S.C.POCSO.No. 45 of 20221Spl.Court for POCSO Act, Kadapa.
IN THE COURT OF JUDGE, SPECIAL COURT FOR TRIAL OF OFFENCES
UNDER THE PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT,
KADAPA.
Present:- Sri M.A.Somasekhar
Judge, Special Court for Trial of Offences under Protection of Children
from Sexual Offences Act, Kadapa.
Tuesday, this the 19th day of May, 2026.
S.C.POCSO Case No. 45 of 202 2
1. Name of the accused:1. Jesthaadi Pratap, S/o. Bhaskar, 31 years, R/o. T.Ramapuram village, B.Mattam mandal, Kadapa district.
2. Nagadasari Raja sekhar, S/o. Venkataiah, 25 years, R/o. Katamvaripalle village, Now at Riksha colony, Badvel town, Kadapa district.
3. Jestadi Vijay, S/o. Baskar, 28 years, R/o. T.Ramapuram village, B.Mattam mandal, Kadapa district.
4. Indla Rama Subbaiah, S/o. Nagaraju, Pragathi Nagar, Badvel town and mandal
( CICL)
5.Jestadi Ajay , S/o. Baskar, 24 years, R/o. T.Ramapuram village, Now at Onipenta, Mydukur mandal.
6. Indla Narasamma, W/o. Nagaraju, 43 years, Pragathi Nagar, Badvel, Kadapa district.
S.C.POCSO.No. 45 of 20222Spl.Court for POCSO Act, Kadapa.
7. Teetla Salmon, S/o. Alfred, 32 years, R/o. Onipenta, Mydukur mandal, Kadapa district.
2. Charges framed:Under sections 363, 363 r/w.34, 366-A, 366-A r/w.34, 376(2)(n) of IPC and Sec.5(L) r/w.6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
3. Plea of the accused:Pleaded not guilty.
4. Finding of the Judge: Accused Nos.1 to 3, 5 to 7 are found
5. Sentence or order: In the result, accused Nos. 1 to 3, 5 to 7 are found not guilty for the charges punishable under Sections 363, 366(A) r/w.34 , 376(2) (n) of IPC and Sec.5(L) r/w.6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and accordingly they are acquitted under Section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused Nos 1 to 3, 5 to 7 shall remain in force for a period of six months as per Section 437 (A) of Cr.P.C. Un-marked non-valuable case property if any shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time.
6. Prosecution conducted :Sri K. Venugopal. bySpecial Public Prosecutor.
7. Name of the advocate :Sri M.V. Ramana & T.C.Kondaiah, advocates
for accused
8. Crime No. and name of :Cr.No. 418 of 2020 of Badvel (U/G) Police the police stationStation.
9. Committed by:--
This case is coming on 19-05-2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri K. Venugopal, Special Public Prosecutor for the prosecution and Sri M.V. Ramana & T.C.Kondaiah, Advocates for the
Accused having stood over for consideration, upon perused the records, this Court delivered the following : -
S.C.POCSO.No. 45 of 20223Spl.Court for POCSO Act, Kadapa.
:: J U D G M E N T ::
The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Mydukur filed charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 3, 5 to 7 in Cr. No.418 of 2020 of Badvel (U/G) police station for the offences punishable under sections 363, 366-
A, 376(2) (n) r/w.34 of IPC and Sec.6 r/w.5(L) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
2.Brief averments of the charge sheet are :-
Accused Nos.1, 3, 5,6 and 7 are inter related to each other and
A.2 is the close friend of A.1. Accused No.1 had acquaintance with L.W2/
Bandi Hari Kumar and his family members who are residents of
Gundamrajupalle Harijanawada living on his business. The victim girl is elder daughter of L.W.2/B.Hari Kumar and she is studying 10th class, four months prior to the date of offence, A.1 got acquaintance with the victim girl and it was turned into friendship, since then A.1 induced the victim girl on the guise of love and marriage. A.1 used to talk with the victim girl through cell phone and convinced her with his gullible words, both of they used to go out side and fulfilled their sexual needs. Some times, when the victim girl was alone present at her house, A.1 went there and had sexual intercourse with her on the pretext that they would marry soon. Knowing the conduct of A.1, against the victim girl, her parents did not allow him to their house. Thereby A.1 planned to go to somewhere
S.C.POCSO.No. 45 of 20224Spl.Court for POCSO Act, Kadapa.
along with the victim girl and explained his motive with other accused who encouraged A.1 and assured that they will help him in any way and
A.1 decided to get marry her to enjoy his sexual life with her.
2(a). It is further alleged that A.1 sold his tractor and car and gathered amount for his expenditure in future and bought a new Pulsar bike in installments. In the month of December, 2020, A.1 informed to victim girl regarding his pre-plan to elope the victim girl. According to their plan, A.1 went to the house of victim girl on his bike in the absence of her parents and eloped her on his bike towards Nakkalagandi i.e. on
Badvel-Porumamilla road where A.2 and CICL were waiting with luggage, received it and they went to Hyderabad on the bike of A.1 on 05-12-2020.
On the same day, at 12-00 a.m ( mid night) noticing the absence of victim girl in the house, L.W9/B.Obulamma being her grand mother informed the same to the parents of victim girl who searched for her, but in vain.
A.1 along with the victim girl reached at various places and they took a room for rent at Hyderabad where they stayed for three days at which time, A.1 participated in sexual intercourse with the victim girl. Knowing about the filing of case, A.1 and victim girl reached at Peddabedda where
A.1 joined duty as a tractor driver and they stayed for some days at which time A.1 enjoyed the victim girl sexually. In the meantime, L.W2 knowing the fact with the aid of other accused A.1 kidnapped the victim
S.C.POCSO.No. 45 of 20225Spl.Court for POCSO Act, Kadapa.
girl, again LW3/B.Venkata Lakshumma gave report to police, based on it
L.W.28, altered the section of law from girl missing to Sec.363 r/w.34 of
IPC against the accused and investigated into. During the investigation,
L.W.29/Inspector of police, Badvel further recorded the statements of witnesses, confession statement of accused Nos.3 to 5 and 6, arrested them and sent them to the Court for remand. Know about it, on 08-01- 2021, A.1 along with the victim reached to Nellore where he boarded the victim in a bus to reach at Badvel, accordingly the victim girl went to her house and narrated the things to her parents. Then the victim girl again gave report to L.W29/Inspector of police and narrated the entire episode to him, based on it he added Sec.366-A, 376(2) (n) and Sec.6 r/w.5(L) of
POCSO Act, 2012 and he issued altered F.I.R. Later, L.W.30/SDPO, Mydukur took up further investigation. He further recorded the statements of witnesses, recorded the statement of victim girl by LW26/W.S.I and he arrested A.1 on 11-01-2021, recorded his confession statement, arrested
A.1 and seized his motor bike under the cover of Mahazarnama, he visited the scene of offences and after receipt of wound certificate of victim girl, R.F.S.L report and completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused under aforesaid section of law.
S.C.POCSO.No. 45 of 20226Spl.Court for POCSO Act, Kadapa.
3. Cognizance of this case was taken U/Sec. 363, 366-A, 376(2)
(n)r/w.34 of IPC and Sec.6 r/w.5(L) of POCSo Act, 2012 against accused
Nos.1 to 3, 5 to 7.
4. After receipt of the summons, the accused appeared before this
Court and engaged Sri M.V.Ramana and T.C.Kadiraiah, Counsel for accused, to defend them. Thereafter, Sri S.Rama Subbareddy, Learned
Special Public Prosecutor opened the case, by describing the charge brought against them and also the evidence going to be adduced to prove their guilt.
5. After hearing both sides and considering the entire material available on record, charges for the offence U/Sec.363, 363 r/w.34 , 366-A, 366-A r/w.34, 376(2) (n) of IPC and Sec.5(L) r/w.6 of POCSO Act, 2012 were framed against accused Nos.1 to 3, 5 to 7 u/sec.228 of Cr.P.C, they are read over and explained to them in their vernacular language, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, this case was stood posted for prosecution evidence and the trial is fixed.
6. To prove the prosecution case, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to
P.W.11 and got marked Exs.P1 to P.22. The evidence of Lws 7, 11 to 20, 22 to 27 and 30 was given up by the learned Special Public Prosecutor.
After completion of the prosecution side evidence, bonds as required
U/Sec.437-A Cr.P.C were obtained from the accused and their sureties.
S.C.POCSO.No. 45 of 20227Spl.Court for POCSO Act, Kadapa.
7. After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused Nos.1 to 3, 5 to 7 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating circumstances available in the prosecution case for which the accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence on their behalf, as such defence evidence is closed.
8. Heard arguments of both sides.
(a). The learned Special Public prosecutor argued that on behalf of prosecution P.Ws 1 to 11 are examined and Exs.P1 to P.22 are marked.
Though P.W1 to 8 turned hostile, P.Ws9 to 11 supported the case of the prosecution. Taking into consideration of the evidence of P.Ws9 to 11 and
Exs.P1 to P.22, prayed for conviction of the accused.
(b). The learned defence counsel submitted arguments that though PW-1 supported the case of prosecution during chief examination, she totally turned hostile during the cross-examination.
P.Ws2 to 8 totally turned hostile without supporting the prosecution case.
P.W9/Doctor who treated PW1, P.W.10/Investigating officer, who registered the case and P.W.11 who conducted the entire investigation supported the case of prosecution. Basing upon the evidence of P.Ws 9 to 11 who are official witnesses, the accused cannot be convicted in view of
S.C.POCSO.No. 45 of 20228Spl.Court for POCSO Act, Kadapa.
no independent witnesses supported their evidence. Hence, prayed for acquittal of the accused.
9.Now the point for determination is:- “Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of accused for the offences punishable under Sections U/Sec.363, 363 r/w.34 , 366-A, 366-A r/w.34, 376(2) (n) of IPC and Sec.5(L) r/w.6 of POCSO Act, 2012 beyond all reasonable doubt?”
POINT:-
10. The case of prosecution is that the accused NO.1 had acquaintance with the family of victim girl and he enticed the victim girl with his gullible words on the guise of love and marriage and with the aid and support of other accused, he kidnapped the victim minor girl, committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault against the victim minor girl.
11. To prove it’s case, the prosecution examined P.Ws1 to 11.
P.W.1/victim girl deposed in her chief examination that A.1 is the friend of his father. When she was studying 10th class on 05-12-2020, A.1 took her with his deceitful words and took her to Hyderabad and married there, detained her for one month and participated in sexual intercourse with her repeatedly. Her father filed report in police station under girl missing. She also filed Ex.P1/report dt.09-01-2021 in police station. She also gave Ex.P2/sec.164 Cr.P.C statement before the Court and her
S.C.POCSO.No. 45 of 20229Spl.Court for POCSO Act, Kadapa.
statement/Ex.P3 was recorded by the Woman Sub-Inspector. During her cross-examination made by the counsel for accused she denied her statement given in her examination. On 05-12-2020 she went to her senior maternal aunt house at Onipenta and her parents gave report to police. The police also obtained her signatures on some empty papers and she is not aware of the contents of Exs.P1 to P3 and gave them as per the instructions of the police. Whatever she stated in her chief examination is false and stated the same as per the instructions of the police. During the cross-examination made by the learned special Public prosecutor, she denied the suggestions put by the defence cousnel as false.
12. P.W2 being the father of victim deposed that on one day, his daughter/victim girl went to her maternal aunt house without his knowledge, then he informed the same to police and the police obtained his signature/Ex.P4 on some papers and the police registered the present case based on his signature and he is not aware of the case facts. During the cross-examination made by the learned Special public prosecutor he denied the suggestions put by him as false and his Sec.161 Cr.P.C statements are marked as Exs.P5 and P.6. P.W.3 being the mother of victim girl deposed in the same lines of P.W.2. She further deposed that
S.C.POCSO.No. 45 of 202210Spl.Court for POCSO Act, Kadapa.
the police obtained her signature/Ex.P7 on some papers. She is also not aware of the case facts. During the cross-examination made by the learned Special public prosecutor she also denied the suggestions put by him as false and her Sec.161 Cr.P.C statements are marked as Exs.P8 and
P9. P.W4 being independent eye witness, P.W.5 being the grand mother of victim girl, P.W.6 being the uncle of victim girl deposed in their chief examination in one voice that they know P.Ws1 to 3 and they did not know the accused and they did not know the case facts and the police did not examine them. During the cross-examination, P.Ws4 to 6 denied the suggestions put to them by the special public prosecutor as false and their Sec.161 Cr.P.C statements are marked as Exs.P.10 to P.13. P.Ws7 and 8 deposed in one voice that they did not know the accused and they did not know the case facts and the police did not examine them. During the cross-examination, P.Ws 7 and 8 denied the suggestions put to them by the special public prosecutor as false and their Sec.161 Cr.P.C statements are marked as Exs.P.14 and Ex.P.15 respectively. P.W.9/Medical officer deposed that on 10-01-2021 who examined the victim girl and found no injuries on external genetilia. Hymon was intact no bleeding. Vaginal orifice easily admitting one finger no congestion white discharge present and he issuedEx.P16/wound certificate. He collected Pubic hair, nail, vaginal swab and smearslides and sent them to RFSL report and after
S.C.POCSO.No. 45 of 202211Spl.Court for POCSO Act, Kadapa.
receipt of RFSL, he issued final opinion that there is no evidence to say that sexual intercourse had occurred in recent past. During the cross- examination, he denied the suggestions put forth by the counsel for accused. The remaining evidence is of P.Ws10 and 11 who are the investigating officers. P.W.10/S.I of police deposed that on 05-12-2020 based on the written complaint of P.W3/Ex.P.20, he issued the altered
F.I.R/Ex.P19. P.W.11/Inspector of police deposed as per the lines of investigation done by him and in cross-examination, he denied all the suggestions put by the counsel for accused as false.
13. Admittedly, P.W.1 supported the case of prosecution during her chief examination and coming to her cross-examination, she totally turned hostile. P.Ws2 and 3 who are parents of P.W.1 also turned hostile, they did not support the case of prosecution. P.Ws4 to 8 who are independent witnesses also turned hostile without supporting the case of prosecution. P.W.9 who is the medical officer, supports the case of prosecution, P.W.10 who is the case registering authority, also deposed about his registration of the case and P.W.11 who conducted investigation also supported the case of prosecution. Mere basing upon the evidence of P.Ws9 to 11 who are official witnesses, the accused cannot be convicted in view of lack of support of independent corroborative evidence.
S.C.POCSO.No. 45 of 202212Spl.Court for POCSO Act, Kadapa.
Further, PW1 being the victim though supported the case of prosecution during the chief examination, she totally turned hostile during the cross- examination. There is no iota of evidence to prove the guilt of the accused through the independent witnesses. It is quite natural that P.Ws9 to 11 who are official witnesses supported the case of prosecution and the same cannot be based for convicting the accused. Accordingly, the point is answered.
14. In the result, accused Nos. 1 to 3, 5 to 7 are found not guilty for the charges punishable under Sections 363, 366(A) r/w.34, 376(2) (n) of
IPC and Sec.5(L) r/w.6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and accordingly they are acquitted under Section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C.
The bail bonds of accused Nos 1 to 3, 5 to 7 shall remain in force for a period of six months as per Section 437 (A) of Cr.P.C. Un- marked non-valuable case property if any shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time.
Typed to my dictation by the stenographer, corrected and
pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 19th day of May, 2026.
Sd/- M.A.Soma Sekhar,
Judge, Special Court for trial of
Offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences, Kadapa.
Appendix of Evidence
Witnesses examined for prosecution
P.W.1Victim
S.C.POCSO.No. 45 of 202213Spl.Court for POCSO Act, Kadapa.
P.W.2B. Hari kumar
P.W.3B.Venkata Lakshumma
P.W.4B.Balu
P.W.5B.Obulamma
P.W.6B.prasanna
P.W.7M.Ramadevi
P.W.8B.Lakshmidevi
P.W.9Dr.Rabbani Begum
P.W.10B.Jayaramulu
P.W.11B.V.Chalapathy
Witnesses examined for defence
- NIL -
Exhibits marked for Prosecution
Ex.P.1 Report given by P.W.1/victim
Ex.P.2 Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of victim girl dt.16.1.2021
Ex.P.3Statement of Woman S.I dated 10-01-2021
Ex.P.4Signature of PW2 on the report dt. 05-12-2020
Ex.P.5Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2 dt.05-12-2020
Ex.P6Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2 dt.06-01-2021
Ex.P7Signature of PW3 on the report dt.02-01-2021
Ex.P8Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3 dt.05-12-2020
Ex.P9Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3 dt.06-1-2021
Ex.p10Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW4 dt.05-12-2020
Ex.P.11Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW4 dt.6-1-2021
Ex.P.12Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW4 dt.05-12-2021
Ex.P.13Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW6
Ex.P.14Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW7
S.C.POCSO.No. 45 of 202214Spl.Court for POCSO Act, Kadapa.
Ex.P15Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW8
Ex.P16Wound certificate of victim girl.
Ex.P17R.F.S.L report dt.10-02-2021
Ex.P18Final opinion dt.18-03-2021
Ex.P19Altered F.I.R dt.02-01-2021
Ex.P20Report dt.02-01-2021
Ex.P21Altered F.I.R dt.05-12-2020
Ex.P22Study certificate of victim girl.
Exhibits marked for defence
- NIL -
Material object marked
Sd/- M.A.Soma Sekhar,
Judge, POCSO Court,
Kadapa.