J Maithreyi

II Addl.District and Sessions Judge, FTC-I

Khammam, PDJ Court Complex · Khammam · Telangana

J MAITHREYI, II Addl.District and Sessions Judge, FTC-I, is posted at Khammam, PDJ Court Complex, Khammam, Telangana, India. 123 court orders on record since 2019. 5 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles SC, MVOP, CMA cases.

123

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Posting

Featured Judgments

SC.SPL/200021/2017 Acquitted

S.H.O Kothagudem I town vs Sd.Jaheed @ Javeed

20 Dec 2019

1 Spl.S.C.No.21 of 2017 Dt. 20-12-2019.

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE (FAST TRACK

COURT UNDER PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT) AT

KHAMMAM

Dated, this the 20thday of December, 2019,

Present: Smt. J.Maithreyi

II Addl. District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court under protection of children from sexual offences Act), Khammam.

SPL. SESSIONS CASE NO.21 OF 2017

Name of the complainant: The State through Sub-Divisional police officer, P.S. Kothagudem.

Name of the accused : Sd. Jaheed @ javeed, S/o. Chinna Hussain Peera, aged. 21 years, occu:Tractordriver,R/o. Thippanapallivillageof chandrugonda Mandal.

Crime Number:108/2016

Offence under section: U/Sec. 366, 376 IPC., & Sec. 5 r/w 6 of POCSO Act.,

Prosecution conducted by: Sri. R.Upendar, Addl. Public Prosecutor.

Defence conducted by: Sri. P.Sanjay Kumar, Advocate for accused.

Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty

Sentence of orderIn the result, the accused found not guilty and he is acquitted U/Sec.232 Cr.PC., for the offences U/Sec. 366, 376 IPC and Sec. 5 r/w Sec. 6 of POCSO Act. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand canceled after the appeal time is over.

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 19-12-2019 in the presence of Spl. Public Prosecutor for Prosecution and of Sri P.Sanjay Kumar, Advocate for Accused; upon perusing the material papers on record; having heard both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Spl. Court delivered the following:

2 Spl.S.C.No.21 of 2017 Dt. 20-12-2019.

J U D G M E N T

1).The Sub- Divisional Police officer, Kothagudem, filed a charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable u/Sec. 366, 376 IPC and

Sec. 5 r/w Sec. 6 of POCSO Act.

2).The story of the prosecution case as per charge sheet is that on 09-04-2016 at about 1030 hours, Pw1/ brother of Minor girl came to police station and lodged a report stating that his minor sister was kidnapped by accused, previously the accused worked as tractor driver at their village. He used to visit their house. One day accused while rambling at their house, the villagers and complainant caught hold him. Since then he is trying to kidnap the minor girl. On 08.04.2016 at about 0300hours, the accused kidnapped the minor girl and whereabout are not known. Hence he lodged a complaint.

3).Basing on this complaint, L.W.17/ R. Srinivas, Inspector of Police, registered a case in Cr.No. 108/2016, u/Sec. 363 IPC and issued FIR. During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statement of P.W.1/ brother of minor girl, he visited scene of offence and conducted CDF in the presence of L.W.11 V. Mallesh and L.W.12/ Jayaram. On 18.04.2016,at 1600 hours, the minor girl came to police station. Her statement was recorded through L.W.5/ Vasantha Rani and video-graphed through L.W.6/ Vemula

Anand. She stated that the accused took her to Hyderabad in a bus and went to Hyderabad and stayed in a hotel for five days at SR Nagar, Hyderabad. In the hotel, the accused has participated in sexual intercourse with her. When they came to know of police case, they came back. The accused left her at

Sujatha Nagar and fled away. Basing on this statement L.w.18/ E. Chandra mouli, SIP, altered the section and added 376 (2) and Sec. 5 r/w Sec. 6 of

POCSO Act. The victim girl referred to hospital. Thereafter, L.W.19/ V.

3 Spl.S.C.No.21 of 2017 Dt. 20-12-2019.

Surender Rao, SDPO, took up the investigation and recorded the statements of P.W.1/ brother of victim, P.W.3/ mother of victim, P.W.4/ brother of victim,

L.W.7/J. Raghavulu, L.W.8/ Venkanna, L.W.9/ K. Sathyammaiah. He collected study and conduct certificate of minor girl from L.W.10/ Bandi Rajeswari and recorded her statement. Thereafter, he conducted second CDF in the presence of L.W.13 / V. Shankar and L.W.14/ Arjun. On 12.05.2016, at 1230 hours, he arrested the accused and produced before the court for Judicial custody. After completion of investigation, he has filed charge sheet.

4).The case was taken on file for the offences punishable u/Sec.

366, 376 IPC and Sec. 5 r/w Sec. 6 of POCSO Act against the accused in

SSC. No. 21/2017 by this court. The presence of Accused was secured and he was furnished with the copies of documents as contemplated u/sec. 207

Cr..PC.

5). This court having considered the record, framed charges u/Sec. 366, 376 IPC and Sec. 5 r/w Sec. 6 of POCSO Act, read over and explained to him in vernacular language for which he denied the charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6).At the time of trail, the prosecution has examined the witnesses

Pw1 to Pw.5 and got marked the documents Ex.P1 to P.6. P.W.1 is brother of victim, P.W.2 is minor girl, P.W.3 is mother of victim, P.W.4 is brother of victim. P.W.5/V. Venkanna, is circumstantial witness. The remaining witnesses given up by learned P.P.

7).After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was not examined U/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C as there is no incriminating evidence against the accused.

4 Spl.S.C.No.21 of 2017 Dt. 20-12-2019.

8).After hearing the arguments of both sides, today the matter stood for Judgment.

9).Now the point for consideration:

Whether the prosecution proved the guilty of accused beyond reasonable doubt ?

Point No.1 :- 10).The main allegation of prosecution is that the accused kidnapped the minor girl, knowing that she is a minor and having sexual intercourse with her. The prosecution in order to substantiate their case and examined the P.Ws. 1 to 5.

11). The prosecution examined the brother of Minor girl as P.W.1( the name of P.W.1 is not mentioned with an intention not to reveal the identity of minor girl) but he did not support the prosecution case and categorically stated that he never lodged complaint against the accused and he does not know the contents of complaint, at one time, his sister went to her friend’s house without intimation, on that he approached police. Thereafter, the minor girl examined as P.W.2, she deposed that she fell in love with accused and not agreed for marriage shown by her parents, so they approached police. After attaining majority, she got into marriage with accused and blessed with one son. The mother of minor girl was examined as P.W.3 but she is also not supported prosecution case and deposed that she does not know anything about this case. P.W.4/ Another brother of minor girl, also deposed he does not know anything about this case. P.W.5/ V. Venkanna, circumstantial witness deposed he does not know anything about this case.

The testimony of P.Ws.1 to 5 shows they turned hostile and did not support 5 Spl.S.C.No.21 of 2017 Dt. 20-12-2019.

the prosecution case. So the learned P.P requested the court to declare the witnesses hostile, and cross examine the witnesses with the permission of court by explaining the contents of 161 Cr.PC., Statement, even though they did not support prosecution case, so the evidence of P.W.1 to 5 are not helpful to the prosecution to prove the charges leveled against the accused.

12).The material witnesses, P.Ws. 1 to 5 did not support prosecution case and they turned hostile. The learned PP given up the remaining witnesses, so there is no incriminating evidence against the accused. The prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilty of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

Hence the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt.

13).In the result, the accused found not guilty and he is acquitted

U/Sec.232 Cr.PC., for the offences U/Sec. 366, 376 IPC and Sec. 5 r/w

Sec. 6 of POCSO Act. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand canceled after the appeal time is over.

Typed to Dictation by Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 20th day of December, 2019.

II Addl. District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court under protection of

Children from Sexual Offences Act),

Khammam.

:: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE::

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

P.W.1. Brother of minor girl ( the names are not disclosed with an intention not to reveal the identity of minor girl) 6 Spl.S.C.No.21 of 2017 Dt. 20-12-2019.

P.W.2. Victim girl

P.W.3. Mother of victim girl

P.W.4. Brother of victim girl

P.W.5. Veerla Venkanna.

FOR DEFENCE: - NONE – ::EXHIBITS MARKED FOR::

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P.1. signature on the Complaint by Pw1, dt.09-04-2016,

Ex.P.2. is Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.1, dt.18-04-2016,

Ex.P.3. is Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.2, dt.18-04-2016,

Ex.P.4. is Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.3, dt.18-04-2016,

Ex.P.5. is Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.4, dt.18-04-2016,

Ex.P.6. is Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.4, dt.19-04-2016,

FOR DEFENCE: - NIL-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- Nil -

II Addl. District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court under protection of

Children from Sexual Offences Act),

Khammam.

SC.SPL/200038/2017 Acquitted

S.H.O. Khanapuram Haveli vs Makkala Nagendra Babu

20 Dec 2019

1 Spl.S.C.No.38 of 2017 Dt.20-12-2019.

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE (FAST TRACK

COURT UNDER PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT) AT

KHAMMAM

Dated, this the 20thday of December, 2019,

Present: Smt. J.Maithreyi

II Addl. District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court under protection of children from sexual offences Act), Khammam.

SPL. SESSIONS CASE NO.38 OF 2017

Name of the complainant:The State through Sub-Divisional Police officer, P.S.Khammam.

Name of the accused :A1. Makkala Nagendra Babu, S/o. Bhadraiah, aged. 24 years, occu: Auto driver, R/o. H.No. 2-83/1, BC colony, Ballepalli, Khammam urban Mandal.

A2. Makkala Ramu, S/o. Peda Pullaiah, aged. 35 years, occu: Mason work, R/o. Balajinagar, Khanapuram.

A3. Chinthala Mariyamma, W/o. Babu, aged. 45 years, occu: coolie, R/o. Venkatagiri village of Thallada Mandal.

A4. Makkala Sakkubai, W/o. Ramulu, aged. 62 years, occu: coolie, R/o. Venkatagiri village Thallada, Now at Ballepalli.

Crime Number:428/2016

Offence under section:U/Sec. 376, 201 IPC and Sec. 6 of POCSO Act and Sec. 3 (2) (v) of SC/ ST Act.

Prosecution conducted by:Sri. R. Upendar, Addl. Public Prosecutor.

Defence conducted by:Sri. Md,. Ansari, Advocate for accused.

Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty

Sentence of orderIn the result, the accused found not guilty and he is acquitted U/Sec.232 2 Spl.S.C.No.38 of 2017 Dt.20-12-2019. Cr.PC., for the offences u/Sec. 376, 201 IPC, Sec. 6 of POCSO Act and Sec. 3 (2) (v) of SC/ST act against A.1 and U/Sec. 201 IPC and Sec. 3 (2) (v) of SC/ST act against A.2 to A.4. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand canceled after the appeal time is over.

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 16-12-2019 in the presence of Spl. Public Prosecutor for Prosecution and of Sri Md. Ansari, Advocate for Accused; upon perusing the material papers on record; having heard both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Spl. Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1).The Sub-Divisional Police officer, P.S.Khammam, filed a charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable u/Sec. 376, 201 IPC and Sec. 6 of POCSO Act and Sec. 3 (2) (v) of SC/ ST Act.

2).The story of the prosecution case as per charge sheet is that on 20-09-2016 at about 2100 hours, L.w1/ mother of Minor girl came to police station and lodged a report stating that her daughter was studying 9th class and she discontinued her studies and staying in the house. Since few days, her daughter suffering with illness and made complaints of stomach ache and had bleeding. Immediately, on 18.09.2016, she had taken the minor girl to the hospital, the doctors examined and declared that she had seven month pregnant and had abortion. The baby died and there was heavy bleeding. On enquiry, the minor girl informed the A.1 followed her and deceived her so she participated in sexual intercourse with him. A.1 informed not to express the same to her parents and he would marry her. The parents of A.1 are known of the relation between the accused and minor girl. She lodged a complaint.

3).Basing on this complaint, L.W.19/ K. Nagendra Chary, Inspector of Police, registered a case in Cr.No. 428/2016, U/Sec. 376 IPC and Sec. 6 of POCSO Act and Sec. 3 (2) (v) of SC/ ST act and issued FIR. He examined the complainant and recorded her statement. Further on his instructions,

LW.6/D. Alivelu Manga, WPC recorded the statement of minor girl and got 3 Spl.S.C.No.38 of 2017 Dt.20-12-2019.

video-graphed through L.W.7/ Nagendramma. Thereafter, he recorded the statements of P.W.2/ P. Padma, P.W.3/ P. Ramu. He visited scene of offence and conducted CDF in the presence of L.W.10/ D. Veeraswamy, L.W.11/ R. Rama

Anjaneylu. Further he collected caste certificate of accused and victim from

L.W.14/Srilatha. On 29.09.2016, he arrested the accused and produced before the court for Judicial custody. He examined the medical officers who treated the victim and collected medical certificates of victim and accused. After completion of investigation, he has filed charge sheet.

4).The case was taken on file for the offences punishable u/Sec. 376 r/w 201 IPC and Sec. 6 of POCSO Act against the accused in SSC. No.

38/2017 by this court. The presence of Accused was secured and he was furnished with the copies of documents as contemplated u/sec. 207 Cr..PC.

5). This court having considered the record, framed charges u/Sec. 376, 201 IPC, SEc. 6 of POCSO Act and Sec. 3 (2) (v) of SC/ST act against A.1 and

U/Sec. 201 IPC and Sec. 3 (2) (v) of SC/ST act against A.2 to A.4, read over and explained to him in vernacular language for which he denied the charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6).At the time of trail, the prosecution has examined the witnesses

Pw1 to Pw.3 and got marked the documents Ex.P1 to P.3. P.W.1 is minor girl,

P.W.2/ P.Padma and P.W.3/ P. Ramu are neighbors and circumstantial witnesses. The remaining witnesses given up by learned P.P.

7).After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was not examined U/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C as there is no incriminating evidence against the accused.

8).After hearing the arguments of both sides, today the matter stood for Judgment.

9).Now the point for consideration:

4 Spl.S.C.No.38 of 2017 Dt.20-12-2019.

Whether the prosecution proved the guilty of accused beyond reasonable doubt ?

Point No.1 :- 10).The main allegation of prosecution is that the accused No.1 deceived the minor girl and having penetrative sexual intercourse with the minor girl Knowing that she belongs to SC community. Accused Nos. 2 to 4 are aware of the activities of A.1 but they concealed the fact of pregnancy and abortion to minor girl. The prosecution in order to substantiate their case and examined the P.Ws. 1 to 3.

11). The prosecution examined the Minor girl as P.W.1( the name of

P.W.1 is not mentioned with an intention not to reveal the identity of minor girl) but she did not support the prosecution case and categorically stated that her mother is not intended to perform her marriage with A.1, so she lodged a complaint. She was in love with A.1 and after attaining her majority, she got into marriage with A.1. The accused have not committed any offence.

The mother of P.W.1 died so the evidence of P.W.1 is only available but she did not support prosecution case. P.W.2/ P. Padma, P.W.3/ P. Ramu are neighbors to the P.W.1 and the circumstantial witness, but they did not support prosecution case and categorically stated they do not know anything about this case and police never examined The testimony of P.Ws.1 to 3 shows they turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. So the learned

P.P requested the court to declare the witnesses hostile, and cross examine the witnesses with the permission of court by explaining the contents of 161

Cr.PC., Statement, even though they did not support prosecution case, so the evidence of P.W.1 to 3 are not helpful to the prosecution to prove the charges leveled against the accused.

12).The material witnesses, P.Ws. 1 to 3 did not support prosecution case and they turned hostile. The learned PP given up the remaining witnesses, so 5 Spl.S.C.No.38 of 2017 Dt.20-12-2019.

there is no incriminating evidence against the accused. The prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilty of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

Hence the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt.

13).In the result, the accused found not guilty and he is acquitted

U/Sec.232 Cr.PC., for the offences u/Sec. 376, 201 IPC, Sec. 6 of POCSO Act and Sec. 3 (2) (v) of SC/ST act against A.1 and U/Sec. 201 IPC and Sec. 3 (2)

(v) of SC/ST act against A.2 to A.4. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand canceled after the appeal time is over.

Typed to Dictation by Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 20th day of December, 2019.

II Addl. District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court under protection of

Children from Sexual Offences Act),

Khammam.

:: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE::

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

P.W.1. Victim girl ( the names are not disclosed with an intention not to reveal the identity of minor girl)

P.W.2. P.Padma

P.W.3. P.Ramu

FOR DEFENCE: - NONE – ::EXHIBITS MARKED FOR::

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P.1. is Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.1, dt.21-09-2016, 6 Spl.S.C.No.38 of 2017 Dt.20-12-2019.

Ex.P.2. is Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.1, dt.21-09-2016,

Ex.P.3. is Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.2, dt.21-09-2016.

FOR DEFENCE: - NIL-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- Nil -

II Addl. District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court under protection of

Children from Sexual Offences Act),

Khammam.

SC.SPL/200024/2016 Acquitted

PS Burgampad vs Anthoti Bala Esu

20 Dec 2019

1 Spl.S.C.No.24 of 2016 Dt.20-12-2019.

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE (FAST TRACK

COURT UNDER PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT) AT

KHAMMAM

Dated, this the 20thday of December, 2019,

Present: Smt. J.Maithreyi

II Addl. District and Sessions Judge

(Fast Track Court under protection of children

from sexual offences Act), Khammam.

SPL. SESSIONS CASE NO.24 OF 2016

Name of the complainant:The State through Sub-Inspector of

police, P.S. Burgampahad

Name of the accused :AnthotiBalaEsu,S/o.

Venkateswarlu, aged. 25 years,

occu:Autodriver,R/o.

Krishnasagar of Burgampahad

Mandal.

Crime Number:13/2016

Offence under section:U/Sec. 354, 506 IPC and Sec. 12

of POCSO Act.

Prosecution conducted by:Sri. R. Upendar, Addl. Public

Prosecutor.

Defence conducted by:Sri. B.Srinivasa rao, Advocate for

accused.

Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty

Sentence of orderIn the result, the accused found not guilty and he is acquitted U/Sec.232 Cr.PC., for the offences u/Sec. 354-D, 506 IPC and Sec. 12 of POCSO Act, The bail bonds of the accused shall stand canceled after the appeal time is over.

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 16-12-2019

in the presence of Spl. Public Prosecutor for Prosecution and

of Sri B.Srinivasa rao, Advocate for Accused; upon perusing the material

papers on record; having heard both sides and having stood over for

consideration till this day, this Spl. Court delivered the following:

2 Spl.S.C.No.24 of 2016 Dt.20-12-2019.

J U D G M E N T

1).The Sub-Inspector of police, P.S. Burgampahad, filed a charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable u/Sec. 354, 506 IPC and Sec. 12 of

POCSO Act.

2).The story of the prosecution case as per charge sheet is that on 12-01- 2016 at about 1930 hours, Pw1/ father of minor girl came to police station and lodged a report stating that he along with his wife went to fields, for attending agricultural work by leaving his minor daughter in the house. The accused observed her loneliness and went to his daughter and lured her by stating he loves her and he intended to marry her and demanded to marry him. Thereafter, whenever she goes outside, he follows her and insulting her and putting her under threat. On 09.01.2016, he went to agricultural field at about 1400 hours, when her daughter was going to her friend’s house, the accused stopped her and forced her to marry him. When her parents came back to home, she inform the matter to him. On 10.01.2016, at 900 hours, the father of minor girl found the accused in the market and questioned him on that he quarreled with him and on the same day, at about 1700 hours, the accused went to the house of minor girl, he quarreled with them and warned them if they put a case on him, he may see their end. Hence he lodged a complaint.

3).Basing on this complaint, L.W.12/ N. Karunakar, SIP, registered a case in Cr.No. 13/2016, u/Sec. 354 -D, 506 IPC and Sec. 12 of POCSO Act, and issued

FIR. During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statement of

P.W.1/ father of minor girl. P.W.2/ mother of minor girl, P.W.3/ mior girl, L.W.4/

Tirupathamma, L.W.5/ Govardhan, L.W.6/ Ramesh. He got recorded statement of minor girl through L.W.7/ Madhavi Swarna Latha and video-graphed through L.W.8/

B. Saradhi. On his requisition, L.w.9/ G. Kavitha Devi, Magistrate recorded 164 statement of minor girl. He visited scene of offence, and secured presence of Lw10/

S. Nagender, L.W.11/ S. Raju and conducted CDF. On 18.01.2016 at 08.30 A.M, he 3 Spl.S.C.No.24 of 2016 Dt.20-12-2019.

arrested the accused and produced before the court for judicial custody. After completion of investigation, he has filed charge sheet.

4).The case was taken on file for the offences punishable u/Sec. 354-D, 506 Ipc and Sec. 12 of POCSO Act. against the accused in SSC. No. 24/2016 by this court. The presence of Accused was secured and he was furnished with the copies of documents as contemplated u/sec. 207 Cr..PC.

5). This court having considered the record, framed charges u/Sec. 354-D, 506

IPC and Sec. 12 of POCSO Act, read over and explained to him in vernacular language for which he denied the charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6).At the time of trail, the prosecution has examined the witnesses Pw1 to

Pw.3 and got marked the documents Ex.P1 to P.4. Pw1 is father of Minor girl, P.W.2 is mother of minor girl, P.W.3 is minor girl. The remaining witnesses given up by learned P.P.

7).After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was not examined

U/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C as there is no incriminating evidence against the accused.

8).After hearing the arguments of both sides, today the matter stood for

Judgment.

9).Now the point for consideration:

Whether the prosecution proved the guilty of accused beyond reasonable doubt ?

Point No.1 :- 10).The main allegation of prosecution is that the accused is stalking the minor girl and harassed her to love him and threatened her with dire consequences.

The prosecution in order to substantiate their case and examined the P.Ws. 1 to 3.

signatures on some papers and he does not know the contents of complaint. The accused never assaulted on his daughter. He got into marriage with accused at about two years back. Thereafter, the mother of minor girl examined as P.W.2, she deposed that she does not know anything about this case, the accused never harassed the minor girl. The minor girl was examined as P.W.3, she is also not supported prosecution case and deposed she does not know anything about this case, the accused never harassed her at any time. The testimony of P.Ws.1to 3 shows they turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. So the learned

P.P requested the court to declare the witnesses hostile, and cross examine the witnesses with the permission of court by explaining the contents of 161 Cr.PC.,

Statement, even though they did not support prosecution case, so the evidence of

P.W.1 to 3 are not helpful to the prosecution to prove the charges leveled against the accused.

12).The material witnesses, P.Ws. 1 to 3 did not support prosecution case and they turned hostile. The learned PP given up the remaining witnesses, so there is no incriminating evidence against the accused. The prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilty of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt.

13).In the result, the accused found not guilty and he is acquitted

U/Sec.232 Cr.PC., for the offences u/Sec. 354-D, 506 IPC and Sec. 12 of POCSO

Act, The bail bonds of the accused shall stand canceled after the appeal time is over.

Typed to Dictation by Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 20th day of December, 2019.

II Addl. District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court under protection of

Children from Sexual Offences Act),

Khammam.

5 Spl.S.C.No.24 of 2016 Dt.20-12-2019.

:: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE::

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

P.W.1. Father of minor girl ( the names are not disclosed with an intention not to

reveal the identity of minor girl)

P.W.2. Mother of victim girl

P.W.3. Victim girl

FOR DEFENCE: - NONE –

::EXHIBITS MARKED FOR::

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P.1. signature on the Complaint by Pw1, dt.12-01-2016,

Ex.P.2. is Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.1, dt.12-01-2016,

Ex.P.3. is Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.2, dt.12-01-2016,

Ex.P.4. is Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.3, dt.12-02-2016,

FOR DEFENCE: - NIL-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- Nil -

II Addl. District and Sessions Judge

(Fast Track Court under protection of

Children from Sexual Offences Act),

Khammam.

SC.SPL/200001/2017 Acquitted

PS Kamepally vs Tejavath Kranthi

20 Dec 2019

1 Spl.S.C.No.01 of 2017 Dt.20-12-2019.

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE (FAST TRACK

COURT UNDER PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT) AT

KHAMMAM

Dated, this the 20th day of December, 2019,

Present: Smt. J.Maithreyi

II Addl. District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court under protection of children from sexual offences Act), Khammam.

SPL. SESSIONS CASE NO.01 OF 2017

Name of the complainant:The State through Sub-Inspector of police, P.S. Kamepally.

Name of the accused :Tejavath Kranthi, S/o. Babulal, aged. 19 years, occu: student, R/o. Garidepalli village of Kamepalli Mandal.

Crime Number:142/2016

Offence under section:U/Sec. 363 IPC and Sec. 12 of POCSO Act.

Prosecution conducted by:Sri. R. Upendar, Addl. Public Prosecutor.

Defence conducted by:Sri. M. Nagesh Babu, Advocate for accused.

Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty

Sentence of orderIn the result, the accused found not guilty and he is acquitted U/Sec.232 Cr.PC., for the offences U/Sec. 363 IPC and Sec. 12 of POCSO Act, The bail bonds of the accused shall stand canceled after the appeal time is over.

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 17-12-2019 in the presence of Spl. Public Prosecutor for Prosecution and of Sri M. Nagesh Babu, Advocate for Accused; upon perusing the material papers on record; having heard both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Spl. Court delivered the following:

2 Spl.S.C.No.01 of 2017 Dt.20-12-2019.

J U D G M E N T

1).The SI of Police, PS Kamepally, filed a charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable u/Sec. 363 IPC and Sec. 12 of POCSO Act.

2).The story of the prosecution case as per charge sheet is that on 19-10-2016 at about 1800 hours, Pw1/ father of minor girl came to police station and lodged a report stating that his minor daughter is studying SSC at Muthyalamagudem Ashramam school and staying in the hostel. The accused is resident of Garidepalli village. When the minor is studying at

Khammam, the accused developed acquaintance with her and deceived her by saying fradulent promises by visiting hostel and following her and moving both freely since four years. On that the parents of minor girl conducted panchayat and warned them. The minor was joined in Muthayalamagudem

Ashramam school for studies. The minor is interested to marry the accused but the parents of accused are opposed the marriage. During Dusshera holidays, the minor girl came to Garidepally village from the school, the accused met with her and both decided to ellop. On 16.10.2016 at 0100 hours, both went to paloncha peddamma temple in the auto and on 17.10.2016 they got into marriage at Peddamma temple. Later they went to

Warangal and taken a room and stayed there for few days. When they came to know of filing of case, they return back to Kamepally Police station.

3).Basing on this complaint, L.W.10/ G. Ranga Das, ASI, registered a case in Cr.No. 142/2016, u/Sec. 363 IPC and issued FIR. During the course of investigation, L.W.11/G. Ranjith Kumar, SIP, took up the investigation and recorded the statements of PW.1/ father of minor girl, P.W.2/ mother of minor girl, L.W.3/ B. Ramji, L.W.4/ B. Mangamma and P.w.3 / Minor girl. He got recorded the statement of minor girl through L.W.7/ K. Kavitha, WPC. He collected the study certificate of minor girl through L.W.6/ D. Sudha Rani and recorded her statement. He visited scene of offence, secured presence of 3 Spl.S.C.No.01 of 2017 Dt.20-12-2019.

Lw8/ Bukya Kishan and L.W.9/ J. Bandari and conducted CDF. On 24.11.2016, at 1000 hours, he arrested the accused and produced before the court for judicial custody. After completion of investigation, he has filed charge sheet.

4).The case was taken on file for the offences punishable u/Sec. 363

IPC and Sec. 12 of POCSO Act. against the accused in SSC. No. 01/2017 by this court. The presence of Accused was secured and he was furnished with the copies of documents as contemplated u/sec. 207 Cr..PC.

5). This court having considered the record, framed charges u/Sec. 363

IPC and Sec. 12 of POCSO Act, read over and explained to him in vernacular language for which he denied the charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6).At the time of trail, the prosecution has examined the witnesses

Pw1 to Pw.3 and got marked the documents Ex.P1 to P.3. Pw1 is father of

Minor girl, P.W.2 is mother of minor girl, P.W.3 is minor girl. The remaining witnesses given up by learned P.P.

7).After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was not examined U/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C as there is no incriminating evidence against the accused.

8).After hearing the arguments of both sides, today the matter stood for Judgment.

9).Now the point for consideration:

Whether the prosecution proved the guilty of accused beyond reasonable doubt ?

4 Spl.S.C.No.01 of 2017 Dt.20-12-2019.

Point No.1 :- 10).The main allegation of prosecution is that the accused kidnapped the minor girl, knowing that she is a minor. The prosecution in order to substantiate their case and examined the P.Ws. 1 to 3.

11). The prosecution examined the father of Minor girl as P.W.1( the name of P.W.1 is not mentioned with an intention not to reveal the identity of minor girl) but he did not support the prosecution case and categorically stated that he never lodged complaint against the accused and he does not know the contents of complaint. The accused never kidnapped and never assaulted on his daughter. AT about two years back, he got into marriage with minor girl and blessed with one child. Thereafter, the mother of minor girl examined as P.W.2, she deposed that she does not know anything about this case, the accused never kidnapped and never assaulted on the minor girl.

The minor girl was examined as P.W.3 but she is also not supported prosecution case and deposed she does not know anything about this case, the accused never kidnapped her. At about two years back she got into marriage with the accused. The testimony of P.Ws.1to 3 shows they turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. So the learned P.P requested the court to declare the witnesses hostile, and cross examine the witnesses with the permission of court by explaining the contents of 161

Cr.PC., Statement, even though they did not support prosecution case, so the evidence of P.W.1 to 3 are not helpful to the prosecution to prove the charges leveled against the accused.

prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilty of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt.

13).In the result, the accused found not guilty and he is acquitted

U/Sec.232 Cr.PC., for the offences U/Sec. 363 IPC and Sec. 12 of POCSO

Act, The bail bonds of the accused shall stand canceled after the appeal time is over.

Typed to Dictation by Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 20th day of December, 2019.

II Addl. District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court under protection of

Children from Sexual Offences Act),

Khammam.

:: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE::

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

P.W.1. Father of minor girl ( the names are not disclosed with an intention not to reveal the identity of minor girl)

P.W.2. Mother of minor girl

P.W.3. Victim girl

FOR DEFENCE: - NONE – 6 Spl.S.C.No.01 of 2017 Dt.20-12-2019.

::EXHIBITS MARKED FOR::

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P.1. is Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.1, dt.19-10-2016,

Ex.P.2. is Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.1, dt.19-10-2016,

Ex.P.3. is Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.2, dt.24-11-2016.

FOR DEFENCE: - NIL-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- Nil -

II Addl. District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court under protection of

Children from Sexual Offences Act),

Khammam.

SC.SPL/200062/2016 Acquitted

PS Kothagudem III Town vs Medi Pavel @ Medi Venkateswarlu

20 Dec 2019

1 Spl.S.C.No.62 of 2016 Dt. 20-12-2019.

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE (FAST TRACK

COURT UNDER PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT) AT

KHAMMAM

Dated, this the 20thday of December, 2019,

Present: Smt. J.Maithreyi

II Addl. District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court under protection of children from sexual offences Act), Khammam.

SPL. SESSIONS CASE NO.62 OF 2016

Name of the complainant:The State through P.S. Kothagudem III Town.

Name of the accused :MediPavel@Medi Venkateswarlu, S/o. Pedda Raju, aged. 24 years, occu: Church pastor, R/o. Rajeevnagar colony, Kukkunoor Mandal, West Godavari District.

Crime Number:26/2016

Offence under section:U/Sec. 354-D, 509 IPC and Sec. 12 of POCSO Act.

Prosecution conducted by:Sri. R. Upendar, Addl. Public Prosecutor.

Defence conducted by:Sri. Y. Srinivasa rao, Advocate for accused.

Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty

Sentence of orderIn the result, the accused found not guilty and he is acquitted U/Sec.232 Cr.PC., for the offences u/Sec. 354-D, 509 IPC and Sec. 12 of POCSO Act, The bail bonds of the accused shall stand canceled after the appeal time is over.

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 17-12-2019 in the presence of Spl. Public Prosecutor for Prosecution and of Sri Y.Srinivasa rao, Advocate for Accused; upon perusing the material papers on record; having heard both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Spl. Court delivered the following:

2 Spl.S.C.No.62 of 2016 Dt. 20-12-2019.

J U D G M E N T

1).The Sub Inspector of Police, PS Kothagudem III Town, filed a charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable u/Sec. 354-D, 509 IPC and Sec. 12 of POCSO Act.

2).The story of the prosecution case as per charge sheet is that on 30-01-2016 at about 1800 hours, Pw1/ Minor girl came to police station and lodged a report stating that she is studying Intermediate, the accused used to come to Chettakonda Church for prayers, when the minor girl’s visit the

Church, he used to made obscene gestures to her. He is stalking the minor girl and expressed his love with her. She inform the matter to her family members and they admonished them. Even though he did not change his attitude. On 29.01.2016 at 0815 hours, the accused came to her college and pestered her saying to love him. She vexed with his activities filed the complaint.

3).Basing on this complaint, L.W.11/ K. Anjaiah, SIP, registered a case in Cr.No. 26/2016, u/Sec. 354 -D, 509 IPC and Sec. 12 of POCSO Act, and issued FIR. During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statements of P.W.1/ Minor girl. P.W.2/ Brother of minor girl, P.W.3/ Mother of minor girl, L.W.4/S. Ramanaiah. He got recorded the statement of Minor girl through L.W.5/ Chandrakala and video-graphed through L.W.6/Sk. Chand

Pasha. He visited scene of offence and conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of L.W.8/ K. Sudheer and L.W.9/G. Shiva Krishna.

He obtained date of birth certificate of minor girl from L.W.7/ P. Venkata

Surya Narasimha Rao and recorded his statement. On his requisition, L.w.10/

G. Kavitha Devi, Magistrate recorded the statement of minor girl. On 11-02- 2015, he arrested the accused and produced before the court for Judicial custody. After completion of investigation, he has filed charge sheet.

4).The case was taken on file for the offences punishable u/Sec. 354-

D, 509 IPC and Sec. 12 of POCSO Act. Against the accused in SSC. No.

3 Spl.S.C.No.62 of 2016 Dt. 20-12-2019.

62/2016 by this court. The presence of Accused was secured and he was furnished with the copies of documents as contemplated u/sec. 207 Cr..PC.

5). This court having considered the record, framed charges u/Sec. 354-

D, 509 IPC and Sec. 12 of POCSO Act. read over and explained to him in vernacular language for which he denied the charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6).At the time of trail, the prosecution has examined the witnesses

Pw1 to Pw.3 and got marked the documents Ex.P1 to P.4. Pw1 is Minor girl,

P.W.2 is brother of minor girl, P.W.3 is mother of minor girl. The remaining witnesses given up by learned P.P.

7).After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was not examined U/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C as there is no incriminating evidence against the accused.

8).After hearing the arguments of both sides, today the matter stood for Judgment.

9).Now the point for consideration:

Whether the prosecution proved the guilty of accused beyond reasonable doubt ?

Point No.1 :- 10).The main allegation of prosecution is that the accused is stalking the minor girl and harassed her to love him and misbehaved with her by making obscene gestures. The prosecution in order to substantiate their case and examined the P.Ws. 1 to 3.

11). The prosecution examined the Minor girl as P.W.1( the name of

P.W.1 is not mentioned with an intention not to reveal the identity of minor girl) but she did not support the prosecution case and categorically stated that she never lodged complaint against the accused. At one time, her 4 Spl.S.C.No.62 of 2016 Dt. 20-12-2019.

parents obtained her signatures on some papers and she does not know the contents of complaint. The accused never misbehaved with her.

Thereafter, the brother of minor girl examined as P.W.2, but he deposed that he does not know anything about this case. The mother of minor girl was examined as P.W.3, she is also not supported prosecution case and deposed she does not know anything about this case. The testimony of P.Ws.1 to 3 shows they turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. So the learned P.P requested the court to declare the witnesses hostile, and cross examine the witnesses with the permission of court by explaining the contents of 161 Cr.PC., Statement, even though they did not support prosecution case, so the evidence of P.W.1 to 3 are not helpful to the prosecution to prove the charges leveled against the accused.

12). The material witnesses, P.Ws. 1 to 3 did not support prosecution case and they turned hostile. The learned PP given up the remaining witnesses, so there is no incriminating evidence against the accused. The prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilty of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt.

13).In the result, the accused found not guilty and he is acquitted

U/Sec.232 Cr.PC., for the offences u/Sec. 354-D, 509 IPC and Sec. 12 of

POCSO Act, The bail bonds of the accused shall stand canceled after the appeal time is over.

Typed to Dictation by Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 20th day of December, 2019.

II Addl. District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court under protection of

Children from Sexual Offences Act),

Khammam.

5 Spl.S.C.No.62 of 2016 Dt. 20-12-2019.

:: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE::

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

P.W.1. Victim girl ( the names are not disclosed with an intention not to reveal the identity of minor girl)

P.W.2. Brother of victim girl

P.W.3. Mother of victim girl

FOR DEFENCE: - NONE – ::EXHIBITS MARKED FOR::

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P.1. signature on the Complaint by Pw1, dt.30-01-2016,

Ex.P.2. is Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.1, dt.30-01-2016,

Ex.P.3. is Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.2, dt.30-01-2016,

Ex.P.4. is Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.3, dt.30-01-2016,

FOR DEFENCE: - NIL-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- Nil -

II Addl. District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court under protection of

Children from Sexual Offences Act),

Khammam.

Order Record 119 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
SC.SPL/200001/2017	PS Kamepally vs Tejavath Kranthi	20 Dec 2019	Judgement	Acquitted
SC.SPL/200021/2017	S.H.O Kothagudem I town vs Sd.Jaheed @ Javeed	20 Dec 2019	Judgement	Acquitted
SC.SPL/200024/2016	PS Burgampad vs Anthoti Bala Esu	20 Dec 2019	Judgement	Acquitted
SC.SPL/200038/2017	S.H.O. Khanapuram Haveli vs Makkala Nagendra Babu	20 Dec 2019	Judgement	Acquitted
SC.SPL/200062/2016	PS Kothagudem III Town vs Medi Pavel @ Medi Venkateswarlu	20 Dec 2019	Judgement	Acquitted
SC.SPL/200077/2016	PS Madhira town vs Adiraju Kiran Kumar @ Kiran Pal and another	20 Dec 2019	Judgement	—
SC.SPL/200128/2016	PS Garla Bayyaram vs Maloth Vijay @ Bappi	20 Dec 2019	Judgement	—
SC.SPL/200152/2017	S.H.O. Chinthakani vs Padishala Dinesh	20 Dec 2019	Judgement	—
SC.SPL/200157/2017	S.H.O. Khanapuram Haveli vs Korra Ramesh	20 Dec 2019	Judgement	—
SC.SPL/200164/2016	PS Khammam I Town vs Lavudya Sreenu	20 Dec 2019	Judgement	—
SC.SPL/200241/2017	S.H.O Burgampahad vs Madasu Venkatesh	20 Dec 2019	Judgement	—
SC.SPL/200034/2016	PS Madhira town vs Meenugu Ramu	19 Dec 2019	Judgement	—
SC.SPL/200165/2016	PS Khammam I Town vs Gangula Satheesh @ Sameer	19 Dec 2019	Judgement	—
SC.SPL/200022/2016	PS Kothagudem I Town vs Jallarapu Srinivas	18 Dec 2019	Judgement	—
SC.SPL/200036/2016	PS Enkoor vs Maddela Prasanth	18 Dec 2019	Judgement	—
SC.SPL/200061/2016	PS Paloncha Town vs Gurram Prem Kumar	18 Dec 2019	Judgement	—
SC.SPL/200071/2016	PS Kalluru vs Thadikamalla Nagaraju and 2 others	18 Dec 2019	Judgement	—
SC.SPL/200153/2016	PS Madhira town vs Marsakatla Vamshi	18 Dec 2019	Judgement	—
SC.SPL/200161/2016	SHO PS Karepally vs Reddeboina Ramakrishna	18 Dec 2019	Judgement	—
SC.SPL/200213/2017	S.H.O Thirumalayapalem vs Islavath Hari@Hari Naik	18 Dec 2019	Judgement	—
SC.SPL/200055/2016	PS Khammam Rural vs Daggupati Madhava Rao	17 Dec 2019	Judgement	—
SC.SPL/200121/2016	PS Mudigonda vs Velpula Venkata Rama Rao	17 Dec 2019	Judgement	—
SC.SPL/200158/2017	S.H.O. Kusumanchi vs Yerangula Veerababu	17 Dec 2019	Judgement	—
SC.SPL/200162/2016	SHO PS Kusumanchi vs Seelam Upendar	16 Dec 2019	Judgement	—
SC.SPL/200180/2016	PS Julurpad vs Bhukya Ramesh and another	16 Dec 2019	Judgement	—
SC.SPL/200218/2017	S.H.O Kothagudem I town vs Kothapalli Sai Shiva Krishna	16 Dec 2019	Judgement	—
SC.SPL/200246/2017	S.H.O. Chinthakani vs Manchala Veerababu	16 Dec 2019	Judgement	—
SC.SPL/200169/2016	SHO PS Khanapuram Haveli vs Badavath Parashuram	13 Dec 2019	Judgement	—
SC.SPL/200003/2016	PS Nelakondapally vs Telagorla Srikanth	12 Dec 2019	Judgement	—
SC.SPL/200037/2017	S.H.O. Khanapuram Haveli vs Lavudya Venkatesh and 2 others	12 Dec 2019	Judgement	—
SC.SPL/200185/2016	PS Yellandu vs Kalthi Sandeep and another	12 Dec 2019	Judgement	—
SC.SPL/200066/2016	PS Kothagudem III Town vs Pallapu Hanamanthu	11 Dec 2019	Judgement	—
SC.SPL/200148/2016	PS Khammam I Town vs Kalagotla Gopal Reddy	11 Dec 2019	Judgement	—
SC.SPL/200078/2016	PS Aswaraopeta vs Kovvala Amarnadh	10 Dec 2019	Judgement	—
SC.SPL/200176/2016	PS Manuguru vs Chinthala Shiva Prasad	10 Dec 2019	Judgement	—
SC.SPL/200186/2016	PS Kusumanchi vs Gouni Sateesh	10 Dec 2019	Judgement	—
SC.SPL/200079/2016	PS Chandrugonda vs Pusam Sampath @ Sampath Kumar	06 Dec 2019	Judgement	—
SC.SPL/200114/2016	PS Yellandu vs Mohammad Usman	06 Dec 2019	Judgement	—
SC.SPL/200132/2016	PS Thallada vs Isnepalli Mahesh	06 Dec 2019	Judgement	—
SC.SPL/200166/2016	PS Khammam I Town vs Gunjuluri Ngaraju	06 Dec 2019	Judgement	—
SC.SPL/200179/2016	PS Wyra vs Maddela Dileep	06 Dec 2019	Judgement	—
SC.SPL/200016/2016	PS Wyra vs Duggirala Nagasheshu	05 Dec 2019	Judgement	—
SC.SPL/200029/2016	PS Cherla vs Sodi Murali and another	05 Dec 2019	Judgement	—
SC.SPL/200115/2016	PS Khanapuram Haveli vs Reddiboina Shiva	04 Dec 2019	Judgement	—
SC.SPL/200119/2016	PS III Town, Kothagudem vs Galipally Radhakrishna	04 Dec 2019	Judgement	—
SC.SPL/200187/2016	PS Konijerla vs Banoth Kiran @ Kiran Kumar	04 Dec 2019	Judgement	—
SC.SPL/200139/2016	PS Thallada vs Rayala Upender and another	03 Dec 2019	Judgement	—
SC.SPL/200013/2016	PS Khammam Rural vs Palleboina Vamshi	02 Dec 2019	Judgement	—
SC.SPL/200018/2016	PS Thallada vs Esnepalli Suresh	02 Dec 2019	Judgement	—
SC.SPL/200035/2016	PS Chinthakani vs Burra Salman Raju	29 Nov 2019	Judgement	—
SC.SPL/200041/2016	PS Sathupally vs Jaganndham Ramakrishna	29 Nov 2019	Judgement	—
SC.SPL/200053/2016	PS Kalluru vs Podili Radhakrishna	29 Nov 2019	Judgement	—
SC.SPL/200058/2016	PS Madhira Town vs Sk.Khadar Babu @ Bablu	29 Nov 2019	Judgement	—
SC.SPL/200060/2016	PS Yellandu vs Karteek Kumar Lodh	29 Nov 2019	Judgement	—
SC.SPL/200074/2016	PS Sathupally vs Kunta Mallikharjuna Rao	29 Nov 2019	Judgement	—
SC.SPL/200102/2016	PS Madhira town vs Dornala Prashanth and 2 others	29 Nov 2019	Judgement	—
SC.SPL/200117/2016	PS Bhadrachalam Town vs Kota Pochaiah @ Poshaiah @ Posha	29 Nov 2019	Judgement	—
SC.SPL/200160/2016	PS Enkoor vs Poilaboina Nagaraju	29 Nov 2019	Judgement	—
SC.SPL/200017/2016	PS Nelakondapally vs Tholla Veera Babu	28 Nov 2019	Judgement	—
SC.SPL/200057/2016	PS Nelakondapally vs Yedapally Krishna	28 Nov 2019	Judgement	—
SC.SPL/200143/2016	PS Yerrupalem vs Mullangi Didhaiah	28 Nov 2019	Judgement	—
SC.SPL/200167/2016	PS Yellandu vs Rishikanth Lodh	28 Nov 2019	Judgement	—
SC.SPL/200045/2016	PS Khammam II Town vs Fabbati Venkateswarlu	27 Nov 2019	Judgement	—
SC.SPL/200056/2016	PS Thirumalayapalem vs Gokinapalli Lenin	27 Nov 2019	Judgement	—
SC.SPL/200100/2016	PS III Town, Kothagudem vs Banoth Venkanna and another	27 Nov 2019	Judgement	—
SC.SPL/200049/2016	PS Kothagudem II Town vs Katta Kumar	26 Nov 2019	Judgement	—
SC.SPL/200042/2016	PS Aswaraopeta vs Indla Yesu Babu @ Someswara Rao and 3 others	25 Nov 2019	Judgement	—
SC.SPL/200086/2016	PS Chinthakani vs Kalavakatla Vamshi	25 Nov 2019	Judgement	—
SC.SPL/200090/2016	PS Dammapeta vs Ravula Prasad @ Chanthi	25 Nov 2019	Judgement	—
SC.SPL/200039/2016	PS Khammam Rural vs Thotamalla Nagaraju	22 Nov 2019	Judgement	—
SC.SPL/200150/2016	PS Chinthakani vs Singarapu Karthik	22 Nov 2019	Judgement	—
SC.SPL/200154/2016	PS III Town, Kothagudem vs Battu Suresh	22 Nov 2019	Judgement	—
SC.SPL/200091/2016	PS Cherla vs Lanka Ganesh	21 Nov 2019	Judgement	—
SC.SPL/200050/2016	PS Kusumanchi vs Chattu Veerabhadram	18 Nov 2019	Judgement	—
SC.SPL/200019/2016	PS Khanapuram Haveli vs Maloth Babu @ Venkanna	15 Nov 2019	Judgement	—
SC.SPL/200081/2016	PS Sathupally vs Kuvvarapu Satish	15 Nov 2019	Judgement	—
SC.SPL/200006/2016	PS Burgampad vs Godla Rajakumar	14 Nov 2019	Judgement	—
SC.SPL/200009/2016	PS Karepally vs Dasaniya Charan	14 Nov 2019	Judgement	—
SC.SPL/200105/2016	PS Yellandu vs Pavan Pasi @ Pavan Kumar Pasi	11 Nov 2019	Judgement	—
SC.SPL/200181/2016	Khammam II Town vs Sk.Mastan	08 Nov 2019	Judgement	—
EP/100390/2018	Margadarsi Chit Fund Pvt.Ltd Miryalaguda Branch B.Srinivas vs V Chandra Mohan and others	01 Oct 2019	Order	—
OS/100148/2017	Boddu Ramesh Babu vs Gunji Joji	30 Sep 2019	LOK ADALAT AWARD	—
MVOP/100415/2018	Konakanchi rama Rao, vs Nallamothu Hanumantha Rao,	26 Sep 2019	Order	—
MVOP/100599/2018	Rentala Vijayamma vs APSRTC rep by its Depot Manager,	26 Sep 2019	Order	—
MVOP/100835/2017	Thota Sowjanya vs Kalasani Ganga Raju	26 Sep 2019	Order	—
EP/100350/2018	Sriram city union fin.ltd. vs Praveen Kumar Talluri and 2 others	24 Sep 2019	Order	—
AS/100035/2017	Enturi @ eturi Anantha Padmanadam vs Marripudi Ramabu	23 Sep 2019	Order	—
AS/100077/2015	Vadlamudi Eswaramma vs Vadlamudi Satyanarayana and 3 others	23 Sep 2019	Order	—
MVOP/100334/2015	Mogili Srinu vs Kawalijeet Singh	23 Sep 2019	Order	—
MVOP/100246/2017	Mandula Murali @ Muralibabu vs Vangaveeti Udaya Kiran	20 Sep 2019	Order	—
MVOP/100638/2018	Shaik Vali vs Sadu Venkata Reddy	20 Sep 2019	Order	—
EP/100216/2018	Tata Motors Fin. Ltd. by its holder T. Ravi Kumar. vs Elka Arogya, and one other	19 Sep 2019	Order	—
EP/100276/2018	Sriram city union fin.co.ltd vs Mithineni Thrinadha Murthi and another	19 Sep 2019	Order	—
CRLA/100163/2016	Soyam Rambabu and another vs The state PS Paloncha Rural through PP, Khammam	19 Sep 2019	Order	—
MVOP/100214/2016	Katepalli Narasimha Rao vs Sk.Gouse Pasha	17 Sep 2019	Order	—
MVOP/100728/2016	Goddgorla Sayamma vs D.Nagamani	17 Sep 2019	Order	—
AS/100007/2017	chowdavarapu rohinidevi vs Satyala venkateswarlu	16 Sep 2019	Order	—
AS/100053/2017	Anumuala Madhavi vs Guda vijaya	16 Sep 2019	Order	—
EP/100193/2018	M/s Edu Smart Services Private Ltd vs Little Flower EM School	16 Sep 2019	Order	—
MVOP/57/2019	K.Koteswar Rao vs SK.Rafi and another	16 Sep 2019	Order	—

Showing 100 of 119 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Dec 2019		49
Nov 2019		31
Oct 2019		1
Sep 2019		37
Aug 2019		5

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has J MAITHREYI handled?

J MAITHREYI has handled 123 court orders since 2019 at Khammam, PDJ Court Complex. The average disposal rate is 28 orders per month.

What types of cases does J MAITHREYI hear?

Based on available records, J MAITHREYI primarily handles Criminal matters (Sessions Cases, Criminal Appeals) and Civil matters (Civil Misc. Appeals, Execution Petitions) and Motor Accident matters (Motor Accident Claims) at Khammam, PDJ Court Complex.

Where is J MAITHREYI currently posted?

J MAITHREYI is posted as II Addl.District and Sessions Judge, FTC-I at Khammam, PDJ Court Complex, Khammam, Telangana.

Are judgments by J MAITHREYI available online?

Yes. 5 judgments by J MAITHREYI are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does J MAITHREYI dispose cases?

J MAITHREYI disposes approximately 28 cases per month, based on 123 orders handled over their tenure at Khammam, PDJ Court Complex.

Since when is J MAITHREYI serving?

J MAITHREYI has been serving at Khammam, PDJ Court Complex since 2019.

Case Types

SC 65%

MVOP 15%

CMA 7%

EP 6%

AS 3%

OS 3%

CRLA 1%

Posting History

Aug 2019 — Dec 2019

II Addl.District and Sessions Judge, FTC-I · 123 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 5

Other Judges at this Court

Sri G. Raja Gopal

Prinicpal District and Sessions Judge, Khammam

811 orders

Sri Bakaraju Srinivasa Rao

I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Khammam

84 orders

Vasukala Sreenaiah

II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Khammam

50 orders

Dr. G.v. Mahesh Naath

Judge, Family Court -cum- IV Additional District a...

24 orders

Dr. Pullabhatla Pogada Krishna Arjun

Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs and STs...

30 orders

Smt. Bakkera Naga Lakshmi

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Mobile...

2,113 orders

Jyothirmai Kakumani

Principal Junior Civil Judge -cum- Judicial Magist...

0 orders

Smt. Rajani Bekkam

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

1,909 orders

Ms.Yepuri Bindu Priya

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

344 orders

Mr. Arava Praveen

III Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- III Additi...

0 orders

Ms. G.Akhila Goud

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for tri...

316 orders

Smt. M. Kalpana

Principal Senior Civil Judge -cum- Assistant Sessi...

744 orders

Smt. V. Shiva Ranjani

I Additional Senior Civil Judge -cum- Additional A...

1,229 orders

T.Murali Mohan

II Additional Senior Civil Judge -cum- Additional...

152 orders

Vasukula Sreenaiah

Court of Special Sessions Judge for fast tracking...

228 orders

← View all judges at Khammam, PDJ Court Complex