did not take the criminal case of the respondent/ defendant who demolished the suit schedule property of the appellant by using JCB on 4th February 2022 and the act has been caught on CCTV footage and the police issued FIR in Crime No. 49 of 2022 dated 4-02-2022 under section 427, 448 of IPC against respondent/defendant for the criminal act of demolishing the property of the appellant as the trial court has failed to notice the criminal tendency of the respondent/defendant and in the glaring facts the trial court ought to have to confirm the interim injunction order which was granted on 14-2-2022 in the interest of justice.

Thereafter, the order of the trial court sufers from irregularities and infirmities and it is against the natural justice. It is prayed to allow the present petition.

IX ADJ

21 of 36C.M.A.No. 36 of 2023

7. It is seen from the record that in this Civil miscellaneous

Appeal the learned counsel for the respondent filed 3 documents under IA no. 730 of 2024.

8.Heard both the counsels.

9. For the sake of convenience the parties herein are referred to as they are arrayed before the trial court.

10. Now the points that arise for consideration in this Civil miscellaneous Appeal are:-

1). Whether there are any grounds to interfere

with the Order in I.A.No. 51 of 2022 in O.S.No. 302

of 2022 passed by the learned II I Addl. Junior Civil

Judge, Ranga Reddy District?

2). To what relief?

11. POINT No.1:

The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that trial court committed error in dismissing the petition, Ex.P1 to P20 which were marked before the trial court shows ownership and

IX ADJ

22 of 36C.M.A.No. 36 of 2023 possession of the petitioner over petition schedule property, the trial court did not consider the documents filed before it, the said documents very well establishes the possession and ownership of the petitioner, he prayed the court to set aside the order of trial court in IA.No.51/2022 in OS.No.302/2022 by allowing the present petition.

12.The learned counsel for the respondent argued that the trial court did not commit any error by dismissing the IA, as per Ex.R1 to

R5 and even the documents filed before this court in

IA.No.730/2024 clearly shows that the petitioner is not having any

right over petition schedule property, the respondent and others are in possession of petition schedule property and other properties in the capacity of the legal heirs of original protected tenant in Sy.No.144 & 145 of Balapur Mandal now in Jalpally

Mandal. He prayed the court to dismiss the petition.

13.On behalf of petitioner Exs.P.1 to P.20 were marked and on behalf of respondent Exs.R.1 to R.5 were marked before the trial court. Ex.P1 is true copy of sale deed bearing no.2220 of 2013.

IX ADJ

23 of 36C.M.A.No. 36 of 2023

Ex.P2 is Market Value Certificate dt. 07-02-2022, Ex.P3 is the

Encumbrance Certificate. Ex.P4 is the Photographs(Nos. 7), Ex.P5 is the Municipality Property Tax Bill, Ex.P6 is the Electricity Bills.

Ex.P7 is the Xerox copy of certificate issued by the Office of the

Municipal Council Jalpally, Ranga Reddy District, dt. 15-10-2018,

Ex.P8 is the Compact Disc, Ex.P9 is the Copy of FIR in

Cr.No.49/2022 of PS Balapur, 04-02-2022, Ex. P10 is the certified copy of Agreement of Sale cum General Power of Attorney with possession bearing doc No. 4227/2008, Ex.P11 is the certified copy of Agreement of Sale cum General Power of Attorney with possession No. 4228/2008 and Ex.P12 to Ex.P18 are the Electricity

Bills. Ex.P19 and Ex.P20 are the property tax bills.

14. On behalf of the respondent/defendant, Ex.R1 to Ex.R5 are marked, Ex.R1 is the Certified copy of Order of Joint Collector in

Case No.F2/5402/2013 dated 31.08.2018, Ex.R2 is the Certified copy of Order of Joint Collector, R.R.District on the petition filed under Section 152 of CPC r/w 151 of CPC for correction of order dt.

31-08-2018 in F2/5402/2013 dated 08.04.2019, Ex.R3 is the

IX ADJ

24 of 36C.M.A.No. 36 of 2023 certified copy order of High Court in IA No. 01/2019 in CRP No.

72/2019 dated 27.02.2019, Ex.R4 is the certified copy of extract of

P.T Register and Ex.R5 is the certified copy of Hon’ble Supreme

Court in Special Leave Petition Nos. 5737-5739/2014.

During the proceedings under this petition the learned counsel for respondent has filed further documents before the court in IA.No.730/2024 as above discussed i.e., Letter addressed by Asst. Director Survey and Land Records dt. 12-07-2016 obtained under RTI Act showing that on verification of technical records of

Balapur Village it is noticed that Sub-division record is not available pertaining to Sy.Nos. 144 & 145, a letter is enclosed issued by public information officer stating that no records are available pertaining to 144 & 145 survey numbers of Balapur Village, only there was entry in the pahanies, no supplementary Sethwar or any other concerned records even maps are not available hence, it is requested to approach Asst. Director Survey and Land Records.

Letter addressed to respondent from Public Information Officer and Manager, Jalpally Municipality showing that in view of that

Sy.No.144 and 145 of Balapur Village and Mandal, the matter is

IX ADJ

25 of 36C.M.A.No. 36 of 2023 pending with court, due to that the above numbers were cancelled by the commissioner.

15.The version of petitioner is that he filed petition under Order

XXIX Rule 1 & 2 CPC for granting ad-interim injunction over petition schedule property which is an open plot bearing No.92 adm., 209 Sq.yards in part of Sy.No.144/A at JB Colony, Balapur. As per his version he purchased the same from his vendor under Ex.P1 for consideration, Ex.P1 is showing the date as 30-3-2013, as per his version, the petitioner is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of petition schedule property since the date of his purchase, even he constructed a small room in his property by spending huge amounts, in the midnight of 4-2-2022 the respondent demolished the said construction with the help of JCB by trespassing into his property and the same was captured in the CCTV footage, he also lodged report before PS Balapur, the police did not take any action by stating that the dispute is in civil nature. Since the date of purchase the petitioner is paying regularly the electricity bills and also property taxes.

IX ADJ

26 of 36C.M.A.No. 36 of 2023

The version of respondent shows that respondent is one of the legal heirs original protected tenant by name Kadari

Venkataiah who is the Protected tenant of Sy.No.144 & 145 adm.,

Ac.148-38 gts., and 348.35 gts., situated at Balapur Village and

Mandal now within the municipal limits of Jalpally Mandal. As per the order of Joint Collector, he found that the concerned authorities has to decide the lenial descendants of “VAGAIRA” as contemplated under Section 40 of Protected Tenancy Act, even he mentioned that protected tenants surrendered their rights hence, their names were deleted to an extent of Ac.338.35, the same was challenged before Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the proceedings also respondent is shown as Appellant No.4, later the Hon’ble Supreme

Court remanded the matter to the Joint Collector. In view of proceedings of revenue it is clear that the respondent got no right in the petition schedule property, the Government of Telangana in the combined State of Andhra Pradesh issued PT Certificate to the respondent and his family members in respect of suit schedule property.

IX ADJ

27 of 36C.M.A.No. 36 of 2023

At this juncture this court would like to discuss the following aspects:-

The Hon'ble Apex Court has time & again propounded Triple Test

Doctrine for the grant of temporary injunction- existence of Prima Facie

Case, Balance of Convenience & Doctrine of Irreparable Injury but more importantly all these tenets must coexist together to enable the Courts to exercise their judicial discretion in favour of the applicant. These three cardinal principles are to be applied in a proper perspective looking to the particular facts and circumstances of a case before deciding the grant of temporary injunction.

It would be trite to refer to the Hon'ble Apex Court's judgment in

Shanti Kumar Panda v. Shakuntala Devi (2004) 1 SCC 438 wherein it was expressly held thus:

At the stage of passing an interlocutory order such as on an application for the grant of ad interim injunction under Rule 1 or 2 of

Order 39 of the CPC, the competent Court shall have to form its opinion on the availability of a prima facie case, the balance of convenience and the irreparable injury - the three pillars on which rests the foundation of any order of injunction.

The cardinal principles for grant of temporary injunction were earlier spelt out by the Hon'ble Apex Court in landmark judgment of

Dalpat Kumar vs. Prahlad Singh (1992) 1 SCC 719 wherein it was held thus:

IX ADJ

28 of 36C.M.A.No. 36 of 2023 "It is settled law that the grant of injunction is a discretionary relief. The exercise thereof is subject to the court satisfying that (1) there is a serious disputed question to be tried in the suit and that an act, on the facts before the court, there is probability of his being entitled to the relief asked for by the plaintif/defendant; (2) the court's interference is necessary to protect the party from the species of injury.

In other words, irreparable injury or damage would ensue before the legal right would be established at trial; and (3) that thecomparative hardship or mischief or inconvenience which is likely to occur from withholding the injunction will be greater than that would be likely to arise from granting it."

The Apex Court in the case of Shiv Kumar Chadha Etc. Etc vs

Municipal Corporation of Delhi 1993 SCC (3) 161 reiterated the said dictum and held thus:

"It has been pointed out repeatedly that a party is not entitled to an order of injunction as a matter of right or course. Grant of injunction is within the discretion of the Court and such discretion is to be exercised in favour of the plaintif only if it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that unless the defendant is restrained by an order of injunction, an irreparable loss or damage will be caused to the plaintif during the pendency of the suit. The purpose of temporary injunction is, thus, to maintain the status quo. The Court grants such relief according to the legal principles--ex debite justitiae. Before any such order is passed the Court must be satisfied that a strong prima-facie case has been made out by the plaintif including on the question of

IX ADJ

29 of 36C.M.A.No. 36 of 2023 maintainability of the suit and the balance of convenience is in his favour and refusal of injunction would cause irreparable injury to him."

It would be relevant to refer to Seema Arshad Zaheer Vs.

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, (2006) 5 SCC 282 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court observed thus:

"The discretion of the court is exercised to grant a temporary injunction only when the following requirements are made out by the plaintif:

i. Existence of a prima facie case as pleaded, necessitating protection of plaintif's rights by issue of a temporary injunction; ii. When the need for protection of plaintif's rights is compared with or weighed against the need for protection of defendant's rights or likely infringement of defendant's rights, the balance of convenience tilting in favour of plaintif; and iii.Clear possibility of irreparable injury being caused to plaintif if the temporary injunction is not granted. In addition, temporary injunction being an equitable relief, the discretion to grant such relief will be exercised only when the plaintif's conduct is free from blame and he approaches the court with clean hands.

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd.

Vs. Coca-Cola Co. AIR 1995 SC 2372 gave a landmark judgment as to the guidelines to be followed by the court while considering applications for granting a temporary injunction. The Court held thus :

IX ADJ

30 of 36C.M.A.No. 36 of 2023

The grant of an interlocutory injunction during the perdency of legal proceedings is a matter requiring the exercise of discretion of the court. While exercising the discretion the court applies the following tests:

i. Whether the plaintif has a prima facie case; ii. Whether the balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintif;

and

iii.Whether the plaintif would sufer an irreparable injury if his prayer for interlocutory injunction is disallowed.

The decision whether or not to grant an interlocutory injunction has to be taken at a time when the existence of the legal right assailed by the plaintif and its alleged violation are both contested and uncertain and its alleged violation are both contested and uncertain and remain uncertain till they are established at the trial on evidence. Relief by way of interlocutory injunction is granted to mitigate the risk of injustice to the plaintif during the period before that uncertainty could be resolved. The object of the interlocutory injunction is to protect the plaintif against injury by violation of his right for which he could not be adequately compensated in damages recoverable in the action if the uncertainty were resolved in his favour at the trial.

The need for such protection has, however, to be weighed against the corresponding need of the defendant to be protected against injury resulting from his having been prevented from exercising his own legal rights for which he could not be adequately compensated. The court

IX ADJ

31 of 36C.M.A.No. 36 of 2023 must weigh one need against another and determine where the 'balance of convenience' lies which is discussed in Wander Ltd.& Anr. v,.

Antox India P. Ltd., 1990 (supp) SCC 727 at pp. 731-32 In order to protect the defendant while granting an interlocutory injunction in his favour the Court can require the plaintif to furnish an undertaking so that the defendant can be adequately compensated if the uncertainty were resolved in his favour at the trial."

In M/s Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd. Versus M/s Lanco

Kondapalli Power Pvt. Ltd. (2006) 1 SCC 540, the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated the Triple Test before granting temporary injunction thus:

The interim direction ordinarily would precede finding of a prima facie case. When existence of a prima facie case is established, the court shall consider the other relevant factors, namely, balance of convenience and irreparable injuries.

16. The records shows that as per the version of the petitioner who filed Ex.P1 to P20 pleaded that he purchased the property under Ex.P1, later he constructed a room therein which is depicted in the photos filed before the court, the respondent herein high handedly demolished the said room with the help of JCB, as the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the property since the date of purchase, hence he filed the petition before the court. The trial court after going through the documents on record came to

IX ADJ

32 of 36C.M.A.No. 36 of 2023 conclusion that the petitioner has failed to establish the above said three important ingredients which are required in the petition filed under XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of C.P.C.

17. Admittedly, petition schedule property is shown as open plot, no document is filed before the court when the petitioner constructed the room, which was was allegedly demolished by the respondent. Even no proceedings are filed by the petitioner herein as to when he constructed the said room and from where he obtained permission for construction of the said room, when he was allotted the municipal member by the concerned authorities for the said room to which he is regularly paying property tax as well as electricity charges as pleaded.

18.The respondent herein has filed the documents before the court which are marked on his behalf before the trial court even the documents filed before this court under IA. No.730/2024. On perusal of the document filed by the respondent herein it is brought on record that the respondent is the petitioner/appellant

No.4 in Ex.R1 to R3 even Ex.R4 shows in regard to deleting the

IX ADJ

33 of 36C.M.A.No. 36 of 2023 names of some of the persons mentioned in Col.No.13 of PT extract register. Even, as per the document issued by public information officer a list is provided by the Public Information

Officer stating that as the matter is pending before the court the door numbers allotted earlier were canceled.( As per the version of the petitioner he was allotted door number to the room which got constructed by him). As per the document filed by the petitioner especially Ex.P13 to P20, the door number of petitioner is mentioned as 15-297/2 of Jalpally Municipality (Ex.P19 & P20). This court feels that as per the documents filed by the respondent shows that there is no sub division records available for Sy.No.144 & 145. As per description of property the petition schedule property is situated in Sy.No.144/A. The survey number of the property as per Ex.P1 is Sy.No.144/_____. Even as rightly pointed out by the respondent that the Municipal Authorities have issued letter No. 07.09.2021 to the respondent/ defendant, furnished under the Right to Information Act, in response to the application of the respondent/defendant dated 11.08.2021 vide letter dated 07.09.2021 stating that a case relating to Sy.Nos. 144 and 145 is

IX ADJ

34 of 36C.M.A.No. 36 of 2023 pending in the Court, all the house numbers are canceled. It is rightly pointed out that from the said letter, it is clear that Sy No.

144 of Balapur village falls within the jurisdiction of Jalpally

Municipality, the said documents are filed before this court as discussed, even there are no proceedings indicating conversion of user of the land in Sy.No. 144 from agriculture to non-agriculture, either under the NALA Act, or under the Land Revenue Act.

19. This court on considering the total documents on record feels that as per the schedule mentioned in the petition, the property is an open plot, but as per the version of petitioner the respondent demolished his construction which is visible in the photographs filed by the petitioner. Even whether the respondent is one among the legal heirs of protected tenant and whether he is having every right in the suit property can be decided after full fledged trial, even whether the vendors of petitioner were having right to sell the property which was purchased by the petitioner as pleaded by him can be decided after full length of trial. Even otherwise the petition/suit schedule property is not showing the

IX ADJ

35 of 36C.M.A.No. 36 of 2023 room (which was in existence in prior to the alleged demolition as per the pleadings of the petitioner himself), it can be said that pleadings of the petitioner are contrary to the description of the petition/suit schedule property. This court feels that the petitioner did not approach the court with clean hands. Even at this juncture this court feels that as the documents filed by the petitioner are not sufficient before the court to prove his version in regard to his prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss if injunction is not granted in his favour, hence it can be concluded that the trial did not commit any error by dismissing the petition.

20.On considering the above discussion this court feels that petitioner failed to prove the three important elements as above discussed, the trial court rightly dismissed the petition filed by petitioner under order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of CPC. Hence, there is no need to interfere in the order of trial court, as trial court rightly dismissed the petition. This point is answered against the petitioner.

IX ADJ

36 of 36C.M.A.No. 36 of 2023

POINT No.2:

21.In view of the findings in point no.1, this court is not inclined to allow the petition.

In the result, Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed with costs.

Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her and after

correction pronounced by me in open court on this the 25 th day of March 2025.

IX Additional District Judge

L.B.Nagar R.R.District.

IX ADJ

IN THE COURT OF THE X ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR.

Present:-SMT.HARISHA,

IX ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE,

FAC X ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

R.RDISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR.

DATED THIS THE 22 nd DAY OF SEPTEMBER,2023

OS No.1055 of 2007

Between: G. Pramila, W/o.G.Bala Krishna, Hindu, Aged about 42 years, Occ:Household, R/o.5-8-57/3,

Nampally, Hyderabad. .............. Plaintiff

AND

1. K.Narsing Rao, S/o.Late K.Anjaiah, Hindu, Aged about 60 years, Occ:Business, R/o.H.No.2-2-3/A, DD Colony, Vidyanagar, Hyderabad.

2.Rajamani, D/o.Late K.Anjaiah, Hindu, Aged about 62 years, Occ:Household, R/o.H.No.2-2-3/A, DD Colony, Vidyanagar, Hyderabad.

3. K.Lakshmamma(Died per Lrs)

The Defendant No.3 died on 24-03-2010, the plaintiff and defendant No.5 to 11 are the legal heirs as per memo order dated 04-06-2011.

4. K.Rajeshree, W/o.Late K.Om Prakash, Hindu, Aged about 44 Years, Occ:Household, R/o.Flat No.501, H.No.4-109/11 to 4-109/16, Sai Bavani’s Kamshetty Enclave, Ganesh Nagar, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad (A.P).

5. K.Satyanarayana, S/o.Late K.Anjaiah, Hindu, Aged about 46 years, Occ:Business, R/o.Flat No.109, H.No.4-109/11 to 4-109/16, Sai Bavani’s Kamshetty Enclave, Ganesh Nagar, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad (A.P).

6. K.Ashok Kumar, S/o.Late Anjaiah, Hindu, Aged about 43 years, Occ:Business, R/o.Flat No.204, H.No.4-109/11 to 4-109/16, Sai Bavani’s Kamshetty Enclave, Ganesh Nagar, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad (A.P).

7. K.Krishna Kumar, S/o.Late K.Anjaiah, Hindu, Aged about 39 years, R/o.Flat No.107, H.No.4-109/11 to 4-109/16, Sai Bavani’s Kamshetty Enclave, Ganesh Nagar, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad (A.P).

2

8. A.Shanta, D/o.Late K.Anjaiah, Hindu Aged about 56 years, R/o.H.No.1-1-475/2, Gandhi Nagar, Bakaram, Hyderabad (AP).

9. P.Vijaya Lakshmi, D/o.Late K.Anjaiah, Hindu, Aged about 54 Years, R/o.Flat No.501, 5th Floor, Ravindra Nagar, K.K.Residency, Beside Ramanthapur Public School, Habsiguda, Hyderabad.

10. P.Hari Kumari, D/o.Late K.Anjaiah, Hindu, Aged about 52 years, R/o.H.No.6-1-149/10, Flat No.203, Vishwambara Apartments, Padmaraonagar, Secunderabad – 500 025(AP)

11. G.Nirmala, D/o.Late K.Anjaiah, Hindu, Aged about 44 years, H.No.3-4-376/24, Basant Colony, Lingampally, Kachiguda, Hyderabad – 500 027(AP).

12. K.Sarojini, W/o.Late K.Anjaiah, Hindu, Aged about 58 Years, H.No.1-8-462/A, Temple Street, Chikkadapally, Hyderabad (AP).

13. K.Venikateshwar Rao, S/o.Late K.Anjaiah, Hindu, Aged about 38 years, H.No.1-8-462/A, Temple Street, Chikkadapally, Hyderabad (AP).

14. K.Bahagawathi, D/o.Late K.Anjaiah, Hindu, Aged about 34 Years, H.No.1-8-462/A, Temple Street, Chikkadapally, Hyderabad (AP).

15.Geetha, D/o.Late K.Anjaiah, Hindu, Aged About 34 years, H.No.1-8-462/A, Temple Street, Chikkadapally, Hyderabad (AP).

16.Madhavi, D/o.Late K.Anjaiah, Hindu, Aged about 32 Years, H.No.1-8-462/A, Temple Street, Chikkadapally, Hyderabad (AP).

17. P.Siva Mohan Reddy, S/o.P.Venkata Reddy, Hindu, Aged 65 years, R/o.H.No.5-8-49, Fateh Sultan Lane, Hyderabad.

18. T.Venu Gopal Reddy, S/o.T.Venkataramana Reddy, Hindu, Aged about 58 years, R/o. H.No.5-8-49, Fateh Sultan Lane, Hyderabad.

3

19. S.Srinivas Reddy, S/o.Sri Venkat Reddy, Hindu, Aged about 54 Years, H.No.1-10-249/2, Ashok Nagar, Hyderabad (AP).

20. Kiran, D/o.Moti Singh Pawar, Hindu, Aged 45 Years, R/o.14-9-584/1, Chudi Bazaar, Hyderabad.

21. Sama Pratap Reddy, S/o.Sama Narasimha Reddy, Hindu, Aged about 49 years, C/o.Sama Narasimha Reddy Gardens Champapet, Hyderabad.

22. A.Vijay Kumar, S/o.Late A.Varadaiah, Hindu, Aged about 44 years, R/o.H.No.4-1-578/1, J.N.Road, Hyderabad (AP).

23. J.Satyanarayana Rao, S/o.J.Papa Rao, Hindu, Aged about 65 years, R/o.H.No.4-1-578/2, J.N.Road, Hyderabad (AP).

24. S.Bhasker Reddy, S/o.Late S.Narsimha Reddy, Hindu, Aged about 48 Years, R/o.Sama Narsimha Reddy, Gardens, Champapet, Hyderabad (AP).

25. S.Sri Ram Reddy, S/o.S.Venkat Reddy, Hindu, Aged about 51 Years, H.No.1-10-249/2, Ashok Nagar Extension, Hyderabad (AP).

26. S.Subrahmanyam Reddy, S/o.S.Venkat Reddy, Hindu, Aged about 48 years, R/o.H.No.1-10-249/2, Ashok Nagar Extension, Hyderabad (AP).

27. A.Ravi Kumar, S/o.A.Varadaiah, Hindu, Aged about 35 years, R/o.H.No.4-1-578/1, J.N.Road, Hyderabad.

28. Wajid Lateef, S/o.Gulam Rasool, Muslim, Aged about 68 years, R/o.H.No.11-4-646/1, A.C Guards, Hyderabad.

29. Md.Abdul Gaffar Khan, S/o.Late Mohd.Zaheeruddin Khan, Muslim, Aged about 59 years, R/o.H.No.11-4-646/2, A.C Guards, Hyderabad.

30.Shaheen Hussain Khan, S/o.Late Md.Zaheeruddin Khan, Muslim, Aged about 49 years, R/o.H.No.11-4-646/2, A.C Guards, Hyderabad.

31. Shahabuddin Khan, S/o.Late Md.Zaheeruddin Khan, Muslim, Aged about 56 years, R/o.H.No.11-4-646/2, A.C Guards, Hyderabad.

32. Mohd.Abdul Majeed Khan, S/o.Late Md.Zaheeruddin Khan, Muslim, Aged about 45 years, R/o.H.No.11-4-646/2, A.C Guards, Hyderabad.

33. B.Pandu Reddy, S/o.Datta Reddy, Hindu, Aged about 60 years, R/o.H.No.4-1-578/4, J.N.Road, Hyderabad.

4

34. Mohammed Ali, S/o.Late Shaik Madar, Muslim, Aged about 65 Years, H.No.11-4-646/3, A.C.Guards, Hyderabad.

35. Ahmed Ali, S/o.Late Shaik Madar, Muslim, Aged about 51 years, R/o.H.No.11-4-646/4, A.C.Guards, Hyderabad.

36. Arshi Nikhat, D/o.Mohd.Sultan Ahmed, Muslim, Aged about 36 years, R/o.H.o.H.No.11-4-646/1, A.C.Guards, Hyderabad.

37. Nikhat Iqbal, W/o.Mohd.Yaseen Ali, Muslim, Aged about 39 years, R/o..No.11-4-646/1, A.C.Guards, Hyderabad.

38. Javeed Lateef, S/o.Gulam Rasool, Muslim, Aged about 45 years, R/o.H.No.11-4-646/1, A.C.Guards, Hyderabad.

39. Mahmood Ali, S/o.Late Shai Madar, Muslim, Aged about 72 years, R/o.H.No.11-4-646/3, A.C.Guards, Hyderabad.

40.R.Jayapradha, D/o.Late R.Vijay Kumar Reddy, Hindu, Aged about 49 years, R/o.H.No.5-8-49, Fateh Sultan Lane, Hyderabad.

41. R.Praveen Reddy, S/o.R.Sunder Rami Reddy, Hindu, Age about 35 Years, R/o.H.No.5-8-49, Fateh Sultan Lane, Hyderabad.

42. K.Ravinder Reddy, S/o.K.Siva Kumar Reddy, Hindu, Aged about 47 years, R/o.H.No.5-8-49, Fateh Sultan Lane, Hyderabad.

43.S.Saraswathi, W/o.Late S.Narsimha Reddy, Hindu, Aged 69 years, Near Sama Narasimha Reddy Gardens, Champapet, Hyderabad, R.R.District.

44. Najeeb Ahmad, S/o.Mr.Mohammed Ali, Muslim, Aged about 51 years, R/o.H.No.11-4-646/1A, A.C Guards, Hyderabad.

45. Nadeem Ahmed, S/o.Mohammed Ali, Muslim, Aged about 49 years, R/o.H.No.11-4-646/A, A.C Guards, Hyderabad..

46. Arshi Nikhat, D/o.Md.Sultan Ahmed, Muslim, Age about 28 years, R/o.H.No.11-4-646/4, A.C Guards, Hyderabad.

47. Md.Mazher Ali, S/o.Late Shaik Madar, Muslim, Aged about 33 years, R/o.H.No.5-9-7/3, Saifabad, Hyderabad.

48. Anusha Mahmood D/o.Mr.Mamood Ali, Muslim, Age about 31 years, R/o.H.No.5-9-7/2, Saifabad, Hyderabad.

49. K.Usha, W/o.Rama Kota Reddy, Hindu, Age about 29 years, R/o.H.No.5-8-49, Fateh Sultana Lane, Hyderabad.

5

50. K.Satish Kumar, S/o.K.Veera Reddy, Hindu, Aged about 45 years, R/o. H.No.5-8-49, Fateh Sultana Lane, Hyderabad.

51. P.Kamala, W/o.P.Siva Mohana Reddy, Hindu, Aged about 56 years, R/o.H.No.5-8-49, Fateh Sultana Lane, Hyderabad.

52. A.Indira, W/o.A.Vijayavardhan Reddy, Hindu, Aged about 34 years, R/o.H.No.5-8-49, Fateh Sultana Lane, Hyderabad.

53. Sogram Begum, W/o.Mohamed Ali, Muslim, Aged about 67 years, R/o.H.No.5-9-7/2, Saifabad, Hyderabad.

54. Faheem Akther, S/o.Late Jan Mohammed, Muslim, Aged about 41 years, R/o.H.No.5-9-7/2, Saifabad, Hyderabad.

55. Taj Khatoon, W/o.Raziuddin Khan, Muslim, Age about 39 years, R/o.H.No.5-9-7/2, Saifabad, Hyderabad.

56. Juhia Khan, D/o.Mohd.Abdul Majeed Khan, Muslim, age about 33 years, R/o.H.No.5-9-7/2, Saifabad, Hyderabad.

57. Farzana Khatoon, W/o.Shahabuddin Khan, Muslim, age about 59 years, R/o.H.No.5-9-7/2, Saifabad, Hyderabad.

58. Asma Nikhat, W/o.Mohd.Abdul Gaffar Khan, Muslim, Aged about 37 years, R/o.H.No.5-9-7/2, Saifabad, Hyderabad.

59.Shevar Khatoon, W/o.Mr.Shaheen Hussain Khan, Muslim, Aged about 40 years, R/o.H.No.5-9-7/2, Saifabad, Hyderabad.

60. Rafat Sultana, D/o.S.S.M.Quadri, Muslim, Aged about 48 years, R/o.H.No.11-4-646/1A, A.C Guards, Hyderabad.

61. Gautam Mahmood, S/o.Mahmood Ali, Muslim, Aged about 39 years, R/o.H.No.11-4-646/A, A.C Guards, Hyderabad(A.P).

62. Vimala Mahmood, W/o.Mahmood Ali, Muslim, Aged about 61 Years, R/o.H.No.11-4-646/A, A.C Guards, Hyderabad(A.P)

63. P.Vimala W/o.Mr.P.Siva Mohan Reddy, Hindu, Age about 56 years, R/o.H.No.5-8-49, Fateh Sultan Lane, Hyderabad.

64. Afzal Khatoon, W/o.Mr.Ahmed Ali, Muslim, Age about 43 years, R/o.H.No.11-4-646/1, A.C Guards, Hyderabad.

65. Shayan Khan, S/o.Mr.Mohd.Abdul Majeed Khan, Muslim, age about 28 years, R/o.H.No.11-4-646/1, A.C Guards, Hyderabad.

66.Urooj Kumar, S/o.Mr.Mohd.Abdul Majeed Khan, Muslim, Age about 39 years, R/o.H.No.11-4-646/1, A.C Guards, Hyderabad.

67. Shaik Nayeem Akther, S/o.Late Jan Mohammed, Muslim, Age about 55 years, R/o.H.No.11-4-646/1, A.C Guards, Hyderabad.

68. Shameem Akther, S/o.Late Jan Mohammed, Muslim, Age about 59 years, R/o.H.No.11-4-646/1, A.C Guards, Hyderabad.

6

69. M/s.Satish Kumar & Associates, rep.By its Managing Partner K.Satish Kumar, S/o.K.Veera Reddy, Hindu, Age about 45 years, H.No.5-4-435, Abids South, Hyderabad (AP).

70. M/s.Palace Heights & Finance & Leasing Pvt., Ltd., Rep. By its Managing Director, P.Prabhakar Reddy, Aged about 59 years, D.No.1311, Road No.65, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad.

71. M/s.Haillam Chit Funds Pvt.Ltd., represented by its Managing Director, Sri Gunda Mallaiah, S/o.Late G.Buchaiah, Aged about 60 years, H.No.5-4-435/2, Abids South, Hyderabd.

72. Om Prakash Karva, S/o.Motilal Karva, Hindu, Age about 50 years, R/o.20-1-522, Old Kabutharkhana, Hyderabad.

73.Godsi Anjaiah, S/o.Godesi Mallaiah, Aged about 48 years, R/o.Dabirpur Villlage, Medchal Mandal, R.R.District.

74. K.Sourabh @ Eshan, S/o.K.Satyanarayana, Aged about 21 years, R/o.H.No.4-109/11 to 4-109/16, Sai Bhavani’s Kamshetty Enclave, Flat No.109, Ganesh Nagar, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad (AP).

75. K.Hruday S/o.K.Ashok Kumar, Hindu, Minor, rep.by his father K.Ashok Kumar, S/o.Late K.Anjaiah, R/o.Flat No.204, R/o.H.No.4-109/11 to 4-109/16, Sai Bhavani’s Kamshetty Enclave, Ganesh Nagar, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad (AP).

76. Baby K.Mounika D/o.K.Ashok Kumar, Minor Rep.by her father K.Ashok Kumar, S/o.Late K.Anjaiah, R/o.Flat No.204, R/o.H.No.4-109/11 to 4-109/16, Sai Bhavani’s Kamshetty Enclave, Ganesh Nagar, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad (AP).

77. Master K.Koushal, S/o.K.Krishna Kumar, Minor Rep. By his father K.Krishna Kumar, S/o.Late K.Anjaiah, R/o.Flat No.107, R/o.H.No.4-109/11 to 4-109/16, Sai Bhavani’s Kamshetty Enclave, Ganesh Nagar, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad (AP).

78. Baby K.Kruthi, D/o.K.Krishna Kumar, Minor Rep. By her father K.Krishna Kumar, S/o.Late K.Anjaiah, R/o.Flat No.107, R/o.H.No.4-109/11 to 4-109/16, Sai Bhavani’s Kamshetty Enclave, Ganesh Nagar, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad (AP).

79. K.Rahul, S/o.Late K.Om Prakash, Hindu, Aged about 23 years,R/o.Flat No.501, R/o.H.No.4-109/11 to 4-109/16, Sai Bhavani’s Kamshetty Enclave, Ganesh Nagar, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad (AP).

80. K.Damodar, S/o.K.Viswanatham, Hindu, Aged about 58 Years, R/o.H.No.5-4-435/8, Abids South, Hyderbad.

7

81. D.V.S.Raju, S/o.D.V.Krishnam Raju, Hindu, Aged about 56 years, R/o.H.No.5-4-435/8, Abids South, Hyderbad.

82. M/s.Mahalaxmi Real Estate Rep.by Shri M.Ram Reddy, Age about 45 years Flat No.401, Sai Manohar Apartment, R/o.H.No.5-4-435/9, Abids South, Hyderbad(A.P)

83. Vice Chairman, Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, 1-8-323, Paigah Palace, Rasoolpura, Secunderabad 500 003.

84. M/s.Sai Bhavani Housing & Real Estates Pvt.Ltd., Rep. By its Chairman Shri Iqbal Singh, S/o.Seva Singh, Age about 51 years, 3-11-109, Opp.TV Studio, Ganeshnagar, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad (AP).

85. K.Rekha, W/o.K.Satyanarayana, Aged about 44 years, R/o.Flat No.109, R/o.H.No.4-109/11 to 4-109/16, Sai Bhavani’s Kamshetty Enclave, Ganesh Nagar, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad (AP).

86. K.Shashank S/o.K.Satyanarana, Aged about 22 years, Occ:Student R/o.Flat No.109, R/o.H.No.4-109/11 to 4-109/16, Sai Bhavani’s Kamshetty Enclave, Ganesh Nagar, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad (AP).

87. K.Swethan, S/o.Late K.Om Prakash, Hindu, Aged a bout 25 years, Occ:Student, R/o.Flat No.501, R/o.H.No.4-109/11 to 4-109/16, Sai Bhavani’s Kamshetty Enclave, Ganesh Nagar, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad (AP).

88. Ms.K.Deepthi, D/o.Late K.Omprakash, Hindu, Aged 26 years, Occ:Student, R/o.Flat No.501, R/o.H.No.4-109/11 to 4-109/16, Sai Bhavani’s Kamshetty Enclave, Ganesh Nagar, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad (AP).

............. Defendants.

Claim:-This suit filed by plaintiff for Partition, declaration and possession for perpetual injunction and also for damages in respect of respective schedule properties restraining respective Defendants from alienating the schedule properties.

This suit is coming before me in the presence of Sri.R.A.Achutanand and

Sri.K.Srinivas Rao, Advocates for the Plaintiff and of Sir.Md.Anwaruddin, Advocate for the Defendant Nos.4, 5, 7, 79, 87 & 88 and of Sri.K.Sai Reddy, Advocate for the Defendant Nos.D8 to 10 and of Sri. A.Sameer Kumar, Advocate for the Defendant No.11 and the Defendant No.3 is died, and the Defendant Nos.1, 2, 12 to 78 and 80 to 86 not pressed against the suit, and this court doth order as follows:

D O C K E T O R D E R Dt.22-09-2023

Heard, perused the records. On 28-08-2023 a memo was filed by plaintiff identified by her counsel as to not pressing the suit against LRs of defendant No.3 who are already on record and also against the defendant Nos.1, 2, 6, 12 to 78 and 80 to 86, it was prayed to dismiss the suit against the said defendants as not pressed. The plaintiff and other defendants were called present., Even compromise petition was filed by counsel between plaintiff and defendant Nos. 4, 5, 7 to 11, 79, 87 and 88.

8

It is seen from the record that the suit was filed by the plaintiff herein against the defendant Nos.1 to 88. During the pendency of suit defendant No.3 died and as already defendant Nos.5 to 11 who are the legal heirs of Defendant No.3 were on record, to that extent memo was filed before the court, amendment was carried out and neat copy of plaint was filed.

The relief claimed by the plaintiff is to grant the decree of declaration declaring the sale deeds bearing document Nos.2877/1995, 2878/1995, 2879/1995, 2881/1995, 2880/1995, 2882/1995, 2883/1995, 2884/1995, 2885/1995, 1570/2002 as null and void and to restrain the defendants mentioned in the prayer portion from interfering in the suit schedule properties. The suit schedule properties are shown as Schedule 1-A to J, Schedule II-A, Schedule III-A to Q, Schedule IV-A to D, Schedule V-A to Schedule V-D, Schedule VI-A to Schedule VI-D, Schedule VII-A to Schedule VII-C, Schedule VIII, Schedule IX, Schedule X, Schedule XI, Schedule XII, even the plaintiff also sought for grant of preliminary decree allotting a share to her along with her siblings in respect of their suit ancestral properties.

The record shows that the defendant No.6 filed his written statement along with defendant Nos. 75 and 76 denying that suit schedule properties are ancestral properties, it is also mentioned that the concept of joint family was broken in the year 1974. They denied the version of plaintiff and even prayed the court to dismiss the suit.

As discussed above on 28-08-2023 a memo was filed by the plaintiff not pressing the suit as discussed above, the defendant No.6, appeared personally and opposed the same, one Sri.G.Bhaskar advocate filed vakalath with no objection for defendant No.6, he opposed the memo.

On considering the nature of reliefs sought in the main suit and on considering the written statement filed by defendant No.6, this court feels that as plaintiff herself is not pressing the suit and if at all the defendant No.6 got any objection in regard to the joint family properties,, if he is claiming any right, he has to file separate suit for his claim, he cannot restrain the plaintiff to withdraw the suit.

Hence, the suit against defendants Nos.1, 2, 6, 12 to 78 and 80 to 86 is here by dismissed as not pressed.

Further the suit is referred to Lok Adalath, office is hereby directed to transmit the filed accordingly.

Written and Pronounce by me in the Open court, this the 22 th day of September,

2023.

IX Addl.District Judge,

FAC XAddl. District Judge,

R.R. District at L.B.Nagar.

SCHEDULE I-A PROPERTY

All that 1/16th share of land admeasuring Ac.0.11.5625 gts of undivided half share of land admeaning Ac 9.10 gts, Plot No.9, covered by Survey No.202, Saheb Nagar Kalan (Now Hariharapuram), Hayatnagar Mandal, R.R. District, bounded by:

On the East : Plot No.8 of Sy.202

On the West : Plot No.10 of S.No.202

On the North : Road and neighbour's land

On the South : Plot No.5 & 6 of S.No.202

9

SCHEDULE I-B PROPERTY

All that 1/16th share of land admeasuring Ac.0.10 gts of admeasuring Ac.8.00 gts, of undivided half share of land i.e: 4 acres, Plot No.3, covered by Survey No.202, Saheb Nagar Kalan (Now Hariharapuram), Hayatnagar Mandal, R.R. District, bounded by:

On the East:Plot No.2 of Sy.202 On the West : Plot No.4 of S.No.202 On the North : Plot No.5 & 6 of Sy.No.202 On the South : Road and forest land

SCHEDULE I-C PROPERTY

All that 1/16th share of land admeasuring Ac.0.8.75 gts out of land admeasuring Ac.7.00 gts, of undivided half share of land i.e. Ac.3.20 gts, Plot No.2, covered by Survey No.202, Saheb Nagar Kalan (Now Hariharapuram), Hayatnagar Mandal, R.R. District, bounded by:

On the East:Plot No.1 of Sy.202 On the West : Plot No.3 of S.No.202 On the North : Plot No.6 & 7 of Sy.No.202 On the South : Road and forest land

SCHEDULE I-D PROPERTY

All that 1/16th share of land admeasuring Ac.0.8.75 gts out of land admeasuring Ac.7.00 gts, of undivided half share of land i.e. Ac.3.20 gts, Plot No.6, covered by Survey No.202, Saheb Nagar Kalan (Now Hariharapuram), Hayatnagar Mandal, R.R. District bounded by:

On the East:Plot No.7 of Sy.202 On the West : Plot No.5 of S.No.202 On the North : Plot No.8 & 9 of Sy.No.202 On the South : Plot No.2 & 3 of S.No.202

SCHEDULE I-E PROPERTY

All that 1/16th share of land admeasuring Ac.0.8.75 gts out of land admeasuring Ac.7.00 gts, of undivided half share of land ie. Ac3.20 gts, Plot No.7, covered by Survey No.202, Saheb Nagar Kalan (Now Hariharapuram), Hayatnagar Mandal, R.R. District, bounded by:

On the East : Road On the West : Plot No.6 of S.No.202 On the North : Plot No.8 of Sy.No.202 On the South : Plot No.1 & 2 of S.No.202

SCHEDULE I-F PROPERTY

All that 1/16th share of land admeastiring Ac.0.8.75 gts out of land admeasuring Ac.7.00 gts, of undivided half share of land ie. Ac 3.20 gts, Plot No.1, covered by Survey No.202, Saheb Nagar Kalan (Now Hariharapuram), Hayatnagar Mandal, R.R. District, bounded by:

On the East : Road On the West : Plot No.2 of S.No.202 On the North : Plot No.7 of Sy.No.202 On the South : Road and forest land

10

SCHEDULE I-G PROPERTY

All that 1/16th share of land admeasuring Ac.0.8.75 gts out of land admeasuring Ac.7.00 gts, of undivided half share of land i.e. Ac.3.20 gts, Plot No.4, covered by Survey No.202, Saheb Nagar Kalan (Now Hariharapuram), Hayatnagar Mandal, R.R. District,bounded by:

On the East : Plot No.3 of S.No.202 On the West : Land in S.No.201 On the North : Plot No.5 of Sy.No.202 On the South : Road and forest land

SCHEDULE I-H PROPERTY

All that 1/16th share of land admeasuring Ac.0.8.75 gts out of land admeasuring Ac.7.00 gts, of undivided half share of land i.e. Ac.3.20 gts, Plot No.5, covered by Survey No.202, Saheb Nagar Kalan (Now Hariharapuram), Hayatnagar Mandal, R.R. District, bounded by:

On the East : Plot No.6 of S.No.202 On the West :Land in S.No.201 On the North :Plot No.9&10 of Sy.No.202 On the South :Plot No.3 & 4 of S.No.202

SCHEDULE I-I PROPERTY

All that 1/16th share of land admeasuring Ac.0.3.75 gts out of land admeasuringAc.3.00 gts, of undivided half share of land i.e. Ac.1.20 gts, Plot No.10, covered by Survey No.202, Saheb Nagar Kalan (Now Hariharapuram), Hayatnagar Mandal, R.R. District. bounded by:

On the East :Plot No.9 of S.No.202 On the West : Land in S.No.201 On the North :Neighbour's land On the South :Plot No.5 of S.No.202

SCHEDULE I-JPROPERTY

All that 1/16th share of land admeasuring Ac.0.11.25 gts out of land admeasuring Ac.9.00 gts, Plot No.8 covered by Survey No.202, Saheb Nagar Kalan (Now Hariharapuram), Hayatnagar Mandal, RR. District, bounded by:

On the East :Road On the West : Plot No.9, Sy.No.202 On the North :Road On the South :Plot No.6 & 9 of Sy.No.202

SCHEDULE II-A PROPERTY

All that 1/16th share of land admeasuring Ac.0.36 gts out of land admeasuring Ac.14.16 gts in Survey No 80 (Ac.5.03 gts); Survey No.82 (Ac.2.30 gts); Survey No.83 (Ac.2.07 gts); and part of Sy. No.84 (14.16 gts) situated at Dabirpura Village, Medchal Mandal, RR. District, bounded by:

On the North :Agril.Land In Sy.No.79 On the South : Road On the East: Village Boundry of Yellempet On the West : Agri.Land in Sy.No.81 & 84 part.

11

SCHEDULE III-A PROPERTY

All that land in M.No.4-109/2, admeasuring 796 sq. yards equivalent to 668.64 sq meters, situated at Ramanthapur, Ganesh Nagar, R.R. District, bounded by:

On the North: Ramanthapur Road On the South: H.No.4-109/3 On the East: H.No.4-109/5 On the West: Open land

SCHEDULE III-B PROPERTY

All that land in M.No.4-109/3, admeasuring 758 sq yards equivalent to 636.72 sq. meters, situated at Ramanthapur, Ganesh Nagar, R.R. District, bounded by:

On the North:H.No.4-109/2 On the South:H.No.4-109/4 On the East:H.No.4-109/6 On the West:Open land

SCHEDULE III-C PROPERTY

All that land in M.No.4-109/4, admeasuring 718 sq yards equivalent to 603.12 sq. meters, situated at Ramanthapur, Ganesh Nagar, R.R. District, bounded by:

On the North:H.No.4-109/3 On the South: H.No.4-103, Krishna Rice Mill On the East:H.No.4-109/7 On the West:Open land

SCHEDULE III-D PROPERTY

All that land in M.No.4-109/5, admeaning 926 sq. yards equivalent to 777.84 sq. meters, situated at Ramanthapur, Ganesh Nagar, R.R. District, bounded by

On the North :Ramanthaper Road On the South: H.No.4-109/6 On the East : Road On the West: H.No.4-109/2

SCHEDULE III-E PROPERTY

All that land in M.No.4-109/6, admeasuring 922 sq. yards equivalent to 774.48 sq. meters, situated at Ramanthapur, Ganesh Nagar, R.R. District, bounded by :

On the North: H.No.4-109/5 On the South : H.No.4-109/7 On the East: Road On the West: H.No.4-109/3

SCHEDULE III-F PROPERTY

All that land in M.No.4-109/7, admeasuring 922 sq. yards equivalent to 774.48 sq meters, situated at Ramanthapur, Ganesh Nagar, R.R. District, bounded by:

On the North: H.No.4-109/6 On the South : Open land of building H.No.4-109 On the East :Road On the West :H.No.4-109/4

12

SCHEDULE III-G PROPERTY

All that land in M.No.4-109/8, admeasuring 883 sq. yards equivalent to 741.72 sq meters, situated at Ramanthapur, Ganesh Nagar, R.R. District, bounded by:

On the North : Sri Krishna Rice Mill On the South: H.No.4-109/11 On the East:Road On the West:H.No.4-109/9

SCHEDULE III-H PROPERTY

All that land in M.No.4-109/10, admeasuring 883 sq. yards equivalent to 741.7 sq. meters, situated at Ramanthapur, Ganesh Nagar, R.R. District, bounded by:

On the North:Sri Krishna Rice Mill On the South: H.No.4-109/13 On the East: H.No.4-109/9 On the West: Open land of H.No.4-108

SCHEDULE III-I PROPERTY

All that land in M.No.4-109/9 admeasuring 850 sq. yards equivalent to 714 Sq.meters, situated at Ramanthapur, Ganesh Nagar, R.R. District, bounded by:

On the North:Sri Krishna Rice Mill On the South:H.No.4-109/12 On the East: H.No.4-109/8 On the West:H.No.4-109/10

SCHEDULE III-J PROPERTY

All that land in M.No.4-109/11, admeasuring 878 sq. yards equivalent to 737.52 sq. meters, situated of Ramanthapur, Ganesh Nagar, RR. District, bounded by:

On the North:H.No.4-109/8 On the South :H.No.4-109/14 On the East :Road On the West :H.No.4-109/12

SCHEDULE III-K PROPERTY

All that land in M.No.4-109/12, admeasuring 844 sq. yards equivalent to 708.76 sq meters, situated at Ramanthapur, Ganesh Nagar, R.R. District, bounded by:

On the North:H.No.4-109/9 On the South :H.No.4-109/15 On the East : H.No.4-109/11 & Passage On the West :H.No.4-109/13

SCHEDULE III-L PROPERTY

All that land in M.No.4-109/13, admeasuring 867 sq. yards equivalent to 728.28 sq. meters, situated at Ramanthapur, Ganesh Nagar, R.R. District, bounded by:

On the North:H.No.4-109/10 On the South :H.No.4-109/16 On the East : H.No.4-109/12 On the West :Open Land of H.No.4-108

13

SCHEDULE III-M PROPERTY

All that land in M.No.4-109/14, admeasuring 763 sq. yards equivalent to 644.28 sq. meters, situated at Ramanthapur, Ganesh Nagar, R.R. District, bounded by:

On the North:H.No.4-109/11 On the South :Play ground of Nehru Polytechnic On the East :Road On the West :H.No.4-109/15

SCHEDULE III-N ROPERTY

All that land in M.No.4-109/15, admeasuring 744 sq. yards equivalent to 624.96 sq meters, situated at Ramanthapur, Ganesh Nagar. R. P. District, bounded by

On the North :Lane On the South : Play ground of Nehru Polytechnic On the East : H.No.4-109/14 On the West:H.No.4-109/16

SCHEDULE III- O PROPERTY

All that land in M.No.4-109/16, admeasuring 743 sq. yards equivalent to 624.12 sq. meters, situated at Ramanthapur. Ganesh Nagar, R. R. District, bounded by:

On the North: H.No.4-109/13 On the South: Play ground of Nehru Polytechnic On the East: H.No.4-109/15 On the West: House No.4-108 with open land

SCHEDULE III-P PROPERTY

All that land in M.No.3-37 (Old), 4-5 (New) admeasuring 5034 sq. yards, situated at Ramanthapur, Ganesh Nagar, R.R. District, bounded by:

On the North:Land belonging to Khaja Mashuddin (Vendor) On the South:Land belonging to Khaja Mashuddin (Vendor) On the East :Road to village Ramanthapur On the West:Land belonging to Khaja Hameeduddin

Schedule III-P (1)

All that 1/16th share in the stilt + five storied building bearing Flat No. 106, 206, 210, 306, 307, 410, 507 and 107, 209, 309, 408, 409, 511, 512 and 104, 204, 304, 308, 402, 508, and Flat No. 103, 202, 303, 405, 406, 502, 504, 505, 506 forming part of door No.3-37 (Old), 4-5 (New) 3-11-109 admeasuring 37.555 sft constructed area and 5065 sft. parking along with undivided share in the land admeasuring 1309.19 sq yards, situated at Ramanthapur, Ganesh Nagar, R.R. District, bounded by:

On the North :Sai Bhavani's Kamshetty Mall (Commercial Complex ) On the South: Yamuna Block of Sai Bhavani's Kamshetty Enclave On the East :40’ feet wide road On the West: neighbours Property 14

SCHEDULE III-Q PROPERTY

All that land in M.No.4-108/1 admeasuring 595 sq. yards, situated at Ramanthapur. Ganesh Nagar, R.R. District, bounded by:

On the North: Public Road On the South:Premises No.4-108/1 On the East:Private road to building 4-108/1 On the West:Premises No.4-108

SCHEDULE IV-A PROPERTY

All that below mentioned fats admeasuring sft/ undivided share in the land as stated against each flat bounded by

FloorFlat No.Area in Sft., U/D shareFlat No.Area in Sft.U/D Share of Land inof land in SySy.

Ground11796845.08118101847.4

First219858.539.9822087840.88

Second309117154.53311835.538.91

Third40790842.2842087840.88

Fourth501116654.350297445.35 (9) Car Parking spaces in the stilt floor Nos.11,16,23,25,26,37,48,66 & 75 (Admeasuring 90 Sft each) with a collective u/d share of 26.32 sq.yards. On the North:Property belonging to K.Ashok Kumar On the South:Jawahalal Nehru Polytechinc College Grounds On the East:40 feet wide road On the West:Neighbour’s Property

SCHEDULE IV-B PROPERTY

All that below mentioned flats admeasuring sft/ undivided share in the land as stated against each flat, bounded by:

FloorFlat No.Area in Sft., U/D shareFlat No.Area in Sft.U/D Share of Land inof land in SySy.

Ground109117154.33111835.538.91

First20790842.28216816.538.02

Second303939.543.7530598846.01

Third412122557.04416816.538.02

Fourth50598846.0151796845.08 (9) Car Parking spaces in the stilt floor Nos.12,17,24,53, 54, 58, 59 & 76 (Admeasuring 90 Sft each) with a collective u/d share of 26.32 sq.yards.

On the North:Property belonging to K.Ashok Kumar On the South:Jawahalal Nehru Polytechinc College Grounds On the East:40 feet wide road On the West:Neighbour’s Property

15

SCHEDULE IV-C PROPERTY

All that below mentioned flats admeasuring sft/ undivided share in the land as stated against each flat, bounded by:

FloorFlat No.Area in Sft., U/D shareFlat No.Area in Sft.U/D Share of Land inof land in SySy.

Ground10598846.0111092843.21

First204116554.2521481638

Second31796845.08318101847.4

Third404116554.2540879737.11

Fourth506882.541.0951092843.21 (9) Car Parking spaces in the stilt floor Nos.13,21,43,44,67, 68, 77 & 84 (Admeasuring 90 Sft each) with a collective u/d share of 26.32 sq.yards.

On the North:Property belonging to K.Ashok Kumar On the South:Jawahalal Nehru Polytechinc College Grounds On the East:40 feet wide road On the West:Neighbour’s Property

SCHEDULE IV-D PROPERTY

All that below mentioned flats admeasuring sf undivided share in the land as stated against each flat, bounded by:

FloorFlat No.Area in Sft., U/D shareFlat No.Area in Sft.U/D Share of Land inof land in SySy.

Ground106882.541.0910790842.28

First20879737.11212122557.04

Second306882.541.0931092843.21

Third401116654.3419858.539.98

Fourth509117154.53511835.538.91 (9) Car Parking spaces in the stilt floor Nos.15,22,33,38,, 39, 63, 70, 71 & 80 (Admeasuring 90 Sft each) with a collective u/d share of 26.32 sq.yards.

On the North:Property belonging to K.Ashok Kumar On the South:Jawahalal Nehru Polytechinc College Grounds On the East:40 feet wide road On the West:Neighbour’s Property

SCHEDULE V-A PROPERTY

All that Flat No.112 (ground floor), Flat No.207 & 208 (First Floor); Flat No.304 &311 (Second Floor), Flat No.407 (Third Floor); and Flat No.502 (Fourth Floor) admeasuring 6456 sft., out of 25824 sft., along with undivided share in the land admeasuring 371.53 sq. yards out of 1486.12 sq. yards and 717.5 sft ., of car parking space out of 2870 sft, bounded by:

On the North: H.No.4-5 Part On the South: Ganga Block of Sai Bhavani's Kamshetty Enclave On the East: 40 feet wide road On the West: Neighbour's property

16

SCHEDULE V-B PROPERTY

All that Flat No. 106 & 113 (Ground floor), Flat No.206 (First Floor); Flat No.312 & 313 (Second Floor), Flat No.414 (Third Floor); and Flat No.501 (Fourth Floor) along with undivided share in the land admeasuring 371.53 sq yards out of 1486.12 sq yards and 717.5 sft of car parking space out of 2870 sft, bounded by:

On the North: H.No.4-5 Part On the South: Ganga Block of Sai Bhavani's Kamshetty Enclave On the East: 40 feet wide road On the West: Neighbour's property

SCHEDULE V-C PROPERTY

All that Flat No.106 & 113 (Ground floor), Flat No.206 (First Floor); Flat No.312& 313 (Second Floor), Flat No.414 (Third Floor); and Flat No.501 (Fourth Floor) along with undivided share in the land admeasuring 371.53 sq yards out of 1486.12 sq yards and 717.5 sft of car parking space out of 2870 sft, bounded by:

On the North: H.No.4-5 Part On the South: Ganga Block of Sai Bhavani's Kamshetty Enclave On the East: 40 feet wide road On the West: Neighbour's property

SCHEDULE V-D PROPERTY

All that Flat No 105 (Ground Floor), Flat No. 201 (First Floor); Flat No.306 & 309 (Second Floor, Flat No 401 & 408 (Third Floor); and Flat No.503 & 504 (Fourth Floor) along with undivided sharein he land admeasuring 371.53 sq yards out of 1486.12 sq yards and 717.5 sft of car parking space out of 2870 sf, bounded by

On the North : H.No.495 Part On the South: Ganga Block of Sai Bhavani's Kamshetty Enclave On the East : 40 feet wide road On the West :Neighbour's property

SCHEDULE VI-A PROPERTY

All that below mentioned office space/units admeasuring sft., undivided share in the land as stated against each office space/unit, bounded by

Floor Commercial Unit (Nos) Area (Sft)

Lower GroundShop No.17 & 181364.6

GroundShop No. 5 & 7/A1249.8

First FloorShop No.161324.9

Third FloorOffice Space No.15893.6

Fourth FloorOffice Space No.132649.3

Total Commercial Areas7482.2

Floor Commercial Unit (Nos) Area (Sft)

Lower GroundUnit No.131060.4

GroundUnit No.91014.8

First FloorUnit No.12990.4

Second FloorUnit No.112745.4

Third FloorUnit No.111563.3

Total Commercial Areas7374.3

Sub- Cellar ParkingUndivided Part of the eastern2365.25 half portion

17

On the North: Ramanthapur to Uppal Highway On the South: Saraswati Block of Sai Bhavani's Kamshetty Enclave On the East: 40 feet wide road On the West: Neighbour's property

SCHEDULE VI-B PROPERTY

All that below mentioned office space/units admeasuring sft/undivided share in the land as stated against each office space/unit, bounded by: Floor Commercial Unit (Nos) Area (Sft)

Lower GroundShop No.21 & 221384.4

GroundShop No. 4 & 5/A1182

First FloorShop No.131331.1

Second FloorOffice Space No.141486.2

Fourth FloorOffice Space No.141197.3

Total Commercial Areas6583

Floor Commercial Unit (Nos) Area (Sft)

Lower GroundUnit No.14802.8

GroundUnit No.101014.8

First FloorUnit No.11984.2

Second FloorUnit No.101274.5

Third FloorUnit No.122442.5

Fourth FloorUnit No.101245.5

Total Commercial Areas7374.3

Sub- Cellar ParkingUndivided Part of the eastern2365.25 half portion

On the North: Ramanthapur to Uppal Highway On the South Saraswati Block of Sai Bhavani's Kamshetty Enclave On the East: 40 feet wide road On the West: Neighbour's property

SCHEDULE VI-C PROPERTY

All that below mentioned office space/units admeasuring sf/undivided share in the land as stated against each office space/unit, bounded by: Floor Commercial Unit (Nos) Area (Sft)

Lower GroundShop No.231393.7

GroundShop No.4/A & 61246.6

First FloorShop No.151330

Second FloorOffice Space No.122735.8

Third FloorOffice Space No.142447.3

Fourth FloorOffice Space No.122661.2

Total Commercial Areas11814.6

Floor Commercial Unit (Nos) Area (Sft)

Lower GroundUnit No.11803.8

GroundUnit No.81021.2

First FloorUnit No.9977

Total Commercial Areas2802

Sub- Cellar ParkingUndivided Part of the eastern2365.25 half portion

18

On the North: Ramanthapur to Uppal Highway On the South: Saraswati Block of Sai Bhavani's Kamshetty Enclave On the East: 40 feet wide road On the West: Neighbour's property

SCHEDULE VI-D PROPERTY

All that below mentioned office space / units admeasuring sft/undivided share in the land as stated against each office space / unit, bounded by:

Floor Commercial Unit (Nos) Area (Sft)

Lower GroundShop No.19 & 201359.5

GroundShop No. 7 & 6/A1215

First FloorShop No.141327

Second FloorOffice Space No.132752.1

Third FloorOffice Space No.132474.3

Total Commercial Areas9127.9

Floor Commercial Unit (Nos) Area (Sft)

Lower GroundUnit No.12 & 15695.8

GroundUnit No.111014.8

First FloorUnit No.10991.4

Fourth FloorUnit No.112654.2

Total Areas5356.2

Sub- Cellar ParkingUndivided Part of the eastern2365.25 half portion

On the North: Rahapur to Uppal Highway On the South Saraswati Block of Sai Bhavani's Kamshetty Enclave On the East 40 feet wide road On the West Neighbour's property

SCHEDULE VII-A PROPERTY

All that 1/16th share of land admeasuring Ac.0.750 gts., out of land admeasuring 3 acres Sy. No.90, situated at Kokapet Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, R.R. District bounded by , AP.

On the North: Village Road On the South: Survey No.91 On the East: Survey No.90 (Part ) ON the West: Survey No.89

SCHEDULE VII-B PROPERTY

All that 1/16th share of land admeasuring Ac.0.10.00 gts., out of land admeasuring 4 acres, Sy. No.90, situated at Kokapet Village, Rajendranagar Mandal. R.R. District, AP. bounded by:

On the North: Village Road On the South: Survey No.91 On the East: Survey No.90 (Part) ON the West: Survey No.90 (Part)

19

SCHEDULE VII-C PROPERTY

All that 1/16th share of land admeasuring Ac.0.10.00 gts out of land admeasuring 4 acres, Sy. No.90, situated at Kokapet Village, Rajendranagar Mandal. R.R. District, AP. bounded by:

On the North: Village Road On the South: Survey No.91 On the East: Survey No.91 ON the West: Survey No.90

SCHEDULE VIII PROPERTY

All that 1/16th share of land admeasuring Ac.0.2.88 gts out of land admeasuring land the land in Survey No.166, admeasuring Ac.0-15 guntas and an extent of Ac.0-31 guntas, total admeasuring Ac.1.6 guntas out of Ac.1.21 guntas, situated at Hafeezpet Village, Seri Lingampally Mandal and Municipality, R.R. District, bounded by:

On the North: Property of D.K. Enclave On the South: Land in Sy. No.130, 131, 132, 133 of Miyapur Village On the East: Property of Kiranjit Kaur On the West: Property of Ch. Ramchander & Neeraj Simion and 30' wide abutting road

SCHEDULE IX PROPERLY

All that 1/16th share of agricultural land land admeasuring Ac.0.13.125 750 gts., out of land admeasuring Ac.5.10 guntas or 2.10 ha, situated Survey No.91, at Aushapur Village and Gram Panchayat, Ghatkesar Mandal. R.R . District, bounded by

On the North: 60' wide road On the South:Agricultural land of D. Bixapathy On the East: Agricultural land of Chimala Chinna Mallu On the West: Agricultural land of Bal Reddy and Sailaja

SCHEDULEX PROPERTY

All that 1/16th share of agricultural land land admeasuring Ac.0.5.81gts out land admeasuring Ac.2.13 guntas, situated at Survey No.340, Aushapur Village and Gram Panchayat. Ghatkesar Mandal, R.R. District, bounded by:

On the North: Survey No.339 On the South: Survey No.341 On the East: Survey NO.6 On the West: Survey No.340 (Part)

SCHEDULE XI PROPERTY

All that 1/16th share of agricultural land land admeasuring Ac.0.2.81 gts out of land admeasuring Ac.2.29 guntas, situated at in Sy. No.6/A & 6/B Parts, Aushapur Village and Gram Panchayat, Ghatkesar Mandal, R.R. District, bounded by:

On the North: Survey No.7 On the South: Hyderabad - Warangal road On the East: Survey No.6/A & 341/B Parts On the West: Survey No.341/A 20

SCHEDULE XII PROPERTY

All that 1/16th share of agricultural land land admeasuring Ac.0.10.687 gts out of land admeasuring Ac.4.11 guntas, situated at Survey No.84, Kokapet Village & G.P. Rajendranagar Mandal, R.R. District, bounded by:

On the North: Neighbour's land On the South: Neighbour's land On the East: Neighbour's land On the West: Land belonging to K. Chandra Prakash

IX Addl.District Judge,

FAC XAddl. District Judge,

R.R.District at L.B.Nagar.