1
APCH1C0000042019
BEFORE THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF OFFENCES
UNDER THE POCSO ACT:: CHITTOOR.
Calender in POCSO Sessions Case No. 38 of 2019
(Crime Number 79 of 2019 of Punganur urban Police Station)
ComplainantThe State, represented by the Sub Divisional Police Officer, Palamaner. AccusedPoojari Kalyan, aged 23 years son of P.Venkatramana,residingat Vulavaladinnevillage H/o.Bheemaganipalle,Punganur Mandal. Date of offence18-04-2019
Date of complaint21-04-2019
Date of apprehension of 24-04-2019 accused
Date of commencement of trial 28-07-2023
Date of closure of trial05-11-2024
Date of sentence or order28-10-2025
Offence charged Under Sections 376 (3), 366 (A) and 343 of IPC and Section 5 (l) r/w 6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
Plea of accusedPleaded not guilty.
Finding of the CourtFound guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 376 (3), 363 and 343 of IPC and Section 5 (l) r/w 6 of POCSO Act 2
Sentence or Order
In the result, the accused is found guilty of the offences under Sections 376 (3), 363 and 343 of IPC and Section 5 (l) r/w 6 of POCSO Act and is convicted under Section 235 (2) of Cr.P.C.
HEARING ON QUANTUM OF SENTENCE
The accused was heard in respect of the quantum of the sentence to be imposed on him.
The accused submitted that I got married and my wife is pregnant and I am having old aged parents and also grandmother and they are depending on me. I live by doing Tails work and not committed any offence and prayed to take lenient view.
The evidence on record discloses that the accused resorted to such a diabolic and heinous act of committing sexual assault against the victim girl. If any leniency is taken, it will give a wrong signal to the society.
Hence taking into consideration the heinous act committed by the accused and the physical and mental trauma that the victim had undergone and the facts and circumstances of the case, in the light of the submissions made by the accused, I do not find any reasons to take a lenient view and to apply the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act.
In the result, the accused is found guilty, convicted under Section 235 (2) of Cr.P.C and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for TWENTY YEARS and shall pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) in default to undergo simple imprisonment for Three months for the offence punishable under Section 5 (l) r/w 6 of POCSO Act. The fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) shall be paid to the victim as per Section 6 (2) of the POCSO Act.
Further, the accused is found guilty, convicted under Section 235 (2) of Cr.P.C. and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for THREE YEARS (03 years) and shall pay a fine of Rs.1000/- (Rupees Three thousands only) in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 363 of IPC.
Further, the accused is found guilty, convicted under Section 235 (2) of Cr.P.C. and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for ONE YEAR (01 year) and shall pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundreds only) in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 343 of IPC.
Though the accused was found guilty for the offences punishable under sections 376 (3) of IPC, no separate sentence need to be passed against him for the said offences, in view of section 42 of the POCSO Act as he was already 3 found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 5 (l) r/w 6 of POCSO Act.
The sentences awarded are ordered to be run concurrently.
The remand period that the accused has undergone for the period from 24-05-2019 to 27-07-2019 is ordered to be set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in a case reported in (2013) 6 S.C.C. 770 between ANKUSH SHIVAJI GAIKWAD VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA held that “it is a mandatory duty on the court to apply its mind to the question of compensation in every criminal case for awarding/refusing, depending on the capacity of accused”.
No evidence was produced by the prosecution proving the financial capacity of the accused to compensate the victim. Therefore, the victim needs to be compensated as per the Victim’s Compensation Scheme.
In view of the powers conferred upon the special court under Section 33 (8) of the POCSO Act, the victim girl is awarded compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) for the trauma which the victim has undergone may be still undergoing on account of sexual assault by the accused, which shall be payable by the District Collector, Chittoor from Victims Compensation Scheme funds within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of the copy of Judgment.
The office is directed to send a copy of this Judgment to the District Collector, Chittoor for paying compensation to the victim girl as awarded by this Court.
The office is directed to send a copy of the Judgment to the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, CHITTOOR for taking necessary steps in payment of compensation awarded by this court.
The office is directed to furnish a free copy of the Judgment to the accused. The accused is apprised of his right to appeal before the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh and of Free Legal Aid.
The Material Objects 1 to 6 i.e., non-valuable property are ordered to be destroyed after the expiry of the appeal time if no appeal is preferred, if appeal is preferred till the disposal of the appeal.
Sd/- Sri M.Shankar Rao
Special Judge for the trial of
offences under the POCSO Act, Chittoor.
1
APCH1C0000042019
BEFORE THE SPECIAL COURT FOR TRIAL OF OFFENCES
UNDER THE POCSO ACT:: CHITTOOR.
Present: SRI M.SHANKAR RAO
Special Judge for the trial of offenc
es under the POCSO Act, Chittoor.
Tuesday, this the Twenty- Eighth (28th) day of October, 2025
POCSO Sessions Case No. 38 of 2019
(Crime Number 79 of 2019 of Punganur urban Police Station)
Between: The State, represented by the Sub Divisional Police Officer, Palamaner.
..... Complainant
And: Poojari Kalyan, aged 23 years son of P.Venkatramana, residing at
Vulavaladinne village H/o.Bheemaganipalle, Punganur Mandal.
.... Accused.
This case came up before me on 22.10.2025 for a final hearing, and upon hearing the arguments of Smt. V.Mohana
Kumari, Special Public Prosecutor for the State, and of Sri
P.V.Guneswaran and Sri T.Mohan, Advocates for the Accused; and the matter having stood over for consideration, the court delivered the following:- 2
J U D G M E N T
01. This case arises out of the charge sheet filed by the Sub
Divisional Police Officer, Palamaner in Crime Number 79 of 2019 of
Punganur urban Police Station for the offences punishable under
Sections 366-A, 343 and 376 (2) (i) (n) of IPC and Section 6 r/w 5 (l) of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
02. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:
The victim who is aged about 14 years is studying IX class at
Z.P. Girls High School, Punganur. About one year prior to 21.04.2019 the accused got acquaintance and friendship with victim girl which grew into love. The accused oftenly took victim girl to Nalla Ralla Gangamma temple near Mangalam colony, induced her to believe him by enticing that he will marry her and participated in sexual intercourse with her several times. As the matter of their love gone to the notice of their parents, about one week prior to 18.04.2019 victim and accused decided to go out and live together. Accordingly, on 18.04.2019 the accused went to the school, induced her that he will marry her, kidnapped her and taken to Bangalore, took a room belonging to one LW9- Krishnappa for rent by falsely representing that they are wife and husband. In 3 the said room, the accused had participated in sexual intercourse with the victim girl several times. On 23.04.2019 after knowing the fact that her parents gave a report before Punganur police station, the victim girl left from Bangalore and returned to her house and narrated the incident to her parents.
03. In this connection, based on the report of the defacto complainant/ PW-1, initially a case was registered under the head ‘girl missing’ in Cr.No.79/ 2019 and investigated. Later basing on the statement of victim girl, the section of law was altered to
Sections 366-A, 343, 376 (3), 376 (2) (n) and Section 6 r/w 5 (l) of
POCSO Act. During the course of investigation, PW-17
N.Yugandhar Babu, then Sub Divisional Police Officer, Palamaner examined the witnesses and recorded their statements and sent the victim child to Community Health Center, Punganur for medical examination. PW17 visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch and also seized the clothes of the victim girl under a cover of police proceedings. On 24.04.2019 at 4.30 pm., PW-17
N.Yugandhar Babu, then Sub Divisional Police Officer, Palamaner arrested the accused and recorded his confessional statement, seized his clothes under cover of ‘arrest and seizure mahazarnama’ and sent the accused to Judicial custody. PW10 Dr.S.Fairoza 4
Begam, Civil Assistant Surgeon, Community Health Center,
Punganur examined the victim child and opined that the victim is habituated to sexual intercourse. PW7 Dr.Jaswanth Royal examined the accused and issued potency certificate opining that there is no clinical evidence to suggest that the accused is impotent. PW8
Dr.M.Srinivasulu, Dental Assistant Surgeon examined the victim child and issued age certificate, opining that the victim is about 15- 17 years. LW18 Smt.M.S.Bharathi, then Principal Junior Civil
Judge, Punganur recorded the statement of the victim girl under
164 Cr.P.C. Thus, the accused is liable for the offences under
Sections 366-A, 343 and 376 (2) (i) (n) of IPC and Section 6 r/w 5 (l) of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
04. The then I Additional District & Sessions Judge has taken cognizance against the accused for the offences under Sections 366-A, 343 and 376 (2) (i) (n) of IPC and Section 6 r/w 5 (l) of The
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 against the accused.
05. On the appearance of the accused before I Additional
District & Sessions Judge, Chittoor, he was furnished with copies of documents as required under section 207 Cr.P.C.
5
06. When the matter is coming up before I Additional District
Court, Chittoor, as per the Hon’ble Prl. District Court Proceedings in Dis.No.6670/2019 dated 09.10.2019, this case is transferred to this Court as this court being designated as Special Court for the trial of offences under the POCSO Act, Chittoor.
07. After receiving the record from Hon’ble I Additional
District & Sessions Court, Chittoor and on hearing the learned
Special Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the accused, the charges under Sections 376 (3), 366 (A) and 343 of IPC and Section 5 (l) r/w 6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 were framed by this Court, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
08. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined Pws 1 to 18, marked Exs.P-1 to P-19 and Material Objects 1 to 6. The evidence of LW2 C.Renuka, LW5 A.Srinivasulu, LW10
P.Kiran, LW18 Smt.M.S.Bharathi, then Principal Junior Civil Judge,
Punganur and LW19 Dr.J.Rajasekhar was given up by the prosecution.
6
09. After the closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr. P.C. by explaining the incriminating material available against him, for which he denied the incriminating material and pleaded not guilty, and reported no defence evidence. Ex.D1 was marked on behalf of the defence.
10. Heard the learned Special Public Prosecutor and learned
Counsel for the accused.
11. Now the point for determination is:
Whether the prosecution has proved its case against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 376 (3), 366 (A) and 343 of IPC and Section 5 (l) r/w 6 of The
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 beyond all reasonable doubt?
POINT:-
The learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that the testimonies of PW-1 to PW-5 and PW-7 to PW-18 coupled with
Exs.P1, P2 and P4 to P19 and MO-1 to MO-6 are consistent and corroborating with each other and the prosecution successfully bring home the guilt of the accused and pray for conviction.
7
In support of her argument, the learned Special Public
Prosecutor has relied on citations;
i) ‘Manowwar Alam alias Mkanowar Alam versus State of Bihar’ reported in 2021 Crl.L.J. 4772, ii) ‘Deepak Prajapati versus State of Madhya Pradesh’ reported in 2021 Crl.L.J. 4229, iii) ‘Manik Bhakti versus State of Tripura’ reported in 2021 Crl.L.J.
2719, iv) ‘Gangabhavani versus Rayapati Venkat Reddy & Ors.’, reported in 2013 SAR (Criminal) 1112.
The learned defence counsel argued that the evidence of PW5 victim girl and the statement of the victim girl to police and 164
Cr.P.C. statement of the victim girl are entirely different, so, benefit of doubt to be given to the accused. The learned defence counsel further argued that the police not followed the procedure contemplated under Section 24 of the POCSO Act. The learned defence counsel further argued that Section 164 Cr.P.C., statement of the victim girl was also not recorded in Telugu as spoken by the child and it is recorded in English. The counsel for accused further 8 argued that PW-8 the Dental Surgeon examined the victim girl and issued a certificate but the victim girl is studying IX standard instead of getting certificate from the school, they got examnined the victim girl by the Dental Surgeon which also creates a doubt.
The counsel for the accused further argued that the statement of the victim i.e., Ex.P9 recorded by the police is in question and answer form and the same is also not believable and the alleged date of offence is also not proved and the police not followed the procedure and in the circumstances, the case of the prosecution is doubtful and benefit of doubt is extended to the accused and pray for acquittal.
In support of argument, the learned defence counsel has relied upon the following citation.
i) ‘State of Gujarat versus Lalji Chhaganaji Thakor and Ors.
Reported in 2023 (2) Acquittal 226 (guj), ii) ‘N.Balamurugan versus State, rep. By the Inspector of Police’ reported in 2023 (2) Acquittal 738 (Mad.), iii) ‘Bibhishan versus State of Maharashtra’ reported in (2008)
Cril.L.J. 721, 9 iv) ‘State of Karnataka versus Suresh Babu Puk Raj Porral’ reported in (1993) 3 Crimes 600,
v) ‘Md.Bani Alam Mazid @ Dhan versus State of Assam’ reported in 2025 (2) ALT (Crl.) 129 (SC).
14. Here the prosecution has to prove the foundational facts;
i) The victim is a child as per section 2 (d) of POCSO Act,
ii) The Accused committed the charged offences.
AGE OF THE VICTIM:
15. Here the prosecution has to establish that the victim is a child and comes under the definition of Section 2 (d) of the POCSO
Act. PW5 who is the victim girl who stated during her examination that she is studying IX class in Z.P. High School, Punganur and her date of birth is 13.06.2005. In support of her testimony, Ex.P19 birth certificate marked through her. On perusal of Ex.P19 Birth certificate which shows that the date of birth of victim was mentioned as 13.06.2005. Whereas, the alleged incident was happened on 18.04.2019. Hence, the age of the victim girl at the time of offence was 13 years and 10 months. The prosecution examined PW-8 Dr.M.Srinivasulu, Dental Assistant Surgeon who 10 deposed that on 21.08.2019 he examined the victim girl and opined that the Radiological (Dental) age of the victim girl is about 15-17 years and issued Ex.P5 certificate. In case of P.YUVA PRAKASH
VS STATE REP., BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE IN CRIMINAL
APPEAL NO. 1898 OF 2023 the Hon’ble Apex Court referring to section 34 of POCSO Act and section 94 of Juvenile Justice Act 2015 observed that, wherever the dispute with respect to age of a person arises in the context of her or him being a victim under a POCSO
Act, the courts have to take recourse to the steps indicated in section 94 of Juvenile Justice Act and that the three documents in order of which the Juvenile Justice Act requires consideration is that the concerned court has to determine the age by considering the following documents
1. The date of birth certificate from school or matriculation or equivalent certificate from the concerned examination board, if available, and in absence there of,
2. The birth certificate given by a corporation or municipal authority or a panchayat, 11
3. and only in the absence of 1 and 2 above age shall be determined by an ossification test or any other latest medical age determination test conducted on the orders of the committee or the board.
Hence, in view of the above observation of the Hon’ble Apex court in the order of preference first one is the date of birth certificate or equalent certificate from the concerned examination board, in the absence their of the second preference is birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayath and in the absence of two above to age shall be determined by ossification test or any other latest medical age determination test conducted on the orders of the committee or the board in the case on hand the prosecution filed birth certificate of the victim girl issued by municipal authority and also dental certificate issued of victim girl issued by Dental Surgeon and in view of the observation of the Hon’ble Apex court in order of preference the birth certificate issued by municipal authority gain preference over the certificate of victim girl issued by Dental
Surgeon. Further, the case of the defence that the victim is a major girl and a suggestion put to PW-1 to that effect and same is denied.
12
The learned counsel for the accused relied on ‘State of
Gujarat versus Lalji Chhaganaji Thakor and Ors. Reported in
2023 (2) Acquittal 226 (Guj.)
Para 35: Section 35 – Proof of age - School leaving certificate issued by statutory authority which is running a
Government School or by local body is admissible under Section 35 of Evidence Act. However, admissibility of such a document would be of not much evidentiary value to prove age of the girl in the absence of further corroborative evidence. Person who made entry and who gave date of birth is required to be examined, such person who is supporting date of birth recorded in school leaving certificate has to disclose the source of date of birth.
In another citation relied on by the learned defence counsel in the case of ‘State of Karnataka versus Suresh Babu Puk Raj
Porral’ reported in (1993) 3 Crimes 600,
Para 4 and 7: Lordship observed – Victim’s ageto be proven satisfactory - where testimony and medical ossification tests provide an age range not a definite age and can suggest ages above the minority threshold - School transfer certificates relied upon by 13 the lower courts were obtained after the alleged offence, based solely on parental information which can be unreliable.
Here in the case on hand, the prosecution to establish the age of the victim girl produced date of birth certificate issued by
Municipal Authority apart from Dental Doctor certificate which clearly shows that the victim girl is below 18 years. Hence, the facts and circumstances in the above case are different to the case on hand and not applicable,.
Further, the accused not brought on record any material in support of his contention that the victim girl is not a minor. Hence, basing on the testimony of PW5 victim girl and PW8
Dr.M.Srinivasulu coupled with Ex.P19 Birth certificate, this court can safely conclude that the victim girl/ PW5 is a minor girl, below the age of 18 years and the prosecution established that the victim girl/ PW5 is a child as per Section 2 (d) of the POCSO Act.
16. Now, it has to be seen whether the prosecution has proved the charged offences against the accused.
17. PW1 C.Reddeppa father of the victim deposed deposed that victim girl went to school and at 12.00 or 1.00 pm., the School 14
Head Mistress made a phone call and inform victim girl not come to
School and ask to come over to school and he went to School and school authorities informed the same and ask to search and they made searches and not found and on 21.04.2019 he went to police station and lodged report/ Ex.P1.
18. PW2 K.Reddi Sekhar and PW3 K.Akkulappa deposed that
PW1 informed that victim girl missing and he went to school, made enquiry and PW-1 gave report to police. During the cross examination of PW-3 who categorically stated that he did not state
before police as in Ex.D1 which runs as “as usual 18.04.2019 also
daughter of PW-1 went to school to write exam, so, in morning victim girl wrote the exam and after noon exam not attended.” The above elicited fact do not dent the case of the prosecution as it is the case of PW-1 C.Reddeppa who deposed that the victim girl went to the school and at 12.00 to 1.00 pm., school authorities made phone call, informing that the victim girl not come to the school and it clearly shows that at noon hours, victim girl was missing from the school.
19. PW4 R.C.Tirumala who worked as Headmistress in Z.P.
High School, Punganur deposed that she know the victim girl 15 studied in our School during exams time in April 2019 victim appeared for three exams and I came to know through J.Aparna, class teacher of victim girl that on 18.04.2019 the victim did not appear for exams but she attended for special class taken in morning hours on 18.04.2019 and the Junior Assistant i.e., PW-11 informed on 18.04.2019 in morning hours the victim has taken ten rupees from her and went outside of the school and did not return the school, then I telephoned to the father of the victim and called him to the school and informed him as to what happened and advised him to search for the victim girl. During the cross examination, she stated that police did not take copy of Attendance
Register or any letter from me regarding the absence of the victim girl on that day. Except that, nothing material is elicited to discredit her testimony.
20. PW11 P.V.Jayalakshmi who deposed that previously he worked as Junior Assistant in Z.P. Girls High Schiool, Punganur from 2016 to 2020 and she know the victim girl daughter of PW-1 on 18.04.2019 as the victim girl/ PW5 asked for Rs.10/-., I gave
Rs.10/- to her and her cross examination is reported as Nil.
16
21. The above testimonies corroborate the testimony of PW-1 regard to missing of victim girl and lodging report.
22. On perusal of Ex.P1 report also shows PW1 lodged girl missing complaint at police station. Hence the testimonies of PW1 to PW4 coupled with Ex.P1 clearly shows that the victim girl went to the School and PW1 received phone call from the School and asked him to come to the School and PW1 went to the School and made search for her and not traced and he lodged report. Hence, the prosecution established the victim girl was missing. On 18.04.2019 PW1 father of victim girl searched and not found and he lodged report.
23. It is the testimony of PW1 that victim girl came to home on 23.04.2019 and narrated the incident to her parents and they went to police station. PW2 to PW4 also deposed that PW1 informed them that the victim girl came to home on 23.04.2019. PW3 and
PW4 deposed that they enquired with victim girl and she narrated the incident by deposing that accused took her to Bangalore in the name of love and taken to a room which was taken by the accused while they were staying in the room, accused had sexual 17 intercourse with her multiple times and on knowing through his friend that a complaint lodged by her parents, she came to home.
24. Here the best witness is the victim girl who deposed that one year prior to 18.04.2019 she got acquaintance with accused and accused saying that he is loving me, accused doing job in
Bangalore, used to visit his house on Saturday and Sunday, accused saying me that he is loving me and will marry me, had sexual intercourse with me at Gangamma Gudi at Nallarallapalle and the same was known to my parents, seven days thereafter, completion of school, accused came to school and stated that both will marry, for which I said Yes and on the next day morning, I went to school, have taken Rs.10/- from the Attender, came outside of the school, having taken mobile phone, telephoned to accused and accused came by stating that both will marry, we boarded bus at Pungamma tank bund, went to Bangalore and accused doing Job there, he had taken a room, there we were in the room for four days, by saying both are wife and husband, he had sexual intercourse with me and four days thereafter, accused friend telephoned that on knowning my parents lodged a complaint, we left that place, accused dropped me at Punganur bus stand and there I went to my house and 18 informed my parents about the incident and my parents took me to police station and a lady constable examined me and women Sub
Inspector of Police took me to the hospital and Magistrate recorded my statement and EX.P2 is my 164 Cr.P.C., statement.
25. On perusal of statement of victim girl recorded by PW-13
B.Sahadevi woman Sub Inspector of police i.e., Ex.P9 which depicts as deposed by victim girl/ PW5 before this court and victim girl was subjected to cross examination and no material contradictions and omissions are elicited in support of the case of the defence. During cross examination though victim admitted that she did not report to police that accused had sexual intercourse during their four days stay and friend of accused informed to the accused about lodging of complaint. The above admission of PW5 victim girl clearly goes to show that victim girl kidnapped by accused and stayed in a room as deposed by victim girl. The learned counsel for accused did not mark any contradictions, hence the same is not consider. It is the testimony of PW5 victim girl that she was examined by police and recorded her statement. As stated earlier, victim girl/ PW5 categorically stated that during their stay accused had sexual intercourse several times. That piece of testimony is sufficient to 19 hold that accused had sexual intercourse with victim girl many times who was minor then. It is also not the case of accused that victim girl/ PW5 is having intimacy with other persons.
26. Further, the statement of the victim girl/ PW5 is supported by medical evidence. PW-10 Doctor S.Fairoza Begum deposed that she examined victim girl/ PW5 on 23.04.2019 and found hymen is ruptured, vaginal introitus is freely admitting two fingers and have submitted vaginal swabs, smear, pubic hair, nail clippings and blood sample for analysis and issued Ex.P6 wound certificate and received RFSL report Ex.P7 and gave final opinion Ex.P8 opined that the victim girl is habituated to sexual intercourse. On perusal of RFSL report/ Ex.P7, blood is detected on item No.2 i.e., leggin of victim girl and also vaginal swabs of victim girl, item 10 one cotton swab with dark brown stains, item 11 one cotton swab with dark brown stains, item 12 one cotton swab with dark brown stains and item 13 one cotton swab with dark brown stains, item 14 Reddish turbid liquid, & item 17 one glass slide with dride brown smear. If at all, the victim girl was not subjected to sexual assault by the accused, the blood might not be there on items 2 and item 10 to 13, 14 & 17.
20
27. The above piece of evidence corroborated the testimony of victim girl/ PW5 that under guise of love and marriage accused took her to near gangamma gudi had sexual intercourse and there after he took victim girl/ PW5 and stayed in a room for couple of days in
Bangalore and during their stay, the accused had sexual intercourse with her by confining her and by then the victim was a minor. It clearly goes that the accused had been committed sexual intercourse. As discussed above, it is not the defence that victim girl/ PW5 is having intimacy with other persons and nothing enmity elicited against the accused. Hence, the testimony of victim girl/
PW5 coupled with medical evidence clearly goes the prosecution laid the foundational facts in support of its case. Hence, a presumption under Section 29 of POCSO Act shall be raised in favour of prosecution.
Section 29 of The Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012 deals with:
Presumption as to certain offences:
Where a person is prosecuted for committing or abetting or attempting to commit any offence under Sections 3, 5, 7 and
Section 9 of this Act, the Special Court shall presume, that such 21 person has committed or abetted or attempted to commit the offence, as the case may be unless the contrary is proved.
In view of the oral testimony of PW5 victim girl coupled with medical evidence of the Doctor/ PW-10 Dr.S.Fairoja Begum and
Ex.P6 Medical certificate of victim girl, Ex.P7 analysis report, Ex.P8
Final opinion and Ex.P9 victim statement, the court shall presume that the accused herein is committed sexual assault against the victim girl by kidnapping her and had sexual intercourse, by confining in a room and by then the victim girl/ PW-5 was a minor.
Admittedly, the accused did not adduce any evidence to rebut the said presumption in favour of the prosecution nor elicit any enmity to show that he was falsely implicated in this case. Therefore, this
Court believed that the accused committed sexual assault against the victim girl who was minor by kidnapping and confining her in a room.
28. PW-7 Dr.Jaswanth A.V.S.Rayal who is the Doctor who conducted potency test categorically deposed that he examined the accused and issued potency certificate Ex.P4, opining that there is nothing to suggest that the accused is not capable of performing sexual act. Which testimony lends supports to the case of the 22 prosecution that the accused is potent person and having capacity to perform sexual act and the accused had sexual intercourse with the victim girl/ PW5.
29. PW-13 Smt.B.Sahadevi, Sub Inspector of Policedeposed that on 23.04.2019 on the instructions of PW-16 P.Arun Kumar reddy, Inspector of Police and in the presence of PW-9, she examined the victim girl/ PW5 and recorded her statement and later handed over to PW-17 the Investigating Officer. PW9 also deposed that on 23.04.2019 PW-14 Smt.A.Bharathi, CDPIO Officer took me to the police station and PW-13 asked me and CPDO
Madam to give counselling to the victim girl and they were present and later we took the victim girl to the hospital, myself and CPDO affixed our signatures on the statement of the victim girl recorded by PW-13 and victim girl also signed on it. PW-14 deposed on 23.04.2019 PW-13 examined victim girl, recorded her statement in my presence and during her cross examination, nothing material is elicited to discredit their testimony.
30. PW-17 the Investigating Officer who categorically deposed that he secured a victim girl and got examined by PW-13 and mother of victim produced clothes of the victim MO-2 blue colour 23 panjabi top, MO-3 white colour leggin, MO-4 white colour chunni with gold colour border under police proceedings EX.P14 and examined the scene of offence and also the witnesses. The above piece of testimony of PW-9, PW-13 and PW-17 clearly goes to show that the victim girl/ PW5 was examined by PW-13 and her statement was recorded and the same was handed over to the
Investigating Officer. PW-12 and PW-15 who are the mediators for the confession, arrest and seizure mahazarnama, categorically deposed that they went to Vinayaka temple located at Pungamma bund in Punganur and the S.I. of police caught hold one person i.e., one Kalyan and enquired him and he confessed to the offence and mahazar was prepared and they signed on it. Ex.P-10 is signature.
They further deposed that police seized MO-1 dress of the accused.
During their cross examination, nothing material is elicited to discredit their testimony.
31. PW-17 the Investigating Officer also deposed that on 24.04.2019 on credible information, he secured PW-12 and PW-15 and reached Pungamma tank, caught hold the accused and the accused confessed to the offence and he seized M.O.1 blue colour
T-shirt with front open, MO-5 Jeans pant, MO-6 blue colour under 24 wear and prepared mahazar and obtained the signatures of the mediators and also the accused and marked Ex.P15 his signature on the mahazarnama. He further deposed that he has prepared rough sketch Ex.P16, visit to Bangalore along with the victim girl and parents on 07.05.2019, examined PW-6 and LW-10 P.Kiran, recorded their statements and prepared rough sketch Ex.P17, filed a requisition for recording 164 Cr.P.C., statement of victim girl and forwarded the material objects under Ex.P-18 Letter of Advice.
During his cross examination, nothing material is elicited to discredit his testimony.
32. The testimonies of PW-12, PW-15 & PW-17 clearly goes to show that accused caught hold by police and he confessed the offence and M.Os.1 to 6 were seized under the cover of mahazarnama dated 24.04.2019 and police proceedings Ex.P-14.
Since the confession of the accused before the police is not admissible in evidence and hit by Section 25 of Indian Evidence
Act, the same is not considered.
33. PW-16 and PW-18 the Investigating Officers who deposed that PW-16 received Ex.P1 report and basing on it, registered a crime under Ex.P11 FIR, recorded the statements of P.Ws.1 and 2 25 and visited the scene of offence i.e., Girls High School and secured
P.Ws.2 to 4, LW9 and LW5, examined and recorded their statements and prepared a rough sketch Ex.P12. PW-16 further deposed that on 23.04.2019 victim girl/ PW5 along with P.Ws.1 and 2 came to the police station and PW-13 recorded the statement of the victim girl by securing PW-9 and based on the statement of victim girl, altered the section of Law which is Ex.P13.
34. PW-18 S.Arifullah, Then Sub Divisional Police Officer,
Palamaner who deposed that he obtained final opinion i.e., Ex.P8 regard to victim girl from PW-10 the Doctor and also obtained age certificate i.e., Ex.P5 from PW-8 and after completion of investigation, he filed the charge sheet. PW-16 and PW-18 were subjected to cross examination but nothing material is elicited and the testimonies of P.Ws.16 17 and 18 who are the Investigating officers in this case clearly goes to show that they have done the investigation on proper lines.
35. The learned counsel for the accused argued that the evidence of PW5 victim girl and the statement of the victim girl to police and 164 Cr.P.C. statement of the victim girl are entirely different and relied on decision reported in ‘N.Balamurugan 26
versus State, rep. By the Inspector of Police’ reported in
2023 (2) Acquittal 738 (Mad.),
Wherein,His Lordships held that victim girl in her 164
CR.P.C. statement never stated that she was subjected to aggravated penetrative sexual assault, in said circumstances, corroborator of medical evidence is necessary.
36. Here in the case on hand, the victim girl stated the manner in which she was subjected to sexual assault. This piece of evidence corroborated by her earlier statement under Section 161
Cr.P.C., Though the victim girl not stated that she was subjected to sexual assault, in her 164 Cr.P.C., statement i.e., Ex.P2 recorded on 07.05.2019. On perusal of Ex.P2 164 Cr.P.C., statement of the victim girl, it goes that the accused came to the school and gave her sweet and they took me in two-wheeler forcibly, after some time, regained conscious and I was in Bangalore, which clearly goes that the accused took the victim girl to Bangalore. Therefore, the oral testimony of the victim girl is corroborated by her 161
Cr.P.C., statement and medical evidence. Moreover, the police seized the clothes of the victim girl which were sent to RFSL, on examination blood detected on item No.2 i.e., leggin of victim girl 27 and also vaginal swabs of victim girl items 7 to 11 which was in favour of the prosecution. Though it is elicited during the cross examination of PW-10 the Doctor the rupture of hymen can happen due to other modes apart from sexual intercourse and no fresh marks of sexual intercourse was observed but it is the testimony of victim girl/ PW-5 that the accused committed sexual assault several times and it is not the case of the prosecution that the victim girl was recently subjected to sexual intercourse. Further, PW-10
Dr.Fairoja Begum did not completely ruled out the occurrence of sexual intercourse.
37. Further, nothing was elicited during cross of PW-5 victim girl that she was a sports person or do hard labor etc., tasks, to presume that the hymen was ruptured due to other modes. In the absence of such material, the testimony of victim girl/ PW-5 is amply corroborated by the medical evidence and the facts and circumstances in the above case are different to the case on hand.
Hence, not squarely applied.
The learned defence counsel further relied on citation
‘Bibhishan versus State of Maharashtra’ reported in (2008)
Cril.L.J. 721, 28
Para 6: …… As per the evidence of Doctor, there was no injury on the body of the prosecutrix and no sign of semen on the private part of the body neither clothes were torn nor there was any presence of hair of accused on the private part of the prosecutrix, the Doctor after examining the Prosecutrix deposed that the girl was habituated to sexual intercourse and we are of opinion that accused is entitled to benefit of doubt….. “
38. Here in the case on hand, it is the case, the victim girl and the accused are in love and accused told both will marry and induced her, took her to Bangalore to a room and had a sexual intercourse with her several times and the Medical evidence clearly goes that the hymen of the victim girl was ruptured and introituos admitting two fingers freely and the victim girl habituated to sexual intercourse backed by the RFSL report which clearly goes that item
No.2 leggin of the victim girl contains blood, items 7 to 11 vaginal swabs of victim girl contains blood. Hence, the facts and circumstances in the above case are different to the case on hand, not squarely applied.
29
39. The learned defence counsel further argued that the police not followed the procedure contemplated under Section 24 of the POCSO Act.
40. PW5 the victim girl categorically deposed that she was examined and her statement was recorded by Women Sub
Inspector of Police/ PW-13. PW13 also deposed that she examined and recorded the statement of victim girl in the presence of LW-16
Bharathi CPDO and PW9 Ramadevi. PW9 also deposed that PW-13 examined and recorded the statement of the victim girl. Section 24 of the POCSO Act clearly contemplates recording of the statement of a victim child at the residence of the child or at the place where he usually resides or at the place of his choice as far as practicable by a women police officer not below the rank of Sub Inspector of
Police. During the cross examination of victim girl/ PW5 though victim girl stated to police examined me at police station and at that time my parents and lady constable present and lady constable recorded my statement and she was in uniform at that time.
Further stated that women Sub Inspector of Police of police examined me in hospital and recorded my statement and at that time, my mother, women Sub Inspector of Police and another 30
Madam was present. Though the victim girl stated that the police constable examined and recorded her statement in the police station but she categorically stated that women Sub Inspector of
Police examined and recorded her statement and in the said statement was marked by PW-13 as Ex.P9. Mere, single statement of victim girl/ PW-5 during cross examination that women police constable examined the victim girl in the police station does not dent the case of the prosecution and totality of the evidence to be taken into consideration not the single statement made here and there and hence, the contention of the defence counsel is not tenable.
41. The learned counsel also argued that one Himabindu who is the friend of the victim girl is a material witness and non examination of the material witness gives raise to a doubt on the case of the prosecution and relied on citation ‘Md.Bani Alam
Mazid @ Dhan versus State of Assam’ reported in 2025 (2)
ALT (Crl.) 129 (SC).
Wherein the Lordship observed that non-examination of material witnesses has definitely dent the case of the prosecution.
In the above case, it has come on record from the evidence of 31
PW1 and PW4 that Appellant’s brother and brother-in-law had told them that they need not worry about their daughter and that they would arrange marriage of their daughter with Appellant. Infact, according to PW1 brother-in-law had told him that he would bring the girl and arrange her marriage with the Appellant. But those two persons were not examined by the police and present as witness
before this court.
In the case on hand, though the victim girl stated that one
Himabindu came out with her to bring Dosa and she went inside and thereafter, again the victim girl alone came out to buy pens and by that time, accused came and took her, it shows that at the time of alleged taking of victim girl by the accused, the said Himabindu was not there nor she know the coming of accused or informed and hence her non examination is not material and do not dent the case of the prosecution. The facts and circumstances in the above case are different to the case on hand, hence, squarely not applied.
42. Further, the learned counsel for the accused argued that
PW5 victim girl categorically stated that she do not remember the door number of the accused or the street name in which the said house is located and it clearly goes that a false case was foisted 32 against the accused and the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. It is the case of the victim girl/ PW5 that the accused taken her to Electronic City, Bangalore and they stayed in a room and accused had sexual intercourse several times. PW6 K.Puttaraju who was examined by the prosecution said to be house owner turned hostile to the case of prosecution. PW17 the Investigating Officer who deposed that he along with the victim girl/ PW5 and her parents went to Electronic city Bangalore and the victim girl/ PW5 unable to identify the room where she stayed along with the accused. Here it is no denial that Bangalore is a big city. Being
Electronic city, a locality in Bangalore city, generally the people who made regular visits to Bangalore may also got confused to identify the streets often. In those circumstances, the victim girl/
PW5 who is not resident of Bangalore and who accompanied the accused to Electronic city Bangalore for first time and stayed in a room for couple of days might have confused in identifying the room where they stayed when she went along with the
Investigating Officer/ PW-17 and mere not telling the door number or street number of the room in Electronic city, Bangalore do not doubt the case of the prosecution. Further, it is not the case of defence that the victim girl knows language other than Telugu.
33
When that is so, even there is no scope for informing anything to the neighbors. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the accused that in view of not telling the door number and street name of the room in Electronic city, Bangalore creates a doubt on the case of the prosecution is not tenable.
The learned Special Public Prosecutor relied on ‘Manowwar
Alam alias Manowar Alam versus State of Bihar’ reported in
2021 Crl.L.J. 4772
Para 12: …… accused forcibly married with prosecutrix establish physical relation with her, testimony of prosecutrix consistent with story of prosecution and medical evidence opined that hymen of prosecutrix was ruptured and non finding of spermatozoa was natural as the victim was examined much after the commission of the crime allege. The prosecutrix is specific that she got married with Appellant under pressure of the people and that marriage was itself fraud as Appellant was never maintained the relationship, the land transferred in favour of the victim was a sham transaction, the prosecution has successfully proved that on the date of occurrence, the prosecutrix was a minor. Hence, her consent and no consent was immaterial since victim was a minor 34 below 18 years on the date of occurrence and she claimed she was ravished against her will…” ‘Deepak Prajapati versus State of Madhya Pradesh’ reported in 2021 Crl.L.J. 4229,
Para 22 and 23: Lordships observed – Sexual assault on minor – Consent of prosecutrix immaterial, allegation accused enticed away minor victim girl and committed rape on her –
Prosecutrix deposing in her testimony that she was raped by the accused, even in FSL report, human sperms were found, when evidence of prosecutrix is reliable and trustworthy corroborative evidence need not be looked into.
In the case on hand, the victim girl took away by the accused to Bangalore and kept in a room and during their stay, committed sexual intercourse several times, even in FSL report blood detected on items 2 to 14 which were leggin of the victim girl and vaginal swabs taken from the victim girl coupled with medical evidence clearly goes that the victim girl was subjected to sexual assault by the accused and by then she was a minor and her consent or no consent was immaterial and the testimony of the victim girl/ PW-5 which is wholly reliable, trustworthy and is of sterling quality.
The learned Special Public Prosecutor also relied on citation in the case of ‘Manik Bhakti versus State of Tripura’ reported in 2021 Crl.L.J. 2719. Where in the case, accused father allegedly made attempt to commit rape upon the victim daughter while she was alone at home, prosecution failed to produce mother of the 35 victim girl who is defacto complainant to adduce evidence before the Court though cited as a witness. Medical evidence clearly suggests victim raped by accused at the time of offence, victim aged above 15 years and fact of rape disclosed to neighbors immediately after incident and their evidence are to be treated as evidence of resgiste and are admissible in evidence under Section 6 of Evidence Act- Material part that accused put pillow underneath of her waist and commit rape upon her found to be stated corroborate victim statement made in chief- accused failed to establish the same that he did not commit offence.
In the case on hand, it is the testimony of the victim girl that the accused took her to a room and had sexual intercourse several times and on knowing her parents lodged a report came to the home and narrated the incident and they went to the police station and lodged a report. The defacto complainant who is the father of the victim girl also gave testimony to that effect.
I have gone through the above citation and the facts therein are different to the case on hand, hence not squarely apply.
The learned Special Public Prosecutor also relied on citation in the case of ‘Gangabhavani versus Rayapati Venkat Reddy &
Ors.’, reported in 2013 SAR (Criminal) 1112.
The above citation is with regard to Section 300, 148 and 149 of Explosive Substances Act, Section 3, 5 and 6.
Para 8: Thus the position of law in cases where there is a contradiction between medical evidence and ocular evidence stands 36 crystallised to the effect that though the ocular testimony of a witness has greater evidentiary value vis-a-vis medical evidence, when medical evidence makes the ocular testimony improbable, that becomes a relevant factor in the process of evaluation of evidence. However, where the medical evidence goes sofar that it complete rules out all possibility of ocular evidence being true, the ocular evidence may be disbelieved.
The facts and circumstances in the above case are different to the case on hand and hence, not applied.
Hence, in view of the testimony of PW-5 victim girl coupled with medical evidence and statement of victim girl clearly goes to show that the accused committed sexual intercourse with the victim girl repeatedly by kidnapping her and confined in a room.
With regard to the offence under Section 366-A of IPC:
Section 366-A procuration of a minor girl:
Whoever, by any means whatsoever, induces any minor girl under the age of eighteen years to go from any place or to do any act with intent that such girl may be, or knowing that it is likely that she will be, forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with 37 another person, shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extent to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
43. Here in the case, PW5 victim girl categorically deposed that the accused forcibly took her to Electronic City, Bangalore and had a room there and had sexual intercourse. It is not the case of prosecution that accused procured the PW5 victim girl to force her or to seduce her for illicit intercourse with another person but he took away the victim girl and had sexual intercourse.
44. Though a charge under Section 366-A of IPC was framed, the prosecution failed to prove the ingredients under Section 366-A of IPC. However, the prosecution is able to establish the offence under Section 363 of IPC which is a lesser grave offence to Section 366-A IPC in view of Section 222 (2) of Cr.P.C. When a person is charged with an offence and facts are proved which reduced it to a minor offence, he may be convicted of the minor offence although he is not charged with it. In view of the above said provision, a separate charge is not required for the offence under Section 363 of IPC and the prosecution proved the offence under Section 363 of
IPC against the accused.
38
45. Hence, the prosecution established the case for the offences under Sections 376 (3), 363 and 343 of IPC and Section 5
(l) r/w 6 of POCSO Act.
46. In the result, the accused is found guilty of the offences under Sections 376 (3), 363 and 343 of IPC and Section 5 (l) r/w 6 of POCSO Act and is convicted under Section 235 (2) of Cr.P.C.
Dictated to the Stenographer by me directly in the computer,
typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 28th day of October, 2025.
Sd/- SRI M.SHANKAR RAO
Special Judge for the trial of offences
under the POCSO Act, Chittoor.
HEARING ON QUANTUM OF SENTENCE
47. The accused was heard in respect of the quantum of the sentence to be imposed on him.
The accused submitted that I got married and my wife is pregnant and I am having old aged parents and also grandmother and they are depending on me. I live by doing Tails work and not committed any offence and prayed to take lenient view.
48. The evidence on record discloses that the accused resorted to such a diabolic and heinous act of committing sexual 39 assault against the victim girl. If any leniency is taken, it will give a wrong signal to the society.
49. Hence taking into consideration the heinous act committed by the accused and the physical and mental trauma that the victim had undergone and the facts and circumstances of the case, in the light of the submissions made by the accused, I do not find any reasons to take a lenient view and to apply the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act.
50. In the result, the accused is found guilty, convicted under
Section 235 (2) of Cr.P.C and sentenced to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment for TWENTY YEARS and shall pay a fine of Rs.
5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) in default to undergo simple imprisonment for Three months for the offence punishable under
Section 5 (l) r/w 6 of POCSO Act. The fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees
Five thousand only) shall be paid to the victim as per Section 6 (2) of the POCSO Act.
Further, the accused is found guilty, convicted under Section 235 (2) of Cr.P.C. and sentenced to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment for THREE YEARS (03 years) and shall pay a fine of
Rs.1000/- (Rupees Three thousands only) in default to undergo 40 simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 363 of IPC.
Further, the accused is found guilty, convicted under Section 235 (2) of Cr.P.C. and sentenced to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment for ONE YEAR (01 year) and shall pay a fine of
Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundreds only) in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under
Section 343 of IPC.
Though the accused was found guilty for the offences punishable under sections 376 (3) of IPC, no separate sentence need to be passed against him for the said offences, in view of section 42 of the POCSO Act as he was already found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 5 (l) r/w 6 of POCSO Act.
The sentences awarded are ordered to be run concurrently.
The remand period that the accused has undergone for the period from 24-05-2019 to 27-07-2019 is ordered to be set off under
Section 428 of Cr.P.C.
51. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in a case reported in (2013) 6 S.C.C. 770 between ANKUSH SHIVAJI GAIKWAD VS.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA held that “it is a mandatory duty on the 41 court to apply its mind to the question of compensation in every criminal case for awarding/refusing, depending on the capacity of accused”.
52. No evidence was produced by the prosecution proving the financial capacity of the accused to compensate the victim.
Therefore, the victim needs to be compensated as per the Victim’s
Compensation Scheme.
53. In view of the powers conferred upon the special court under Section 33 (8) of the POCSO Act, the victim girl is awarded compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) for the trauma which the victim has undergone may be still undergoing on account of sexual assault by the accused, which shall be payable by the District Collector, Chittoor from Victims Compensation Scheme funds within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of the copy of
Judgment.
54. The office is directed to send a copy of this Judgment to the District Collector, Chittoor for paying compensation to the victim girl as awarded by this Court.
55. The office is directed to send a copy of the Judgment to the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, CHITTOOR for 42 taking necessary steps in payment of compensation awarded by this court.
56. The office is directed to furnish a free copy of the
Judgment to the accused. The accused is apprised of his right to appeal before the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh and of
Free Legal Aid.
The Material Objects 1 to 6 i.e., non-valuable property are ordered to be destroyed after the expiry of the appeal time if no appeal is preferred, if appeal is preferred till the disposal of the appeal.
Dictated to the Stenographer by me directly in the computer,
typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court this the 28th day of October, 2025.
Sd/- SRI M.SHANKAR RAO
Special Judge for trial of offences
under the POCSO Act, Chittoor. Chittoor.
Appendix of Evidence
Witnesses examined for:
Prosecution: Defence: PW-1: C.Reddeppa,NONE PW-2: K.Reddi Sekhar, PW-3: K.Akkulappa, PW-4: R.C.Tirumala, PW-5: Victim, PW-6: K.Puttaraju, PW-7: Dr.Jaswanth A.V.S. Rayal, PW-8: Dr.M.Srinivasulu, PW-9: K.Rama Devi, PW-10: Dr.S.Fairoza Begum, PW-11: P.V.Jayalakshmi, PW-12: Y.Venkata Muni, PW-13: B.Sahadevi, Sub Inspector of Police, PW-14: A.Bharathi, CDPO, 43
PW-15:M.Ravi Naik, PW-16: P.Arun Kumakr Reddy, Sub Inspector of Police, PW-17: N.Yugandhar Babu, then Sub Divisional Police Officer, PW-18: S.Arifullah, then Sub Divisional Police Officer.
Exhibits marked
On behalf of Prosecution: Ex.P1: Report, Ex.P2: 164 Cr.P.C. statement of the victim girl/ PW5, Ex.P3: 161 (3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW-6, Ex.P4: Potency certificate, Ex.P5: Medical certificate issued by Pw8, Ex.P6: Medical certificate issued by Pw10, Ex.P7: Analysis report, Ex.P8: Final opinion, Ex.P9: Statement of victim, Ex.P10: Signature of PW-15 on confession cum arrest mahazarnama, Ex.P11: First Information Report, Ex.P12: Rough sketch, Ex.P13: Alteration memo, Ex.P14: Police Proceedings, Ex.P15: Signature of SDPO, Ex.P16: Rough sketch, Ex.P17: Rough sketch, Ex.P18: Letter of advice, Ex.P19: Birth certificate. On behalf of Defence: Ex.D1: A portion in 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-3. Material Objects: MO-1: Blue colour T-shirt, MO-2: Blue colour punjabi top, MO-3: White colour leggin, MO-4: White colour chunny with gold color border, MO-5: Jeans pant, MO-6: One blue colour underwear.
Sd/- SRI M.SHANKAR RAO
Special Judge for trial of offences
under the POCSO Act, Chittoor.
Fair Judgment in POCSO NO. 38 of 2019
Dated 28.10.2025.
44