Smt M Shyam Sree

1 S.C. 70 OF 2019

SPECIAL COURT FOR TRIAL OF CASES RELATING TO ATROCITIES

AGAINST WOMEN-CUM-IX ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS

JUDGE::MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY

PRESENT: SMT. M.SHYAM SREE, Fast Track Special Judge, for Trial of offences under POCSO Act Medak at Sangareddy. FAC IX Addl. District and Sessions Judge,

MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY.

Tuesday The 17th Day of February, 2020.

S.C. No. 70 of 2019

Crime No., PRC No. Crime No.16 of 2018 for the offence under and the file of the CourtSections 376 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code of P.S. Bhoompally in P.R.C. No.05 of 2019 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Dubbak.

Description of the Tholla Karnakar S/o Lingam, Aged: 24 years, accused.Caste: SC (Madiga), Occ: Agriculture, R/o Mothey village of Mirdoddi Mandal, Siddipet District.

Charges.Under Section 376 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

Plea of accused.Pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the Judge The accused is found NOT GUILTY for and sentence. the offence punishable Under Section 376 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly, accused is acquitted under section 232 Cr.P.C., for the said offence. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled. After expiry of appeal time.

Prosecution conducted Sri L. Devi Das Naik byAdditional Public Prosecutor.

Accused defended bySri D. Ashok, Advocate.

This case is coming on before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri L. Devi Das Naik, Additional Public Prosecutor for the state and

Sri D. Ashok, Advocate for the accused, upon perusing the material on record and upon hearing the arguments the court delivered the following:- 2 S.C. 70 OF 2019

J U D G M E N T:

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, PS, Bhoompally has laid the charge sheet against the accused in Cr. No.16 of 2018 for the offence Under

Sections 376 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code of PS Bhoompally.

2.The brief facts of the case are that On 30-03-2018 at 1800 hours,

PW1/ complainant/victim lodged a report stating that, on 10-03-2018, when she was waiting at Mothey bus-station to go to Dubbak market, the accused/brother in law of PW1 approached her and enquired with her as to where she was headed to which PW1 replied that, she was going to

Bubbak market. The accused stated that, even he is proceeding towards

Dubbak market and offered to drop PW1 at the market and accordingly, she got on to the motorcycle of the accused. In the course of journey, the accused proceeded towards Dharmajipet Kamaan and when PW1 questioned the accused regarding the route diversion, the accused replied that, it was a short cut to Dubbak, but he has taken PW1 into a forest and raped PW1 on the pretext that he is willing marry her.

Later, the accused purchased pasupu thadu and mettelu from

Siddipet market and took her to an unknown temple and tied the said sacred thread and inserted mettelu. The accused stated to PW1 that she is his wife and from their he has taken her to the house of Muthyala Badri

Raju at Japthinacharam and stayed their for two days. Subsequently, he has taken PW1 to his relatives at Hyderabad and Gajwel and after 15 days he left PW1 at Gajwel bus station stating that, he got married previously and that he doesn’t need PW1 any more. PW1 informed her parents the same thing and they have stated that they will take this issue to the elders and therefore, the delay in filing the report.

3 S.C. 70 OF 2019

Basing on the said report Gulam Ramzani registered a case in

Cr.No.16 of 2018 under section 376, 420 of IPC and took up the investigation. In the course of investigation Gulam Ramzani examined

PW1 and recorded her statement. Later Bulam Ramzani dispatched express FIR to this Court and also to concerned and subsequently handed over the case diary to R. Niranjan as the offence is grave in nature.

On 31-03-2018 R. Niranjan and his staff rushed to the scene of offence along with PW1 with escort WPC 49 of Police station,

Bhoompally and secured the presence of two mediators i.e., Chidramaina

Yadagiri and Ryakam Ramaswamy and conducted scene of offence panchanama and prepared rough sketch. Later R. Niranjan examined and recorded the statements PW1 to PW3 and Narmeta Parsharamulu and sent PW1 to Government Mother and Child Hospital, Siddipet for medical examination with escort WPC 49 of police station, Bhoompally.

While the investigation was in progress a special team deputed by

R. Niranjan on 03-04-2018 apprehend the accused at his house and took him to police station, Bhoompally and produced him before R. Niranjan.

Later R. Niranjan interrogated the accused and he confessed his guilt therefore, the presence of Muchanapally Shivarajam and Peraka Nagesh was secured and seized black and red coloured passion pro motorcycle bearing No. AP 23 S 5310, engine No. HA10ED9GL46345, chassis No.

MBLHA10EP9GL03081 at the house of the accused under the cover of confession-cum recovery panchanama in their presence.

4 S.C. 70 OF 2019

Thereafter R. Niranjan effected the arrest of the accused and sent him to Government area hospital, Siddipet for potency test

D. G. Bhargavi held the potency test and issued his report. Later the accused was produced before this Court for judicial custody. On 12-04-2018 as per th orders vide R.C. No. 425/East-258/Westzone/2018

dated 03-04-2018, the Inspector General of police on administrative

grounds transferred R. Niranjan to Thoguta circle and he handed over the CD file to K. Parashuram who is posted to Dubbak circle vide R.C.No.

429/East-260/Weszone/2018 dated 06-04-2018. In the course of the investigation, K. Parashuram sent the 1) Vaginal Swabs of PW1, 2)

Semen of the accused to FSL, Hyderabad through ACP, Siddipet and accordingly the expert has issued a report vide FSL No. SER/ 473/2018.

Later K. Parashuram obtained final opinion from T. Sucheta Laxmi as for the FSL report. K. Parashuram deposited the case property before this

Court vide CPR No. 164/15/18. Hence as per the investigation the allegation of rape against PW1 on the false promise to marry be the accused is prima facie established, hence requested to punish him according to law. Medical report and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

3. Cognizance was taken under section 376 and 420 of IPC against the accused by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Dubbak and numbered as PRC No. 05 of 2019 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Dubbak.

5 S.C. 70 OF 2019

4. On appearance of the accused, the learned Magistrate furnished copies of the charge sheet and other connected documents to him under section 207 Cr.P.C., before committal Court.

5. This case is committed to Court of Sessions at Sessions Division,

Medak at Sangareddy and the same is taken on file as SC 70 of 2019 and made over to this court.

6.After appearance of the accused before this Court and after hearing the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the defense counsel, charge under section 376 and 420 of IPC has been framed against the accused under section 228 (2) Cr.P.C., read over and explained to him, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7.The prosecution has examined PW1 to PW3 and got marked

Exhibits P-1 to P-4 to establish the prosecution case.

8.There is no incriminating material found against the accused in the evidence of the material witnesses (i.e.,) PW1 to PW3 as such examination of the accused U/S.313 Cr.P.C. is dispensed with.

9.Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the accused and

Additional Public Prosecutor.

6 S.C. 70 OF 2019

10. Now the point for determination is:-

Whether the prosecution is able to establish their case against

the accused for the offences punishable under section 376 and 420

of the Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt?.

POINT:-

11. The charge framed against the accused is that the accused had kidnapped and committed rape onPW1 and Later the accused cheated her, as such the charges framed for the offences punishable under

Sections 376 and 420 of IPC. But the defence of the accused is total denial of the prosecution version. Even according to the prosecution except victim there are no direct witnesses who had seen the occurrence of the offence, the offence came into light only when the victim girl PW1 informed to the PW2. Where as PW1 stated that the accused is her husband the accused and about the contents of the report. So, his evidence is of no avail to the prosecution.

12. The crucial witness and the victim in this case is PW1 who has not chosen to support the prosecution case, she clearly deposed that the accused is her husband and the accused had not committed any act against her.

13. As seen from the above evidence the material witnesses PW1 to

PW3 i.e., the mother and father of the victim including the victim did not support the case of prosecution. The learned public prosecutor had cross examined these witnesses but nothing is elicited except denying their 7 S.C. 70 OF 2019 statements recorded by the police as Ex.P2 to 4 As the material witness

Pws.1/victim did not support the case of the prosecution, the evidence,

Lws.4 to 14 gains no importance as such the learned Addl. Public

Prosecutor had rightly given-up their evidence. The evidence of Pws.1 to 3 do not connect the accused to the present crime. There is no evidence to prove that the accused had kidnapped and committed rape on PW1.

The prosecution failed to prove that the accused committed the offences punishable under section 376 and 420 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt and for acquittal.

14.In the result, the accused is found NOT GUILTY for the offence punishable Under Section 376, 420 of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly, accused is acquitted under section 232 Cr.P.C., for the said offence. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled. The unmarked case property shall be destroyed by trial court after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer of this court, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 17 th day of March, 2020.

Fast Track Special Judge, for Trial of offences under POCSO Act Medak at Sangareddy. FAC Women-Cum-IX-ADJ, Medak At Sangareddy 8 S.C. 70 OF 2019

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE.

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION. DEFENCE.

PW1: Kumari. Narmeta Sushma victim Nil. PW2: Narmeta Laxmi PW3: Narmeta Sanjeevulu

EXHIBITS MARKED.

Ex.P1: Signature of PW1. Nil Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1. Ex.P3: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2. Ex.P4: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW3.

MATERIAL OBJECTS.

Nil.

Fast Track Special Judge, for Trial of offences under POCSO Act Medak at Sangareddy. FAC Women-Cum-IX-ADJ, Medak At Sangareddy.

1 POCSO.SC. NO.39 OF 2019

IN THE COURT OF THE FAST TRACK SPECIAL JUDGE FOR

TRIAL OF OFFENCES UNDER POCSO ACT : : MEDAK AT

SANGAREDDY.

PRESENT: SMT. M.Shyam Sree Fast Track Special Judge, for trial of offences under POCSO Act Medak at Sangareddy.

Wednesday 24th day of June, 2020.

POCSO.S.C. No. 39 of 2019

CRIME NO.94 of 2018

Name of the The State of Telangana through, complainant.Sub Inspector of Police, Gajwel

Description of the Accused: Tigulla Krishna S/o Chandraiah, accused.Aged: 28 years, Caste: Mudiraj, Occ: Labour, R/o Pregnapur village, Gajwel Mandal, Siddipet District.

Charge/s.Under Sections. 366 (A), 376 (2) (n) of IPC and Section 5 (I) r/w 6 of POCSO Act 2012.

Plead of accused.Accused pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the judge.Accused found not guilty.

Sentence or order.Accused is found not guilty for the offence Under Sections 366 (A), 376 (2) (n) of IPC and Section 5 (I) r/w 6 of POCSO Act 2012. Accordingly he is acquitted U/S.232 Cr.P.C. for the said offence.

Prosecution conducted Sri. Mohd. Mahaboob Ali, byAddl. Public Prosecutor.

Accused defended by Sri G. Hanumatha Reddy, Advocate.

This case is coming on before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. Mohd. Mahaboob Ali, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the state and Sri G. Hanumantha Reddy, Advocate. for Accused, upon perusing the material on record and upon hearing the arguments the court delivered the following:- 2 POCSO.SC. NO.39 OF 2019

: J U D G M E N T :

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Gajwel P.S filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence Under sections 366 (A), 376 (2)

(n) of IPC and Section 5 (I) r/w 6 of Protection of Children from

Sexual Offences, Act – 2012 ( for short “POCSO Act” ).

2. The case of the prosecution is that the PW1 is the mother of the victim girl/PW2. The PW2 has been studying intermediate 1st year at Government model school, Gajwel. In view of summer vacation, the PW2 was going to learn tailor work at M. Vanitha. The accused Tigulla Krishna hails from pregnapur and neighbour of PW1 for the last one year he had an evil eye on his neighbor. i.e., PW2 and developed sexual desire over her and decided to fulfill his sexual desire and followed the victim and convinced her with false promises that he loved her and will marry her, if she denied him he will die, for which PW2 believed the accused. Since then he moved closely with her and used to drop her at her school. Due to well acquaintance with the PW2, the accused convinced her for two times stating that he will take her to Wargal temple, but he took her to Gowraram forest area and participated in sexual intercourse with her forcibly. As the matter stood thus, on 23-09-2017 the accused got marriage with one

Sravanthi D/o Gurrala Lingam of Nizamabad. On knowing the marriage of the accused. The PW2 stopped talking to him. But the accused was afraid that the PW2 may reveal the matter to somebody. Immediately he went to Model school to meet with PW2, but PW2 refused to speak to him. At last the accused succeeded to 3 POCSO.SC. NO.39 OF 2019 convince her under false words that he did not get married and he would marry her only. The PW2 was attracted and believed his cunning words. On 21-04-2018 at 1200 hours while the PW2 was proceeding towards M Vanitha near St. Mary School side for attending tailor work, the accused came to her on a passion pro bike bearing No. TS-16-EH-8744 of Gurrala Lingam and forcibly took her to Yadagirigutta and Bhongir. While returning to Pregnapur village and about 7:30 PM he took her to outskirts of Peerlapally towards forest area and participated in sexual intercourse with her for 2 times.

Later late in the evening the accused took her to Gajwel and dropped her at Bharath Nagar at her friend’s house i.e., Goolla Lavanya. On next day i.e., on 22-04-2018 in the afternoon, again took her to

Peerlapally outskirts and he enjoyed his sexual desire with PW2.

After that, while returning to his village along with PW2, the PW4 and

Vattipally Kankaiah seen the accused and tried to catch him, but the accused escaped and dropped the PW2 at Pidched road and fled away. Thus the accused committed an offence punishable under sections 366 (A), 376 (2) (n) of IPC and Section 5 (I) r/w 6 of

POCSO Act-2012.

3.This court took cognizance for the offence under sections.

366 (A), 376 (2) (n) of IPC and Section 5 (I) r/w 6 of Protection of

Children from Sexual Offences, Act examined the accused under section 228 (1)(b) Cr.P.C. The charges for the offences punishable under sections 366 (A), 376 (2) (n) of IPC and Section 5 (I) r/w 6 of

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences, Act are framed, read 4 POCSO.SC. NO.39 OF 2019 over and explained to him in Telugu but he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.The prosecution in order to prove its case examined Pws.1 to 4 material witnesses, Exs.P1 to P5are marked, but they have not chosen to support the prosecution case as such the learned Public

Prosecutor given-up the rest of the witnesses.

5.There is no incriminating material found against the accused in the evidence of the material witnesses (i.e.,) PW1 to PW4as such examination of the accused U/S.313 Cr.P.C. is dispensed with.

6.Heard both sides, gone through the record of evidence, now the point for determination is:-

Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of

the accused for the offence 366 (A), 376 (2) (n) of IPC and

Section 5 (I) r/w 6 of Children from Sexual Offences, Act–

2012?. if so whether the accused is able to rebut the

presumption U/S 29 of the POCSO Act, 2012?.

7. POINT:-

The charge framed against the accused is that the accused had kidnapped and committed rape onPW2 aged about 17 years as such the charge framed for the offences punishable under Section 366 (A), 376 (2) (n) of IPC and Section 5 (I) r/w 6 of the POCSO Act but the defence of the accused is total denial of the prosecution version. Even according to the prosecution except victim girl there are no direct witnesses who had seen the occurrence of the offence, the offence came into light only when the victim girl PW2 informed to 5 POCSO.SC. NO.39 OF 2019

PW1, the earliest version mentioned by the victim mother PW1 also clearly shows that only on the information of the victim girl the offence came into light.

8. The mother of the victim (i.e.,) PW1 deposed she does not know the accused and had not narrated the incident to the police.

As per this witness she does not know the contents of the report.

PW2 also went in lines of the PW1.

9. The crucial witness and the victim in this case is PW2 who also not chosen to support the prosecution case, she clearly deposed that she does not know the accused accused and at the instructions of the police she stated before Hon’ble Magistrate and that the accused not committed any offence.

10.As seen from the above evidence the material witnesses PW1 to PW4 i.e., the mother, father and grandmother of the victim including the victim also did not support the case of prosecution. The learned public prosecutor had cross examined these witnesses but nothing is elicited except denying their statements recorded by the police as Ex.P2 to P5. As the material witnesses Pws.1 to 4 did not support the case of the prosecution, the evidence ofLws. 5 to 22 gains no importance as such the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor had rightly given-up their evidence. The evidence of Pws.1 to 4 do not indicate any incriminating material against the accused. Hence, the examination of accused U/S.313 Cr.P.C. was also dispensed with.

Therefore, the prosecution had failed to prove prima faciely the 6 POCSO.SC. NO.39 OF 2019 charges against the accused. Therefore, the rebuttal of presumption under section 29 of the act by the accused does not arise Hence, this point is answered against the prosecution.

11.In the result, accused found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 366 (A), 376 (2) (n) of IPC and Section 5 (I) r/w 6 POCSO Act-2012. Accordingly he is acquitted under

Section 232 Cr.P.C. for the said charge. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled after expiry of six months. The unmarked 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 24th day of June, 2020.

Fast Track Special Judge, for trial of offences under POCSO Act Medak at Sangareddy.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE.

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION. DEFENCE.

PW1 Salendra LalithaNil. PW2 Salendra Sandhya Rani PW3 Salendra Papaiah PW4 Vattipally Komaramma

EXHIBITS MARKED.

Ex.P1 Signature Nil. Ex.P2 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1. Ex.P3 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2. Ex.P4 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW3. Ex.P5 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW4.

MATERIAL OBJECTS.

Nil.

Fast Track Special Judge, for trial of offences under POCSO Act Medak at Sangareddy.

1 S.C.147 OF 2017

SPECIAL COURT FOR TRIAL OF CASES RELATING TO ATROCITIES

AGAINST WOMEN-CUM-IX ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS

JUDGE::MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY

PRESENT: SMT. M.SHYAM SREE, Fast Track Special Judge, for Trial of offences under POCSO Act Medak at Sangareddy. FAC IX Addl. District and Sessions Judge,

MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY.

THURSDAY THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2020.

S.C. No. 147 OF 2017

Crime No., PRC No. Crime No.266 of 2016 for the offence under and the file of the CourtSections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code of P.S. Patancheru in P.R.C. No.77 of 2016 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sangareddy.

Description of the Pathloth Bal Singh S/o Raju, Aged: 40 years, accused.Caste: ST (Lambada), Occ: Agriculture, R/o Marlagadda Thanda, Chinnagottimukkula village, Shivampet Mandal, Medak District.

Charges.Under Section 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

Plea of accused.Pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the Judge The accused is found NOT GUILTY for and sentence. the offence punishable Under Section 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly, accused is acquitted under section 235 (1) Cr.P.C., for the said offence. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. The case property MO’s. 1 to 3 deposited vide CPR. No.08/15/2019 dated. 16/12/2019 shall be destroyed by the trial court after expiry of appeal time. The case property MO.4 shall be returned to the accused by the trial court after expiry of appeal time.

Prosecution conducted Sri L. Devi Das Naik byAdditional Public Prosecutor.

Accused defended bySri G. Hanumantha Reddy, Advocate.

2 S.C.147 OF 2017

This case is coming on before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri L. Devi Das Naik, Additional Public Prosecutor for the state and

Sri G. Hanumatha Reddy, Advocate for the accused, upon perusing the material on record and upon hearing the arguments the court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T:

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, PS, Patancheru has laid the charge sheet against the accused in Cr. No.266 of 2016 for the offence Under

Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code of PS Patancheru.

2. The facts of the case as per the contents of charge sheet are that.

On 21-05-2016 in the early hours LW-10 SI of Police Narsapur had received a telephonic information from Government Hospital,

Sangareddy that a lady namely Smt Antharam Prameela @ Punyamma @ Pushpa W/o Rathaiah was hospitalized due to gang rape and she is under treatment in ICU room, on that he proceeded to the District

Government. Hospital, Sangareddy, examined and recorded the statement of victim, she stated that On 20-05-2016 at about 2020 hours in the night while she is going by foot towards Kowdipally from Narsapur bus stand road, suddenly one red colour vehicle came to her, one of them opened the door and pulled her inside the vehicle, two of them came and pushed her inside the vehicle and took her to bushes place, there they committed rape on her and snatched away her cash and silver anklets from her. Fled away and after some time some unknown person came to her and released her and joined in the hospital and went away.

3 S.C.147 OF 2017

Basing on the report given by the complainant, the police registered the above case in Cr.No.73 of 2016 for the offence under section 376 (D), 363, 384 of IPC., issued FIR and during the course of investigation as per the call particulars of victim LW11 apprehended the accused on suspicion along with his motor bike bearing No.AP. 23 N 9328 and on interrogation he confessed that he committed rape on 20-05-2016 at night about 0930 hours at Sri Hotel Ganapathi, Patancheru Town, and as she got severe bleeding he hospitalized her at District Government. Hospital,

Sangareddy and went away from there, recorded his confessional statement under cover of confessional cum seizure panchanama, and seized MOs-1 to MOs-4 under cover of said panchanama arrested the accused and produced before Court for Judicial remand, and after collecting all relevant documents and after completion of entire investigation filed charge sheet against the accused for offences punishable Under Sections. 376, 506 of IPC.

3. Cognizance was taken under section 376 and 506 of IPC against the accused by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Sangareddy and numbered as PRC No.77 of 2016 on the file of Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Sangareddy.

4. On appearance of the accused, the learned Magistrate furnished copies of the charge sheet and other connected documents to him under section 207 Cr.P.C., before committal Court.

4 S.C.147 OF 2017

5. This case is committed to Court of Sessions at Sessions Division,

Medak at Sangareddy and the same is taken on file as SC 147 of 2017 and made over to this court.

6.After appearance of the accused before this Court and after hearing the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the defense counsel, charge under section 376 and 506 of IPC has been framed against the accused under section 228 (2) Cr.P.C., read over and explained to him, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7.The prosecution has examined PW1 to PW4 and got marked

Exhibits P-1 to P-5 and Mos.1 to Mos.4 to establish the prosecution case.

8.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 (1) (b) Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating evidence found against him. The accused denied the evidence of prosecution and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

9.Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the accused and

Additional Public Prosecutor.

10. Now the point for determination is:-

Whether the accused had committed rape on victim PW1, if

so, whether the prosecution has established the case against the

accused for the offence punishable under section 376 and 506 of the

Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt?.

5 S.C.147 OF 2017

POINT:-

11. The charge framed against the accused is that the accused had committed rape onPW1 and threatened her as such the charges framed for the offences punishable under Section 376 and 506 of IPC. But the defence of the accused is total denial of the prosecution version. Even according to the prosecution except victim there are no direct witnesses who had seen the occurrence of the offence, the offence came into light only when the victim girl PW1 informed to the Doctor but she was not examined by the prosecution who was not examined.

12. The crucial witness and the victim in this case is PW1 who has not chosen to support the prosecution case, she clearly deposed that she does not know the accused.

13.As seen from the above evidence the material witnesses PW1 to

PW4 i.e., the witness, panch witness for confession cum seizure and scene cum seizure panchanama including the victim also did not support the case of prosecution. The learned public prosecutor had cross examined these witnesses but nothing is elicited except denying their statements recorded by the police as Ex.P2. As the material witness

Pws.1/victim did not support the case of the prosecution, the evidence of

PW2 to PW4 panch witnesses, Lws.3, 5 to 8 and 10 to 12 gains no importance as such the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor had rightly given- up their evidence. The evidence of Pws.1 to 4 do not connect the 6 S.C.147 OF 2017 accused to the present crime. There is no evidence to prove that the accused committed rape on PW1. The prosecution failed to prove that the accused committed rape on PW1 and committed an offence punishable under section 376 and 506 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt and for acquittal.

14.The accused is found NOT GUILTY for the offence punishable

Under Section 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly, accused is acquitted under section 235 (1) Cr.P.C., for the said offence.

The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. The case property MO’s. 1 to 3 deposited vide CPR.

No.08/15/2019 dated. 16/12/2019 shall be destroyed by the trial court after expiry of appeal time. The case property MO.4 shall be returned to the accused by the trial court after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer of this court, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 30 th day of January, 2020.

Fast Track Special Judge, for Trial of offences under POCSO Act Medak at Sangareddy. FAC Women-Cum-IX-ADJ, Medak At Sangareddy

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE.

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION. DEFENCE.

PW1: Antharam Prameela @ Punyamma @ Pushpa Nil. PW2: Koma Laxminarayana PW3: Ambati Srinivas Reddy PW4: M. Venkatamma 7 S.C.147 OF 2017

EXHIBITS MARKED.

Ex.P1: Signature of PW1 Nil Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C. statement Ex.P3: is the relevant portion Ex.P4: Scene of offence panchanama Ex.P5: rough sketch map

MATERIAL OBJECTS.

MO.1: is Knockout strong beer empty bottle. MO.2: is Blood stained bed sheet. MO.3: is Blood stained cloth. MO.4: is Hero Honda Passion Plus Bike Bearing No. AP 23 N 9328.

Fast Track Special Judge, for Trial of offences under POCSO Act Medak at Sangareddy. FAC Women-Cum-IX-ADJ, Medak At Sangareddy

1 S.C.147 OF 2017

SPECIAL COURT FOR TRIAL OF CASES RELATING TO ATROCITIES

AGAINST WOMEN-CUM-IX ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS

JUDGE::MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY

PRESENT: SMT. M.SHYAM SREE, Fast Track Special Judge, for Trial of offences under POCSO Act Medak at Sangareddy. FAC IX Addl. District and Sessions Judge,

MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY.

THURSDAY THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2020.

S.C. No. 147 OF 2017

Crime No., PRC No. Crime No.266 of 2016 for the offence under and the file of the CourtSections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code of P.S. Patancheru in P.R.C. No.77 of 2016 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sangareddy.

Description of the Pathloth Bal Singh S/o Raju, Aged: 40 years, accused.Caste: ST (Lambada), Occ: Agriculture, R/o Marlagadda Thanda, Chinnagottimukkula village, Shivampet Mandal, Medak District.

Charges.Under Section 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

Plea of accused.Pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the Judge The accused is found NOT GUILTY for and sentence. the offence punishable Under Section 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly, accused is acquitted under section 235 (1) Cr.P.C., for the said offence. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. The case property MO’s. 1 to 3 deposited vide CPR. No.08/15/2019 dated. 16/12/2019 shall be destroyed by the trial court after expiry of appeal time. The case property MO.4 shall be returned to the accused by the trial court after expiry of appeal time.

Prosecution conducted Sri L. Devi Das Naik byAdditional Public Prosecutor.

Accused defended bySri G. Hanumantha Reddy, Advocate.

2 S.C.147 OF 2017

This case is coming on before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri L. Devi Das Naik, Additional Public Prosecutor for the state and

Sri G. Hanumatha Reddy, Advocate for the accused, upon perusing the material on record and upon hearing the arguments the court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T:

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, PS, Patancheru has laid the charge sheet against the accused in Cr. No.266 of 2016 for the offence Under

Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code of PS Patancheru.

2. The facts of the case as per the contents of charge sheet are that.

On 21-05-2016 in the early hours LW-10 SI of Police Narsapur had received a telephonic information from Government Hospital,

Sangareddy that a lady namely Smt Antharam Prameela @ Punyamma @ Pushpa W/o Rathaiah was hospitalized due to gang rape and she is under treatment in ICU room, on that he proceeded to the District

Government. Hospital, Sangareddy, examined and recorded the statement of victim, she stated that On 20-05-2016 at about 2020 hours in the night while she is going by foot towards Kowdipally from Narsapur bus stand road, suddenly one red colour vehicle came to her, one of them opened the door and pulled her inside the vehicle, two of them came and pushed her inside the vehicle and took her to bushes place, there they committed rape on her and snatched away her cash and silver anklets from her. Fled away and after some time some unknown person came to her and released her and joined in the hospital and went away.

3 S.C.147 OF 2017

Basing on the report given by the complainant, the police registered the above case in Cr.No.73 of 2016 for the offence under section 376 (D), 363, 384 of IPC., issued FIR and during the course of investigation as per the call particulars of victim LW11 apprehended the accused on suspicion along with his motor bike bearing No.AP. 23 N 9328 and on interrogation he confessed that he committed rape on 20-05-2016 at night about 0930 hours at Sri Hotel Ganapathi, Patancheru Town, and as she got severe bleeding he hospitalized her at District Government. Hospital,

Sangareddy and went away from there, recorded his confessional statement under cover of confessional cum seizure panchanama, and seized MOs-1 to MOs-4 under cover of said panchanama arrested the accused and produced before Court for Judicial remand, and after collecting all relevant documents and after completion of entire investigation filed charge sheet against the accused for offences punishable Under Sections. 376, 506 of IPC.

3. Cognizance was taken under section 376 and 506 of IPC against the accused by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Sangareddy and numbered as PRC No.77 of 2016 on the file of Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Sangareddy.

4. On appearance of the accused, the learned Magistrate furnished copies of the charge sheet and other connected documents to him under section 207 Cr.P.C., before committal Court.

4 S.C.147 OF 2017

5. This case is committed to Court of Sessions at Sessions Division,

Medak at Sangareddy and the same is taken on file as SC 147 of 2017 and made over to this court.

6.After appearance of the accused before this Court and after hearing the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the defense counsel, charge under section 376 and 506 of IPC has been framed against the accused under section 228 (2) Cr.P.C., read over and explained to him, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7.The prosecution has examined PW1 to PW4 and got marked

Exhibits P-1 to P-5 and Mos.1 to Mos.4 to establish the prosecution case.

8.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 (1) (b) Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating evidence found against him. The accused denied the evidence of prosecution and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

9.Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the accused and

Additional Public Prosecutor.

10. Now the point for determination is:-

Whether the accused had committed rape on victim PW1, if

so, whether the prosecution has established the case against the

accused for the offence punishable under section 376 and 506 of the

Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt?.

5 S.C.147 OF 2017

POINT:-

11. The charge framed against the accused is that the accused had committed rape onPW1 and threatened her as such the charges framed for the offences punishable under Section 376 and 506 of IPC. But the defence of the accused is total denial of the prosecution version. Even according to the prosecution except victim there are no direct witnesses who had seen the occurrence of the offence, the offence came into light only when the victim girl PW1 informed to the Doctor but she was not examined by the prosecution who was not examined.

12. The crucial witness and the victim in this case is PW1 who has not chosen to support the prosecution case, she clearly deposed that she does not know the accused.

13.As seen from the above evidence the material witnesses PW1 to

PW4 i.e., the witness, panch witness for confession cum seizure and scene cum seizure panchanama including the victim also did not support the case of prosecution. The learned public prosecutor had cross examined these witnesses but nothing is elicited except denying their statements recorded by the police as Ex.P2. As the material witness

Pws.1/victim did not support the case of the prosecution, the evidence of

PW2 to PW4 panch witnesses, Lws.3, 5 to 8 and 10 to 12 gains no importance as such the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor had rightly given- up their evidence. The evidence of Pws.1 to 4 do not connect the 6 S.C.147 OF 2017 accused to the present crime. There is no evidence to prove that the accused committed rape on PW1. The prosecution failed to prove that the accused committed rape on PW1 and committed an offence punishable under section 376 and 506 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt and for acquittal.

14.The accused is found NOT GUILTY for the offence punishable

Under Section 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly, accused is acquitted under section 235 (1) Cr.P.C., for the said offence.

The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. The case property MO’s. 1 to 3 deposited vide CPR.

No.08/15/2019 dated. 16/12/2019 shall be destroyed by the trial court after expiry of appeal time. The case property MO.4 shall be returned to the accused by the trial court after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer of this court, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 30 th day of January, 2020.

Fast Track Special Judge, for Trial of offences under POCSO Act Medak at Sangareddy. FAC Women-Cum-IX-ADJ, Medak At Sangareddy

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE.

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION. DEFENCE.

PW1: Antharam Prameela @ Punyamma @ Pushpa Nil. PW2: Koma Laxminarayana PW3: Ambati Srinivas Reddy PW4: M. Venkatamma 7 S.C.147 OF 2017

EXHIBITS MARKED.

Ex.P1: Signature of PW1 Nil Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C. statement Ex.P3: is the relevant portion Ex.P4: Scene of offence panchanama Ex.P5: rough sketch map

MATERIAL OBJECTS.

MO.1: is Knockout strong beer empty bottle. MO.2: is Blood stained bed sheet. MO.3: is Blood stained cloth. MO.4: is Hero Honda Passion Plus Bike Bearing No. AP 23 N 9328.

Fast Track Special Judge, for Trial of offences under POCSO Act Medak at Sangareddy. FAC Women-Cum-IX-ADJ, Medak At Sangareddy

1 S.C.131 OF 2017

SPECIAL COURT FOR TRIAL OF CASES RELATING TO ATROCITIES

AGAINST WOMEN-CUM-IX ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS

JUDGE::MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY

PRESENT: SMT. M.SHYAM SREE, Fast Track Special Judge, for Trial of offences under POCSO Act Medak at Sangareddy. FAC IX Addl. District and Sessions Judge,

MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY.

MONDAY THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2020.

S.C. No. 131 OF 2017

Crime No., PRC No. Crime No.180 of 2015 for the offence under and the file of the CourtSections 366, 376 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code of P.S. Medak Rural in P.R.C. No.07 of 2017 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Medak.

Description of the Yadamalapally Yadagiri S/o Narayana, Aged: accused.24 years, Caste: SC (Madiga), Occ: Painter, R/o Venkatapur village of Medak Mandal.

Charges.Under Section 366, 376 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

Plea of accused.Pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the Judge The accused is found NOT GUILTY for and sentence. the offence punishable Under Section 366, 376 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly, accused is acquitted under section 232 Cr.P.C., for the said offence. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled. After expiry motorcycle Suzuki Samurai bearing No. AP.23 C 3517 deposited vide CPR. No.03/15/2020 dated. 20-02-2020 shall be returned to the accused after expiry of appeal time under proper acknowledgment and Identification.

Prosecution conducted Sri L. Devi Das Naik byAdditional Public Prosecutor.

Accused defended bySri G. Govardhan Reddy, Advocate.

2 S.C.131 OF 2017

This case is coming on before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri L. Devi Das Naik, Additional Public Prosecutor for the state and

Sri G. Govardhan Reddy, Advocate for the accused, upon perusing the material on record and upon hearing the arguments the court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T:

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, PS, Medak Rural has laid the charge sheet against the accused in Cr. No.180 of 2015 for the offence Under

Sections 366, 376 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code of PS Medak Rural.

2.The brief facts of the case are that on 13-10-2015 at 11:00 A.M

PW1/ Y. Ashok filed complaint by stating that his younger sister

Y. Nirmala who was studying graduation left home on 05-10-2015 at 7-00

A.M as usual to her college at Medak and did not returned and though they searched for her, they could not trace her whereabouts and on the date of complaint she made a phone call to him informing that accused forcibly took her while she was waiting for Bus at her village Bus stand.

Since accused forcibly abducted the victim, complaint was filed and during investigation, it has come to the light that accused forcibly took the victim towards Suraram Church where both of the them exchanged garlands and on the same night accused forcibly participated in sexual intercourse but within no time his attitude was changed as such on 20-10-2015, victim made a phone call to her family members and narrated the incident.

3 S.C.131 OF 2017

Basing on the complaint G. Vinayak Reddy (SI of Police) registered a case in Cr. No.180 of 2015 for the offence under sections 365 of IPC and took up investigation. During investigation he examined and recorded the statements of witness and basing on the statement of victim he altered the section of law to 366, 376 and 420 of IPC and since the offence is grave in nature he handed over the C.D file to G. Ramakrishna (CI of Police, Medak Rural Circle). During investigation G. Ramakrishna (CI of police Medak Rural circle) recorded the statement of victim and referred her to Government Hospital Medak. On 20-10-2015 at 1:00 PM accused was apprehended and on interrogation he voluntarily confessed the commission of offence as such he recorded the confession cum seizure panchanama in the presence of Shaik Hameed and Sayeed Haj and he effected his arrest and sent him for judicial remand. After receiving FSL report, Medical report and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

3. Cognizance was taken under section 366, 376 and 420 of IPC against the accused by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Medak and numbered as PRC No. 07 of 2017 on the file of Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Medak.

4. On appearance of the accused, the learned Magistrate furnished copies of the charge sheet and other connected documents to him under section 207 Cr.P.C., before committal Court.

4 S.C.131 OF 2017

5. This case is committed to Court of Sessions at Sessions Division,

Medak at Sangareddy and the same is taken on file as SC 131 of 2017 and made over to this court.

6.After appearance of the accused before this Court and after hearing the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the defense counsel, charge under section 366, 376 and 420 of IPC has been framed against the accused under section 228 (2) Cr.P.C., read over and explained to him, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7.The prosecution has examined PW1 to PW4 and got marked

Exhibits P-1 to P-5 to establish the prosecution case.

8.There is no incriminating material found against the accused in the evidence of the material witnesses (i.e.,) PW1 to PW4 as such examination of the accused U/S.313 Cr.P.C. is dispensed with.

9.Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the accused and

Additional Public Prosecutor.

10. Now the point for determination is:-

Whether the prosecution is able to establish their case against

the accused for the offences punishable under section 366, 376 and

420 of the Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt?.

5 S.C.131 OF 2017

POINT:-

11. The charge framed against the accused is that the accused had kidnapped and committed rape onPW4 and Later the accused cheated her, as such the charges framed for the offences punishable under

Sections 366, 376 and 420 of IPC. But the defence of the accused is total denial of the prosecution version. Even according to the prosecution except victim there are no direct witnesses who had seen the occurrence of the offence, the offence came into light only when the victim girl PW4 informed to the PW1. Where as PW1 stated that the do not know the accused and about the contents of the report. So, his evidence is of no avail to the prosecution.

12. The crucial witness and the victim in this case is PW4 who has not chosen to support the prosecution case, she clearly deposed that she does not know the accused and the accused had not committed any act against her.

13. As seen from the above evidence the material witnesses PW1 to

PW4 i.e., the elder brother, mother and elder sister including the victim also did not support the case of prosecution. The learned public prosecutor had cross examined these witnesses but nothing is elicited except denying their statements recorded by the police as Ex.P2 to 5 As the material witness Pws.4/victim did not support the case of the prosecution, the evidence of PWs1 to 4 As the material witnesses, Lws.5 6 S.C.131 OF 2017 to 13 gains no importance as such the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor had rightly given-up their evidence. The evidence of Pws.1 to 4 do not connect the accused to the present crime. There is no evidence to prove that the accused had kidnapped and committed rape on PW4. The prosecution failed to prove that the accused committed the offences punishable under section 366, 376 and 420 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt and for acquittal.

14.In the result, the accused is found NOT GUILTY for the offence punishable Under Section 366, 376 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Accordingly, accused is acquitted under section 232 Cr.P.C., for the said offence. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled. After expiry of appeal time. The case property Motorcycle Suzuki Samurai bearing No.AP23 C 3517 deposited vide CPR.No. 03/15/2020 dated. 20/02/2020 shall be returned to the accused after expiry of appeal time under proper acknowledgment and Identification.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer of this court, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 24 th day of February, 2020.

Fast Track Special Judge, for Trial of offences under POCSO Act Medak at Sangareddy. FAC Women-Cum-IX-ADJ, Medak At Sangareddy 7 S.C.131 OF 2017

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE.

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION. DEFENCE.

PW1: Yedamalapally Ashok Nil. PW2: Yedamalapally Laxmi PW3: Yedamalapally Prameela PW4: Kumari. Yedamalapally Nirmala

EXHIBITS MARKED.

Ex.P1: Signature of PW1. Nil Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1. Ex.P3: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2. Ex.P4: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW3. Ex.P5: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW4.

MATERIAL OBJECTS.

Nil.

Fast Track Special Judge, for Trial of offences under POCSO Act Medak at Sangareddy. FAC Women-Cum-IX-ADJ, Medak At Sangareddy.