Kum. Kanugula Vanisree

Page 1 of 12 POCSO COURT, ELURU, POCSO S.C.No.132/2024

TABULAR FORM ANNEXED TO THE JUDGMENT IN POCSO

S.C.No.132 of 2024 IN THE SPECIAL COURT FOR SPEEDY TRIAL

OF OFFENCES UNDER THE PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM

SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT, 2012 UNDER RULE 318 OF THE

CRIMINAL RULES OF PRACTICE.

1.Sessions Case Number. : POCSO S.C. No.132 of 2024

2. Name of the Police station : Cr.No.168/2024 of Eluru III Town Police Station.

3. Name of the Accused and : Chinchili Prem Kuamr, S/o. Subba Rao, aged 25 years, r/o. Near particulars Velangini Matha Temple, Polasanipalil Village, Nuziveedu Mandal, Eluru District.

4. Date of offence : Prior to 29-04-2024

5. Date of complaint : 29-04-2024

6. Date of apprehension : 22-05-2024

7. Date of release on bail : 02-07-2024 8.Date of commencement of : 16-02-2026 trial

9. Date of close of Trial : 26-03-2026

10. Date of Sentence of Order : 26-03-2026

Order In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 354D, 376(2)(n) of IPC r/w Section 5(l) r/w Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 361 r/w 363, 344 of IPC and Section 9 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 and accordingly, he is acquitted for the said offences under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C.

Page 2 of 12 POCSO COURT, ELURU, POCSO S.C.No.132/2024 The bail bonds of the accused, if any, shall remain in force for a period of six months as contemplated under Section 437A of Cr.P.C.

No case property produced. Hence, no property order passed relating to disposal of case property.

12. Explanation for the delay No avoidable delay.

13. Appeals as prescribed No avoidable delay.

under rule 319 of Criminal

Rules of Practice with regard to the diary extract submitted by the Committing Court.

SD/- K. VANISREE

Special Judge for speedy trial of

offences under POCSO Act, 2012, West Godavari, Eluru.

Page 3 of 12 POCSO COURT, ELURU, POCSO S.C.No.132/2024

Presented on :15-10-2024 Registered on :30-11-2024 Decided on :26-03-2026 Duration : 1 year 3 months 26 days

IN THE SPECIAL COURT FOR SPEEDY TRIAL OF OFFENCES

UNDER THE PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL

OFFENCES ACT, 2012.

Present: Kum. K. Vanisree,

Special Judge for speedy trial of

offences under POCSO Act, 2012,

West Godavari, Eluru

Thursday, this the 26th day of March, 2026.

POCSO SESSIONS CASE No.132 of 2024

Name of the Complainant : The Sub Divisional Police Officer, Eluru Sub Division Rep by its SO, Eluru III Town P.S.

Crime No. and Police Station : Cr.No.168/2024 of Eluru III Town Police Station.

Name and Particulars of the : Chinchili Prem Kuamr, S/o. Subba Accused Rao, 25 years, r/o. Near Velangini Matha Temple, Polasanipalil Village, Nuziveedu Mandal, Eluru District.

Charges : Under Sections 354D, 376(2)(n) of IPC r/w Section 5(l) r/w Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 361 r/w 363, 344 of IPC and Section 9 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006.

Plea of the Accused : Pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the Judge : Found not guilty.

Date of Sentence or Order : 26-03-2026

Order or Sentence : In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 354D, 376(2)(n) of IPC r/w Section 5(l) r/w Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual

Page 4 of 12 POCSO COURT, ELURU, POCSO S.C.No.132/2024 Offences Act, 2012 and Section 361 r/w 363, 344 of IPC and Section 9 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 and accordingly, he is acquitted for the said offences under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of the accused, if any, shall remain in force for a period of six months as contemplated under Section 437A of Cr.P.C. No case property produced. Hence, no property order passed relating to disposal of case property. Prosecution conducted by : The Special Public Prosecutor, Eluru

Accused defended by : Sri K.Naveen Babu.

This case is coming on this day i.e. on 26-03-2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Learned Special Public Prosecutor

for the complainant and of Sri K.Naveen Babu, Learned Counsel for the

accused and upon hearing both sides and on perusing the material available on record and having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The State represented by its Sub Divisional Police Officer, Eluru

Sub Division laid charge sheet against the accused in Crime

No.168/2024 of Eluru III Town Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 344, 366A, 376(2)(n), 376(3) of IPC and Section 6 of

POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 9 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006.

2.The case of the Prosecution, in brief, is that the accused is resident of Polasanipalli village of Nuziveedu Mandal. LW2/victim aged 17 years is daughter of LW6/Neelapu Siva Kumari and granddaughter of

LW1/Annapoorna. The accused used to live near the house of grandparents of victim and got acquaintance with victim. The accused

Page 5 of 12 POCSO COURT, ELURU, POCSO S.C.No.132/2024 used to state that he is in love with victim and expressed his intention to marry her and believing his words the victim trusted him. In the month of

September, 2020 during temporary absence of her parents accused on the pretext of marriage committed penetrative sexual assault on the victim and thereafter repeated the same. As the victim was suffering from chest infection her mother got treatment to victim in Pragna Hospital,

Eluru. On 28.04.2024 the accused went to the house of victim and abducted her from her Lawful guardianship and took her to Vijayawada and married her and from there he took her to Chadalawada of

Pakasham District and took a rented house from LW15/Dasari Kishore

Kumar and wrongfully confined the victim in the said house for twenty days and committed penetrative sexual assault on her several times. In the meanwhile, LW1 who is grandmother of the victim lodged report against accused and coming to know that police were searching for them, the accused decided to escape to Hyderabad along with victim and on 21.05.2024 while they were waiting at Railway Station, Vijayawada

LW6/Neelapu Siva Kumari mother of the victim and police were searching in the Railway Station then he escaped by leaving LW2/victim in the Railway Station and she was brought to police station.

Initially on the complaint given by LW1/Annapoorna, LW26/HC registered case in Cr.No.168/2024 under Girl missing on 29.04.2024 and visited the scene of offence examined the same and examined

LW1/Annapoorna, LW3/Vereshu, LW4/Durga Rao and LW5/Nagaraju.

Thereafter S.I. of police took up further investigation and obtained call data records and as per tower location he deputed team and the team identified LW2/victim in Railway Station, Vijayawada and she was produced before LW28/S.I. of police. Basing on the statement of the victim LW28 altered the Section of Law to Section 344, 366A, 376(2)(n)

IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 9 of Prohibition of

Page 6 of 12 POCSO COURT, ELURU, POCSO S.C.No.132/2024 Child Marriage Act,2006 and victim was sent to Medical Officer for medical examination. Thereafter LW29/SDPO took up investigation and he got recorded the statement of victim through LW27/Women S.I. and he re-examined the witnesses and visited the scene of offence at the house of LW1/Annapoorna from where the accused kidnapped the victim and prepared rough sketch and got photographed the same. On 24.05.2024 he visited Polasanapalli village and examined the scene of offence where accused alleged to have committed rape on the victim and examined the same in the presence of mediators LW18/Mareedu

Srinivas and LW19/Anam Hepsiba and prepared scene observation report. Thereafter he visited the scene of offence at Chadalawada

Village, Prakasam District where the victim was kept for twenty days and committed penetrative sexual assault and examined the scene and prepared Rough Sketch and there he examined witnesses and recorded their statements. Thereafter he collected study-cum-date of birth certificate of victim from LW22/Head Mistress. He arrested the accused on 22.05.2024 and forwarded him to court for remand after conducting potency test at CHC, Chintalapudi. Thereafter he obtained medical reports and after recording Sec.164 Cr.P.C. statement of victim and after completion of investigation LW30/SPOD filed charge sheet.

3. This Court took cognizance of the offences under Sections 344, 366A,376(2)(n), 376(3) of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and

Section 9 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 against the accused.

4. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents which were relied on by the Prosecution, supplied to the Accused as required under

Section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

5. After hearing the learned Special Public Prosecutor for prosecution and the learned counsel for accused, charges under Sections 354D, 376(2)(n) of IPC r/w Section 5(l) r/w Section 6 of Protection of Children

Page 7 of 12 POCSO COURT, ELURU, POCSO S.C.No.132/2024 from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 361 r/w 363, 344 of IPC and Section 9 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 against the accused have been framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. During the course of trial, on behalf of prosecution PWs.1 to 5 are examined and Exs.P1 to P6 are marked. The prosecution given up the evidence of LW3/Kommanti Vereshu, LW4/Kode Durgarao, LW5/Talluri

Nagaraju, LW6/Smt. Neelapu Siva Kumari, LW7/Kancharla Satyaveni,

LW8/KommantiRAdha Krishna, LW9/Neelapu Sarasarao,

LW10/Naragani Srinivasara Rao, LW11/Dasari Gopi, LW12/Neelapu

Rangarao, LW13/Neelapu Venkateswaramma, LW14/Kommi Durga

Bhavani @ keerthana, LW15/Dasari Kishore Kumar, LW16/Tummalwar

Manoj, LW17/Mannam Anand, LW18/Mareedu Srinivas, LW19/Aanam

Hepsiba, LW20/Nodal Officer, LW21/M.Hari Krishna, LW22/A.Adi

Lakshmi, LW23/Dr.A.lashmi Kiran, LW24/Dr.K.Ajay,

LW25/Ms.B.Rachana, Hon’ble IIAJFCM, Eluru, LW29/E.Sreenivasulu,

SDPO and LW30/D.Sravan Kumar, SDPO, Eluru Sub-Division, Eluru and

Prosecution evidence closed.

7. After closure of prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating evidence appeared against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which, he denied the same and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

8. Heard both sides.

9. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the

accused for the offences punishable under Sections 354D,

376(2)(n) of IPC r/w Section 5(l) r/w Section 6 of Protection of

Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 361 r/w

Page 8 of 12 POCSO COURT, ELURU, POCSO S.C.No.132/2024

363, 344 of IPC and Section 9 of Prohibition of Child Marriage

Act, 2006 beyond reasonable doubt?

10. POINT :- The allegations leveled against the accused are that the accused used to follow the victim minor girl aged 17 years on the pretext of love and marriage and stalked her and committed penetrative sexual assault on the victim and on 28-04-2024, he kidnapped the victim girl from her lawful guardianship and took to Vijayawada and married her and thereafter took her to Ongole and wrongfully confined in a room at

Chadavada for twenty days and charges came to me made under

Sections 354D, 376(2)(n) r/w Section 5(l) r/w Section 6 of Protection of

Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 361 r/w 363, 344 of IPC and Section 9 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006.

11. To prove the case of Prosecution, the prosecution examined the grandmother of the victim and defacto complainant as PW1 and she stated that she gave Ex.P1 complaint to police on 29-04-2024 that her granddaughter was missing and further stated that on the next day of the complaint, her granddaughter returned and informed that she went to temple with friends and further stated that she does not know the accused.

12. PW4 Head Constable stated that on 29-04-2024 while he was present in Police Station, PW1 came to Police Station and presented complaint and he registered Ex.P5 FIR as case in Cr.No.168/2024 under

Girl Missing and thereafter, SI of Police took up investigation. PW5 SI of

Police stated that on 30-04-2024, he took up investigation and verified the investigation done by Head Constable and re-examined PW1 and other witnesses and directed his staff to trace out the victim. He stated that he verified Call Records of accused whose phone number was furnished by the defacto complainant on suspicion and on 21-05-2024, basing on the tower location, he could trace out the movements of the

Page 9 of 12 POCSO COURT, ELURU, POCSO S.C.No.132/2024 victim and accused in the surroundings of Vijayawada and deputed his staff to trace out them and they brought victim to Police Station from

Railway Station, Vijayawada. He further stated that he got recorded the statement of victim through PW3 Woman SI and altered the Section of law to Sections 344, 366A, 376(2)(n), 376(3) of IPC and Section 6 of

POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 9 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006. PW3 Woman SI of Police stated that on 22-05-2024 at the request of SHO, Woman Police Station, she recorded the statement of victim in

Eluru Government Hospital in mufti in the presence of her mother along with photography and videography and also recorded Section 161

Cr.P.C. statement of the victim.

13. Though, the evidence of PW1 and PWs 3 to 5 shows that on the complaint given by PW1, case was registered under Girl Missing and investigated into and during the course of investigation, the victim was traced and basing on the statement of the victim, Section of law was altered, but PW2 did not support the case of Prosecution and she stated that she does not know the accused and does not know anything about the case and does not know whether her grandmother gave complaint against accused to police. Further, PW1 the defacto complainant stated that on the next day of giving complaint, PW1 returned home and informed that she went to temple with friends and that she does not know the accused. PWs1 and 2 did not support the case of the Prosecution and denied their earlier statements.

14. The learned Special Public Prosecutor cross examined PWs1 and 2 at length, but nothing could be elicited from their cross examination to show that the accused committed the alleged offences. Of course, PW2 victim stated that she was produced before Magistrate and admitted signature on Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement as belongs to her, but stated that she does not know the contents of Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement,

Page 10 of 12 POCSO COURT, ELURU, POCSO S.C.No.132/2024 therefore, Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2 is also no way useful to the case of the prosecution.

15. As PW1 the defacto complainant and PW2 the victim did not support the case of Prosecution, the evidence of PWs 3 to 5 is no way helpful to prove the allegations leveled against the accused and the learned Special Public Prosecutor given up the evidence of other witnesses and there is no material on record to show that the accused committed the alleged offences and the Prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offences under Sections 354D, 376(2)(n) of

IPC r/w Section 5(l) r/w Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual

Offences Act, 2012, Section 361 r/w 363, 344 of IPC and Section 9 of

Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006. Accordingly, the point is answered.

16. In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 354D, 376(2)(n) of IPC r/w Section 5(l) r/w

Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and

Section 361 r/w 363, 344 of IPC and Section 9 of Prohibition of Child

Marriage Act, 2006 and accordingly, he is acquitted for the said offences under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of the accused, if any, shall remain in force for a period of six months as contemplated under Section 437A of Cr.P.C.

No case property produced. Hence, no property order passed relating to disposal of case property.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-I directly on Computer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 26 th day of March, 2026.

SD/- K. VANISREE

SPECIAL JUDGE FOR SPEEDY TRIAL OF

OFFENCES UNDER POCSO ACT, 2012,

WEST GODAVARI, ELURU.

Page 11 of 12 POCSO COURT, ELURU, POCSO S.C.No.132/2024

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Prosecution Name of witness Description Witness No. PW1 Kommanti Annapurna Defacto Complainant and grandmother of the victim PW2 Victim (Name is withheld) Victim.

PW3 B. Nagamani Woman S.I. of Police

PW4 I. Vijaya Raju HC-1890

PW5 K. Prasad S.I. of police

FOR DEFENCE: -N O N E-.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Exhibit No. Description of the exhibit Proved by/

Attested by P1/29-04-2024 Complaint given PW1 to policePW1 P2/29-04-2024 Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1. PW1 P3/22-05-2024 Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2/Victim PW2/Victim. P4/14-06-2024 Signature of PW2/Victim on Section 164 PW2/Victim Cr.P.C. statement. P5/29-04-2024 FIR in Cr.No.168/2024 of Eluru III Tow PW4. Police Station. P6/- Alteration Memo PW4

FOR DEFENCE:- -N I L- .

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED: - N I L –

ILD/- KV

SPECIAL JUDGE FOR SPEEDY TRIAL OF

OFFENCES UNDER POCSO ACT, 2012,

WEST GODAVARI, ELURU.

Page 12 of 12 POCSO COURT, ELURU, POCSO S.C.No.132/2024 Copies to:

1. The Registrar (Judl.), High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Nelapadu (By way of C.D.)

2. The District Collector, W.G., Eluru.

3. The Superintendent of Police, W.G., Eluru.

4. Special Public Prosecutor, W.G., Eluru.

5. The Director of Prosecutions, Durgapuram, Vijayawada.

Page 1 of 11 POCSO COURT, ELURU, POCSO S.C.No.26/2024

TABULAR FORM ANNEXED TO THE JUDGMENT IN POCSO

S.C.No.26 of 2024 IN THE SPECIAL COURT FOR SPEEDY TRIAL OF

OFFENCES UNDER THE PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM

SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT, 2012 UNDER RULE 318 OF THE

CRIMINAL RULES OF PRACTICE.

1.Sessions Case Number. : POCSO S.C. No.26 of 2024

2. Name of the Police station : Cr.No.138/2023 of Disha Women Police Station.

3. Name of the Accused and : 1. Talada Satyanarayana, S/o. Suryanarayana, aged 69 years, particulars r/o.D.No.2-11-48, Vinayaka Temple road, Subrahmanyam Colony, Eluru.

2. Talada Satish Kumar, S/o. Satyanarayana, aged 36 years, Lecturer in OK Master Coaching Centre, Sankaramatham Street, R.R.Peta, Eluru. r/o.D.No.2-11-48, Vinayaka Temple road, Subrahmanyam Colony, Eluru

4. Date of offence : Prior to 04-12-2023

5. Date of complaint : 04-12-2023

6. Date of apprehension : 05.12.2023 (A1).

7. Date of release on bail : 03-01-2024 (A1). Notice U/s. 41 A Cr.P.C. was issued on A2.

8.Date of commencement of : 18-03-2026 trial

9. Date of close of Trial : 26-03-2026

10. Date of Sentence of Order : 26-03-2026

Order In the result, A1 is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 354A r/w Section 9(f) r/w Section 10 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,

Page 2 of 11 POCSO COURT, ELURU, POCSO S.C.No.26/2024 2012. A2 is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 9(f) r/w Section 10 r/w Section 17 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC and accordingly, A1 and A2 are acquitted for the said offences under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of A1 and A2, if any, shall remain in force for a period of six months as contemplated under Section 437A of Cr.P.C. No case property produced. Hence, no property order passed relating to disposal of case property.

12. Explanation for the delay No avoidable delay.

13. Appeals as prescribed No avoidable delay.

under rule 319 of Criminal

Rules of Practice with regard to the diary extract submitted by the Committing Court.

SD/- K. VANISREE

Special Judge for speedy trial of

offences under POCSO Act, 2012, West Godavari, Eluru.

Page 3 of 11 POCSO COURT, ELURU, POCSO S.C.No.26/2024 Presented on :19-01-2024 Registered on :14-05-2024 Decided on :26-03-2026 Duration :1 years 10 months 12 days

IN THE SPECIAL COURT FOR SPEEDY TRIAL OF OFFENCES

UNDER THE PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL

OFFENCES ACT, 2012.

Present: Kum. K. Vanisree,

Special Judge for speedy trial of

offences under POCSO Act, 2012,

West Godavari, Eluru

Thursday, this the 26th day of March, 2026. POCSO SESSIONS CASE No.26 of 2024

Name of the Complainant : The State Represented by its Sub Inspector of Police, Eluru Women Police Station.

Crime No. and Police Station : Cr.No.138/2023 of Disha Women Police Station.

Name and Particulars of the : 1. Talada Satyanarayana, S/o. Accused Suryanarayana, aged 69 years, r/o.D.No.2-11-48, Vinayaka Temple road, Subrahmanyam Colony, Eluru.

2. Talada Satish Kumar, S/o. Satyanarayana, aged 36 years, Lecturer in OK Master Coaching Centre, Sankaramatham Street, R.R.Peta, Eluru. r/o.D.No.2-11-48, Vinayaka Temple road, Subrahmanyam Colony, Eluru.

Charges : Under Section 354A r/w Section 9(f) r/w Section10 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 against A1, under Section 9(f) r/w Section10 r/w Sec.17 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 against A2 and under Section 506 IPC against A1 and A2.

Plea of the Accused : Pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the Judge : Found not guilty.

Page 4 of 11 POCSO COURT, ELURU, POCSO S.C.No.26/2024 Date of Sentence or Order : 26-03-2026

Order or Sentence : In the result, A1 is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 354A r/w Section 9(f) r/w Section 10 of Protection of

Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. A2 is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 9(f) r/w Section 10 r/w Section 17 of

Protection of Children from Sexual

Offences Act, 2012. A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC and accordingly, A1 and A2 are acquitted for the said offences under

Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of A1 and A2, if any, shall remain in force for a period of six months as contemplated under

Section 437A of Cr.P.C.

No case property produced.

Hence, no property order passed relating to disposal of case property.

Prosecution conducted by : The Special Public Prosecutor, Eluru

Accused defended by : Sri P.V.N.Muneeswara Rao.

This case is coming on this day i.e. on 26-03-2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Learned Special Public Prosecutor

for the complainant and of Sri P.V.N. Muneeswara Rao, Learned

Counsel for the accused and upon hearing both sides and on perusing the material available on record and having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

Page 5 of 11 POCSO COURT, ELURU, POCSO S.C.No.26/2024

J U D G M E N T

The State represented by its Sub Inspector of Police, Eluru Women

Police Station laid charge sheet against A1 and A2 in Crime No.138/2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 354A, 506 IPC Section 9(f)

R/W Section 10 and Section 19 R/W 21 of Protection of Children from

Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

2.The case of the Prosecution, in brief, is that A1 is resident of

Subrahmanyam colony, Eluru and acting as hostel warden in XXX (name not revealed) Coaching centre, Eluru belonging to A2. A2 is son of A1 and working as lecturer in the Coaching centre. LW2/victim aged 11 years was taking coaching in the coaching centre since 05.07.2023 for

Navodaya School Entrance Examination by staying in the institute hostel.

A1 who was working as warden in the coaching centre and father of A2 used to call the victim girl to his room and make her to press his legs and made sexual advances in a lecherous manner by touching her private parts i.e., vagina and chest and used to ask her to sleep on him and misbehaved with her and intimidated to kill her if she reveal to anyone.

The victim apprised about the same to A2 who intimidated her that he would spoil her future if she discloses the acts of A1 to anyone and concealed the offence. On 03.12.2023 LW1/Katamgiri Priyanka who is the mother of the victim came to know the same from the victim girl then she lodged complaint before police.

Basing on the complaint given by LW1/Katamgiri Priyanka,

LW13/Women S.I of Police registered case in Cr.No.138/2023 under

Sections, 354A, 506 IPC and Section 9(f)(m) r/w Section 10 and Section 19 r/w Section 21 of POCSO Act, 2012 and investigated into. During the course of investigation she examined LW1/Katamgiri Priyanka and recorded her statement and later examined the victim in mufti in the presence of her mother and recorded Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of

Page 6 of 11 POCSO COURT, ELURU, POCSO S.C.No.26/2024 victim thereafter she visited the coaching centre and examined the same, prepared rough sketch and secured the presence of co-students, staff and neighbors at the scene of offence and examined them. On 05.12.2023 she arrested A1 at the coaching centre and forwarded him to court for remand later she issued notice to A2 U/Sec.41A Cr.P.C. and filed requisition to Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Excise Court

Eluru for recording Sec.164 Cr.P.C. statement of victim and after obtaining date of birth certificate of the victim and after completion of investigation she filed charge sheet.

3. This Court took cognizance of the offences under Sections 354A, 506 IPC, U/Sec.9(f) r/w Section 10 and 19 r/w 21 of POCSO Act, 2012 against A1 and A2.

4. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents which were relied on by the Prosecution, supplied to the Accused as required under

Section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

5. After hearing the learned Special Public Prosecutor for prosecution and the learned counsel for accused, charges under Sections 354A r/w

Section 9(f) r/w Section10 of Protection of Children from Sexual

Offences Act, 2012 against A1, under Section 9(f) r/w Section10 r/w

Sec.17 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 against

A2 and under Section 506 IPC against A1 and A2 have been framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. During the course of trial, on behalf of prosecution PWs.1 to 3 are examined and Exs.P1 to P7 are marked. The prosecution given up the evidence of LW3/Katamgari Govinda Swamy, LW4/Boddu Sri Devi, LW5/

Boddu Eswar Prasad, LW6/Yadandla Siri, LW7/Bangala Sahithi,

LW8/Jakki Hemanth Sagar, LW9/Devarajugattu Sravani, LW10/Munganti

Page 7 of 11 POCSO COURT, ELURU, POCSO S.C.No.26/2024 Durgamma, LW11/Yellapagari Gangadhar and LW12/Smt K.Spandana,

Hon’ble JFCM(Excise), Eluru and Prosecution evidence closed.

7. After closure of prosecution side evidence, A1 and A2 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating evidence appeared against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which, they denied the same and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

8. Heard both sides.

9. Now the points for determination are:

1. Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of A1 for the

offence punishable under Section 354A r/w Section 9(f) r/w

Section10 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,

2012 beyond reasonable doubt?

2. Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of A2 for the

offence punishable under Sections Section 9(f) r/w Section10

r/w Sec.17 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,

2012 beyond reasonable doubt?

3. Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of A1 and

A2 for the offence punishable under Section 506 IPC beyond

reasonable doubt?

10. POINT Nos.1 to 3 :- The allegations leveled against the accused are that A1 being father of A2 and Warden of Coaching Center of A2, used to call the victim minor girl aged 11 years who is taking coaching for entrance examination, misbehaved with her by insisting to press his legs and by making sexual advances by touching her private parts and A1 and A2 threatened the victim with dire consequences to spoil her career and to kill her if she reveals to anybody and charges came to be made under sections354A r/w Sec.9(f) r/w Sec.10 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 against A1, U/Sec.9(f) r/w Sec.10 R/w

Sec.17 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 against

A2 and U/Sec. 506 IPC against A1 and A2.

Page 8 of 11 POCSO COURT, ELURU, POCSO S.C.No.26/2024

11. To prove the case of Prosecution, the prosecution examined the mother of the victim and defacto complainant as PW1 and she stated that she does not know A1 and A2 and never gave any complaint to police against A1 and A2. Though, she admitted signature on complaint dated 04-12-2023 as belongs to her but stated that she signed on blank paper on the instructions of some parents of students where her daughter was studying on the ground of food poisoning in the hostel and further stated that she does not know anything about the case. PW2 victim though stated that she was admitted in the institution for coaching while studying 5th class but stated that she does not know A1 and A2 and does not know whether her mother gave any complaint to police and does not know anything about the case.

12. As PW1 the mother of the victim and PW2 the victim did not support the case of Prosecuting, the learned Special Public Prosecutor cross-examined PWs1 and 2 on their earlier statements, for which, they denied and nothing could be elicited from their cross-examination to show that the accused committed the alleged offences. Of course, PW2 victim admitted her signature on Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement as belongs to her but stated that she was not produced before Magistrate and does not know the contents of Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement, therefore, Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2 is also no way helpful to the case of Prosecution.

13. The Prosecution examined PW3 the SI of Police and she stated that

On 04-12-2023 at about 6 p.m, while she was present in the Police

Station, PW1along with victim came to police station and presented a written complaint and she registered Ex.P5 FIR as case in

Cr.No.138/2023 Under Section 354A, 506 IPC, Section 9(f)(m) r/w

Section 10 & 19 r/w 21 of POCSO Act, 2012 and took up investigation.

She stated that she recorded the statement of PW2/victim in the

Page 9 of 11 POCSO COURT, ELURU, POCSO S.C.No.26/2024 presence of her mother and also recorded the statement of PW1 and witnesses and on the next day, she went to the scene of offence. She prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence and examined witnesses at the scene of offence and obtained copy of date of birth certificate of the victim from her parents and on 05.12.2023, she arrested A1 and sent him to court for remand and issued Sec.41A Cr.P.C. notice to A2. After filing requisition before special Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Excise

Court, Eluru and after completion of investigation, she filed charge sheet.

14. Though, the evidence of PW3 shows that on the complaint given by PW1, she registered the case and investigated into but as the victim and her mother, who are material witnesses, did not support the case of

Prosecution, the evidence of PW3 is no way useful to prove the case of the Prosecution. The Special Public Prosecutor given up the evidence of other witnesses and there is no material on record to connect A1 and A2 with the alleged offences and the Prosecution failed to establish the guilt of A1 for the offences punishable under Sections354A r/w Sec.9(f) r/w

Sec.10 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and

U/Sec.9(f) r/w Sec.10 R/w Sec.17 of Protection of Children from Sexual

Offences Act, 2012 against A2 and U/Sec. 506 IPC against A1 and A2

Accordingly, the points are answered.

15. In the result, A1 is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 354A r/w Section 9(f) r/w Section 10 of Protection of

Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. A2 is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 9(f) r/w Section 10 r/w Section 17 of

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC and accordingly, A1 and A2 are acquitted for the said offences under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C.

Page 10 of 11 POCSO COURT, ELURU, POCSO S.C.No.26/2024 The bail bonds of A1 and A2, if any, shall remain in force for a period of six months as contemplated under Section 437A of Cr.P.C.

No case property produced. Hence, no property order passed relating to disposal of case property.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-I directly on Computer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 26 th day of March, 2026.

SD/- K. VANISREE

SPECIAL JUDGE FOR SPEEDY TRIAL OF

OFFENCES UNDER POCSO ACT, 2012,

WEST GODAVARI, ELURU.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Prosecution Name of witness Description Witness No. PW1 Katamgari Priyanka Mother of the victim and defacto complainant. PW2 Victim (Name is withheld) Victim

PW3 V.Kanti Priya Women S.I. of police

FOR DEFENCE: -N O N E-.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Exhibit No. Description of the exhibit Proved by/

Attested by P1/04-12-2023 Signature of PW1 on complaint given to PW1 Police P2/04-12-2023 Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1. PW1 P3/04-12-2023 Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2/Victim PW2/victim. P4/14-12-2023 Signature of PW1/Victim on Section 164 PW2/victim Cr.P.C. statement P5/04-12-2023 FIR in Cr.No.138/2023 of Eluru Disha PW3 Women Police Station.

Page 11 of 11 POCSO COURT, ELURU, POCSO S.C.No.26/2024 P6/- Rough sketch of scene of offence PW3 P7/03-11-2023 Date of birth Certificate of the victim PW3

FOR DEFENCE:- -N I L- .

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED: - N I L –

SD/- K. VANISREE

SPECIAL JUDGE FOR SPEEDY TRIAL OF

OFFENCES UNDER POCSO ACT, 2012,

WEST GODAVARI, ELURU.

Copies to:

1. The Registrar (Judl.), High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Nelapadu (By way of C.D.)

2. The District Collector, W.G., Eluru.

3. The Superintendent of Police, W.G., Eluru.

4. Special Public Prosecutor, W.G., Eluru.

5. The Director of Prosecutions, Durgapuram, Vijayawada.

Page 1 of 11 POCSO COURT, ELURU, POCSO S.C.No.159/2020

TABULAR FORM ANNEXED TO THE JUDGMENT IN POCSO

S.C.No.159 of 2020 IN THE SPECIAL COURT FOR SPEEDY TRIAL

OF OFFENCES UNDER THE PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM

SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT, 2012 UNDER RULE 318 OF THE

CRIMINAL RULES OF PRACTICE.

1.Sessions Case Number. : POCSO S.C. No.159 of 2020

2. Name of the Police station : Cr.No.45/2020 of Women Police Station, Eluru.

3. Name of the Accused and : Joga Sri Prasad @ Sai, S/o. Narayana Rao, aged 24 years, r/o. particulars 33rd Division, Chittivalasa Pakalu, Eluru.

(A2 is Juvenile in Conflict with law)

4. Date of offence : Prior to 14-06-2020

5. Date of complaint : 14-06-2020

6. Date of apprehension : 20-08-2020

7. Date of release on bail : 24-09-2020 8.Date of commencement of : 12-02-2026 trial

9. Date of close of Trial : 17-03-2026

10. Date of Sentence of Order : 17-03-2026

Order In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 354D r/w Section 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Section 420, 506 of IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted for the same under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of the accused, if any, shall remain in force for a period of six months as

Page 2 of 11 POCSO COURT, ELURU, POCSO S.C.No.159/2020 contemplated under Section 437A of Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property i.e. Rs.500/- note bearing No.6CK101707 shall be confiscated to the state after appeal time is over.

12. Explanation for the delay No avoidable delay.

13. Appeals as prescribed No avoidable delay. under rule 319 of Criminal Rules of Practice with regard to the diary extract submitted by the Committing Court.

SD/- K. VANISREE

Special Judge for speedy trial of

offences under POCSO Act, 2012, West Godavari, Eluru.

Page 3 of 11 POCSO COURT, ELURU, POCSO S.C.No.159/2020 Presented on :24-09-2020 Registered on :19-10-2020 Decided on :17-03-2026 Duration :5 years 4 months 28 days

IN THE SPECIAL COURT FOR SPEEDY TRIAL OF OFFENCES

UNDER THE PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL

OFFENCES ACT, 2012.

Present: Kum. K. Vanisree,

Special Judge for speedy trial of

offences under POCSO Act, 2012,

West Godavari, Eluru

Tuesday, this the 17th day of March, 2026.

POCSO SESSIONS CASE No.159 of 2020

Name of the Complainant:The Sub Inspector of Police, Women Police Station, Eluru.

Crime No. and Police Station:Cr.No.45/2020 of Women Police Station, Eluru.

Name and Particulars of the :Joga Sri Prasad @ Sai, S/o. AccusedNarayana Rao, aged 24 years, r/o. 33rd Division, Chittivalasa Pakalu, Eluru.

(A2 is Juvenile in Conflict with law)

Charges:Under Sections 354D IPC r/w Section 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Section 420, 506 of IPC against Accused.

Plea of the Accused:Pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the Judge:Found not guilty.

Date of Sentence or Order:17-03-2026

Order or Sentence: In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 354D r/w Section 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Section 420, 506 of IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted for the same under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C.

Page 4 of 11 POCSO COURT, ELURU, POCSO S.C.No.159/2020 The bail bonds of the accused, if any, shall remain in force for a period of six months as contemplated under Section 437A of Cr.P.C.

The unmarked case property i.e. Rs.500/- note bearing No.6CK101707 shall be confiscated to the state after appeal time is over.

Prosecution conducted by:The Special Public Prosecutor, Eluru

Accused defended by:Sri G. Srinivasa Rao.

This case is coming on this day i.e. on 17-03-2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Learned Special Public Prosecutor

for the complainant and of Sri G. Srinivasa Rao, Learned Counsel for the

accused and upon hearing both sides and on perusing the material available on record and having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The State represented by its Sub Inspector of Police, Women

Police Station, Eluru laid charge sheet against the accused in Crime

No.45/2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 506, 354D of IPC and Section 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences

Act, 2012.

2.The case of the Prosecution, in brief, is that the accused is resident of Chittivalasapakalu of Eluru and the Juvenile in Conflict with

Law/Songa Lakshmana Sai Balaji is his close friend. LW2/victim aged 15 years, was studying 9th class. She got acquaintance with the Juvenile in

Conflict with law while they previously resided near the house of Juvenile in Conflict with law and used to talk with him through phone and on one day, the accused who is friend of Juvenile in Conflict with law, called her through phone and expressed his love and she warned him and

Page 5 of 11 POCSO COURT, ELURU, POCSO S.C.No.159/2020 disconnected his phone. Thereafter, the accused was wandering around her on the pretext of love and the Juvenile in Conflict with law supported him. The accused and Juvenile in Conflict with law with dubious words taken away her gold ring weighing 6 grams worth Rs.20,000/- and when she requested to return the same, they demanded Rs.10,000/- and she paid Rs.10,000/- in three installments but they did not return the gold ring. Thereafter, the accused started threatening the victim that he is having photos of himself and the victim and also had phone voice conversation recordings and subjected her to cruelty in the name of love.

Then, on the information of the victim, LW1/Vadamadula Sandhya

Srilakshmi, who is mother of the victim, gave complaint to police.

Basing on the complaint given by LW1, LW13/Woman SI of Police registered case in Cr.No.45/2020 under Sections 420, 506, 354D r/w

Section 34 of IPC and Section 12 of POCSO Act, 2012 and investigated into. During the course of investigation, LW13 examined LW1 and recorded her statement and on the next day, she visited the scene of offence located at Swarnandhra Nagar and examined the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch and got drafted scene observation report.

She secured the presence of LW2 victim and her father and examined them and recorded their statements and also examined neighbouring witnesses. Thereafter, she obtained study certificate of the victim and

Juvenile in Conflict with law and examined Head Masters of schools of victim and Juvenile in Conflict with law. On 18-06-2020 on credible information, LW13 and staff along with mediators LW10/Naga Venkata

Koti Gangadhara Rao and LW11/Gopalakrishna proceeded to

Kandrikagudem center, Tangellamudi and arrested the accused and took custody of Juvenile in Conflict with law and seized Rs.500/- from the possession of accused and Rs.500/- from the possession of Juvenile in

Conflict with law in the presence of mediators under the cover of

Page 6 of 11 POCSO COURT, ELURU, POCSO S.C.No.159/2020 mediators report and due to COVID restrictions, on examination of accused, it was found that he was effected with COVID positive and shifted to ASRAM Hospital, Eluru for quarantine and the Juvenile in

Conflict with law was produced before Juvenile Court. After treatment on 17-08-2020, the accused came to Disha Women Police Station, Eluru and he was taken into custody and forwarded to Court for judicial remand. Thereafter, after recording Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement of the victim and after completion of investigation, she filed charge sheet.

3. This Court took cognizance of the offences under Sections 420, 506, 354D of IPC and Section 12 of POCSO Act, 2012 against the accused.

4. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents which were relied on by the Prosecution, supplied to the Accused as required under

Section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

5. After hearing the learned Special Public Prosecutor for prosecution and the learned counsel for accused, charges under Sections 354D r/w

Section 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012,

Section 420, 506 of IPC against accused have been framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. (A2 is Juvenile in conflict with law).

6. During the course of trial, on behalf of prosecution PWs.1 to 3 are examined and Exs.P1 to P8 are marked. The prosecution given up the evidence of LW3/Pillarisetti Suresh Kumar, LW4/Karra Yesuratnam,

LW5/Donthamsetti Nageswara Rao, LW6/Jangam Srinivas,

LW7/Nallamilli Krishna Rao, LW8/Kommuri Venkata Lakshmana Kumar,

LW9/Pulidindi Kutumba Rao, LW10/Tamma Naga Venkata Koti

Gangadhara Rao, LW11/Patsa Gopalakrishna, LW12/P. Paresh Kumar,

Special Judicial Magistrate, Mobile Court, Eluru, LW14/K. Nageswara

Rao, SI of Police and Prosecution evidence closed.

Page 7 of 11 POCSO COURT, ELURU, POCSO S.C.No.159/2020

7. After closure of prosecution side evidence, accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating evidence appeared against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which, he denied the same and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

8. Heard both sides.

9. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of A1 for the

offences punishable under Section 354D r/w Section 12 of

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012,

Section 420, 506 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt?

10. POINT :- The allegations leveled against the accused are that the accused used to follow the victim minor girl aged 17 years and sexually harassed and stalked her demanding to love him by obtaining phone number from Juvenile in Conflict with law and taking innocence of the victim, the accused along with Juvenile in Conflict with law cheated the victim by dishonestly inducing her to deliver gold ring and Rs.10,000/- and when the victim demanded to return the gold ring, the accused with the support of Juvenile in Conflict with law threatened her with dire consequences to kill her and charges came to be made under sections 354D r/w Section 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Section 420 and 506 of IPC against the accused.

11. To prove the case of Prosecution, the prosecution examined the mother of the victim and defacto complainant as PW1 and she stated that she does not know the accused and does not know anything about the case and she never gave any complaint to police. Though, she admitted signature on complaint dated 14-06-2020 as belongs to her but stated that she does not know the contents of the complaint and further stated that she gave complaint that cycles were missing in Narayana School

Page 8 of 11 POCSO COURT, ELURU, POCSO S.C.No.159/2020 where she worked previously and at the instance of police, she signed on complaint dated 14-06-2020. PW2 the victim stated that she does not know the accused and does not know anything about the case and further stated that she does not know whether her mother gave any complaint against the accused to police.

12. As PW1 the mother of the victim and PW2 the victim did not support the case of Prosecution, the learned Special Public Prosecutor cross-examined PWs1 and 2 on their earlier statements, for which, they denied and nothing could be elicited from their cross-examination to show that the accused committed the alleged offences. Of course, PW2 victim stated that she was produced before Magistrate and admitted signature on Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement as belongs to her, but stated that she does not know the contents of Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement, therefore, Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2 is also no way helpful to the case of Prosecution.

13. The Prosecution examined PW3 Woman SI of Police and she stated that on 14.06.2020 at 9.15 p.m. while she was present in the police station, PW1 came to police station along with her husband and victim and gave a written complaint and she registered the same as case in Cr.No.45/2020 U/Sec.420, 506, 354(D) r/w 34 IPC and Section 12 of

POCSO Act, 2012. She further stated that she took up investigation and examined PW1 and recorded her statement and on the next day, she went to the house of victim in mufti and observed the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch and examined the victim in the presence of her mother and also recorded the statement of LW3/Suresh Kumar. She further stated that she secured the presence of LW5/Nageswara Rao,

LW6/Srinivas and LW7/Krishna Rao and examined them and recorded their Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statements. Thereafter, she sent requisition to the

School Head Masters of victim and Juvenile in conflict with law for furnishing age proof certificates of victim and Juvenile in Conflict with law

Page 9 of 11 POCSO COURT, ELURU, POCSO S.C.No.159/2020 and after obtaining study certificates of the victim and Juvenile in conflict, she examined LW8/Head Master of the school of the victim and

LW9/Head Master of the Juvenile in conflict with law. She further stated that on 18.06.2020 at about 7.00 a.m, on credible information of the accused, she secured mediators LW10/Naga Venkata Koti Gangadhara

Rao and LW11/Gopala Krishna and proceeded to Kandrikagudem

Centre, Eluru and on seeing them, the accused and Juvenile in conflict with law tried to escape and they caught hold of them and examined them in the presence of mediators and seized Rs.500/- bearing

No.6CK101707 from the accused and seized another Rs.500/- from

Juvenile in conflict with law under the cover of mediators report. She further stated that they arrested the accused and forwarded him to court for remand and Juvenile in conflict with law before Juvenile Justice

Board. Thereafter, she filed requisition before Special Mobile Court, Eluru for recording Sec.164 Cr.P.C. statement of the victim and her successor filed charge sheet.

14. The evidence of PW3 shows that on the complaint given by PW1, she registered the case and investigated into but as PW1 the defacto complainant and mother of the victim and PW2 the victim, who are material witnesses, did not support the case of Prosecution, the evidence of PW3 is no way useful to prove the case of the Prosecution and the

Special Public Prosecutor given up the evidence of other witnesses and there is no material on record to connect the accused with the alleged offences and the Prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 354D r/w Section 12 of

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Section 420, 506 of IPC. Accordingly, the point is answered.

15. In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 354D r/w Section 12 of Protection of Children

Page 10 of 11 POCSO COURT, ELURU, POCSO S.C.No.159/2020 from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Section 420, 506 of IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted for the same under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of the accused, if any, shall remain in force for a period of six months as contemplated under Section 437A of Cr.P.C.

The unmarked case property i.e. Rs.500/- note bearing

No.6CK101707 shall be confiscated to the state after appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-I directly on computer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 17 th day of March, 2026.

SD/- K. VANISREE

SPECIAL JUDGE FOR SPEEDY TRIAL OF

OFFENCES UNDER POCSO ACT, 2012,

WEST GODAVARI, ELURU.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Prosecution Name of witness Description Witness No. PW1 V. Sandya Srilakshmi Defacto Complainant and mother of the victim. PW2 Victim (Name is withheld) Victim

PW3 D. Gangabhavani Woman SI of Police

FOR DEFENCE: -N O N E-.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Exhibit No. Description of the exhibit Proved by/

Attested by P1/14-06-2020 Signature of PW1 on complaint given to PW1 Police P2/14-06-2020 Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1. PW1 P3/15-06-2020 Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2/Victim PW2/Victim.

Page 11 of 11 POCSO COURT, ELURU, POCSO S.C.No.159/2020 P4/03-09-2020 Signature of PW2/Victim on Section 164 PW2/Victim Cr.P.C. statement. P5/14-06-2020 FIR in Cr.No.45/2020 of Women Police PW3. Station, Eluru. P6/- Rough sketch of scene of offence. PW3. P7/17-06-2020 Study Certificate of the victim. PW3. P8/18-06-2020 Marked portion of Mediators report. PW3.

FOR DEFENCE:- -N I L- .

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED: - N I L –

ILD/- KV

SPECIAL JUDGE FOR SPEEDY TRIAL OF

OFFENCES UNDER POCSO ACT, 2012,

WEST GODAVARI, ELURU.

Copies to:

1. The Registrar (Judl.), High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Nelapadu (By way of C.D.)

2. The District Collector, W.G., Eluru.

3. The Superintendent of Police, W.G., Eluru.

4. Special Public Prosecutor, W.G., Eluru.

5. The Director of Prosecutions, Durgapuram, Vijayawada.

Page 1 of 10 POCSO COURT, ELURU, POCSO S.C.No.55/2025

TABULAR FORM ANNEXED TO THE JUDGMENT IN POCSO

S.C.No.55 of 2025 IN THE SPECIAL COURT FOR SPEEDY TRIAL OF

OFFENCES UNDER THE PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM

SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT, 2012 UNDER RULE 318 OF THE

CRIMINAL RULES OF PRACTICE.

1.Sessions Case Number. : POCSO S.C. No.55 of 2025

2. Name of the Police station : Cr.No.118/2024 of Kukkunoor Police Station.

3. Name of the Accused and : Bhogapathi Sai Kiran, S/o. late Srinu, 23 years, r/o. Adarsa Nagar particulars Colony, Now at Shilpi Nagar, D.No.10-1-1/B, Bhadrachalam Village & Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District, Telangana State.

4. Date of offence : Prior to 02-06-2024

5. Date of complaint : 02-06-2024

6. Date of apprehension : 27-02-2025

7. Date of release on bail : 08-04-2025 8.Date of commencement of : 02-03-2026 trial

9. Date of close of Trial : 26-03-2026

10. Date of Sentence of Order : 26-03-2026

Order In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 354D and Section 376 of IPC r/w Section 3 r/w Section 4 of Protection of

Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012and accordingly, he is

Page 2 of 10 POCSO COURT, ELURU, POCSO S.C.No.55/2025 acquitted for the said offences under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of the accused, if any, shall remain in force for a period of six months as contemplated under Section 437A of Cr.P.C.

No case property produced. Hence, no property order passed relating to disposal of case property.

12. Explanation for the delay No avoidable delay.

13. Appeals as prescribed No avoidable delay.

under rule 319 of Criminal

Rules of Practice with regard to the diary extract submitted by the Committing Court.

SD/- K. VANISREE

Special Judge for speedy trial of

offences under POCSO Act, 2012, West Godavari, Eluru.

Page 3 of 10 POCSO COURT, ELURU, POCSO S.C.No.55/2025 Presented on :10-03-2025 Registered on : 08-05-2025 Decided on :26-03-2026 Duration : 10 months 18 days

IN THE SPECIAL COURT FOR SPEEDY TRIAL OF OFFENCES

UNDER THE PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL

OFFENCES ACT, 2012.

Present: Kum. K. Vanisree,

Special Judge for speedy trial of

offences under POCSO Act, 2012,

West Godavari, Eluru

Thursday, this the 26th day of March, 2026.

POCSO SESSIONS CASE No.55 of 2025

Name of the Complainant:Circle Inspector of Police, Kukkunoor Circle.

Crime No. and Police Station:Cr.No.118/2024 of Kukkunoor Police Station

Name and Particulars of the :Bhogapathi Sai Kiran, S/o. late Srinu, Accused23 years, r/o. Adarsa Nagar Colony, Now at Shilpi Nagar, D.No.10-1-1/B, Bhadrachalam Village & Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District, Telangana State.

Charges:Under Section 354D and Section 376 of IPC r/w Section 3 r/w Section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

Plea of the Accused:Pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the Judge:Found not guilty.

Date of Sentence or Order:26-03-2026

Order or Sentence:In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 354D and Section 376 of IPC r/w Section 3 r/w Section 4 of

Protection of Children from Sexual

Offences Act, 2012 and accordingly,

Page 4 of 10 POCSO COURT, ELURU, POCSO S.C.No.55/2025 he is acquitted for the said offences under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of the accused, if any, shall remain in force for a period of six months as contemplated under Section 437A of Cr.P.C.

No case property produced.

Hence, no property order passed relating to disposal of case property.

Prosecution conducted by:The Special Public Prosecutor, Eluru

Accused defended by:Sri P.V.N. Muneeswara Rao.

This case is coming on this day i.e. on 26-03-2026 for final hearing

before me in the presence of Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the

complainant and of Sri P.V.N. Muneeswara Rao, Learned Counsel for the accused and upon hearing both sides and on perusing the material available on record and having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The State represented by its Circle Inspector of Police,

Kukkunooru Circle laid charge sheet against the accused in Crime

No.118/2024 of Kukkuknooru Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 376 IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act, 2012.

2.The case of the Prosecution, in brief, is that the accused is resident of Bhadrachalam village of Badradrigudem District, Telangana State.

LW1/victim aged 19 years was studying Intermediate. In the year 2021 while she was studying 10th class, she got acquaintance with accused when he came to the house of his senior maternal aunt and they both fell in love with each other and used to chat in phone regularly. On

Page 5 of 10 POCSO COURT, ELURU, POCSO S.C.No.55/2025 05.02.2024 at about 2 pm, when the victim was present in her house accused came and took her to the house of his senior maternal aunt

Rayala Narasamma and committed penetrative sexual assault on her against her will. After some days the accused called the victim to

Bhadrachalam and victim went to Bhadrachalam, then accused took her to park and there the accused deceived her stating that he would marry her. As the parents of victim were searching for marriage alliances she informed the same to accused and asked to marry her for which, he refused then she gave complaint to police.

Basing on the report given by LW1/victim, LW20/SI of Police registered case in Cr.No.118/2024 under Sections 376 IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act, 2012 and as the offence is grave in nature, LW21/Circle

Inspector of police took up investigation. LW21 recorded the statement of victim through LW15/Women S.I. and produced the victim before

Government Hospital, Jangareddigudem for medical examination under the escort of Women PC. On the next day, LW21/Circle Inspector proceeded to the scene of offence to the house of Rayala Narasamma and examined the scene and got photographs of the scene of offence and prepared Rough Sketch of the scene of offence. He examined the witnesses at the scene of offence and filed requisition before Principal

Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jangareddigudem for recording Sec.164

Cr.P.C statement of victim and obtained study certificate of the victim.

LW22/CI of Police took up further investigation and he arrested accused on 27.02.2025 at the outskirts of Rajeevnagar village, Kukkunoor Mandal and forwarded the accused to Court for remand after conducting potency test at Government Area Hospital, Jangareddigudem and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

3. This Court took cognizance of the offences under Sections 376

IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act, 2012 against the accused.

Page 6 of 10 POCSO COURT, ELURU, POCSO S.C.No.55/2025

4. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents which were relied on by the Prosecution, supplied to the Accused as required under

Section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

5. After hearing the learned Special Public Prosecutor for prosecution and the learned counsel for accused, charges under Sections 354D and

Section 376 of IPC r/w Section 3 r/w Section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 against the accused have been framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. During the course of trial, on behalf of prosecution PWs.1 to 4 are examined and Exs.P1 to P5 are marked. The prosecution given up the evidence of Lw3/Obineni Parvathi, LW4/Obineni Sairam, LW5/Obineni

Thirupatayya, LW6/Obineni Krishnaveni, LW7/kadari Thirupatayya,

LW8/Rayala Venkateswarlu, LW9/Rauala Ramanayya, LW10/Obinenei

Punnayya, LW11/Obineni Satyanarayna, LW12/Dandu Vasu,

LW13/M.V.Satyanarayana, LW14/Dr.Sk.Salma Sukthana,

LW16/Dr.V.RambabuLW17/Thati Balakrishna, LW18/Buyyani Kusuma,

LW19/K.RAjeswarai Tejaswi, Hon’ble JFCM, Jangareddigudem and

LW21/V.Srinivasa Rao and LW22/M.Ramesh Babu. C.I. of police and

Prosecution evidence closed.

7. After closure of prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating evidence appeared against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which, he denied the same and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

8. Heard both sides.

9. Now the point for determination is:

Page 7 of 10 POCSO COURT, ELURU, POCSO S.C.No.55/2025

Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the

accused for the offences punishable under Sections 354D and

Section 376 of IPC r/w Section 3 r/w Section 4 of Protection of

Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 beyond reasonable

doubt?

10. POINT :- The allegations leveled against the accused are that the accused used to follow the victim girl aged 18 years while she was studying 10th class and sexually harassed and stalked her demanding to love and marry him and on 05-02-2024 he committed penetrative sexual assault on the victim against her will and charges came to be made under sections 354D and Section 376 of IPC r/w Section 3 r/w Section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 against the accused.

11. To prove the case of Prosecution, the prosecution examined the victim as PW1 and she stated that she does not know the accused and she never gave any complaint to police against the accused. Though, she admitted signature on complaint dated 02-06-2024 as belongs to her but stated that she does not know the contents of the complaint. She further stated that due to issue with regard to site with neighbours, she signed on the complaint at the instance of her parents and she does not know anything about the case. PW2 father of the victim also stated that he does not know the accused and does not know anything about the case and stated that PW1 did not give any complaint against the accused.

12. As PW1 the victim and PW2 the father of the victim did not support the case of Prosecution, the learned Special Public Prosecutor cross- examined PWs1 and 2 on their earlier statements, for which, they denied and nothing could be elicited from their cross-examination to show that the accused committed the alleged offences. Of course, PW1 victim stated that she was produced before Magistrate and admitted signature

Page 8 of 10 POCSO COURT, ELURU, POCSO S.C.No.55/2025 on Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement as belongs to her, but stated that she does not know the contents of Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement, therefore,

Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1 victim is also no way helpful to the case of Prosecution.

13. The Prosecution examined PW3 Woman SI and she stated that on 03-06-2024, on the instructions of SHO, Woman Police Station, she recorded the statement of victim in her house in mufti in the presence of her mother and also recorded Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of the victim along with photography and videography and handed over to

Kukkunoor Police Station. PW4 SI of Police stated that on 02-06-2024,

PW1 came to Police Station and gave complaint and he registered Ex.P5

FIR as case in Cr.No.118/2024 under Section 376 of IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act, 2012 and thereafter, CI of Police took up investigation.

14. Though, the evidence of PW3 and 4 show that on the complaint given by PW1, case was registered and investigated into, but as the victim and her father, who are material witnesses, did not support the case of Prosecution, the evidence of PW3 and 4 is no way useful to prove the case of the Prosecution. The Special Public Prosecutor given up the evidence of other witnesses and there is no material on record to connect the accused with the alleged offences and the Prosecution failed to establish the guilt of accused for the offences punishable under

Sections 354D and Section 376 of IPC r/w Section 3 r/w Section 4 of

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Accordingly, the point is answered.

15. In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 354D and Section 376 of IPC r/w Section 3 r/w Section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and accordingly, he is acquitted for the said offences under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C.

Page 9 of 10 POCSO COURT, ELURU, POCSO S.C.No.55/2025 The bail bonds of the accused, if any, shall remain in force for a period of six months as contemplated under Section 437A of Cr.P.C.

No case property produced. Hence, no property order passed relating to disposal of case property.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-I directly on Computer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 26 th day of March, 2026.

SD/- K. VANISREE

SPECIAL JUDGE FOR SPEEDY TRIAL OF

OFFENCES UNDER POCSO ACT, 2012,

WEST GODAVARI, ELURU.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Prosecution Name of witness Description Witness No. PW1 Victim (Name is withheld) Defacto Complainant and victim. PW2 Obeneni Nagulu Father of the victim.

PW3 B. Nagamani Woman S.I. of police

PW4 S.Rama Krishna SI of Police.

FOR DEFENCE: -N O N E-.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Exhibit No. Description of the exhibit Proved by/

Attested by P1/02-06-2024 Signature of PW1/Victim on statement PW1/Victim given to Police P2/03-06-2024 Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1/Victim PW1/Victim. P3/18-06-2024 Signature of PW1/Victim on Section 164 PW1/Victim Cr.P.C. statement. P4/03-06-2021 Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2. PW2 P5/02-06-2024 FIR in Cr.No.18/2024 of Kukkunoor PW4. Police Station.

Page 10 of 10 POCSO COURT, ELURU, POCSO S.C.No.55/2025

FOR DEFENCE:- -N I L- .

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED: - N I L –

ILD/- K. VANISREE

SPECIAL JUDGE FOR SPEEDY TRIAL OF

OFFENCES UNDER POCSO ACT, 2012,

WEST GODAVARI, ELURU.

Copies to:

1. The Registrar (Judl.), High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Nelapadu (By way of C.D.)

2. The District Collector, W.G., Eluru.

3. The Superintendent of Police, W.G., Eluru.

4. Special Public Prosecutor, W.G., Eluru.

5. The Director of Prosecutions, Durgapuram, Vijayawada.

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE: TADEPALLIGUDEM

Present: Kum. K. Vanisree,

Senior Civil Judge

Wednesday, the 22 nd day of September, 2021.

O.S.No.249/2015

Between:-

Jaladi Busamma, W/o. Ramayya, Christian, aged 60 years, D.No.7-30, Pedatadepalli, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District, Tadepalligudem JCJ Court Jurisdiction.

.. Plaintiff

And

1. Muppdi Nageswara Rao, S/o. Musalayya, Christian, aged 50 years, D.No.2-60,

Pedatadepalli, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District, Tadepalligudem JCJ Court

Jurisdiction.

2. Mallipudi Ratnam, W/o. Late Bhaskara Rao, Christian, aged 56 years,

D.No.2-48/4, Beside 3rd APSP, Kolla from Street, Rayudupalem, Kakinada JCJ

Court Jurisdiction. .. Defendants

This suit is coming on 17-09-2021 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri B.Radha Krishna, counsel for Plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 remained ex-parte and having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed for partition of the plaint schedule property into three equal and equitable shares and for allotment of one such share to the plaintiff, to appoint a commissioner for partition of the plaint schedule property as per the

Preliminary decree by meats and bounds and to pass a final decree and for possession of separate share allotted to the plaintiff and to direct the defendants to furnish proper and correct account of the income and expenditure over the plaint schedule property and for recovery of amount due to the plaintiff, if necessary, by collecting the additional court fee and to award future profits and for costs of the suit.

2. Brief averments of the plaint are that1st defendant is brother and 2nd defendant is sister of the plaintiff and they are children of Muppidi Ravamma and

Musalayya. Item No.1 of the plaint schedule property is the absolute property of plaintiff's father Musalayya. Item No.2 of the plaint schedule property is the absolute property of plaintiff's mother Ravamma. Muppidi Musalayya died intestate in the year 1963 leaving behind him plaintiff and defendants as his legal heirs.

Mother of the plaintiff also died in the year 1993 intestate leaving behind her plaintiff and defendants as her legal heirs. After the death of parents, the schedule properties devolved on plaintiff and defendants equally as per Succession

Act and all of them came into joint possession of the same. Plaintiff and 2nd defendant being married women used to live at far places and entrusted the properties to the 1st defendant for management and 1st defendant used to pay the share of plaintiff in the income derived from the schedule properties till recent times. Recently the 1st defendant is avoiding to account for the income derived from the schedule properties and 1st defendant developed a malice intention to knock away the property without giving plaintiff's share. In that matrix disputes arose between plaintiff and 1st defendant and several mediations were held and though mediators advised to divide the property as per the respective entitlements and enjoy the property peacefully, but 1st defendant is not coming forward to effect partition of the schedule properties. Since the 1st defendant is acting against the interest of plaintiff, the plaintiff is not interested to keep the properties joint in future. The plaintiff and 2nd defendant got issued legal notice demanding for partition of the property to the 1st defendant and the 1st defendant intentionally got returned the same. After issuance of the notice, the 1st defendant prevailed over the 2nd defendant and she is not co-operating, therefore though the notice is issued by both the plaintiff and 2nd defendant, plaintiff alone filed this suit. Hence the suit.

3. 1st defendant filed written statement admitting the relationship between plaintiff and defendants while denying other material averments in the plaint. He submitted that the averments in the long cause title that the plaintiff and 2nd defendant are Christians by religion is true and that the 1st defendant is a

Christian by religion is not true and submitted that he is a Hindu by religion. He submitted that the ages of the parties to the suit are wilfully mentioned incorrectly. The plaintiff is aged 80 years old, 1st defendant is 66 years old and the 2nd defendant is 70 years old. The plaint schedule properties are the self acquired properties of late Muppidi Musalayya and Muppidi Ramamma. He submitted that Musalayya died in the year 1974 and not in the year 1963 and that himself and his parents are Hindus. He submitted that the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant are Christians and they have no right to claim partition of the plaint schedule properties. He never paid any income derived from the plaint schedule properties to the plaintiff or to the 2nd defendant and the same was invented for the purpose of the suit and to dismiss the suit.

4. Basing on the pleadings of both parties, the following issues were framed for trial:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for division of plaint schedule property, if so, to what share?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover amounts from D-1 and for rendition of accounts?

3. Whether plaintiff is entitled for future profits?

4. To What Relief?

5. To substantiate the case of plaintiff, PWs-1 and 2 are examined and

Exs.A-1 to A-4 are marked. On behalf of the defendants, no oral or documentary evidence is adduced.

6. Heard on behalf of the plaintiff. Written Arguments filed by the Counsel for plaintiff.

7. I S S U E No.1: It is an undisputed fact that plaintiff is sister of defendants 1 and 2 and plaintiff and defendants are children of Late Muppidi

Musalayya and Muppidi Ravamma. It is also an undisputed fact that item No.1 of the plaint schedule property is absolute property of late Muppidi Musalayya and item No.2 is absolute property of late Ravamma, the parents of the plaintiff and defendants.

8. The contention of the plaintiff is that her father Musalayya died intestate in the year 1963 and her mother Ravamma died in the year 1993 intestate and item Nos.1 and 2 of the plaint schedule property devolved on herself and defendants 1 and 2 and they are entitled to equal share in the plaint schedule property. It is also her contention that after the death of her parents the plaint schedule property was entrusted to 1st defendant for management and 1st defendant used to pay her share in the income derived from the plaint schedule property and recently 1st defendant is avoiding to account for the income derived from the schedule property and trying to knock away the property and that herself and 2nd defendant issued Ex.A-3 Legal Notice to the 1st defendant and the same was returned.

9. The plaintiff in support of her contention examined herself as P.W.1 and reiterated the contents of the plaint which goes to show that the plaint schedule property belongs to her parents and they died intestate and that herself and defendants 1 and 2 are entitled to equal share in the plaint schedule properties.

Plaintiff examined P.W.2 who is a third party and he also stated on the same lines.

He further stated that there are disputes between plaintiff and 1st defendant with regard to income derived from the schedule property and several mediations were held for division of property but 1st defendant did not come forward for division of property.

10. Apart from oral evidence plaintiff filed Ex.A-1 Certified extract of sale deed dated 2.5.1952 executed in favour of Muppidi Musalayya and Ex.A-2 Certified extract of Gift Deed dated 2.5.1952 executed in favour of Muppidi Ravamma to substantiate her contention. As seen from Ex.A-1 and A-2 documents filed by plaintiff, Ex.A-1 Certified extract of Sale Deed dated 2.5.1952 shows Muppidi

Musalayya who is father of plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 purchased item No.1 of the plaint schedule property and Ex.A-2 Certified extract of Gift Deed dated 2.5.1952 shows Muppidi Ravamma who is mother of plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 got item No.2 of the plaint schedule property by way of gift from one

Dulapalli Veerayya.

11. The Learned Counsel for plaintiff submitted that 1st defendant mere stating in Written Statement that himself and his parents are Hindus and defendants are Christians and they are not entitled for partition of the plaint schedule property but he did not adduce any evidence to prove the same and even he did not choose to cross examine P.Ws.1 and 2 and remained exparte and the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 remained unchallenged. He submitted that the documents filed by the plaintiff clearly reveal that the schedule properties belong to the parents of the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 and as they died intestate the plaintiff is entitled to 1/3rd share in the plaint schedule property under Indian

Succession Act and therefore to grant Preliminary Decree for division of plaint schedule property into three equal shares.

12. As stated supra, as per the averments in the written statement, there is no dispute with regard to the plaint schedule property that Musalayya who is father of the plaintiff and defendants is absolute owner of item No.1 of the plaint schedule property and their mother Ravamma is absolute owner of item No.2 of the plaint schedule property. It is the evidence of plaintiff that her parents died intestate and as contended by counsel for plaintiff the same is not denied by 1st defendant specifically. Of course, 1st defendant pleaded in his Written Statement that his father died in the year 1974 and that himself and his parents are Hindus and that plaintiff and 2nd defendant are Christians and they have no right to claim division of the plaint schedule property but he did not adduce any evidence in support of his contention. Even he did not enter into Witness box and did not choose to cross examine P.Ws.1 and 2 and their evidence remained unchallenged.

In the absence of any evidence basing on the bare statement in the Written

Statement it can not be said that D-1 and his parents are Hindus. In this connection, it is to be noted that in Ex.A-1 Certified Extract of Sale Deed dated 2.5.1952 and Ex.A-2 Certified Extract of Gift Deed dated 2.5.1952, it is mentioned that the parents of plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 as “Adi Andrulu” and it is not specifically mentioned as Adi Andhra Christian or Adi Andhra Hindus, therefore in the absence of any evidence it can not be said that parents of plaintiff are Hindus basing on the bare statement in the Written Statement filed by 1st defendant. As there is no dispute that the parents of the plaintiff died intestate, I hold plaintiff is entitled for division of plaint schedule property into three equal shares and for allotment of one such share to the plaintiff. Accordingly this issue is answered.

13. ISSUE No.2: The contention of the plaintiff is that the plaint schedule property was entrusted to 1st defendant and he used to pay share of the plaintiff in the income derived from the plaint schedule property till recent times and recently the 1st defendant started avoiding to account for the income derived from the schedule property and therefore to direct the 1st defendant to furnish proper account in the income and expenditure from the plaint schedule property and to recover the amount due from the plaintiff.

14. The plaintiff mere contending that 1st defendant used to pay her share in the income derived from the plaint schedule property till recent times and recently 1st defendant is avoiding to account for the income derived from the schedule property, she did not state specifically from which date her share of income derived from the plaint schedule property was not paid to her. Apart from this, it is the specific case of plaintiff that she is in joint possession of the plaint schedule property and paid fixed court fee of Rs.200/- under Sec.34(2) of A.P.C.F

Act . Therefore, the question of furnishing proper and correct account of income and expenditure on the plaint schedule property does not arise. Accordingly, this issue is answered.

15. Issue No.3: In view of the findings in issue No.1 plaintiff is entitled for future profits in respect of her 1/3rd share in the plaint schedule property.

Accordingly, this issue is answered.

16. ISSUE No.4: In the result, suit is preliminarily decreed for division of item Nos.1 and 2 of the plaint schedule properties into three equal shares by allotting one such share to the plaintiff. The plaintiff is entitled for future profits from the date of suit in respect of item Nos.1 and 2 of the plaint schedule properties on separate petition under Order 20 Rule 18 CPC. As far as, the relief for rendition of accounts and for recovery of past profits is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, no costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer on computer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court this the 22nd day of September, 2021.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

TADEPALLIGUDEM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF FOR DEFENDANTS

P.W.1:Jaladi Busamma -None- P.W.2: Dulapalli Somaraju

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:-

Ex.A1/ dated 2.5.1952 Certified copy of sale deed, executed in favour of Muppidi Musalayya. Ex.A2/ dated 2.5.1952 Certified Extract of Gift Deed executed in favour of Muppidi Ravamma Ex.A3/ dated 21.7.2015 Office Copy of Legal notice

Ex.A-4/dated.--- Returned Cover

FOR DEFENDANTS :-Nil

SCJ, TPG