K Kusha

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

Suryapet, PDJ Court Complex · Suryapet · Telangana

K Kusha, Fast Track Special Court for expeditious Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases, Suryapet, is posted at Suryapet, PDJ Court Complex, Suryapet, Telangana, India. 107 court orders on record since 2023. 10 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CRLMP, MVOP, SC cases.

107

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

SC.POCSO/146/2019 Acquitted

Yellavulla Rama Lingam @ Rama vs Mekala Vinodh

14 Jun 2023

Judgment in SC. 146 OF 2019 1 of 13 dated : 14.06.2023

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

RAPE AND POCSO ACT CASES, SURYAPET.

PRESENT: SRI. K. KUSHA, I ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE: FAC: SPL.SESSIONS JUDGE ,

SURYAPET.

(DATED THS THE 14 th DAY OF JUNE, 2023)

SC No. 146 OF 2019

1. Name of the : The State of Telangana through Sub- complainant Inspector of Police of PS Penpahad.

2. Name of the Accused : Mekala Vinodh, S/o. Anjaiah, Age: 20 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Lingala Village of Penpahad Mandal.

3. Offence under Section : 306 IPC.

4. Cr. No. and Name of : Cr. No. 142/2015 of Police station Penpahad. Police Station

5. P.R.C. No. : --

6. Case committed by : --

7. Plea of the accused : Not guilty

8. Finding of the Court : Not guilty

9. Sentence or Order : In the result, the accused is found not guilty of the offence punishable under section 306 or 305 IPC & Sec., 11 r/w 12 of POCSO Act-2012 and accordingly he is acquitted under section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled, after expiry of appeal time. M.O.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. M.Os.2 an 3 shall be returned to person entitled after expiry of appeal on application.

10 Prosecution conducted by : Sri. K. Ram Reddy, Addl. Public Prosecutor 11 Defence conducted by : Sri. Bagala Narasimha, Counsel for accused,

Judgment in SC. 146 OF 2019 2 of 13 dated : 14.06.2023

` This case coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. K. Ram Reddy, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State and Sri. Bagala Narasimha, Counsel for the accused, and upon perusal of the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

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

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Penpahad Police station has filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr. No. 142/2015 for the offence Under Section 306

IPC.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:

a) On 26.10.2015 at 11.00 hours, LW.1/Yellavula Rama Lingam @ Rama

Lingaiah lodged a complaint stating that he is having two daughters and a son. His younger daughter namely Shravani is studying 10th class in ZPHS, Lingala village.

For the past one month, his villager i.e., accused started to follow the deceased/Shravani, while going to school and returning into home by saying that he has fallen love with her and harassed her saying that “Nenu Ninnu

Premisthunnanu, Nuvvukooda Nannu Preminchale, lekapothe champuthanu”, due to unbearable harassments of the accused, she informed the same to her parents with tears and they went to the house of the accused and informed the same to his parents and warned him not to harass his daughter, but he did not change his attitude and sent obscene messages to the cell phone of him. Again on 25.10.2015 night at 9.39 PM, the accused sent obscene messages to their cell phone. To avoid the phone calls of the accused, his daughter put his number in block. Though, the accused tortured her with messages. For which, she felt insult, while they were in slumber, after midnight i.e., on 26.10.2015 at 2.30 a.m., his daughter vexed on her life, due to unbearable harassments of the accused and she consumed an insecticide poison. Immediately they shifted her to Government Area Hospital,

Suryapet. Later shifted her to a private hospital for better treatment, but his daughter died. Hence, he requested to take necessary action against accused.

b) Basing on the above complaint, LW.14/M. Jaffer Baig, Asst.Sub-Inspector of

Police, Penpahad Police station registered the case in Cr. No. 142/2015 U/sec. 306

IPC and took up the investigation.

Judgment in SC. 146 OF 2019 3 of 13 dated : 14.06.2023

c) During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statement of LW-1 and later visited the scene of offence i.e., the house of LW-1 situated at

Lingala village, where he examined and recorded the statements of LW- 2/Yellavula Nagamma, LW-3/Yellavula Venkateshwarlu and LW-4/Gorla Yashodha and conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of LW-9/Lodangi

Saidulu and LW-10/Beesam Kavitha and seized Monocrotophas poison bottle and mobile phone of LW-1 and drawn rough sketch. LW-13/Dr. T.C. Sravanthi conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, preserved viscera contents for the purpose of chemical analysis and reserved her opinion pending

FSL report. Further LW-14 examined LWs-5 to 8 and recorded their statements.

d) On 30.10.2015 at 08.00 hours, LW-14 arrested the accused and recorded confessional statement of the accused in the presence of panchas i.e., LW- 11/Vuppunoothula Venkanna and LW-12/Gorla Vijay and seized mobile phone from the possession of the accused under cover of panchanama in the presence of same panchas and sent the accused for judicial remand. After collecting the medical certificate and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence under section 306 IPC. Hence, the charge.

3. This case was taken on file by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Suryapet for the offences under section 306 IPC against the accused and summons was issued to him. Thereafter, the case was made over to this court consequent to establishment of this court for disposal in accordance with law. On appearance of the accused before this court, he was supplied with the copies of relevant documents.

4. On appearance of the accused in this court, after hearing both the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor for the prosecution and the learned counsel for the

accused and upon considering the material on record, a charge under Section 305

IPC & Sec., 11 r/w 12 of POCSO Act-2012 have been framed against him, read over and explained to him in his known language for which he denied the

Judgment in SC. 146 OF 2019 4 of 13 dated : 14.06.2023

` allegation, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined LW.1/ Y. Rama

Lingam is the complainant as PW.1, LW-2/Y. Nagamma is the circumstantial witness as PW.2 and LW.3/Yellavula Venkateshwarlu is the circumstantial witness as PW-3, LW-9/L. Saidulu is the witness for scene, seizure and inquest as PW-4,

LW-11/Vuppunoothula Venkanna is the panch for confession & seizure as PW-5,

LW-13/Dr. T. Chaitanya Sravanthi, Civil Assistant Surgeon, who conducted Post

Mortem Examination as PW-6, LW-14/M. Jaffer Baig, Investigating Officer as

PW.7, LW-15/V. Janaiah, another Investigating Officer as PW-8 and one

Y. Madhusudhan /Head Master is examined as per the orders of this Court vide

Crl.M.P. No. 156 of 2022 as PW-9, who issued bonafide certificate and given up all

other cited witnesses and prosecution evidence was closed.

6. After, closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under

Section 313 Cr.P.C. for which he denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution and pleaded false implication.

However, he did not choose to lead any kind of evidence in defence.

7. Heard arguments from both sides.

8. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submits that the prosecution has examined Pws-1 to 9 coupled with Exs.P-1 to P-10 and M.Os.1 to 3, the prosecution has proved its case against the accused and thus, the accused is liable to be punished in accordance with law.

9. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the accused would submits that there is no trustworthy evidence on record and that no reliance can be placed in the evidence of Pws-1 to 9 and that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and thus, the accused has to be acquitted.

Judgment in SC. 146 OF 2019 5 of 13 dated : 14.06.2023

10. Now the point for consideration is, “Whether the prosecution has proved its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:

11. To bring home the guilt of the accused, the question is whether a case under Section 305 IPC & Sec., 11 r/w 12 of POCSO Act-2012 have been made out by the prosecution.

12. In a criminal trial, the burden of proving everything is essential to establish the charge against the accused is always rests on the prosecution and there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused until and unless the contrary is proved. Criminality is not to be presumed; subject to, of course, to some statutory exception.

13. Before adverting the evidence of the prosecution, it is proper to have a bird’s eye view over the provision under Section 305 IPC & Sec., 11 r/w 12 of

POCSO Act-2012.

The offence under Section 305 of IPC Abetment of suicide of child or insane

person:- “if any person under eighteen years of age, any insane person, any delirious person, any idiot, or any person in a state of intoxication, commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, and shall also be liable to fine”

The offence under Section 11 of POCSO Act-2012 Sexual harassment:- “A person is said to commit sexual harassment upon a child when such person with sexual intent”.

The offence under Section 12 of POCSO Act-2012 Punishment for Sexual

harassment:- “Whoever, commits sexual harassment upon a child shall be

Judgment in SC. 146 OF 2019 6 of 13 dated : 14.06.2023

` punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extent to three years and shall also be liable to fine”.

14.In the light of the above statutory provision and cardinal principles of criminal jurisprudence, what is the evidence adduced by the prosecution in this case has to be looked into.

15. The police has filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence

U/sec., 306 IPC. Since the deceased girl is under the age of the majority, as such this court has altered the charge for the offence U/sec., 306 IPC into Sec., 305

IPC and Sec., 11 r/w 12 of POCSO Act-2012. In both the offence the common ailment is of abetment. Therefore, the prosecution has to establish that the accused has abetted the deceased minor girl pushing her to commit suicide.

16. As can be seen from the evidence on record, there is no dispute with regard to death of the deceased/Y. Shravani, who is aged about 15 years at the time of death.

17. PWs-1 to 3 are the parents and brother of the deceased/Yellavula Shravani.

According to them, the deceased while pursuing 10th class at ZPHS, Lingala

Village, the accused is behind her, while going to school and returning into home by saying that he has fallen love with her and asked her to reciprocate the same and by saying so used to follow her, failing which he will see her end. Their evidence further goes to show that the deceased informed to them, for which they went to the house of the accused and admonished him and inspite of it the accused used to follow and used to send some obscene messages over mobile phone and unable to bear persistent harassments, the deceased has committed suicide by consuming pesticide.

18. Sum and substance evidence of PWs-1 to 3 are that the accused persistent harassed the deceased/Y. Shravani by that he has fallen love with her and asked her to consent for it, if not kill her.

Judgment in SC. 146 OF 2019 7 of 13 dated : 14.06.2023

19. The defence of the accused is of total denial.

20. PW-1 is the father of the deceased has admitted during cross examination that he do not know the contents of the messages through mobile phone sent by the accused and further admits that he do not know the mobile phone number of the accused. The testimony of PW-1 is that the accused started sending messages to his mobile phone through other cell phone by demanding his daughter to consent love or else die. Further, threatened to kill her, if she failed to accept his love.

21. PW-2 is the mother of the deceased/Y. Shravani also admitted that she do not know the contents of the messages that was sent to the mobile phone of PW-1 and she cannot tell the cell number of the accused. PW-3, who is brother of the deceased has deposed that he came to know about the harassment made by the accused through his parents. PWs-1 and 2 are not able to give as to what type of messages, the accused used to sent to the mobile phone of PW-1 or the deceased.

22. Be that as it may, the evidence of PW-4 is one of the mediators for scene observation panchanama and seizure has deposed that police came to the house of PW-1 and conducted panchanama in his presence and another and seized

M.O.1/pesticide bottle by name “Monokem” and M.O. 2/Mobile phone manufactured by G-Power. Police has seized M.Os.1 and 2 under cover of panchanama. Exs.P2 to P4 are the scene of offence panchanama, rough sketch and inquest panchanama, which are not in dispute. According to prosecution,

M.O.2/mobile phone belongs to PW-1.

23. PW-5 is another mediator for arrest and seizure of M.O.3/mobile phone from the possession of the accused has deposed that the police have arrested the accused and on interrogation he confessed about the commission of offence and then seized M.O.3/mobile phone. Ex.P5 is the relevant portion of confession-cum- seizure panchanama.

Judgment in SC. 146 OF 2019 8 of 13 dated : 14.06.2023

24. PW-6 is the medical officer, who conducted Post Mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased/Y. Shravani, whose evidence is not in dispute.

Ex.P6 is the FSL report and Ex.P7 is the Post Mortem examination report.

25. PWs-7 and 8 are the Investigating Officers, who have deposed as to line of their investigation and filling of charge sheet. Ex.P8 is the FIR.

26. PW-9 is the Head Master, who deposed as to issuance of Ex.P9/Bonafide certificate and Ex.P10 /extract of the admission register of the deceased/Y.

Shravani.

27. PW-7 is the first Investigating Officer has deposed in the cross examination that whether M.O.1 contains SIM card or not. Further admitted that he has not collected any documentary evidence to show that the SIM no. 9848671531 is in the name of PW-1. Similarly, he admitted that he has not collected any information with regard to SIM card of the accused at the time of seizure of M.O.3 and further he admitted that he has not collected any information with regard to the call data of the SIM card of the accused. Except oral evidence of PWs-1 to 3, there is no other evidence to show that the accused used to forward the obscene messages to the mobile phone of the deceased/Y. Shravani or to the mobile phone of PW-1 and

M.O.3 from the accused, but did not collect any call data records. Therefore, the oral evidence of PWs-1 to 3 goes uncorroborated with regard to sending of obscene messages to the mobile phone of PW-1 or to the mobile phone of the deceased by the accused.

28. Whether the accused proposing love and marriage to the deceased and insisting her to consent for the same either through mobile phone or by stalking amounts to commission of abetment of suicide. The accused is facing a charge

U/sec.,306 IPC and subsequent, thereto, the said charge has been altered into sec.,305 IPC in addition to charge under sec., 11 r/w 12 of POCSO Act-2012 by considering the age of the deceased.

Judgment in SC. 146 OF 2019 9 of 13 dated : 14.06.2023

29. In order to constitute an offence of abetment, invariable the prosecution has to make out a case of any instigation or engages or intentional aids, so as to punish the accused either U/sec., 305 or 306 IPC and Sec.,11 r/w 12 of POCSO

Act-2012.

30. PWs-7 and 8, who are Investigating Officers having collected mobile phones from PW-1 and accused, but they did not collect call data records to show that the accused used to contact the deceased through the mobile phone of PW-1, neither PW-1 nor PW-2 and 3 having seen the obscene messages sent to the mobile phone of PW-1 did not choose to lodge any complaint. In fact, PWs-1 to 3 have not seen the accused behind the deceased while going to school or returning to home. Therefore, it is very difficult to accept their testimonies as to what language the accused has attributed the deceased while going to school and returning to home.

31. No call data or messages has been retrieved from the mobile phones (M.O.2 and 3). PWs-7 and 8 did not choose to forward the same to FSL for retrieving the call data records or messages as the case may be. The prosecution is trying to suppress the material facts with regard to obscene messages forwarded by the accused to the mobile phone of PW-1, if produce is favouring the accused or going against the prosecution. So, the theory of the prosecution case with regard to sending of obscene messages to the deceased to the mobile phone of PW-1 towards suspicious/doubt. It is settled law that the suspicion, is however, grave and strong cannot substitute the place of legal proof.

32. It is not the case of the prosecution that the obscene messages sent by the accused to the mobile phone of PW-1 has been deleted or trashed. PWs-7 and 8, who are the investigating officers having collected the mobile phones from PW-1 and accused, but did not choose to collect any messages or call data records.

According to prosecution, on seeing obscene messages forwarded by the accused to the mobile phone of PW-1 and on seeing the same the deceased got distributed and committed suicide. Therefore, non retrieving call data records and messages

Judgment in SC. 146 OF 2019 10 of 13 dated : 14.06.2023

` from mobile phone is fatal to the case of prosecution with regard to sending of obscene messages by the accused. The defence of the accused is that the parents of the deceased intended to perform the marriage of the deceased with one

Venkanna, which was not acceptable by her, as such she taken extreme steps in committing suicide. The said defence is more probabilized about the death of the deceased, as the prosecution failed to connect or establish the nexus between the crime and accused. Therefore, the oral evidence of PWs-1 to 3 is not sufficient enough to come to conclusion that the accused has abetted the commission of suicide. To assert the expression, it is worthwhile to mention in the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in between the Geo Varghese Vs. State of

Rajasthan, dt.05.10.2021, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court is held as under:

“ what is required to constitute an alleged commitment of

suicide U/sec., 306 IPC is there must be an allegation of either

direct or indirect act of incitement to the commission of offence

of suicide and mere allegations of harassment of the deceased

by another person would not be sufficient in itself, unless, there

are allegations of such actions on the part of the accused which

compelled the commission of suicide. Further if the person

committing suicide is hypersensitive and the allegations

attributed to the accused is otherwise not ordinarily expected to

induce a similarly situated person to take the extreme step of

committing suicide, it would be unsafe to hold that the accused

guilt of abetment of suicide”

33. The deceased has consumed pesticide poison when her family members were under sleep. What messages sent by the accused has not seen the day of light.

The oral evidence of PWs-1 to 3, who are parents and brother of the deceased goes to un-corroborated. Therefore, no implicit reliance can be placed. Alright, the oral evidence of Pw-1 to 3 is considered as it stands, whether their evidence falls within the ambit of “instigation” or “intentional aiding”. The second ingredient does not attract for want of the immediate presence of the accused at

Judgment in SC. 146 OF 2019 11 of 13 dated : 14.06.2023

` the time of deceased committing suicide. Then there lefts “instigation”. To put an end to this, it is worthwhile to mention judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court of India reported in 2010(3) ALT(Crl)392(SC) S.S. Cheena Vs. Vijay Kumar

Mahajam, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court is held as under; “Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a

person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing.

Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate

or aid in committing suicide. Conviction cannot be sustained.

The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases

decided by this Court is clear that in order to convict a person

U/sec., 306 IPC there has to be a clear “mensrea” to commit

the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which

led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and that

act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a

position that he/she committed suicide”.

34. If the expression of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India is considered and apply to the case in hand, it can be said that the prosecution miserable failed to make out a case of “instigation or intentional adding” so as to bring home the guilt of the accused for the charged offence.

35. In the light of above discussion and in the touch stone principles laid down in the judgment supra, this court is not inclined to accept the prosecution evidence to base a conviction as it does not inspire any confidence in the mind of the court that the accused has committed the offence of which he has been charged.

36. On carefully examination of the oral evidence of PWs-1 to 9 coupled with

Exs.P1 to P10 and M.Os.1 to 3, this court feels that the prosecution has utterly failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the charged offence. Consequent, thereto, the accused has to be acquitted.

Point answered accordingly.

37. In the result, the accused is found not guilty of the offence punishable under section 306 or 305 IPC & Sec., 11 r/w 12 of POCSO Act-2012 and accordingly he is acquitted under section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall

Judgment in SC. 146 OF 2019 12 of 13 dated : 14.06.2023

` stands cancelled, after expiry of appeal time. M.O.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. M.Os.2 and 3 shall be returned to person entitled after expiry of appeal on application.

Partly typed to my dictation, partly dictated to the Stenographer Gr.II, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the14th day of June, 2023.

JUDGE, SPL.FAST TRACK COURT

FOR DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND POCSO ACT CASES,

SURYAPET.

::APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE::

Witnesses examined on behalf of

PW-1 LW-1 Yellavula Rama Lingam Complainant PW-2 LW-2 Yellavula Nagamma Mother of the deceased PW-3 LW-3 Yellavula Elder brother of the Venkateshwarlu deceased PW-4 LW-9 Lodandi Saidulu Panch for scene seizure and inquest PW-5 LW-11 Vuppunoothula Panch for confession & Venkanna Seizure PW-6 LW-13 Dr. T. Chaitanya Conducted Post Mortem Sravanthi Examination report PW-7 LW-14 M.Jaffer Baig Investigating Officer PW-8 LW-15 V. Janaiah Investigating Officer PW-9 --- Y. Madhusudhan Head Master

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE:

None

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1 Complaint Ex.P2 scene of offence panchanama and seizure panchanama Ex.P3 Rough sketch Ex.P4 Inquest panchanama Ex.P5 Confession-cum-seizure panchanama Ex.P6 FSL report Ex.P7 Post Mortem Examination report Ex.P8 First Information Report Ex.P9 Bonafide certificate

Judgment in SC. 146 OF 2019 13 of 13 dated : 14.06.2023

` Ex.P10 Extract of the admission register

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE: -Nil- : MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED: M.O.1: Insecticide poison M.O.2: cell phone M.O.3: black colour

JUDGE, SPL.FAST TRACK COURT

FOR DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND POCSO ACT CASES,

SURYAPET.

SC.POCSO/165/2022 Acquitted

State of Telangana vs Vsvadthya Rakesh

23 Jun 2023

IN THE COURT OF THE SPL.FAST TRACK COURT FOR

DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND POCSO ACT CASES, SURYAPET.

(DAETD, THIS, THE 23rd DAY OF JUNE, 2023)

PRESENT: SRI. K. KUSHA, I ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE: FAC: SPL.SESSIONS JUDGE ,

SURYAPET.

SESSIONS CASE No.165 of 2022

IN CRIME NO. 38 of 2022 (P.S. Athmakur -S) Name of the Station House Sub-Inspector of Police, Athmakur-S.

Officer

Names of the accused Vadthya Rakesh, S/o. Late Laxman, Age: 22 years, Occ: Tractor driver, R/o. Pottisurya thanda, H/o. Dacharam village, Athmakur-S mandal, N/o. Rakamcherla village, Poduru Mandal, Vikarabad District. Offences charged Under Sections 363, 376 IPC & Sec., 5(l) r/w 6 of POCSO Act-2012. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the Judge : Found not guilty.

Sentence or order In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under sections 363, 376 IPC & Sec., 5(l) r/w 6 of POCSO Act-2012 and accordingly, they are acquitted under section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The accused shall be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other matter. M.O.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. Prosecution conducted by Sri. K. Ram Reddy, Addl. Public Prosecutor.

Defence conducted by : Sri. R. Yadhagiri, counsel for accused.

R. Yad

This case coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. K. Ram Reddy, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State and Sri. R. Yadhagiri, counsel for the accused and perusal of the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

Page 2 of 11

Sessions Case No. 165 of 2022

I ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT, Suryapet

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

1. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Suryapet, PS Athmakur-S has filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr. No. 38/2022 for the offence Under

Section 363, 376 IPC & Sec., 5(l) r/w 6 of POCSO Act-2012.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:

(a) On 01.04.2022 at 15.00 hours, LW-1/S. Venkanna gave written complaint

before Athmakur-S stating that the accused has kidnapped his elder

daughter(victim girl) on the name of love with deceitful words. On 28.03.2022 the accused took away the victim girl with fraudulent words and he don’t know where he hid her minor daughter and he don’t know whether she alive or not. He has suspected that one Sapavath Naresh might have helped to accused in kidnapping her daughter and sought for necessary action.

b) Basing on the above complaint, LW-16/B. Yadavendra Reddy, Sub- inspector of Police of Athmakur-S PS has registered a case in Cr. No.

38/2022 for the offence U/sec., 363 IPC and opened the investigation.

c) During the course of investigation, he has examined and recorded the statements of LWs-1/S. Venkanna and LW-2/Sapavath Bujji. Later, he visited the scene of offence situated at the house of LW-4/Vadithya Ramani

Bayi, where he conducted the scene of offence panchanama and drawn rough sketch in the presence of LW-7/Sapavath Venkanna and LW- 8/Sapavath Ravi, examined and recorded the statements of LW-4/Vadithya

Ramani and LW-5/Katravath Bheekya Naik and brought the victim girl to police station and LW-15/L. Mounika, W.S.I. of police, Bharosa Centre,

Suryapet has examined the victim girl and recorded her statement.

d) On requisition, LW-6/Thota Malleswari, Head Master of Government High

School, Hanumannagar, Suryapet issued Bonafide certificate of the victim girl. As per the Bonafide certificate, she is a minor. Basing on the statement of the victim girl and Bonafide certificate, he added the section of law into

Page 3 of 11

Sessions Case No. 165 of 2022

I ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT, Suryapet the Section 376 IPC & Sec., 5(l) r/w 6 of POCSO Act-2012 to the existing section 363 IPC.

e) Thereafter, LW-17/S. Mohan Kumar, Sub-Divisional Police Officer,

Suryapet has arrested the accused on 12.04.2022, on interrogation confessed to have committed the offence and later produced before the court for judicial remand. On requisition of LW-17, LW-11/ Addl. Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Suryapet recorded the section 164 Cr.P.C.

statement of the victim girl. LW-14/Dr. Ismail Professor, Government

Medical College, Suryapet issued potency certificate of the accused. After collecting necessary documents and on completion of investigation, he has filed the charge sheet. Hence, the charge.

3. This case was taken on file by taking cognizance of the offence under

Section 363, 376 IPC & Sec., 5(l) r/w 6 of POCSO Act-2012 against the accused on the file of this court and numbered as SC 165/2022.

4. On appearance of the accused in this court, after hearing both the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the prosecution and the learned

Counsel for the accused and upon considering the material on record, a charge under Section 363, 376 IPC & Sec., 5(l) r/w 6 of POCSO Act-2012 have been framed against him, read over and explained to him in his known language for which he denied the allegation, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined LW.1/ S.

Venkanna is the complainant-cum-father of the victim girl as PW.1, LW-2 is the Victim girl as PW-2, LW-/Sapavath Ravi is the witness for scene of offence panchanama as PW-3, LW-9/Sapavath Bheema is the confession- cum-seizure panchanama of the accused as PW-4, LW-14/Dr. Md.Ismail,

Professor Govt. Medical College, who issued potency certificate of the accused as PW-5, LW-13/Dr. R. Lalitha, Assistant Professor Government

General Hospital, Suryapet, who issued medical certificate of the victim girl as PW-6, LW-6/S. Venkataramana, Head Master of Government High School,

Suryapet, who issued Bonafide certificate of the victim girl as PW-7, (He

Page 4 of 11

Sessions Case No. 165 of 2022

I ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT, Suryapet added to the list of witness vide Crl.M.P. No. 274/2022, Dt. 10.11.2022),

LW15/l. Mounika, W.S.I. of police, Bharosa Centre, Suryapet, who examined and recorded the statement of the victim girl as PW-8, LW-16/B.

Yadavendra Reddy is the Sup-Inspector of police, who issued FIR as PW-9,

LW-17/S. Mohan Kumar, Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Suryapet as PW-10,

LW-18/P. Nagabhushanam, Sub-Divisional Police Officer, who filed charge sheet as PW-11 and given up all other cited witnesses and prosecution evidence was closed.

6. After, closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., for which he denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution and pleaded false implication. However, he did not choose to lead any kind of evidence in defence.

7. Heard arguments from both the sides.

8. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submits that the prosecution has examined PWs-1 to 11 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-10 and

M.O.1, the prosecution has proved its case against the accused and thus, the accused is liable to be punished in accordance with law.

9. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the accused would submits that there is no trustworthy evidence on record and that no reliance can be placed in the evidence of Pws-1 to 11 and that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and thus, the accused has to be acquitted.

10. Now the point for consideration is “Whether the prosecution has proved its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:

11. To bring home the guilt of the accused, the question is whether a case under Section 363, 376 IPC & Sec., 5(l) r/w 6 of POCSO Act-2012 have been made out by the prosecution.

Page 5 of 11

Sessions Case No. 165 of 2022

I ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT, Suryapet

13. Before adverting the evidence of the prosecution, it is proper to have a bird’s eye view over the provision under Section 363, 376 IPC & Sec., 5(l) r/w 6 of POCSO Act-2012.

The offence under Section 363 IPC Punishment for kidnapping.

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

The offence under Section 376 of IPC Punishment for rape :- “whoever, except in the cases provided for in Sub-section (2), commits rape, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment of either description for a term which, shall not be less than ten years, but which may extent to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.

The offence under Section 5(l) of POCSO Act - Aggravated penetrative

sexual assault :-

(l) “ whoever commits penetrative sexual assault on a child more than once or repeatedly”

The offence under Section 6 of POCSO Act Aggravated penetrative sexual

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

14.In the light of the above statutory provision and cardinal principles of criminal jurisprudence, what is the evidence adduced by the prosecution in this case has to be looked into.

15. According to the prosecution, the victim girl is below the age of 18 years and therefore, she a child within definition of POCSO Act-2012. Ex.P8

Page 6 of 11

Sessions Case No. 165 of 2022

I ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT, Suryapet is the Bonafide certificate issued by PW-7/Head Master of Government High

School, Hanumannagar, Suryapet. The said document discloses that the date of birth of the victim girl is 20.08.2007. The incident was happened on 28.03.2022.

16. PW-2 is the victim girl. According to her, the incident was took place while she was pursuing 7th standard. The accused has not denied the age of the victim girl, who was 15 years of age at the time of incident. Therefore, the oral evidence of PW-2/victim girl coupled with Ex.P8 goes to show that the victim girl is below the age of the 18 years and therefore, she is child.

17. Be that as it may, PW-1 is the father of the victim girl has deposed that wife of Naresh has proposed for marriage of his daughter (PW-2) with the accused, for which he did not accept for the reason i.e., of his daughter being minor. He further deposed that after one year the accused by saying illusive words took his daughter to Rakamcherla village, near Parigi route and on suspicion he enquired with Naresh, who is son of his brother and on suspicion lodged a complaint. Therefore, traced out his daughter and brought to his house and on enquiry she disclosed that the accused has kidnapped her and took her to his house and committed rape. Ex.P1 is the complaint.

18. PW-2, who is victim girl has deposed that the accused used to follow her by saying that she is beautiful and proposed to marry, but she did not accept his proposal. By saying illusive words, he took her to his senior maternal aunt’s house at Vikarabad. On the following day, his brother namely Naresh came and brought her to her parent’s house and elders directed not to talk with each other and therefore, she stopped talking with the accused. She further deposed that the wife of the Naresh by name Bujji asked her to marry with the accused, for which she refused and on seeing the same PW-1 scolded her and accused asked her to come along with him, for which she refused to go along with him, but on 28.03.2022 at 12.00 hours, the accused took her in the absence of her parents to Vikarabad to the house of his senior maternal aunt. In that night accused has committed sexual intercourse on her in the bed room and stayed for four days in that

Page 7 of 11

Sessions Case No. 165 of 2022

I ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT, Suryapet house and on 01.04.2022, the police came and on seeing the police, the accused ran away from back door. Police took her to Sakhi Center,

Suryapet.

19. PWs-1 and 2 were cross examined by the legal aid counsel on behalf of the accused on the ground that the accused did not kidnap the victim girl and did not took her and never committed any rape and a false case has been attended by PW-1 because of some disputes with one Naresh.

20. PW-1 has deposed that Neresh is his brother’s son and brother-in-law of accused. Therefore, the said evidence goes to show that the accused is his relative. During the cross examination he has admitted that Naresh beat him, for which a complaint has been given. He further admits that he went to the house of accused for alliance, but he did not accept the same.

21. PW-2/victim girl also deposed during cross examination that about one year back her father went to the house of accused for alliance and accused came for second time and she also admits that Naresh beat her father and a case is pending in between them. The tenor of the cross examination of

PWs-1 and 2 are that Naresh, who is brother-in-law of the accused has beat

PW-1 and a case is pending in between them.

22. Be it noted, the incident of kidnap of PW-2 by the accused was happened on 28.03.2022, but PW-1 has lodged Ex.P1/complaint on 01.04.2022. According to PW-2, the accused took her to Vikarabad to the house of his maternal aunt, where he has committed sexual intercourse.

23. PW-9 is the Investigating Officer has deposed that after registering the crime on 01.04.2022, he visited the scene of offence situated at

Rakamcharla village, Vikarabad District and also recorded the statements of

LW-4/ Vadithya Ramani Bayi and LW-5/Katravath Bheekya Naik and brought the victim girl to Suryapet and produced before Barosa centre and later sent the victim girl to Government Area Hospital, Suryapet for medical examination.

24. PW-6/Dr. R. Lalitha is the medical officer, who examined the victim girl on 04.04.2022 at 10.30 p.m., According to her she did not found no external

Page 8 of 11

Sessions Case No. 165 of 2022

I ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT, Suryapet injuries and hymen was not intact and collected the vaginal swabs of the victim girl and forwarded to the FSL. She further deposed that after receiving FSL report, she gave final opinion stating that there was no recent sexual intercourse, but sexual intercourse cannot be ruled out. Ex.P5 is the medical certificate. Ex.P6 is the FSL report. Her evidence is that there is no sexual intercourse cannot be ruled out.

25. PW-11 is the Investigating Officer has charge sheeted the accused for the offence U/sec., 363, 376 IPC and Sec., 5(l) r/w 6 of POCSO Act-2012.

Ex.P10 is the section alteration memo.

26. In order to appreciate the testimony of PW-11 with regard to charge

U/sec., 5(l) r/w 6 of POCSO Act-2012, it is appropriate to see what it says whoever committed penetrative sexual assault on a child more than once or repeatedly. PW-2 is the victim girl has deposed that the accused took her to the house of his maternal aunt, where he has committed sexual intercourse at once, but she did not say that she has been repeatedly sexual assaulted by the accused. PW-6, who examined PW-2 did not find any signs of sexual assault and that there is no evidence with regard to recent sexual assault.

Therefore, there is no medical evidence corroborating that the accused has committed sexual assault on PW-2.

27. It is no doubt true that the testimony of PW-2/victim girl cannot be doubted with regard to sexual assault committed by the accused in the house of maternal aunt of him at Vikarabad. Exs.P5 and P6 are the medical certificate and FSL report supports and corroborates the testimony of her with regard to sexual assault.

28. During the course of investigation, PW-11/Investigating Officer got recorded the Section 164 Cr.P.C statement of the victim girl before the

Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Suryapet on 07.05.2022. The said document was not brought on record. The Legal aid counsel did not use the said statement for the purpose of corroboration and contradictions. The said statement is the earliest made before the Learned Addl. Judicial First Class

Magistrate, Suryapet. Though, the said document was not brought on

record, but the same can be looked into as it is forming part and parcel of

Page 9 of 11

Sessions Case No. 165 of 2022

I ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT, Suryapet the record. The said statement of the victim girl does not disclose that after taking her to Vikarabad, the accused has committed sexual intercourse.

29. In this regard, the statement of the victim girl made before the Addl.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Suryapet on 07.05.2022, which is the

previous statement. The said document has been confronted to the victim girl during cross examination by the legal aid counsel. But, the section 164

Cr.P.C., statement of the victim girl, which is part of record can be looked in order to appreciate to the truthfulness of committing sexual intercourse.

The said statement of the victim girl does not disclose that after taking her to Vikarabad, the accused has committed sexual intercourse.

30. In fact the said statement discloses that the accused asked her to marry, for which she refused and asked the accused to wait till she attends 18 years of age. She never whispered about committing of sexual intercourse. Perhaps that is why PW-6 did not find any signs of recent sexual assault on PW-2. Though, PW-8 has recorded the statement of LW- 4/Vadithya Ramani and LW-5/Katravath Bheekya Naik, but the prosecution did not choose to examine to say that the accused has brought the victim girl to their house on 28.03.2022. A suggestion was made to PWs-1 and 2 because of dispute with Naresh, PW-1 has filed false complaint for settling the scores. So, therefore, there is no truth in the testimony of PW-2 that the accused has committed sexual intercourse at Vikarabad in the house of

LW-4/Vadithya Ramani and LW-5/Katravath Bheekya Naik. Thus, I do not find any ring of truth in the evidence of PW-2/victim girl with regard to sexual intercourse.

31. Be it noted, PW-2/victim girl was 15 years old by the date of incident.

According to her the accused came and took her to Vikarabad and kept in the house of his maternal aunt has to be scrutinized. It is no doubt true that

PW-1 went to the house of accused for alliance with the accused, which was not materialized. The evidence of PW-2 also goes to show that her father tried to tie with the accused. Naresh is the brother-in-law of the accused, who is also relative of PWs-1 and 2. PW-2 says that she did not call her parents and her parents did not enquire the accused. A2 is the Naresh, but

Page 10 of 11

Sessions Case No. 165 of 2022

I ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT, Suryapet

PW-10/Investigating Officer has not charge sheeted him alongwith A1. PW-1 gave complaint against A2 for causing hurt and same is pending. Implications of A2 along with A1 by PW-1 goes to show that he want to settle the some scores. The non-examination of LW-4/Vadithya Ramani and LW-5/Katravath

Bheekya Naik is fatal to the case of prosecution with regard to taking PW-2 to their house by the accused. Thus, there is no reliable and trustworthy evidence to come to conclusion that the accused has kidnapped the victim girl and committed sexual assault.

32. The entire prosecution evidence suffers suspicion/doubt with regard to kidnap and sexual assault.

33. It is needless to emphasize that suspicion, however grave and strong cannot substitute the place of legal proof. Whenever there is a doubt in the prosecution evidence then the benefit should go to the accused.

34. On careful examination of the entire evidence of the prosecution that of PW-1 to PW-11 coupled with Exs.P.1 to P-10 and M.O.1, this court feels that prosecution miserable failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the charged offence. Consequent, thereto, the accused has to be acquitted.

Point answered accordingly.

35. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under sections 363, 376 IPC & Sec., 5(l) r/w 6 of POCSO Act-2012 and accordingly, they are acquitted under section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The accused shall be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other matter. M.O.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

(Partly typed to my dictation, partly dictated to the Stenographer Gr.II, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 23rd day of June, 2023).

JUDGE, SPL.FAST TRACK COURT FOR

DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND POCSO ACT CASES,

SURYAPET.

Page 11 of 11

Sessions Case No. 165 of 2022

I ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT, Suryapet ::APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE::

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF

PROSECUTION DEFENCE NIL

PW-1: S. Venkanna PW-2: S. Swathi, PW-3: Sapavath Ravi PW-4: S. Bheema PW-5: Dr. Md. Ismail PW-6: Dr. R. Lalitha PW-7: S. Venkataramana PW-8: L. Mounika PW-9: B. Yadavendra Reddy PW-10: S. Mohan Kumar PW-11: P. Nagabhushanam

Exhibits Marked for

Prosecution Defence : Nil

Ex.P1 : Complaint Ex.P2 : Scene of offence panchanama along with rough sketch Ex.P3 : Confession cum seizure panchanama Ex.P4 : Potency certificate Ex.P5 : Medical certificate EX.P6 : FSL report Ex.P7 : Extract of the admission register Ex.P8 : Bonafide certificate Ex.P9 : FIR Ex.P10: Section alteration memo

MOs Marked MO.1 : Photograph

JUDGE, SPL.FAST TRACK COURT FOR

DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND POCSO ACT CASES,

SURYAPET.

SC.POCSO/129/2022 Acquitted

STATE OF TELANGANA SHO KODAD TOWN vs Moluguri Prathap

23 Jun 2023

Judgment in SC. 129 OF 2022 1 of 10 dated : 23.06.2023

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

AND POCSO ACT CASES, SURYAPET.

PRESENT: SRI. K. KUSHA, I ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE: FAC: SPL.SESSIONS JUDGE,

SURYAPET.

(DATED THS THE 23 rd DAY OF JUNE, 2023)

SC No. 129 OF 2022

1. Name of the : The State of Telangana through Sub- complainant Inspector of Police of PS Kodad Town.

2. Name of the Accused : Moluguri Prathap @ Rakesh, S/o. Late Nageshwar Rao, Age: 20 years, Occ: Lab Technician, R/o. Shanthinagar village, Ananthagiri Mandal, Suryapet District.

3. Offence under Section : 417, 420, 366, 342, 376(3) IPC and Sec., 5(j)(ii) r/w 6 of POCSO Act-2012.

4. Cr. No. and Name of : Cr. No. 266/2021 of Police station Kodad Police Station Town.

5. P.R.C. No. : --

6. Case committed by : --

7. Plea of the accused : Not guilty

8. Finding of the Court : Not guilty

9. Sentence or Order : In the result, the accused is found not guilty of the offence punishable under section 417, 420, 366, 342, 376(3) IPC and Sec., 5(j)(ii) r/w 6 of POCSO Act-2012 and accordingly he is acquitted under section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled, after expiry of appeal time. The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. 10 Prosecution conducted : Sri. K. Ram Reddy, Spl. Public Prosecutor by 11 Defence conducted by : Sri. B. Vijay Kumar, Counsel for accused,

Judgment in SC. 129 OF 2022 2 of 10 dated : 23.06.2023

This case coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. K. Ram Reddy, Special Public Prosecutor, for the State and Sri. B. Vijay Kumar, Counsel for the accused and upon perusal of the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

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

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kodad Town Police station has filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr. No. 266/2021 for the offence Under

Section 417, 420, 366, 342, 376(3) IPC and Sec., 5(j)(ii) r/w 6 of POCSO Act-2012.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:

a) On 29.07.2021 at 21.00 hours, the complainant-cum-victim girl gave written complaint before Kodad Town police station stating that she is studying intermediate II year at S.V. Junior College, Kodad Town. In the last year, when she went to join in the college at S.V. Junior College, the accused came to college and met her and told that he loves her and marry her. Though she told that do not follow her, but he does not listen her words and harassed her on the name of love and marriage. On 27.04.2021 at about 11.00 hours, when she came to college to pay college fee, he forcibly took her to his friend’s room at Srirangapuram. He told deceitful words as he loves and marry her, forcibly committed rape on her, when she asked to marry her, he denied marry her and sought for necessary action.

b) Basing on the above complaint, LW.19/A. Narsimha Rao, Inspector of Police,

Kodad Town Police station has registered a case in Cr. No. 266/2021 U/sec. 376

IPC and sec., 3 r/w 4 of POCSO Act-2012.

c) During the course of investigation, LW-18/WPC 2971 has examined and recorded the statements of the victim girl and her mother as LW-1 and LW-2 at

Kodad Town Police station. On 30.07.2021, LW-19 along with LW-18 visited the scene of offence i.e., isolated house situated at Srirangapuram, Kodad Town and conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of LW-9/Thokala

Judgment in SC. 129 OF 2022 3 of 10 dated : 23.06.2023

` Nagaraju and LW-10/Simmasarthi Gopi and nothing was seized.

d) LW-13/Dr. N. Rajani, C.A.S. CHC, Kodad has examined the victim girl and issued report. On requisition, LW-6/Head Master, ZPHS, Shanthinagar has issued

Study and Conduct certificate of the victim girl, as per certificate, she is a minor.

e) As per the evidence collected during the course of investigation a prima facie is made out against the accused for the offence punishable U/sec., 366, 376 IPC and Sec., 3 r/w 4 of POCSO Act-2012. On 02.08.2021 at 07.00 hours, the accused apprehended at his house and he recorded the confessional statement of the accused in the presence of LWs-11/Dasu Ramesh and LW-12/Rachakonda Sai. LW- 14/Dr. M. Vijay conducted potency test of the accused and issued potency certificate and produced the accused before the court for judicial remand.

f) LW-17/Smt. B. Priyanka, Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kodad has recorded the Section 164 Cr.P.C statement of the victim girl on 04.09.2021. After collecting the necessary documents and on completion of investigation, he has filed the charge sheet. Hence, the charge.

3. This case was taken on file by the I Addl. District & Sessions Judge,

Nalgonda by taking cognizance for the offences under sections 417, 420, 366, 342, 376(3) IPC and Sec., 5(j)(ii) r/w 6 of POCSO Act-2012. On appearance of the accused, case copies was furnished to him as contemplated U/sec., 207 of Cr.P.C.

As the alleged offence U/sec., 302 IPC is exclusively traible by Court of Sessions, as such committed the case to court of section Nalgonda by following procedure

U/sec., 209 Cr.P.C. In turn made over to this court for disposal in accordance with law.

4. On appearance of the accused in this court, after hearing both the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor for the prosecution and the learned counsel for the

accused and upon considering the material on record, a charge under Section 417, 420, 366, 342, 376(3) IPC and Sec., 5(j)(ii) r/w 6 of POCSO Act-2012 have been

Judgment in SC. 129 OF 2022 4 of 10 dated : 23.06.2023

` framed against him, read over and explained to him in his known language for which he denied the allegation, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined LW.1 is the complainant-cum-victim girl as PW.1, LW-2/K. Bhulaxmi and LW-3/k. Kutumba Rao are the circumstantial witnesses as PW.2 and PW-3, LW.6/P. Sujatha is the Head

Master, who issued Study and Conduct certificate of the victim girl as PW-4, LW- 11 /Dasu Ramesh and 12/Rachakonda Sai are the panchs for confession of the accused as PW-5 and PW-6, LW-14/Dr.M. Vijay, who issued potency certificate of the accused as PW-7, LW-13/Dr. N. Rajani, who examined the victim girl as PW-8,

LW-15/Dr. Smt. Meela Sripathireddy as PW-9, LW-16/G. Pandu, who conducted

DNA of the accused as PW-10, LW-18/B. Jyothi is the Woman police constable, who recorded the statement of the victim girl as PW-11 and LW-19/A. Narsimha

Rao, Sub-Inspector of Police, who filed charge sheet as PW-12 and given up all other cited witnesses and prosecution evidence was closed.

6. After, closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under

Section 313 Cr.P.C. for which he denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution and pleaded false implication.

However, he did not choose to lead any kind of evidence in defence.

7. Heard arguments from both sides.

8. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submits that the prosecution has examined PWs-1 to 12 coupled with Exs.P-1 to P-17, the prosecution has proved its case against the accused and thus, the accused is liable to be punished in accordance with law.

9. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the accused would submits that there is no trustworthy evidence on record and that no reliance can be placed in the evidence of PWs-1 to 12 and that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and thus, the accused has

Judgment in SC. 129 OF 2022 5 of 10 dated : 23.06.2023

` to be acquitted.

10. Now the point for consideration is, “Whether the prosecution has proved its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt?

11. POINT:

To bring home the guilt of the accused, the question is whether a case under

Section 417, 420, 366, 342, 376(3) IPC and Sec., 5(j)(ii) r/w 6 of POCSO Act-2012 have been made out by the prosecution.

13. Before adverting the evidence of the prosecution, it is proper to have a bird’s eye view over the provision under Section 417, 420, 366, 342, 376(3) IPC and Sec., 5(j)(ii) r/w 6 of POCSO Act-2012.

The offence under Section 417 of IPC punishment of cheating :- “ Whoever cheats shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with”

The offence under Section 420 of IPC Cheating and dishonestly inducing

delivery of property :- “ Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable fine ”

Judgment in SC. 129 OF 2022 6 of 10 dated : 23.06.2023

The offence under Section 366 of IPC kidnapping, abducting or inducing

woman to compel her marriage etc.,:- “Whoever, kidnapping or abduction of a woman with the intent to compel her to marry any person against her will or to be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse . Such an act is liable to imprisonment which may extend to ten years, and to a fine”

The offence under Section 342 of IPC Punishment for wrongful confinement :-

“Whoever wrongfully confines any person shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both”

The offence under Section 376(3) of IPC Punishment of rape :- “whoever commits rape repeatedly on the same woman, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of that person's natural life, and shall also be liable to fine”

The offence under Section 5(j)(ii) of POCSO Act Aggravated penetrative sexual

assault :- “Whoever, being a police officer, commits penetrative sexual assault on a child”

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

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

The offence under Section 6 POCSO Act Aggravated penetrative sexual assault

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

14.In the light of the above statutory provision and cardinal principles of criminal jurisprudence, what is the evidence adduced by the prosecution in this case has to be looked into.

Judgment in SC. 129 OF 2022 7 of 10 dated : 23.06.2023

15. The victim girl (PW-1) has deposed that while she was studying intermediate at S.V. Junior College, Kodad, the accused came and proposed for marriage, for which she accepted his love and later the accused refused to marry her, on that quarrel took place between them and on the advice of elders went to police station and gave a complaint. Ex.P1 is the signature.

16. PW-2 mother of the victim girl has deposed that elders on behalf of the accused came to their house for the purpose of marriage alliance of her daughter (PW-1). Subsequent, thereto, some quarrel took place between them and on the advice of the elders, PW-1 lodged a complaint.

17. PW-3 is the father of PW-1 and husband of PW-2 has also deposed as to line of PWs-1 and 2. PWs-5 and 6 are the mediators for confession of the accused, who turned hostile by saying that police have obtained their signatures on some white paper.

18. PW-4 is the Head Master of ZPHS, Shanthinagar, Ananthagiri Mandal, who deposed that as per school records, the date of birth of the victim girl /PW-1 is 12.08.2005. Ex.P5 is the Study and Conduct certificate of the victim girl.

19. PW-7 is the Medical Officer, who conducted potency test on the accused has deposed that there is nothing to suggest that the accused is not capable for performing sexual act. Ex.P10 is the potency certificate.

20. PW-8 is the Medical Officer has deposed that she has examined PW-1 and found 16 weeks of pregnancy and as per DNA report, dt. 04.01.2022 M. Prathap @

Rakesh is the biological father of the aborted baby of the victim girl. Ex.P11 is the preliminary report, dt. 30.07.2021 along with final opinion. Ex.P12 is the FSL.

Ex.P13 is the DNA chart.

21. PW-9 is the Doctor/K. Meela has deposed that on 14.08.2021 at 04.00 am, the victim girl came to hospital complaining severe bleeding and on her physical examination, she found profuse bleeding from her vagina, fetus and placenta were

Judgment in SC. 129 OF 2022 8 of 10 dated : 23.06.2023

` already expelled i.e., delivered without her intervention (aborted) and she was minor. Ex.P14 is the letter addressed to circle inspector, Kodad.

22. PW-10 is the Assistant Director, TSFSL, Hyderabad has deposed that on 26.08.2021, on receipt of requisition from Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Kodad has conducted DNA examination of the items. A male DNA profile has been generated and recorded from item no.1 vide DNA/340/2021 and later collected DNA profile from the accused and found that the accused is biological father of the source of item no.1. Ex.P12 is the report and Ex.P13 is DNA chart.

23. PW-11 is the Head Constable, Chilukur has deposed that on the instructions of

Circle Inspector of Police, on 29.06.2021 recorded the statement of the victim girl at her residence. PW-12 is the Investigating Officer, who deposed as to the line of investigation and filing of charge sheet.

24. There is ample evidence showing that the victim girl gained pregnant and same has been aborted. DNA profile goes to show that PW-1 and accused are the biological mother and father of the fetus. Therefore, there are signs of sexual intercourse. But, PW-1/victim girl has categorically deposed that because of some quarrel she gave complaint and she did not spell out with regard to sexual intercourse or with regard to rape committed by the accused in the name of love and marriage. PW-1 being principal and star witness turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution to any extent as alleged in the manner.

25. Likewise, PW-2 and 3, who are mother and father of the victim girl (PW-1) also did not support the case of the prosecution as alleged in the manner.

Therefore, the DNA profile conducted by PW-10/Doctor goes uncorroborated.

When the material witnesses turned hostile, then the scientific evidence and medical evidence will not improve the case of the prosecution with regard to charge of rape, kidnap, confinement and cheating. Perhaps it appears that the victim girl and her family members might have compromised with the accused outside the court. PWs-1 to 3 were cross examined by the Special Public

Judgment in SC. 129 OF 2022 9 of 10 dated : 23.06.2023

` Prosecutor nothing could be elicited in its favour with regard to charge.

26. On carefully examination of the oral evidence of PWs-1 to 12 coupled with

Exs.P1 to P17, this court feels that the prosecution has utterly failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the charged offence.

Consequent, thereto, the accused has to be acquitted.

Point answered accordingly.

27. In the result, the accused is found not guilty of the offence punishable under section 417, 420, 366, 342, 376(3) IPC and Sec., 5(j)(ii) r/w 6 of POCSO Act- 2012 and accordingly he is acquitted under section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled, after expiry of appeal time. The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

(Partly typed to my dictation, partly dictated to the Stenographer Gr.II, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 23rd day of June, 2023).

JUDGE, SPL.FAST TRACK COURT

FOR DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND POCSO ACT CASES,

SURYAPET.

::APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE::

Witnesses examined on behalf of

PW-1 XXX PW-2 K. Bhulaxmi PW-3 K. Kutumba Rao PW-4 P. Sujatha PW-5 D. Ramesh PW-6 R. Sai PW-7 Dr. M. Vijay PW-8 Dr. N. Rajani PW-9 Dr. Smt. Meela PW-10 G. Pandu PW-11 B. Jyothi PW-12 A.Narasimha Rao

Judgment in SC. 129 OF 2022 10 of 10 dated : 23.06.2023

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE:

None

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1 Signature Ex.P2 Sec., 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-1 Ex.P3 Sec., 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-2 Ex.P4 Sec., 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-3 Ex.P5 Study and Conduct certificate of the victim girl Ex.P6 Signature of PW-5 on confession panchanama Ex.P7 Signature of PW-5 on confession panchanama Ex.P8 Signature of PW-6 on confession panchanama Ex.P9 Signature of PW-6 on confession panchanama Ex.P10 Potency certificate of the accused Ex.P11 Preliminary report, dt. 30.07.2021 Ex.P12 FSL report Ex.P13 DNA chart Ex.P14 Letter addressed to circle inspector, Kodad Ex.P15 Complaint Ex.P16 First Information Report Ex.P17 CDF along with rough sketch

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

JUDGE, SPL.FAST TRACK COURT

FOR DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND POCSO ACT CASES,

SURYAPET.

SC.POCSO/81/2020 Acquitted

STATE OF TELANGANA vs Gade Satheesh

17 May 2023

1 of 10

SC. 81 OF 2020, dt:17.05.2023

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

POCSO ACT CASES, SURYAPET.

PRESENT: SRI. K. KUSHA, I ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE: FAC: SPL.SESSIONS JUDGE,

SURYAPET.

(DATED THS THE 17 th DAY OF MAY, 2023)

SC No. 81 OF 2020

1. Name of the : The State of Telangana through Circle - complainant Inspector of Police of PS Suryapet II Town.

2. Name of the Accused : Gade Satheesh S/o late Anjaneyulu, Age: 22 years, Occ:Bolero driver R/o Sangareddipalem, Penpahad Mandal.

3. Offence under Section : 366, 506 and 376(1) of IPC and Sections 5 r/w Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 & Section 11 of Child Marriage Act, 2006.

4. Cr. No. and Name of : Cr. No. 329/2019 of Police station Suryapet II Police Station Town.

5. P.R.C. No. : --

6. Case committed by : --

7. Plea of the accused : Not guilty

8. Finding of the Court : Not guilty

9. Sentence or Order : In the result, the accused is found not guilty of the offence punishable under section 366, 506 and 376(1) of IPC and Sections 5 r/w Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 & Section 11 of Child Marriage Act, 2006 and accordingly he is acquitted under section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused

2 of 10

SC. 81 OF 2020, dt:17.05.2023

` shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. The M.O.1 mobile phone shall be returned to proper person, on application, after expiry of appeal time.

10 Prosecution conducted : Sri. K. Ram Reddy, Addl. Public Prosecutor by 11 Defence conducted by : Sri.Y.V. Bucheshwar Rao, Counsel for accused.

This case is coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. K. Ram Reddy, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State and Sri. Y.V.Bucheshwar Rao, Counsel for accused and upon perusal of the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

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

1. The Circle-Inspector of Police, Suryapet II Town Police station has filed charge sheet against the Accused in Cr. No. 329/2019 for the offences

Under Sections 366, 506 and 376(1) of IPC and Sections 5 r/w Section 6 of

POCSO Act, 2012 & Section 11 of Child Marriage Act, 2006.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:

a) On 27-12-2019 at 14.00 hours the complainant M.Suajtha lodged a complaint stating that her daughter/ victim remained in house. On 26.12.2019 evening at about 16.30 hours her daughter/victim girl went to bazaar for kirana and did not return to house. They searched for her in surroundings but in vain. She came to know that some unknown persons stated faithfully words to her daughter and kidnapped. Hence, she requested to take necessary action against accused.

b) Basing on the above complaint, PW4 K.Shivashakar, Circle-Inspector of

3 of 10

SC. 81 OF 2020, dt:17.05.2023

` Police registered the case in Cr. No. 329/2019 U/sec. 366, 506 and 376(1) of

IPC and Sections 5 r/w Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 & Section 11 of Child

Marriage Act, 2006 and entrusted the investigation to LW17 P.Srinivas, S.I of police. During the course of investigation LW17 recorded statements of LWs 1 & 2, visited scene of offence, conducted panchanama before Lws 7 & 8

M.Murali Krishna and N.Uday Shankar Reddy, drew rough sketch, collectedxerox copy of SSC memo for date of birth of victim girl.

c) On 30.12.2019 he got recorded the statement of victim girl through

LW16 V.Varalaxmi, W.S.I of police. Basing on the statement of victim girl LW17 altered section of law from 363 to to 376, 506 IPC and 5 & 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and sent express alteration memos to all concerned. Later PW4 took up investigation got examined victim girl. ON 03.01.2020 at 10.30 hours he apprehended accused, interrogated him and recorded confession statement

before LWs 11 G.Saidulu and LW12 K.Pradeep, seized NOKIA cell phone. He got

examined accused for his potency test through LW14 Dr.Rama Krishna. LW13

Dr. A.Shilpa sent the vaginal swabs, sliders, public haris and nails to FSL for examination. On receipt of FSL report LW13 gave her final report that “ there is no recent penetration but possibility cannot be ruled out.” He also got recorded statement of victim girl u/s 164 Cr.P.C through LW15 Kum.Siri

Soujanya, Addl.JFCM, Suryapet. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence under section 366, 506 and 376(1) of IPC and Sections 5 r/w Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 & Section 11 of

Child Marriage Act, 2006. Hence, the charge.

3. This case was taken on file by the I Addl. District & Sessions Judge,

Nalgonda for the offences under section 366, 506 and 376(1) of IPC and

4 of 10

SC. 81 OF 2020, dt:17.05.2023

` Sections 5 r/w Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 & Section 11 of Child Marriage

Act, 2006 against the accused and summons were issued to them. Thereafter, the case was made over to this court consequent to establishment of this court for disposal in accordance with law. On appearance of the accused before this court, they were supplied with the copies of relevant documents.

4. On appearance of the accused in this court, after hearing both the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the prosecution and the learned

Counsel for the accused and upon considering the material on record, charges under Section 366, 506 and 376(1) of IPC and Sections 5 r/w Section 6 of

POCSO Act, 2012 & Section 11 of Child Marriage Act, 2006 have been framed against him, read over and explained to him in his known language for which he denied the allegation, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined PW1/victim girl,

PW2 mother of victim girl, PW3 fatehr of victim girl and PW4 Investigating

Officer and given up all other cited witnesses and prosecution evidence was closed.

7. Heard arguments from both sides.

8. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submits that the

5 of 10

SC. 81 OF 2020, dt:17.05.2023

` prosecution has examined Pws-1 to 4, coupled with Exs.P-1 to P17, the prosecution has proved its case against the accused and thus, the accused is liable to be punished in accordance with law.

9. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the accused would submit that there is no trustworthy evidence on record and that no reliance can be placed in the evidence of Pws-1 to 4 and that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt against the Accused beyond all reasonable doubt and thus, the

Accused has to be acquitted.

10. Now the point for consideration is “Whether the prosecution has proved its case against the Accused beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:

11. To bring home the guilt of the Accused, the question is whether a case under Section 366, 506 and 376(1) of IPC and Sections 5 r/w Section 6 of POCSO

Act, 2012 & Section 11 of Child Marriage Act, 2006 have been made out by the prosecution.

13. At the outset the case of the prosecution are that the accused by saying deceitful words and in the name of love and marriage has taken the victim girl to Bhadrachalam, knowing the fact that she is under the age of majority and

6 of 10

SC. 81 OF 2020, dt:17.05.2023

` got married and later in the name of marriage had physical contact with her.

14. The Accused suffering charge u/s 366, 506 and 376(1) of IPC and Sections 5 r/w Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 & Section 11 of Child Marriage Act, 2006.

In order to prove the said charge the prosecution has placed ocular evidence of

PWs 1 to 4 who are victim girl PW1, parents of victim girl PWs 2 and 3 besides

PW4 investigation officer.

15. There is no dispute with regard to victim/PW1 being a minor who is under the age of majority.

16. The initial burden is on the prosecution to prove and establish the aforesaid charge. Thus, the prosecution is under the obligation to establish that accused kidnapped the victim, threatened the victim girl, committed rape on her and performed marriage with victim girl who is minor.

17. The prosecution in this regard has placed the evidence of PW1/ victim,

PW2 mother of victim and PW3 father of victim apart from PW4 investigation officer. PWs-2 & 3 are parents of the victim girl deposed that they do not the accused and also do not know anything about the facts of the case and that they never examined by the police. PW1 is the victim and daughter of PW2 & 3 has deposed that she does not know the accused and that she does not know anything about the case and even police did not record her statement. PW-2 is the mother of the victim though deposed that she does not anything but admitted her signature on Ex.P5 complaint.

18. PW-1 is the victim girl has deposed that she does not know the accused and did not say anything about the case and she was not examined by the police nor her statement was recorded.

7 of 10

SC. 81 OF 2020, dt:17.05.2023

19. PWs-2 and 3 are parents of the victim girl also has deposed as deposed by

PW-1. Ex. P5 is the complaint given by PW-2 mother of the victim girl. The police on receipt of said complaint have registered a case in Cr. No.329/2019 for the offence U/sec. 363 IPC and Sec., 12 of POCSO Act-2012. On 30.12.2019 the parents of the victim girl i.e., PWs-2 and 3 have produced the victim girl (PW-1) before the police and after recording the statement of the victim girl, the section of law has been added the offence U/sec., 376, 506 IPC and Sec., 5 & 6 of POCSO Act-2012 to existing section 363 IPC.

20. The statement of the victim girl are that on 26.12.2019 in the afternoon the accused made a phone call to her and asked her to come to Suryapet town and then both went to Nallalabavi center and from there they went to

Bhadrachalam and got married and later came to Urlugonda village and taking advantage of marriage, the accused has participated in the sexual intercourse with her.

21. The victim girl (PW-1) has resiled from her earlier statement before the

Investigating Officer (PW-4). Likewise, PW-2/mother of the victim girl, who gave complaint and PW-3 father of the victim girl also resiled from their earlier statement before the Investigating Officer (PW-4). All the material witnesses turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution as alleged manner. Though the learned Spl. Public Prosecutor has cross examined PWs-1 to 3, but nothing could be elicited in its favour with regard to charge of kidnap, integration and rape.

22. Since, PWs-1 to 3 material witnesses did not support the case of prosecution, as such the Additional Public Prosecutor has given up the rest of

8 of 10

SC. 81 OF 2020, dt:17.05.2023

` the witnesses, but however got examined PW-4/Investigating Officer, who deposed as to line of the investigation and filed charge sheet.

23. Though the victim girl is under the age of majority, but she did not say anything against the accused with regard to kidnap and rape. Therefore, the material evidence and other evidence that of FSL will not improve the case of the prosecution with regard to charge.

24. The oral evidence of PWs-1 to 3 is not corroborated with the contents of

Ex.P2/complaint given by PW-2 mother of the victim girl. Exs.P1 to P4 are the statements of PWs-1 to 3. Ex.P11 is the relevant portion of the confessional- cum-seizure panchanama. M.O.1 was recovered from the possession of accused, but PW-4, who filed charge sheet did not collect any call data showing that the accused has contacted the victim girl. Except confessional statement of the accused made before PW-4, but nothing is coming on record to corroborate the confession. That apart the confession made before PW-4 is in admissible in evidence and the same is hit by section 25 of Indian Evidence Act- 1872. The evidence of PW-4/Investigating Officer is nothing, but adverse in interest and his evidence goes uncorroborated with the material witnesses PW- 1 to PW-3. Therefore, it is not safe to rely upon the testimony of PW- 4/Investigating Officer. Absolutely, there is no evidence placed by the prosecution to tag the accused for the charged offences.

25. On careful examination of the entire evidence of the prosecution that of PWs-1 to 4 coupled with Exs.P1 to P17 and M.O.1, this court feels that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the charged offences. Consequent, thereto, the accused has to be acquitted. Point answered accordingly.

9 of 10

SC. 81 OF 2020, dt:17.05.2023

26. In the result, the accused is found not guilty of the offence punishable under section 366, 506 and 376(1) of IPC and Sections 5 r/w Section 6 of POCSO

Act, 2012 & Section 11 of Child Marriage Act, 2006 and accordingly he is acquitted under section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. The M.O.1 mobile phone shall be returned to proper person, on application, after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 17th day of May, 2023.

JUDGE, SPL.FAST TRACK COURT

FOR DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND POCSO ACT CASES,

SURYAPET.

::APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE::

Witnesses examined on behalf of Prosecution

PW-1 LW3 Xxxx Victim girl PW-2 LW1 M.Sujatha Mother of victim girl PW-3 LW2 M.Mallikarjuna Reddy Father of victim girl PW-4 LW18 K.Shiva Shankar Investigation Officer

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE:

None

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1 Ex.P2 Signature of PW2 on complaint Ex.P3 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2 Ex.P4 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3 Ex.P5 Complaint Ex.P6 FIR Ex.P7 Scene of offence panchanama No.1 Ex.P8 Rough sketch Ex.P9 Alteration memo

10 of 10

SC. 81 OF 2020, dt:17.05.2023

` Ex.P10 Study and conduct certificate Ex.P11 Relevant portion in confessional cum seizure panchanama of accused Ex.P12 Scene of offence panchanama Ex.P13 Rough sketch Ex.P14 Preliminary report given by Dr.A.Shilpa Ex.P15 Final report given by Dr.A.Shilpa Ex.P16 FSL report Ex.P17 Potency test certificate

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

MO.1 Mobile phone

JUDGE, SPL.FAST TRACK COURT

FOR DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND POCSO ACT CASES,

SURYAPET.

SC.POCSO/89/2017 Acquitted

SHO HUZURNAGAR vs Sheelam Nageshwar rao

02 Jun 2023

1 of 8

SC. 89 OF 2017, dt:02.06.2023

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

POCSO ACT CASES, SURYAPET.

PRESENT: SRI. K. KUSHA, I ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE: FAC: SPL.SESSIONS JUDGE ,

SURYAPET.

(DATED THS THE 02 nd DAY OF JUNE, 2023)

SC No. 89 OF 2017

1. Name of the : The State of Telangana through Sub- complainant Inspector of Police of PS Huzurnagar.

2. Name of the Accused : A1 Sheelam Nageshwar Rao, S/o. Pulaiah, age 20 yrs, Occ: Flower decoration, R/o. Teachers colony in Huzurnagar.

A2 Sheelam Gopi, S/o. Pulaiah, age: 22 years, Occ: Flower decoration, R/o. Teachers colony in Huzurnagar.

A3 Sheelam Pulaiah, S/o. Jamalaiah, Age: 40 years, Occ: flower decoration, R/o. Teachers colony in Huzurnagar.

A4 Sheelam Susheela, W/o. Nageshwar Rao, Age: 19 years, Occ: house wife, R/o. Teachers colony in Huzurnagar.

A5 Sheelam Thirupathamma, W/o. Gopi, age 20 years, Occ: House wife, R/o. Teachers colony in Huzurnagar.

A6 Meddela Nagaraju, S/o. Jagannadham, age: 30 yrs, Occ: Flower Business, R/o Daddanala cherava in Huzurnagar.

3. Offence under Section : 448, 506, 509 r/w 34 IPC & Sec., 11 (i)(iv) r/w 12 of POCSO Act-2012.

4. Cr. No. and Name of : Cr. No. 248/2016 of Police station Police Station Huzurnagar.

5. P.R.C. No. : --

6. Case committed by : --

7. Plea of the accused : Not guilty

2 of 8

SC. 89 OF 2017, dt:02.06.2023

8. Finding of the Court : Not guilty

9. Sentence or Order : In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty of the offence punishable under section 448, 509, 506 r/w 34 IPC and Sec., 11 r/w 12 of POCSO Act-2012 and A3 to A6 are found not guilty of the offence punishable under section 509 and 506 r/w 34 IPC and accordingly they are acquitted under section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. Unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

10 Prosecution conducted by : Sri. K. Ram Reddy, Addl. Public Prosecutor 11 Defence conducted by : Sri. G. Venkateshwarlu Naik, Counsel for accused.

This case is coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. K. Ram Reddy, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State and Sri. G. Venkatesh Naik, Counsel for accused nos.1 to 6 and upon perusal of the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

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

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Huzurnagar Police station has filed charge sheet against A1 to A6 in Cr. No. 248/20167 for the offences Under

Sections 448, 506, 509 r/w 34 IPC & Sec., 11 (i)(iv) r/w 12 of POCSO Act-2012.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:

a) On 28.12.2016 at 20.00 hours the complainant –cum- father of the victim girl approached the Huzurnagar police station and lodged a complaint stating that he is having three daughters. One month back, he and his wife (LW-2/Maddela

Devi) went to Maisure for selling the steel articles by leaving their children in the house. While they went to Maisure from the day of onwards, the accused no.1 and 2 were criminally trespassed into his house and insulted his daughter (victim girl) by caught holding her hand. Again A2 criminally trespassed into his house and insulted the victim girl by caught hold her hand, on hearing her cries, remaining

3 of 8

SC. 89 OF 2017, dt:02.06.2023

` two children are woke up, on seeing them A2 escaped from their house. After returning from Maisure, he and his wife know the fact from their daughter and asked about the incident, then all accused are abused in filthy language. Hence, he requested to take necessary action against accused nos. 1 to 6.

b) Basing on the above complaint, LW-8/A. Ranjith Reddy, Sub-Inspector of

Police, Huzurnagar registered the case in Cr. No. 248/2016 U/sec. 448, 506, 509

IPC & Sec., 11 (i)(iv) r/w 12 of POCSO Act-2012 and took up the investigation.

During the course of investigation LW-8 got examined the complainant as LW-1 and his wife as LW-2 and recorded their statements. Later, the victim girl was examined by LW-7/M. Esther Rani, Woman Sub-Inspector of Police, Huzurnagar. As per the Adhar Card of the victim girl, her age is 15.04.2004, she is a minor. A1 and

A2 were arrested on 24.05.2017 and sent them to judicial remand. A3 to A6 were themselves surrendered before Lw-8, on that he served a notice under section 41(a) (3) Cr.P.C. to accused no.3 to 6. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused no.1 and 2 for the offence under section 448, 506, 509 IPC & Sec., 11 (i)(iv) r/w 12 of POCSO Act-2012 and against A3 to A6 for the offence U/sec., 506, 509 r/w 34 IPC. Hence, the charge.

3. This case was taken on file by the I Addl. District & Sessions Judge,

Nalgonda for the offences under section 448, 506, 509 IPC & Sec., 11 (i)(iv) r/w 12 of POCSO Act-2012 against A1 and A2 and for the offences U/sec., 506, 509 r/w 34 IPC against A3 to A6 and summons were issued to them. Thereafter, the case was made over to this court consequent to establishment of this court for disposal in accordance with law. On appearance of the accused before this court, they were supplied with the copies of relevant documents.

4. On appearance of the accused in this court, after hearing both the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor for the prosecution and the learned Counsel for the

accused nos.1 to 6 and upon considering the material on record, charges under

Section 448, 506, 509 r/w 34 IPC & Sec., 11 r/w 12 of POCSO Act-2012 against A1 and A2 and charges under section 506, 509 r/w 34 IPC against A3 to A6, read over and explained to them in their known language for which they denied the

4 of 8

SC. 89 OF 2017, dt:02.06.2023

` allegation, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined complainant/PW1 /father of the victim girl, PW2 is the victim girl and given up all other cited witnesses and prosecution evidence was closed.

6. After, closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused nos.1 to 6 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., for which they denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution and pleaded false implication. However, they did not choose to lead any kind of evidence in defence.

7. Heard arguments from both the sides.

8. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submits that the prosecution has examined Pws-1 and 2, coupled with Ex.P-1, the prosecution has proved its case against the accused nos.1 to 6 and thus, the accused are liable to be punished in accordance with law.

9. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the accused would submit that there is no trustworthy evidence on record and that no reliance can be placed in the evidence of Pws-1 and 2 and that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt against A1 to A6 beyond all reasonable doubt and thus, A1 to A6 have to be acquitted.

10. Now the point for consideration is “Whether the prosecution has proved its case against A1 to A6 beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:

11. To bring home the guilt of A1 to A6, the question is whether a case under

Section 448, 506, 509 r/w 34 IPC & Sec., 11 r/w 12 of POCSO Act-2012 have been made out by the prosecution.

5 of 8

SC. 89 OF 2017, dt:02.06.2023

13. Before adverting the evidence of the prosecution, it is proper to have a bird’s eye view over the provision under Section 448, 506, 509 r/w 34 of IPC and under Section 11 r/w 12 of POSCO Act, 2012.

The offence under Section 448 of IPC Punishment for house trespass:-

“Whoever, commits house trespass, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both”

The offence under Section 506 of IPC:-

1) The accused threatened someone with injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person, reputation or property of another in whom the former was interested.

2) The accused did so with intent to cause alarm to the victim of offence.

3) The accused did so to cause the victim to perform any act which he was not legally bounded to do.

The offence under Section 509 of IPC:- “whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any word, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object, intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be seen, by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and also with fine”

The offence under Section 11 of POCSO Act-2012 sexual harassment:-

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

6 of 8

SC. 89 OF 2017, dt:02.06.2023

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The offence under Section 12 of POCSO Act-2012 sexual harassment:- “ Section 12 of the POCSO stipulates that whoever commits sexual harassment upon a child shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years.

14.In the light of the above statutory provision and cardinal principles of criminal jurisprudence, what is the evidence adduced by the prosecution in this case has to be looked into.

15. The initial burden is on the prosecution to prove and establish the aforesaid charge. Thus, the prosecution is under the obligation to establish that A1 and A2 criminally trespassed into the house of complainant and insulted his daughter i.e., victim girl by caught hold her hand and A1 to A6 are abused them in filthy language and warned to kill them.

16. The prosecution in this regard has placed the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2.

PW1 is the father of the victim girl and PW-2 is the victim girl. PW-1 /complainant has deposed that A1 criminally trespassed into his house and caught hold the hand of PW-2 and demanded her to fulfill his lust and later threatened with dire

7 of 8

SC. 89 OF 2017, dt:02.06.2023

` consequence, in case she disagree. Later the matter was placed before the elders, but could not materialize, then he lodged Ex.P1 complaint.

17. PW-2, who is victim girl has deposed that A1 came to her house in the night time and caught hold her hand by demanding to fulfill his sexual desire, for which she refused and later A2 criminally trespassed into the house and abused like anything and dragged her by caught holding her tuft. Later, father of the victim girl gave a complaint.

18. Initially the said witnesses supported the case of prosecution, but during the course of cross examination, they gave different version. PW-1, who is complainant says that because of land dispute at teachers colony between him and accused family, he filed false complaint against the accused nos. 1 to 6 and further admits that no such incident has taken place as narrated in his deposition.

PW-2, who is victim girl during cross examination says that because of previous dispute in between accused and her family, PW-1 lodged a complaint. Both witnesses did not support during their cross examination.

19. Subsequent, thereto the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has conducted cross examination of the witnesses, for which they have admitted that the matter has been compromised with the accused. Thus, the prosecution has produced two inconsistent views with regard to factual incident. More so, A1 is none other than uncle of PW-2. Even the evidence of PW-1 goes to show that he came to know about the incident through Maddela Balaswamy. In fact he did not witness any incident. Since PW-1 /complainant and PW-2/victim girl turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution as alleged in the manner, as such learned

Additional Public Prosecutor has given up rest of the witnesses. There is no

incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused nos. 1 to 6 with regard to charge of sexual harassment, criminal trespass and intimidation.

20. Thus, the prosecution failed to establish any charge against the accused no.1 to 6 and therefore, the accused no. 1 to 6 have to be acquitted.

Point answered accordingly.

8 of 8

SC. 89 OF 2017, dt:02.06.2023

21. In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty of the offence punishable under section 448, 509, 506 r/w 34 IPC and Sec., 11 r/w 12 of POCSO Act-2012 and A3 to

A6 are found not guilty of the offence punishable under section 509 and 506 r/w 34 IPC and accordingly they are acquitted under section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. Unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

(Partly dictated to the Stenographer G-II, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 02nd day of June, 2023).

JUDGE, SPL.FAST TRACK COURT

FOR DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND POCSO ACT CASES,

SURYAPET.

::APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE::

Witnesses examined on behalf of Prosecution

PW-1 LW-1 Maddela Raju Complainant-cum-father of the victim girl PW-2 LW-2XXX Victim girl

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE:

None

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1 Complaint

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

JUDGE, SPL.FAST TRACK COURT

FOR DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND POCSO ACT CASES,

SURYAPET.

Order Record 105 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
MVOP/66/2022	BAIRABOINA JANAIAH vs VOGGU SHEKHAR @ SHEKHAR REDDY	29 Jun 2023	Other	—
EP/100/2022	IREP Credit Capirtal Pvt.Ltd., vs Kekkireni Sivakumar	26 Jun 2023	Other	—
CRLMP.BAIL/247/2023	State of Telangana vs Chapala Ravi Kumar	26 Jun 2023	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/255/2023	State of Telangana vs Morigadudula Madhu	26 Jun 2023	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/256/2023	State of Telangana vs Kadem Ullas and another	26 Jun 2023	Order	—
SC.POCSO/129/2022	STATE OF TELANGANA SHO KODAD TOWN vs Moluguri Prathap	23 Jun 2023	Judgement	Acquitted
SC.POCSO/165/2022	State of Telangana vs Vsvadthya Rakesh	23 Jun 2023	Judgement	Acquitted
MVOP/85/2022	Vanguri Suvarna vs Kommineni Venkateshwar Rao	22 Jun 2023	Other	—
MVOP/106/2019	Komatireddy Deepika vs Mohd. Jahangir	22 Jun 2023	Other	—
MVOP/192/2018	Busipally suresh Reddy vs Budigam Saida Babu	22 Jun 2023	Other	—
MVOP/193/2018	Busipally Srinivas Reddy vs Budigam Saida babu	22 Jun 2023	Other	—
EP/77/2022	Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd vs P Srinivas	21 Jun 2023	Other	—
EP/164/2022	SHRIRAM CITY UNION FINANCE LTD vs Yerkacherla Ramulu	21 Jun 2023	Other	—
EP/241/2022	SHRIRAM CITY UNION FINANCE LTD vs Kaparthi Ravi	21 Jun 2023	Other	—
SC/483/2022	STATE OF TELANGANA SHO PS NEREDUCHERLA vs Shaik Jani	21 Jun 2023	Judgement	—
CRLMP.BAIL/231/2023	State of Telangana vs Salman @ Malik	21 Jun 2023	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/239/2023	State of Telangana vs Pabbathi Mahesh	21 Jun 2023	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/246/2023	State of Telangana vs Nallagattu Lakshmaiah	21 Jun 2023	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/248/2023	State of Telangana vs Orsu Vijay	21 Jun 2023	Order	—
MVOP/223/2017	jalla SANGHAVI vs MD ASHRU AND 1 OTHER	20 Jun 2023	Other	—
CRLA/1/2022	G.SAIDULU vs THE STATE OF TELANGANA REP BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER	20 Jun 2023	Judgement	—
SC.NDPS/12/2022	SHO Inspector Suryapeta vs MD Gouse	20 Jun 2023	Judgement	—
MVOP/6/2019	Aleti Srinivas Reddy vs MD Issaq	19 Jun 2023	Other	—
MVOP/39/2021	Kommu David vs Shaik Khadar and others	19 Jun 2023	Other	—
MVOP/117/2018	Mamunuri Srinu vs Md. Issaq	19 Jun 2023	Other	—
MVOP/202/2017	PASHAM RAJIPEDDY vs CHENNABOINA SHANKAR AND 2 OTHERS	19 Jun 2023	Other	—
MVOP/235/2018	Chennupati venkatravamma vs Nelluri Varaiah	16 Jun 2023	Order	—
MVOP/74/2016	B LINGAMMA vs SD SIRAJ BABU	15 Jun 2023	Order	—
SC.POCSO/146/2019	Yellavulla Rama Lingam @ Rama vs Mekala Vinodh	14 Jun 2023	Judgement	Acquitted
OS/70/2022	Vallala Veerabhadra Rao vs Gopagani Indira	14 Jun 2023	Judgement	—
CRLMP.BAIL/238/2023	State of Telangana vs Kadem Ullas and another	14 Jun 2023	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/215/2023	State of Telangana vs Islavath Bixapathi @ Bixam	13 Jun 2023	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/226/2023	SHO Penpahad vs Macha Gopi	13 Jun 2023	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/228/2023	State of Telangana vs Karingula Madhu	13 Jun 2023	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/230/2023	State of Telangana vs Guvva Mahesh	13 Jun 2023	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/237/2023	State of Telangana vs Sayed@ Shaik Akbar	13 Jun 2023	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/238/2023	State of Telangana vs Kadem Ullas and another	13 Jun 2023	Order	—
EP/116/2022	M/s.Shriram Transport Finance Co.,Ltd., vs Ramineni Mallikarjun Rao	10 Jun 2023	Other	—
EP/163/2022	SHRIRAM CITY UNION FINANCE LTD vs Puttapaka Pichaiah	10 Jun 2023	Other	—
EP/166/2022	SHRIRAM CITY UNION FINANCE LTD vs Kuram Vidyasagar	10 Jun 2023	Other	—
EP/206/2022	SHRIRAM CITY UNION FINANCE LTD vs Sravanthi Sadhineni	10 Jun 2023	Other	—
EP/240/2022	SHRIRAM CITY UNION FINANCE LTD vs Munagaleti Veerababu	10 Jun 2023	Other	—
MVOP/25/2022	Banothu Ravi vs Uppoju Nagendra Chary and 2 others	10 Jun 2023	Other	—
MVOP/153/2021	Gundeboina Kristaiah @ Krishnaiah vs Guguloth Ashok	10 Jun 2023	Other	—
MVOP/220/2020	Gandham Jyothi vs Voripelli Yadagiri	10 Jun 2023	Order	—
EP/38/2022	Shriram City Union Finance Ltd Miryalguda Branch Rep by GPA Sri M. Srinivasa Rao vs Chakka Gurunadham	09 Jun 2023	Other	—
MVOP/83/2017	pathipati laxmi sujatha and 3 others vs Vssurepally rajendraprasad	09 Jun 2023	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/219/2023	State of Telangana vs Modala Nagaraju and another	09 Jun 2023	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/227/2023	State of Telangana vs Chevula Bixam	09 Jun 2023	Order	—
EP/145/2022	SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINC LTD vs Annapurna Sadineni	07 Jun 2023	Other	—
SC.NDPS/81/2022	State of Telangana vs Parvej Anwar Ali shek Mohammad	07 Jun 2023	Judgement	—
CRLMP.BAIL/220/2023	State of Telangana vs Chapala Ravi Kumar	07 Jun 2023	Order	—
SC.NDPS/88/2022	State of Telangana vs Dasru Nayak Guguloth	06 Jun 2023	Judgement	—
CRLMP.BAIL/204/2023	State of Telangana vs Morigadudula Madhu	06 Jun 2023	Order	—
EP/118/2022	M/s. Shriram Transport Finance Co., Ltd., vs Bathini Jyothi	05 Jun 2023	Other	—
MVOP/165/2018	Banoth shankar and 2 others vs NEW INDIA ASSSURANCE and 2 others	05 Jun 2023	Other	—
CRLMP.BAIL/218/2023	State of Telangana vs Allampally Shyam Kumar	05 Jun 2023	Order	—
SC.POCSO/89/2017	SHO HUZURNAGAR vs Sheelam Nageshwar rao	02 Jun 2023	Judgement	Acquitted
CRLMP.BAIL/221/2023	State of Telangana vs Gudise Venu	02 Jun 2023	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/222/2023	State of Telangana vs Itukuri Mahesh	02 Jun 2023	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/225/2023	State of Telangana vs Rupavath Venkateshwarlu	02 Jun 2023	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/213/2023	State of Telangana vs Kasthala Naveen	01 Jun 2023	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/214/2023	State of Telangana vs Robinson Farnadis	01 Jun 2023	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/224/2023	State of Telangana vs Dandu Shiva Prasad @ Shiva	01 Jun 2023	Order	—
SC.POCSO/81/2020	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Gade Satheesh	17 May 2023	Judgement	Acquitted
CRLMP.BAIL/36/2023	State of Telangana vs Dharavath Gopi	17 May 2023	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/192/2023	State of Telangana vs Guvva Mahesh	17 May 2023	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/211/2023	State of Telangana vs Rupavath Venkateshwarlu	17 May 2023	Order	—
SC.POCSO/141/2018	Devapangu Preethi vs Shaik Nagul Meera @ Nagul	16 May 2023	Judgement	—
SC.NDPS/69/2022	State of Telangana vs Kabi Bidika	16 May 2023	Judgement	—
CRLMP.BAIL/186/2023	Salman @ Salman Maik vs Vssho KODAD RURAL	16 May 2023	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/200/2023	State of Telangana vs Gaddam Madhu	16 May 2023	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/201/2023	State of Telangana vs Kotha Rohit and another	16 May 2023	Order	—
SC.POCSO/61/2018	The State of Telangana vs Syed Mazheruddin @ Ravoof	15 May 2023	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/93/2018	Mudigonda Renuka vs Gundepangu Vijay	15 May 2023	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/141/2018	Devapangu Preethi vs Shaik Nagul Meera @ Nagul	15 May 2023	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/193/2018	Kanneboina Saidulu vs Gunja Nagaraju	15 May 2023	Judgement	—
MVOP/45/2017	Gaddameedi Maraiah vs Pamarthy Joji babu	12 May 2023	Order	—
MVOP/258/2017	K SREEKANTH vs K VENKANNA	12 May 2023	Order	—
MVOP/208/2017	LODANGI NARSAMMA vs Y TEJASWINI AND OTHER	11 May 2023	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/194/2023	State of Telangana vs Banavath Swamy	10 May 2023	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/203/2023	State of Telangana vs Uddagiri Naveen	10 May 2023	Order	—
MVOP/91/2017	GUnguntla Pitchaiah vs Byri Shyam Sundar	09 May 2023	Order	—
MVOP/172/2018	Karanam Nagesh varma vs APSRTC and another	09 May 2023	Order	—
MVOP/253/2017	SREERAM NAGAMANI AND OTHER vs BACHU SRI SOMANADH	09 May 2023	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/188/2023	State of Telangana vs Itkuri Mahesh	09 May 2023	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/199/2023	State of Telangana vs Gudise Venu	09 May 2023	Order	—
CRL.MP/183/2023	State of Telangana vs Kunapuri Veeraiah	09 May 2023	Order	—
MVOP/149/2016	NOMULA GOVINDU AND OTHERS vs PUNJLLOYD COMP LTD AND OTHERS	08 May 2023	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/165/2023	State of Telangana vs Rupavath Venkateshwarlu	08 May 2023	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/167/2023	State of Telangana vs BattuKalyani and another	08 May 2023	Order	—
CRL.MP/196/2023	State of Telangana vs Shyamala Upendar	08 May 2023	Order	—
SC.POCSO/7/2016	Suryapet Town vs Perla Srikanth	05 May 2023	Judgement	—
MVOP/242/2017	BHASKARUNI RUTHWIK vs LAVUDIYA RAJU	05 May 2023	Order	—
MVOP/72/2016	B LAXMINARYANA vs THE GENARAL MANAGER APSRTC	04 May 2023	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/164/2023	State of Telangana vs Robinson Farnandis and 2 others	03 May 2023	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/168/2023	State of Telangana vs Veeraboina Sai Kumar	03 May 2023	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/155/2023	State of Telangana vs Gaddam Madhu	02 May 2023	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/178/2023	State of Telangana vs Banavath Ranga	02 May 2023	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/190/2023	State of Telangana vs Uddagiri Naveen	02 May 2023	Order	—

Showing 100 of 105 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Jun 2023		65
May 2023		41
Apr 2023		1

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has K Kusha handled?

K Kusha has handled 107 court orders since 2023 at Suryapet, PDJ Court Complex. The average disposal rate is 50 orders per month.

What types of cases does K Kusha hear?

Based on available records, K Kusha primarily handles Motor Accident matters (Motor Accident Claims) and Criminal matters (Sessions Cases, CRL) and Civil matters (Execution Petitions, Original Suits) at Suryapet, PDJ Court Complex.

Where is K Kusha currently posted?

K Kusha is posted as Fast Track Special Court for expeditious Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases, Suryapet at Suryapet, PDJ Court Complex, Suryapet, Telangana.

Are judgments by K Kusha available online?

Yes. 10 judgments by K Kusha are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does K Kusha dispose cases?

K Kusha disposes approximately 50 cases per month, based on 107 orders handled over their tenure at Suryapet, PDJ Court Complex.

Since when is K Kusha serving?

K Kusha has been serving at Suryapet, PDJ Court Complex since 2023.

Case Types

CRLMP 42%

MVOP 25%

SC 15%

EP 11%

CRL 5%

CRLA 1%

OS 1%

Posting History

Apr 2023 — Jun 2023

Fast Track Special Court for expeditious Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases, Suryapet · 11 orders
Apr 2023 — Jun 2023

I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Suryapet · 96 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 5

Other Judges at this Court

Smt. P.lakshmi Sarada

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

394 orders

P.siva Rama Prasad

Fast Track Special Court for expeditious Trial and...

1 orders

Smt. Rajitha Gopu

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Suryapet

636 orders

N.Apurva Ravali

I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Suryapet

93 orders

Ms. Manchala Mamatha

II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Suryapet

67 orders

Farheen Kouser

Senior Civil Judge, Suryapet

374 orders

← View all judges at Suryapet, PDJ Court Complex