Kaveripak Balaji

1

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF OFFENCES

UNDER THE PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL

OFFENCES ACT (POCSO ACT), TENALI.

Present :: Sri K.P. Balaji

VI Addl. District & Sessions (FTC) Judge, Bapatla

FAC Spl.Judge, POCSO Court, Tenali

Monday, this the 22 nd day of January, 2024.

SESSIONS CASE No. 91 of 2023

(Old Sessions Case No.603/2021)

Between: State Inspector of Police, Repalle Urban (Cr.No.99/2021 Repalle Town P.S.) …Complainant -And-

1.Munipalli Venkat @ Venkatesh, S/o Eliya, 21 years, C/ Madiga, Kamarajugadda village of Repalle Mandal. 2Chirakala Naga Siva Sai Kumar @ Sai, S/o Subbarao (late), 19 years, C/ Gowda, Kamarajugadda village of Repalle Mandal …Accused Nos.1 & 2

This Sessions case came before me on 19-1-2024 for final hearing and disposal in the presence of the learned Spl. Additional Public Prosecutor for the complainant/ State and Sri M. S. Reddy, advocate for the accused Nos.1 & 2 and upon hearing the arguments of both sides and upon perusing the material papers on record and the matter having stood over consideration till this day, this court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

The State represented by the Inspector of Police, Repalle

Urban Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 & 2 for the offences under Sections 354-D, 354-A, 506 r/w 34, 109 IPC, Section 12 of the POCSO Act and Section 67(B) of I.T. Act alleging as follows:

2.The defacto complainant is the daughter of Jamunagani

Rama Krishna and Jamunagani Naga Rani and she studied upto 10th class in SVNA High School, Chatragadda village and thereafter she discontinued her studies and now she is attending agricultural labour works along with her parents. Accused Nos. 1 & 2 are the residents of

Kamarajugadda village. During the yester year while accused No.1 was 2 persuading the victim girl, her father Jamunagani Rama Krishna and her relatives beat him and in this connection both parties filed cases against each other in Repalle Town P.S. Basing on the report given by

Jamunagani Rajya Lakshmi, a case in Cr.No.259/2020 under Section 354-D IPC and Section 12 of POCSO Act was registered in Repalle Town

P.S. On the report given by Munipalle Venkatesh, a case in

Cr.No.258/2020 under Section 323, 324 r/w 34 IPC and Section 3 (1)®,3(1)(s) SC & ST (POA) Act was registered and in both cases section 41 (A) Cr.P.C., notices were served on the accused.

Accused No.1, who is hell bent to marry Jamunagani Rajya Lakshmi requested accused No.2 to extend his support, for which, he accepted.

Again for the last one month accused No.1 started following the victim girl Jamunagani Rajya Lakshmi along with his friend on his motorcycle while she was proceeding to fields along with her parents to attend work. Ten days bank, when the parents of the victim girl were not present in the house, both the accused came to the house of the victim girl, accused No.1 came to the victim girl and demanded to marry him and follow him. When the victim girl refused for the same, he threatened that he would post their photographs wherein it is depicting that accused No.1 is kissing the victim girl, in whatsApp groups, so as to prevent her matrimony proposal from anybody in the village and to damage the goodwill of their family. When the accused No.1 expressed his long desire to marry the victim girl, accused No.2 advised him to upload the photos in whatsApp, so as to get publicity of the love affair existing between accused No.1 and the victim girl which prevents others from proposing matrimony with the victim, then the elders will perform his marriage with the victim girl only as there is no other go.

3

On 4.11.2019 Rowthu Balaji of Kamarajugadda village created a

WhatsApp group for his 10th classmates under the name and style as

MiGHTy Ma Teb 2k BaTcH in his cell phone 8096463520 and added the name of Vuyyuru Yugandhar. Accused No.1 is also a member of the same group. On 28.3.2021 at 7.45 p.m., accused No.1 posted the photos depicting the images of accused No.1 and the victim girl. As

Vuyyuru Yugandhar is a member of the same group, the said photos were also delivered to his cell phone No.6303000026. Since the time of registration of the case against accused No.1, the said Vuyyuru

Yugandhar seized his friendship with accused No.1, thus he did not question accused No.1 about posting of the said photos in WhatsApp group.

On 29.3.2021 Vuyyuru Yugandhar went to the house of the victim girl and showed the photos to the victim girl and her relates Jamunagani

Rama Krishna, Jamunagani Naga Rani, Vuyyuru Krishnaveni, Jamunagani

Gangamma, Vuyyuru Koteswara Rao, Udaa Venkata Rao and Kesana

Naga Nalleswara Rao. After a few minutes, Sontti Jashuva Prasanna

Kumar @ Jashua of Chatragadda village came to the house of the victim girl and exhibited the same photos which were posted in the WhatsApp group. He also stated that accused No.2 created a WhatsApp group in his cell phone No.9347923300 on 1.1.2021 under the name and style as

Siva Sai Friends Circle and he posted the same photos of the victim girl and accused No.1 in the said group. They exhibited those photos not only to the parents of the victim girl, but also to the neighbours. Vuyyuru

Yugandhar did not delete the photos, which were posted in the group, in his mobile. Sontti Jashuva Prasanna Kumar @ Jashua and the accused

No.1 are also members of the WhatsApp group created by accused No.2 and they used to post funny videos in the said group. On the night of 4 28.3.2021 at 7.45 p.m., accused No.1 posted the photos depicting the images of accused No.1 and the victim girl. Due to posting of the said phones the family goodwill of the victim girl is badly damaged in the public and the inmates became laughing stocks as the matrimony proposals of the victim girl are badly damaged.

On 30.3.2021 the victim girl went to Repalle police station and presented a report to Inspector of Police, Repalle Urban, who registered the same as a case in Cr.No.99/2021 under Sections 354-D, 354-A, 506 r/w 34 IPC and Section 12 of the POCSO Act and took up investigation.

On 31.3.2021 he got recorded the statement of the victim girl through

WPC 6367 Karri Thriveni and the same was videographed by Bathula

Durga Naga Malleswara Rao @ Mallikharjuna Rao. He examined the scene of offence and recorded the statements of the witnesses on the same day. He got collected the photos available in the cell phones of

Vuyyuru Yugandhar, Sontti Jashuva Prasanna Kumar @ Jashua, Rowthu

Balaji and Vuyyuru Ravikumar through Bathula Durga Naga Malleswara

Rao @ Mallikharjuna Rao, Famous Photo Studio, Repalle and seized the cell phone of Rowthu Balaji under the cover of mediatornama duly attested by the mediators Kolusu Siva Pavan Kumar and Yakanuru Durga

Rao. As accused No.2 encouraged accused No.1 in stalking the victim girl, his complicity is well established. On 30.4.2021 he arrested the accused Nos. 1 & 2, seized their cell phones and sent them for remand.

Thereafter, he obtained date of birth certificate of the victim from Head

Mistress, SVNA High School, Chatragadda, Repalle Mandal. On his request, the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tenali recorded Section 164

Cr.P.C., statement of the victim girl. Basing on the statement of the victim girl, it is clearly established that the accused No.2 posted the photos depicting the images of accused No.1 and the victim girl in the 5

WhatsApp group and defamed the family members of the victim girl.

Hence Section 67(B) of the I.T. Act is added against the accused No.2 and to that effect a memo is filed. After completion of the investigation, he filed the charge sheet.

3. The case was taken on file for the offences under Sections 354-A, 354-D, 506 r/w 34 IPC, Section 12 of POCSO Act, Sections 67B, 109 of the I.T. Act.

4. When the accused appeared before the court, copies of all the documents on which the prosecution relied were supplied to them under

Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5. Thereafter, charges under Sections 354-A r/w 34, 354-D r/w 34, 506 IPC, Section 12 of the POCSO Act and Sections 67B, 109 of the

Information Technology Act were framed against the accused, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.In support of the charges, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW3 and Exs.P1 to P5 were marked.

7.In view of the evidence of PW1 to PW3, the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor gave up the evidence of all the other listed

witnesses as no useful purpose will be served by examining them.

8.After closure of prosecution evidence, Section 313 Cr.P.C., examination of the accused has been dispensed with as there is no 6 incriminating material appearing against the accused in the evidence of

PW1 to PW3.

9.Now the point for determination in this case is,

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offences with which they are charged?

P O I N T :

10.The case of the prosecution as per the report of PW1, who is the defacto complainant, is as follows:

She is a resident of Mynenivari palem of Chatragadda

Panchayat, Repalle Mandal and her parents are living by doing agricultural coolie works. She studied in Kamarajugadda Govt. School upto 5th class and from 6th to 10th classes she studied in SVNA High

School, Chatragadda. Previously Munipalli Venkatesh of Karajugadda village used to persuade her, on that she filed a case in Reaplle Police

Station which is registered as Cr.No.259/2020 under Section 354-D IPC and Section 12 of the POCSO Act. But, the said Munipalli Venkatesh along with one Chirakala Sai used to follow her on a motorcycle while she was going to agricultural works along with her parents. About 10 days back, during the absence of her parents, Munipalli Venkatesh and

Sai came to her house and threatened her that if she would not come with him, he will upload the photos in WhatsApp to damage the goodwill of her family in the society. On 29.3.2021 Yugandhar came to her and stated that one Balaji created a WhatsApp group for his 10th classmates in the name and style as MiGHTy Ma Teb 2k 15 BaTcH. He also stated that herself and Munipalli Venkatesh are also members of the said Group and the said Munipalli Venkatesh uploaded the photos depicting the 7 images of herself and the Venkatesh in the said Group on 29.3.2021 at 7.45 p.m. On the same day, one Jashuva, who belongs to their village, came to their house and stated that Chirakala Siva Sai created a

WhatsApp group in his cell phone No.9347923300 under the name and style as Siva Sai Friends Circle and in the said group she is also a member. On 29.3.2021 Munipalli Venkatesh posted the photos depicting the images of herself and Venkatesh through his cell No.9177387597.

Then as per the advise of elders, she filed complaint in the police station. In support of the above case, the prosecution examined PW1 to

PW3.

11.PW1 is the defacto complainant in this case. She stated that she does not know the accused. She further stated that she does not know the contents of the report dated 30.3.2021. She identified her signature Ex.P1 on the report. According to her, she gave Ex.P2 statement before the Magistrate at the instance of others and it is not her voluntary statement and the statements given by her are false. She denied having stated before police as in Ex.P3.

12.PW2 and PW3 who the parents of PW1 also did not support the prosecution case and they were also declared hostile and they denied having stated before police as in Exs.P4 and P5 respectively.

13.In view of the evidence of PW1 to PW3, the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor gave up the evidence of the other listed

witnesses as no useful purpose will be served by examining them. Thus except Section 161 Cr.P.C., statements of the witnesses recorded by police, there is no other legally acceptable evidence brought on record 8 to connect the accused with the offence in question. The prosecution failed to prove any of the charges levelled against the accused, hence the accused are entitled to be acquitted of all the charges levelled against them. The point is accordingly answered in the negative.

P O I N T NO.2

14.In the result, the accused Nos.1 & 2 are found not guilty for the offences under Sections 354-A r/w 34, 354-D r/w 34, 506, 109 IPC, Section 12 of the

POCSO Act and Section 67B of I.T Act and they are accordingly acquitted of the said charges under Section 232 Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of the accused Nos.1 & 2 shall remain in force for a further period of 6 months from today in view of Section 437A Cr.P.C.

The unmarked property of Redmi Smart phone shall be returned to

Rowthu Balaji on proper identification and acknowledgement.

The unmarked property of OPPO Phone shall be returned to accused No.1 on proper identification and acknowledgement.

The unmarked property of Subway phone shall be returned to accused No.2 on proper identification and acknowledgement.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 22nd day of January, 2024.

Sd./- K.P.Balaji, VI Addl.Dist.&Sessions Judge (FTC)Bapatla FAC Special Judge for Trial of Offences under POCSO Act, (Child Friendly Court), Tenali.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:For defence : Nil PW1/J. Rajyalakshmi PW2/J. Ramakrishna PW3/J. Nagarani 9

Documents marked

For Prosecution :

Ex.P1/Signature portion of PW1 on the report. Ex.P2/Section 164 Cr.P.C., statement of PW1 Ex.P3/Section 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW1 Ex.P4/Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.2 Ex.P5/Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3

For Defence: - Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- Nil on either side -

Sd./- K.P.Balaji, VI Addl.Dist.&Sessions Judge (FTC)Bapatla FAC Special Judge for Trial of Offences under POCSO Act, (Child Friendly Court), Tenali.

10

CALENDAR

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF OFFENCES UNDER THE

PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT

(POCSO ACT), TENALI.

Present: Sri K.P. Balaji, VI Addl. District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Bapatla FAC Special Judge,POCSO Court,Tenali Monday, this the 22nd day of January, 2024

SESSIONS CASE No. 91 of 2023

(Old Sessions Case No.603/2021)

(Crime No.99/2021 of Repalle Town Police Station.)

Name & Description of the: State Inspector of Police, Repalle Urban Complainant

Name & Description of the Accused: 1.Munipalli Venkat @ Venkatesh, S/o Eliya, 21 years, C/ Madiga, Kamarajugadda village of Repalle Mandal. 2Chirakala Naga Siva Sai Kumar @ Sai, S/o Subbarao (late), 19 years, C/ Gowda, Kamarajugadda village of Repalle Mandal Date of Offence:04.11.2019 Committal:--- Apprehension of accused:30.04.2021

:

Commencement of trial:19.01.2024 Closure of trial:19.01.2024 Judgment22.01.2024 Nature of offence(s) : Under Sections 354A, 354-D 506, 109 IPC, Section 12 of POCSO Act, Section 67B of IT Act Plea of the accused: Not guilty

Finding of the court: Found not guilty Sentence or Or der : In the result, the accused Nos.1 & 2 are found not guilty for the offences under Sections 354-A r/w 34, 354- D r/w 34, 506, 109 IPC, Section 12 of the POCSO Act and Section 67B of I.T Act and they are accordingly acquitted of the said charges under Section 232 Cr.P.C.The bail bonds of the accused Nos.1 & 2 shall remain in force for a further period of 6 months from today in view of Section 437A Cr.P.C. The unmarked property of Redmi Smart phone shall be returned to Rowthu Balaji on proper identification and acknowledgement. The unmarked property of OPPO Phone shall be returned to accused No.1 on proper identification and acknowledgement. The unmarked property of Subway phone shall be returned to accused No.2 on proper identification and acknowledgement.

Explanation for delay: On 12.1.2024 accused were examined under Section 228 Cr.P.C., and charges under Sections 354A, 354-D, 506, 109 IPC, Section 12 of POCSO Act and Section 67B of IT Act have been framed against them. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5 on its behalf. Prosecution side evidence was closed on 19.1.2024, examination of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with as there is no incriminating material appearing in the evidence of PW1 to PW3 and heard arguments on both sides on the same. On 22.1.2024 Judgment pronounced. Hence, there is no delay in this case.

Sd./- K.P.Balaji, VI Addl.Dist.&Sessions Judge (FTC)Bapatla FAC Special Judge for Trial of Offences under POCSO

Act, (Child Friendly Court), Tenali.

11

Copy submitted to :

1) The Hon’ble Registrar (Judl.),

Hon’ble High Court of A.P.,

Nelapadu – 522237, Guntur District.

2) The Hon’ble Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Guntur.

Copy to :

1) The Director of Prosecutions, Door No.24-19-12/A, Durgapuram, Vijayawada.

2) The Special Public Prosecutor, Special Court for Speedy Trial of offences under POCSO Act, Guntur.

1

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF OFFENCES

UNDER THE PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL

OFFENCES ACT (POCSO ACT), TENALI.

Present :: Sri K.P. Balaji

VI Addl. District & Sessions (FTC) Judge, Bapatla

FAC Spl.Judge, POCSO Court, Tenali

Monday, this the 22 nd day of January, 2024.

SESSIONS CASE No. 57 of 2023

(Old Sessions Case No.199/2021)

Between: Sub Divisional Police Officer, Bapatla (Cr.No.259/2020 Repalle P.S.) …Complainant -And-

Munipalli Venkat, S/o Eliya, age 21 years, Caste by Madiga, Kamarajugadda village & Panchayat, Repalle Mandal. …Accused

This Sessions case came before me on 19-1-2024 for final hearing and disposal in the presence of the learned Spl. Additional Public Prosecutor for the complainant/ State and Sri M. S. Reddy, advocate for the accused and upon hearing the arguments of both sides and upon perusing the material papers on record and the matter having stood over consideration till this day, this court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

The State represented by the Sub Divisional Police Officer,

Bapatla filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences under

Sections 354-D, 506 IPC and Section 12 of the POCSO Act alleging as follows:

2.The defacto complainant is the daughter of Jamunagani

Rama Krishna and Jamunagani Nagarani, who are the residents of

Mainenivaripalem village, Chatragadda Panchayat and they live by doing coolie works. Jamunagani Veerababu is the brother of the defacto complainant and he is prosecuting his ITI course in Gudavalli college.

The defacto complainant studied upto 10th class in Chatragadda village.

While she was studying 10th class, she used to go to school on her 2 bicycle. At that time, the accused used to stalk and harass her to love him, but she turned down his overtures. On that the accused used to threaten her that if she will not accept his love, he will commit suicide.

Suspecting something amiss that in case it is revealed, her parents would not allow for her study and being introverted, she remained tight lipped. In the absence of inmates, the accused used to come to her house on his bike and used to harass her sexually by making gestures.

Further when the defacto complaint was going to canal for washing clothes in the absence of her mother, the accused used to chase her on his bike, used to talk to her by luring her that he want to marry her. On 12.12.2020 morning at about 10 a.m., while she was going to canal for washing clothes and when she reached Pothuraju temple, the accused came to her on his bike and he balled out that he would take her and marry her and he also stated that if she rejects his proposal, he will do away her life and her family members. Then she shared the acts of the accused to her parents. On the next day i.e., on 13.12.2020 morning at about 11 a.m., the defacto complainant, her parents and Vuyyuru

Krsihnaveni went to Pothuraju temple and found that accused was coming by making gestures towards the defacto complainant.

Thereafter, they brought the defacto complainant to police station and gave report to Inspector of Police, Repalle Police station, who registered the same as a case in Cr.No. 259/2020 under Section 354-D IPC and

Section 12 of POCSO Act. Since the Sub Divisional Police Officer, Bapatla being the Investigating Officer in the counter case in Cr.No.258/2020 under Sections 323, 324 r/w 34 IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of SC & ST (POA) Act of Repalle Police Station, he took up investigation in this case also as per the proceedings C.No.168/C2-SC, ST/I.O-Appt/2020 dated 13.12.2020 of Superintendent of Police, Guntur Rural District.

3

During the course of investigation, he visited the scene of offence, examined as many as seven witnesses and recorded their detailed statements. As per the statements of the witnesses, it is made out that the accused has been making gestures for sexual harassment in numerical occasions besides threatening the victim girl. During the course of investigation, Section 506 of IPC was added. On 9.1.2021 the accused was served Section 41-A Cr.P.C., notice. On his request, the II

Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tenali recorded Section 164 Cr.P.C.,

statement of the victim girl. As a counter to the present case, the accused lodged a complaint on 13.12.2020 against the father and brother of the victim girl stating that they caused hurt to him with a sickle and hands besides using inapt words lowering his caste and they belittled him in the public, which is the subject matter of Cr.No.258/2929 of Repalle Police Station.

After completion of the investigation, he filed the charge sheet.

3. The case was taken on file for the offences under Sections 354-D, 506 IPC and Section 12 of POCSO Act.

4. When the accused appeared before the court, copies of all the documents on which the prosecution relied were supplied to him under

Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5. Thereafter, charges under Sections 354-D, 506 IPC, and Section 12 of the POCSO Act were framed against the accused, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4

6.In support of the charges, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW3 and Exs.P1 to P5 were marked.

7.In view of the evidence of PW1 to PW3, the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor gave up the evidence of all the other listed

witnesses as no useful purpose will be served by examining them.

8.After closure of prosecution evidence, Section 313 Cr.P.C., examination of the accused has been dispensed with as there is no incriminating material appearing against the accused in the evidence of

PW1 to PW3.

9.Now the point for determination in this case is,

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offences with which he is charged?

P O I N T :

10.The case of the prosecution as per the report of PW1, who is the defacto complainant, is as follows:

She is a resident of Mynenivari palem village of Repalle

Mandal and her parents are living by doing agricultural coolie works.

Her date of birth of 27.11.2005. Her brother is prosecuting his ITI Course.

She studied upto 10 class. While she was studying 10th class, she used to go to school on her bicycle. At that time, Munipalli Venkatesh of her village used to follow her by stating that he is loving her. After some days, he used to threaten her that he will kill her, if she fails to love him.

But, she did not reveal the same to her parents on the apprehension that they will stop her studies. Now she completed her 10th class and 5 remained in home due to Corona Pandemic. The accused used to come to her house on his motorcycle and harassing her by making gestures.

On 12.12.2020 and 13.12.2020 while she was going to canal for washing clothes, he followed her and harassed her by stating that he will marry her and threatened her that if she does not accept for the same, he will do way her and her family members. Then she informed the same to her parents and one Krishnaveni.

11.In support of the above case, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW3.

11.PW1 is the defacto complainant in this case. She stated that she does not know the accused, she does not know the contents of the report dated 13.12.2020, she identified her signature Ex.P1 on the report. According to her, she gave Ex.P2 statement under Section 164

Cr.P.C., before the Magistrate at the instance of outsiders and it is not her voluntary statement. She denied having stated before police as in

Ex.P3.

12.PW2 and PW3 who are the parents of PW1 also did not support the prosecution case and they were also declared hostile and they denied having stated before police as in Exs.P4 and P5 respectively.

13.In view of the evidence of PW1 to PW3, the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor gave up the evidence of the other listed

witnesses as no useful purpose will be served by examining them. Thus except Section 161 Cr.P.C., statements of the witnesses recorded by police, there is no other legally acceptable evidence brought on record 6 to connect the accused with the offence in question. The prosecution failed to prove any of the charges levelled against the accused. Hence the accused is entitled to be acquitted of all the charges levelled against him. The point is accordingly answered in the negative.

P O I N T NO.2

14.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences under

Sections 354- D, 506 IPC and Section 12 of the POCSO Act and he is accordingly acquitted of the said charges under Section 232 Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a further period of 6 months from today in view of Section 437A Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 22nd day of January, 2024.

Sd./- K.P.Balaji, VI Addl.Dist.&Sessions Judge (FTC)Bapatla FAC Special Judge for Trial of Offences under POCSO Act, (Child Friendly Court), Tenali.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:For defence : Nil PW1/J. Rajyalakshmi PW2/J. Ramakrishna PW3/J. Nagarani Documents marked

For Prosecution : Ex.P1/Signature portion of PW1 on the report. Ex.P2/Section 164 Cr.P.C., statement of PW1 Ex.P3/Section 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW1 Ex.P4/Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.2 Ex.P5/Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3

For Defence: - Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- Nil on either side -

Sd./- K.P.Balaji, VI Addl.Dist.&Sessions Judge (FTC)Bapatla FAC Special Judge for Trial of Offences under POCSO Act, (Child Friendly Court), Tenali.

7

CALENDAR

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF OFFENCES UNDER THE

PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT

(POCSO ACT), TENALI.

Present: Sri K.P. Balaji, VI Addl. District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Bapatla FAC Special Judge,POCSO Court,Tenali Monday, this the 22nd day of January, 2024

SESSIONS CASE No. 57 of 2023

(Old Sessions Case No.199/2021)

(Crime No.259/2020 of Repalle Police Station.)

: Sub Divisional Police Officer, Bapatla Name & Description of the Complainant

Name & Description of the Accused: Munipalli Venkat, S/o Eliya, aged 21 years, Caste by Madiga, Kamarajugadda village & Panchayat Repalle Mandal. Date of Offence:12.12.2020 Committal:--- Apprehension of accused:09.01.2021

:

Commencement of trial:19.01.2024 Closure of trial:19.01.2024 Judgment22.01.2024 Nature of offence(s) : Under Sections 354D 506 IPC, Section 12 of POCSO Act Plea of the accused: Not guilty

Finding of the court: Found not guilty Sentence or Or der : In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences under Sections 354- D, 506 IPC and Section 12 of the POCSO Act and he is accordingly acquitted of the said charges under Section 232 Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a further period of 6 months from today in view of Section 437A Cr.P.C.

Explanation for delay: On 12.1.2024 accused were examined under Section 228 Cr.P.C., and charges under Sections 354, 506 IPC, Section 12 of POCSO Act have been framed against him. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5 on its behalf. Prosecution side evidence was closed on 19.1.2024, examination of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with as there is no incriminating material appearing in the evidence of PW1 to PW3 and heard arguments on both sides on the same day. On 22.1.2024 Judgment pronounced. Hence, there is no delay in this case.

Sd./- K.P.Balaji, VI Addl.Dist.&Sessions Judge (FTC)Bapatla FAC Special Judge for Trial of Offences under POCSO

Act, (Child Friendly Court), Tenali.

Copy submitted to :

1) The Hon’ble Registrar (Judl.),

Hon’ble High Court of A.P.,

Nelapadu – 522237, Guntur District.

8

2) The Hon’ble Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Guntur.

Copy to :

1) The Director of Prosecutions, Door No.24-19-12/A, Durgapuram, Vijayawada.

2) The Special Public Prosecutor, Special Court for Speedy Trial of offences under POCSO Act, Guntur.

1

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF OFFENCES

UNDER THE PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL

OFFENCES ACT (POCSO ACT), TENALI.

Present :: Sri K.P. Balaji

VI Addl. District & Sessions (FTC) Judge, Bapatla

FAC Spl.Judge, POCSO Court, Tenali

Wednesday, this the 10 th day of April, 2024.

SESSIONS CASE No. 88 of 2023

(Old Sessions Case No.553/2021)

Between: State : Sub Inspector of Police, Duggirala P.S. (Cr.No.148/2021 Duggirala P.S.) …Complainant -And-

Seelam Pream Chand @ Pream @ Nani, S/o Venu Babu, 20 years, Madiga, D.No. 11-194, Kotha Harijanawada, Penamaluru Village & Mandal, Krishna District …Accused

This Sessions case came before me on 8-4-2024 for final hearing and disposal in the presence of the learned Spl. Additional Public Prosecutor for the complainant/ State and Sri M.K. Deenadayal, advocate for the accused and upon hearing the arguments of both sides and upon perusing the material papers on record and the matter having stood over consideration till this day, this court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

The State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police,

Duggirala Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences under Section 363 IPC, Section 12 of the POCSO Act alleging as follows:

2.The complainant Veeranki Rambabu and Veeranki Naga

Malleswari are the parents of the victim girl. The complainant/ Veeranki

Rambabu is a resident of Poranki village of Penamaluru Mandal and he is working as a head workmen at Benz Circle, Vijayawada for providing coolies to lifts manufacturing. The complainant is having two female children. Out of them, the victim girl is aged about 17 years and studied intermediate 2nd year in Sri Durga Malleswara Sidhardha Collage. The 2 complainant came to know through others that the accused Seelam

Pream Chand, who is neighbouring villager, used to come to the college of the victim girl where she is studying and used to speak with her. On 19.7.2021 at about 9.00 a.m., while going to work, the complainant observed his daughter/ victim girl talking with the accused. Then he went to the victim girl and chastised her. On 20.7.2021 the complainant took the victim girl to the house of Thata Venkata Subbamma, who is his mother-in-law, narrated the incident and informed her and his relative

Veeranki Prasanth Kumar to observe the victim girl carefully. On 21.7.2021 at about 6.30 p.m., when Thata Venkata Subbamma went to village centre for bringing milk, at that time the accused came to the house of the said Thata Venkata Subbamma and took the victim girl on his motorcycle towards Vijayawada. On coming to know about the incident through elders, Thata Venkata Subbamma informed the same to the complainant over phone. The complainant searched for his daughter at Vijayawada and in Penamaluru surrounding areas, but in vain. Hence, the complainant presented a report in the police station. Then SI of Police,

Duggirala P.S., registered the same as a case in Cr.No. 148/2021 under

Section 363 IPC and Section 12 of the POCSO Act and sent the copies of

FIR to all concerned.

During the course of investigation, he visited the scene of offence, examined 5 witnesses and recorded their statements. On 22.7.2021 the complainant visited the police station and produced the victim girl before

SI of Police, Duggirala P.S., and stated that he traced her at Budirajupalem village and also stated that the accused kidnapped his daughter and left her at Budirajupalem village. On his instructions, Woman A.S.I., 833 S.

Rama of Duggirala P.S., recorded the statement of the victim girl. Basing 3 on the statement of the victim girl, he added Section 12 of POCSO Act and a memo to that effect was filed before the court.

On 24.7.2021 he arrested the accused at Cinema hall centre,

Revendrapadu village, Duggirala Mandal and recorded his detailed confessional statement duly attested by Buragadda China Rosaiah and

Pulivarthi Nathaneyulu, and seized black colour pulser bike 125 CC bearing No. AP 39 FM 5665. On his request, the Principal Junior Civil

Judge, Ponnur recorded Section 164 Cr.P.C., statement of the victim girl

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

3. The case was taken on file for the offences under Section 363 IPC and Section 12 of POCSO Act.

4. When the accused appeared before the court, copies of all the documents on which the prosecution relied were supplied to him under

Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5.Thereafter, charges under Section 363 IPC and Section 12 of the

POCSO Act were framed against the accused, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.In support of the charges, the prosecution examined PW1 & PW2 and Exs.P1 to P3 were marked.

7.In view of the evidence of PW1 & PW2, the learned

Spl.Additional Public Prosecutor gave up the evidence of all the other listed witnesses as no useful purpose will be served by examining them.

Section 313 Cr.P.C., examination of the accused has been dispensed with 4 as there is no incriminating material appearing against the accused in the evidence of PW1 & PW2.

9.Now the point for determination in this case is,

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offences with which he is charged?

P O I N T :

10.The case of the prosecution as per the report of PW1, who is the complainant and the father of the victim girl is as follows:

He is a resident of Poranki village of Penamaluru Mandal,

Krishna district and his working as Mutha maistry for supplying coolies to work in Lift manufacturing units. He is having two daughters. Out of them, younger daughter studied second year intermediate in Sri Durga

Malleswara Siddhardha College. He came to know through others that while his younger daughter was studying intermediate, the accused, who is their neighbouring villager, used to follow her. On 19.7.2021 at about 9.00 a.m., while he was going to his work, he observed his daughter talking with the accused. Then the complainant went to them and reprimanded her daughter by stating that why she is talking with him.

On the next day i.e., 20.7.2021 he brought his daughter/ victim girl to his mother-in-law’s house in Perikalapudi village and asked her to look after the victim carefully. On 21.7.2021 at about 6.30 p.m., when his mother- in-law went to bazaar for purchasing milk, at that time, the accused came to her house and took the victim girl on his motorcycle towards

Vijayawada. On coming to know about the same, the mother-in-law of the complainant informed the same to him. When his searches for tracing out his daughter proved futile, he gave report in the police station.

5

11. In support of the above case, the prosecution examined PW1 &

PW2.

12.PW1 is the complainant and he is the father of the victim girl. He stated that he does not know the accused. He further stated that on 22.7.2021 he gave report to police alleging that his daughter is found missing. He identified his signature Ex.P1 on the report. He further stated that he does not know the contents of the said report. He was declared hostile and he denied having stated before police as in Ex.P2.

13.PW2 the mother of the victim girl also did not support the prosecution case. She was also declared hostile and she denied having stated before police as in Ex.P3.

14.In view of the evidence of PW1 & PW2, the learned

Spl.Additional Public Prosecutor gave up the evidence of the other listed witnesses as no useful purpose will be served by examining them. Thus except Section 161 Cr.P.C., statements of the witnesses recorded by police, there is no other legally acceptable evidence brought on record to connect the accused with the offence in question. The prosecution failed to prove any of the charges levelled against the accused. Hence the accused is entitled to be acquitted of all the charges levelled against him.

The point is accordingly answered in the negative.

P O I N T NO.2

15.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences under

Section 363 IPC and Section 12 of the POCSO Act and he is accordingly acquitted of the said charges under Section 232 Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a further period of 6 months from today in view of Section 437A Cr.P.C.

6

The unmarked property of Black colour pulser bike 125 CC bearing

No.AP 39 FM 5665 shall be returned to the accused on proper identification and acknowledgement after expiry of the appeal time and on production of relevant records.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 10th day of April, 2024.

VI Addl.Dist.&Sessions Judge (FTC)Bapatla FAC Special Judge for Trial of Offences under POCSO Act, (Child Friendly Court), Tenali.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:For defence : Nil

PW1/Veeranki Rambabu PW2/Veeranki Nagamalleswari

Documents marked

For Prosecution :

Ex.P1/Signature portion of PW1 on the report. Ex.P2/Section 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW1 Ex.P3/Section 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW2

For Defence: - Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- Nil on either side -

(Sd/-) Sri K.P. Balaji

VI Addl.Dist.&Sessions Judge (FTC)Bapatla FAC Special Judge for Trial of Offences under POCSO Act, (Child Friendly Court), Tenali.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE XI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE : TENALI

Present ::Sri K.P. Balaji VI Addl. District Judge, Bapatla FAC XI Addl. District Judge, Tenali.

Friday, this the 12th day of April, 2024.

EP.No. 145 / 2019 in AOP.No. 2632 / 2017

Between:

M/s Shriram Transport Finance Co., Ltd., Rep. by authorized Signatory, Guntur P. Venkateswarlu …. Petitioner / D.Hr.,

And

1.Srinivasa Rao Morla, S/o Venkata Narayana, Hindu, aged 36 years, D.No.2- 25, Bodduluri padu, Kolluru Mandal, Guntur district

2.Uppala Srinivasa Rao, S/o Veera Swamy, Hindu, aged 36 years, D.No.1- 127C/1, Chirakalavaripalem, Guntur District

...Respondents/ J.Drs.

This petition coming before me on 4-4-2024, for final hearing in the presence of Sri V. Venkata Siva Gopi, advocate for petitioner/D.Hr. and Sri T.K.R.C. Kumar, advocate for the 1st respondent and the 2nd respondent/ 2nd J.Dr. remained exparte and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court made the following:

O R D E R

This Execution Petition is filed by the decree holder finance company against the respondents / Judgment debtors under Order XXI Rules 37 and 38 of

C.P.C., praying to arrest them and detain them in civil prison for realisation of the amount due under the award passed in AOP.No.2632/2017.

2. In the affidavit filed by the Recovery Executive of the Decree Holder company in support of the Execution Petition it is stated as follows:

He is the authroised signatory, as such he is well acquainted with the facts of the case. He filed the Execution Petition against the Judgment debtors for recovery of the amount as per the decree. But, the Judgment debtors have willfully evaded to pay the amount due though they are capable of paying the 2 decree amount at a time. They are also having sufficient means, movable and immovable properties and also doing real estate business. They are trying to leave the jurisdiction of the court to evade the decree amount. Hence the

Execution Petition.

3.The 1st respondent filed counter denying the allegations made in the petition and further contended that he is an agricultural coolie and used to drive heavy vehicles and used to earn Rs.4,000/- to Rs.5,000/- per month, which is not sufficient to lead his family and he has no property either movable and immovable on the name of the 1st respondent/ 1st judgment debtor. He is an illiterate. The D.Hr., people in their process of advertisement approached him and made him to take tractors for agricultural purposes on loan by taking his marks and signatures on some blank papers and delivered tractor to him. It is further submitted that aver making some instalments by this Judgment debtor, without any notice, the D.Hr., highhandedly taken away the tractor and sold the same in public auction and did not choose to clear the loan. Due to lack of legal knowledge, this Judgment debtor failed to take any steps against the D.Hr., He has no proper means even to lead his life and he has no properties of his own. He is an agricultural coolie and also working as part time driver for eking out his livelihood. The D.hr., never made any demand to pay the amount even after passing of the decree. No oral or documentary demand was ever made by the decree holder. No notice was served on the J.Dr., in the E.P., and also in the suit and the D.Hr., managed the process and got the decree behind back of this J.Dr.

Himself and his family are residing in the present address for the last 25 years, hence the question of hatching a plan to leave the jurisdiction of this court does not arise. Hence he prayed to dismiss the E.P., with costs.

4.The 2nd respondent/ 2nd Judgment debtor remained exparte.

3

4.Now the point for consideration in this Execution Petition is,

Whether the Judgment debtors/ respondents are liable to be arrested and detained in civil prison for realisation of the amount due under the award?

POINT :

5.The G.P.A., Holder of the Decree Holder finance company has been examined as PW1 and no documents were marked through him. In his chief affidavit he has stated that after passing of the award, they approached the

Judgment debtors and requested them to pay the amount, but they evaded to pay the same, though they are capable of paying the decree amount. It is his further evidence that the Judgment Debtor No1 is getting income of Rs.20,000/- per month by working as a tractor driver and the Judgment Debtor No.2is getting income of Rs.30,000/- per month by doing private business and they are evading to pay the amount due.

6.Section 51 CPC enumerates various modes of executing a money decree. One such mode is arrest and detention of the Judgment Debtors in civil prison for realisation of the amount due. Under the proviso to Section 51 CPC arrest and detention of Judgment Debtor in civil prison can be ordered only if the

Decree holder is able to prove that the Judgment debtor is having sufficient means to pay the decree amount and that inspite of having such means, he refused or neglected to pay the amount due. Unless both the above conditions are satisfied, arrest and detention of Judgment debtor in civil prison cannot be ordered as a matter of course or right inasmuch as the personal liberty of a person is involved.

7.As the respondent No.1 did not turn up to cross examine PW1 since long time and as there is no representation, he was set exparte on 4.4.2024.

4

7.In the affidavit filed in support of the Execution Petition the avocation of the Judgment debtors are not mentioned. For the first time in the chief affidavit filed by PW1 it is stated that the Judgment debtor No.1 is working as a tractor driver and getting Rs.20,000/- per month and the Judgment debtor No.2 is doing private business and getting Rs.30,000/- per month. Except the self interested testimony of PW1, there is no other legally acceptable evidence brought on record by the Decree holder to show that the Judgment debtors had or has at the time of passing of the decree the sufficient means to pay the decree amount and that inspite of the said means, they refused and neglected or is refusing or neglecting to pay the amount due. Merely because, the respondents / Judgment debtors remained exparte, their arrest or detention cannot be ordered as a matter of course or right. It is the Decree holder, who has to satisfy the twin conditions for getting an order of arrest of the Judgment debtors. Having regard to the material brought on record, this court is of the considered opinion that the Decree holder failed to satisfy the twin conditions for securing an order of arrest against the Judgment debtors. Hence the Decree holder is not entitled to the relief prayed for in the Execution Petition. The point is accordingly answered in the negative.

8. In the result, the Execution Petition is dismissed.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade II, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 12th day of April, 2024.

(Sd/-) Sri K.P. Balaji

VI Addl. District Judge, Bapatla FAC XI Addl. District Judge, Tenali 5

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined

For D.Hr.,/Petitioner:For J.Drs/ Respondents : None

PW1/ M. Umamaheswara Rao

Documents marked For D.Hr./Petitioner: Nil

For J.Drs/Respondents: Nil (Sd/-) Sri K.P. Balaji VI Addl. District Judge, Bapatla FAC XI Addl. District Judge, Tenali 6

1

IN THE COURT OF THE XI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE : TENALI

Present ::Sri K.P. Balaji VI Addl. District Judge, Bapatla FAC XI Addl. District Judge, Tenali.

Friday, this the 12th day of April, 2024.

EP.No. 281 / 2018 in AOP.No. 243 / 2015

Between:

M/s Shriram Transport Finance Co., Ltd., Rep. by authorized Signatory, Guntur P. Venkateswarlu …. Petitioner / D.Hr.,

And

1.Juturu Veeraiah, S/o Samba Siva Rao, aged 42 yers, D.No.24-1-36, Chinnaravuru Post, Tenali mandal, Guntur district

2.Chilli Naga Bhushanam, S/o Pitchaiah, aged abut 45 yers, D.No.6-92, Gudiwada Post, Tenali Mandal, Guntur District

...Respondents/ J.Drs.

This petition coming before me on 4-4-2024, for final hearing in the presence of Sri N.Venkata Venu, advocate for petitioner/D.Hr. and the 2nd respondent/ 2nd J.Dr. remained exparte and the E.P., against the 1st respondent is dismissed as not pressed and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court made the following:

O R D E R

This Execution Petition is filed by the decree holder finance company against the respondents / Judgment debtors under Order XXI Rules 37 and 38 of

C.P.C., praying to arrest them and detain them in civil prison for realisation of the amount due under the award passed in AOP.No.243/2015.

2. In the affidavit filed by the Recovery Executive of the Decree Holder company in support of the Execution Petition it is stated as follows:

He is the authroised signatory, as such he is well acquainted with the facts of the case. He filed the Execution Petition against the Judgment debtors for recovery of the amount as per the decree. But, the Judgment debtors have willfully evaded to pay the amount due though they are capable of paying the 2 decree amount at a time. They are also having sufficient means, movable and immovable properties and also doing real estate business. They are trying to leave the jurisdiction of the court to evade the decree amount. Hence the

Execution Petition.

3.After service of notice while the 2nd respondent/ 2nd Judgment debtor remained exparte and the E.P., against the 1st respondent/ 1st Judgment debtor was not pressed.

4.Now the point for consideration in this Execution Petition is,

Whether the Judgment debtor No.2/2nd respondent is liable to be arrested and detained in civil prison for realisation of the amount due under the award?

POINT :

5.The G.P.A., Holder of the Decree Holder finance company has been examined as PW1 and no documents were marked through him. In his chief affidavit he has stated that after passing of the award, they approached the

Judgment debtors and requested them to pay the amount, but they evaded to pay the same, though they are capable of paying the decree amount. It is his further evidence that the Judgment Debtor No.2 is getting income of Rs.20,000/- per month by working as a driver and he is evading to pay the amount due.

6.Section 51 CPC enumerates various modes of executing a money decree. One such mode is arrest and detention of the Judgment Debtors in civil prison for realisation of the amount due. Under the proviso to Section 51 CPC arrest and detention of Judgment Debtor in civil prison can be ordered only if the

Decree holder is able to prove that the Judgment debtor is having sufficient means to pay the decree amount and that inspite of having such means, he refused or neglected to pay the amount due. Unless both the above conditions are satisfied, arrest and detention of Judgment debtor in civil prison cannot be 3 ordered as a matter of course or right inasmuch as the personal liberty of a person is involved.

7.In the affidavit filed in support of the Execution Petition the avocation of the 2nd Judgment debtor is not mentioned. For the first time in the chief affidavit filed by PW1 it is stated that the 2nd Judgment debtor is working as a driver and getting Rs.20,000/- per month. Except the self interested testimony of

PW1, there is no other legally acceptable evidence brought on record by the

Decree holder to show that the 2nd Judgment debtor had or has at the time of passing of the decree the sufficient means to pay the decree amount and that inspite of the said means, he refused and neglected or is refusing or neglecting to pay the amount due. Merely because, the respondent No.2/ 2nd Judgment debtor remained exparte, his arrest or detention cannot be ordered as a matter of course or right. It is the Decree holder who has to satisfy the twin conditions for getting an order of arrest of the 1st Judgment debtor. Having regard to the material brought on record, this court is of the considered opinion that the

Decree holder failed to satisfy the twin conditions for securing an order of arrest against the Judgment debtor. Hence the Decree holder is not entitled to the relief prayed for in the Execution Petition. The point is accordingly answered in the negative.

8. In the result, the Execution Petition is dismissed.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade II, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 12th day of April, 2024.

VI Addl. District Judge, Bapatla FAC XI Addl. District Judge, Tenali 4

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined

For D.Hr.,/Petitioner:For J.Drs/ Respondents : None

PW1/ M. Umamaheswara Rao

Documents marked For D.Hr./Petitioner: Nil

For J.Drs/Respondents: Nil (Sd/-) Sri K.P. Balaji VI Addl. District Judge, Bapatla FAC XI Addl. District Judge, Tenali