Smt. K.swapna Rani

O.S.No.63 of 2009 Page 1 of 18

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-ASSISTANT

SESSIONS JUDGE, AT PEDDAPALLI

PRESENT : Smt. K.Swapna Rani,

Senior Civil Judge-cum-

Assistant Sessions Judge,

Peddapalli.

Friday, on this the 18th day of October, 2024

O.S. No.63 OF 2009

Between:

Anakatla Govindu, S/o. Late Veeraiah, 68 years, Occ: Retd. SCCL employee, R/o.Q.No.2848, Nagarjuna Colony, Post & Dist. Mancherial. … Plaintif A N D

1. Anakatla Durgamma (died),

2. Anakatla Susheela (died),

3. Anakatla Srinivas (died),

4. Anakatla Malleshwari, W/o. Late Yadagiri, 37 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. H.No.1-2-96, Hanuman Nagar, Post & Dist. Peddapalli – 505 172.

5. Anakatla Gopi, S/o. Laxmi, 47 years, Occ: TSRTC employee, R/o. H.No.1-1-77, Hanuman Nagar, Near Railway Station, Post & Dist. Peddapalli – 505 172.

6. Anakatla Naveen, S/o. Late Srinivas, 14 years (minor),

7. Anakatla Vinay, S/o. Late Srinivas, 12 years (minor), (the defendants No.6 and 7 being the minors, represented by the Court Guardian),

8. Anakatla Rajitha, W/o. Late Srinivas, 42 years, Occ: Housewife, (defendants No.6 to 8 are R/o. H.No.1-2-96, Hanuman Nagar, Post & Dist. Peddapalli – 505 172).

O.S.No.63 of 2009 Page 2 of 18

9. Chityala Anasurya, W/o. Shankaraiah, 62 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. Hanuman Basti, Post. Bellampalli, Dist. Mancherial.

10. Rapelli Savitri, W/o. Late Kistaiah, 60 years, Occ: Housewife,

11. Thota Sathemma, W/o. Late Sathaiah, 58 years, Occ: Housewife,

12. Thota Bhagyamma, W/o. Late Upender, 55 years, Occ: Housewife, (defendants No.10 to 12 are R/o. Near Bus Stand, Post & Dist. Warangal).

… Defendants (amended plaint as per the orders dated 02.01.2019 passed in I.A.No.1057of 2018)

This suit is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri R.Suresh Babu, Advocate for the plaintif and Sri S.Sathaiah, Advocate for the defendant No.5, Sri Reddy Shanker, Advocate as Court Guardian for the defendants No.6 and 7, defendants No.1 to 3 died and the defendants No.4, 8 to 12 remained set exparte and the matter having been stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

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

1.The suit is filed for partition and separate possession of suit schedule properties into two equal shares between the plaintif and the legal heirs of his deceased brother, and for consequential relief of declaration of gift settlement deeds as null and void and not binding on the plaintif.

O.S.No.63 of 2009 Page 3 of 18

1(a).Before going into the facts of the case, it is appropriate to understand the relationship between the parties.

Late Anakatla Veeraiah who died in the year 1988 is the head of the family. The deceased defendant No.1 by name Anakatla

Durgamma is the wife/widow of Late Anakatla Veeraiah and he died in the year 1988; that both Anakatla Durgamma and

Anakatla Veeraiah have two sons and five daughters; that among the sons, plaintif is the younger son and husband of defendant No.2/Veeramallu is the elder son; that among five daughters, the deceased Remma Laxmi, defendants No.9, 10, 11 & 12 are the five daughters.

1(b).Among two sons, since the elder son/Veeramallu died long before filing of suit, his wife surviving son and the wife of his pre-deceased son are made as parties i. e., defendant No.2 (wife), defendant No.3 (son) and defendant

No.4 (wife of pre-deceased son).

1(c).Among five daughters, one daughter Remma Laxmi died long before filing of the suit. Hence her son is made party as defendant No.5.

O.S.No.63 of 2009 Page 4 of 18

1(d).During the pendency of the suit, defendant No.3 died and his legal heirs/children and wife are brought on record as defendants No.6, 7 and 8. Defendants No.6 and 7 are minor sons of defendant No.3. Defendant No.8 is the wife of defendant No.3. Since defendant No.3 did not contest the suit, his minor children i. e., defendants No.6 and 7 are represented by Court Guardian.

1(e).As stated above, defendants No.9, 10, 11 and 12 are surviving daughters of Anakatla Veeraiah and Anakatla

Durgamma, and they are brought on record during the pendency of suit.

PLAINT :

2.The above being the relationship of parties, it is the case of the plaintif that all the parties herein except defendant

No.5 are the undivided Hindu joint family members and joint owners and possessors of Item No.1 and 2 of suit schedule-A properties. The suit schedule Item No.1 and 2 properties i. e., houses admeasuring 505.76 Sq. Yards each situated at

Hanumannagar, Peddapalli are owned and possessed by late

Anakatla Veeraiah. Plaintif pleaded that after the death of

Veeraiah, his wife Anakatla Durgamma/defendant No.1 and her

O.S.No.63 of 2009 Page 5 of 18

two sons succeeded to the suit schedule-A properties in equal shares and became entitled to 1/3rd share each and that they are in joint possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule-A properties as owners, as those properties are not yet partitioned. Whereas, the defendant No.2 by name Anakatla

Susheela being the elder of the family/wife of deceased elder son of Veeraiah, got mutated her name in the records of

Grampanchayath in respect of suit schedule Item No.1 house, and those entries are nominal and not binding on the plaintif.

2(a).Plaintif alleged that on the strength of nominal records, the defendant No.2 in collusion with her sons executed gift settlement deed No.5505/2006, Dt.27.10.2006 in favour of her younger son/defendant No.3 and another gift settlement deed No.5506/2006, Dt.27.10.2006 in favour of her elder son who died six months prior to filing of the suit. These two gift settlement deeds are executed by defendant No.2 showing separate bits out of Item No.1 house property.

2(b).Further, the defendant No.5 who is the nephew of plaintif, being the son of his deceased sister Remma Laxmi misrepresented the defendant No.1/maternal grandmother and brought into existence a registered gift settlement deed

O.S.No.63 of 2009 Page 6 of 18

No.7062/2007, Dt.27.12.2007 in respect of Item No.2 of

Schedule-A property in his favour by securing the signature of defendant No.1 making her to believe that it is a loan against

Indiramma Gruhalu.

2(c).Plaintif pleaded that the defendants No.1 and 2 are not competent to execute gift deeds in respect of Item No.1 and 2 of suit schedule-A properties (gift settlement deeds described as Item No.1, 2 and 3 under schedule-B) in any manner as the suit schedule properties are joint family properties. Hence, the gift deeds under schedule-B which are depriving the rights of coparceners are liable to be declared as null and void and not binding on the plaintif. Hence the suit.

2(d).In respect of sisters, plaintif pleaded that his sisters i. e., defendant No.9 to 12 and the deceased Remma Laxmi were given lumpsump amounts and gifts at the time of their respective marriages. As such, all the sisters of plaintif have severed their status in the joint family. However, they are brought on record as formal parties. It is further pleaded that the elder sister of plaintif Remma Laxmi was married 45 years ago and her legal heir is already on record as defendant No.5.

The other four (4) sisters of plaintif have separated by

O.S.No.63 of 2009 Page 7 of 18

accepting gifts. Hence they did not claim suit schedule-A properties till date due to severance.

2(e).In respect of shares, plaintif pleaded that since his mother/defendant No.1 died during the pendency of the suit, the plaintif and his deceased brother are entitled to half share each from Item No.1 and 2 of suit schedule-A house properties.

WRITTEN STATEMENT :

3.Defendant No.5 alone is contesting the suit and all the other defendants remained exparte. Defendant No.5 pleaded that his mother Remma Laxmi left her husband when he was an infant and was residing with her mother/defendant

No.1. As the mother of defendant No.5 alone looked after the welfare of defendant No.1, out of love and afection, the defendant No.1 gifted suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.5. Further, the defendant No.1 got her name mutated during 1987-88 during the life time of her husband and she is eligible to gift the said property as per her wish. The defendant No.5 further pleaded that the plaintif left the joint family about (40) years ago and did not come back. He had not even attended any functions that were performed for the last (40) years. Moreover, he is not at all considered as family

O.S.No.63 of 2009 Page 8 of 18

member of Anakatla Veeraiah and he has no identity in and around Peddapalli Town. Therefore, he has no right to claim any portion of schedule properties since the entire family has forgotten him long back.

4.Based on the above pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial on 26.06.2012:-

ISSUES :

1.Whether suit schedule properties are liable to be partitioned among plaintif and all defendants?

2.Whether the suit schedule properties are in joint possession and enjoyment of plaintif and all defendants?

3.Whether the plaintif is entitled for partition of 1/3rd share in the suit schedule properties and also compensation amount?

4.Whether the plaintif is entitled for declaration that mortgage deed bearing Doc.No.6523/2007, dt.16.11.2007 is null and void?

5.To What relief?

O.S.No.63 of 2009 Page 9 of 18

4(a).It is noticed that the above issues were recasted vide orders in I.A.No.21 of 2024, dt.19.03.2024 as follows:-

RECASTED ISSUES :

1. Whether the suit schedule properties are

partitioned among the plaintiff and all the defendants,

as prayed for? (it appears that a typographical error occurred in issue No.1....it should be “Whether the suit schedule properties are liable to be partitioned among the plaintif and all the defendants, as prayed for”?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for preliminary

decree of partition claiming half (1/2) share from each of

Item No.1 and 2 of suit schedule-A property, as prayed

for?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to seek declaration

of documents listed as Item No.1 and 2 of suit

schedule-B property i. e., Registered Gift Settlement

Deeds bearing Doc.No.5505/2006 and 5506/2006, both

dated 27.10.2006 on the file of SRO, Peddapalli and

Registered Gift Settlement Deed bearing

Doc.No.7062/2007, Dt.27.12.2007 on the file of SRO,

Peddapalli as null, void and not binding on the plaintiff?

4. To What relief?

O.S.No.63 of 2009 Page 10 of 18

5.Plaintif in order to establish his claim got examined himself as PW.1 and got exhibited Exs.A1 to A12. On the other hand, the defendant No.5 himself examined as DW.1 and no documents were marked on his behalf and also examined DW.2 and DW.3 in support of his case.

6.Heard Sri R.Suresh Babu, learned counsel for plaintif and Sri S.Sathaiah, learned counsel for defendant No.5. Perused the written arguments filed by the plaintif and the material available on record.

ISSUE NOs.1 and 2 :

Since the issue No.1 and 2 are interlinked, they are discussed at once to avoid repetition.

Evidence of Plaintiff :

7.Plaintif himself is examined as PW.1. He reiterated the averments of the plaint in his chief examination.

7(a).In the cross examination, PW.1 admitted that his

O.S.No.63 of 2009 Page 11 of 18

sisters are legal heirs of his parents, and further admitted that the defendants No.6 and 7 who are sons of the deceased defendant No.3 are also entitled for share in the suit schedule properties.

Evidence of defendants :

8.The defendant No.5 is examined as DW.1. He reiterated the averments of the written statement in his chief examination.

8(a).In the cross examination, DW.1 stated that the defendant No.2 had three (3) sons. Apart from defendant

No.3 and deceased Yadagiri, there was one more son to the defendant No.2 by name Madhu, but he died unmarried. He admitted that his grandmother/defendant No.1 was an illiterate and she affixed her thumb impression on Ex.A7, but denied that she does not know the recitals of Ex.A7. He further denied that signatures of witnesses are obtained on

Ex.A7 by him though they do not know Telugu language and the recitals of Ex.A7. DW.1 admitted that signatures of either plaintif or any of the defendants are not obtained on

Ex.A7, and that the plaintif is not aware of Ex.A7.

O.S.No.63 of 2009 Page 12 of 18

8(b).In the further cross examination, DW.1 admitted that the plaintif is equally entitled for share in Item No.1 and 2 properties being the legal heirs of deceased Veeraiah. He further admitted that the daughters of Veeraiah including his mother Remma Laxmi never claimed any right over the suit schedule properties before any Court of Law, but denied that they have relinquished their share in the suit schedule properties by accepting gifts and articles at the time of their marriages.

9.DW.2 and DW.3 are the third parties to the suit.

While DW.2 is father-in-law of defendant No.5, DW.3 is neighbour of defendant No.5. In the cross examination, it is admitted by both DW.2 and DW.3 that they do not know about the suit and the description of the property.

10.Perused the written arguments filed on behalf of plaintif.

Analysis and Findings of Court :

11.Undisputedly, the suit schedule properties are undivided joint family properties of deceased Veeraiah, plaintif

O.S.No.63 of 2009 Page 13 of 18

and defendants No.1 to 4 as well as defendants No.6 to 12. The only contesting party i. e., defendant No.5 is the son of the deceased daughter of Veeraiah. As discussed above, Veeraiah had two (2) sons i. e., plaintif and deceased husband of defendant No.2 and five (5) daughters i. e., defendants No.9 to 12 as well as deceased mother of defendant No.5. The other defendants are legal heirs of deceased husband of defendant

No.2 (i. e., daughters-in-law and grand children of defendant

No.2 as both her sons died).

12.It is the case of the plaintif that, defendant No.2 who is the wife of his deceased brother without any authority gifted the suit schedule Item No.1 house property by showing it as separate bits in favour of her two (2) sons vide Ex.A5 and

Ex.A6/Gift Settlement deeds. Further, the defendant No.1 too who is the mother of plaintif without any authority executed

Gift Settlement deed in respect of suit schedule Item No.2 house property in favour of defendant No.5.

13.Whereas, the defendant No.5 pleaded that since his mother alone looked after the welfare of her mother/defendant

No.1/wife of Veeraiah, out of love and afection, the defendant

No.1 gifted suit schedule Item No.2 house property in his favour

O.S.No.63 of 2009 Page 14 of 18

under Ex.A7. Defendant No.5 further pleaded that, the defendant No.1 got her name mutated in the revenue records during 1987-88 during the life time of her husband and as such she is eligible to gift the said property as per her wish.

14.There is no pleading in respect of Ex.A5 and A6/Gift

Settlement deeds as the sons of defendant No.2 in whose favour those gift settlement deeds are executed, have remained exparte to the suit including the defendant No.2.

15.From the pleadings and evidence on record, it is found that suit schedule house properties being joint family properties admittedly, are liable to be divided equally among two (2) sons and five (5) daughters of Late Veeraiah since he died intestate and that the suit schedule properties are the properties of Veeraiah as they are left by Veeraiah as per plaint.

In so far as pleading of defendant No.5 is concerned, this Court finds that there is no substance in the pleading of defendant

No.5 that his grandmother/defendant No.1 validly executed

Ex.A7/Gift Settlement deed in his favour and that he is very much entitled to Item No.2 of suit schedule-A property. Since the Item No.2 of suit schedule-A property is joint family property of plaintif and defendants, the defendant No.1 had no

O.S.No.63 of 2009 Page 15 of 18

authority to gift the same in favour of defendant No.5.

Therefore, the property has to be divided equally among the coparceners i. e., plaintif and deceased Veeramallu (brother of plaintif) as well as sisters of plaintif i. e., defendants No.9 to 12 & Remma Laxmi (deceased sister of plaintif and mother of defendant No.5). The Issue Nos.1 and 2 are answered accordingly.

ISSUE No.3 :

16.In view of discussion under Issue Nos.1 and 2, since it is found that Exs.A5 to A7/Gift Settlement Deeds are executed by defendants No.2 and 1 respectively without any authority, they are liable to be declared as null and void and not binding on the plaintif. As such, the Exs.A5 to A7 that are described specifically under suit schedule-B properties, are declared as null and void and not binding on the plaintif. The

Issue No.3 is answered accordingly.

ISSUE No.4 :

17.In view of discussion under Issues No.1 to 3, Item

No.1 and 2 of suit schedule-A properties are to be divided equally and as such, the plaintif is entitled to 1/7th share

O.S.No.63 of 2009 Page 16 of 18

therein. Consequently, Exs.A5 to A7 i. e., Item No.1 to 3 of suit schedule-B properties are declared as null and void and not binding on the plaintif. The Issue No.4 is answered accordingly.

IN THE RESULT, the suit is partly decreed preliminarily with costs, dividing Item No.1 and 2 of Suit

Schedule-A properties into seven (7) equal shares i. e., ( i )one share to plaintif, ( ii ) one share jointly to defendants No.4, 6, 7 & 8 being legal representatives of deceased Veeramallu (brother of plaintif), ( iii ) one share to defendant No.9 (sister of plaintif), ( iv ) one share to defendant No.10 (sister of plaintif), ( v ) one share to defendant No.11 (sister of plaintif), ( vi ) one share to defendant No.12 (sister of plaintif), and ( vii )one share to defendant No.5 being legal representative of deceased Remma Laxmi (sister of plaintif).

Consequently, Exs.A5 to Ex.A7/Gift Settlement Deeds (described as Item No.1 to 3 under Suit Schedule-B) are declared as null and void and not binding on the plaintif.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 18 th day of October, 2024.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

PEDDAPALLI.

O.S.No.63 of 2009 Page 17 of 18

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANTS:

PW.1 Anakatla GovinduDW.1 Anakatla Gopi

DW.2 Yella Rayamallu

DW.3 Jupaka Satyanarayana

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1 is the True copy of G.P. Record for the year 1963-64

Ex.A2 is the True copy of G.P. Record for the year 1987-88

Ex.A3 is the True copy of G.P. Record for the year 1993-94

Ex.A4 is the True copy of G.P. Record for the year 1998-2001

Ex.A5 is the Attested copy of Gift Settlement deed bearing document No.5505 of 2006, dated 27.10.2006

Ex.A6 is the Attested copy of Gift Settlement deed bearing document No.5506 of 2006, dated 27.10.2006

Ex.A7 is the Attested copy of Gift Settlement deed bearing document No.7062 of 2007, dated 27.12.2007

Ex.A8 is the True copy of Revision Register 1971

Ex.A9 is the True copy of Revision Register 1981 to 1987

Ex.A10 is the True copy of Revision Register 1993 to 1997

Ex.A11 is the Attested copy of Deed of Mortgage without possession bearing document No.181/1995, dated 16.01.1995

Ex.A12 is the Lagna Patrika for the marriage of sister of PW.1 Bhagyamma (D.12)

O.S.No.63 of 2009 Page 18 of 18

FOR DEFENDANTS:

- NIL -

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

PEDDAPALLI.

SC No.20 of 2016 Page 1 of 15

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-ASSISTANT SESSIONS

JUDGE, AT PEDDAPALLI

PRESENT : Smt. K.Swapna Rani,

Senior Civil Judge-cum-

Assistant Sessions Judge,

Peddapalli.

Tuesday, on this the 22nd day of October, 2024

SESSIONS CASE NO.20 OF 2016

1.Name & description of : The State through Sub-Inspector of Police, the ComplainantP.S., Dharmaram

2.Name & description of : A1 – Devi Lachaiah, S/o.Lingaiah, 48 years, Mala, the accusedA2 – Devi Ramesh, S/o. Lachaiah, 22 years, Mala, A3 – Devi Sathavva,W/o.Lachaiah,45 years, Mala, All are R/o. Erraguntapalli Village of Dharmaram Mandal.

3.Crime No.: 148/2014

4.Offence with which : Section 307, 324, 323 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code charged

5.P.R.C. No.: 54/2014

6.Plea of the accused: Not guilty

7.Finding of the Judge: Not guilty

8.Sentence or Order: IN THE RESULT, the accused No.1 to 3 are found not guilty of the offences punishable under Section 307, 324 and 323 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. for the said offences. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for further period of six months as contemplated under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. M.O.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

9.Prosecution conducted by : Sri Badam Ramesh, Addl. Public Prosecutor

10. Accused defended by: Sri G.Linga Reddy, Advocate

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Badam Ramesh, Additional Public Prosecutorand Sri G.Linga Reddy, Advocate for the Accused, upon hearing both

SC No.20 of 2016 Page 2 of 15

sides, upon perusing material papers on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:-

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

This is a case of accused persons attempting to commit murder, and voluntarily causing simple hurt in furtherance of their common intention.

1.The case arises out of the charge sheet filed by Sub

Inspector of Police, P.S. Dharmaram against the accused No.1 to 3 in Crime No.148/2014 for the offences punishable under Section 307, 324, 323 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code 1860 (for short “I.P.C”).

2.In brief, the facts of the case are that a dispute was pending between the defacto-complainant and his brother in respect of bank loan for his tractor. The said loan was pending in the name of father of defacto-complainant. A criminal case was also pending in respect of said tractor loan due to which his father’s signature was required to release the said tractor. When the defacto-complainant asked his father for his signature for releasing the tractor, his father informed the same to his brother.

But his brother warned him not to sign for the release of the tractor and stopped him to sign for the release of said tractor. The bank

SC No.20 of 2016 Page 3 of 15

officials secured the signature of father of the defacto-complainant to release the tractor. On coming to know the same, brother of the defacto-complainant bore grudge against him and his family members. On 03.10.2014 at 6:00 p.m., when the defacto- complainant went to Grampanchayath office at Erraguntapalli

Village along with his son and wife to take part in Dasara festival celebrations, his brother’s son attacked him keeping in mind the enmity and in that attack he stabbed the son of the defacto- complainant with a knife in his stomach with an intention to kill him. That apart, the defacto-complainant’s brother along with his wife and elder son assaulted the wife of the defacto-complainant with hands. This incident was witnessed by two persons present there.

3.Basing on the complaint lodged by the defacto- complainant/LW.1/Devi Bhumaiah, the Investigation Officer/LW.16 registered a case in Cr.No.148/2014 under Section 307 r/w 34 of

I.P.C and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, the Investigation Officer recorded the statements of defacto-complainant and witnesses; referred the injured persons to hospital for medical treatment; visited the scene of offence and secured the presence of panchas; prepared the crime details form in the presence of panchas and recovered the crime weapon from

SC No.20 of 2016 Page 4 of 15

the scene of offence; secured the wound certificates; apprehended the accused persons; effected their arrest, and produced them

before the Court for judicial remand. After completion of

investigation, charge sheet came to be filed against the accused

No.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Section 307, 324 and 323 r/w 34 of I.P.C.

4.The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Peddapalli took cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 307, 324 and 323 r/w 34 of I.P.C and registered the case as PRC No.54/2014.

The record reflects that on appearance of the accused, case papers were furnished to accused as contemplated under Section 207

Cr.P.C. and committed the case record to the Court of Sessions

Division i. e., Hon’ble Principal District and Sessions Judge,

Karimnagar (Erstwhile) vide committal order 29.10.2015 since the offence is exclusively triable by Court of Sessions. On committal,

Hon’ble Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Karimnagar has taken

P.R.C.No.54/2014 on file as SC No.20/2016 against the accused

No.1 to 3 and made over the case to this Court for disposal according to law.

5.On appearance of the accused No.1 to 3, after perusal of the report, statements of witnesses and material papers on record

SC No.20 of 2016 Page 5 of 15

and upon hearing the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and accused, this Court framed charges under Section 228 Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable under Section 307, 324, 323 r/w 34 of I.P.C, read over and explained charges to the accused No.1 to 3 in vernacular. Having understood the same, accused No.1 to 3 denied the charge and opted for trial.

6.Prosecution examined PWs.1 to 7 and got marked

Exs.P1 to P3, Exs.D1 & D2 and M.O.1.

7.On conclusion of the prosecution evidence, accused

No.1 to 3 are examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C explaining the entire incriminating evidence against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Accused No.1 to 3 denied the entire evidence on record in toto and had not chosen to adduce any defence evidence on their behalf. Case of the accused No.1 to 3 is one of total denial.

8.Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor Sri Badam

Ramesh and learned counsel for the accused Sri G.Linga Reddy.

9.Now the point that emerges for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution could prove charges punishable under Section 307,324 and 323 r/w 34

SC No.20 of 2016 Page 6 of 15

of I.P.C. against the accused No.1 to 3, beyond all reasonable doubt?”

POINT :

10.To prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as (7) witnesses.

11.PW.1, is the injured person i. e., son of defacto- complainant. He deposed that his father/defacto-complainant died in the year 2015. According to PW.1, about (7) years ago while all the villagers were celebrating Dasara festival at Grampanchayath

Office Erraguntapalli, his family and family of accused were also present there. At about 4:30 p.m., family members of accused picked up quarrel with the family of PW.1 and during that galata, accused No.2 and a Juvenile attacked him with a knife and stabbed him on the right side of abdomen. In that attack all the accused attacked his mother too with a knife and stabbed her on the left side of her chest. That, all the villagers witnessed the incident.

PW.1 further stated that himself, his parents and friends went to police station after the incident and that his father lodged report

before the police. That, initially police referred the injured persons

to Government hospital at Karimnagar and from there they were referred to Medicare hospital, Karimnagar for better treatment, and that they were given treatment for five days at Medicare hospital.

SC No.20 of 2016 Page 7 of 15

11(a).In respect of reason for the incident, PW.1 deposed that his family purchased one tractor by depositing the documents pertaining to the land of grandfather of PW.1. Post purchase of tractor, his grandfather gifted the land to accused No.1 and since then, accused No.1 has been forcing the family of PW.1 to release the passbooks pertaining to the said land. Boring grudge against the family in respect of release of passbooks, the accused have attacked them.

11(b).In the cross-examination, PW.1 stated that he knew about allotment of share of accused No.1 at the time of obtaining loan, and that his grandfather partitioned the property between the accused No.1 and his father much prior to obtaining loan for tractor. PW.1 admitted that bank issued notice to him for committing default in installments.

11(c).In respect of Ex.P1/complaint, PW.1 stated that he went to the police station to lodge complaint along with others and lodged Ex.P1/complaint at around 7.00 p.m. That his statement was recorded within (15) minutes and then he went to hospital. He denied that he never went to police station on the said date of incident.

SC No.20 of 2016 Page 8 of 15

12.PW.2 is the mother of PW.1. She deposed that the accused persons are her relatives. That her son/PW.1 obtained vehicle loan by furnishing the agricultural land as security. But the said agricultural land belongs to her father-in-law. Thus, the signatures of the accused were required since it was the joint family property, for release of the tractor which was seized. But the accused bluntly refused to sign. Thereafter, keeping the grudge in mind, PW.1 was not paying installments regularly and apprehending that the land may be foreclosed, the accused quarreled with PW.1 and his family members at Dasara celebrations. She further stated that on the date of incident, Devi

Vinod/Juvenile pounced on PW.1 with knife/M.O.1 and tried to kill

PW.1 Then, she and others went to rescue PW.1. Except this, PW.2 did not state anything against the accused persons about the injuries caused to her by the accused persons.

12(a).In the cross-examination, PW.2 stated that the incident occurred near bus stop near Hanuman Temple and not at

Grampanchayath Office. A contrary statement of PW.2 recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is marked as Ex.D2.

13.PW.3 is cited as eye witness in the charge sheet. He deposed that by the time he reached the place of incident, a galata

SC No.20 of 2016 Page 9 of 15

took place between the accused and PW.1 in respect of tractor loan. Except this, PW.3 did not speak against the accused persons in respect of injuries having been caused to any of the injured persons.

13(a).In the cross-examination, PW.3 admitted that he did not witness the incident.

14.PW.4 is also cited as eye witness. He deposed that on 03.10.2014 there was Dasara festival and Jammi procession was there. While returning from Jammi procession, families of accused persons and PW.1 were quarreling, wherein, son of accused No.1 namely Devi Vinod/Juvenile stabbed PW.1 in stomach with a knife.

Whereas, PW.4 did not speak about any injury caused to the mother of PW.1 i. e., PW.2.

14(a).In the cross-examination, PW.4 admitted that since it was winter season, there was no sufficient light to identify the facial features of the persons.

15.PW.5 is also cited as eye witness. He too stated that son of accused No.1 namely Devi Vinod/Juvenile stabbed in stomach with a knife.

SC No.20 of 2016 Page 10 of 15

15(a).In the cross-examination, PW.5 stated that incident took place by 6.00 p.m., and admitted that since it was winter season, there was no sufficient light to identify the facial features of the persons.

16.PW.6 is the panch witness for crime details form. He deposed that police recorded crime details form in his presence.

16(a).In the cross-examination, PW.6 stated that police approached him on the next day of incident at 10:00 a.m., and that by that time PW.1 was admitted in hospital as inpatient. He denied that PW.1 and his family are close to him and as such he is deposing false.

17.PW.7 is the panch witness for confession and recovery panchanama. He deposed that police have seized one knife from the possession of Devi Vinod/Juvenile in his presence and that he signed in the panchanama as a witness.

17(a).In the cross-examination, PW.7 stated that by the time his presence was secured by the police, the juvenile was already in the custody of the police and that he has signed on the papers that

SC No.20 of 2016 Page 11 of 15

were already written by the police and that he does not know the contents of the panchanama.

18.It is noticed that despite this Court giving more than sufficient time for production of other witnesses i. e., panch witness, medical officer and investigation officer in this case, the prosecution failed to produce them for recording their evidence.

Hence their evidence was closed on 24.07.2023. Whereas, the prosecution filed a Crl.M.P. for recalling those witnesses. The said

Crl.M.P.No.151 of 2023 was allowed on 30.04.2024. After recording

the evidence of PW.7/panch witness, this Court ordered summons to medical officer and investigation officer, but the prosecution failed to produce them. Hence their evidence was closed on 25.09.2024. Thus, the prosecution despite availing more than one year time failed to produce the evidence of medical officer and investigation officer.

19.From the above discussion of evidence of prosecution witnesses, it is found that while it is the case of the prosecution that both PW.1 and PW.2 suffered injuries in the alleged incident,

PW.2 has not stated anything pertaining to the injuries suffered by her in that incident, except stating that the Juvenile Devi Vinod pounced on her son/PW.1 with M.O.1/knife and tried to kill him. But

SC No.20 of 2016 Page 12 of 15

PW.1 stated that all the accused attacked PW.2 with knife and stabbed her on the left side of her chest. While PW.2 stated that only juvenile attacked PW.1, PW.1 stated contrarily that the accused No.2 and juvenile attacked him with a knife.

20.As discussed above, PW.3/eye witness deposed that he did not witness the incident. PW.4 and PW.5 both have stated that son of accused No.1 i. e., Devi Vinod/juvenile had stabbed PW.1 with knife. They too have not stated anything pertaining to the injuries suffered by PW.2. It is noticed that no prosecution witness spoke against the accused No.1 and 3.

21.As per the wound certificates issued by Medicare hospital, it is evident that both PW.1 and PW.2 are the injured persons. But as discussed above, no witness spoke about the injuries suffered by PW.2 including PW.2 herself, except PW.1.

22.On consideration of entire evidence on record, both, oral and documentary, this Court finds that there are several lapses in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. No eye witness spoke cogently about occurrence of the incident and all the prosecution witnesses testified contradictorily as to which of the accused in fact attacked PW.1 and PW.2. No witness spoke against the accused

SC No.20 of 2016 Page 13 of 15

No.1 and 3. The panch witnesses/PW.6 and PW.7 are only circumstantial witnesses and that PW.7 categorically admitted that he had signed on the papers already written by the police. Thus, the seizure of crime weapon i. e., knife is doubtful.

23.As discussed above, the prosecution failed to examine the medical officer and investigation officer despite availing more than one year time. The evidence of PW.1 and PW.2/injured persons is not convincing to inspire the confidence of the Court.

There are inconsistent statements and contradictions in the evidence of both PW.1 and PW.2. Those statements are marked as

Exs.D1 and D2. None of the prosecution witnesses stated that the accused persons attacked the injured persons with an intention to kill them. Thus the offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C cannot be said to have been proven against the accused No.1 to 3.

In respect of the offences punishable under Section 324 and 323

I.P.C., it is held that in view of inconsistent evidence of prosecution witnesses and lapses on the part of prosecution for not producing the evidence of medical officer and investigation officer, it is not safe to hold that the accused No.1 to 3 are guilty of offences punishable under Section 324 and 323 I.P.C., in furtherance of their common intention.

SC No.20 of 2016 Page 14 of 15

24.For the above reasons, this Court holds that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused No.1 to 3 for the offences punishable U/s.307, 324 and 323 r/w 34 of I.P.C.

beyond all reasonable doubt, and as such they deserve to be acquitted for the said offences. The point is answered accordingly.

25.IN THE RESULT, the accused No.1 to 3 are found not guilty of the offences punishable under Section 307, 324 and 323 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. for the said offences. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for further period of six months as contemplated under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. M.O.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by

me in the open Court on this the 22 nd day of October, 2024.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

PEDDAPALLI.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined

For the prosecution:

PW.1Devi MalleshamInjured person

PW.2Devi LaxmiInjured person

PW.3Vodnala RajaiahEye witness

PW.4Injapuri KomuraiahEye witness

SC No.20 of 2016 Page 15 of 15

PW.5Utla RajeshEye witness

PW.6Kotha KomuraiahPanch witness for crime details form

PW.7Avula LachaiahPanch witness for confession and recovery

For the defense:

- Nil -

Exhibits marked

For the prosecution:

Ex.P1 is Complaint

Ex.P2 is Crime details form along with rough sketch

Ex.P3 is Confession cum recovery panchanama (attested copy)

For the defense:

Ex.D1 is Contradictory portion in 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.1

Ex.D2 is Contradictory portion in 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.2

Material Objects Marked:

M.O.1 – Shaving knife

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

PEDDAPALLI.

1 of 13 SC No.28 of 2022

IN THE COURT OF THE FAST TRACK SPECIAL JUDGE FOR

EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL AND DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND PROTECTION OF

CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT CASES,

PEDDAPALLI.

PRESENT: SMT. K.SWAPNA RANI, Fast Track Special Judge For Expeditious Trial & Disposal of Rape & Protection of children from sexual offences Act Cases, Peddapalli.

TUESDAY, THE 07 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

SESSIONS CASE (POCSO) No.28 of 2022

Name of the complainantThe State through Sub Inspector of Police, Julapalli (Cr.No.79 of 2022 of P.S., Julapalli. Name of the accusedAsampelli Sampath, S/o. Babu, Age: 26 years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o. H.No. 4-6/1, Telukunta village of Julapalli Mandal.

CHARGESUnder Sections 448, 354-D of Indian Penal Code and Section 12 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act- 2012 against Accused.

Plea of the accusedNot Guilty

Finding of the Court Not Guilty

Sentence or OrderIn the result, Accused is found not guilty of offences punishable under Sections 448, 354-D of Indian Penal Code and Section 12 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act- 2012. Accordingly, Accused is acquitted under Section 235(1) Code of Criminal Procedure. The bail bonds and sureties of the accused are subject to Section 437-A Code of Criminal Procedure.

(a).The case property (MO-1) i.e., motorcycle bearing No. TS22E7489 2 of 13 SC No.28 of 2022 was returned to the petitioner/accused in Crl.MP No.140 of 2022 vide orders

dated: 27.09.2022 and the same is

made absolute.

(b).The unmarked/non valuable case property, if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period. Prosecution conducted by Sri D.Ravinder, Special Public Prosecutor

Accused defended bySri B.Shanthan Kumar, Learned Counsel

for the Accused.

This case is coming before this court on 07.04.2026 for hearing in the presence of Sri D.Ravinder, Special Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri B.Shanthan Kumar, Learned Counsel for the Accused, having been heard, having perused the record and having stood over for consideration to this day the Court delivered the following:

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

This case arises out of Crime No.79/2022 registered at Police

Station, Julapalli, for offences punishable under Sections 448, 354-D of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC) & Section 12 of

Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as POCSO Act).

2.The prosecution case, in brief, is that the victim and the accused are residents of Telukunta village. The victim completed her intermediate and was staying at her house by preparing for Eamcet examination. While so, on 24.06.2022 at about 2300 hours when she along with her brother were present at their house, the accused keeping the one side love in mind, went to the house of the victim on 3 of 13 SC No.28 of 2022 his motorcycle bearing No. TS22E-7489. By parking the vehicle in front of victim’s house, he criminally trespassed into the house and screamed that he loves the victim and he would marry her. Stating so, he insulted her modesty. Upon listening the sound, the victim’s brother came outside from his room. Meanwhile, the accused told him that he is Asampalli Sampath, that he loves his sister and he would marry her. Out of fear, the victim immediately informed the same to her uncle’s son by name M.Rakshith over phone. Upon receiving the phone call, the above mentioned Rakshith came to her house and took the accused person from her house. But, the accused again came and created nuisance. The victim discussed this matter with her family members and reported to the police through her mother.

Hence, there is delay in reporting the matter.

3.On the basis of complaint lodged by the mother of girl victim,

LW14/SI of police (Investigation Officer), PS Julapalli registered a case in Cr.No.79/2022 under sections 448, 354-D of IPC and section 12 of

POCSO Act. During the course of investigation, LW14/Investigation

Officer examined and recorded the statements of witnesses, visited the scene of offence and prepared crime details Form in the presence of panch witnesses by drawing rough sketch map of the scene.

3.1.He then collected the date of birth certificate of the victim and found the date of birth of the victim as 28.07.2004 and was aged about 17 years 11 months old. On 26.06.2022 the investigation officer 4 of 13 SC No.28 of 2022 served notice to the accused under section 41-A of Cr.P.C to appear

before him on 27.06.2022 at 10.00 AM for further investigation, but

the accused did not appear and he absconded. Hence, he was apprehended on 27.06.2022 at his residence and upon interrogation he confessed commission of offence. The investigation officer recorded his confession and seized motorcycle bearing No. TS22E7489 from his possession in the presence of panch witnesses. Subsequently, his arrest was effected in accordance with law and was produced before court for judicial remand. Later, the investigation officer got the statement of the victim recorded under section 164 of Cr.P.C., by learned Magistrate. On completion of entire investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused under Sections 448, 354-D of IPC and Section 12 of POCSO Act, 2012.

4. The case was taken on file for offences punishable under

Sections 448, 354-D of IPC & Section 12 of POCSO Act, 2012 against

Accused by the Hon’ble Principal District and Sessions Judge,

Karimnagar. On appearance of the accused, copies of the case records relied upon by the prosecution were furnished to him as contemplated

U/Sec. 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

4.1.In view of establishment of Court of Fast Track Special

Judge for Expeditious Trial & Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act cases

at Peddapalli, the case was transferred to this Court as per Orders of 5 of 13 SC No.28 of 2022 the Hon’ble Principal District & Sessions Judge, Peddapalli for disposal according to law.

4.2.On appearance of the accused, he was examined under

Section 228 of Code of Criminal Procedure and charges under

Sections 448, 354-D of IPC & Section 12 of POCSO Act-2012 were framed against Accused. The contents of the charges were read over and explained to him in vernacular language (Telugu) for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4.3.To prove its case, the prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.9 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P11 and MO-1. In view of the evidence of

PWs.1 to 9, learned Special Public Prosecutor gave up evidence of remaining cited witnesses.

4.4.After closure of prosecution evidence, accused was examined U/s. 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure by explaining the incriminating evidence of the Investigation Officer against him. The accused denied such evidence and reported no defence evidence.

4.5.Heard learned Special Public Prosecutor & learned

Counsel for Accused Sri B.Shanthan Kumar, and perused the entire record.

5.Now the point that arises for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable

doubt that the accused committed the offences

punishable under Sections 448, 354-D of Indian Penal

Code and Section 12 of Protection of Children From

Sexual Offences Act-2012?

6 of 13 SC No.28 of 2022

POINT:

6.During trial, the mother of the victim/complainant was examined as PW1. She partly corroborated with the case of the prosecution by stating that the accused is her distant relative; that in the year 2022 June, on one day, while her daughter was studying inside the house as she was preparing for Eamcet exam, she heard some noise of opening of the gate by some person; that the said person misbehaved with her daughter stating that he likes her and would marry her. Hence, she approached police. She further stated that police assured that they would look into the matter. She categorically stated that she has not stated against the accused person before the police. Since the PW1 did not depose anything incriminating against the accused, learned Special Public Prosecutor sought permission to declare her hostile to the extent of a portion of her statement recorded under section 161 of Cr.PC by the police as in

Ex.P-1.

6.1.PW-3 is the victim herself. She narrated the entire incident that occurred by deposing that some years ago, when she was preparing for Eamcet exam at her house at Telukunta village at around 11.00 PM, except herself and her younger brother/PW-2, no one were present at the house. At that time, the accused came into her house by opening the main gate and started screaming asking her to come out of the house and created nuisance infront of the house.

7 of 13 SC No.28 of 2022 6.2.Her junior paternal uncle/Thirupathi who is resident of the locality was watching, but he did not come to her rescue.

Therefore, she called her distant relative/LW4/Rakshith over phone as he is resident of the same locality. Then he immediately came and took the accused on his bike and dropped him at his house. But, the accused again came back and created nuisance by calling police over phone and screaming at her and her brother. Then the police came and went back.

6.3.On the next day, her mother, herself, her maternal uncle/Harish approached police and lodged complaint against the accused. However, in the cross examination, PW3 admitted that her family has disputes with her junior maternal uncle/Thirupathi and that the complaint is lodged at his instructions. She further admitted that her uncle/Thirupathi had disputes with accused also. She categorically stated that her uncle/Thirupathi instructed her family to lodge complaint as he too had disputes with the accused and further admitted that the accused never misbehaved with her earlier and that she has not stated before police as in Ex.P-4 statement recorded under section 161 of Cr.P.C. In contrast, she denied that no incident took place as stated in her chief examination but admitted that she was not examined by the police. Finally, she denied that no nuisance occurred, but admitted that she lodged complaint at the instance of her maternal uncle/Thirupathi and other uncle/Harish.

8 of 13 SC No.28 of 2022 6.4.PW-2 is the brother of the victim, PW-4 is the neighbor at the house of victim and cited as eyewitness. Both of them turned hostile and did not support the prosecution.

6.5.PW-5 and PW-6 are panch witnesses for crime details

Form. Even these panch witnesses have not supported the prosecution.

6.6.PW-7 and PW-8 are the panch witnesses for confession cum recovery panchanama. They too did not support the prosecution.

6.7.The investigation officer/PW9 merely deposed about the case of the prosecution by narrating the entire investigation done by him in the case. In the cross examination, he admitted that it takes about 20 minutes to reach police station from the house of victim. He denied the suggestion that the accused was falsely implicated in the case and that he has knowledge about the disputes between the victim’s uncle and the accused and that only at the initiation of victim’s uncle, a false case was foisted against the accused.

7.The learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that the case may be treated as heard.

7.1.The defence argued that there is no substantive evidence of criminal trespass or stalking or sexual harassment against the victim by the accused, and the only witness supporting the prosecution is the Investigation Officer, whose evidence is formal in nature.

9 of 13 SC No.28 of 2022

8.The material witness who is the complainant in this case denied having lodged any complaint against the accused though she partly corroborated about the occurrence of the nuisance infront of her house on the date of incident. The evidence of PW1 being so, the victim/PW3 deposed contradictorily that it is at the initiation of her uncle/Thirupathi, the complaint was lodged against the accused and that she has not stated before police as in Ex.P-4/statement recorded under section 161 of Cr.P.C. She categorically admitted in cross examination that she was not examined by police. Thus, her statement before police itself is denied by her. In these circumstances, no reliance can be placed on her oral evidence without corroboration by other prosecution witnesses.

8.1.It is elicited from the cross examination of PW3 that the complaint against the accused was lodged only at the initiation of maternal uncle of the victim by name Thirupathi. With regard to act of sexual harassment, the victim merely stated that the accused screamed infront of her house and created nuisance. She did not speak the words allegedly uttered by the accused to insult her modesty or any sexually colored remarks made by him against her except stating that he started screaming asking her and the inmates to come out of the house and thereby creating nuisance infront of the house.

10 of 13 SC No.28 of 2022 8.2.As discussed above, the complainant/mother of victim herself did not speak anything incriminating against the accused. All other witnesses i.e., PW2, PW4 to PW8 have turned hostile to the prosecution. The evidence of PW9/Investigation officer is only procedural in nature.

8.3.To summarize, the PW1/complainant has not spoken anything against the accused. PW3/victim has only partly corroborated with the prosecution and stated contradictorily to her chief examination when examined her cross. Except the contradictory evidence of PW3/victim, no other prosecution witnesses have spoken against the accused. Regarding the allegations of sexual harassment, the victim did not speak at all.

8.4.Thus, it is clear that the ingredients of the section 354-D of IPC as well as section 12 of POCSO Act, 2012 are not made out from the evidence of prosecution witnesses including the victim/PW3.

Even the offence of house trespass is doubtfully spoken by the victim/PW3 stating that the accused came to her house by opening the main gate, but in the cross examination she admitted that complaint is lodged against the accused only at the instance of her maternal uncle/Thirupathi and that she was not examined by the police. Thus, the evidence of PW3/victim who alone spoke against the accused is full of contradictions and not trustworthy. Relying on the contradictory oral evidence of victim is unsafe to hold the accused 11 of 13 SC No.28 of 2022 responsible for commission of offences alleged against him. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

8.5.For the above reasons, the accused is entitled to be acquitted of all the charges levelled against him.

9.In the result, Accused is found not guilty of offences punishable under Sections 448, 354-D of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 12 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO

Act). Accordingly, Accused is acquitted under Section 235(1) Code of

Criminal Procedure. The bail bonds and sureties of the accused are subject to Section 437-A Code of Criminal Procedure.

9(a).The case property (MO-1) i.e., motorcycle bearing No.

TS22E7489 was returned to the petitioner/accused in Crl.MP No.140 of 2022 vide orders dated: 27.09.2022 and the same is made absolute.

9(b). The unmarked/non valuable case property, if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.

Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 07 th day of April, 2026.

Sd/-

Special Judge For Expeditious Trial &

Disposal of Rape & Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act Cases, Peddapalli.

12 of 13 SC No.28 of 2022

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE:

PW.1 K.Krishnaveni -None-

PW.2 K.Jashwanth

PW.3 Victim

PW.4 M.Sampath

PW.5 M.Anjaiah

PW.6 D.Srinivas

PW.7 N.Chandraiah

PW.8 E.Rajendar

PW.9 A.Venkata Krishna (Investigation Officer)

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1Section 161 Cr.PC statement of PW-1

Ex.P2Section 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW2

Ex.P3Complaint by PW3

Ex.P4Section 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW3

Ex.P5Section 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW4

Ex.P6Signature of PW-5

Ex.P7Signature of PW-6

Ex.P8First Information Report, dated: 26.06.2022

Ex.P9Crime details Form, dated: 26.06.2022

Ex.P10Confession cum seizure panchanama, dated: 27.06.2022

Ex.P11Date of birth certificate of victim

FOR THE DEFENCE: -Nil- 13 of 13 SC No.28 of 2022

MATERIAL OBJECTS

MO-1: Bajaj Pulsar bike bearing No. TS22E7489.

Sd/-

Special Judge For Expeditious Trial &

Disposal of Rape & Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act Cases, Peddapalli.

//True Copy//

1 of 12 SC No.101 of 2021

IN THE COURT OF THE FAST TRACK SPECIAL JUDGE FOR

EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL AND DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND PROTECTION OF

CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT CASES,

PEDDAPALLI.

PRESENT: SMT. K.SWAPNA RANI, Fast Track Special Judge For Expeditious Trial & Disposal of Rape & Protection of children from sexual offences Act Cases, Peddapalli.

FRIDAY, THE 30 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026.

SESSIONS CASE (POCSO) No.101 of 2021

Name of the complainantTheStatethroughAssistant Commissioner of Police, Peddapalli (Cr.No.341 of 2020 of P.S., Peddapalli. Name of the accusedRevelli Srikanth, S/o. Balaiah, Age: 23 years, R/o. Wadkapur Village of Julapalli Mandal.

CHARGESUnder Section 376(2)(i)(n) of Indian Penal Code and Section 5(l) r/w 6 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act-2012 against Accused.

Plea of the accusedNot Guilty

Finding of the Court Not Guilty

Sentence or OrderIn the result, Accused is found not guilty of offences punishable under Section 376(2)(i)(n) of Indian Penal Code and Section 5(l) r/w 6 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act- 2012. Accordingly, Accused is acquitted under Section 235(1) Code of Criminal Procedure. The bail bonds and sureties of the accused are subject to Section 437-A Code of Criminal Procedure.

(a). The unmarked/non valuable case property, if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.

2 of 12 SC No.101 of 2021

Prosecution conducted by Sri D.Ravinder, Spl.Public Prosecutor

Accused defended bySri G.Mallareddy, Learned Counsel for the Accused.

This case is coming before this court on 30.01.2026 for hearing in the presence of Sri D.Ravinder, Special Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri G.Malla Reddy, Learned Counsel for the Accused, having been heard, having perused the record and having stood over for consideration to this day the Court delivered the following:

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

This case arises out of Cr.No. 341/2020 registered at Police

Station, Peddapalli, for offences punishable under Section 376(2)(i)(n) of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC) & Section 5(l) r/w 6 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as POCSO Act). The accused/Revelli Srikanth, stands charged with having committed rape & aggravated penetrative sexual harassment against girl victim.

2.The prosecution case, in brief, is that the girl victim is a student of Telangana Minority Residential Institution Society at Rangapur and studied 10th class. As per the date of birth certificate of girl victim, she is aged about 15 years 4 months 21 days as on the date of FIR, dated:

08.09.2020. In view of school holidays due to Covid-19 pandemic, the girl victim went to the house of her maternal uncle at

Hanumanthunipeta, Peddapalli Mandal. The accused hailing from

Vadkapur Village, Julapalli Mandal used to graze pigs and does the 3 of 12 SC No.101 of 2021 business of pigs. He was relative of LW5/maternal uncle of the girl victim and visited his house for the purpose of pigs business. At that time, he noticed the girl victim and talked with her. During the conversation accused developed acquaintance with her by stating that he is loving her and asked about her mobile number. The victim stated that she doesn’t have any phone but she gave the phone number of her father. The accused requested the victim to call him over phone when she was alone at her house and he would talk with her. The accused left the house of LW5/maternal uncle after his work.

The victim stayed at the house of her maternal uncle for about a month and later she returned to Kapulapalli to her house.

2.1.During the month of June-2020, when the victim was alone at her house, her father/LW2 forgot his phone in the house.

Then, the victim contacted the accused over phone and talked with him. The accused knowing the victim to be alone at her house, came to the house of the victim with an intention to exploit her sexually.

The accused made the girl victim believe that he is loving her and would marry her. Thus, with an intention to fulfill his lust, he exploited the girl victim sexually with his deceitful promises in-spite of her objections.

2.2.Further, the accused continued to talk with the girl victim over phone. For about 3 months the accused used to visit the house 4 of 12 SC No.101 of 2021 of the girl victim when she was alone and sexually exploited her in the absence of inmates in the house. The accused told the girl victim not to disclose the matter to her parents and after some days he will convince them for marriage and would marry her. Stating so, he exploited her sexually several times. While so, once the mother of the girl victim/LW3 noticed her uneasiness. Her mother took the girl victim to Government Hospital, Peddapalli wherein she was medically examined and after examination, the medical officer/LW7 declared the victim pregnant and carrying two months pregnancy. Upon such information, her mother questioned the girl victim. Then she disclosed the matter to her mother. Upon such information, her father/LW2 contacted the accused over phone and asked him about marrying his daughter. But, the accused refused to marry the girl victim and stated that he is not responsible for her pregnancy. Later, the matter was known to the relatives of the girl victim. Subsequently, a month later, the girl victim suffered with ill-health and she naturally suffered miscarriage of her pregnancy at home.

3.On the basis of complaint lodged by the girl victim on 08.09.2020 at 8.00 PM, the SI of police, PS Peddapalli/First

Investigation Officer registered the case in Cr.NO. 341/2020 under section 376(2)(1)(i)(n) of IPC and section 5(l) r/w 6 of POSCO Act, 2012 and informed the case facts to Assistant Commissioner of Police.

5 of 12 SC No.101 of 2021

As per the instructions of ACP, the First Investigation Officer referred the girl victim for medical examination. He also collected the date of birth certificate of the girl victim from LW8/Principal of the School.

The girl victim was found to be 15 years 4 months 21 days.

3.1.On 10.09.2020, ACP/Second Investigation Officer got recorded the statement of the victim by LW9/Woman Police Officer under videography of LW10/videographer. Later, ACP/Second

Investigation Officer examined and recorded the statements of her parents, visited the scene of crime situated at Kapulapalli village. He secured the presence of relatives of the girl victim and recorded their statements at that place and drafted the scene observation panchanama in the presence of panch witnesses.

3.2.Later, ACP/Second Investigation Officer examined and recorded the statements of Medical Officer, Principal of School and the

Woman Police Officer. On 14.09.2020 at 1200 hours the ACP/Second

Investigation Officer apprehended the accused with his team. Upon interrogation, the accused voluntarily confessed to have committed the offence. Then the ACP/second Investigation Officer recorded confession and seizure panchanama wherein a mobile phone was seized from the possession of the accused in the presence of panch witnesses. Thereafter, the arrest of the accused was effected in accordance with law.

6 of 12 SC No.101 of 2021 3.4.Later, the ACP/Second Investigation Officer got the statement of the girl victim recorded under section 164 of Cr.PC by the Learned Magistrate. He collected the medical examination report and forwarded the material objects, preserved to RFSL Karimnagar for analysis and report. He also collected CAF and CDR’s pertaining to mobile numbers used by accused as well as girl victim from

LW16/Nodal Officer.

3.5.Subsequently, LW20/Third Investigation Officer took up investigation, gone through the investigation done by second

Investigation Officer, found it on proper lines and hence did not record the statements of any witnesses. LW20/Third Investigation

Officer found the victim was pregnant at the time of registering the case. Hence, she re-examined the girl victim and recorded her statement. Consequent upon transfer and posting of LW20/Third

Investigation Officer, LW21/Fourth Investigation Officer took up further investigation of the case. He verified the investigation done till then and found that the entire investigation was completed in the case. Hence, he filed charge sheet against the accused under section 376(2)(i)(n) of IPC and section 5(l) r/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012.

4. The case was taken on file for offences punishable under

Section 376(2)(i)(n) of IPC & Section 5(l) r/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 against Accused by the I-Additional District and Sessions Judge, 7 of 12 SC No.101 of 2021

Karimnagar. On appearance of accused, copies of case records relied upon by the prosecution were furnished to him as contemplated

U/Sec. 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

4.1.In view of establishment of Court of Fast Track Special

Judge for Expeditious Trial & Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act cases

at Peddapalli, the case was transferred to this Court as per Orders of the Hon’ble Principal District & Sessions Judge, Peddapalli for disposal according to law.

4.2.On appearance of the accused, he was examined under

Section 228 of Code of Criminal Procedure and charges under Section 376(2)(i)(n) of IPC & Section 5(l) r/w 6 of POCSO Act-2012 were framed against Accused. The contents of the charges were read over and explained to him in vernacular language (Telugu). The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4.3.To prove its case, the prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.3 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P5.

4.4.The prosecution failed to produce evidence of remaining witnesses & Investigation Officer. Hence, this Court closed their evidence. The examination of the accused under section 313 of

Cr.P.C., is dispensed with as there is no incriminating evidence surfaced against the accused from the prosecution witnesses.

8 of 12 SC No.101 of 2021 4.5.Heard learned Special Public Prosecutor & learned

Counsel for Accused Sri G.Malla Reddy and perused the entire record.

5.Now the point that arises for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable

doubt that the accused committed the offences

punishable under Section 376(2)(i)(n) of Indian Penal Code

and Section 5(l) r/w 6 of Protection of Children From

Sexual Offences Act-2012?

POINT:

6.During trial, the complainant/girl victim was examined as PW1.

She deposed that in the year 2020 her parents forced her to lodge complaint against the accused as she fell in love with the accused by that time. Since her parents did not wish to perform her marriage with the accused, they lodged false complaint against the accused through her. PW1 further stated that she later married the accused and now both of them are living together happily with three children.

She categorically stated that she never complained to the police making allegations against the accused. Stating so, she turned hostile.

6.1.Since the girl victim/PW1 did not support the prosecution, Learned Special Public Prosecutor was permitted to cross examine her. However, nothing material was elicited from such cross examination in favor of prosecution.

9 of 12 SC No.101 of 2021 6.2.PW2 is the father of girl victim. He deposed that he does not know anything about the case, and that police never examined him. Stating so, he did not support the case of the prosecution and resiled from his previous statement before police. As such, he was declared hostile.

6.3.PW3 is the mother of the girl victim. She deposed that she does not know anything about the case, and that police never examined her. Stating so, she did not support the case of the prosecution and resiled from her previous statement before police. As such, she was declared hostile.

7.The learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that the case may be treated as heard.

7.1.The defence argued that there is no substantive evidence of rape & aggravated penetrative sexual harassment against the accused.

8.The material witness who is the victim in this case denied any allegation of rape & aggravated penetrative sexual harassment against the accused. She categorically stated that since her parents did not wish to perform her marriage with the accused, they lodged false complaint against the accused through her. PW1 further stated that she later married the accused and now both of them are living 10 of 12 SC No.101 of 2021 together happily with three children. She categorically stated that she never complained to the police making allegations against the accused. Her mother and father too did not support the case of the prosecution. Thus, the material witnesses themselves turned hostile.

As there is no incriminating evidence against the accused.

8.1.In a prosecution under the Protection of children from sexual offences Act, the statutory presumption of guilt under section 29 is not automatic and can only be triggered once the prosecution successfully establishes the foundational facts of the case beyond a reasonable doubt. As clarified in various judicial precedents, the burden remains on the prosecution to first prove the occurrence of the alleged act. When the prosecution fails to prove preliminary facts, the legal machinery of section 29 cannot be set in motion.

Consequently, the accused cannot be expected to rebut a presumption that never legally arose, as the “reverse burden of proof” only shifts to the defence after the foundational elements of the offence are established.

8.2.To summarize, no prosecution witnesses have spoken against the accused. Although the victim was a minor, when the prosecution failed to establish the foundational facts necessary to attract Section 376(2)(i)(n) of Indian Penal Code and Section 5(l) r/w 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and when 11 of 12 SC No.101 of 2021 no incriminating evidence surfaced against the accused from the evidence of material witnesses, the prosecution case cannot stand.

Therefore, this court holds that prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused. The point is answered accordingly.

8.3.For the above reasons, the accused is entitled to be acquitted of all the charges levelled against him.

9.In the result, Accused is found not guilty of offences punishable under Section 376(2)(i)(n) of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 5(l) r/w 6 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). Accordingly, Accused is acquitted under Section 235(1)

Code of Criminal Procedure. The bail bonds and sureties of the accused are subject to Section 437-A Code of Criminal Procedure.

9(a).The unmarked/non valuable case property, if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.

Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 30 th day of January, 2026.

Sd/-

Special Judge For Expeditious Trial &

Disposal of Rape & Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act Cases, Peddapalli.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE:

PW.1 Victim -None- 12 of 12 SC No.101 of 2021

PW.2 Sammaiah (father of victim)

PW.3 Laxmi (mother of victim)

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1Signature of PW1 on complaint

Ex.P2complaint

Ex.P3Sec. 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW1

Ex.P4Sec. 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW2

Ex.P5Sec. 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW3

FOR THE DEFENCE: -Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS

Nil

Sd/-

Special Judge For Expeditious Trial &

Disposal of Rape & Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act Cases, Peddapalli.

//True Copy//

1 of 11 SC No.17 of 2021

IN THE COURT OF THE FAST TRACK SPECIAL JUDGE FOR

EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL AND DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND PROTECTION OF

CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT CASES,

PEDDAPALLI.

PRESENT: SMT. K.SWAPNA RANI, Fast Track Special Judge For Expeditious Trial & Disposal of Rape & Protection of children from sexual offences Act Cases, Peddapalli.

WEDNESDAY, THE 06 TH DAY OF MAY, 2026

SESSIONS CASE (POCSO) No.17 of 2021

Name of the complainantTheStatethroughAssistant Commissioner of Police, Peddapalli (Cr.No.223 of 2020 of P.S., NTPC). Name of the accusedThammishetti Mahesh @ Mahi, S/o. Late Radha Kishan, Age: 27 years, R/o.H.No. 4-1-129/1, Kakatiya Nagar, NTPC, Ramagundam.

CHARGESUnder Section 376(2)(n) of Indian Penal Code, Sections 3(1)(w), 3(2)(va) of SC’s/ST’s (POA) Act, 1989 and Section 6 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act-2012 against Accused.

Plea of the accusedNot Guilty

Finding of the Court Not Guilty

Sentence or OrderIn the result, Accused is found not guilty of offences punishable under Section 376(2)(n) of Indian Penal Code, Sections 3(1)(w), 3(2)(va) of SC’s/ST’s (POA) Act, 2015 and Section 6 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act-2012. Accordingly, Accused is acquitted under Section 235(1) Code of Criminal Procedure. The bail bonds and sureties of the accused are subject to Section 437-A Code of Criminal Procedure.

2 of 11 SC No.17 of 2021

(a).The unmarked/non valuable case property, if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period. Prosecution conducted by Sri D.Ravinder, Special Public Prosecutor

Accused defended bySri E.Madhusudhan Rao, Learned Counsel for the Accused.

This case is coming before this court on 06.05.2026 for hearing in the presence of Sri D.Ravinder, Special Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri E.Madhusudhan Rao, Learned Counsel for the Accused, having been heard, having perused the record and having stood over for consideration to this day the Court delivered the following:

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

This case arises out of Crime No.223/2020 registered at Police

Station, NTPC, for offences punishable under Section 376(2)(n) of

Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC), Sections 3(1)(w), 3(2)(va) of SC’s/ST’s (POA) Act, 1989 & Section 6 of Protection of

Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as

POCSO Act).

2.The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant is resident of Ramagundam and belongs to Madiga (SC Community).

The husband of daughter of complainant by name Prameela died after she giving birth to a baby girl, in a road accident 14 years ago. Later, the daughter of complainant married one B.Kurumaiah of

Nagarkurnool District and she was blessed with two children.

Presently, she is residing at Dubai. The victim minor girl is the elder grand daughter of complainant and she was aged about 14 years 01 3 of 11 SC No.17 of 2021 month 29 days as on the date of FIR on 10.12.2020, and was studying class VIII at Social Welfare Residential School at Mallapur,

Dharmaram Mandal. The grandson of complainant aged about 07 years was studying at MDHWS Ashram at Godavarikhani and younger grand daughter Prathyusha was studying class-I at

Balasadhan, Karimnagar. Due to covid-19 pandemic the grand daughters of complainant i.e., victim/LW2 and Prathyusha were residing with the complainant at her house at Kakatiya Nagar. While so, her daughter Prameela who was working at Dubai, was sending money.

2.1.The accused by name T.Mahesh hails from the same colony where the complainant used to reside and he belongs to

Vaddera community. He noticed the victim/LW2 in the house of complainant and developed lust on her. Once the victim/LW2 sat on a heap of sand, in-front of the house of complainant watching her mobile phone. The accused and his friend/LW5 noticed the victim/LW.2. The accused told his friend/LW5 to go to LW2/victim and dialed his mobile number from her mobile phone. Accordingly,

LW5/friend of accused went and asked the victim/LW2 as to what she was doing and asked her to give her phone once. Accordingly, the victim/LW2 gave her phone to him. He dialed the mobile number of the accused and deleted. Later, the LW5/friend of accused returned back the phone to the victim/LW2. Thereafter, the accused contacted 4 of 11 SC No.17 of 2021 the victim/LW2 over her mobile with his mobile phone number in the evening at about 06.00 PM or 07.00 PM and asked her what she was doing and whether she had her supper.

2.2.Once the victim and her sister/Prathyusha went to

Hyderabad to the house of sister of complainant. During her stay at

Hyderabad, accused used to contact the victim and talk to her stating that he was loving her and would marry her. Once in the night hours, the accused went to the house of complainant and contacted the victim over phone and asked her to come out. Then the victim came out from the house. The accused took her to a bathroom situated in- front of their house and forcibly committed rape on the victim. In the same way the accused used to call the victim during the night hours in the months of June, August, September & October of the year 2020 and forcibly committed sexual assault on the victim in the bathroom.

Two months prior to 10.12.2020, once the accused went to the house of complainant and contacted the victim over phone and asked her to come out. Then the victim came out from her house. At that time, complainant woke up as it was night time and found the victim missing. The complainant searched for the victim and found her with the accused in the bathroom wherein the accused was sexually exploiting her. The complainant raised hues and cries listening to which the neighbors rushed to the place where the complainant 5 of 11 SC No.17 of 2021 admonished the victim in the presence of neighbors and came to know entire facts above mentioned.

3.On the basis of complaint lodged by the maternal grandmother of girl victim, LW20/SI of police (Investigation Officer), PS NTPC registered a case in Cr.No.223/2020 under section 376(2)(n) of IPC, sections 3(1)(w), 3(2)(va) of SC’s/ST’s (POA) Act, 1989 and section 6 of

POCSO Act, issued express FIR to all concerned and informed the incident to the LW-21/ACP, Godavarikhani over phone. Thereafter,

LW21/ACP, Godavarikhani instructed the LW20/SI of police, NTPC to refer the victim for medical examination. Accordingly, LW20/SI of police, NTPC referred the victim for medical examination with a requisition to the lady Medical Officer, Government Area Hospital,

Godavarikhani, wherein the LW15/LMO examined the victim and preserved the MO’s for onward transmission to the RFSL, Karimnagar for analysis and report.

3.1.Thereafter, LW21/ACP, Godavarikhani took up further investigation on 11.12.2020. During the course of investigation,

LW21/ACP, Godavarikhani examined and recorded the statements of witnesses, visited the scene of offence and prepared crime details

Form in the presence of panch witnesses by drawing rough sketch map of the scene.

6 of 11 SC No.17 of 2021 3.2.Further, LW21/ACP, Godavarikhani directed the LW20/SI of police, NTPC to collect the caste certificates of LW1/complainant, victim/LW2 and accused. Accordingly, LW20/SI of police, NTPC collected the caste certificates of LW1/complainant, victim/LW2 and accused and found that LW1 and LW2 belongs to Madiga (SC) community and accused belongs to Vaddera (BC-A) community.

Thereafter, LW21/SI of police, NTPC collected the date of birth certificate of the victim and found the date of birth of the victim as 11.10.2006. The LW21/ACP, Godavarikhani got the statement of the victim recorded under section 164 of Cr.PC by learned Magistrate.

3.3.On 19.12.2020 he apprehended the accused at Medipalli

Chowrastha and interrogated the accused and also seized one orange coloured mobile phone from his possession. During interrogation, the accused voluntarily confessed to have committed the offence and hence the accused was shifted to PS, NTPC and his arrest was effected in accordance with law. Thereafter, the investigation officer collected CDR’s and CAF’s of mobile numbers pertaining to both the accused and victim. On completion of entire investigation, the investigation officer filed charge sheet against the accused under

Section 376(2)(n) of IPC, Sections 3(1)(w), 3(2)(va) of SC’s/ST’s (POA)

Act, 1989 and Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012.

4. The case was taken on file for offences punishable under

Section 376(2)(n) of IPC, Sections 3(1)(w), 3(2)(va) of SC’s/ST’s (POA) 7 of 11 SC No.17 of 2021

Act, 1989 & Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 against Accused by the I-

Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karimnagar. On appearance

of the accused, copies of the case records relied upon by the prosecution were furnished to him as contemplated U/Sec. 207 of

Code of Criminal Procedure.

4.1.In view of establishment of Court of Fast Track Special

Judge for Expeditious Trial & Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act cases

at Peddapalli, the case was transferred to this Court as per Orders of the Hon’ble Principal District & Sessions Judge, Peddapalli for disposal according to law.

4.2.On appearance of the accused, he was examined under

Section 228 of Code of Criminal Procedure and charges under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC, Sections 3(1)(w), 3(2)(va) of SC’s/ST’s (POA) Act, 1989 & Section 6 of POCSO Act-2012 were framed against Accused. The contents of the charges were read over and explained to him in vernacular language (Telugu) for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4.3.To prove its case, the prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.3 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P3. In view of the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, learned Special Public Prosecutor gave up evidence of remaining cited witnesses.

4.4.After closure of prosecution evidence, accused was examined U/s. 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure by explaining the 8 of 11 SC No.17 of 2021 incriminating evidence of the Investigation Officer against him. The accused denied such evidence and reported no defence evidence.

4.5.Heard learned Special Public Prosecutor & Learned

Counsel for the Accused Sri E.Madhusudhan Rao, and perused the entire record.

5.Now the point that arises for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable

doubt that the accused committed the offences

punishable under Section 376(2)(n) of Indian Penal Code,

Sections 3(1)(w), 3(2)(va) of SC’s/ST’s (POA) Act, 1989 and

Section 6 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offences

Act-2012?

POINT:

6.During trial, the grandmother of the victim was examined as

PW1. She deposed that in the year 2020, a petty quarrel took place between their family and the family of accused. At that time, police came and obtained her thumb impression on some papers. She categorically stated that she was not examined by police. Stating so, she did not support the prosecution.

6.1.The victim herself was examined as PW2. She deposed that she does not know anything about the case and that she was not examined by police.

6.2.Since PW1 & PW2 did not support the prosecution,

Learned Special Public Prosecutor was permitted to put questions to 9 of 11 SC No.17 of 2021

PW1 & PW2. However, nothing material was elicited from such questioning, in favor of prosecution.

6.3.The investigation officer/PW3 merely deposed about the case of the prosecution by narrating the part of investigation done by him in the case. In the cross examination, he denied the suggestion that the accused was falsely implicated in the case and that it is only based on table investigation, a false charge sheet is filed against the accused.

7.The learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that the case may be treated as heard.

7.1.The defence argued that there is no substantive evidence of rape or aggravated penetrative sexual assault on a person belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe by the accused, and the only witness supporting the prosecution is the Investigation

Officer, whose evidence is formal in nature.

8.The material witness who is the victim in this case denied any allegation of rape or aggravated penetrative sexual assault against the accused. Her grandmother denied allegations against accused. The categorical denial of any offences against the accused by PW1 & PW2 strikes at the root of the prosecution case. The evidence of

Investigation Officer/PW3, being procedural, cannot by itself prove the ingredients of the offences.

10 of 11 SC No.17 of 2021 8.1.To summarize, it is evident that PW2/victim did not support the prosecution. Except the Investigation Officer, no other prosecution witnesses have spoken against the accused. Although the victim was technically a minor, when the prosecution failed to establish the foundational facts necessary to attract Section 376(2)(n) of Indian Penal Code against the victim, the mere allegations of rape or aggravated penetrative sexual assault do not automatically establish the offences punishable under Section 376(2)(n) of Indian

Penal Code, Sections 3(1)(w), 3(2)(va) of SC’s/ST’s (POA) Act, 1989

Section 6 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 against accused. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove the very foundational facts, let alone the guilt of the accused.

8.2.For the above reasons, the accused is entitled to be acquitted of all the charges levelled against him.

9.In the result, Accused is found not guilty of offences punishable under Section 376(2)(n) of Indian Penal Code (IPC), Sections 3(1)(w), 3(2)(va) of SC’s/ST’s (POA) Act, 1989 and Section 6 of Protection of

Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). Accordingly,

Accused is acquitted under Section 235(1) Code of Criminal

Procedure. The bail bonds and sureties of the accused are subject to

Section 437-A Code of Criminal Procedure.

11 of 11 SC No.17 of 2021 9(a).The unmarked/non valuable case property, if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.

Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 06 th day of May, 2026.

Sd/-

Special Judge For Expeditious Trial &

Disposal of Rape & Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act Cases, Peddapalli.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE:

PW.1 Rajamma @ Shankaramma -None-

PW.2 victim

PW.3 N.Swarup Raj (Investigation Officer)

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1Section 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW1

Ex.P2Section 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW2

Ex.P3First Information Report, dated: 10.12.2020.

FOR THE DEFENCE: -Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS

- Nil -

Sd/-

Special Judge For Expeditious Trial &

Disposal of Rape & Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act Cases, Peddapalli. //True Copy//