Smt M Bhavani

Page 1 of 15 Crl. Appeal No. 32 of 2022

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS

JUDGE, SIDDIPET.

Present : Smt. M.Bhavani, I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Siddipet.

Wednesday, the 08 th day of November, 2023.

CRL. APPEAL (NEW) No. 32 of 2022 CRL. APPEAL (OLD) No. 122 of 2020

Between :- Kasarla Ganesh, S/o. Venkataiah, aged : 35 years, Occ : Coolie, R/o. Ghanpur village of Saidapur Mandal Karimnagar dist.

…Appellant/Accused

A N D

The State through S.H.O., P.S. Husnabad rep. Addl. Public Prosecutor.

…Respondent/Complainant

Aggrieved by the judgment dated 05.10.2020 passed by the learned Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Husnabad, in

C.C.No. 221 of 2015 Between :-

The State rep. through S.H.O., P.S. Husnabad …Complainant A N D

Kasarla Ganesh, S/o. Venkataiah, aged : 35 years, Occ : Coolie, R/o. Ghanpur village of Saidapur Mandal Karimnagar dist.

…Accused

This Appeal is coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri V.Jagadishchander Rao, Counsel for the Appellant/Accused and of Sri Yasala Venkat Lingam, Addl. P.P for State and upon hearing the both sides and after perusing the material papers available on record and having stood over for consideration till this date, this Court delivered the following :-

Page 2 of 15 Crl. Appeal No. 32 of 2022

-: O R D E R :-

1. This appeal is preferred by appellant/accused u/sec. 374 (3) (a) of Cr.P.C.

aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Husnabad in C.C.No. 221 of 2015, dt : 05.10.2020.

2.The grounds of appeal are :-

Without going into merits of the case and without perusing the evidence of witnesses, the Court convicted the accused. It is stated that the prosecution did not establish their case and the statement of the witnesses are contrary to each other.

There are number of omissions and the reasons for delay in lodging the complaint is also not explained properly. The lower court did not consider the grounds that the appellant urged before it. Without perusing the evidence on proper perspective convicted the accused for the offence u/sec. 509 IPC, though charge was not framed by the Court. For the reasons prayed the Court to set aside the judgment passed by the trial court.

3.The case of the prosecution in nutshell is :-

On 14-08-2015 at 09:00 PM the complainant Kedam Annapurna lodged a report before the Sub-Inspector of police, Husnabad, alleging that the accused, who is the husband of one of the employees in Kasturba Hostel, Thangallapalli made phone calls and abused in filthy language. It was stated that she was working as an Accountant in Kasturba Hostel, Thangallapalli. Kasarla Saraswathi,

Page 3 of 15 Crl. Appeal No. 32 of 2022 who is the wife of the accused was working as Assistant cook. She was not working properly and so she was transferred to Odela by their officers. The wife of the accused felt that the complainant herein is responsible for her transfer and informed the same to her husband, who is the accused. From 21-07-2015 to 04-08-2015 the accused incessantly made phone calls to the complainant and abused her in filthy language with insulting words. The complainant informed the incident to her husband Bijjuga Balakishan. Her husband called the accused over phone and questioned his behaviour. For which the appellant/accused herein replied indecently. The appellant/accused told the husband of the complainant that the complainant was his kept mistress, he had illegal intimacy with her and he gave

Rs. 2 lakhs. The complainant went to attend her duty and there was delay in lodging report. Stating so, the report was preferred.

On such report, the Sub-Inspector of police registered a case and issued FIR. He examined the complainant and recorded her statement. On the next day he examined the husband of the complainant ; MEO and recorded their statements. The complainant submitted a CD of the voice of the accused recorded by her in her cell phone. On 19-08-2014 the Sub-Inspector of police rushed to the house of the accused at Ghanpur village, arrested him and on interrogation the accused voluntarily confessed the offence. Informing the grounds of arrest he was brought to police station and after complying due formalities was produced before concerned Court. The Sub-Inspector of police addressed a letter to the

Superintendent of police, Karimnagar to provide call list of mobile number 9177841280 of the accused from 20-07-2015 to 05-08-2015 and obtained a copy

Page 4 of 15 Crl. Appeal No. 32 of 2022 of the same. On verification of call list it is understood that the appellant/accused made phone calls to mobile of the victim -cum- complainant. After collecting material documents and completion of investigation laid the case. Hence, the charge.

4.Case was taken cognizance against the accused for the offences u/secs. 354-D and 504 IPC and on his appearance the copies of documents were furnished to him as required u/sec. 207 of Cr.P.C. and he was examined u/sec.

239 Cr.P.C. and charges for the offences u/sec. 354-D and 504 IPC were framed and read over to him in Telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the trial before the lower court the prosecution got examined (04) witnesses and exhibited (04) documents. After closure of the prosecution evidence the accused was examined u/sec. 313 Cr.P.C with regard to incriminating evidence appearing in the prosecution case for which he stated it to be false and reported no evidence.

6.Heard the matter.

7.The points for determination are :-

1. Whether the impugned judgment in C.C.No. 221 of 2015,

dt : 05.10.2020 suffers with any irregularity or illegality

warranting interference ?

2. To what relief ?

Page 5 of 15 Crl. Appeal No. 32 of 2022

8.The learned counsel for the appellant/accused urged the following points

before this Court :-

1. The ingredients for the offence u/sec. 509 IPC are not made out by the prosecution, though the charge is not framed, the trial court by invoking section 222 (2) of Cr.P.C. convicted the accused for the offence with which he is not charged.

2. The trial court did not appreciate the delay of (24) days had occurred and such delay remained unexplained by the prosecution.

3. The complainant -cum- victim stated that alleged incident was informed to her Principal and she was neither examined by the police nor cited as one of the witnesses by the prosecution.

4. The appellant was instrumental in removing the services of wife of the accused at KGBV College. If that be so the prosecution ought to have placed such material about the employment of the wife of the appellant herein. No document is filed.

5. PW-3, who is said to be the independent person was only a hearsay witness, who stated before the police that the appellant/accused kept the victim/complainant. The prosecution contrary to the statement that PW-3 gave before the police lead evidence as if he was a direct eye witness.

6. None of the prosecution witnesses are independent witnesses, did not identify the accused except stating that the person, who called has stated his name as Ganesh.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant/accused relied upon

Judgment between Majumdar Azith @ Baji Vs. State of Telangana

Page 6 of 15 Crl. Appeal No. 32 of 2022 (Crl.A.No. 589 of 2014, dt : 19-11-2022) and stated that when there is inordinate delay the case of the prosecution becomes doubtful.

For the reasons prayed the Court to allow the appeal and set aside the conviction that was passed by the trial court.

POINT No. 1:-

9.The prosecution story unfolds that the victim -cum- complainant is working as an Accountant at KGBV, Tangalapally. Wife of the appellant herein was working as a cook and as she was not working properly she was transferred to

Odela. The wife of appellant thought that the complainant -cum- victim was instrumental in her transfer and instigated her husband to call the victim -cum- complainant. He called her, uttered abusive and vulgar language against her. The said episode continued from July to 4th August, 2015.

10.The offences that the appellant herein is charged with are sections 354-D IPC and 504 IPC.

11.The essential ingredients of section 354-D IPC are :-

Any man who,

(i).follows a woman, contacts or attempts to contact such woman to foster personal interaction repeatedly despite a clear indication of disinterest by such woman or

(ii).Monitors the use by a woman on internet ; email or any other form of electronic communication commits offence of stalking.

Page 7 of 15 Crl. Appeal No. 32 of 2022

So as per the section in first part the offence is not complete just by following or contacting a woman unless a man continues to do so even after clear indication of disinterest.

In short, it is a continuous or repeated following of someone and a crime of engaging in a course of conduct directed at a person that serves no legitimate purpose and seriously alarms, annoys or intimidates that person.

12.Section 504 IPC speaks about the intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace. The section speaks that whoever intentionally insults or provokes any person that such acts would break the public peace or to commit any offence then he or she shall be liable for punishment.

13.In the instant case PW-1, the complainant gave report alleging that the accused, who is the husband of Kasarla Saraswathi called her over phone from 21-07-2015 to 04-08-2015 from mobile number 9177841280 to 9000516639 and was abusing her in obscene words and vulgar language. She informed the same to her husband. Column No. 8 of FIR (Ex.P4) reveals that the reasons for delay in giving report is she went to attend her duties and as such there was delay in reporting the matter.

14.PW-1 in her testimony before the Court deposed on the same lines and the complaint was got marked through her. Ex.P2 is the compact disc which has the contents of the abusive language uttered by the appellant herein. In her cross-examination, it was elicited as :-

Page 8 of 15 Crl. Appeal No. 32 of 2022

It is true that I, student of that school have not made any complaint to the MEO any time against our principal. It is true that I, Kasarla Saraswathi. Principal of school are under the supervision of MEO.

From 21.07.2015 for a period of 10 days the accused made phone calls to me both morning and evening and used to harass me. I have stated in my complaint that the accused made phone calls morning and evening. I gave complaint to police on 12-08-2018. I gave complaint after 10 days of getting calls from the accused. I told the matter to my husband and one

Himabindu who is the Principal of hostel promised to talk to the accused and hence I did not give complaint and there is a gap of 10 days. It is true that I have not stated in complaint about the reason of gap of 10 days.

It is true that the CD Ex.P2 was not taken from Bharathi Airtel limited company. I have not stated in my complaint that I made a application near Bharathi Airtel limited for giving the same.

I have made call to call centre for giving me the recordings but

I have not sent any letter officially.

15.PW-2 (B.Balakishan) testified before the Court that accused abused his wife continuously for 10 days on phone. In his cross-examination, it was elicited as :-

It is true that I have stated to police that my wife told me about the abuse made by the accused. On 04-08-2015 I called to the mobile of accused at around 6 pm in the evening from my mobile. As the language used by the accused on phone is much filthy language

Page 9 of 15 Crl. Appeal No. 32 of 2022

I have not mentioned in Ex.P1 complaint the words with which he abused PW1 on phone. I have handed over the phones of myself,

PW1 to police. Police have not collected call data as such

I collected the same and gave to police. I have given the copy of request letter which I made to the phone company to give the call data and its record. Only one application was made at Airtel company for call data and call records. It is not true to suggest that I have stated falsely that I waited without giving complaint for a 10 days on the request of our superior officer by name

Himabindu.

16.PW-3, who is said to be an independent person and MEO testified that in the year 2015 he received a phone call from Ganesh stating that his wife was removed from service. He also testified that the said Ganesh spoke to him over phone badly about the character of the victim -cum- complainant. He further stated that wife of the appellant was working at Kasturba Gandhi Vidyalaya, Koheda.

In the cross-examination, it was elicited as :-

I have not made any report to the said office against the said

Kasarla Saraswathi. I received an oral information from the special officer that the said Saraswathi is not working well. I cannot say from which number I received phone call. I did not make any complaint to police.

I do not know about the recording of statement by the police but they have made only a phone call. From 14-08-2015 I never went to police station to give statement.

Page 10 of 15 Crl. Appeal No. 32 of 2022

She stated me today that she is still working. PW1 came today and verified about my presence.

After few days I told PW1 that the said Ganesh called me.

I cannot say when I obtained phone call from the said Ganesh whether it is before my relieving or after the same from Koheda.

Question :- The accused is not concerned with the present offence and that PW1 instigated me to depose falsely ?

Ans :- I do not know the accused but I received only phone call.

It is true that I have not given any call data to police. It is true that I cannot say whether the call is made by the accused or any other person. Witness adds that he mentioned his name.

17.Now coming to the evidence of investigating officer, he deposed on the lines of charge sheet. In the cross-examination, it was elicited as :-

I do not remember how many minutes of Audio file is present in

Ex.P2 compact disc.

I have submitted the call data records pertaining to the period 21-07-2015 to 04-08-2015. Witness adds though the request is sent to the concerned Cellular net work companies from 20-07-2015 to 31-08-2015, that company have given me details of call data records of only 04-08-2015 day in respect of mobile

No. 9177841280. I have not filed the copy of requisition in this

Court.

Page 11 of 15 Crl. Appeal No. 32 of 2022

It is true that calls were made by the contact number 9000516639 to 9177841280. Witness adds that the calls were made by PW1's husband i.e., PW2 as his wife was harassed.

This thing was mentioned in complaint Ex.P1 also.

It is true that Exs. P2, P3 does not contain the details as to whom they were issued and on whose request it was issued, the seal and stamp and sign of the issuing authority. No document was given to explain the delay in lodging FIR. There is about 10 days of delay.

It is true that Ex.P2 CD was given to me by PW1 at the time of investigation. No confession panchanama was conducted by me. I have not collected any signatures to show that accused admitted the commission of offence.

I have not filed any opinion as to the voice belongs to accused.

18.A thorough scrutiny of entire evidence on record shows that the appellant is charged for the offences of stalking. In order to attract the offence u/sec. 354-D IPC, the prosecution must establish that the accused must either physically contact or by electronic means must follow the victim to foster her personal attention despite her clear indication of disinterest towards him.

19.In the instant case the prosecution has exhibited Exs. P3 and P4 which are the crucial documents. From the evidence of investigating officer it can be understood that he do not remember how many minutes of Audio file is present in the compact disk and he also stated that he has not filed any opinion whether

Page 12 of 15 Crl. Appeal No. 32 of 2022 the voice in the CD belongs to the appellant/accused herein or not. He further added that no requisition was made by him to ascertain if the audio or the language in the CD relates to the appellant herein. He also admitted that no confession was recorded when the accused admitted his guilt and the CD was handed over by the victim -cum- complainant to him.

20.As per the evidence of PW3 when questions were posed if he knows the accused he expressed that he do not know the accused, but received only a phone call stating that the person who called told his name as Ganesh. It was also stated that he do not remember the phone number from which he called. A perusal of his statement before the police and the testimony given before the Court makes to understand that he is only a hearsay witness, who informed about the alleged acts of the appellant herein.

21.Ex.P3 the crucial document, which is said to be filed by the investigating officer, only shows the numbers 9177841280 and 9000516639 and mobile number 8008383599. When specific allegations are made by victim -cum- complainant that the appellant/accused herein called her over phone and abused her in filthy language the prosecution ought to have obtained the Customer

Application Form in order to connect the appellant herein and in order to prove that the mobile numbers reflected in Ex.P3 relates to the victim -cum- complainant and appellant herein. Absolutely there is no such record placed by the prosecution to show that above 3 numbers relate to the appellant/accused, victim and her

Page 13 of 15 Crl. Appeal No. 32 of 2022 husband. Also this document is not issued by the Nodal Officer/Service provider and is not appended with sec. 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act certificate. Ex.P2 has no evidentiary value as it is not proved and established by the prosecution as per rules laid under Indian Evidence Act. The investigating officer himself admitted that no scientific or expert opinion is taken to show that the voice in the CD relates to the accused.

22.Furthermore when the charges for the offences u/secs. 354-D IPC and 504 IPC are framed which are distinct and different the trial Court ought not to have invoked section 222 (2) Cr.P.C. stating that sec. 509 IPC is a minor offence.

23.Here it is relevant to quote section 222 (2) Cr.P.C. which is as under :-

When a person is charged with an offence and facts are proved which reduce it to a minor offence, he may he convicted of the minor offence, although he is not charged with it.

24.In the instant case, section 354-D IPC is a different and distinct offence and 509 IPC speaks about the acts committed by the person who intentionally utters a word, gesture or act which intends to insult the modesty of a woman. The ingredients of stalking are different and distinct from the ingredients of insulting modesty of a woman. They are not cognate offences, but distinct offences. For all the above reasons the trial court has erred in convicting the accused. Except the evidence of victim -cum- complainant ; there is no evidence

Page 14 of 15 Crl. Appeal No. 32 of 2022 on record which inspires or points out the guilt of the accused that he called the victim and abused her in filthy language.

25.Here it is relevant to look into the judgment relied by the counsel for appellant, in which it is held as under :-

There is a delay of 12 hours in registering the FIR. Admittedly, the distance between the police station and the place of offence even as per the evidence of PW-1, is 5 kilometers and as to why PW-1 did not prefer report to police immediately after the incident, is not explained by the prosecution. Therefore, there is every likelihood of having an afterthought between the relatives of the deceased to implicate a false case against the accused.

In our opinion, it is a sound and well established rule of law that the Court is concerned with the quality and not with the quantity of the evidence necessary for proving or disproving a fact.

26.The delay of 10 days in registering the FIR is fatal in case the prosecution or the police did not explain the delay. Even in this case except stating that the victim went to attend her office she did not state genuine or valid reasons why the report is filed after 10 days. Though column No. 8 of FIR reads that the victim went to attend duty and there was delay, but in her evidence she stated that

Himabindu, who is the Principal of Hostel, promised to talk to the accused and so the complaint was given with a gap of 10 days. As stated in preceding paragraphs,

Himabindu, who is Principal of the hostel, is not examined by the prosecution herein.

Page 15 of 15 Crl. Appeal No. 32 of 2022

27.The victim being an educated woman did not prefer the report within time and no justifiable reasons for the delay are explained. She also stated that she never mentioned in her complaint that CD was obtained from the service providers. A thorough scrutiny of the entire oral and documentary evidence proves and establishes that the prosecution could not prove the ingredients for which accused is charged and also could not establish by cogent and convincing evidence that the trial court has rightly invoked section 222 (2) of Cr.P.C. and convicted the accused for the offence u/sec. 509 IPC. The totality of the circumstances on hand clearly shows that there is defective investigation and the prosecution could not make out its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant/accused herein. Thus the conviction given by the trial court is irregular and requires interference. Point No. 1 is answered.

POINT No. 2:-

28.In the result, Criminal Appeal is allowed, setting aside the Judgment passed by JFCM, Husnabad in C.C.No. 221/2015, dt : 05-10-2020 and

Appellant/Accused is acquitted for the offence u/sec. 509 IPC. The fine if any paid by the Appellant/Accused shall be refunded to him.

Dictated to the Stenographer (Grade-I), transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced

by me in the open Court on this the 08 th day of November, 2023.

Sd/-

I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Siddipet.

Page 1 of 10 SC (POCSO) New No. 06 of 2022 SC (POCSO) Old No. 46 of 2022

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE ::

AT SIDDIPET.

Present : Smt. M.Bhavani, I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Siddipet.

Tuesday, the 07th day of November, 2023.

S.C. (POCSO) New No. 06 of 2022 SC (POCSO) Old No. 46 of 2022 (Cr.No. 10 of 2022 of PS Husnabad)

Name and description of theThe State through complainant:Sub-Inspector of police, Husnabad.

Name and description of the Shaga Vamshi, S/o. Laxman, Aged : 21 years, accused:Caste : Madiga, R/o. Pandilla (V).

Offence charged:Secs. 354-D IPC and section 11 r/w. 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

Plea of the accused:Pleaded not guilty

Finding of the Court:Found not guilty

Sentence or Order :Accused is found not guilty for the offences U/Sec. 354-D IPC and section 11 r/w. 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and is acquitted U/Sec. 235 (1) Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of the accused if any shall stand cancelled after lapse of six months. MO-1 shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

This sessions case is coming before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri Yasala Venkat Lingam, Spl. P.P. for the State and Sri Y.Srinivas Reddy and Sri V.Murali Mohan, Advocates for the Accused and after having stood over for consideration today the Court made the following :-

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

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Husnabad laid this case against the accused for the offences punishable U/Secs. 354-D IPC and section 12 of The

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

Page 2 of 10 SC (POCSO) New No. 06 of 2022 SC (POCSO) Old No. 46 of 2022

2.The matrix of the prosecution case is :-

On 14-01-2022 at 04:00 PM the victim lodged report stating that she was pursuing Degree first year in Vivekananda Degree and PG college, Husnabad.

While she was in Intermediate first year she got acquaintance with the accused and they became friends. At the relevant point of time they took selfies in the mobile phone. Six months later accused proposed love and she refused. She started avoiding the accused, yet the accused constantly stalked, harassed her under pretext of love and also threatened that he would circulate the photos to her friends and relatives. On 13-01-2022 at 10:00 AM when she was going to Husnabad the accused followed her at Pandilla x road and once again threatened that he would circulate the photos to known people. On the same day she informed the occurrence to her parents. It was late in the night and so on the next day they went to police station and gave report.

On such report, the Sub-Inspector of police, Husnabad registered the case and issued FIR. He took the assistance of woman police officer to examine and record the statement of the victim. When the victim was examined it was videographed by videographer. The SI of police proceeded to the alleged scene of offence, which is situated at Pandilla x road and observed it in the presence of mediators and prepared crime detail form with rough sketch. He made a requisition to Head-master, ZPHS, Govardhanagiri and secured study, conduct and date of birth certificate, which reflects her date of birth as 26-06-2004.

Page 3 of 10 SC (POCSO) New No. 06 of 2022 SC (POCSO) Old No. 46 of 2022

On 21-01-2022 at 10:30 AM the accused was apprehended at his house, Pandilla village. The two panchas were secured and in their presence when he was interrogated he confessed the commission of offence. The said confession was reduced into writing and a mobile phone was seized from his possession under cover of confession -cum- seizure panchanama. After complying due formalities the accused was produced before the Court concerned for judicial custody. A requisition was made to PJFCM, Husnabad to record statement of the victim u/sec.

164 Cr.P.C. and it was done. After collecting material documents and completion of investigation, laid this case. Hence, the charge.

3.The case was taken cognizance against the accused for the offences

U/Sec. 354-D IPC and section 11 r/w. 12 of The Protection of Children from Sexual

Offences Act, 2012. On appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated U/Sec. 207 Cr.P.C.

4.The accused was examined U/Sec. 228 (1) (b) Cr.P.C. Charges for the offences U/Sec. 354-D IPC and section 11 r/w. 12 of The POCSO Act, 2012 were framed against Accused and read over to him in Telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial, the prosecution got examined (09) witnesses, exhibited (11) documents and (01) material object. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C with

Page 4 of 10 SC (POCSO) New No. 06 of 2022 SC (POCSO) Old No. 46 of 2022 regard to incriminating evidence appearing in the prosecution case for which he stated it to be false and reported no evidence.

6. Heard both sides.

7.The learned counsel for accused reported that though in the chief examination the victim testified about her acquaintance and also accused approaching her, but in the cross-examination she completely gave a different version and none of the prosecution witnesses supported the case. It is also stated that the evidence of investigating officer reflects that the call data is not retrieved that the accused and victim were conversing with each other and no photographs were filed before the Court though phone was seized. As there is no incriminating evidence and as the ingredients for which the accused is charged are not established, prayed the Court to extend benefit of doubt to accused.

Special Public Prosecutor reported to dispose the matter on merits.

8."Whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the charges levelled against him ?"

Point :-

9.In view of the above contentions now the Court needs to answer if the prosecution could establish before the Court that the accused had sexually harassed the victim and stalked her under the pretext of love.

Page 5 of 10 SC (POCSO) New No. 06 of 2022 SC (POCSO) Old No. 46 of 2022

10.The essential ingredients of section 354-D IPC are :-

Any man who,

(i).follows a woman, contacts or attempts to contact such woman to foster personal interaction repeatedly despite a clear indication of disinterest by such woman or

(ii).Monitors the use by a woman on internet ; email or any other form of electronic communication commits offence of stalking.

So as per the section in first part the offence is not complete just by following or contacting a woman unless a man continues to do so even after clear indication of disinterest.

In short, it is a continuous or repeated following of someone and a crime of engaging in a course of conduct directed at a person that serves no legitimate purpose and seriously alarms, annoys or intimidates that person.

11.Section 11 of The POCSO Act, 2012 speaks about sexual harassment and states that a child must be constantly followed either physically or by electronic means with sexual intent and then it would constitute sexual harassment.

12.In the instant case by examining PW-3 and exhibiting Ex.P3, the prosecution could establish that the victim was aged below 18 years and is a child as defined u/sec. 2 (d) of The POCSO Act, 2012. According to Ex.P3, date of birth of victim is 26-06-2004. The alleged occurrence took place on 14-01-2022. It means

Page 6 of 10 SC (POCSO) New No. 06 of 2022 SC (POCSO) Old No. 46 of 2022 the victim was aged 16 years and odd as on the date of occurrence. Thus, she is a child.

13. PW-1, the victim gave report to the Sub-Inspector of police, narrating that she developed acquaintance with the accused while she was going to the college and both became friends. Six months later accused proposed love and she refused. She started avoiding him. Yet the accused followed and stalked her, stating and threatening that he would send the photographs to relatives and friends. On 13-01-2022 at 10:00 AM when she was going to Husnabad and at Pandilla x road the accused again stalked and sexually harassed her. The victim in her testimony stated that she got acquaintance with the accused two years ago when she was pursuing Intermediate.

14.She testified that they became friends and took photographs. His proposal for love was refused and on 13-01-2022 at 10:00 AM again the accused approached and threatened her to love him. She informed the alleged occurrence to her parents and on the next day went to police station and gave report. In the cross-examination, it was elicited as :-

I do not know the reason why my parents took me to the police station on 14-01-2022. I do not know what my mother spoke with the police.

I signed on the report at the instance of my mother. I have not gone through the contents of report. The accused never

Page 7 of 10 SC (POCSO) New No. 06 of 2022 SC (POCSO) Old No. 46 of 2022 threatened me or troubled me sexually. It is true before entering into the witness box the police showed me the file and I was asked to go through the report and other material.

I was asked to depose by the police as in my chief examination.

15.PW-2 (A.Sadanandam), the father of the victim, testified that he do not know facts of the case and he was not examined by the police.

16.Coming to the evidence of PW-9, who is investigating officer, deposed on the lines of charge sheet. In the cross-examination, it was elicited as :-

I do not have knowledge whether the accused and victim are classmates. I do not know where the accused studied. I did not examine the common friends of accused and victim or the friends or any villagers to establish that accused and victim were friends and knowing each other. No call data record is filed to establish that the accused and victim were conversing with each other. I did not collect the photographs. Witness adds that he seized mobile phone of the accused.

I did not retrieve the photos from the phone of the accused as the photographs were not deleted from the mobile phone.

17.As could be seen from evidence of other witnesses to the prosecution it is understood that they did not support prosecution case. As could be seen from the record the accused and victim developed acquaintance with each other while they were travelling in a bus to the college. At first they became friends and later

Page 8 of 10 SC (POCSO) New No. 06 of 2022 SC (POCSO) Old No. 46 of 2022 when the accused proposed love the victim did not like it and refused. However the victim's case is that the accused stalked her and persisted to love him.

18.The prosecution case rests upon the fact that the accused had threatened the victim that he would circulate the photographs that he and the victim took in the mobile phone. He demanded the victim to love him else he would defame her. From the evidence of investigating officer it is understood that none of the independent witnesses i.e., friends of the accused or victim, were examined and no independent persons at Pandilla x road were examined by the investigating officer. Even assuming for a moment that the victim's evidence is alone sufficient to attract ingredients ; it is on record that PW-1 in her cross-examination did not support the prosecution case and stated that she has not gone through the contents of the report and accused never threatened or troubled her sexually. She gave a contradictory and inconsistent version before the Court in chief examination and in the cross-examination.

19.Also from the evidence of investigating officer it is understood that the photographs were not retrieved from the mobile phone of the accused and they are not filed. Though mobile phone is seized the investigating officer for the reasons known to him did not file the same before the Court by following due procedure.

20.When the entire case of prosecution rests upon the fact that the accused sexually harassed the victim, who was a child, stating that he would

Page 9 of 10 SC (POCSO) New No. 06 of 2022 SC (POCSO) Old No. 46 of 2022 circulate the photographs, the investigating officer ought to have taken such steps to show that the accused with sexual intent approached the victim who was a child and sexually harassed her under the pretext of love. Since ample material is not filed and as the victim's evidence is not cogent, but it is inconsistent, the Court opines that the ingredients for the offence u/sec. 354-D IPC and 11 of the POCSO

Act, 2012 were not established by the prosecution as required under law.

21.In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offences U/Sec. 354-D

IPC and section 11 r/w. 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and is acquitted U/Sec. 235 (1)

Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of the accused if any shall stand cancelled after lapse of six months. MO-1 shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

Dictated to the Stenographer (Grade-I), transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced

by me in the open Court on this the 07 th day of November, 2023.

Sd/-

I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Siddipet.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION :-

PW-1 LW-1Victim XXXVictim/De facto complainant

Name is not disclosed in view of bar U/sec. 228-A IPC PW-2 LW-3Father of Victim XXXWitness

Name is not disclosed in view of bar U/sec. 228-A IPC PW-3LW-6V.SrinivasHead-mater issued Ex.P3 PW-4LW-4L.ManammaASIP recorded statement of victim

Page 10 of 10 SC (POCSO) New No. 06 of 2022 SC (POCSO) Old No. 46 of 2022

PW-5LW-7S.SammaiahPanch for Ex.P4 PW-6LW-8A.SanjeevPanch for Ex.P4 PW-7LW-9A.Shankar ReddyPanch for confession -cum- seizure panchanama

PW-8LW-10M.SrikanthPanch for confession -cum- seizure panchanama

PW-9LW-12S.SridharSIP & IO

ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE

-- Nil --

EXHIBITS MARKED

ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION :-

Ex.P-1:Report Ex.P-2:Relevant portion of Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-2 Ex.P-3:Study, conduct and date of birth certificate of the victim Ex.P-4:CDF with rough sketch Ex.P-5:Signature of PW-6 on Ex.P-4 Ex.P-6:Signature of PW-7 on confession -cum- seizure panchanama Ex.P-7:Signature of PW-7 on confession -cum- seizure panchanama Ex.P-8:Signature of PW-8 on confession -cum- seizure panchanama Ex.P-9:Signature of PW-8 on confession -cum- seizure panchanama Ex.P-10:FIR Ex.P-11:Relevant portion of confession made by accused

ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

-- Nil ---

MATERIAL OBJECTS

MO-1 : Redmi mobile phone

Sd/-

I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Siddipet.

Page 1 of 8 SC (POCSO) No. 369 of 2022

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE ::

AT SIDDIPET.

Present : Smt. M.Bhavani, I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Siddipet.

Tuesday, the 07th day of November, 2023.

S.C. (POCSO) No. 369 of 2022 (Cr.No. 130 of 2022 of PS Siddipet-II-Town)

Name and description of theThe State through complainant:Asst. Commissioner of Police, Siddipet.

Name and description of the Dunnapothula Anil, S/o. Ramulu, Aged : 18 years, accused:Caste : Waddera, Occ : Driver, R/o. Burugupally (V), Siddipet-rural (M), now R/o. Indhiramma colony, Siddipet town & dist.

Offence charged:Secs. 366, 376 (2) (n) IPC and section 5 (l) r/w. 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

Plea of the accused:Pleaded not guilty

Finding of the Court:Found not guilty.

Sentence or Order :Accused is found not guilty for the offences U/Secs. 366, 376 (2) (n) IPC and sec. 5 (l) r/w. 6 of The POCSO Act, 2012 and is acquitted U/Sec. 235 (1) Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of the accused if any shall stand cancelled after lapse of six months. MO-1 the broken mobile phone shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time. The unmarked clothes of the victim shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

This sessions case is coming before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri Yasala Venkat Lingam, Spl. P.P. for the State and Sri D.Ravinder, Advocate for the Accused and after having stood over for consideration today the Court made the following :-

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

1.The Asst. Commissioner of Police, Siddipet laid this case against the accused for the offences punishable U/Secs. 366-A, 376 IPC and section 5 (l) r/w. 6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

Page 2 of 8 SC (POCSO) No. 369 of 2022

2.The case of the prosecution in nutshell is :-

The father of the victim lodged a report that the victim was pursuing second year Intermediate in Pragathi college, Siddipet. On 04-07-2022 at 09:00 AM she went to college and did not return back. He made a phone call to one of her friends namely Pooja and she informed him that victim proceeded with accused on his motor cycle. Stating so, he gave report. On such report, Sub-Inspector of police,

Siddipet-II-Town registered a case and issued FIR. He examined parents of the victim and recorded their statements. As it was late in the night he could not proceed further. On the next day the Sub-Inspector of police proceeded to alleged scene of offence, secured mediators and observed the scene and prepared crime detail form with rough sketch. He issued look out notice and also flashed radio messages to trace the victim girl.

On 06-07-2022 at 07:30 PM the victim appeared before the SI of police and informed him orally that the accused by deceitful words kidnapped her and took her to Komuravelly. They stayed in a room and participated in sexual intercourse several times. The SIP referred the victim to Barosa centre with a request to examine and record her statement. The woman SIP examined her and recorded statement. Basing on the statement, the section of law was altered from section 363 IPC to 366-A, 376 IPC and section 5 (l) r/w. 6 of The POCSO Act, 2012. The copy of the alteration memo was transmitted to the Court concerned.

Page 3 of 8 SC (POCSO) No. 369 of 2022

The offence was grave in nature and file was handed over to ACP,

Siddipet. The victim was referred to the medical officer for examination. The medical officer examined her, preserved vaginal swab and smear, collected the clothes and preserved it for sending the same to FSL, Hyderabad. On 07-07-2022 the Asst. Commissioner of police again examined the witnesses and made requisition to Head-master, Government New High School, Siddipet and collected bonafide certificate of the victim. As per bonafide certificate, the victim was aged 17 years and 11 months as on the date she went missing. He visited the house, where the accused and the victim stayed, examined the scene and observed crime scene No. 2 and prepared crime detail form with rough sketch.

On 08-07-2022 at 08:30 AM ACP, Siddipet received information that the accused was present at Indiramma colony, Siddipet and he instructed SIP to apprehend the accused. The SIP apprehended the accused and produced him

before the ACP. On interrogation in the presence of mediators the accused

confessed the commission of offence and a broken mobile phone was seized from the possession of accused. The accused lead the police to crime scene No. 2 and in the presence of mediators crime detail form was prepared and grounds of arrest were informed and was referred to the medical officer for examination and potency test. The medical officer issued potency certificate. After complying due formalities the accused was produced before the Court concerned for judicial custody. Basing on the FSL report the medical officer issued final opinion. Later a requisition was made to the Court and blood samples of the accused were collected for the

Page 4 of 8 SC (POCSO) No. 369 of 2022 purpose of DNA profiling and after obtaining DNA report and collecting material documents and completion of investigation, laid this case. Hence, the charge.

3.The case was taken cognizance against the accused for the offences

U/Secs. 366-A, 376 (2) (n) IPC and section 6 of The Protection of Children from

Sexual Offences Act, 2012. On appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated U/Sec. 207 Cr.P.C.

4.The accused was examined U/Sec. 228 (1) (b) Cr.P.C. Charges for the offences U/Secs. 366, 376 (2) (n) IPC and section 5 (l) r/w. 6 of The POCSO Act, 2012 were framed against Accused and read over to him in Telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial, the prosecution got examined (03) witnesses, exhibited (16) documents and (01) material object. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C with regard to incriminating evidence appearing in the prosecution case for which he stated it to be false and reported no evidence.

6. Heard both sides.

7.The learned counsel for accused and Special Public Prosecutor reported to dispose the matter on merits.

Page 5 of 8 SC (POCSO) No. 369 of 2022

8."Whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the charges levelled against him ?"

Point :-

9.The essential ingredients of section 366 IPC are :-

Whoever kidnaps or abducts any woman with intent that she may be compelled, or knowing it to be likely that she will be compelled, to marry any person against her will, or in order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, they shall be punished.

The aforesaid section requires the prosecution not only to lead evidence to prove kidnap simplicitor, but also requires them to lead evidence to portray the above mentioned specific intention of the kidnapper either to marry the victim or to seduce her for illicit intercourse. Apart from the same the specific intention must be ascertained by the Court from the evidence that the prosecution has let in.

10.In the instant case the father, who set the criminal law into motion by preferring report, testified that when the victim went missing he informed the same to police, but did not prefer report. In the report the father narrated that he was informed by Pooja, one of the friends of the victim that accused took the victim on his bike, but he did not testify the same before the Court.

Page 6 of 8 SC (POCSO) No. 369 of 2022

11.PW-1, the material and star witness to the prosecution case, testified that she do not know facts of the case and was not examined by the police and she did not give her statement before PJFCM, Siddipet. As seen from her statement

before the police and PJFCM, it is understood that the victim and the accused

developed acquaintance with each other and on 04-07-2022 she left the house and went with the accused. Both of them went to Komuravelly ; took a room and stayed in the said room from 04-07-2022 to 05-07-2022. She stated that on 06-07-2022 at 06:30 AM they came to Siddipet-II-Town police station and the accused left her.

12.As could be seen from the evidence, PW-1 did not testify that the accused had used deceitful words or compelled her to come out the custody of her parents and that he took her for the purpose of marriage or illicit intercourse. The victim resiled from her statements that she gave before police and PJFCM,

Siddipet.

13.Also the medical evidence (Exs. P13 to P15) the FSL report and the first FSL report (Ex.P13) shows that presence of human semen and spermatozoa on item No. 2, which is a dried smear that was collected from the victim. Ex.P14 the

DNA report reads as :- "Since DNA profile could not be obtained from item No. 2 (vaginal swabs collected from the victim) comparison with the

DNA profile of Dunnapothula Anil (source of item no. 1 i.e., blood sample collected from the accused) is not possible."

Page 7 of 8 SC (POCSO) No. 369 of 2022

14.Thus, in view of the hostile testimony and due to lack of scientific evidence the Court opines that the prosecution could not establish that the accused has perpetrated rape and aggravated penetrative sexual assault against the victim herein. Therefore, the accused is extended benefit of doubt.

15.In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offences U/Secs. 366, 376 (2) (n) IPC and sec. 5 (l) r/w. 6 of The POCSO Act, 2012 and is acquitted

U/Sec. 235 (1) Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of the accused if any shall stand cancelled after lapse of six months. MO-1 the broken mobile phone shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time. The unmarked clothes of the victim shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

Dictated to the Stenographer (Grade-I), transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced

by me in the open Court on this the 07 th day of November, 2023.

Sd/-

I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Siddipet.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION :-

PW-1 LW-3Victim XXXVictim/Witness

Name is not disclosed in view of bar U/sec. 228-A IPC PW-2 LW-1Father of Victim XXXDe facto complainant

Name is not disclosed in view of bar U/sec. 228-A IPC PW-3LW-16Ch. Deva ReddyACP & IO

ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE

-- Nil --

Page 8 of 8 SC (POCSO) No. 369 of 2022

EXHIBITS MARKED

ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION :-

Ex.P-1:Signature of PW-1 on Sec. 164 Cr.P.C. statement Ex.P-2:Relevant portion of Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-1 Ex.P-3:Relevant portion of Sec. 164 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-1 Ex.P-4:Signature of PW-2 on report Ex.P-5:Relevant portion of Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-2 Ex.P-6:FIR Ex.P-7:Alteration memo Ex.P-8:CDF with rough sketch Ex.P-9:Relevant portion of confession made by the accused Ex.P10:CDF with rough sketch for crime scene No. 2 Ex.P11Potency certificate Ex.P12Preliminary examination report of victim Ex.P13FSL report, dt : 23-07-2022 Ex.P14FSL report relating to DNA profiling, dt : 15-10-2022 Ex.P15Final opinion Ex.P16Bonafide and conduct certificate of the victim

ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

-- Nil ---

MATERIAL OBJECTS

MO-1 : Realmi Mobile phone.

Sd/-

I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Siddipet.

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE

AT SIDDIPET

PRESENT: SMT. M. BHAVANI

I-Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Siddipet.

This the 9 th day of November, 2023

CRLA No. 45 of 2022

Between:

Thadem Sreenivas Address - Husnabad of Karimnagar District.

....Appellants

AND

1) M.V. Sreenivas Address - LIC of India Branch Husnabad of Karimnagar District

2) The State R/by PP Sessions Court, Karimnagar. P.P. Karimnagar.

.....Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant : K. Sampath Kumar Rao, Advocate

U/Sec. 374(3) IPC

Docket Order, dated 09.11.2023

Appellant and respondent present. Counsel for appellant filed memo stating that, matter is compromised out of court amicably and respondent present in person and endorsed as amount received and he has no objections to withdraw the case is recorded. In view of memo appeal is withdrawn and is dismissed. Appellant is acquitted for the offence.

I-Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Siddipet.

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE

AT SIDDIPET

PRESENT: SMT. M. BHAVANI

I-Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Siddipet.

This the 7 th day of November, 2023

A.S.No.11 of 2022

Between:

Gulla Raju Address - R/O H.No. 21-30, Husnabad village and mandal, District Siddipet.

....Appellant

AND Guntipelli Srinivas Address - R/O Husnbad village and mandal, Siddipet District.

....Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant : G. Malla Reddy Patel, Advocate

Appeal Suit filed U/Or.41(1) CPC

Docket Order, dated 07.11.2023

Appellant called absent. No representation from counsel. After case is transferred to this court notice was sent to both sides and despite grant of 1 year time appellant or his counsel not present to submit arguments. No bonafides. Appeal is dismissed for default.

I-Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Siddipet.