Smt. Kshama Deshpande

SC(POCSO)Case No.63/2023

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL

AND DISPOSAL OF RAPE CASES AND CASES UNDER PROTECTION OF

CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT AT WARANGAL

Monday, the 16th day of March, 2026

PRESENT: SMT. KSHAMA DESHPANDE,

Special Judge for SPE & ACB Caces -Cum-

III Addl. Sessions Judge, Warangal FAC-Special Sessions Judge for Expeditious Disposal of Rape Cases and Cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Warangal.

SESSIONS CASE (POCSO) CASE No. 63 of 2023

in

Crime No.389 of 2023

of

P.S., Mills Colony

1.Name of the Complainant:The State of Telangana, through SI of Police, PS Mills Colony.

2.Name of the Accused:Madde Manoj @ Harsha Siddu @ Siddu S/o Sadaiah, Age: 21 years, Caste: Mudiraj, Occ: Car Driver, R/o Manikanta Colon Road NO.4, nar Koti Linga Temple, Kashibugga, Warangal, N/oGovindapur,Pogallapalli, Kothaguda (M).

3.Offence with which Charged:u/Ss. 363 of IPC and Section 11 r/w 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.

4.Plea of the Accused:Pleaded not guilty

5.Finding of the Court: Found not guilty

Accused is found not guilty of the

6.Sentence of Order:: offence punishable under Sections 363 of IPC and Section 11 r/w 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 235(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure for the said offence. The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused shall stay in force for a period of six months from this date. MO.1 & MO.2 shall be returned to its true owner after verification of his right and title, after 1/11

SC(POCSO)Case No.63/2023 lapse of appeal time The unmarked case property, if any shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time. Sri G.Venkatramana,

7.Name of the Prosecution Counsel : Special Public Prosecutor

Sri K.Narender,

8.Name of the Defence Counsel: Counsel for the Accused.

This case is coming for final hearing before me on 10.03.2026 in the presence of both the counsels on record, upon hearing both sides and upon considering the material evidence 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 ::

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Mills Colony filed charge-sheet against the accused for the offence punishable u/Ss. 363 of IPC and Section 11 r/w 12 of the

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 23.06.2023 at 1330 hrs, father of the victim lodged a complaint in PS- Mills Colony stating that his daughter/victim is 15 years old studying 10th class in KIWI School, SRR Thota. That on 23.06.2023, afternoon while victim came from school changed her uniform and wore normal dress and at about 01.30 p.m., she left from the house saying that she is going to Kirana shop and did not came back, due to which they searched for victim in all knowing places and relatives houses, but she was not traced. That while leaving the house, the victim wore pink panjabi dress and white colour chunni and her height is 5 feet, dark complexion, LW.1 stated that he suspecting one person who is chatting in Instagram with his daughter with mobile

No.9010803129.

3.Basing on the complaint, LW.13 registered a case in Crime No.389/2023 u/s.

2/11

SC(POCSO)Case No.63/2023 363 of IPC, issued FIR and took up investigation. During course of investigation,

LW.13 examined and recorded statement of LW.1 and collected LW.4/victim’s photo and sent the samse to electronic and print media to wide publicity to trace the victim and also sent look out notice through online to all PSs Telangana State and requested them that if trace the Missing girl inform to SHO Mills Colony PS.

That on 24.06.2023, LW.3 visited scene of offence, secured the presence of mediators LW.6 and LW.7 and drew rough sketch in their presence and incorporated the physical features of the scene in crime detail form.

4.That on 24.06.2023 on letter of LW.13, Head Master/LW.5 verified the records and issued date of birth certificate, as per which the age of victim is 15 years and 8 months and date of birth is 05.10.2017. On 25.06.2023 at late hours the LW.1 to LW.3 brought the victim girl and produced her beforeLW.13, who examined the Lw.2 and lW.3 and recoded their statements ad due to late night,

LW.13 requested them to produce the victim before Barosa Center on 26.06.2023 for recording her statement.

5.On 26.06.2023, LW.13 addressed a letter to Administrator, Barosa,

Warangal to record statement of Victim girl, and LW.10 examined and recorded statement of LW.4/victim girl under cover of video with support of

LW.11/photographer. Basing on the statement of victim girl, the victim is minor and the accused kidnapped her on his motor cycle by telling optimistic words.

Hence, section 11 r/w 12 of POCSO Act is added.

6.On 27.06.2023 at 09.00 hours, accused was apprehended at his house and on interrogation in the presence of LW.8 and LW.9, the accused voluntarily confessed his guilt and shown the motor cycle which was used for commission of offence and LW.13 was seized the said Motor cycle bearing No. AP 05 BT 5169 and 3/11

SC(POCSO)Case No.63/2023

Apple mobile phone, under confessional and seizure panchanama and affected his arrest. On requisition of LW.13, LW.12 recorded section 164 Cr.P.C., statement of the victim girl. After completion of investigation, LW.13 filed charge-sheet.

7.The Hon’ble I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Warangal took cognizance of the offence punishable u/Ss 363 of IPC and Section 11 r/w 12 of the Protection of

Children from Sexual Offences Act against the accused.

8.On appearance of the accused, the copies of the charge sheet and other documents were furnished to him under Section 207 Cr.P.C. and the case was received by this Court on being transferred from Hon’ble I Addl. District &

Sessions Judge, Warangal. The learned Special Public Prosecutor and learned

counsel for the accused were heard on the charges.

9.On perusal of the record, charges u/Ss. 363 of IPC and Section 11 r/w 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act were framed against the accused. The charges were read over and explained to the accused in Telugu language, for which he pleaded not guilty for the said offence and claimed to be tried.

10.During the course of trial, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 11 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.18 and MO1 and MO2.

11.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined u/S.313 Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, which he denied and reported no defence evidence.

12.Heard both sides and perused the record.

13.The counsel for the accused filed judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 846 between P.Yuvaprakash Vs. State Rep.by 4/11

SC(POCSO)Case No.63/2023

Inspector of Police held that “14. Section 94 (2)(iii) of the JJ Act clearly indicates that the date of birth certificate from the school or matriculation or equivalent certificate by the concerned examination board has to be firstly preferred in the absence of which the birth certificate issued by the Corporation or Municipal

Authority or Panchayat and it is only thereafter in the absence of these such documents the age is to be determined through “an ossification test” or “any other latest medical age determination test” conducted on the orders of the concerned authority, i.e. Committee or Board or Court.”

14.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable u/Ss. 363, IPC and Section 11 r/w 12 of the Protection

of Children from Sexual Offences Act beyond all reasonable doubt ?

PROSECUTION EVIDENCE:

15.The case of the prosecution is based on the report given by the

Informant/father of the victim girl and the statement of victim girl that the accused kidnapped her in the name of love. To prove its case, the prosecution is relying upon the evidence of PW.1 to PW.11.

16.PW.1/Victim girl deposed that she is studying 10th class and she know accused through Instagram about 1½ year ago. On 23.06.2023, while she was returning from school, she saw accused and went into her home. That after refreshing by saying to her mother as she is going to kirana shop, she went to the accused and both wen tot Ursugutta, and after half an hour due to rain they both went to the grand mother’s house of the accused, and while coming to their house, her brother-in-law saw them and due to fear they went to SR Thota. Later accused dropped her at her house and without entering into her house, she went to Darga and slept in Darga during night and on the next day she returned from 5/11

SC(POCSO)Case No.63/2023

Darga. She further deposed that due to her absence, her parents lodged a complaint. That police examined and recorded her statement and Magistrate recorded her statement.

17.PW.2 who is the father of the victim girl deposed that he do not know anything about the facts of the case and one of his relative took his signature on a paper and that he do not know the contents mentioned therein. He further deposed that police did not examined him.

18.PW.3/mother of victim, PW.4/brother in law of victim deposed that they do not know the facts of the case and that police never examined them.

19.PW.5/D.Sridhar, PW.6/K.Sathish, PW.7/K.Rajesh, Pw.8/A.Sambashivudu deposed that around 2 years back they went to P.S.Mills Colony where Police obtained their signature on paper and that they do not know the contents mentioned therein.

20.PW.9/K.Laxmi the then Woman SI of police, Bharosa Center Warangal deposed that on 26.06.2023, on the instructions of SI of Police, Mills Colony, she recorded the statement of victim/PW.1 and video graphed the same with the assistance of LW.11-K.Sagarika at Bharosa Center. That she singed on 161 Cr.P.C., statement of the victim.

21.PW.10/K.Sagrika deposed that on 26.06.2023 as per instructions of Sub-

Inspector of Police, Mills Colony she videographed the recording of section 161

Cr.P.C, statement of victim by Sub-Inspector of Police/PW.9 in the office camera and that she handed over the CD containing statement to escort WPC.

22.PW.11/D.Sambaiah, the then SI of Police Mills Colony deposed about receiving of complaint, registration of FIR, investigation done by him, filing of charge-sheet.

6/11

SC(POCSO)Case No.63/2023

23.The allegations against the accused is that he kidnapped the minor victim girl/PW.1 and charge for the for the offence under section 363 IPC and section 11 r/w 12 of POCSO Act.

24.In the instant case PW.1 is the victim, PW.2 is the father of the victim girl and PW.3 is the mother of PW.2.

25.As per the facts elicited in cross examination PW.1 state that she is studying 10th class in KIWI public school, Kareemabad, Warangal ad the timing of her school are 09.00 am to 04.30 pm. That the distance between her house and school is about 1 kilo meter and that they generally leave the school at 04.30 p.m. She further stated that she did not gave the phone number to police.

26.PW.2 to PW.8 were declared hostile and no material facts were elicited during their cross examination.

27.As per the facts elicited in cross examination of PW.9, PW.9 stated that she have not mentioned the time of requisition received by her to record 161 Cr.P.C., statement of victim. That there is no necessity to take permission from her higher authority to record the statement of victim. That in Bharosa Center she is working as Sub-Inspector of Woman police and she is authorized person to record the statement of victim and she have not stated before the SI that who brought the victim girl to Bharosa Center. That she have not stated before the police that in whose presence she recorded statement of victim.

28.As per the facts elicited in cross examination of PW.10, PW.10 stated that she did not state in her section 161 Cr.P.C., statement that Sub-Inspector of

Police,Mills Colony instructed her to videograph the recording of statement and that she recorded statement in office camera and after recording the statement, she handed over CD to escort WPC. That she did not state in her section 161 7/11

SC(POCSO)Case No.63/2023

Cr.P.C., statement that as to whether the statement is recorded in camera or cell phone or by any other electronic device. That by investigating office did not give any requisition in writing to videograph the recording of statement of the victim.

That she did not give any certificate to investigating office to show that she is qualified and authorized person to videograph the recording of statement. That she did not prepare form 65-B certificate and handed over the WPC.

29.As per the facts elicited in cross examination PW.11 stated that he did not mentioned the Instagram and facebook accounts in the charge-sheet. That he did not collect CCTV footage and did not examine the principal or teacher and any other classmate of the victim girl to ascertain whether the victim girl attended the school on the date of alleged incident. That he did not examine the service provider of the mobile number of the accused an also did not collect call data.

That there is no mention of name of record in the section 161 Cr.P.C., statement of

PW.9 as to in whose presence the statement was recorded and that he did not file any certificate to show that PW.10 is having technical skills.

30.To prove for the charge under section 363 of IPC, the following ingredients are to be established :

i.Taking or enticing any minor under 18 years of age if a female, ii.Taking or enticing out of keeping of lawful guardians of such minor without the consent of such guardian.

AGE OF THE VICTIM:

31.The prosecution filed study, conduct and date of birth certificate of the victim girl showing her date of birth is 05.10.2007. The date of the offence is 23.06.2023 and the victim is below age of 18 years and child as per definition of section 2(d) of POCSO Act.

32.The material witnesses in this case i.e., PW.1 and other witnesses PWs. 2 to 8/11

SC(POCSO)Case No.63/2023 4 who are the parents and brother-in-law of victim did not support the prosecution and also the panch witnesses for crime details from and confession- cum-recovery, did not support the case of prosecution. Further, as per evidence of investigating officer did not mention instagram and facebook accounts in the charge-sheet. The other facts elicited in cross examination of PW.1 regarding non- filing of certificate to show that PW.10 is having technical skills or non mentioning of time in Ex.P9 when recording of statement is started and when it is concluded are of not much relevant to the facts since minor discrepancies in any way effect the case of the prosecution.

33.As per the evidence of PW.1 she went to the accused and they both went to

Ursu Gutta and from there to grandmother house of the accused and from there to SR Thota, subsequently the accused dropped her at home and she went to

Dargah an slept in the night.

34.As seen from the evidence of pw.1 there is no mention that she was forcibly taken by the accused from her parents and further as per the evidence the accused dropped her at her house and she herself went to Dargah and slept there at night. The other witnesses Pws.2 to 4 did not state anything about the accused taking away PW.1 without their consent. Anyhow they were declared hostile and no other material facts were elicited.

35.As seen from the evidence on record, the ingredients of the section 363

Indian Penal Code against the accused are not found to be established

36.In the result, the accused is found not guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 363 of IPC and Section 11 r/w 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 235(1) of

Code of Criminal Procedure for the said offence. The bail bonds and surety bonds 9/11

SC(POCSO)Case No.63/2023 of the accused shall stay in force for a period of six months from this date. MO.1 &

MO.2 shall be returned to its true owner after verification of his right and title, after lapse of appeal time The unmarked case property, if any shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 16th day of March, 2026)

Sd/- Kshama Deshpande,

FAC-Special Sessions Judge for Expeditious Disposal of Rape Cases and Cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Warangal.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: PW.1: Victim PW.2:Father of victim PW.3:mother of victim. PW.4: brother-in-law of victim. PW.5:D.Sridhar/ PW.6:K.Sathish/ PW.7:K.Rajesh/ PW.8:A.Sambashivudu/ PW.9:K.Laxmi/Recorded the statement of victim. PW.10:K.Sagirika/videographed the statement of victim PW.11: D.Sambaiah/Investigating officer.

FOR DEFENCE: ---NIL---

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P.1:Signature of PW.2 on Complaint. Ex.P.2: 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW.2. Ex.P.3:161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW.3. Ex.P.4:161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW.4. Ex.P.5:Signature of PW.5 on CDF, dt.24.06.2023. Ex.P.6:Signature of PW.6 on CDF, dt.24.06.2023. Ex.P7 :Signature of PW.7 on PW.17. Ex.P8:Signature of PW.8 on PW.17. Ex.P9:Signature of PW.10 on 161 Cr.P.C, statement of PW.1. Ex.P10:Requisition, dt.26.06.2023 of SI of Police, PS Mills Colony. Ex.P11:CD. Ex.P12:Complaint, dt.23.06.2023. Ex.P13:FIR, dt.23.06.2023. Ex.P14:Crime Details Form along with rough sketch. Ex.P15:Date of Birth certificate of victim. Ex.P16:Section adding memo. Ex.P17:Confession -cum- seizure panchanama, dt.27.06.2023. Ex.P18:Section 164 Cr.P.C., statement of PW.1 10/11

SC(POCSO)Case No.63/2023

FOR DEFENCE: -nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MO.1:Apple phone (black colour). MO.2:Splendor Motor Cycle.

FAC-Special Sessions Judge for Expeditious Disposal of Rape Cases and Cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Warangal.

11/11

SC(POCSO) No. 69 of 2022

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL

AND DISPOSAL OF RAPE CASES AND CASES UNDER PROTECTION OF

CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT AT WARANGAL

Tuesday, the 17th day of March, 2026.

PRESENT: SMT.KSHAMA DESHPANDE, FAC-Special Sessions Judge for Expeditious Disposal of Rape Cases and Cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act Warangal.

SESSIONS CASE (POCSO) NO. 69 of 2022

Crime No.187/2021 of PS., Nekkonda

1.Name of the Complainant: The State of Telangana, through Commissioner of Police, Narsampet.

2. Name of the Accused: Lakavath Suresh, S/o Bhavisingh, Age: 21 years, ST-Lambada, R/o Dhudhya Thanda, H/o Gotlakonda of Nekkonda(M).

3.Offence with which Charged: under Sections 366(A),376(2)(n),376(3) of IPC, Section 5(l) r/w 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and section 9 of Child Marriage Act against the accused.

4.Plea of the Accused: Pleaded not guilty

5.Finding of the Court: Found not guilty : Accused is found not guilty of the

6.Sentence or Order offence punishable under Sections 366(A),376(2)(n),376(3) of IPC, Section 5(l) r/w 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and section 9 of Child Marriage Act and accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 235(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure for the said offence. The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused shall stay in force for a period of six months from this date. The unmarked case property, if any shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time. :Sri. G.Venkatarama,

7.Name of the Prosecution Counsel Special Public Prosecutor :Sri M.Raju,

8.Name of the Defence Counsel Counsel for the Accused. This case is coming on this day for final hearing before me on 11.03.2026 in the presence of both the counsels on record, upon hearing both sides and upon 1/9

SC(POCSO) No. 69 of 2022 considering the material evidence 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 ::

1)The Commissioner of Police, Narsampet filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Sections 366(A),376(2)(n),376(3) of IPC, Section 5(l) r/w 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and section 9 of Child

Marriage Act.

2)The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 23.12.2021 at 18.00 hours, the complainant/LW.1-father of victim lodged a complaint stating that, his daughter/victim is studying 8th class and on 22.12.2021 she had dinner along with family members and slept in her room of their house. On 23.12.2021 morning

LW.2/mother of victim went into the room of victim and found her missing. That they could not find cloths bag, chappal belong to their daughter and they searched in their surroundings and also caused enquires with the relatives over phone. The complainant suspects that the accused, whom he warned when accused followed his daughter/victim in the name of love. The complainant/LW.1 requested to take action and trace out his missing daughter.

3)On receipt of above report, LW.19 registered a case in Crime No.187/2021 under section 363 of IPC, issued FIR and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, LW.19 examined and recorded statement of LW.1 and collected photograph of the victim prepared lookout notice and sent the same through messaging system to all the SHOs of Telangana state for getting clues.

That on 24.12.2021, LW.19 visited scene of offence, secured presence of LW.2, examined her and recorded her statement and further secured presence of LW.9 and LW.10 and in their presence examined scene of offence and incorporated in 2/9

SC(POCSO) No. 69 of 2022

Crime Details Form-I. Subsequently, LW.20 took up the investigation of the case.

4)On 10.01.2022, LW.20 sent a requisition to LW.3 for the date of birth of victim and LW.3 furnished the date of birth certificate of the victim in which it is certified that the date of birth of the victim is 07.08.2006, as per which victim is a minor girl.

On 21.01.2022 at 10.30 hours, the victim came to PS Nekkonda and approached

LW.20 and disclosed her identity and LW.20 took her to Sakhi Center Narsampet for safe night stay. Later, LW.20 informed the same to the parents of victim and on the next day, the parents of the victim visited Sakhi Center and talked to the victim and thereafter, LW.20 examined the victim and recorded her statement.

5)Basing on the statement of victim, LW.20 altered the section of law from 363

IPC to 363, 376(2)(n), 376(3) IPC, section 5 r/w 6 of POCSO Act, section 9 of Child

Marriage Act and submitted section alteration memo to JFCM, Narsampet.

Thereafter, LW.21 prepared a letter to Admin, Bharosa Center at Waragnal with a request to record the statement of victim and further he referred victim to CKM

Maternity Hospital, Matwada, Warangal with a request to provide treatment and conduct medical examination. That LW.16, who treated victim, prepared seminal swabs of the victim and same were forwarded to RFSL on 24.01.2022 for examination.

6)On 23.01.2022, LW.15 examined and recorded statement of victim at Bharosa

Center. On 23.01.2022, LW.21 visited scene of offence and examined LW.1 and

LW.2 and observed that victim wantedly misguided the police by saying that they have gone to Vijayaada instead of Rangasaipet and Burhanpally, but the victim narrated the facts to her parents. On which LW.21 re-recorded their statements and on 24.01.2022 LW.21 examined and recorded the statement of LW.5. On instructions of LW.21, LW.20 visited Rangasaipet and Burhanpally to collect 3/9

SC(POCSO) No. 69 of 2022 evidence in the case.

7)On 25.01.2022, LW.20 visited the house at Rangasaipet, where the accused sexually exploited the victim, examined the witnesses Lws.6 and 7 and recorded their statements. Later secured presence of LW.11 & 12, examined the scene minutely and drafted crime details form-II. On 26.01.2022, LW.20 visited the house at Burhanpally, where the accused sexually exploited the victim repeatedly and

LW.9 examined LW.8 and recorded his statement, secured the presence of LW.13 and LW.14, examined the scene minutely and drafted crime details form-III.

8)On 26.03.2022 the accused was arrested and sent for judicial custody. That

LW.17 conducted the potency test of the accused and furnished report.

Subsequently, LW.22 took up further investigation. On 23.04.2022, LW.18 recorded the statement of victim under section 164 of Cr.P.C. After completion of investigation, LW.22/Commissioner of Police, Narsampet filed a charge sheet against the Accused.

9)The Hon’ble I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Warangal took cognizance of the offence punishable u/Ss. 366(A), 376(2)(n), 376(3) of IPC, sec.5(l) r/w 6 of the

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and section 9 of Child Marriage

Act against the accused.

10) On appearance of the accused, the copies of the charge sheet and other documents were furnished to him under Section 207 Cr.P.C. and the case was received by this Court on being transferred from Hon’ble I Addl. District & Sessions

Judge, Warangal.

11) The learned Special Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the accused were heard on the charges.

12) On perusal of the record, charges u/Ss., 366(A), 376(2)(n), 376(3) of IPC, Section 4/9

SC(POCSO) No. 69 of 2022 5(l) r/w 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and section 9 of

Child Marriage Act, against the accused were framed, read over and explained to him, for which he pleaded not guilty for the said offence and claimed to be tried.

13) During the course of trial, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 6 and got marked Ex.P1 to P16.

14) After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined u/S.313

Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, which he denied and reported no defence evidence.

15)Heard both sides and perused the record.

16)Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the

offence punishable under Sections 366(A),376(2)(n),376(3) of IPC, Section

5(l) r/w 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and

section 9 of Child Marriage Act, beyond all reasonable doubt ?

POINT:

17)The case of the prosecution is that the accused kidnapped minor girl, and repeatedly committed rape by marrying her.

18)To prove the same, prosecution has relied upon the evidence of PW.1 to

PW.6.

19) PW.1/Victim girl deposed that she do not know the facts of the present case and that police never examined her. She further deposed that she was examined by Magistrate and she she do not remember what she stated before

Magistrate.

20)PW.2/father of victim, he do not know facts of the case and that there was a land dispute between him and the accused, as such he went to police station. That 5/9

SC(POCSO) No. 69 of 2022 he admitted his signature on report, but deposed that he do not know the contents mentioned therein. He further deposed that police never examined her.

21)PW.3/mother of victim deposed that there was a land dispute between their family and accused, except that she do not know anything about the facts of the case. She further deposed that police never examined her.

22)PW.4/Dr.Shireesha Mantena deposed that on receiving requisition from

Assistant Commissioner of Police, Narsampet in the mid night of 23.01.2022 at 02.20 am, and the victim was produced before her, immediately she registered said case as MLC bearing No.795 of 2022, dt.23.01.2022. That she concerned the victim and examined her physically and she co operative, conscious, coherent and on examination and found external and genital organs are healthy and no injuries are found on the body and Hymen not intact and allowed two fingers loose. She deposed that there is no abnormal bleeding or discharge. That she collected vaginal swabs and smear, and pubic hair send for RFSL for medical examination.

She further deposed that she received RFSL report, dt.07.03.2022 and they opined that semen and spermatozoa are not detected on sent. Thereafter, she issued final opinion that “there is no medical evidence of recent sexual intercourse and nothing is suggesting that she has not participated in the sexual intercourse.”

23)PW.5/Dr.Arun deposed that on receiving the requisition from Nekkonda

Police station on 27.03.2022 to conduct physical and genital examination fo accused, he examined the accused/Lakavath Suresh on 27.03.2022 at about 11.10 a.m., produced by police. That he examined the accused physically and genitally and he was hale and healthy and he opined that “there is nothing to suggest that the male examined is not capable of performing sexual act.”

24)PW.5/investigating officer deposed about the receiving of complaint, 6/9

SC(POCSO) No. 69 of 2022 registering the case and issuing of FIR and investigation done by him, LWs.19,20, 22 and regarding filing of charge sheet.

25)PW.1 who is the victim did not support the case of the prosecution and she was declared hostile. In her cross examination by Spl.P.P., no material facts were elicited in support of the prosecution and PW.1 stated that she have married the accused an they were blessed with a child. The other witnesses PW.2 and PW.3 were also declared hostile and in their cross examination by Spl.P.P., no material facts were elicited infavour of the prosecution.

26)As seen from the record, there is only evidence of Pws.4 to 6. PW.4 deposed about the examination of the victim girl and issuing the opinion and PW.5, who examined the accused, PW.6 is the investigating officer.

27)As per the evidence of PW.4, the opinion is that there was nothing to suggest she is not participated in sexual intercourse and PW.5 is that there is nothing to suggest the accused is not capable to perform the sexual act.

28)The PW.1 who is the victim girl did not depose anything about the sexual act by accused and moreover, she was declared hostile and in her cross examination by learned Spl.P.P., no material facts were elicited.

29)If the victim and other material witnesses turned hostile or failed to support the case of the prosecution, conviction cannot be based solely on the evidence of the investigating officer and medical evidence. The evidence of the eye witnesses and other direct witnesses remain crucial for establishing guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

30)In the instant case though PW.6 deposed about the investigation done by him, but since there is nothing on record to prove the commission of offence or to connect the accused to such offence. Hence, this Court holds that prosecution 7/9

SC(POCSO) No. 69 of 2022 failed to prove the guilt of accused under any of the provisions charged against him beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, this point is answered against the prosecution.

31)In the result, the accused is found not guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 366(A),376(2)(n),376(3) of IPC, sec. 5(l) r/w 6 of the Protection of

Children from Sexual Offences Act and section 9 of Child Marriage Act and accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 235(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure for the said offence. The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused shall stay in force for a period of six months from this date. The unmarked case property, if any shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

(Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 17 th day of March, 2026).

Sd/- Smt. Kshama Deshpande,

FAC-Special Sessions Judge for Expeditious Disposal of Rape Cases and Cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Warangal.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW.1:Victim Girl. - NIL- PW.2:father of Victim girl. PW.3:mother of victim girl. PW.4:Dr.Shireesha Mantena/Lady Medical officer. PW.5:Dr.Arun/doctor who issued potency certificate. PW.6:Ch.R.V.Phaneendra/Investigating Officer.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P.1 : Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.1 Ex.P.2: Section 164 Cr.P.C, statement of PW.1. Ex.P.3 : Signature of PW.2 on report, dt.23.12.2021. Ex.P.4 : Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.2. Ex.P.5 : Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.3. Ex.P.6 : MLC report. Ex.P7: RFSL report. Ex.P8: Final Opinion, dt.28.03.2022. Ex.P9: Potency certificate, dt.27.03.2022. Ex.P10: Report, dt.23.12.2021. Ex.P11: FIR, dt.23.12.2021. Ex.P12: Crime Details Form-I, dt.24.12.2021. Ex.P13: Crime Details Form-II, dt.25.01.2022.

8/9

SC(POCSO) No. 69 of 2022

Ex.P14: Crime Details Form-III, dt.26.01.2022. Ex.P15: Study, conduct and Date of birth certificate of victim. Ex.P16: Section Alteration memo, dt.22.01.2022. FOR DEFENCE:--NIL – MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED : -NIL –

FAC-Special Sessions Judge for Expeditious Disposal of Rape Cases and Cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Warangal.

9/9

1

INTHECOURTOFTHEIIIADDITIONALDISTRICTJUDGE,WARANGAL

Present: Smt.KshamaDeshpande, III Addl. District Judge, Warangal.

Thursday,the26thdayofMarch,2026

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 23 of 2023

1.From what court this appeal is :Judicial Magistrate of First Class, preferredNarsampet

2.Number of cases in that court:C.C.No.128/2014

3.Name and description of the :Duggyala Dharmaraju, S/o Pochaiah, Age: 30 Appellantyears, Occu: Driver, R/o Nekonda, Yerukalawada, near Raiway bridge.

4.Name and description of the :The State of Telangana, through respondentPS Chennaraopet.

5.The sentence and law under :The accused is convicted under section 248(2) which it was passedCr.P.C., for the offcence U/s.411 IPCand he is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four months and the remand period of accused is from 21.12.2013 to 13.01.2014 shall be set off and the MO1 to MO7 which was handed over to interim custody vide Crl.MP.No.25/2014 shall holds good and final after appeal time.

6.Whether confirmed, modified or :Confirmed reversed; if modified, the modification

7.Date of filing:16.11.2023

8.Date of hearing:10.03.2026

9.Date of judgment:26.03.2026 This appeal is coming up before me for hearing in the presence of Sri P.Chiranjeevi, for the Appellant and Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing arguments and having stood over for consideration to this day, this court made the following:

JUDGMENT

1.This appeal was filed by the unsuccessful appellant/accused against the conviction and sentence passed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Narsampet in C.C.No.128/2014, dt.20.10.2023.

2.The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narsampet in C.C.No.128/2014, passed judgment on dt.20.10.2023, wherein the accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months for the offence under section 411 IPC.

2

3.The appellant preferred the appeal on several grounds, all of which have been thoroughly considered during this judgment.

THEBREVITYOFTHEPROSECUTIONCASE:

4.On 18.07.2013 at 08.00 hours the complainant/Mallam Venu lodged complaint at PS Chennaropet stating that he is resident of Lingagiri Village,

Chennaraopet mandal and on 17.07.2013 at 2200 hours he along with his wife and two daughters slept in second room, at 1200 hours some unknown offenders gained entrance into their kitchen through ventilator and committed theft of cash, gold and silver ornaments from the Almara which was kept in that room and cut down the gold pusthelathadu from the neck of his wife. That meanwhile his wife woke up and found missing of pusthelathadu and she informed the same to him. Further he and his wife got up and observed that the mosquito net was removed in first room and the doors of kitchen were open and that they did not lock the inside locker of the almarah also they kept the keys to locker. That they informed the same to his brother/sagar who is staying infront of his house and also to Rakam Mallesham and that they searched for the thieves and that they went away and when they returned, they found half Pusthelathadu along with pusthelu in the bed. That further they found missing of his wife’s necklace of new model about 2 thulas, w gold chains of complainant and his daughters, 1½ tula matilu, ½ tula ear studs, ¼ tula ring-5 grams and 3 sets of leg chains weighing about 12 tulas and net cash of Rs.23,000/-, 1 pustelathadu about 1¼ tula and took away the suit case of cloths which was kept on the almarah. That the offenders took away 4¾ tulas of gold ornaments, 12 tulas of silver leg chains, net cash of Rs.23,000/- and a piece of Pusthelathadu from the neck of complainant’s wife about ¼ tula. Total value of property is Rs.1,78,000/-, and requested to take action.

3

5.Basing on the evidence on record, the trial Court examined the accused u/s.239 CrPC and charges u/Sec.457,380 IPC against accused were framed and read over and explained to him in vernacular language, for which he pleaded not guilty and proceeded with trial. During the trial, the prosecution examined PWs-1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4 and MO.1 to MO.7. After considering the rival contentions and perusing the available material on record, the trial court found the accused is found guilty for the offence under Section 411 of IPC and convicted the accused for the said offence under section 248(2) Cr.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four months.

6.Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence of the trial Court, the

Appellant preferred this appeal on several grounds.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public

Prosecutor.

8. Now the point for determination is:

(i)Does the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narsampet in C.C.No.127/2014

dt.20.10.2023, suffers from infirmity.

(ii) If so, to what relief?

SUBMISSIONSFORTHECOUNSELFORTHEAPPELLANT:

9.The counsel for the appellant argued that the confession panch witness is stock witness to the police. That the property is recovered 6 month after the incident. That the panch witness is the stock witness to the police. That the chief examination of PW.1 was contradictory to that of Ex.P1/complaint. That the property is recovered after lapse of six months and the delay is fatal to the prosecution. That the appellant is not concerned with the offence and he is falsely implicated. Hence prayed to set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court.

4

SUBMISSIONSOFLEARNEDPUBLICPROSECUTOR:

10.The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the trial court has arrived at conclusion that the accused is guilty of the offence under section 457,380 of IPC.

PROSECUTIONEVIDENCE:

11.PW.1 to PW.3 deposed about theft of chain of PW.2 from her neck, along with necklace weighing about 2 tulas, 1 tula chaimn, ½ tula chain, one ring, one pair of matilu weighing about ½ tula, ear rings, leg chain weighing about 12 tulas and cash of Rs.23,000/- from the almairah of their house by unknown person.

That PW.1 along with their neighbours searched for offenders and when they reached to chennakeshava temple, they saw that one suitcase was broken and thrown their.

12.PW.4 who is the panch witness for confession and seizure stated about the confession of the accused committing the offence along with accused No.2 to 4 by trespassing into the house at Lingagiri thorugh ventilator and broke open almirah and committed theft of gold chains, gold ear studs with matilu, gold ring, three silver anklets and one gopu thadu snatched from the neck of woman and also committed theft of Rs.23000/- and also confessed about commission of other offence and MO.1 to MO7 were seized under cover of panchanama.

13.PW.5 deposed about receiving of report and registration of FIR in

Cr.No.173/2013 for the offence under section 457,380 of IPC.

14.PW.6 deposed about remanding of accused and conducting of confession and seizure panchanama. PW.7 filed charge sheet.

DISCUSSION:

15.On perusal of the FIR and charge sheet, it disclosed that the offence took place in the night of 17.07.2013 at 12.00 hours.

5

16.As seen from the record, though PW.1 and PW.2 deposed about unknown persons entering to their hose and snatched Pusthelathadu from the neck of PW.2 and about theft of gold and silver ornaments along with net cash of

Rs.23,000/-, and PWs .1 to 3 did not deposed about the accused committing theft and the material witness PW.4 has deposed about the accused confession of offence of committing theft and the MO.1 to MO.7 were recovered from the possession of the accused.

17.That MO.1 to MO.7 were marked through PW.2, she identified the property in the Court. The evidence of PW.1 to PW.3 remained unchallenged. As such it can be stated that there was an offence of theft took place and the MO.1 to

MO.7 is the stolen property.

18.Further the fact of recovery of MO1 to MO7 as stated by PW.4, who is the panch for confession and recovery in whose presence the accused confessed offence and MO1 to MO.7 was recovered from the possession of accused.

19.It is argued on behalf of the accused that the property was recovered after lapse of 6 months and the presumption under section 114(a) of Indian

Evidence Act does not attract and in this regard the learned counsel for appellant cited following Judgments:

i.The Judgment reported in 19940Supreme(Ker)180 between in

ChandranVs.StateofKerala wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “19-

What remains is the alleged recovery of articles belonging to Sivadasan on the basis of the statements given by accused. Sivadasan was found missing from 7-9-1991

Valuables alleged to have been taken from Sivadasan are shown to have been recovered on the basis of the statements given by the accused after the lapse of one month of the disappearance of Sivadasan. This delay is fatal to the prosecution. If the recoveries put forth by the prosecution is relied on, it can lead only to the 6 inference mat they are either receivers of stolen property or were persons who committed the theft. It cannot necessarily indicate that the theft and the murder took place at one and the same time. Even for drawing a presumption under S.114 of the Evidence Act, the possession of the stolen article by the accused must be soon after the theft.“ ii.The judgment reported in AIR1991SUPREMECOURT1224 between

KedarNathetcVs.StateofM.P., wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “Though there is no specific evidence as to the cause of death the prosecution proceeded on the presumption from to recovery of an empty cartridge seized from the side of the dead body that the deceased should have been murdered by shooting. Apart from this conjecture there is no evidence how the deceased met his end. Therefore, we are unable to agree with the finding of both the courts below as the evidence relating to the murder charge is insufficient and is not worthy of acceptance. It seems that there was no charge under Section 411. We think that it will not be worthwhile to convict these two appellants under Section 411, I.P.C. at the length of time, that too in the absence of any charge, though the appellant may not be prejudiced by such a conviction as the evidence, appearing on the records, puts them on notice.” iii.The judgment reported in AIR1974SUPREMECOURT777 between

NabaKumarDasVs.StateofW.B., wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “accused could not be convicted on the sole testimony of Circle Inspector”.

iv.The judgment reported in AIR1956SUPREMECOURT54 between

SanwatKhanandanotherVs.StateofRajasthan, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme

Court held that “in the absence of any direct or circumstantial evidence whatsoever, from the solitary circumstances of the unexplained recovery of the two articles from the houses of the two appellants the only inference that can be raised in view of 7 illustration A to S. 114 of the Evidence Act is that they are either receivers of stolen property or were the persons who committed the theft, but it does not necessarily indicate that the theft and the murders took place at one and the same time.”

20.The learned APP cited decision reported in 2023 Livelaw (SC) 279 between Balu Sudam Khalde & Anr Vs. The state of Maharastra , wherein the

Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “44-During the course of cross-examination with a

view to discredit the witness or to establish the defence on preponderance of probabilities suggestions are hurled on the witness but if such suggestions, the answer to those incriminate the accused in any manner then the same would definitely be binding and could be taken into consideration along with other evidence on record in support of the same.”

21.In the instant case it is the fact there was a lapse of 6 months between date of incident and the recovery from the accused. The appellant had no satisfactory explanation with regard to possession of stolen property.

22.The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Erabhadrappa Alias

Krishnappa Vs. State of Karnataka reported in AIR1983SC446wherein the

Hon’ble Supreme Court held that ‘The nature of presumption under illustration (a)

to s. 114 must depend upon the nature of the evidence adduced. No fixed time limit can be laid down to determine whether possession is recent or otherwise and each case must be judged on its own facts. The question as to what amounts to recent possession sufficient to justify the presumption of guilt varies according as the stolen article is or is not calculated to pass readily from hand to hand. If the stolen articles were such as were not likely to pass readily from hand to hand, the period of one year that elapsed cannot be said to be too long particularly when the appellant had been absconding during that period.” 8

23.In cross examination of PWs.4,5,6 and 7 nothing material is elicited to disprove the fact of the property recovered from the possession of the accused, except that PW.4 frequently visit police station on certain issues.

24.As seen from the evidence on record, it is established that there was offence of theft took place and the stolen property was recovered from the possession of the accused.

25.Hence, in view of the forgoing discussion this Court finds that the Trial

Court was rightly arrived at the conclusion and finds no reason to interfere in the finding of the trial Court.

26.Intheresult, the appeal is dismissed by confirming the judgment of conviction passed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narsampet in

C.C.No.128/2014, dt.20.10.2023, for the offence under section 411 I.P.C.

(Dictated to Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 26 th day of March, 2026).

Sd/-(KSHAMA DESHPANDE)

III Addl.District & Sessions Judge, Warangal.

:APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE: :Exhibits Marked:

For Petitioner: For Respondents:

NIL NIL

Sd/-(KSHAMA DESHPANDE)

III Addl.District & Sessions Judge, Warangal.

Copyto

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narsampet, along with entire case record original

Trial Court record C.C.No.127/2014 as per index vide Dis.No.Dt:

AS No. 178 of 2022

INTHECOURTOFTHEIIIADDITIONALDISTRICTJUDGEATWARANGAL

Thursday, the 26th day of March, 2026.

PRESENT: SMT.KSHAMADESHPANDE, III Addl. District Judge, Warangal.

APPEALSUITNO.178OF2022 Between: Kudikala Sharadha W/o Venkataswam, Age: 60, Occu: House Wife, R/o 16-10-1135, Shivanagar, Warangal.

...Appellant/Plaintiff.

AND

Chatla Sadanandam S/o Vekataiah, Age: 47 years, Occu: Record Assistant, B.Ed College,Hanamkonda, R/o H.No.16-1-395, S.R.R.Thota, Warangal.

...Respondents/Defendant.

THE APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE APPELLANT AGGRIEVED BY THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.10.2017 PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT WARANGAL IN OS NO. 905 OF 2014.

Between: Kudikala Sharadha W/o Venkataswam, Age: 60, Occu: House Wife, R/o 16-10-1135, Shivanagar, Warangal.

...Plaintiff

AND

Chatla Sadanandam S/o Vekataiah, Age: 47 years, Occu: Record Assistant, B.Ed College,Hanamkonda, R/o H.No.16-1-395, S.R.R.Thota, Warangal.

...Defendant

This case is coming on 09.03.2026 before me for final hearing in the presence of SriM.Ranjith,learned counsel for the Appellant and K.P.Eshwarnath, learned counsel for the Respondent and the having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following: :: JUDGMENT ::

This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree passed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal in O.S.No.905/2014, Dated 13.10.2017.

1. The appellant is the plaintiff, and the respondent is the defendant. The present suit is filed for recovery of Rs.1,50,000/- based on the promissory note and 1/8

AS No. 178 of 2022

to award cost of suit.For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as plaintiff and defendant as arrayed in the original suit.

2. The brief averments of the plaint filed in the suit are that the plaintiff and defendant are well known to each other through plaintiff’s grand daughter/Komakula Swarna Latha, who is a lab attender. That the defendant approached the plaintiff on 20.01.2012 requesting to advance an amount of

Rs.1,50,000/- and the plaintiff has lent an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to defendant on 20.01.2012, that the plaintiff having ready money with her, accordingly the defendant after receipt of amount, executed promissory note infavour of plaintiff infront of witnesses agreeing to repay the same within one month with interest @2% p.m. That the defendant did not repay the principal with interest after one month and the plaintiff approached the defendant. That the defendant to discharge his legally enforceable debt, issue cheque bearing No.750663 of Karur Vysya Bank

Ltd., Hanamkonda for Rs.1,50,000/-, dt.23.12.2012. That the plaintiff presented the cheque to into her backer i.e. State Bank of India Battala Bazar Branch on 23.02.2012, or which the said banker sent the cheque to defendant banker for encashment, where defendant banker returned the said cheque with an endorsement that the ‘payment stopped by drawer’ and the plaintiff got intimated the same on 27.02.2012.

3.That the plaintiff informed the same to defendant and the defendant assured that the cheque should be presented after one month. That the plaintiff against presented the cheque on 07.04.2012, wherein the said banker has sent the cheque to defendant banker for encashment, and the said cheque was returned with an endorsement of ‘payment stopped by drawer’ and the same was informed to plaintiff on 09.04.2012. That the plaintiff has issued legal notice on 10.04.2012, and 2/8

AS No. 178 of 2022

the notice was sent to defendant two different addresses and the defendant received the same and did not replied to the same. As such a cheque bounce case was filed before I Addl.Judicial First Class Magistrate, Warangal in C.C.No.253/2012.

That the said cheque bounce case was dismissed on 24.10.2014. That as the defendant failed to pay the amount, the suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant.

4.The defendant filed written statement denying the contents of the plaint and further stated that there is no capacity to plaintiff to lend the cash and no consideration was passed and the signatures are forged on promissory note, cheque, acknowledgment cards and the plaintiff managed the postal authorities.

That the plaintiff filed the suit with the collusion of attestor sin the promissory note, and prayed to dismiss the suit.

5.Basing on the above pleadings, trial court framed following issues:

(i) Whether the promissory note, dt.20.01.2012 is true, valid and binding on defendant ?

(ii) Whether cheque No.750663, dt.23.02.2012 is true, valid and issued in discharge of debt covered by promissory note, dt.20.01.2012 ?

(iii) Whether there was no cause of action to file suit ?

(iv) Whether plaintiff is entitled to recover suit amount ?

(v) To what relief?

6.Before the trial Court the plaintiff examined PW.1 & PW.2 and got marked

Ex.A.1 to A8. On behalf of the defendant, DW.1 was examined and got marked

Ex.B1 and B2.

7.After trial, the suit was dismissed without costs by the Trial court vide judgment dated 13.10.2017. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed.

3/8

AS No. 178 of 2022

8.It is the contention of the appellant/plaintiff that the lower court wrongly shifted the burden of sending the signature of defendant in suit to expert opinion.

That Ex.A1 to A8 proved the case of the plaintiff. That the respondent did not plead that signatures on Ex.A1 are forged. That the promissory note and signature therein are genuine.

9.On behalf of the respondent/defendant it is submitted that the lower court has rightly arrived at conclusion and dismissed the suit. Further the defendant denied to have executed promissory note and passing of consideration.

10.Basing on the rival arguments for the plaintiff and defendant, the following points would emerge for consideration.

(i ) Whether the Promissory Note, dt.20.01.2012, is true, valid and binding on the defendant ?

(ii) Whether thejudgment of the Trial Court needs any interference ?

POINT No.1:

11.During the trial plaintiff got examined herself as PW.1 and PW.2 on her behalf. PW.1 reiterated the contents of plaint in chief examination affidavit.

12.PW.2 stated that she know the plaintiff and plaintiff lent money of Rs.

1,50,000/- to defendant, and defendant executed promissory note, dt.20.01.2012 infront of PW.2 and Laxman, and Laxman scribed of the said promissory note.

13.DW.1 in chief examination stated that he never received any amount from plaintiff and signatures on promissory note, cheque, postal acknowledgment are forged signatures. That the plaintiff filed 138 proceedings n C.C.No.253 of 2012 and the same was dismissed on 24.10.2014 in which I Addl. Senior Civil Judge mentioned the signatures on Ex.P1 and P2 is not pertains to the defendant. That the plaintiff filed Crl.Appeal No.122/2014 on the file of Hon’ble Prl. Sessions Judge, and the 4/8

AS No. 178 of 2022

same was dismissed by confirming the judgment of I Addl.Judicial First Class

Magistrate, Warangal on 02.09.2015. That the plaintiff created documents with

collusion of K.Swarna Latha and filed the above case.

14.In the instant case the defendant denied to have received the amount and execution of promissory note.

15.Therefore, under section 138 of NI Act, the burden lies on the plaintiff to prove that the instrument has been executed by the defendant and once it is proved, the presumption is to be drawn infavour of the plaintiff that the instrument drawn for the purpose it has been stated. Thereafter, the burden shift upon the defendant to prove that the instrument is not executed by him and not supported by consideration. Section 118 of NI Act deals with the presumptions as to

Negotiable Instruments, one of such presumption is that every Negotiable

Instrument is made or drawn for consideration, and that every such instrument, when it has been accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred, was accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration.

DISCUSSION:

16.The suit is filed basing on the promissory note, dt.20.01.2012.

17.It is the contention of the plaintiff is that she has lent an amount of

Rs.1,50,000/- to the defendant in the presence of Swarnalatha and Laxman, and the defendant in turn executed promissory note. In support to the contention, plaintiff filed original promissory note, dt.20.01.2012/Ex.A1 and also examined witness/Swarnalatha, who has deposed about plaintiff giving amount to the defendant and further defendant executing the promissory note.

18.As per the facts elicited in cross examination of PW.1, who is the plaintiff stated that she is a tailor working in home and get Rs.3000 to Rs.4000/- per month.

5/8

AS No. 178 of 2022

She know defendant through Swarnalatha and she filed C.C.No.253/2012 under section 138 of NI Act which was acquittal and she preferred appeal which was also dismissed. That she has no bank account and whatever saving she could make, she kept in her house. She did not lent money on interest. Ex.A1 was scribed by

Laxman. PW.2 stated that plaintiff is her maternal grandmother, she know defendant since PW.2 and DW.1 worked together. The plaintiff has no income. That on 20.02.2012, between 8 and 9 am, the transaction took place and she was present at that time and Laxman was also present. She did not know the details of criminal cases filed by plaintiff. That plaintiff has bank account, she came to know that plaintiff has money in her bank account.

19.As seen from the depositions, the evidence of PW.1 is supported by PW.2, the suit promissory note is filed by PW.1 marked as Ex.A1, PW.2 is said to be present on the date of transaction and attested Ex.A1, but as seen from the record the plaintiff did not plead either in her plaint or in chief examination affidavit about the presence of PW.2 and Laxman during the transaction of lending amount to the defendant. But the plaintiff has examined Swarnalath as witness in support of her case and the inconsistent stand taken by the plaintiff undermines and creates suspicion.

20. In support of the case, the PW.1 filed copy of passbook/Ex.A3, but as seen from the cross examination of PW.1, she is not having bank account which is contrary to the statement of PW.2, who stated that PW.1 is having bank account. As such the oral evidence of PW.1 and PW2 is the contrary of the documentary evidence.

21.The plaintiff/PW.1 filed Ex.A2 i.e., cheque for discharge fo liability and further pleaded that the cheque bounce case is filed in C.C.No.253/2012.

6/8

AS No. 178 of 2022

22.DW.1 in his cross examination deposed that he know PW.2 since they are colleagues as teachers. He has not adduced evidence in cheque bounce case. He do not know how his the cheque went into the hands of plaintiff and the signature on promissory note is not his. That DW.1 denied the signature on promissory note is not his signature. He has not give police complaint alleging missing of his cheque.

He has informed his bank authorities about missing of cheque orally.

23.The defendant filed Ex.B1/C.C. of Judgment in C.C.No253/2012, dt.24.10.2014 and Ex.B2/C.C. of Judgment in Crl.Appeal No.122/2014, dt.02.09.2015 which shows that the complaint filed by the PW.1 herein was ended in acquittal and also the appeal filed is dismissed by the Hon’ble Trial Court, as the stand taken by the PW.1 that cheque was issue in discharge of legally enforceable debt was not found to be proved.

24.Further, as per cross examination of DW.1, Ex.A4/Cheque return memo, the cheque was returned as payment was stopped by the drawer as it is the contention of the defendant that he instructed the bank to not to honour any cheque as the cheque was misplaced.

25.In the circumstances the issuing of cheque by the defendant infavour of the plaintiff for discharge of legally enforceable debt cannot be said to be proved.

26.The defendant pleaded that the plaintiff has no financial capacity to lend the amount.

27.In cross examination of PW.1, it is elicited that PW.1 is the tailor earning

Rs.3000/- to Rs.4000/- per month and residing in a rented house and further though

PW.1 has filed the certified copy of bank pass book and in her oral evidence as already stated that she has no bank account and plaintiff did not proved that as on the dat of Ex.A1/promissory note, she was having Rs.1,50,000/- with her, and 7/8

AS No. 178 of 2022

presence of PW.2 and Laxman as on the date of execution of Ex.A1/promissory note also creates suspicion, as such the evidence adduced by the plaintiff regarding payment of consideration at the time of execution of Ex.A1/promissory note cannot be accepted.

28.The defendant successfully fulfilled the initial evidential burden by presenting evidence that cast doubt on the execution of promissory note and passing of consideration. As per the section 118 of Negotiable Instrument Act, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove the passing of consideration and after consideration of the evidence it is proved that the plaintiff has not proved her contention. Accordingly, the point No.1 is answered.

POINT No.2:

29.In view of the forgoing discussion, the judgment of Trial Court, dt.13.10.2017 is confirmed and hence, this point is answered against the appellant.

In the result, the appeal suit is dismissed. 30.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 26 th day of March, 2026).

Sd/-(KSHAMA DESHPANDE)

IIIADDL.DISTRICTJUDGE,

WARANGAL

APPENDIXOFEVIDENCE

- Nil -

Sd/-(KSHAMA DESHPANDE)

IIIADDL.DISTRICTJUDGE,

WARANGAL

To, TheIAdditionalSeniorCivilJudge, Warangal.

8/8

1 Crl.A.No.24/2023

INTHECOURTOFTHEIIIADDITIONALDISTRICTJUDGE,WARANGAL

Present: Smt.KshamaDeshpande, III Addl. District Judge, Warangal.

Thursday,the26thdayofMarch,2026

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 24 of 2023

1.From what court this appeal is :Judicial Magistrate of First Class, preferredNarsampet

2.Number of cases in that court:C.C.No.127/2014

3.Name and description of the :Duggyala Dharmaraju, S/o Pochaiah, Age: 30 Appellantyears, Occu: Driver, R/o Nekonda, Yerukalawada, near Raiway bridge.

4.Name and description of the :The State of Telangana, through respondentPS Chennaraopet.

5.The sentence and law under which :The accused is convicted under section 248(2) it was passedCr.P.C., for the offcence U/s.411 IPCand he is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four months and the remand period of accused is from 21.12.2013 to 13.01.2014 shall be set off and the MO1 which was handed over to interim custody vide Crl.MP.No.15/2014 shall holds good and final after appeal time.

6.Whether confirmed, modified or :Confirmed reversed; if modified, the modification

7.Date of filing:16.11.2023

8.Date of hearing:10.03.2026

9.Date of judgment:26.03.2026

This appeal is coming up before me for hearing in the presence of Sri P.Chiranjeevi, for the Appellant and Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing arguments and having stood over for consideration to this day, this court made the following:

JUDGMENT

1.This appeal was filed by the unsuccessful appellant/accused against the conviction and sentence passed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Narsampet in C.C.No.127/2014, dt.20.10.2023.

2.The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narsampet in C.C.No.127/2014, passed judgment on dt.20.10.2023, wherein the accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months for the offence under section 411 IPC.

2 Crl.A.No.24/2023

3.The appellant preferred the appeal on several grounds, all of which have been thoroughly considered during this judgment.

THEBREVITYOFTHEPROSECUTIONCASE:

4.On 16.02.2013 at 14.00 hours the complainant/Bhukya Dwali lodged complaint at PS Chennaropet staitng that on 09.02.2013 her daughter/Guguloth

Sunitha came to their home for seeing her husband/Bhukya Nanya, who is suffering ill-health. That after having dinner they slept infront of portico of their house and at about 00.30 hours, some unknown culprits snatched away her Gold Nalapoosala golusu with 12-Nalla poosala Billalu and 1-big billa, when her daughter raised hues and cries, they waken found the culprits fled away. That when they switch on light traced that 5-small billalu and that 7-Nallapoosala billalu and 1 big billa, wg.1-tula worth of Rs.22,500/- was stolen. That as her granddaughter health was not good they admitted her at Hospital, due to which delay was caused to report and requested to take action.

5.Basing on the evidence on record, the trial Court examined the accused u/s.239 CrPC and charges u/Sec.457,380 IPC against accused were framed and read over and explained to him in vernacular language, for which he pleaded not guilty and proceeded with trial. During the trial, the prosecution examined PWs-1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P1 & P2 and MO.1. After considering the rival contentions and perusing the available material on record, the trial court found the accused is found guilty for the offence under Section 411 of IPC and convicted the accused for the said offence under section 248(2) Cr.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four months.

6.Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence of the trial Court, the

Appellant preferred this appeal on several grounds.

3 Crl.A.No.24/2023

7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public

Prosecutor.

8. Now the point for determination is:

(i)Does the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narsampet in C.C.No.127/2014

dt.20.10.2023, suffers from infirmity.

(ii)If so, to what relief?

SUBMISSIONSFORTHECOUNSELFORTHEAPPELLANT:

9.The counsel for the appellant argued that as per the charge sheet the complainant name is mentioned as Mallam Venu, but in fact the complaint is lodged by Bhukya Dwali and further the complaint and FIR are not marked during the course of trial and the confession panch witness is stock witness to the police. That the property is recovered 10 month after the incident. That the officer who received the complaint was not examined. That the accused is falsely implicated.

Hence prayed to set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court.

SUBMISSIONSOFLEARNEDPUBLICPROSECUTOR:

10.The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the trial court has arrived at conclusion that the accused is guilty of the offence.

PROSECUTION EVIDENCE:-

11.PW.1 is the complainant deposed about unknown person came to their house and pulled Nallapusala chain from the neck of PW.2. Further they traced 5 small billalu and that the worth of stolen property is Rs.25,000/- and after four days of theft they lodged complaint as the daughter of PW.2 was admitted in hospital.

Further PW.2 also deposed about commission of theft of her Nallapusala chain.

PW.3 is the panch for scene of offence.

4 Crl.A.No.24/2023

12.PW.4 who is the panch witness for confession and seizure stated about the confession of the accused committing the offence along with accused No.2 to 4 committed theft and snatched from neck of the women while she was sleeping and also confessed about commission of other offence and MO.1 was seized under cover of panchanama.

13.PW.5 deposed about remanding of accused and conducting of confession and seizure panchanama. PW.6 filed charge sheet.

DISCUSSION:-

14.On perusal of the FIR and charge sheet, it disclosed that the offence took place in the night of 09.02.2013 at 12.30 hours

15.As seen from the record, though PW.1 and PW.2 deposed about one person entering to their hose and snatched their Nallapusala chain, and PWs .1 and 2 did not deposed about the accused committing theft and the material witness

PW.4 has deposed about the accused confession of offence of committing theft and the MO.1 was recovered from the possession of the accused.

16.It is the fact that the complaint is lodged with delay and is not marked, but PW.1 has explained the reasons for delay and has deposed regarding the commission of offence as that in the complaint and also PW.2 deposed on the same lines regarding the theft. MO.1 is marked through PW.2, she identified the property

in the Court.

17.The evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 remained unchallenged. As such it can be stated that there was an offence of theft took place and the MO.1 is the stolen property.

18.Further the fact of recovery of MO1 as stated by PW.4, who is the panch for confession and recovery in whose presence the accused confessed offence and MO1 is recovered from the possession of accused.

5 Crl.A.No.24/2023

19.It is argued on behalf of the accused that the property was recovered after lapse of 10 months and the presumption under section 114(a) of Indian

Evidence Act does not attract and in this regard, the learned counsel for appellant cited following Judgments:

i. The Judgment reported in 19940Supreme(Ker)180 between in

ChandranVs.StateofKerala wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “19-

What remains is the alleged recovery of articles belonging to Sivadasan on the basis of the statements given by accused. Sivadasan was found missing from 7-9-1991

Valuables alleged to have been taken from Sivadasan are shown to have been recovered on the basis of the statements given by the accused after the lapse of one month of the disappearance of Sivadasan. This delay is fatal to the prosecution. If the recoveries put forth by the prosecution is relied on, it can lead only to the inference mat they are either receivers of stolen property or were persons who committed the theft. It cannot necessarily indicate that the theft and the murder took place at one and the same time. Even for drawing a presumption under S.114 of the Evidence Act, the possession of the stolen article by the accused must be soon after the theft.“ ii. The judgment reported in AIR1991SUPREMECOURT1224 between

KedarNathetcVs.StateofM.P., wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “Though there is no specific evidence as to the cause of death the prosecution proceeded on the presumption from to recovery of an empty cartridge seized from the side of the dead body that the deceased should have been murdered by shooting. Apart from this conjecture there is no evidence how the deceased met his end. Therefore, we are unable to agree with the finding of both the courts below as the evidence relating to the murder charge is insufficient and is not worthy of acceptance. It seems that there was no charge under Section 411. We think that it 6 Crl.A.No.24/2023 will not be worthwhile to convict these two appellants under Section 411, I.P.C. at the length of time, that too in the absence of any charge, though the appellant may not be prejudiced by such a conviction as the evidence, appearing on the records, puts them on notice.” iii. The judgment reported in AIR1974SUPREMECOURT777 between

NabaKumarDasVs.StateofW.B., wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “accused could not be convicted on the sole testimony of Circle Inspector”.

iv. The judgment reported in AIR1956SUPREMECOURT54 between

SanwatKhanandanotherVs.StateofRajasthan, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme

Court held that “in the absence of any direct or circumstantial evidence whatsoever, from the solitary circumstances of the unexplained recovery of the two articles from the houses of the two appellants the only inference that can be raised in view of illustration A to S. 114 of the Evidence Act is that they are either receivers of stolen property or were the persons who committed the theft, but it does not necessarily indicate that the theft and the murders took place at one and the same time.”

20. The learned APP cited decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2023Livelaw(SC)279 between BaluSudamKhalde&AnrVs.Thestateof

Maharastra wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “44-During the course of cross-examination with a view to discredit the witness or to establish the defence on preponderance of probabilities suggestions are hurled on the witness but if such suggestions, the answer to those incriminate the accused in any manner then the same would definitely be binding and could be taken into consideration along with other evidence on record in support of the same.”

21.In the instant case it is the fact there was a lapse of 10 months between date of incident and the recovery from the accused. The appellant had no satisfactory explanation with regard to possession of stolen property.

7 Crl.A.No.24/2023

22.The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Erabhadrappa Alias

Krishnappa Vs. State of Karnataka reported in AIR 1983 SC 446 held that ‘The nature of presumption under illustration (a) to s. 114 must depend upon the nature of the evidence adduced. No fixed time limit can be laid down to determine whether possession is recent or otherwise and each case must be judged on its own facts.

The question as to what amounts to recent possession sufficient to justify the presumption of guilt varies according as the stolen article is or is not calculated to pass readily from hand to hand. If the stolen articles were such as were not likely to pass readily from hand to hand, the period of one year that elapsed cannot be said to be too long particularly when the appellant had been absconding during that period.”

23.In cross examination of PWs.4, 5 and 6 nothing material is elicited to disprove the fact of the property recovered from the possession of the accused, except that PW.4 frequently visit police station on certain issues.

24.The point regarding non examination of the investigating officer, who issued FIR and non marking of FIR as raised by the appellant.

25.As seen from the evidence on record it is established that there was offence of theft took place and the stolen property was recovered from the possession of the accused. The non examination of Investigating Officer, who issued

FIR. could not prove the case of the prosecution fatal.

26.Hence, in view of the forgoing discussion this Court finds that the Trial

Court was rightly arrived at the conclusion and finds no reason to interfere in the finding of the trial Court.

8 Crl.A.No.24/2023

27.Intheresult, the appeal is dismissed by confirming the judgment of conviction passed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narsampet in

C.C.No.127/2014, dt.20.10.2023, for the offence under section 411 I.P.C.

(Dictated to Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 26 th day of March, 2026).

Sd/-(KSHAMA DESHPANDE)

III Addl.District & Sessions Judge, Warangal. :APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE: :Exhibits Marked:

For Appellant: For Respondents:

NIL NIL

Sd/-(KSHAMA DESHPANDE)

III Addl.District & Sessions Judge, Warangal.

Copyto

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narsampet, along with entire case record original

Trial Court record C.C.No.127/2014 as per index vide Dis.No.Dt: