SMT. K. Sailaja

SC. 94/2021

1

IN THE COURT OF THE FAST TRACK SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE

FOR EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL AND DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND POCSO

ACT CASES AT JANGAON.

Tuesday On this the 31st day of January, 2023.

PRESENT: SMT. K. SAILAJA, F.A.C The Fast Track Special Sessions

Judge For Expeditious Trial And Disposal

Of Rape And POCSO Act Cases At Jangaon.

SC(POCSO) No. 94/2021.

Crime No. 470/2020 of PS Jangaon

1.Name of the complainant:The State of Telangana through the Sub-Inspector of Police, Jangaon

2.Name and description of the :Dodde Prashanth @ Chintu,S/o. accusedPrabhakar, Age: 23 Years, Caste: Madiga, Occu: Pvt.work, R/o. Darmakancha, jangaon .

3.Offence with which charged:U/Sec 354-A IPC,Sec. 18 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012.

4.Plea of the accusedPleaded not guilty

5.Finding of the Court:Found guilty

6.Sentence or Order:accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence u/Sec 354 A IPC and for a period of one year and six months and pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-(Twenty Five Thousand only) U/sec 18 of POCSO Act in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months. The fine amount of Rs. 25,000/- (Twenty Five thousand only)

SC. 94/2021

2 shall be given as compensation to the victim girl.

7.Name of the Prosecutor :Sri. M. Steeven SPL. Public Prosecutor.

8. Name of the Defence Counsel:B.Swapna Advocate

This Case is coming on 20.1.2023 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. M.Steeven SPL. Public Prosecutor, for the

State/Complainant and of Smt. B.Swapna, Advocate for Accused persons after hearing the arguments of both the sides and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The accused face trial for offence U/sec. 354-A IPC, Sec.18 of protection of children from sexual Offences Act 2012 in short the Act, in

Crime No. 470/2020.

2.The prosecution case is that on 30/12/2020, at 10:30 hours the victim mother souda Bhagya W/o. Sampath, Age: 28 Years, Caste:

Madiga, Occu: Housewife, R/o. Darmakancha, Jangaon presented a written report at the PS mentioning that her daughter Age: 8 years was playing in front of their house and at that time the accused Dodde

Prashanth @ Chintu S/o. Prabhakar, Age: 23 Years, Resident of same village, forcibly took her daughter into bathroom and tried to commit rape. Then the victim shouted loudly and immediately she forcibly opened the door and rescued the victim girl, and then the accused tried to attack

SC. 94/2021

3 her and escaped from the scene, when people gather and started chasting him.

3. On receipt of the above said complainant, the S.I. of Police,

Jangaon PS has registered a case in Cr.No. 470/2020 u/s 354-A of IPC

Section 18 of protection of children from sexual offences Act 2012 at PS

Jangaon, and issued FIRs to all concerned and took up the investigation and recorded the statement of LW1 and the woman constable recorded the statement of victim under video coverage, then the I.O. examined

Lws 3 to 4 and recorded statements and visited the scene of offence ans prepared the crime details in presence of mediators and secured the presence of the father of the victim and examined him and recorded his statement. On 30-12-2020 LW-10 along with his force apprehended the accused and interrogated the accused and took him into custody and later produced before the Hon’ble JFCm Court, Jangaon for Judicial remand.

Later he filed a requisition to record the statement of victim u/s 164

Cr.P.C. then addressed a letter to the Head master of Vyshnavi High

School to issue Conduct certificate of the victim. The date of birth of victim was 19-10-2012 and she was minor. On completion of investigation charges were filed u/s 354-A, IPC Section 18 of POCSO Act 2012.

4. The learned Ist Addl District & Sessions Judge took cognizance of the offence punishable u/s 354-A IPC, Section 18 of POCSO Act 2012 against

SC. 94/2021

4 the accused. The copies of documents are furnished to accused on his appearance. Later as per the letter of the Hon’ble Prl. District Warangal communicated in Dis.No. 824, dated 10.02.2022, this case is transferred to POCSO Court, Jangaon.

5. On appearance of accused, after hearing both sides the charges were framed for the offence punishable U/sec 354-A of IPC Section 18 of

POCSO Act, 2012 against the accused and same was read over and explained to him in Telugu and he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. During the trial, the prosecution examined PW1 to 7 and got marked

Ex.P1 to P3.

7. Heard both sides and perused the record.

8. Now the point for determination are:

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused U/sec 354-A, IPC Section 18 of POCSo Act 2012 beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:

9.The Complainant is the mother of the victim. According to her the incident took place on 30-12-2020 at 1o:30 AM, at Darmakancha

Jangaon, and on that day her daughter was playing in front of her house

SC. 94/2021

5 and the accused caught hold of her daughter and took her to the bathroom. Which is located in the back of the rented house and tried to out rage her modesty. She further deposed that her daughter screamed and hearing her screams she went to the bathroom and beat the door of the bathroom and the accused said there was no one inside the bathroom. But hearing the voice of her daughter she pushed the door and rescued her daughter and on hearing the noise the neighbors gathered and scolded the accused and the accused fled away from the scene. Then she gave a report at the police station marked as Ext. P1. During her cross examination she denied the suggestion that as the accused was innocent he climber the water tank to commit suicide. She further denied the suggestion that as the accused was consuming alcohol and creating nuisance with the intention of getting the accused vacate the portion, they have filed a false case against the accused.

10.The evidence of PW1 is corroborated with the evidence of the victim who was examined as PW2. The Victim is a girl of aged 10 years. The

Hon’ble Court put some preliminary questions to her and found her to be

wise and prudent in giving the evidence.

11.During her evidence she deposed that she went out to purchase chips and came to her home and that time the accused who was a tenant of the neighboring home caught hold of her and took her to the

SC. 94/2021

6 bathroom, at which she screamed on hearing her screaming her mother came and knocked the door and shouted from outside to open the door and then the accused closed her mouth and said that no one was there.

Then her mother forcibly pushed the door and asked him why he brought her to the bathroom and then he beat her mother. She further deposed that the neighbors gathered and asked him as to why he took her to the bathroom.

12.She further stated that she was examined by a “madam” in her home and after 20 days she gave a statement before the magistrate. To a question put by the defence counsel as to why she said did not try to release her hand from the accused she replied that he was drunk. She further stated that as he was nice to others, she went along with him. She denied her suggestion that there were disputes between the accused family and her paternal grandmother. According to her the accused directly took her to the bathroom and at that time there were no children.

Lastly he denied that the suggestion that as there were disputes with her grandmother and therefore a false case had been filed against him.

13.PW3 is the father of the victim who heard about the incident from his wife after returning home and then he was shocked and took PW1 & 2 to the Police station for lodging the report.

SC. 94/2021

7

14.Pw4 is the woman constable who recorded the statement of the child/victim at her house and she recorded and videographed the statement.

15.PW5 is the video grapher who arranged the video for recording the statement of the victim in her house and according to him he arranged the video and went out side and after recording he went inside and turned it off. The CD is marked as Ext.M.O. 1.

16.PW6 is the witness to the crime detail form which was prepared by the police at the house of PW1, the witness deposed that after preparing the crime detail form his signature was obtained by the police. Ext. P2 is the crime detail form along with the signature of PW6 and the signature of one Praveen Kumar. During his cross examination he denied the suggestion that he does not know anything about the crime detail form and only signed at the instance of the police. He further, denied the suggestion that he was deposing in favor of the victim as he belongs to same caste. But at the same time the witness has stated that the accused also belongs to their caste, and he further deposed that he is having his own house in the said locality.

17.PW7 is the S.I. of police who narrated the about the registration of the case and examination of the victim by the woman police constable.

SC. 94/2021

8

According to him he went to the scene of offence at 1.00 pm, and prepared the crime detail form and obtained the bonafide certificate of the victim girl from Vyshnavi High School which is marked as Ex.P3 and arrested the accused. On 30-12-2020 he issued requisition to the Prl.

JFCM Jangaon, to record the 164 statement of the victim. During his cross examination he narrated the boundaries of the scene of offence, which is bounded by the house of Botla Krishna in the east, in the west side Venu, in the North side Dubbaka Ramaiah and in the South side open place of Dubbaka Ramaiah. He lastly denied the suggestion that he did not go to the scene of offence, nothing more could be elicited by the defence counsel during the cross examination.

18.On completion of the evidence of the prosecution when the accused was put all the incriminating evidence appearing against him , he stated that on the day of incident while he was washing his face 3 children suddenly came inside and 2 children went out and when he was coming out with the victim girl her mother saw and misunderstood him and shouted at him. He further had stated that there was a quarrel between the mother and the mother-in-law of PW1 and therefore, a false case has been filed against him.

19.Heard arguments from both sides, the learned P.P. argued that the evidence of PW1 to 7 is quite consisting and corroborating the case of the prosecution and has proved that the accused with the intention of out

SC. 94/2021

9 raging the modesty of the victim girl has taken her into the bathroom,therefore, he needs stringent punishment.

20.On the other hand the learned Counsel for the accused argued that the accused was falsely implicated in the case due to the previous enmity between his mother and mother-in-law of PW1 and therefore he prays the court to acquit the accused.

Point for Consideration:

21. The offence alleged against the accused is that the accused on 30- 12-2020 has forcibly took the victim girl aged about 8 years to the bathroom with the intention of outraging her modesty and thus proscued for the offence u/s 354-A IPC and sec. 18 of POCSO Act.

The offences U/s 354-A runs as follows: Section 354-A Sexual harassment and punishment for sexual harassment. A man committing any of the following acts:- (I) physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures: or

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

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

(iv) making sexually coloured remarks;

2. Any man who commits the offence specified in clause (I) or clause(ii) or clause

(iii) of sub-section (1) shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

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

Similarly the Section. 18 of the POCSO Act runs as follows: 22. Sec.18: Punishment for attempt to commit and offence:- Whoever attempts to commit any offence punishable under this Act or to cause such an offence to be committed,and in such attempt, does not act towards the commission of the offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of any description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-half of the imprisonment for life or, as the case may be, one-half of the longest term of imprisonment provided for that offence or with fine or with both.

SC. 94/2021

10

23.The victim girl is aged about 8 years, which had been proved through the Bonafide certificate vide Ex.P3 and the prosecution of the accused comes under the purview of sec.18 of POCSO Act. In the present case it has been proved that the accused was found inside the bathroom along with the victim girl, as it is the evidence of the both PW1 & 2 that the accused has taken away PW2 by catching her hand to the bathroom and closed the doors and on hearing the screaming of PW2/victim mother rushed to the bathroom and knocked the door and according to PW2 the accused closed her mouth and said that no one was side the bathroom.

24.Thus the act of the accused taking away forcibly the victim girl to the bathroom and closing the doors would attract physical contact with the intention causing sexual harassment because no sane person would take the child who is not related to him into the bathroom and close the doors. This proves the intention of the accused to cause the harm to PW1.

There is no reason to dis believe the version of PW2 the mother of the victim who categorically deposed that when she knocked the door the accused said that there was none inside. On the other hand PW2 clearly deposed before the Court that the accused closed her mouth and said that there were no one inside the bathroom, and when her mother opened the door forcibly, he beat her. Their evidence has been corroborated with evidence of PW6 the independent witness as well as PW4 woman constable who recorded the statement of the victim. No doubt neither

SC. 94/2021

11 PW1 nor PW2 have deposed that the accused has attempted to commit rape of PW1 but the acts of the accused clearly reveal that he on the intention of outraging the modesty of the victim, had forcibly taken her away to the bathroom.

25.Ironically the accused himself has admitted in his cross examination that he was present in the bathroom along with PW2 at the time of incident. But his version was that the children came into his bathroom and 2 of them went away and he was bringing PW2, PW1 saw that and misunderstand him cannot be totally accepted, as PW1 & 2 have categorically deposed that he took PW2 into the bathroom and closed the door and in that process he caught hold of hand of victim and later closed her mouth when she started screaming. Thus the above acts together constitute the offence u/s 18 of POCSO Act and it attracts Sec.11 of

POCSO Act as well as 354-A IPC.

26.Before proving the offence u/s 18 it is the primary duty of the prosecution to prove that there was as attempt made by the accused to commit the offence u/s 354-A IPC.

27.Now it is the case of the prosecution that the accused has attempted to commit an offence punishable under POCSO Act or does any act towards the committed of offence i.e., the accused intended to commit that particular offence having made preparation with the

SC. 94/2021

12 intention to commit the said offence and does an act towards its commission. In the present case the proof is that the accused has forcibly taken the victim girl PW2 into the bathroom and he fails to explain and discharge his burden as why he was along with the victim girl were found in the bathroom, moreover PW1 and her husband have no motive to implicate the accused falsely in the commission of the offence which would put the chastity of the victim as stake. On the other hand the accused failed to establish enemity between his family and the family of the victim. Thus the accused failed to discharge the burden of proof alleged on him while against the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts against the accused u/s. 354-A IPC.

28. In such circumstances I am of the opinion that the accused

is found guilty of committing the offences u/s 354-AIPC r/w 18 of

POCSO Act.

29.Heard the accused on the question of the sentence. He prays for a lenient sentence. since the offence has been committed against a child the accused is not entitled for the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act or under Sec 360 Cr.P.C.

30. The offence proved against the accused U/sec 354 A shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to

Three years or with fine or with both and offence U/sec 18 of POCSO Act shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to

SC. 94/2021

13 one and half year of the imprisonment for life or, as the case may be one- half of the longest term of imprisonment provided for that offence or with fine or with both

31.Therefore considering the nature of the case and the age of the accused, I am inclined to impose one year (1) punishment for offence U/

Sec 354-A IPC and one year six months for the offence U/Sec 18 of

POCSO Act as it attracts the ingredients of Sec 11 of POCSO Act where the punishment U/sec 12 of POCSO Act is up to 3 years.

32.In the result the accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence u/Sec 354 A IPC and Rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and six months and pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-(Twenty Five Thousand only) U/sec 18 of

POCSO Act in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months. The fine amount of Rs. 25,000/-(Twenty Five thousand only) shall be given as compensation to the victim girl.

Both the sections will run concurently.

(Typed to my dictation by Steno, Corrected and pronounced and signed by me in the open Court on this 31st day of January, 2023).

Prl. District and Sessions Judge,

FAC. Fast Track Special Sessions Judge For Expeditious Trial And Disposal Of Rape And Pocso Act Cases At Jangaon.

SC. 94/2021

14

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

PW.1: Mother of the Victim-NONE- PW.2: victim PW.3: Father of the Victim PW.4: B. Mounika (Woman PC) PW.5: Paidipalli Dileesh (Videographer) PW.6: Botla Shekha (Punch Witness for CDF) PW.7: CH. Ravi Kumar (SI of Police)

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

Ex.P1: Complaint given by the PW.1-NIL- Ex.P2: Crime detail form Ex.P3: Bonafide Certificate of Victim

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

1. MO.1 is CD

Prl. District and Sessions Judge, FAC. Fast Track Special Sessions Judge For Expeditious Trial And Disposal Of Rape And Pocso Act Cases At Jangaon.

SC. 94/2021

15

Fair copy 1 of 13 M.V.O.P.No.1024/2017

Dt. 28/02/2023 PDJ, Jangaon

IN THE COURT OF THE CHAIRMAN, MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS

TRIBUNAL – CUM – PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE :: JANGAON

Tuesday, 28th day of February, 2023

PRESENT: SMT. K. SAILAJA,

CHAIRMAN, M.A.C.T-CUM-

PRL. DISTRICT JUDGE, JANGAON.

M.V.O.P. No.1024 of 2017

Between : Kavati Ramesh, S/o. Siddaiah, Age:38 yrs, Occ:Sales Manager IN Insecticides (India) Limited, R/o: Obulakeshavapurvillage, Jangaon Revenue mandal, Jangaon District, presently residing at Kurumawada, Jangaon town and mandal, Jangaon District. …Petitioner. AND

1. Jakkula Parasharamulu, S/o. Komuraiah, Aged: 40 yrs, Occ: Agriculture, R/o: Shameerpet village, Jangaon mandal, Jangaon District.

2. Y. Nageshwar Rao, S/o: Appa Rao, Age: 40 yrs, Occu: Business, R/o C/o: EMP No.109302, LMMM Dept,. VSP steel plant, Viashakapatnam. …Respondents.

-o0o-

This petition is coming on 17/01/2023 for final hearing before me in the presence ofSri N. Siddulu, Advocate for the petitioner andof

Sri. G. Nagarajeswara Rao, counsel for respondent No-1 and

respondent No-2 remained ex parteand after hearing the arguments and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this Tribunal delivered the following:

:: A W A R D ::

1.This petition is filed under Section 166 (1) (a) of the Motor Vehicle's Act, 1988 r/w Rule 455 of the A.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1998, seeking compensation of Rs.40,30,000/- (Rupees forty lakhs and thirty thousands Only) towards compensation in favour of petitioners for the injuries sustained by the injured in an accident on 23-12-2016 at about 08:00 p.m.

Fair copy 2 of 13 M.V.O.P.No.1024/2017

Dt. 28/02/2023 PDJ, Jangaon

2.The case of the petitioner in brief is that, he is a sale representative of insecticides (India) Limited, Jangaon branch. On 23/12/2016 while returning to his house from work on his Hero CD Dawn motorcycle bearing No.AP-09-BU- 5671 at 08-00 p.m., when he reached near Government school at Shameerpet,

Jangaon mandal, was hit by another motorcycle bearing No.AP-31-L-2883 in its opposite direction being riding by the respondent in a rash and negligent manner with high speed in a zig zag manner, due to which the petitioner fell on the ground as a result of which he sustained open Grade III multiple segmental fracture left tibia, dislocation of ankle joint, fracture of left malleolar, loss of left tibia artery segment, skin and soft tissues loss from left foot, fracture of left malleolar loss of left tibial artery segment, fractures of nosal bone, zygona, mandible, maxilla, below orbit and other simple injuries all over his body. He was shifted to Government hospital, Jangaon, by Macherla Ramulu, Teljeeru

Ramulu and Manigella Narasimhulu and they informed the accident to his father. He was shifted to Aware Global hospital, Secunderabad from Jangaon, where he was treated as an inpatient from 24/12/2016 to 10/01/2017, his left leg was got operated and fixed with steel rods and screws and was discharged on 10/01/2017. He incurred Rs.5,31,000/- for his treatment and medicines. But, he could not recover, as such again he undergone treatment as an inpatient from 07/02/2017 to 11/02/2017. During the course of treatment, his family members spent Rs.1,18,000/- for further operation to his left leg, as it was unable to fold and that he is still undergoing treatment and in all he incurred Rs.40,30,000/-.

Fair copy 3 of 13 M.V.O.P.No.1024/2017

Dt. 28/02/2023 PDJ, Jangaon

3.On the strength of the report given by him, police of P.S., Jangaon, registered a case in Cr.No.361/2016 for the offences punishable u/Secs.337 of

IPC and Secs.177, 181, 196, 196 of M.V. Act against the R1/driver of the crime vehicle.

4.It is further averted by the petitioner that the petitioner could not recover from the injuries, which sustained in the accident and he was forced to take extra-nourishment and treatment in various private hospitals. Further the petitioner sustained not less a sum of Rs.13,00,000/- towards the medical, treatment and extra nourishment, for loss of earnings Rs.1,00,000/-, Rs.10,000 towards transportation, for attendant charges, Rs.20,000/-, pain and suffering

Rs.1,00,000/- and compensation for loss of future earning capacity.

5.It is further averted by the petitioner that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of crime vehicle i.e., motorcycle bearing no.AP 31 L 2883. Respondent No.1 is the driver of the said vehicle and the Respondent No.2 is owner of the crime vehicle. The petitioner could not get the details of the insurance company and insurer of the said crime vehicle , as such he failed to brought the insurance company on record.

6.The Respondent No.1 filed the written statement denying all the averments of the petition and contended that the petition is not maintainable either in facts or on law. He has no knowledge about the allegation of the petitioner that he could not get the insurance particulars of the alleged crime vehicle. He denied the manner of accident as narrated in the petition and also regarding the alleged compensation claimed by the petitioners is exorbitant, without any basis.

Fair copy 4 of 13 M.V.O.P.No.1024/2017

Dt. 28/02/2023 PDJ, Jangaon

7.In this case, the Respondent No.2 remained ex parte.

8.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial:

1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and

negligent driving of vehicle i.e., motorcycle bearing

No.AP 31 F 2883?

2.Whether the petitioner is entitled for the

compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?

3. To What relief?

9.During the enquiry, on behalf of the petitioner, the petitioner himself was examined as PW.1 and Exs.A1 to A26 were marked. To substantiate his contention, the petitioner was examined one Badika Krishna Swamy, as PW2.

On the other hand, the respondent No-1 was examined, but no documents were marked.

10.Heard both sides. Perused the record.

11. ISSUES No. 1 :

Whether the accident occurred due to rash and

negligent driving of vehicle i.e., motorcycle bearing

No.AP 31 F 2883?

The injured was examined as PW1. He stated that on 23/12/2016 while returning to his house from work on his Hero CD Dawn motorcycle bearing

No.AP-09-BU-5671 at 08-00 p.m., when he reached near Government school at

Shameerpet, Jangaon mandal, was hit by another motorcycle bearing No.AP- 31-L-2883 in its opposite direction being riding by the respondent in a rash and negligent manner with high speed in a zig zag manner, due to which the petitioner fell on the ground as a result of which he sustained open Grade III multiple segmental fracture left tibia, dislocation of ankle joint, fracture of left

Fair copy 5 of 13 M.V.O.P.No.1024/2017

Dt. 28/02/2023 PDJ, Jangaon

malleolar, loss of left tibia artery segment, skin and soft tissues loss from left foot, fracture of left malleolar loss of left tibial artery segment, fractures of nosal bone, zygona, mandible, maxilla, below orbit and other simple injuries all over his body. He was shifted to Government hospital, Jangaon, by Macherla

Ramulu, Teljeeru Ramulu and Manigella Narasimhulu and they informed the accident to his father. He was shifted to Aware Global hospital, Secunderabad from Jangaon, where he was treated as an inpatient from 24/12/2016 to 10/01/2017, his left leg was got operated and fixed with steel rods and screws and was discharged on 10/01/2017.of the report given by him, police of P.S.,

Jangaon, registered a case in Cr.No.361/2016 for the offences punishable u/Secs.338 of IPC and Secs.177, 181, 196, 196 of M.V. Act against the

R1/driver of the crime vehicle.

12.It is further averted by the petitioner that the petitioner could not recover from the injuries, which sustained in the accident and he was forced to take extra-nourishment and treatment in various private hospitals. Further the petitioner sustained not less a sum of Rs.13,00,000/- towards the medical, treatment and extra nourishment, for loss of earnings Rs.1,00,000/-, Rs.10,000 towards transportation, for attendant charges, Rs.20,000/-, pain and suffering

Rs.1,00,000/- and compensation for loss of future earning capacity. In all he is claiming Rs.43,00,000/-.

13. To prove his contention he got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P26 documents. ExP1 is the certified copy of FIR, dt.24/12/2016. Ex.P2 is the certified copy of charge sheet, dt.19/01/2017. Ex.P3 is the certified copy of injury certificate, dt.17/01/2017. Ex.P4 is the certified copy of Crime Details From, dt.24/12/2016.

Fair copy 6 of 13 M.V.O.P.No.1024/2017

Dt. 28/02/2023 PDJ, Jangaon

Ex.P5 is the certified copy of 161 Cr.P.C. statements of LWs1 to 6. Ex.P6 is the original letter of appointment, dt.27/05/2013. Ex.P7 is the original emergency certificate, dt.24/02/2017. Ex.P8 is the original discharge summary of Global hospital, dt.18/02/2017. Ex.P9 is the original patient credit bill of Global hospital, dt.24/12/2016. Ex.P10 is the original essential certificate of Global hospital, dt.07/02/2017. Ex.P11 is the original discharge summary of Global hospital, dt.07/02/2017. Ex.P12 is the original patient receipt (6 in number).

Ex.P13 is the original inpatient final bill, dt.11/02/2017. Ex.P14 is the bunch of medical bills. Ex.P15 is the original inpatient credit bill of Global hospital, dt.10/01/2019. Ex.P16 is the original salary certificate. Ex.P17 is the original emergency certificate, dt.20/01/2019. Ex.P18 is the essential certificate of

Global hospital, dt.10/01/2019. Ex.P19 is the original inpatient receipts (2 in number), dt.10/01/2019. Ex.P20 is the original O.P. Pharmacy card bills (3 in number), dt.18/01/2019. Ex.P21 is the original consultation prescription. Ex.P22 is the original outpatient cash bill/receipt, dt.22/01/2019. Ex.P23 is the original provision ill, dt.04/01/2019. Ex.P24 is the original inpatient credit bill, dt.04/01/2019. Ex.P25 is the original drugs and disposables and Ex.P26 is the original discharge summary of Global hospital.

14.During his cross-examination, he admitted that the complaint was given against the father of R1, as he has no acquaintance with the R1. He admitted that his name was mentioned in the charge as LW6. He admitted that the complaint was registered as a case in Cr.No.361/2016. He denied the suggestion that he was working as Gumasta in a Fertilizer shop and obtained false certificate from the Insecticides company authorities. He has not filed

Fair copy 7 of 13 M.V.O.P.No.1024/2017

Dt. 28/02/2023 PDJ, Jangaon

any MLC record with regard to his injuries as immediately after the accident he was referred to Hyderabad, for special treatment. He further stated that even after discharge from the hospital on 10/01/2017, he went on rest on the advise of the doctors. He denied the suggestion that due to village disputes, he foisted a false case against R1. He does not mention the registration number of the company.

15. The evidence of PW1 goes to show that on the date of accident i.e., on 23.12.2016 he left to Pochannapet village on his office work on his Hero motorcycle and at about 08-00 p.m., another motorcycle AP-31-Z2883 driven by R1 in a rash and negligent manner and came in wrong side in a zig zag manner and hit his motorcycle and caused accident, as a result of which he fell down on the road and he sustained open Grade-III multiple segmental fracture left tibia, dislocation of ankle joint, fracture of left malleolar, loss of left tibial artery segment. Skin and soft tissues loss from left foot, fracture to left malleolar loss of left tibial artery segment, fractures to nosal bone, zygoma, mandible, maxilla, fracture below orbit, and simple injuries all over his body.

The accident was witnessed by Badike Kirshna Swamy, Macherla Ramulu,

Teljeeru Ramulu and Manigella Narasimhulu, and he got operated in Aware

Global hospital, L.B. Nagar, Secunderabad, and steel rods and screws were fixed to his left leg and another operation was conducted to his left leg and due to injuries he is unable to fold his left leg. Subsequently, he was undergone operation on 07/09/2019 in which amputation was done below knee and thereafter, now his left leg is in non functional limb and 80%. The said witness is the person, who suffered injuries due to accident and his evidence is

Fair copy 8 of 13 M.V.O.P.No.1024/2017

Dt. 28/02/2023 PDJ, Jangaon

supported by the evidence of PW2, who is an eye-witness for occurrence of the accident and he shifted the injured to Area hospital, Jangaon, for treatment and nothing was elicited from his cross-examination in favour of the respondents.

Thus, the evidence of PWs1 and 2 clearly reveals that the crime vehicle was driven by R1 in a rash and negligent manner, which resulted the accident.

Accordingly, issue No-1 is answered in favour of the petitioner.

16. Issue No-2:

“Whether the petitioner is entitled for the

compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?”

To award the compensation, the court has to pursue the injuries as sustained by the petitioner and the evidence of doctors namely Dr V.V.

Satyanarayana clearly reveals that the leg of the injured was amputated due to infection of leg and foot drop. He further stated that the injured has hit of road traffic accident, which resulted in multiple surgeries to the left leg and bone loss and the patient has undergone two operations i.e., 1 below knee amputation of left lower limb and 2. left lower limb salvage. Thus, it is crystal clear that amputation of left leg of injured was due to accident, which was met by him in the year 2019.

17. The R1 was examined as RW1. According to him, he is not responsible for the accident and he is not liable to pay amount and that the petitioner was created the accident for wrongful gain and he denied the evidence adduced by the petitioner and he denied his presence at the time of accident and according to him, he did not drive the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and that he was neither owner nor driver of the vehicle. But, during his cross-examination, he admitted that NBW was issued against him for

Fair copy 9 of 13 M.V.O.P.No.1024/2017

Dt. 28/02/2023 PDJ, Jangaon

non attending of case before Principal Junior Civil Judge, Jangaon in

C.C.No.14/2017 and he boldly denied the suggestion that he was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, but as per Ex.P1 FIR and charge sheet, it reveals that he is the owner of the crime vehicle and thus, the R1 can not taken the plea that he was not the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident, which caused accident. At the same time, the witness admitted that he is doing agriculture and is having 2 acres of land in his name. Thus, R1 has to pay compensation to the injured/petitioner. From the salary certificate of the petitioner, which was issued by the Insecticide Indian Limited that the petitioner received Rs.21,304/- as his monthly salary.

18.The calculation as compensation as below:

Total salary as per Ex.A16 salary certificate = 21,304/- x 80/100 = 17,043/- ¼th personal expenses = 17,043/4 =4260.75 17,043-4260.75 = 12,782-25 piasa

In total 12,783 x12x15 = 23,00,940/-

The insurance amount given to the petitioner is Rs.3,00,000/- i.e., 23,00,940-3,00,000= 20,00,940/-

R1 being the driver and R2 being the owner, both are liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner.

Medical bills were filed by the injured to the extent of Rs.10,00,000/-

Total compensation of Rs.20,00,940/- +10,00,000/-=Rs.30,00,940/-

Fair copy 10 of 13 M.V.O.P.No.1024/2017

Dt. 28/02/2023 PDJ, Jangaon

19. Calculation Of Compensation:

As per the principles laid down in SARLA VERMA v. DELHI

TRANSPORT CORPORATION reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 and NATIONAL

INSURANCE COMPANY v. PRANAY SETI (reported in CONSTITUTIONAL

BENCH Online SCC 1270). the compensation is calculated as follows in a tabulator form:

Sl.No. Heads Amount (Total)

Total salary 21,304-00 A.Loss of earnings i.e., salary x 80% Rs.17,043-99

B.Personal expenses 1/4th of income i.e., Rs.12,782/- 17,043-4260.75

C.Multiplier 12,782x12x15 Rs.23,00,940 D.Medical bills Rs.10,00,000 E.Insurance company paid Rs. 3,00,000/-

F.Compensation i.e., 23,00,940+10,00,000- Rs.30,00,940/- 3,00,000/-

Total Compensation Rs. 30,00,940/-

The total compensation is of Rs.30,00,940/- (Rupees thirty lakhs nine hundred and forty only).

As per the above calculation the Respondent Nos.1 and2 is liable to pay the compensation of Rs.30,00,940/- to the Petitioner.

Fair copy 11 of 13 M.V.O.P.No.1024/2017

Dt. 28/02/2023 PDJ, Jangaon

20.ISSUE NO. 3:

In the result, the petition is allowed with proportionate costs by granting the following reliefs:

i. The petitioner is entitled for compensation of 30,00,940/-(Rupees twenty lakhs nine hundred and forty only). payable by Respondent Nos-1 and 2.

ii. The petitioner is entitled to interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization.

iii. The petitioner is entitled to withdraw half of the amount i.e., Rs.15,00,470/- (Rupees fifteen lakhs four hundred and seventy only).

iv. The petitioner is further directed to kept the remaining balance amount in any Nationalized Bank for a period of one (1) year.

v. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/-.

vi. Time granted for deposit of the amount is 30 days from the date of this order.

(Typed to my dictation, corrected & pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 28th day of February, 2023.)

Sd/-XXX

CHAIRMAN, M.A.C.T. -CUM-

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

JANGAON.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Petitioners: For Respondents:

PW.1: Kavati Ramesh RW.1: J. Parashuramulu PW.2: B. Krishna Swamy

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Petitioners:

ExP1:Certified copy of FIR, dt.24/12/2016.

Ex.P2: Certified copy of charge sheet, dt.19/01/2017.

Fair copy 12 of 13 M.V.O.P.No.1024/2017

Dt. 28/02/2023 PDJ, Jangaon

Ex.P3: Certified copy of injury certificate, dt.17/01/2017.

Ex.P4: Certified copy of Crime Details From, dt.24/12/2016.

Ex.P5: Certified copy of 161 Cr.P.C. statements of LWs1 to 6.

Ex.P6: Original letter of appointment, dt.27/05/2013.

Ex.P7: Original emergency certificate, dt.24/02/2017.

Ex.P8: Original discharge summary of Global hospital, dt.18/02/2017.

Ex.P9: Original patient credit bill of Global hospital, dt.24/12/2016.

Ex.P10: Original essential certificate of Global hospital, dt.07/02/2017.

Ex.P11: Original discharge summary of Global hospital, dt.07/02/2017.

Ex.P12: Original patient receipt (6 in number).

Ex.P13: Original inpatient final bill, dt.11/02/2017.

Ex.P14: The bunch of medical bills.

Ex.P15: Original inpatient credit bill of Global hospital, dt.10/01/2019.

Ex.P16: Original salary certificate.

Ex.P17: Original emergency certificate, dt.20/01/2019.

Ex.P18: Essential certificate of Global hospital, dt.10/01/2019.

Ex.P19: Original inpatient receipts (2 in number), dt.10/01/2019.

Ex.P20: Original O.P. Pharmacy card bills (3 in number), dt.18/01/2019.

Ex.P21: Original consultation prescription.

Ex.P22: Original outpatient cash bill/receipt, dt.22/01/2019.

Ex.P23: Original provision ill, dt.04/01/2019.

Ex.P24: Original inpatient credit bill, dt.04/01/2019.

Ex.P25: Original drugs and disposables

Ex.P26: Original discharge summary of Global hospital.

Fair copy 13 of 13 M.V.O.P.No.1024/2017

Dt. 28/02/2023 PDJ, Jangaon

For Respondents:

NIL

Sd/-XXX

CHAIRMAN, M.A.C.T. -CUM-

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

JANGAON.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS

JUDGE :: JANGAON.

On Wednesday, the 15th day of February, 2023.

PRESENT: SMT. K. SAILAJA,

PRL. SESSIONS JUDGE

Jangaon.

CRL APPEAL No . 114 OF 2019

IN

C.C.No.782 of 2008.

Between:

2. Pandipalli Yella Reddy, S/o. Raji Reddy, Age: 58 Years, Occu: Agriculture,R/o. Bachannapet village and Mandal, Jangaon District.

3. Avadutha Srinivas, S/o. Shankaraiah, Age: 44 Years, Occu:

Agriculture,R/o. Bachannapet village and Mandal, Jangaon District.

4. Jilla Rajeshwar, S/o. Vishwanatham, Age: 57 Years, Occu: Business,R/o. Bachannapet village and Mandal, Jangaon District.

5. Bandakindi Singaraiah Goud, S/o. Swamy Goud, Age: 65 Years, Occu: Agriculture,R/o. Salvapur village and Mandal, Jangaon District.

6. Gudu Upendar, S/o. Siddi Ramulu, Age: 45 Years, Occu: Agriculture,R/o. Bachannapet village and Mandal, Jangaon District.

……..Appellants/ Accused.

AND

The State of Telangana, through S.H.O. of P.S. Bachannapet.

…. Respondent/ Complainant

This Sessions Case is coming on 13.02.2023 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. A. BIXAPATHI, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State/Complainant and of Sri. NAGA RAJESHWAR RAO Advocate for

Appellants/Accused persons after hearing the arguments of both the

Draft copy CC. 782/2008 Prl. District & Sessions Court, Jangaon. Dt: 15-2-2023.

2 sides and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, this

Court delivered the following:

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

1.This is a criminal appeal 114/2019. This criminal appeal filed by the appellants A2 to A6 Aggrieved by the order and judgment and sentenced passed by the Hon’ble Addl.JFCM at Jangaon passed in C.C. No.

782/2008, dated 18th day of September 2019, sentencing the Appellants/

Accused No.2 to 6 to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) each of the offences under section 324 of IPC , and in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months, the Appellants/Accused No.2 to 6 prefers this appeal.

2.On 02.06.2007 at about 01:00 PM a Rytu Chaltanya Sadasu of farmers held at Grampanchayat Office, Bachannapet village and

PW7, PW8, and other officers and farmers have attended the said program. While meeting was going on, PW1 has question PW11 about names of about Adarsha Rythulu and A1 has intervened and question PW1 why he was asking the question and abused him. The same was protested by PW1, and quarrel took place. In the quarrel, all the accused have beat PW1 and pushed him on the ground.

Meanwhile PW2 to PW4 have intervened, but all the accused have 3 attacked them and beat them mercilessly with hands and chairs.

The incident was witnessed by Public Officials l.e., PW8 and PW11.

3. On the same day, basing on the written report of PW1, the

Sub Inspector of Police, Sri B. Mallaiah/PW10, has registered a case in crime No. 80/2007 for the offence under Sec. 324 r/w 34 of IPC and took up the investigation. He has recorded the 161 Cr.PC statement of PW's.1 to 4 and referred them to Area Hospital,

Jangaon for treatment. Later, he has visited the scene of offence and prepared a crime detail form in the presence of mediators, i.e. PW5/

Guntipally Bhasker and PW6/Mohd Ghouse. At the scene of offence

PW11 has recorded the 161 Cr.PC statements of available witnesses.

PW9/Dr. Sugunakar Raju has treated PW1 to PW4 and issued Wound certificates opining that they have sustained simple injuries. On 16.06.2007 all the accused were arrested and sent to judicial remand. After receipt of wound certificates and on completion of investigation a charge sheet was laid down.;

4. Cognizance was taken for the offence U/Sec. 324 r/w 34 of I.P.C.

On the appearance of the accused, copies required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.. was furnished and they were examined U/Sec. 239 of

Cr.P.C., and charge U/Sec. 324 r/w 34 of IPC was framed. As A1 to A6 have denied the charge, the case came up for trial, wherein the

Draft copy CC. 782/2008 Prl. District & Sessions Court, Jangaon. Dt: 15-2-2023.

4 prosecution has examined PW's.1 to 11 and exhibited P1 to P11, in detail mentioned in the appendix of evidence. The evidence of LW.3-

Bobbala Sudhakar and LW.12-Cheralu was given up by the Ld. Asst.

Public Prosecutor (In short Ld. APP). Thereafter the statements of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., and their case is of total denial, and they did not produce any evidence.

5. Grounds of appeal:

The Impugned judgment dated 18.10.2019 passed by the

Hon'ble Addl, Judicial First Class Magistrate, At Jangaon (Hereinafter

be referred to as Lower Court) in C.C. No. 782 of 2008 in convicting the appellants and invoked the provisions of Probation of Offenders

Act, and imposed fine of Rs.5,000/- each and the Court and further awarded an amount of Rs.6,250/- each to P.Ws. 1 to 4 out of such fine amount and released the appellants on probation in terms of section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act, read with section 353(3) of Cr.P.C., and the appellants shall be under the supervision of the

Probation Officer for two years and accordingly execute bonds for

Rs.10,000/- with two sureties and that the conviction was for the offence under section 324 of I.P.C., is bad in law.

5

2. The Lower Court erred in convicting the appellants for the offence under section 324 of I.P.C., in the manner referred above through its impugned judgment dated 18.10.2019.

3. The Lower Court ought to have acquitted the appellants for the offence under section 324 of I.P.C., since the respondent miserably failed to bring guilt of the appellants to home beyond all reasonable doubt.

4. The P.W.1 to 4 deposed that there were political rivalry among them and the accused and that they are belonged to C.P.M., party and the accused are belonged to Congress Party affiliated persons.

5. The P.W. 1 to 4 deposed their evidence in different version and the evidence of the P.W.1 to 4 are inconsistent and there are several contradictions to each other and exaggerated the same.

6. The other witnesses did not cooperate the prosecution version and that they deposed against the version of the prosecution. Even the alleged eye witnesses those who are official witnesses also not cooperated the prosecution version.

7. The medical evidence and the ocular evidence are not tallied with each other and that the version of the P.Ws 1 to 4 and the evidence of the Doctor are not corroborating with each other and that the

Draft copy CC. 782/2008 Prl. District & Sessions Court, Jangaon. Dt: 15-2-2023.

6 alleged injured certificates are disproved and not corroborated with the evidence of the P.Ws 1 to 4.

8. The prosecution did not seize any property in order to bring the accused to home of guilt of the offence.

9. The prosecution failed to establish the scene of offence as to how many people attended the alleged meeting "Rythu Chaitanya

Sadassu" which was allegedly conducted at Grama Panchayath

Office and that the prosecution is failed to examine the concerned surpanch of the village and officials of Grama Panchayath. The prosecution failed to produce any piece of evidence that the P.Ws 1 to 4 and the accused were attended the alleged "Rythu Chaitanya

Sadassu". The alleged independent witnesses were not cooperated the version of the prosecution on the other hand they did not depose any incriminating evidence against the accused.

10. The Lower Court failed to appreciate the material omissions which are amounts to contradictions. The Lower Court falled to appreciate the evidence in proper manner in accordance to the criminal jurisprudence.

11. The alleged offence was occurred as per the prosecution on 02- 06-2017 and the case was not taken cognizance within stipulated time and that the lower Court failed to start the trial within 7 stipulated period and also the lower Court failed to conclude the trial within stipulated period of time. The lower Court ought to have considered the authority which reported in AIR (SC) 2002 1856

P.Ramchandra Rao Vs. State of Karnataka. The Accused are entitled to acquittal for the delayed trial, as the trial v concluded in the year 2019, which is beyond the period of punishment prescribed in the section 324 of 1c., therefore the Lower Court erred in passing impugned judgment e has begun in the year 2011 and Court falled to report the authors in the Impugned judgment which urged at the time of arguments before Lower Court. The Lower Court Convicting the accused. The Lower failed to appreciate that the statements which allegedly recorded much prior to the filing of charge sheet a the remand report of the accused, The alleged statements of witnesses and failed to file the same along with cooked up and prepared after thought and created the record and foisted the false case against the accused. Absolutely there is no whisper in the impugned judgment rendered by the Lower Court with regarding to the said aspect and other aspects raised in this appeal, though these were brought to the notice of Lower Court across the bench during the course of discuss the same in the impugned judgment.

arguments but the Lower Court failed to

Draft copy CC. 782/2008 Prl. District & Sessions Court, Jangaon. Dt: 15-2-2023.

8

12. The impugned judgment rendered by the Lower Court under

Criminal Appeal is cryptic, slip shod and sans proper reasons and there are many loose ends in it.

13. The Lower Court passed impugned judgment on 18.10.2019 as such the Appeal is presented within limitation. Other grounds would be urged at the time of hearing. It is therefore, prayed that the

Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow this Criminal Appeal by

setting aside the impugned judgment dated 18.10.2019 passed by the Hon'ble Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate Jangaon, in

C.C.No. 782 of 2008 in convicting the appellants herein by imposing fine an amount of Rs.5,000/- each and invoking the probation period of two years and to execute the surety bonds for an amount of

Rs.10,000/- each accused for the offence under section 324 of I.P.C., and set aside the impugned judgment of Lower Court and set the appellants at liberty and order to refund the fine amount to the appellants in the interest of justice.

Heard both sides.

The point for determination is whether the judgment of

the learned Addl. JFCM convicted the accused u/s 324(3) r/w

34 IPC noticed any interference ?

Point:

9

The Learned AJFCM has believed the version of the prosecution and according to him except few minor disturbances the evidence of Pw1 to 4 consistent with regard to offences of 324

IPC.

On perusal of the record it is found that PW 1 to 4 have categorically deposed that regarding the attack and feted arguments took place in between the two political parties. It is further observed that though there were several omissions the injury has been and the entries have been proved through Ex P5 to P8, and therefore the medical evidence have collaborated with evidence of PW1 to 4 and in cases of political rivalry it would be too difficult to procure all the witnesses present at the scene of offence as the human tendency is the Mob are reluctant to come before the

Court and depose evidence.

Therefore, the learned Magistrate was justified in passing conviction against the accused persons. But however he has invoked in Section 5 of probation of offenders act r/w Sec. 357 (3) Cr.P.C.

The Court has not correctly followed the procedure laid down in the

Sec. 5 of probation of offenders Act, and no report was called by the

magistrate from the probation Act. Therefore, on conforming the

payment of compensation of Rs.5,000/- . This Court confirms that

Draft copy CC. 782/2008 Prl. District & Sessions Court, Jangaon. Dt: 15-2-2023.

10 sentences of fine passed by the Learnt AJFCM and it is found that fine has been paid by the accused persons.

In the result this Court confirms that the sentence of fine passed by the Learned AJFCM and it is found that the fine has been paid by the accused persons. According the appeal is disposed off.

(Typed to my dictation by Steno, Corrected and pronounced and signed by me in the open Court on this 15th day of February, 2023.)

Sd/-XXXX

PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

JANGAON.

SC.SPL.152/2019

IN THE COURT OF THE FAST TRACK SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE

FOR EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL AND DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND POCSO ACT

CASES AT JANGAON.

Tuesday on this the 14th day of February, 2023.

PRESENT: SMT. K. SAILAJA,

F.A.C. The Fast Track Special Sessions Judge For Expeditious Trial And Disposal Of Rape And POCSO Act Cases At Jangaon.

SC(POCSO) No. 152/2019.

Crime No. 390/2018 of PS Jangaon

1.Name of the complainant:The State of Telangana through the Sub-Inspector of Police, Jangaon.

2.Name and description of the :1.Donthireddy Arun Reddy, S/o. accusedRamReddy, Age: 28 Years, Occu: Hotel Business.

2. Donthireddy Ram Reddy, S/o.Koti Reddy, Age: 52 Years, Occu: Hotel Business.

3.Donthireddy Sharada, W/o.Ram Reddy, Age: 46 Years, Occu: Housewife.

4. Donthireddy Kiran Reddy, S/o. RamReddy, Age: 30 Years, Occu: Hotel Business.

5. Donthireddy Shirisha, w/o. Kiran Reddy, Age: 27 Years, Occu: Housewife.

All are R/o. H.No. 21-5-17, Kothawada, Warangal.

6. Donthireddy Krishna Reddy, S/ o. Koti Reddy, Age: 56 Years, Occu: Employee in Singareni Collieries, R/o. Jawaharnagar Colony, Bhupalpally.

3.Offence with which charged:U/Sec 447,323,506,312 IPC Sec 5r/w 6 & 7 of POCSO Act and Sec9,10,11 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act 2006.

SC.SPL.152/2019

4.Plea of the accusedPleaded not guilty

5.Finding of the Court:Found not guilty

6.Sentence or Order:Judgements pronounced vide separate one. In the result the accused A1 is found guilty for theoffenceU/sec 447,323,506,312 IPC Sec 5 r/w 6 &7 of POCSO Act and Sec. 9,10,11 of Prohibition of Child marriage Act 2006 and they are acquiterd U/sec 232 Cr.PC and their bail bonds shall be cancel six months.

7.Name of the Prosecutor :Sri. M. Steeven SPL. Public Prosecutor.

8. Name of the Defence Counsel:K. Advocate.

This Sessions Case is coming on 14.02.2023 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. M. Steeven SPL. Public Prosecutor, for the

State/Complainant and of Sri. , Advocate for Accused persons after hearing the arguments of both the sides and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The above name accused person is charged for the offence punishable U/Sec 447,323,506,312 IPC Sec 5r/w 6 & 7 of POCSO Act and

Sec. 9,10,11 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act 2006 U/sec 232 Cr.P.C at

Jangaon.

2. The present case arise out of the report given complainant

Donthireddy @ Moku Soumyasree D/o Moku Mallareddy Age 17 years,

Occu: Student R/e Obukeshwapur Village stated that in which the Accused

A1 Donthireddy Arun Reddy A2 Dhonthireddy Ram Reddy, A3

Dhanthireddy Sharada A4 Donthireddy Kiran Reddy. A5 Donnthireddy

SC.SPL.152/2019 Shireesha. A6 Donthireddy Krishnareddy A7 Donthireddy Radhamani, A8

Nagadur Jagadananda Charyulu and The complainant A1 to A7 are distance relatives and bosh the complainant and the accused family have attended their nearest relative marriage at Warangal city in the last week of the march 2017, in the marriage the saw the complainant minor girl and developed an evil eye with an intension to marry the minor complainant without her willing and contest and forced the minor complainant and her parents in the said marriage itself, upon which the parents of the minor complainant were shocked and they said in the A1, she is minor and she has just completed her secondary school education.

Then the complainant parents several times refuses and the accused continued his harassment over the parents of the complainant and demanded them to accept his proposal celebrate marriage with the minor complainant and further At warned the parents of the complainant with dire consequences and putting them in fear, coercion, extortion if they do not accept for marriage proposal with complainant. The accused A1 will pour the acid on the face of the complainant. thus the accused harassed blackmailed the parents of the complainant. Then, in view of the warnings of the all accused and forcibly fix the marriage on 21.05.2017 with minor complainant and the parents of the minor complainant along with minor complainant went to Warangal city on 20.05.2017 and took shelter as per the instructions of Al at SS function hall Kashibugga,

Warangal and The accused A2 to A7 performed voidable marriage of the minor complainant with the accused A1 on 21.05.2017 with the assistance of purohit ie accused A8. The accused lead such voidable marital life with minor. complainant for the period 5 months only and in such period the

SC.SPL.152/2019 accused persons harassed to the miner complainant both physically and mentally and suspecting the chastity of the minor complainant and demanded the additional dowry of Rs. 5,00,000/- and Ac.2-00 land from the parents of the minor complainant and the accused beat indiscriminately and necked out the minor complainant from his house and seeing the harassment of the accused Al over the minor complainant in the mid-night, the mother of the accused A1 i.e., A3 rushed and took the minor complainant into the house and A1 through the water bottle filled with ice cube on stomach of the minor complainant for which she suffered injury to her ( Garbashai Womb) and lost her two months pregnancy. Hence she requested the police to take action against the accused.

3. accused No.1 apprehended on interrogation he confessed the commission of offence and arrested the accused and remanded to judicial custody and after completion of the investigation filed the charge sheet.

4. The Spl. Judge, Pocso Court took cognizance of the offence punishable

U/Sec 447,323,506,312 IPC Sec.5 r/w 6 & 7 of POCSO Act and Sec.9,10,11 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act2006 against the accused. The copies of documents are furnished to accused on his appearance, and U/sec.

447,323,506 IPC and Sec 9,10,11 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act 2006 is established against the accused A2 to A6.

5. The accused is examined U/Sec 239 of Code of Criminal Procedure and the charges were framed for the offences punishable U/Sec 447,323,506,312 IPC and Sec 9,10,11 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act

SC.SPL.152/2019 2006. A2 to A6 are not found guilty U/sec 447,323,506, IPC and Sec 9,10,11 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act 2006. against the accused and same was read over and explained to them in Telugu and they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. During the trail, the prosecution examined PW1 to 3 and got marked

Ex.P1 to P5. As the material witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution the Learned Spl.PP has given up the evidence of the other witness. As there is no incriminating evidence against the accused, the examination of the accused U/sec 313 (1) (b) Cr.P.C was dispensed with.

7. Heard both sides and perused the record.

8. Now the point for determination are:

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused

U/sec. 447,323,506,312 IPC and Sec 9,10,11 of Prohibition of

Child Marriage Act, 2006 beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:

The prosecution has examined the victim as PW1 and according to her she does not know the complainants given by her father and her marriage with the accused declared as null and void by the Senior Civil

Judge, Jangaon. According to her she was ready to withdraw her case filed

u/s 498 I.P.C.

The witness resiled from her earlier statement she was declared hostile by the Learned P.P. and she denied to have stated before police that A1 to A6 tried to perform her engagement with A1 and when her parents came, A1 threaten to throw Acid on her and on 6-10-2017 he had thrown a bottle filled with ice cubes on her stomach, as a result of it she

SC.SPL.152/2019 sustained injury and had miscarriage, and that she was forcibly married against her wish and A1 to A6 supported the marriage as stated in Ex. P1.

Both Pw2 her father and her mother also did not support the case of the prosecution. PW2 has stated that she gave a report about the incident and he does not know the contents of the complainant, he only identified his signature on the complainant which was marked as ExP3.

Ex,P4 is the 161 statement which was denied by him to have made before the police.

Similarly PW3 also denied to have stated before police which was marked as Ex.P5 , since there is no incriminating evidence appearing against the accused persons and their statement was recorded U/s 313

Cr.P.C..

Thus on perusal of the entire evidence on record it is crystal clear that, the prime witnesses have turned hostile and they did not support the case of the prosecution. The victim her slef did not depose anything implicating accused in the alleged crime. PW2 & 3 who are her parents they to did not support the case of the prosecution and not deposed anything against the accused persons. In such circumstances it can be held that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubts.

9. In the result, the accused A1 to A6 are found not guilty for the offence U/Sec 447,323,506,312 IPC and Sec. 5 r/w6 & 7 of POCSO Act and

Sec. 9,10,11 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act 2006. . A2 to A6 are found not guilty for the offence U/sec 447,323,506, IPC and Sec 9,10,11 of

SC.SPL.152/2019 Prohibition of Child Marriage Act 2006. and they are acquitted U/sec 232

Cr.P.C and their bail bonds shall be cancel six months.

(Typed to my dictation by Steno, Corrected and pronounced and signed by me in the open Court on this 14 th day of February, 2023.)

Sd/-xxx

Prl. District and Sessions Judge, FAC. Fast Track Special Sessions Judge For Expeditious Trial And Disposal Of Rape And Pocso Act Cases At Jangaon.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence: PW.1: Victim-NONE- PW.2: Father of the Victim PW.3: Mother of the Victim

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution: For Defence: Ex.P1: 161 Cr.P.C Statement Ex.P2: 164 Cr.P.C Statement of PW.1 Ex.P3: Signature Ex.P4: 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW.2 Ex.P5: 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW.3

Sd/-xxx

Prl. District and Sessions Judge, FAC. Fast Track Special Sessions Judge For Expeditious Trial And Disposal Of Rape And Pocso Act Cases At Jangaon.

SC.SPL.152/2019

SC.SPL. 131/2019

IN THE COURT OF THE FAST TRACK SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE

FOR EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL AND DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND POCSO ACT

CASES AT JANGAON.

Tuesday, on this the 14thday of February, 2023.

PRESENT: SMT. K. SAILAJA,

F.A.C The Fast Track Special Sessions Judge For Expeditious Trial And Disposal Of Rape And POCSO Act Cases At Jangaon.

SC(POCSO) No. 131/2019.

Crime No. 7/2019 of PS .Jangaon.

1.Name of the complainant:The State of Telangana through the Sub-Inspector of Police, Jangaon

2.Name and description of the :1.Donthi Reddy Arun Mohan accusedReddy @ Arun Reddy, S/o. Ram Reddy, Age: 27 Years, Occu: Hotel Business, R/o. Kothawada, Warangal.

3.Offence with which charged:U/Sec 354 (D) IPC, Sec.11 (iv) r/w 12 POCSO Act and acquitted U/sec 232 Cr.P.C

4.Plea of the accusedPleaded not guilty

5.Finding of the Court:Found not guilty

6.Sentence or Order:Accused:1 is not found not guilty for the offences U/Sec 354 (D) IPC sec 11(iv) r/w 12 POCSO Act and acquitted U/sec 232 Cr.P.C His bail bonds shall stands canceled after six months is over, if no appeal is preferred.

7.Name of the Prosecutor Sri. M. Steeven SPL. Public Prosecutor.

8. Name of the Defence Counsel: Advocate.

This Sessions Case is coming on 00.02.2023 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. M. Steeven SPL. Public Prosecutor, for the State/Complainant and of Sri. Advocate for Accused persons after hearing the arguments of both the sides and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court delivered the following:

SC. SPL.131/2019

J U D G M E N T

1.The above name accused person is charged for the offence punishable U/Sec 354 (D) IPC,Sec 11 (iv) r/w 12 POCSO Act.

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 07-11-2020 at 09:50 hrs in which complainant stated that, she is having three Daughters and her younger daughter is the victim/ Gorre Bhavitha @ Babitha D/o. Sudhaker,

Age 18 Years,Occ: Coolie, R/o. Dhanrmakancha, Jangaon. On that day her father and elder sister chided her due to not work. Thereafter her father told her to go away from home if she would not work, as such on the same day morning she left her house in order to go to the maternal aunt at

Hanamkonda by walk , while she was proceeding on foot from janagaon to Hanamkonda, she reached Renuka Yellamma temple Janagaon, finding her one uncle alone came there on motor cycle and questioned her where she was going and given his identity as Kunsoth Chandra Bhanu R/o.

Rammannapet village who is thin and normal complexion and also revelaed that he is residing at Yellamma temple and working as mason, and also promised saying that he will get work for her, thereafter the said chandra Bhanu got boarded her on his motor cycle and took her

Nidigonda Route where smart city green board is erected, where he got her tiffin idly which was brought by him, thereafter the said Chandra

Bhanu took her on his bike in interior area through mud road for a distance of 2 KM and took her in a rack shed and forcibly committed rape on her. Thereafter on the same day evening he took her on his bike to his house and introduced her with his wife. There after he forcibly committed

SC.SPL. 131/2019 rape on her for two times. The said Chandra Bhanu’s wife caught her and supported her husband saying her if she sleeps at her husband what has happened. Thereafter, on the following day , the said Chandra Bhanu took her on his bike and dropped her in front of her house and threatened her with dire consequences to kill her if she informs the incident to anybody and fled away. After reaching her house , her maternal aunt came to her and then she along with her maternal aunt went to Hanamkonda.

Yesterday as she was suffering from severe stomach pain and informed the incident to her elder sister.

3.On receipt of the above said complainant, I have registered a case vide Cr.No.7/2019 U/sec.354(D) IPC Sec.11 (iv) r/w 12 of POCSO Act.

issued express FIR and dispatched the copies to all the concerned and took up investigation. Investigation done so far, it is revealed that the LW1 is the Complainant and father of Victim/ minor girl, LW2 is the Victim/ minor girl, LW3 is the mother of Victim/ wife of LW-1 and eyewitness LW-4 is the WPC who recorded the statement of LW-2 under video coverage,

LW-5 is the videographer video graphed the statement of LW-2. LW's 7 & 8 are the CDF Panchas, LW's 9 & 10 are the Confession Panchas, the accused Dhonthireddy Arun Mohan reddy @ Arun Reddy S/o Ram reddy, 27yrs, Reddy, Hotel business, R/o Kothawada, Hanamkonda seen the LW2 and developed an evil eye with an intension to marry the LW2 without willing and contest and forced the LW2 the accused will pour the acid on the face of the LW2, thus the accused harassed, blackmailed the LW's 1 & 3 In the above matter The LW2 was lodged a petition against the accused & his family members then subsequently, above issue the case was registered against the accused's, Pertaining Cr. No.390/18 u/s

SC. SPL.131/2019 447,323,506,312 IPC Sec 5, (1) r/w 6, 17 POCSO Act, Sec 9,10,11 of

Prohibition of Child marriage Act of PS Jangaon, the accused's was got condition bail. Then Subsequently from 23.12.2018 to 06.01.2019 the accused was called to the LW2 mobile i.e. 9676390776 from 8466927001 abused filthy language and harassing by making what's app call and posted LW2 photo as his FB profile picture and making what's app status and Posted by mentioning as 'I love u ra s iam sorry ra and I love u sweety'. Filed charge sheet.

4.The learned Spl. Judge took cognizance for the offence U/s 376(20n of IPC 5 r/w 6 of pocso Act against A1 and sec. 109 of IPC and sec. 17 of pocso Act against A2. The copies of documents are furnished to accused on his appearance.

5. The accused is examined U/Sec 239 of Code of Criminal Procedure and the charges were framed for the offence punishable U/sec U/s 376(2)

(n) of IPC 5 r/w 6 of pocso Act against A1 and sec. 109 of IPC and sec. 17 of pocso Act against A2. and same was read over and explained to them in Telugu and they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. During the trial, the prosecution examined PW1 and 2 and got marked

Ex.P1 to P4. As the material witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution the Learned Spl.PP has given up the evidence of the other witness. As there is no incriminating evidence against the accused, the examination of the accused U/sec 313 (1) (b) Cr.P.C was dispensed with.

7. Heard both sides and perused the record.

8. Now the point for determination are:

SC.SPL. 131/2019

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused A1 and

A2 U/s 376(2)(n) of IPC 5 r/w 6 of pocso Act against A1 and sec.

109 of IPC and sec. 17 of pocso Act against A2 beyond all

reasonable doubt?

POINT:

The complainant and victim is examined as Pw1 she deposed that she does not know the accused and that on one day she had quarreled with her family she came out and there after went to the police station and signed on the blank papers she does not go through the report scribed by some one and she was examined by the Magistrate and she has stated before the magistrate as tortured by the police during the course of cross examination denied to have stated before the police under

Ex. P2 & P3.

The father of the victim is examined as Pw2 he does not know the accused and his daughter left his house about one year back and there after she was traced by the police except this he does not know anything about the case, and police did not examine him. During the course of cross examination he denied to have stated before the police under Ex.P4.

as The material witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution as such they was declared hostile.

Thus the prosecution has miserably failed to that the accused No.1 has committed rape on a minor girl by threatening her and Accused No.2 supported him as the defacto complainant and the victim herself did not support the case of the prosecution. The point is answered against the prosecution.

In the result the accused No.1 is found not guilty for the offence U/sec 376(2)(n) IPC Sec 5 r/w 6 of POCSO Act and Accused No.2 is found not guilty for the offence U/Sec 109 IPC Sec 17 of POCSO Act and they are

SC. SPL.131/2019 acquitted U/sec 232 Cr.P.C and the seized motor cycle which is given to the interim custody to the owner(A2) shall be returned to her after the appeal is over if no appeal is preferred. Their bail bonds shall stand canceled after six months and the material objects if any shall be destroyed after the appeal period is over.

(Typed to my dictation by Steno, Corrected and pronounced and signed by me in the open Court on this 29 th day of November, 2022.)

Sd/-xxx

Prl. District and Sessions Judge, FAC. Fast Track Special Sessions Judge For Expeditious Trial And Disposal Of

Rape And Pocso Act Cases At Jangaon.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence: PW.1: Victim-NONE- PW.2: Father of the Victim

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution: For Defence: Ex.P1: Signature of PW1 on the report -NIL- Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW.1 Ex.P3: 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW.1 Ex.P4: 164 Cr.P.C Statement of PW.2

Sd/-xxx

Prl. District and Sessions Judge,

FAC. Fast Track Special Sessions Judge For Expeditious Trial And Disposal Of Rape And Pocso Act Cases At Jangaon.