1 Spl. S.C No.60 of 2025
IN THE COURT OF THE FAST TRACK SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE
FOR EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL AND DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND POCSO
ACT CASES, MAHABUBNAGAR.
Thursday, the 18th day of September, 2025
Present:- Sri K.Kalyan Chakravarthy, I Addl.District & Sessions Judge, FAC Fast Track Special Sessions Judge, For Expeditious Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases, Mahabubnagar.
SPECIAL SESSIONS CASE No.60 of 2025
Between:
The State of Telangana through Police, Mahabubnagar Rural Police Station. … Complainant
And
Godugu Pavan Kumar @ Pavan S/o. Godugu Narsimulu age 23 years, caste: Mudiraj, Occ: Tractor driver, R/o. Ramchandrapuram village of Mahabubnagar Rural Mandal. … Accused
Nature of offence:U/Sec.87, 64(1) of BNS and section 3 r/w 4 of POCSO Act. Plea of the accused:Pleaded not guilty.
Finding of the Court:Found not guilty.
Sentence or order: 1]In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.3 r/w 4 of POCSO Act and accordingly, he is acquitted U/Sec 258(1) of BNSS.
2]The accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec 64(1) of BNS and accordingly, he is acquitted U/Sec 2 Spl. S.C No.60 of 2025 258(1) of BNSS.
3]The accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec 87(1) of BNS and accordingly, he is acquitted U/Sec 258(1) of BNSS and the accused is in jail shall be released forthwith, if he is not required in any case. MOs.1 and 2 and other non-valuable property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.
4] The interim custody of vehicle bearing numberTG-06-0021orderedin
Crl.M.P.No.235/2025 shall be release
absolute after expirty of appeal time.
*****
This case is coming up before me for hearing on 08-09-2025 in the presence of Sri M.John, Special Public Prosecutor for the State and of T.Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, Advocate for the accused and upon perusing the material on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:-
J U D G M E N T
1.The Circle Inspector of Police, Mahabubnagar Rural filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.296 of 2025 for the offences U/Secs.87, 64(1) of BNS and section 3 r/w 4 of POCSO Act 2012.
3 Spl. S.C No.60 of 2025
2.Case of the prosecution in brief is :-
i) LW.1 is the father of the victim, LW.3 is the mother of the victim, whereas LW.2 is the victim in this case, LW.4 is the elder sister, LW.5 is the husband of LW.4, LW.6/K.Raghu is the neighbour of the victim,
LW.7/R.Srinivas Reddy is the Head Master of the ZP High School, where the victim studied, who issued the bonafide certificate of the victim, LW.8/
Ganji Ganesh is the circumstantial witness. By the time of the offence, the victim was minor and during that time, she got acquaintance with the accused and accused expressed his love to the victim and both fell in love. In view of fair called Veeranna Jathara at Koilkonda area, on 13-04-2025, in the afternoon at about 3.00 P.M, LW.1/brought the victim to Mahathma
Gandhi Bus Stand, Hyderabad on his motor cycle and boarded the victim in
RTC bus with instructions to step down in bus stand, at Mahabubnagar in order to go to the house of LW.4. The LW.1 left from the Hyderabad on his motor cycle and while proceeding to Mahabubnagar on the way at Rajapur village, the tyre of the RTC bus was punctured, as such the victim boarded in another bus. In the mean time, the victim made phone call to the accused from her mobile No.8919862522 to mobile number of the accused to 7842458514 after getting down at Jadcherla. The accused instructed the petitioner to get down in front of SVS Hospital, Mahabubnagar, as such the 4 Spl. S.C No.60 of 2025 victim had boarded the passenger auto at Jadcherla and get down in front of the SVS hospital, Mahabubnagar, where the accused was present along with his motor cycle bearing No.TG-06-0021 talking with his friend. He forcibly boarded the victim on his motor cycle abducted her from the lawful guardianship of her parents. Even though, the victim informed that her father is waiting in bus stand at Mahabubnagar. On the pretext of dropping the victim at Ramchandrapuram village, the accused took the victim on his motor cycle and on the way at Bokkalonipally Village limits, the accused diverted his motorcycle towards dried canal, where the accused took the victim forcibly into bushes, beat her with hands on forehead and forcibly had sexual intercourse with her; that when the victim tried to escape from the spot, again the accused beat the victim with the hands and in the mean time, the victim informed the matter to her father by weeping. Then, the father of the victim made phone call to the victim to know her location and also they passed the information to LW.5/Shiva Prasad. On receiving of information
LW.5/Shiva Prasad reached to the spot and observed the LW.5/Shiva Prasad, the accused fled away from the scene by leaving the chappal on the spot.
Then, LW.5/Shiva Prasad along with LW.1/father of the victim rescued the victim from the clutches of the accused and admitted her in the Government
General Hospital, Mahabubnagar for treatment.
5 Spl. S.C No.60 of 2025 ii)On 14-04-2025, at 12.30 A.M, the LW.1/father of the victim lodged complaint regarding this incident. Basing on the same,
LW.18/G.Vijaykumar, Sub-Inspector of Police registered in Crime
No.296/2025 for the offences U/Sec 64(1) of BNS and section 3 r/w 4 of
POCSO Act, 2012 and issued express FIR. Further, he addressed a letter to the Incharge Barosa Centre, Mahabubnagar, to visit the Government General
Hospital, Mahabubnagar with request to record the statement of the victim under Sec.180 of BNSS. Accordingly, the LW.17/K.Sujatha, Woman Sub
Inspector of Police, recorded the statement of the victim under Sec.180 of
BNSS. Further, the LW.18/G.Vijay Kumar gave a requisition to the Lady
Medical Officer, Government General Hospital, Mahabubnagar to examine the victim and furnish report. Because of the seriousness of the offence, subsequently, investigation was taken up by LW.19/B.Gandhi Naik.
iii)On 14-04-2025, the LW.19/B.Gandhi Naik visited the scene of offence at Bokkalonipally village limits and there recorded the statements of
LW.1/father of the victim and LWs.3 to 5 namely mother of the victim, elder sister of victim and brother-in-law of victim under Sec.183 of BNSS and in the presence of LWs.9 and 10 namely K.Venkatramulu Goud and
S.Umapathi observed the first scene of offence, prepared Crime Details
Form and rough sketch. From the scene, LW.19/B.Gandhi Naik, Circle 6 Spl. S.C No.60 of 2025
Inspector of police recovered one pair of chappal of the accused. From there, he along with the mediators proceeded to the SVS Hospital, Mahabubnagar, observed the scene of offence, prepared scene observation report and rough sketch. Further, he made requisition to the Magistrate to record the statement of the victim Under Sec.183 of BNSS.
iv)On 15-04-2025 on reliable information, the accused was apprehended at Bokkalonipally bus stage in front of Jaya Prakash Narayan Engineering
College, when he was proceeding on his motor cycle at 6.00 A.M and brought to Mahabubnagar Rural P.S and produced before the
LW.19/B.Gandhi Naik. On interrogation in the presence of LWs.11 and 12 namely B.Venkatesh and B.Yellappa Krishnaiah, the accused confessed about commission of the offence and from him, the motor cycle bearing
No.TG-06-0021 and underwear were recovered basing on such confession.
Then, he was referred to the Government General Hospital, Mahabubnagar for the purpose of potency test and health status report. After the test, he was arrested and produced before the Magistrate for the purpose of remand.
v)The LW.19/B.Gandhi Naik further collected bonafide certificate of the victim from the LW.7/R.Srinivas Reddy, who is the Head Master of the
Government High School OU Campus. As per the same, the date of birth of the victim is 05-06-2007 and the victim is minor by the date of alleged 7 Spl. S.C No.60 of 2025 offence. Further, the LW.19/B.Gandhi Naik recorded the statement of
LW.8/G.Ganesh. Further, he also recorded the statement of the
LW.7/R.Srinivas Reddy about issuing the bonafide certificate.
LW.13/Dr.A.Mamatha, Assistant Professor, Government General Hospital,
Mahabubnagar, who examined the victim, preserved the material objects like vaginal smears, black colour top blue colour bottom of the victim and
LW.18/G.Vijay Kumar, SI of police forwarded the same along with the chocolate colour underwear seized from the accused to FSL Hyderabad on 19-4-2025 for the purpose of analysis. The LW.15/G.Swarna Rani, Assistant
Director FSL, Hyderabad furnished report that human semen were detected on item no.5 but semen or spermatozoa are not detected on item nos.1 to 4 and no blood is detected on item nos.2 to 5. Basing on the FSL report, the
LW.13/Dr.A.Mamatha furnished final opinion that recent act of sexual intercourse is out. The LW.14/Dr.Sudhakar Suresh, Associate Professor,
Government General Hospital, Mahabubnagar, who examined the accused and gave certificate that it is nothing to suggest that the accused not capable of performing sexual intercourse. On the requisition of LW.19/B.Gandhi
Naik, the LW.16/Mohd Munawar Hussain, Judicial Magistrate recorded the statement of the victim under sec.183 of BNSS. Thus, the investigation 8 Spl. S.C No.60 of 2025 established that the accused committed the offences punishable U/Secs 87, 64(1) BNS and section 3 r/w 4 of POCSO Act, 2012.
3.The I Additional Sessions Court, Mahabubnagar-cum- designated Court for POCSO cases took the cognizance of the offences
U/Secs 87, 64(1) BNS and section 3 r/w 4 of POCSO Act, 2012 and made over to this Court as this Court is designated for trial of POCSO Cases.
4.After receiving the case file and after production of the accused before this Court from the District Jail, Mahabubnagar, he was furnished copies, charge framed under Secs 87, 64(1) BNS and section 3 r/w 4 of POCSO Act, 2012, for which the accused plead not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5.During the trial on behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 11 examined and Exs.P1 to P11, Ex.D1 and MOs.1 and 2 are marked. Ex.P1 is the complaint, Ex.P2 is the Crime Details Form, Ex.P3 is the Crime Details
Form, Ex.P4 is the bonafide certificate of the victim, Ex.P5 are the photographs of the motor cycle of the accused, Exs.P6 and P7 are the relevant portions of confession of the accused, Ex.P8 is the Potency report,
Ex.P9 is the FSL opinion, Ex.P10 is final opinion, Ex.P11 is the First
Information Report, 9 Spl. S.C No.60 of 2025
Ex.D1 is the portion of 161 Cr.P.C statement of complainant, MO.1 is the pair of chappals claimed to be seized from the scene of offence. MO.2 is the underwear recovered from the accused basing on the confession.
6.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C for which he denied the incriminating evidence and reported no defence evidence.
7.Heard both sides.
8.Now, the points for determination are:-
1) Whether the age of the victim in this case is below 18 years as on the date of offence?
2) Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the
accused kidnapped the victim and thereby committed the offence
punishable U/Sec 87 of BNS?
3) Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the
accused had forcibly sexual intercourse with the victim and thereby,
committed the offence punishable U/Sec 64(1) of BNS ?
4) Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the
accused committed rape on the victim, who is the minor and thereby, he
committed the offence punishable U/sec 3 r/w 4 of POCSO Act?
5) To what relief?
9. POINT No.1:
Whether the age of the victim in this case is below 18 years as on the date of offence?
10 Spl. S.C No.60 of 2025
The learned Addl.Public Prosecutor submitted that in this case, the police collected the bonafide certificate of the victim vide Ex.P4 from PW.5 and further-more, the victim also claimed that she is below 18 years and the bonafide certificate is the prima facie evidence of the age of the victim and as per the Ex.P4, the petitioner is born on 05-06-2007, whereas the offence took place on 13-04-2025, as such the age of the victim is below 18 years in this case.
The counsel for the accused submitted that Ex.P4 is not right certificate to prove the age of the victim and as per the admission made by
PW.1 who, is the father of the victim, the petitioner is born in October, 2006 and if that is a fact, the entries of Ex.P4 have to be proved to be genuine but however, no record is filed to prove entries of Ex.P4 and further-more, in this case as per the evidence of PW.5, who issued the Ex.P4, the victim studied only 6th class to 9th class only in this school and he do not know where the victim studied from 1st to 5th class and further-more, as per his version, basing on the record sheet of earlier school of the victim, the date of birth is mentioned in the Admission Register but however, the earlier school record is not filed and further-more, as per the admission made by PW.5 unless, he go through the school record, he cannot say where the victim studied 1st to 5th class. Not only that he do not know whether any birth 11 Spl. S.C No.60 of 2025 certificate is produced at the time of admission of the victim in first class, as such Ex.P4 cannot be given any credence and it will not prove the date of birth. He further submitted that in this case, the victim already completed 10th class and by the date of alleged offence, she was getting ready to join in
Lab Technician course. As the victim completed 10th class, the appropriate document is the Secondary School Certificate or Matriculation Certificate as proof of date of birth but not the bonafide certificate. He further submitted that admission of PW.5 show that unless he go through the school record, he cannot see who issued record sheet of earlier school and in those circumstances, it is clear that the age of the victim is not below 18 years as contested by the prosecution.
10. In support of the case of the accused, the counsel for the accused relied on the following decisions:-
a) Decision between Y.Srinivasa Rao V/s State of Andhra Pradesh in
Crl.Appeal No.687/1991 reported in 1995 Part-II ALD (Criminal) 451,
wherein the Hon’ble High Court considered the method of proving the date of birth of the victim. In this case, the Hon’ble High Court while making discussion at para no.4 observed that:- “In order to establish the fact that
the prosecutrix was below the age of 18 years on the date of incident. The
prosecution did not take any trouble to produce the positive evidence on
12 Spl. S.C No.60 of 2025
record in respect of the age of the prosecutrix. They have simply led the
evidence of the Principal, where the victim studied…
While joining the School, the prosecutrix had produced the School
Leaving Certificate from the earlier school where she had studied up to 4 th
standard. The said Transfer Certificate was not produced by PW. 7..
As a matter of fact, the prosecution ought to have led the evidence of
the Principal of the School where the prosecutrix was first admitted and he
ought to have been called upon to prove and produce the document which
was produced before him in respect of the age of the prosecutrix when she
was admitted in the School for the first time. That would have been a
proper evidence on the point of age of the prosecutrix. It can also be seen
from entire record that the prosecutrix was not sent to the Government
Hospital for carrying out the ossification test in order to establish the age
of the prosecutrix on the date of offence”.
b)The decision between Makhan V/s State of Madhya Pradesh in
Criminal Appeal No.132/2003 reported in 2003 Crimes 396, wherein the
Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court considered the method of proving the
age of the victim in the POCSO cases and the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh
High Court while making discussion at para no.7 observed that “the Division
Bench of this Court in the case of Munnalal V/s State of Madhya Pradesh,
13 Spl. S.C No.60 of 2025
has held that the best evidence for proving age of the prosecutrix is her
mother, father and birth certificate. When these witnesses have not been
examined and birth certificate has not been filed, entries in the school-
register alone could not be relied upon especially when the prosecution has
failed to lead evidence as to who has made entries in the school-register”.
At para no.8, the Hon’ble High Court also observed that :- “ In the
case of Umesh Chandra v/s State of Rajasthan and in the case of Raunki
Saroop v/s State, it has been held that entries in the school register are not
of much value unless there is evidence to show that on what material and
at whose instance, it is based”.
11.Basing on the Ex.P4, the prosecution is claiming that the victim is below 18 years as on the date of offence. However, Ex.P4 is given by PW.5 only basing on the entries made in the earlier school register, where the victim studied. The admission of PW.5 show that the victim studied in his school from 6th class to 9th class and he further claimed that he do not know, where the victim studied from 1st class to 5th class. He claimed that basing on the earlier school record sheet of the victim, the date of birth is mentioned in the admission register. However, the earlier school sheet of the victim is not produced before the court and as rightly argued by the counsel for the accused, the school where the prosecutrix had primary education have to 14 Spl. S.C No.60 of 2025 give the certificate regarding date of birth of the victim and further-more, there must be basis to mention such date of birth of the victim in the register and the basis must be either date of birth certificate given by the appropriate authority or basing on the statement of parents of the victim. In this case, no such date of birth of the victim is filed and further-more, father of the victim, who is examined as PW.1 was deposed that the victim is born in October, 2006, whereas in Ex.P4, it is mentioned as if the victim is born on 05-06-2007. The admission of PW.5 further show that she do not know whether any date of birth of the victim is produced when she was admitted in the 1st class and so also, he do not know, who admitted in the 1st class. In this case, the victim already completed 10th class by the date of alleged offence and she was preparing to attend the Lab Technician Course, even according to her evidence. In such case, the best piece of evidence with regard to her date of birth is Matriculation or Secondary School Certificate but not the date of birth certificate that too obtained from the school, where the victim studied only from 6th class to 10th class. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in the decision between P.Yuvaprakash V/s the State represented by
Inspector of Police in Crl.Appeal No.1898/2023 explained the mode of proving the date of birth in the cases in POCSO Act. The Hon’ble Supreme
Court relied on Sec.94 of Juvenile Justice Act, which provides for detention 15 Spl. S.C No.60 of 2025 and retention of the Juvenile and as per Sec.94 of Juvenile Justice Act, the first and foremost proof of the date of birth is the date of birth certificate from the school or the Matriculation or equallent certificate from the concerned examination Board and in the absence thereof, the birth certificate given by a Corporation or Municipality authority or a Panchayath or an
Ossification test or any other latest medical age determination test conducted on the orders of the Committee or the Board”.
12.So, it is clear that when the Secondary School Certificate is available, it is the first preference of date of birth of the victim. In this case even though, the victim completed Matriculation, either the investigating officer did not obtain the copy of the Secondary School Certificate or might have obtained the same but did not file the same to suppress the real date of birth of the victim. If the evidence of PW.1 that the victim is born in October, 2006 is taken into consideration, as on the date of offence, the age of the victim is above 18 years. As the victim studied only 6th class to 9th class in the school, where the PW.5 was Head Master, the bonafide certificate given by the PW.5 is not certificate to prove the date of birth of the victim, more particularly, when the victim already studied 10th class. Further-more, the earlier school register from where the victim studied primary school is not filed to show that basing on the entries of the earlier entries of the school 16 Spl. S.C No.60 of 2025 record, the date of birth is mentioned in Ex.P4. In those circumstances, the decisions relied by the counsel for the accused squarely applies to the present set of facts and it is clear that the prosecution failed to prove that the date of birth of the victim is 05-06-2007, as such she was minor by the date of alleged offence. Accordingly, this point is answered.
13.Point No.4:-
Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the
accused committed rape on the victim, who is the minor and thereby, he
committed the offence punishable U/sec 3 r/w 4 of POCSO Act?
In view of the discussion made in the point no.1, that the prosecution failed to prove that the victim is minor and below 18 years as on the date of alleged offence. In such case, even if for a moment, it is believed that the accused took away the victim and committed rape on her, at best the offence
U/Secs 87, 64(1) of BNS are made out but not the offence U/Sec 3 r/w 4 of
POCSO Act. Accordingly, this point is answered.
14.Point No.3:
Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the
accused had forcibly sexual intercourse with the victim and thereby,
committed the offence punishable U/Sec 64(1) of BNS ?
The learned Addl.Public submitted that in this case the victim herself gave statement against the accused that under the pretext that he will drop the victim at her sisters house at Ramachandrapuram village, took the 17 Spl. S.C No.60 of 2025 victim in another route and against the insistence of the victim, he stopped the vehicle by the side of the road and forcibly committed rape on the victim.
Further-more, basing on the confession made by the accused in the presence of the panch witnesses his motor cycle and underwear worn by the accused at the time of the commission of offence, were seized and the underwear was sent to FSL and FSL gave opinion about the presence of semen and spermatozoa on the underwear and it is clearly show that on the date of incident the accused committed rape forcibly against her will, as such the offence U/Sec 64(1) of BNS made out.
15.The counsel for the accused submitted that first and foremost major lacuna is neither the mobile number of the victim nor mobile number of the accused mentioned in the complaint to show from which mobile phone the victim and accused have conversation before they left to Ramachandrapuram village. He further submitted that mere presence of semen and spermatozoa on underwear of the accused do not prove the commission of offence because that underwear was collected days after the alleged offence and in this case as per the prosecution, after the PW.1 and PW.3 went to the scene and on seeing the accused ran away from the scene by leaving the motor cycle but however, no motor cycle was found at the scene of offence and the presence of the motor cycle was not mentioned in the scene observation 18 Spl. S.C No.60 of 2025 panchanama and it is clear that subsequently, the motor cycle of the accused was taken by the police and planted in this case. He further submitted that even the medical evidence is against the case of the prosecution because as per the opinion given by the Doctor examined as PW.8, recent sexual intercourse is ruled out and so in this case the medical evidence is also not supporting the prosecution case. He further submitted that there are material omissions in the evidence of PW.1 as well as PW.2 regarding what happened on the date of alleged incident and in this case prosecution failed beyond reasonable doubt to prove that the accused committed rape on the victim.
16.In view of the discussion made in point nos.1 and 2, it is proved that the victim is not minor as on the date of offence and so no presumption can be drawn under POCSO Act., that accused committed rape on the victim and the prosecution bound to prove that accused committed rape on the victim.
17.Before going to the evidence of the victim and her relatives, it is necessary to look into the Doctors evidence as to what extent, the medical evidence is supporting the prosecution case. PW.7 is the Doctor, who conducted potency test to the accused and his evidence proved that there is nothing to suggest that the accused is incapable of indulging in sexual intercourse. However, that itself is not a ground to believe that the accused committed rape on the victim. PW.8 is the Doctor, who did medical 19 Spl. S.C No.60 of 2025 examination to the victim and she collected vaginal swabs of the victim and sent to the FSL. As can be seen from the evidence of PW.8, after receiving the FSL opinion, she gave report vide Ex.P10 that sexual intercourse is ruled out. Not only that as can be seen from the admission of PW.8, that as per
Ex.P10, opinion no external injuries are found on the victim and likewise there are no injuries on the genital organ of the victim. Further-more, as per her admission, Ex.P9 FSL report show that no semen and spermatozoa are found on the vaginal smears or underwear of the victim. So-far as rupture of hymen is concerned, the evidence is that if any girl involves in sexual activity there will be repute of hymen.
18.As per admission of PW.8, such rupture is possible if the victim is indulging in sports activity. Even according to the admission made by PW.8, there are no external injuries on the victim and no injuries on the genital organ of the victim. If really the accused committed rape against the victim forcibly against her will, certainly there will be external injuries on the victim because of such struggle and likewise, there will be injuries on the private parts of the victim. Absence of these injuries create a doubt regarding the version of the prosecution. Further-more, as per the prosecution, semen and spermatozoa are found on the underwear of the accused but however, as per the evidence of PW.8 no such semen and spermatozoa are found on the 20 Spl. S.C No.60 of 2025 underwear of the victim. Even the Medical examination do not show any presence of semen or spermatozoa on the private parts of the victim. So, merely because there is rupture of hymen it cannot be readily inferred that there is a rape on the victim, as such in this case neither the FSL report nor the evidence of PW.8 is helpful to the prosecution case to prove the alleged offence. A clear finding was given by PW.8 in Ex.P10 that recent sexual intercourse is ruled out.
19.The victim in this case was examined immediately after the alleged offence; but the medical report ruled out such sexual intercourse. So, this court is of the opinion that medical evidence is against the case of the prosecution and finding of semen and spermatozoa on the undergarment of the accused do not help the prosecution case.
20.Now coming to the oral evidence of the witness, PW.1 is the father of the victim and as per his version after receiving the phone call from the victim, he went to the scene and as per admission made by him in his cross examination he do not see the accused there. He admitted that he do not know the details of the villagers, who passed the information through phone from the victim of location. Even though, he added that generally people will use that road during the morning; as per his version, during night time that road is not used by the public. He admitted that the mobile number of the 21 Spl. S.C No.60 of 2025 victim was not mentioned by him before the police. As can be seen from the admission made by PW.2, the victim, she is having a love affair with the accused from the past one year and in the statement of the PW.1, it is stated about the love affair with the victim and accused. However, PW.1 denied stating before the police as in Ex.D1 about the love affair between the victim and accused. Through the evidence of PW.1, the omission regarding the victim travelled in another bus after punctured tyre to the first bus is elicited.
Evidence of the PW.2/victim is crucial in this case to verify to what extent her evidence can be believed regarding the offence of rape. There are many omissions and contradictions in the evidence of the victim. In the chief examination, she claimed that while she was coming to the Mahabubnagar the accused made phone call to her to get down at Jadcherla claiming that he will drop at Mahabubnagar; that accordingly, she got down at Jadcherla but however, accused did not come there and asked her to come to SVS Hospital and in the meanwhile, the LW.5/PW.3 made phone call to her to come to
SVS Hospital for getting seat of Medical Lab Technician course, as such she went there in an auto and while she was waiting there, LW.5/PW.3 made phone call to her that he got some other work, as such directed her to go to house. This entire episode is not stated before the police and for the first time, she stated before the court. Likewise, in chief examination she deposed 22 Spl. S.C No.60 of 2025 as if she insisted the accused to drop her at Mahabubnagar bus stand but accused slapped her and took her away back and then when she was about to made phone call to her mother accused forcibly took her mobile phone and disconnected her and then she took the phone of the accused and thrown in fields. This fact is also not stated before the police and for the first time she stated before the Court. She further deposed that after rape seeing her condition, the passers by asked her about what happened and the accused came there and threatened them and that one lady, who was present there insisted her to hand over the mobile phone and then the accused gave the mobile and that the mobile phone that lady made phone call to her father.
This statement is also not stated before the police and the last part of the chief examination, the victim admitted about her love affair with the accused for the past two years. During the course of cross examination of PW.2, the omissions as mentioned supra were elicited. She admitted that either before the police or the statement given before the Magistrate, she did not disclose the mobile numbers of her or the accused. So-far as the love affair is concerned, she stated that she never informed her parents about the love with the accused. Now, Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of the victim is also to be looked into to know to what extent the victim is deposing correctly. As can be seen from the statement of the victim given before the PW.9/K.Sujatha, 23 Spl. S.C No.60 of 2025
WSI of police, it is stated before the PW.9 that after receiving the phone call from the accused, the victim got down at Jadcherla bus stand and from there went to SVS Hospital, Mahabubnagar on a bus, by the time she went there the accused was there, forcibly brought her on the motor cycle bring her to
Ramchandrapuram and that forcibly took the outskirts of Bokkalonipally
Village and there hit on her head and forcibly committed rape on her and while she was trying to run away, two persons who were went there and rescued her and took her and made phone call. As mentioned earlier most of the part of chief examination of the victim missing in the statement given to
PW.9. Likewise, statement of the victim before the Magistrate also have to be verified to know what extent, she stated before the Magistrate. The version given by the victim before the Magistrate is totally different from the version given before the PW.9. As per the version given before the
Magistrate, after the accused boarded the victim on the bike, he took her to
Bokkalonipally village and there when the accused was taking drugs she tried to ran away but the accused caught her and made her to smell the drugs, as such she fainted and at about 6.30 P.M, when the phone was vibrating she woke up and at that the time she was not wearing pant and that she lifted the phone call and informed her father about her location and in the meanwhile, the accused again beat her with the bottle and stone on her face. Further, 24 Spl. S.C No.60 of 2025 throttled her and caused several injuries. In fact, the physical examination of the victim by the PW.8 do not reveal any such injuries as stated by the victim
before the Magistrate. So, the medical evidence is not supporting the version
of the victim about accused attacking her with beer bottle and stone and causing other injuries. Not only that as discussed earlier, there are no external injuries on the victim and likewise there are no injuries on her private parts and no semen and spermatozoa were detected either on the clothes of the victim or on her private parts. As discussed earlier, if really the accused committed rape on the victim forcibly against her will, certainly injuries will be there on the body of the victim. The version given by the victim before the Court, police and Magistrate are different. Before the
Magistrate she stated as the accused is made her to smell the drug and
because of the same she fainted and when she woke up she was not having pant. This version is totally different from the version given before the police and before this Court and before police she stated that as if while she was awake forcibly raped by the accused. These material omissions and contradictions are going to the root of the case to doubt the veracity of the victim about alleged rape.
21.Now coming to the evidence of PW.3, who is brother-in-law of the victim, his version is that after receiving PW.1 phone call, he along with 25 Spl. S.C No.60 of 2025
PW.1 went to Bokkalonipally village and by the time he went there, the accused was there and on seeing them, the accused escaped from there and when he tried to catch the accused the accused threatened the victim. This is different version given by the PW.1 because as per the version given by the
PW.1, on the date of incident, he did not see the accused. He nowhere deposed that by the time he went to the scene, the accused was there. As per the prosecution case, PWs.1 and 3 together went to the scene. In such case
PW.1 not seeing the accused and PW.3 seeing the accused at the scene do not arise. So, the version of the PW.3 that by the time he went to the scene, the accused was there and he threatened to kill, appears to be an exaggeration for the purpose of this case. As per the admission of PW.3, he has knowledge of the love affair between the victim and accused from the past one year.
22.PW.4 is panch witness for the scene observation and as per his version first they went to outskirts of Bokkalonipally village and there scene of offence observed and pair of chappal were recovered and from there they went to SVS hospital and second scene, he observed and nothing is elicited from his cross examination to doubt his veracity. As can be seen from his evidence, no motor cycle was found at the scene and if really the motor cycle of the accused was left and he ran away the motor cycle will be seized from 26 Spl. S.C No.60 of 2025 the scene but in this case in the presence of PW.4 no such motor cycle was seized from the outskirts of Bokkalonipally village.
23.PW.6 is the crucial witness and according to his evidence, accused confessed about the commission of the offence in his presence and he produced the MO.2 underwear and also shown the motor cycle in the premises of the police station. So-far as MO.2 underwear concerned, as discussed earlier, though as per the FSL report semen and spermatozoa were found, in this case no semen and spermatozoa are found on the private parts of the victim or on the garments of the victim, as such only because of semen and spermatozoa were found on the MO.2 underwear, it cannot be believed that the accused was wearing that underwear at the time of the alleged offence. So-far as motor cycle is concerned, as per the version of PW.6, at the time of alleged confession of the accused already the motor cycle was in the police station. As discussed earlier in the presence of the PW.4 no motor cycle was seized from the scene of offence. In such case, how the motor cycle came to the police station is to be explained by the prosecution but there is no evidence from where the motor cycle was recovered. So, it appears that subsequently motor cycle of the accused was taken into custody by the police from the accused. So-far as inculpatory portion of confession 27 Spl. S.C No.60 of 2025 of the accused before the police, as that confession is recorded in the police station in the presence of police it cannot be taken into consideration.
24.Coming to the cross examination of PW.6, he admitted that at request of PW.1, he went to the police station and there the police requested him to act as witness. His clear admission show that he do not know what is mentioned in panchanama. So, it appears that the police obtained his signature on panchanama without explained the contents to him.
25.PW.7 is the Doctor, who conducted potency test to the accused and gave Ex.P8 report and as per his version, the police constable, who brought the accused to him identified by him. Nothing is elicited from the cross examination of PW.7 to show that the accused was not examined by him.
26.PW.9 in this case is the Woman Sub Inspector police, who recorded the statement of the victim and from her evidence, the omissions in the statement of the victim was elicited. She further admitted that the victim stated before her about the love affair between the victim and the accused.
As mentioned earlier, the statement given before the PW.9 is totally different from the statement given before the Magistrate and there are major variations in the statements.
28 Spl. S.C No.60 of 2025
27.PW.10 is the first investigation officer who issued FIR in this case vide Ex.P11. He admitted that as per the complaint the accused used to follow the victim in the name of love and the complainant admonished him.
Except that nothing is elicited from his cross examination to show that no such complaint was given. So, his evidence is proved giving of complaint by the PW.1 against the accused.
28.PW.11 is the second investigation officer, who did almost all the investigation in this case. He admitted that PW.1 stated before him as in
Ex.D1 that the accused and the victim are loved with each other. He also admitted that he did not seize the mobile phones of the accused, victim and her father to know from which mobile the victim and accused used to talk with each other. He also admitted that he did not examine the owners of the agriculture lands near the second scene of offence. This question is asked because the PW.3 during his cross examination admitted that there are lands on either side of the road, where the offence took place. However, as per the prosecution case the offence took place at late night, as such there is no possibility of presence of the people in agriculture lands. So, in this case even though the investigation officer did not examine the neighbours of the second scene of offence, the accused cannot take advantage of the same. A clear admission was made by PW.11 that by the time he visited the scene of 29 Spl. S.C No.60 of 2025 offence the motor cycle of the accused was not there. The counsel for the accused claimed that as per the version of PW.3, the accused ran away from that place. In fact PW.3 nowhere deposed that the accused ran away from that place. He only deposed that the accused escaped from that place but he did not specifically whether the accused escaped on the motor cycle or by foot. In this case the panch witness for scene observation also nowhere deposed about presence of the motor cycle at the scene of offence. As discussed earlier, by the time of alleged confession of the accused before the
PW.6 already motor cycle was in the police station and it appears that subsequently, the police brought that motor cycle and kept the same in the police station premises. The evidence of PW.11 shows that, PW.3 did not state before him that accused escaped from the second scene from his motor cycle. However, PW.3 nowhere deposed that the accused escaped from there on the bike or foot. PW.11 claimed that, the MO.1 chappals of the accused were recovered from the scene as per the statement given by him. The admission of PW.11 show that the victim nowhere mentioned that the chappal belongs to the accused. Further-more, no evidence is there to show that those chappals belongs to the accused. As per the admission of PW.11, at the time of the confession of the accused, he was present there, which means the confession of the accused was taken in the presence of police, as 30 Spl. S.C No.60 of 2025 such there is possibility of the police influencing the accused to give such confession and so, confession regarding the commission of offence is barred under Sec.23(1) of BSA.
29.So, the appreciation of the evidence of witnesses coupled with the documentary evidence, it creates a doubt regarding rape of the victim by the accused. The victim gave different version before the police and Magistrate and there are material omissions and contradictions in her evidence. Not only that medical evidence is not supporting the case of the prosecution because no external injuries were found and no injuries were found on private parts of the victim. Likewise, the Doctors evidence show that there is no evidence of recent sexual intercourse. It cannot be presumed that in these type of cases that the woman will not put her character at stake for the purpose of falsely implicating the accused. This was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision between Pandurang Sitaram Bhagwat V/s State of
Maharashtra reported in 2005(1) ALD (Crl.) 379 (SC). In that decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India while making discussion at para no.16 observed that “the approach of the learned Trial Judge as noticed supra
that ordinarily a lady would not "put her character at stake" may not be
wrong but cannot be applied universally. Each case has to be determined
on the touchstone of the factual matrix thereof”.
31 Spl. S.C No.60 of 2025
30.So, merely because the victim stated that she was raped by the accused, it cannot be believed that such offence took place, when the scientific evidence is not supporting the prosecution and when there are material omissions and contradictions in the evidence of the victim from the statement given by the police and before the Magistrate. By taking all these facts into consideration, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt to show that the accused committed rape on the victim and accordingly, this point is answered.
31.Point No.2:-
Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the
accused kidnapped the victim and thereby committed the offence
punishable U/Sec 87 of BNS?
As can be seen from the kidnap under Sec.87 of BNS, the kidnap need not be only for compelling the victim to marry but may be with intention to compel the victim to have illegal intercourse. In the light of discussion made in point nos.3 and 4, in this case the prosecution failed to show that the accused committed rape on the victim. Now, it is to be seen whether the accused kidnapped the victim or abducted her from the lawful guardianship.
As can be seen from the facts of the case, the victim and accused are loving each other from the past one year. As per the statement given by the victim 32 Spl. S.C No.60 of 2025
before the police on the request of the accused, he went to SVS hospital, and
from there against the advise of the victim forcibly the accused took her on the motor cycle. Likewise, the statement given by the victim before the
Magistrate the accused boarded the victim on the motor cycle and took her to
the scene of offence. The victim, who is examined as PW.2 claimed that while she was waiting for the LW.5/PW.3 at SVS hospital, Mahabubnagar, the accused came there and proposed to drop her at her sister’s house, as such she brought on a motor cycle. So, from the version given by the PW.2, she voluntarily got on the motor cycle as the accused assured the victim dropped her at sisters house, whereas as per the statement given before the police and Magistrate, she was forced to get on the motor cycle and forcibly took the victim on his motor cycle. There are two versions given by the victim once before the court and on before the police and Magistrate.
Further-more, if really the accused forcibly got the victim on the motor cycle and took her away, as victim was at SVS hospital, which is busy locality, she could have raised cries to prevent the accused from taking her away.
However, it is clear that as the accused and victim are loving with each other, the victim got on the motor cycle of the accused, as such this Court is of the opinion that the victim willfully went on motor cycle of the accused and that the accused did not force her to get on a motor cycle and did not 33 Spl. S.C No.60 of 2025 take away her forcibly. In the light of the discussion made in point no.3, it is clear that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused committed rape on the victim. In such case, the very case of the prosecution that accused kidnapped the victim with an intention to commit rape on her is also not proved. Not only that in this case in the light of discussion made in point no.1, it is proved that the victim is above 18 years, by the date of alleged offence and she is a major and in such case, the question of kidnapping from the lawful guardianship do not arise. If all these facts taken into consideration, this court is of the opinion that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused kidnapped the victim with intention to illegal intercourse with her. Accordingly, this point is answered.
32. To what relief?
1]In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable
U/Sec.3 r/w 4 of POCSO Act and accordingly, he is acquitted U/Sec 258(1) of BNSS.
2]The accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec 64(1) of BNS and accordingly, he is acquitted U/Sec 258(1) of BNSS.
3]The accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec 87(1) of BNS and accordingly, he is acquitted U/Sec 258(1) of BNSS and 34 Spl. S.C No.60 of 2025 the accused is in jail shall be released forthwith, if he is not required in any case. MOs.1 and 2 and other non-valuable property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.
4] The interim custody of vehicle bearing number TG-06-0021 ordered in
Crl.M.P.No.235/2025 shall be release absolute after expirty of appeal time.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected
and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 18th day of September, 2025.
I Addl.District & Sessions Judge, FAC The Fast Track Special Court for Expeditious Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases, Mahabubnagar.
A ppendix of Evidence
(Witnesses examined)
On behalf of Prosecution:
PW.1 Father of the Victim (Identity not disclosed). PW.2 Victim (Identity not disclosed). PW.3 Brother-in-law of the victim (Identity not disclosed). PW.4 K.Venkatramulu Goud, PW.5 R.Srinivas Reddy, PW.6 V.Venkatesh, PW.7 Dr.Sudhakar Suresh, PW.8 Dr.A.Mamatha, PW.9 K.Sujatha, Woman Sub Inspector of police, PW.10 G.Vijay Kumar, Sub Inspector of police, PW.11 B.Gandhi Naik, Circle Inspector of police.
On behalf of Defence: - Nil - 35 Spl. S.C No.60 of 2025
Exhibits marked
On behalf of Prosecution:
Ex.P1 is the complaint, Ex.P2 is the Crime Details Form, Ex.P3 is the Crime Details Form, Ex.P4 is the bonafide certificate of the victim, Ex.P5 are the photographs of the motor cycle of the accused, Exs.P6 and P7 are the relevant portions of confession of the accused, Ex.P8 is the Potency report, Ex.P9 is the FSL opinion, Ex.P10 is final opinion, Ex.P11 is the First Information Report,
On behalf of Defence:
Ex.D1 is the portion of 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.1.
Material Objects marked
MO.1 is the pair of chappals, MO.2 is the underwear.
I Addl.District & Sessions Judge, FAC The Fast Track Special Court for Expeditious Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases, Mahabubnagar.