Smt K.Nagamani

Spl. Judge -cum- IV Addl. District Judge

PDJ Court VIZIANAGARAM · Vizianagaram · Andhra Pradesh

Smt K.Nagamani, Spl. Judge -cum- IV Addl. District Judge, is posted at PDJ Court VIZIANAGARAM, Vizianagaram, Andhra Pradesh, India. 859 court orders on record since 2010. 10 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CC, SC, OS cases.

859

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

SC.POCSO/34/2025 Acquitted

XXXXX vs XXXXX

31 Mar 2026

APVZ0E0000632025

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER

POCSO SESSIONS JUDGE AT VIZIANAGARAM.

PRESENT: : Smt K.Nagamani

Special Judge, for Trial

of cases under POCSO Act, Vizianagaram.

Tuesday, this the 31st day of March, 2026

POCSO SC.No. 61/2025 (Cr.No.134/2025 of Nellimarla P.S.)

1. Name of the Complainant :State represented by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Vizianagaram

2. Name of the accused :Simmala Rama Kumar @ Sriram Kumar @ Ramu, S/o late Pydiraju, 20 years. Private Electrician, R/o SC colony, Nellimarla village, Vizianagaram District.

3. Charges : under sections 64(2)(m) and 89 of BNS and section 6 r/w 5(l), 5(j)(ii) of POCSO Act, 2012 against accused.

4. Plea of accused: Accused pleaded not guilty for the offences under sections 64(2)(m) and 89 of BNS and section 6 r/w 5(l), 5(j)(ii) of POCSO Act, 2012.

5. Finding of the Judge : The accused is found not guilty for the offences under sections 64(2)(m) and 89 of

BNS and section 6 r/w 5(l), 5(j)(ii) of POCSO

Act, 2012.

6. Sentence or order : In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 64(2)(m) and 89 of BNS and section 6 r/w 5(l), 5(j)(ii) of POCSO Act 2012. Hence, he is acquitted under section 258 (1) of BNSS for the above said offences. M.O.1 shall be returned to PW1 after appeal time is over. M.O.2 shall be confiscated to the State after appeal time is over by destroying the dead Sims if any available in MO2. The bail bonds of accused shall be continued for 6 months, by undertaking to appear before the next Appellate court, if any appeal is preferred against him as required under section 481 of BNSS.

With regard to the granting of compensation to the victim girl i.e., PW1 is concerned, the prosecution failed to establish that PW1 was sexually exploited by the accused in this case. Therefore, she is not entitled for any compensation as prescribed under section 33(8) of POCSO Act read with 9 of POCSO Rules, 2020.

7. Prosecution conducted by: Special Public Prosecutor.

8. Defence conducted by : Sri D.Seetha Ramu, Legal Aid Counsel for accused.

This case is coming on this day i.e., on 31.03.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Special Public Prosecutor on behalf of complainant and of Sri

D.Seetha Ramu, Learned Legal Aid Counsel for accused and having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E NT

1. The State represented by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Vizianagaram filed charge sheet in Cr.No. 134/2025 of Nellimarla P.S., under sections 64(1), 78 and 89 of BNS and section 6 r/w 5(l), 5(j)(ii) of POCSO Act-2012, with the following case facts:-

(a).That while the victim girl is resident of Yatha veedhi, Ramatheerdam junction, Nellimarla village while she was studying 10th class in Government High

School, Nellimarla., accused got acquaintance with her when he came to arrange lighting to the marriage function of one of her street person who is brother in courtesy to her, since then accused used to follow her in the name of love, for which she also talked with him and both loved with each other. When she studying intermediate, they both used talk in parks at Vizianagaram and went to movies also.

On the occasion of her birth celebration i.e. on 18-05-2025, accused took her to his house, talked with sweet words and forcibly participated in sex with her in the bed room during absence of inmates on the pretext of marrying her, since then accused used to have sex with her on every Sunday at his house during absence of inmates. As she was unwell, on 06.08.2025 her father brought her to Government

Hospital, Nellimarla, where doctor examined and confirmed that she was pregnant, from there to Gosha Hospital, Vizianagaram and from to K.G.H., Visakhapatnam on 07-08-2025 for better treatment, since then she undergone treatment in KGH and she got aborted. Hence, she gave statement to the police against the accused.

(b). Basing on the statement of victim/PW-1, recorded by PW-9/WPC2220,

PW-11/SI registered the same as a case in Cr. No. 134/2025, U/s. 64(1) BNS and

Sec. 5(l), 5(j) (ii) of POCSO Act-2012 at Nellimarla Police station on 11-08-2025 at 6-00 PM., and submitted the original FIR along with the statement of the victim to the Court.

(c). During the course of investigation, PW13/SDPO examined the victim/PW-1 U/s. 180(3) BNSS in the presence of LW-3/Surampalli Ramayamma, who is the second wife of victim's father/PW-2 under videography of PW-4. Further, he visited the scene of offence at the house of accused along with the victim, accompanied by LW-3, examined the scene of offence, prepared scene observation report in the presence of mediators/PW-5 and LW-12 Jakkana Satyavathi, drawn rough sketch of the scene of offence and photographed the scene of offence by the private photographer/PW-4. Then, he secured witnesses, examined them as LW-2 to LW-10 I,.e., PW2, Surampalli Ramayyamma, Chodi Ramana, Juttada Ravi,

Mallarapu Lakshmi, Busari Ravi, Potnuru Geetha, Pws 3 and 4 and recoded their statements U/s. 180(3) BNSS. He arrested the accused in the presence of mediators i.e., PW5 and LW-12 Jakkana Satyavathi on 19-08-2025 at 08-30 AM., and recorded the confessional statement of accused and seized Realme V3 model mobile phone (IMEI No. 861437053192094 and 861437053192086) from the possession of the accused and sent the accused to the Court for judicial remand.

(d). PW13/SDPO forwarded the material objects of the victim and blood samples of accused to APFSL, Mangalagiri for DNA test. He obtained CDRs of the cell No. 8125901842 of the victim's father and cell No. 9966345298 of the accused.

He filed petition before the Court to send the accused for potency test and also filed memo before the Court to record the statement of the victim/PW-1 U/s. 183

BNSS and after receiving the documents and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

2. This case was taken on file for the offences under sections 64(2)(m) and 89 of BNS and section 6 r/w 5(l), 5(j)(ii) and 4 (2) of POCSO Act, 2012 against the accused.

03. After appearance of accused copies of case documents have been furnished and after hearing plea of accused under sec. 251 of BNSS, charges for the offences under sections 64(2)(m) and 89 of BNS and section 6 r/w 5(l), 5(j)(ii) of POCSO Act, 2012, were framed against the accused, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he denied the same by pleading not guilty and claimed to be tried.

04. The prosecution got examined PWs 1 to 13 and Exhibits P1 to P.17 and Mos 1 and 2 got marked.

05. After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 351 of BNSS by explaining the incriminating material available in the prosecution evidence, for which, the accused denied the material and reported no oral evidence.

06. Heard the arguments of the learned Special Public Prosecutor for prosecution and learned defence counsel. Perused the record.

07. Now the point for consideration in this case is,

Whether prosecution proved the guilt of the accused under Sections 64(2)(m) and 89 of BNS and section 6 r/w 5(l), 5(j)(ii) of POCSO Act, 2012, beyond all reasonable doubt ?

08.In order to establish the case of the prosecution, PWs 1 to 13 are examined and Exs. P1 to P.17 and Mos 1 and 2 got marked.

09.The case of the prosecution is, on 11.08.2025 evening on receipt of medical intimation from KGH, Visakhapatnam, PW9 on the instructions of their SI of

Police, rushed to KGH, Visakhapatnam and recorded the statement of the victim girl stated that she is resident of Yatha Veedhi of Ramatheerthalu Junction and she was born on 18.05.2009 and studied up to 10th class in Government High School at Nellimarla and presently studying intermediate second year at SVR College,

Vizianagaram. While she was studying 10th class, she got acquaintance with the accused when he came to arrange lighting to the marriage function of their street person. Since then he used to follow her in the name of love and both loved with each other, when she was studying intermediate, they both used to go to parks in

Vizianagaram and also to movies. Their love affair came to know to her mother and sister, on occasion of her birthday on 18.10.2025, the accused took her to his house, talked with sweet words and forcibly participated in sex with her in his bedroom in the absence of inmates on the pretext of marrying her. Since then the accused used to have sex with her on every Sunday at his house during the absence of inmates. As she was unwell, on 06.08.2025 her father taken away her to Government hospital at Nellimarla where Doctor examined her and confirmed that she was pregnant. Later she was sent to Ghosha hospital, Vizianagaram and from there to KGH, Visakhapatnam on 07.08.2025 for better treatment. Since then she was undergoing treatment in KGH, Visakhapatnam and her pregnancy was aborted. Hence, she requested to take action against the accused.

10.For that, the prosecution shall establish that the accused by knowing that the victim girl was minor, participated in sexual intercourse with her on several occasions and committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault towards her and caused miscarriage without her consent.

11.In this case, PW1 is the victim girl, PW2 is the father of the victim girl,

Pw3 is the Headmaster who issued the study certificate of PW1, PW4 is the private videographer who taken photos at the scene of offence and videographed the statement of the victim girl, PW5 acted as mediator at the time of scene observation and at the time of arrest of the accused, PW6 scribed the statements of the witnesses, PW7 examined the victim girl and issued letter to the police regarding treatment provided by her to PW1, PW8 collected the blood samples of the accused for DNA test, PW9 recorded the statement of the victim at KGH,

Visakhapatnam, PW10 also recorded the statement of the victim under section 180(3) of BNSS, PW11 registered the FIR, PW12 examined the victim girl and preserved the retained products for DNA test and issued medical reports, PW13 investigated the matter and arrested the accused and recorded his confessional statement and the in-charge DSP filed charge sheet.

12.PW1 is the victim girl and according to her at about 6 months back, when the accused came for doing electrical work infront of her house a dispute arose between PW2 and the accused and on the instance of police she signed on some papers. But she do not know its contents and she was not examined by the police and police taken away her to the hospital and to the court previously.

13.PW2 stated he do not know anything about this case and he was not examined by the police as per Ex.P.3.

14.PW3 stated PW1 studied in ZP Girls High School at Nellimarla from 6th class to 10th class and as per school record, her date of birth is 18.05.2009 and on the request of police, she issued the study and conduct certificate of PW1 and also attested on SSC mark list of PW1 which are marked as Exs.P4 and P5.

15.PW4 stated in the year 2025 on the directions of SI of Police,

Nellimarla, he went to SC Colony and took photos and videos of the scene of offence. Later he went to KGH, Visakhapatnam and recorded the statement of the victim, when it was recorded by Woman police and he handed over photos and pen-drive to the police.

16.PW5 stated on 18.08.2025 he acted as mediator in this case and police observed the house of one Simmala Ramu and prepared scene observation report, hence he signed on it. On 19.08.2025 police taken away them to water tank near

Anjaneya Swamy temple and they found the accused. On enquiry of police, accused confessed about the commission of offence and seized one black colour phone and he signed on confessional statement of accused.

17.PW6 stated when their DSP examined PW2 and other witnesses she drafted their statements.

18.PW7 stated on 06.08.2025 PW1 came to their hospital i.e.,

Government hospital, Nellimarla as out-patient by complaining excessive bleeding.

she found passing of vesicles indicating molar pregnancy. Then she collected the samples and sent her for pregnancy test and urine pregnancy test is positive. The patient refused to further treatment, therefore she gave O.P. ticket i.e., Ex.P.10.

19.PW8 stated when Nellimarla police brought the accused for collecting blood samples, she collected the same and sent the same to APFSL for DNA test.

20.PW9 stated when their SI of Police directed her to go to KGH,

Visakhapatnam, she went to KGH, Visakhapatnam on 11.08.2025 and recorded the statement of the victim girl and handed over the same to their SI of Police.

21. PW10 stated on 12.08.2025 on instructions of their DSP, she went to

KGH, Visakhapatnam and recorded the statement of the victim girl and handed over the same to their DSP.

22.PW11 stated on 11.08.2025 he received hospital information from

KGH, Visakhapatnam, then he sent PW9 to KGH, Visakhapatnam and he recorded the statement of PW1. Basing on that, he registered a case in crime no. 134/2025 under section 64(1) of BNS and section 5(l) r/w Section 6 and section 5(j)(ii) of

POCSO Act and issued original FIR.

23.PW12 stated she examined the victim girl on 07.08.2025 and on physical examination, there are no external injuries on the body and private parts of

PW1 and her hymen was not intact. She done urine pregnancy test to victim girl and it was positive and she is 11 weeks 5 days pregnant at the time of examination.

She sent the product of conception to APFSL, Mangalagiri, but the APFSL

Authorities concluded that the female DNA profile is identical with the female profile obtained from the victim girl which indicates that they are of same biological origin.

As the female DNA profile i.e., a piece of tissue is of the victim girl compared with the source of item no. 3 i.e, the accused is not possible. Hence no report was given by the APFSL Authorities.

24.PW13 stated he conducted investigation in this case and sent the material objects to APFSL, Mangalagiri for DNA test and obtained the study certificates of PW1 and accused and observed the scene of offence and taken photos at the scene and PW2 handed over one Vivo cellphone i.e., MO1. Then he seized the same. On 19.08.2025 he arrested the accused at Kothapeta water tank and recorded his confessional statement and seized MO2 from the possession of accused and sent the accused to Government hospital, Vizianagaram for collecting blood samples. Later he forwarded the accused to the court for judicial remand.

Subsequently in-charge SDPO received APFSL report and filed charge sheet.

25.As can be seen from the record available before this court, as per the evidence of PW3, the victim girl was born on 18.05.2009 and through PW3, Exs.P4 and P5 got marked. Ex.P5 is the attested copy of SSC certificate which clearly discloses that the date of birth of PW1 is 18.05.2009. Therefore, till now the victim girl is not attained majority, therefore through Ex.P5 proved by the prosecution that the victim girl was minor by the date of alleged incident.

26. The case of the prosecution is the accused by knowing that the victim girl was minor, participated in sexual intercourse with her, that means he committed rape and aggravated penetrative sexual assault towards the victim girl on several occasions and made her pregnant and later her pregnancy was aborted, but PW1, the victim girl did not support the prosecution case by stating that when dispute occurred between PW2 and accused, they approached the police and police obtained her signature on some papers. Therefore, her entire evidence no where disclosed about the alleged acts committed by the accused.

27.In respect of the confessional statement of accused is concerned, any confessional statement recorded by the police, that confessional statement of accused cannot be considered as it is inadmissible in eye of law.

28.When PW4 examined before this Court, Exs.P6 and P7 got marked.

Ex.P.6 is 6 photographs and Ex.P.7 is pendrive. As per the evidence of PW4, he took photos and video at the scene of offence and also videographed the statement of the victim at KGH, Visakhapatnam, but Ex.P7 pendrive not containing the video of the statement of PW1 recorded at KGH, Visakhapatnam. Therefore, there is no evidence before this Court as PW1 gave statement before Woman Constable.

29.As per the evidence of PW9, on 11.08.2025 on the instructions of their

SI of Police, she went to KGH, Visakhapatnam and recorded her statement. It is not her evidence that when she recorded the statement of PW1, the same was videographed by PW4. Whereas PW10 stated on 12.08.2025 she examined the victim girl at KGH, Visakhapatnam and got videographed the same. PW10 is not the woman Constable and she is working as SI of Police. Whereas PW4 stated he recorded the video of the statement of the victim, when it was recorded by woman

Constable. Therefore, the evidence of Pws 4 and 10 is not corroborating with each other and there is no other evidence before this Court to prove that the accused terminated the pregnancy of PW1 and he is responsible for the pregnancy of PW1.

30.As DNA report also discloses that as it is a molar pregnancy, no opinion can be given. Therefore, the DNA report also not discloses that the accused is the biological father of the fetus of the victim girl. Therefore, the prosecution miserably failed to establish the guilt of the accused under sections 64(2)(m) and 89 of BNS and section 6 r/w 5(l), 5(j)(ii) of POCSO Act-2012 beyond all reasonable doubt.

Hence, he is entitled to acquittal.

31. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 64(2)(m) and 89 of BNS and section 6 r/w 5(l), 5(j)(ii) of

POCSO Act 2012. Hence, he is acquitted under section 258 (1) of BNSS for the above said offences. M.O.1 shall be returned to PW1 after appeal time is over.

M.O.2 shall be confiscated to the State after appeal time is over by destroying the dead Sims if any available in MO2. The bail bonds of accused shall be continued for 6 months, by undertaking to appear before the next Appellate court, if any appeal is preferred against him as required under section 481 of BNSS.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.III, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 31 st day of March, 2026.

Sd/- K.Nagamani,

Spl. Judge for trial of cases under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Vizianagaram.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

PW1:Victim girl.

PW2:Father of the Victim girl.

PW3:G.M.Sarada.

PW4:Korada Ramesh.

PW5:Purada Venkataramana.

PW6:P.Atchiyamma. ((Woman Police Constable).

PW7:Dr.M.Tirumala Devi

PW8:Dr. P.Pragnya

PW9:G.Madhavi Kumari (Woman Police Constable).

PW10:B.Devi (SI of Police).

PW11:B.Ganesh (SI of Police).

PW12:Dr. G.Harika

PW13:M.Srinivasa Rao (SDPO).

FOR DEFENCE: NONE.

EXHIBITS MARKED

Ex.P1:Signature of Pw1 on the report.

Ex.P2:Section 180 BNSS Statement of PW1.

Ex.P3:Section 180 BNSS Statement of PW2.

Ex.P4:Study certificate of PW1.

Ex.P5:Attested copy of SSC Mark list of PW1.

Ex.P6:Six photographs.

Ex.P7:Pendrive containing only photos and videos of scene of offence (Video of the statement of PW1 not in Ex.P.7)

Ex.P8:Scene observation report.

Ex.P9:Confessional statement of accused.

Ex.P.10:Hospital O.P.ticket.

Ex.P.11:Statement of the victim girl/Pw1.

Ex.P.12:Original FIR.

Ex.P.13:Preliminary report.

Ex.P.14:Final opinion.

Ex.P.15:Rough sketch at 1st scene.

Ex.P.16:Potency certificate.

Ex.P.17:APFSL report.

FOR DEFENCE: -Nil-.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

M.O.1: Blue colour Vivo cellphone.

M.O.2: Black colour Realme cellphone.

Sd/- K.Nagamani,

Spl. Judge for trial of cases under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Vizianagaram.

Copy submitted to the Honourable Registrar (Judicial), Hon’ble High Court of A.P., at Amaravathi, Nelapadu, Guntur District (by way of CD).

Copy communicated to:

1. The District Collector, Vizianagaram.

2. The Superintendent of Police, Vizianagaram.

3. The Director of Prosecutions, Vijayawada.

4. The Special Public Prosecutor, POCSO Court, Vizianagaram.

5. The secretary District Legal Services Authority, Vizianagaram.

SC.POCSO/67/2025 Acquitted

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH vs Reddy Ganesh

21 Apr 2026

APVZ0E0000692025

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER

POCSO SESSIONS JUDGE AT VIZIANAGARAM.

PRESENT: : Smt K.Nagamani

Special Judge, for Trial

of cases under POCSO Act, Vizianagaram.

Tuesday, this the 21st of April, 2026

POCSO SC.No. 67/2025 (Cr.No.82/2025 of Cheepurupalli P.S.)

1. Name of the Complainant :State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Cheepurupalli P.S.

2. Name of the accused :Reddy Ganesh, S/o. Kondayya, age 28 years,

Penubarthivillage,GurlaMandal,

Vizianagaram District.

3. Charges : under sections 78(1)(i), 79, 115, 303(2), 351(2) of BNS and section 12 r/w 11(iv) of

POCSO Act, 2012 against accused.

4. Plea of accused: Accused pleaded not guilty for the offences under sections 78(1)(i), 79, 115, 303(2), 351(2) of BNS and section 12 r/w 11(iv) of

POCSO Act, 2012

5. Finding of the Judge : The accused is found not guilty for the offences under sections 78(1)(i), 79, 115, 303(2), 351(2) of BNS and section 12 r/w 11(iv) of POCSO Act, 2012.

6. Sentence or order : In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences under sections 78(1)(i), 79, 115, 303(2), 351(2) of BNS and section 12 r/w 11(iv) of POCSO Act, 2012, hence he is acquitted under Section 258(1) BNSS for the above said offences. The unmarked case property, if any, shall be returned to the victim girl/PW1 after appeal time is over. The bail bonds of the accused shall be continued for six months by undertaking to appear before the next appellate court, if any appeal is preferred against him, as required u/sec. 481 of BNSS.

With regard to granting of compensation to the victim girl i.e., PW1 is concerned, the prosecution failed to establish that PW1 was minor and she was sexually harassed by the accused. Therefore, the question of granting of compensation to the victim girl does not arise as prescribed under section 33(8) of

POCSO Act, 2012 read with Rule 9 of POCSO Rules, 2020.

7. Prosecution conducted by: Special Public Prosecutor.

8. Defence conducted by : Sri R.Ramesh, Advocate for the accused.

This case is coming on this day i.e., on 21.04.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Special Public Prosecutor on behalf of complainant and of

Sri R.Ramesh, learned counsel for the accused and having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E NT

1. The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Cheepurupalli

Police station filed charge sheet in Cr.No. 82/2025 of Cheepurupalli P.S., under sections 78(1)(i), 79, 115, 351(2) of BNS and section 11(iv) r/w 12 of POCSO Act 2012 with the following case facts.

(a).That while the victim girl/PW1 was aged about 14 years, accused followed her and expressed his desire to fell in love with PW.1, PW.1 refused the desire of the accused, but accused abused PW1 in filthy language from time to time and threatened her with dire consequences and also threatened to pour the acid 3 against LW.1. Due to fear, her parents raised panchayat before elders and elders, parents of the victim girl and parents of accused severely warned the accused, but the attitude of the accused not changed, due to which, her parents kept the victim girl at the house of LW.4/Bali Ramappadu at Modugulupeta village due to obstruction of the studies of PW.1, PW.1 continued her Computer studies at

Datapro Centre. Kotha Agraharam, Cheepurupalli, she completed the course by coming from Modugulupeta to Cheepurupalli. On 9-9-2025 morning while PW1 and

LW4/Bali Ramappadu came to the Cheepurupalli to take the certificate of PW.1 from Datapro Centre and returned back to Three road junction. Cheepurupalli at about 2.30 PMs., by that time said Ramappadu went into Santhana Laxmi temple for purchasing the vegetables, PW.1 stayed at Three road junction alone, at that time accused came to PW.1 and abused her and threatened her and beat her on her cheek and forcibly taken away her mobile with sim no. 957369873 and hurled the attitude of the accused before PW.1. due to fear, PW.1 rushed to LW.4/Bali

Ramappadu and informed the incident, again PW1 and LW4/Ramappadu rushed to

Three road junction, by that time accused along with another person absconded from Three road junction. PW1 and LW4/Bali Ramappadu informed the incident to the parents of PW1, due to tear. PW1 gave report to police against the accused.

(b). Basing on the report of PW.1, PW.8/Sl of Police, Cheepurupalli PS registered the case in Cr.No. 82/2025, u/sec. 78(1) (i), 79, 351(2) Bharatiya Nyaya

Sanhita 2023 and Section 11(iv) r/w. 12 of POCSO Act-2012 of Cheepurupalli PS and investigated into. The investigation reveals that accused followed the victim girl/PW.1 and made love proposal to her, but she refused his proposal, then accused abused her with an intention to intend to insult her modesty, she informed the same to her parents, her parents raised panchayat before elders and elders warned the accused to change the attitude, but accused did not change his attitude.

On 09-09-2025 at 2.30 PM while P.W.1 standing on the Three road junction,

Cheepurupalli, by that time, accused came there on a motor cycle and abused

PW.1 and beat on her cheek and threatened her with dire consequences to pour acid on her, PW.1 hurled the attitude of accused and informed the same to LW.4 4

Bali Ramappadu immediately, said Ramappadu along with PW1 rushed to the spot and accused absconded from that place on motor cycle.

(c).During the course of investigation, PW.8 observed the scene of offence in the presence of PW5 and LW11/Basava Suresh and got drafted the scene observation report, prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence, examined PW1 with the assistance of PW7/Woman PC 2022 of Cheepurupalli PS at the house of

PW.1 and examined as many as 8 witnesses and recorded their statements under

Section 180(3) BNSS 2023.

(d).PW8/Sl of Police, Cheepurupalli PS served notice to the accused under Section 35(3) BNSS on 17-09-2025. He filed a memo before the court to record the statement of PW1 under Section 183 BNSS, he obtained study

Certificate of the PW.1 from PW6. He obtained Date of Birth Certificate of PW.1 from Panchayat Secretary, Penubarthi village. After receiving documents and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet before the court against the accused under 78(1)(i),79,351(2) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 and Section 11(iv) r/w. 12 of POCSO Act.2012.

02. This case was taken on file for the offences under sections 78(1)(i), 79, 115, 303(2), 351(2) of BNS and section 12 r/w 11(iv) of POCSO Act, 2012, against the accused.

03. After appearance of accused copies of case documents have been furnished and after hearing plea of accused under sec. 251 of BNSS, charges for the offences under sections 78(1)(i), 79, 115, 303(2), 351(2) of BNS and section 12 r/w 11(iv) of POCSO Act, 2012, were framed against the accused, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he denied the same by pleading not guilty and claimed to be tried.

04. The prosecution got examined PWs 1 to 8 and Exhibits P1 to P.10 got marked.

06. Heard the arguments of the learned Special Public Prosecutor for prosecution and learned defence counsel. Perused the record.

07. Now the point for consideration in this case is,

Whether prosecution proved the guilt of accused under Sections 78(1)

(i), 79, 115, 303(2), 351(2) of BNS and section 12 r/w 11(iv) of POCSO Act, 2012 beyond all reasonable doubt ?

08.In order to establish the case of the prosecution PWs 1 to 8 are examined and Exhibits P1 to P.10 got marked.

09.The case of the prosecution is, when the victim girl was aged about 14 years, the accused followed her and expressed his desire to fell in love with the victim girl. The victim girl refused his desire, but the accused abused her in filthy language from time to time and threatened her with dire consequences and also threatened to pour acid against her, due to fear her parents raised panchayat

before elders and the elders and his parents also warned him, but he did not

change his attitude. The parents of the victim kept her at the house of one Bali

Ramappadu at Modugulapeta village due to obstruction of the studies of the victim girl. The victim girl later continued her studies at Datapro Center, Kotha Agraharam,

Cheepurupalli. She completed the course by coming from Modugulapeta to

Cheepurupalli. On 09.09.2025 at morning hours when she came to Cheepurupalli to collect the certificate from Datapro Center and returned back to 3 road junction,

Cheepurupalli at about 2.30 pm, the said Bali Ramappadu went into

Santhanalakshmi temple for purchasing the vegetables and she stayed at 3 Road 6

Junction alone, by the time the accused came there and abused her in filthy language and threatened her and beat her on cheeks and forcibly taken the mobile and hurled the attitude of the accused before the victim girl, due to fear she rushed towards Bali Ramappadu and informed the incident, again they both rushed and found that the accused along with another person absconded from the 3 Road junction. Therefore, she informed the same to her parents due to fear and they decided to give report to the police and PW1 gave report to police. Basing on her report, a case in crime no. 82/2025 was registered under section 78 (1)(i), 79, 351(2) and Section 11(iv) r/w 12 of POCSO Act and after completion of investigation charge sheet was filed.

10.In this case, PW1 is the victim girl, PW2 is her mother, PWs 3 and 4 conducted panchayat, PW5 acted as mediator at the time of scene observation,

PW6 is the Principal of KGVB, Garividi who issued the study and conduct certificate of the victim girl, PW7 recorded the statement of the victim girl, PW-8 registered the

FIR and conducted investigation and filed charge sheet.

11.PW-1 stated that on 09-09-2025, when she went to computer class, the accused hit her with his bike. Therefore, a dispute raised between them, hence she went to the police station. On the instance of police, she drafted the report, but she do not know its contents and she was not examined by the police and gave statement before the court on the instance of police.

12.PW2, the mother of the victim girl also did not support the prosecution case by stating that she do not know anything about this case.

13.Pws 3 and 4 shown as the elders who conducted panchayat, but they also did not support the prosecution case by stating that they do not know anything about this case and they were not examined by police.

14.Pw5 stated on 16-09-2025 at 3.00 pm., SI of police came to 3 road junction near RTC complex at Cheepurupalli and observed the same and prepared scene observation report, hence he signed on the same.

15.P.W. 6 stated, P.W. 1 studied in KGVB school at Garividi from 6th class to 10th class during the year 2018-2023 and her date of birth is 09-12-2007. On the request of police, she issued Ex.P.7 study certificate.

16.PW7 stated on 16-09-2025 at 1.00 p.m., on the directions of their SI of police, she drafted the statement of PW1 and handed over the same to their SI of

Police.

17.PW8 stated on 16-09-2025 at 2.00 p.m., PW1 came to the police station and presented a written report. Basing on it, he registered a case in crime no. 82/2025 under Section 78(1)(i), 79, 351(2) of BNS and Section 11(iv) r/w 12 of

POCSO Act and Issued original FIR and on the same day, he secured the mediators and visited 3 Road Junction in Cheepurupalli, Near RTC Complex and observed the same and prepared scene observation report and rough sketch and also examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. On 17-09-2025 the accused himself came to the police station, hence, he issued Section 35(3) BNSS notice to the accused and he applied for CDRs of accused and PW1 and also obtained the study certificate of PW1 and birth certificate from Panchayat Secretary and filed a memo before the court to record the statement of PW1 under section 183 of BNSS. On 08.09.2025 the court recorded section 183 of BNSS statement of

P.W. 1. Therefore, after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

18.As can be seen from the evidence available before this court, the gist of the prosecution case is, the accused roamed around the victim girl in the name of love and pressurized her to love him, when she was reluctant, he abused her in filthy language and threatened her with dire consequences and also threatened to 8 pour acid on her and beat on her cheeks and committed theft of the mobile phone of the victim girl, when she came to Three Road Junction, Cheepurupalli.

19.In this case, the victim girl ie., P.W.1, and her mother i.e, P.W.2 did not support the prosecution case and according to P.W.1, when she went to computer class, the accused hit her with a bike. Therefore, a dispute raised between them and she went to the police station. It is not her evidence that the accused roamed around her in the name of love and abused her and threatened her with dire consequences and beat her and committed theft of mobile phone of the victim girl and the alleged elders i.e, PWs 3 and 4 also did not support the prosecution case by stating that they were not examined by police and they do not know anything about this case. Therefore, through P.Ws. 1 to 4, nothing was elicited by the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused.

20.Coming to the evidence of P.W.5, he stated that police observed the scene of offence in his presence on 16-09-2025. That part of the evidence is corroborating with the evidence of P.W.8 that on 16-09-2025 itself, he visited the scene of offence. But the victim girl is the right person to speak whether the place where P.W.8 observed is the scene of offence or not or whether any offence occurred at that place. But P.W.1 did not say anything before this court.

21.As per the evidence of P.W.8, he obtained the birth certificate of the victim girl from Gram Panchayat and Ex.P10 discloses that the date of PW1 is 09- 12-2007 and as per the prosecution case, the date of offence is prior to 09-09-2025.

But as on the date of offence i.e., either on 09-09-2025 or on 16-9-2025. the victim girl attained majority and the specific date and time of alleged offence not mentioned in Ex.P1 report. It was mentioned in Ex.P1 that the accused roamed around the victim girl when she was 14 years old. But the specific date was not mentioned in Ex.P.1 report. Therefore, as discussed above, as on 09-09-2025, the victim girl attained majority. Therefore, the prosecution failed to establish that the victim girl was minor by the date of alleged incident.

22.Moreover, as discussed above, the victim girl did not say anything against the accused and except the evidence of PWs 1 to 4, no other evidence is available before this court in respect of the alleged acts committed by the accused.

If really he beat a girl at Three Road Junction, near RTC Complex, the inhabitants of that locality or the persons who are passing on the road as it is busy area are the important witnesses, but no such independent evidence available before this court and moreover PW8 also did not recover the mobile phone of PW1 from the possession of accused, therefore as PW 1 did not support the prosecution case and no independent witnesses are examined in this case, the court cannot rely on the sole testimony of the investigation officer. Therefore, the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the charges levelled against him.

23. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences under sections 78(1)(i), 79, 115, 303(2), 351(2) of BNS and section 12 r/w 11(iv) of

POCSO Act, 2012, hence he is acquitted under Section 258(1) BNSS for the above said offences. The unmarked case property, if any, shall be returned to the victim girl/PW1 after appeal time is over. The bail bonds of the accused shall be continued for six months by undertaking to appear before the next appellate court, if any appeal is preferred against him, as required u/sec. 481 of BNSS.

POCSO Act, 2012 read with Rule 9 of POCSO Rules, 2020.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.III, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 21 st day of April, 2026.

Sd/- K.Nagamani,

Spl. Judge for trial of cases under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Vizianagaram.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

PW1:Victim girl

PW2:Mother of the victim girl.

PW3:Sanchala Sanyasinaidu.

PW4:Thummaganti Parameswara Rao.

PW5:Reddi Rajkumar

PW6:Shaik Reshma Beebi.

PW7:M.Saraswathi (Woman Police Constable).

PW8:L.Damodara Rao (SI of Police)

FOR DEFENCE: NONE.

EXHIBITS MARKED

Ex.P1:Report given by Pw1.

Ex.P2:Section 180 of BNSS statement of PW1.

Ex.P3:Section 180 of BNSS statement of PW2.

Ex.P4:Section 180 of BNSS statement of PW3.

Ex.P5:Section 180 of BNSS statement of PW4.

Ex.P6:Scene Observation report.

Ex.P7:Study certificate of PW1.

Ex.P8:Original FIR.

Ex.P9:Rough sketch.

Ex.P10:Date of birth certificate issued by Gama Sachivalayam of

Pendurthi village.

FOR DEFENCE: -Nil-.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-NIL-

Sd/- K.Nagamani,

Spl. Judge for trial of cases under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Vizianagaram

Copy submitted to the Honourable Registrar (Judicial), Hon’ble High Court of A.P., at Amaravathi, Nelapadu, Guntur District (by way of CD).

Copy communicated to:

1. The District Collector, Vizianagaram.

2. The Superintendent of Police, Vizianagaram.

3. The Director of Prosecutions, Vijayawada.

4. The Special Public Prosecutor, POCSO Court, Vizianagaram.

5. The secretary District Legal Services Authority, Vizianagaram.

SC.POCSO/36/2025 Acquitted

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH vs XXXXX

20 Apr 2026

APVZ0E0000052026

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER

POCSO SESSIONS JUDGE AT VIZIANAGARAM.

PRESENT: : Smt K.Nagamani

Special Judge, for Trial

of cases under POCSO Act, Vizianagaram.

Tuesday, this the 7th day of April, 2026.

POCSO SC. 4/2026 (Cr.No.75/2025 of Parvathipuram Rural P.S.,)

1. Name of the Complainant :State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Parvathipuram Rural P.S.

2. Name of the accused :1. Naidu Rajasekhar s/o Appalanaidu, 29 years,Chinabondapallivillageof Parvathipuram mandal.

2. Naidu Lakshmi w/o Rajasekhar, 21 years, Chinabondapalli village of Parvathipuram mandal.

3. Patnana Ramakrishna s/o late Ramamurthy, 70 years, Chinabondapalli village of Parvathipuram mandal.

4. Patnana Tavitamma w/o Ramakrishna, 43 years,Chinabondapallivillageof Parvathipuram mandal. .

3. Charges : under sections 75(2), 79, 351(2) of BNS and 8 r/w 7 of POCSO Act-2012 against A.1 and

Section 351 (2) r/w 3(5) of BNS against A.2 to

A.4.

4. Plea of accused : A.1 to A.4 pleaded not guilty.

5. Finding of the Judge : A.1 is found not guilty for the offences under sections 75(2), 79, 351(2) of BNS and 8 r/w 7 of POCSO Act-2012 and A.2 to A.4 are found not guilty for the offence under Section 351 (2) r/w 3(5) of BNS.

6. Sentence or order : In the result, A1 is found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 75(2), 79, 351(2) of BNS and Section 8 r/w 7 of POCSO

Act-2012, hence, he is acquitted under Section 258 (1) of BNSS for the above said offences. A.2 to A.4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 351(2) r/w 3(5) of BNS, hence, they are acquitted under Section 258 (1) of BNSS for the above said offence. The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after appeal time is over. The bail bonds of A1 to A4 shall be continued for six months by undertaking to appear before the next Appellate court, if any appeal is preferred against them as required under Section 481 of BNSS..

With regard to the granting of compensation to the victim girl i.e., PW3 is concerned, the prosecution failed to establish that PW3 was sexually harassed by A.1, hence she is not entitled for any compensation as prescribed under section 33(8) of POCSO Act, 2012 read with Rule 9 of POCSO Rules, 2020.

7. Prosecution conducted by : Special Public Prosecutor.

8. Defence conducted by : Sri M.Ganapathi Rao, Advocate for accused.

This case is coming on 06.04.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Special Public Prosecutor on behalf of complainant and of Sri

M.Ganapathi Rao, learned counsel for the accused and having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E NT

1. The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police Parvathipuram Rural

Police Station filed charge sheet in crime no. 75/2025 for the offences under sections 75, 351 (2), 79 BNS and sec 7 r/w 8 of POCSO Act 2012 of

Parvathipuram Rural PS, with the following case facts.

(a)That all the accused are residents of Chinabondapalli Parvathipuram mandal, A1 is own brother of PW1 and maternal uncle of the victim girl/PW3 and he is working as Constable in CRPF at Jalandhar, Punjab state. A2 is the wife of

A1, A3 and A4 are the wife and husband and A4 is the sister of PW1. All are residing inside by side houses in the same street which were given by PW2. PW3 is aged about 14 years and 7 months and studying 10th class in Z.P. High school,

M.R.Nagaram, a common pathway is situated for their three houses and all are using for ingress and agree to their houses. Regarding the common pathway PW1 and A1 quarreled on several times and issue also raised before LWs 7 and 8 i.e.,

Gandi Sankar Rao and Bankuru Ravikumar, but in vain. At this juncture, on 06.06.2025 morning about 07.00 AM., A1 constructing parapet wall across the common pathway without leaving way to the house of PW1. On that PWs 1 and 3 picked up an altercation with A1 and questioned him as how can they move into their house without leaving way. In that wordy altercation, A1 abused both the PWs 1 and 3 in an unparliamentary language and blemished PW1 as she earns money by doing prostitution with PW3, and A1 pulled the hand of PW3 and offered money if she participated in sex with him. For which, PW3 panicked and cried loudly. then

PW1 and LW4/Botna Jagan Mohan intervened and rescued PW3 from the clutches of A1, In the mean time A2 to A4 entered into the issue and colluded with A1 and they also abused Pws 1 and 3 in foul language and insulted their modesty in the public as well as A1 to A4 threatened PW1 and warned that they will kill her at any way. Then she gave report to police.

(b). Basing on the report of PW-1, PW16 registered the FIR in Cr.

No.75/2025 u/s 75, 351 (2), 79 BNS and sec 7 r/w 8 of POCSO Act of

Parvathipuram Rural PS on 01.07.2025 at 6.30 PM., examined PWs 1 and 3 and sent PW3 to the District Hospital, Parvathipuram for medical examination. The 4 investigation reveals that A1 committed sexual assault on the victim girl/PW3 and insulted the modesty of the victim girl and her mother and A2 to A4 also outraged the modesty and criminal intimidation on the victim girl and her mother.

(c). During the course of investigation, on 02.07.2025, PW5 visited the scene of offence and got drafted scene observation report in the presence of LWs 9 and 10 i.e., Raipalli Yellayya and Talasri Veerachari, examined the witnesses/LWs 3 to 8 I..e, Pw2, Botna Jagan Mohan, Paturi Ramakrishna, Paturi Laxmanarao, Gandi

Sankara Rao and Bankuru Ravikumar and recorded their detailed statements u/sec. 180 (3) BNSS statements. Later PW5 forwarded the victim girl before LWs 11 and 12 i.e., G.Thaviti Naidu and Allu Satyanarayana (DPO) who are the Child protection Unit held counseling to the Victim girl.

(d). PW5 issued notices u/sec. 35 (3) BNSS to A2 to A4 on 22.07.2025 and on 12.8.2025 to A1 and he obtained study certificate of PW3 from PW4 and he filed memo before the Court to record the statements of PWs 1 and 3 u/s 183 BNSS and after receiving documents and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

02.This case was taken on file for the offences under sections 75(2), 79, 351(2) of BNS and 8 r/w 7 of POCSO Act-2012 against A.1 and section 351(2) r/w 3(5) of BNS against A2 to A4.

03.After appearance of A.1 to A.4, copies of case documents have been furnished and after hearing plea of A.1 to A.4 under sec. 237 of BNSS, charges for the offences under sections 75(2), 79, 351(2) of BNS and 8 r/w 7 of POCSO

Act-2012, against A1 and charge under section 351(2) r/w 3(5) of BNS against A2 to A4, were framed against A.1 to A4, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they denied the same by pleading not guilty and claimed to be tried.

04.The prosecution examined PWs 1 to 5 and Exhibits P1 to P12 got marked.

05.After completion of prosecution evidence, A.1 and A.2 were examined under Section 351 of BNSS by explaining the incriminating material available in the prosecution evidence, for which, A.1 to A.4 denied the material and reported no defence evidence.

06.Heard the arguments of the learned Special Public Prosecutor for prosecution and learned defence counsel. Perused the record.

07.Now the point for consideration in this case is,

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of A1 for the offences under Sections 75(2), 79, 351(2) of BNS and 8 r/w 7 of POCSO Act-2012, and against A2 to A4 under section 351(2) r/w 3 (5) of BNS, beyond all reasonable doubt ?

08.In order to establish the case of prosecution, PWs 1 to 5 are examined and Exs.P.1 to P12 got marked.

09.The case of the prosecution is, A1 is the younger brother of PW1, A2 is the wife of A1, A4 is the elder sister of PW1, A.3 is the husband of A4 and A1 is working as CRPF Constable at Jalandhar, Punjab State and all the accused and

PW1 are residing in side by side houses in the same street. PW3, the daughter of

PW1, aged about 14 years and 7 months and studying 10th class at ZP High School at MR Nagar. Common pathways situated to their 3 houses and all are using that path for ingress and aggress to their houses. Regarding the common pathway, quarrel took place between PW1 and A.1 on several times and the matter also place before the elders, but not pacified the same. At this juncture, on 06.06.2025 at 7.00 AM A.1 constructing parapet wall across the common pathway without leaving way into the house of PW1, on that PWs 1 and 3 picked up an altercation with A.1 and questioned him, how can they move to their house without leaving way. In that altercation, A.1 abused both PWs 1 and 3 in unparliamentary language and blemished PW1 as she earns by doing prostitution through PW3 and pulled the hand of PW1 and offered money to participate in sexual intercourse with him. On 6 that situation, PW3 got panicked and cried loudly. Then PW1 and her son intervened and rescued PW3 from the clutches of A.1. Meanwhile A2 to A.4 entered into their issue and abused PWs 1 and 2 in foul language and insulted their modesty in public place and threatened to kill them at any way. Therefore, PW1 approached the police and gave report to police.

10.For that, the prosecution shall establish that A1 by knowing that PW3 was minor, abused PWs 1 and 3 in a filthy language and sexually harassed PW3 by caught hold her hand and asked her to fulfill his lust and A.2 to A.4 threatened

PWs 1 and 3 with dire consequences along with A.1.

11.In this case, PW1 is the mother of the victim girl, PW2 is the father of

PW1 and PW3 is the victim girl, PW4 is the Headmaster who issued study and conduct certificate of PW3 and PW5 is investigation officer.

12.During the course of trial, PWs 1 to 3 did not support the prosecution case. PW1 stated at about one year back, A.1 constructed a wall by restraining their movements, therefore, she approached the elders and elders obtained her signature on some papers, but she do not know its contents.

13.PWs 2 and 3 stated they do not know anything about this case and they were not examined by police.

14.PW4 stated PW3 joined in 10th Class in ZP High School at MR Nagar of

Parvahipuram Mandal and as per school record, the date of birth of PW3 is 08.09.2010. On the request of police, he issued Ex.P.6 study and conduct certificate of PW3.

15.PW5 stated on 01.07.2025 PW1 came and presented a typed report, basing on it, she registered a case in crime no. 75/2025 under Sections 75(1), 351 (2), 79 of BNS and section 7 r/w 8 of POCSO Act and issued original FIR and 7 examined PW1 and sent PW3 to Area Hospital, Parvathipuram for medical examination and there she recorded the statement of PW3. On 02.07.2025 she observed the scene of offence in the presence of mediators and taken photos and prepared Exs. P9 and P10 i.e., scene observation report and rough sketch and examined the witnesses and recorded their statements and obtained Ex.P.12 wound certificate of PW3 which shows that there are no external injuries on the body of PW3. Then, she filed a petition before the court to record statements of

PWs 1 and 3 under section 183 BNSS and served section 35 (3) of BNSS notices to A1 to A.4 and after completion of investigation, she filed charge sheet.

16.As can be seen from the record available before this court, PWs 1 to 3 i.e., the mother and grand father of the victim girl as well as the victim girl did not support the prosecution case. Even the wound certificate i.e, Ex.P.12 also discloses that there are no external injuries on the body of PW3 and no independent witnesses examined before this court to prove the guilt of the accused. Therefore, as PWs 1 to 3 did not support the prosecution case, the court cannot rely on the sole testimony of PW5 who is only the investigating officer in this case. Therefore, the prosecution miserably failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence A1 to A4 are entitled for acquittal for the charges levelled against them.

17.In the result, A1 is found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 75(2), 79, 351(2) of BNS and Section 8 r/w 7 of POCSO Act-2012 , hence, he is acquitted under Section 258 (1) of BNSS for the above said offences. A.2 to

A.4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 351(2) r/w 3(5) of

BNS, hence, they are acquitted under Section 258 (1) of BNSS for the above said offence. The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after appeal time is over. The bail bonds of A1 to A4 shall be continued for six months by undertaking to appear before the next Appellate court, if any appeal is preferred against them as required under Section 481 of BNSS..

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.III, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 7 th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- K.Nagamani,

Spl.Judge for trial of cases under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Vizianagaram.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

PW1:Mother of the victim girl.

PW2:Maternal Grandfather of victim girl.

PW3:Victim girl

PW4:Donaka Vijaykumar

PW5:B.Santhoshikumari (Woman SI of Police).

FOR DEFENCE: NONE.

EXHIBITS MARKED

Ex.P1:Signature of PW1 on the report.

Ex.P2:Section 180 BNSS statement of PW1.

Ex.P3:Section 180 BNSS statement of PW2.

Ex.P4:Signature of Pw3 on the statement dated 01-07-2025.

Ex.P5:Section 180 BNSS statement of PW3.

Ex.P6:Study and conduct certificate of PW3.

Ex.P7:Report given by PW1.

Ex.P8:Original FIR

Ex.P9:Scene observation report.

Ex.P10: Rough sketch.

Ex.P11: Three photos.

Ex.P12: Wound Certificate of PW3.

FOR DEFENCE: Nil.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-NIL-

Sd/- K.Nagamani,

Spl.Judge for trial of cases under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Vizianagaram.

Copy submitted to the Honourable Registrar (Judicial), Hon’ble High Court of A.P., at Amaravathi, Nelapadu, Guntur District (by way of CD).

Copy communicated to:

1. The District Collector, Vizianagaram.

2. The Superintendent of Police, Vizianagaram.

3. The Director of Prosecutions, Vijayawada.

4. The Special Public Prosecutor, POCSO Court, Vizianagaram.

5. The secretary District Legal Services Authority, Vizianagaram.

SC.POCSO/74/2021 Acquitted

XXXXX vs XXXXX

15 Apr 2026