Smt Mantri Ramakrishna Sunitha

Page No. 1 of 11 MVOP 27 OF 2017

BEFORE THE CHAIRPERSON, MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT CLAIMS

TRIBUNAL-CUM-VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE

MEDAK

PRESENT: Smt. M.R.SUNITHA Chairperson, MV ACT-Cum- VIII Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Medak.

Dated: 12 th day of November, 2021

MVOP NO. 27 OF 2017

Between:

1) Myadari Yadamma W/o Kistaiah, Aged 48 yrs., Occupation Household,

2) Myadari Kistaiah S/o late Pochaiah, Aged 50 yrs., Occupation Business,

3) Myadari Bhavani D/o Kistaiah, Aged 20 yrs., Occupation Household,

4) Myadari Jyothi D/o Kistaiah, Aged 19 yrs., Occupation Household,

All are R/o Kothapally village, Papannapet Mandal & District Presently residing at Maisammanagar, Jagadgiri Gutta, Balanagar, Rangareddy District. .... Claimants A n d

1. Thimmakkapally Gopal S/o Ramulu, Occupation Owner of crime vehicle No.AP 29 W 3218, R/o H.No.8-58/D, Appajipally, kulcharam Mandal, Medak District.

2. Mohammed Zaher Ahmed S/o Md. Yousuf Ali, Aged Major, R/o 16-11-739/1, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad, Occupation Driver of crime vehicle, presently residing at his native place Kulcharam Village & Mandal, Medak District.

3. The Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Motor TP Hub, II Floor, Church Building, Posnett Bhavan, Tilak Road, Hyderabad-01 (Policy cover Note No. 150563116P100638918) valid period from 15-4-2016 to 14-4-2017)

... Respondents

Page No. 2 of 11 MVOP 27 OF 2017

This petition is coming up before me for hearing before me in the presence of Sri V. Raji Reddy, Advocate for claimants and of Sri K. Janardhan- Reddy, Advocate for Respondent No.2, and of Sri M. Shankar, Advocate for Respondent No.3, and the Respondent No.1 remained exparte, and after hearing both sides, upon perusal of the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court made the following :-

O R D E R

1.This Petition filed under Section 166(1)(C) of Motor Vehicle Act (herein after referred in short as ‘M.V.Act’), by the Legal Representatives of deceased

Myadari Hemalatha herein after referred to as ‘deceased’ in short for compensation amount of Rs.8.00 lakhs for the death of the deceased and subsequent interest there on from the respondents No. 1 to 3 jointly and severally towards compensation in the motor accident on 10-02-2017 and caused death of the deceased on 17-2-2017.

2. The case of the claimants as averred in claim petition succinctly are as follows:

That on 10-2-2017 at about 04:30 A.M. the deceased along with her father Kistaiah, mother Ydamma and two sisters Jyothi and Hemalatha were started in Auto No.AP 28 TD 5106 from Kothapally to Jagadgirigutta, and at 5:30 A.M. when they reached near Pothamshetpally village on Narsapur BT road on Lorry bearing No.AP 29 W 3218 coming from Narsapur in opposit direction and the driver of the said lorry driven in rash and negligent manner dashed to the Auto, due to which the mother of the deceased received bleeding injuries on her head and the other inmates were also received injuries and while the deceased received grevious injuries on her head, right side of throat, immediately they were shifted to Government Area Hospital, Medak in 108

Ambulance from there shifted to Gandhi Hospital, meanwhile the deceased died

Page No. 3 of 11 MVOP 27 OF 2017 on 17-2-2017 while undergoing treatment.

It is further contended that the accident had occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry. The Police, Kulcharam has registered a case in Crime No.10 of 2017 for the offence U/s 337 of I.P.C. and further altered the

Section of Law to Sec.304-A of I.P.C. against the driver of crime vehicle.

It is further contended that the deceased used to work as Sales

Supervisor in private Textiles shop and was earning an amount of Rs.15,000/- per month contribute her entire earnings for the welfare of the claimants. Now the claimants restricted their claim for Rs.8.00 lakhs towards compensation for the death of the deceased in the extent and they are entitled to seek the costs of petition subsequent interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of accident till the date of realization.

The first-respondent being the owner of the crime vehicle and second respondent being driver of the crime vehicle and the third-respondent being

Insurance company of the crime vehicle at the time of accident are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners/claimants.

3.On receipt of the notices issued on this application by the Tribunal, the respondents No.2 and 3 engaged their counsel. The respondents No. 2 and 3 appeared, filed their separate Counters, thereby restraining the claim of the petitioners.

The respondent No.2 filed counter not admitting the narration made in the petition relating to the matter which the accident had occurred.

4.The respondent No.3 filed counter denying the all the allegations made in

Page No. 4 of 11 MVOP 27 OF 2017 the claim petition. He denied the deceased was aged 26 years on the date of death and alleged accident and was private employee and was earning

Rs.15,000/- per month. This respondent is yet to ascertain whether any policy was issued to the respondent No.1 or not? In respect of lorry bearing No.AP 29

W 3218, if so whether it is valid or in force or not? And whether the lorry driver i.e. respondent No.2 was holding valid and effective driving licence or not?.

The respondent No.3 further averred in the additional counter that the claim petition is not maintainable for non-joinder of owner, driver and insurer of

Auto trolley bearing No. AP 28 TD 5106. The sketch map clearly reveals that the

Auto trolley bearing No. AP 28 TD 5106 was driven by the petitioner No.2 came in opposite direction on the wrong side and hit the lorry bearing No. AP 29 W 3218 due to which the alleged accident occurred, therefore the respondents

No.1 to 3 are not liable to pay any compensation and prayed to dismiss the claim petition of the petitioners, with costs.

5.Upon pleadings of both parties the following issues were settled for trial by this Court.

I S S U E S:

1) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of crime vehicle Lorry bearing No.AP 23 W 3218?

2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation for the death of deceased Myadari Hemalatha D/o Kistaiah as prayed for? If so what amount and from whom?

3) To what relief?

6.During the course of enquiry on behalf of the petitioners/Claimants examined PW1 and PW2 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 on their behalf.

Page No. 5 of 11 MVOP 27 OF 2017

On behalf of the respondents RW1 examined and got marked EXs.R1 and R2.

7.After completion of enquiry, heard the arguments of learned counsel for both sides, there after the petition is coming for passing an Award.

8.ISSUE No.1:

This OP is filed by the legal heirs of the deceased M.Hemalatha claiming compensation of Rs.8.00 lakhs on account of the untimely death of their daughter who died in the road traffic accident.

9.PW1 is the mother of the deceased and her evidence is that on 10-2-2017 at about 4:30 A.M., she along with her husband and three daughters started to Jagathgirigutta in an Auto bearing No.AP 28 TD 5106 from Kothapally village and when the Auto reached near Pothamshetpally village of Narsapur BT road, a Lorry bearing No.AP 29 W 3218 which was coming from Narsapur in the opposite direction came in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed to the Auto due to which PW1 sustained bleeding injuries to her head while the other inmates of the Auto sustained grevious injuries including the deceased, and the deceased succumbed to injuries at the Government

Hospital, Medak on 17-2-2017 while undergoing treatment. Since the accident due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime lorry, the petitioners filed the petition for compensation.

10.During the cross-examination nothing could be elicited from PW1 to discredit her testimony. Admittedly PW1 is an eye witness and so also the injured and however they examined PW2 who is the other eye-witness to the

Page No. 6 of 11 MVOP 27 OF 2017 accident. The evidence of this witness is that he stood at Pothamshetpally chowrastha in view of his going to fields and he witnessed a lorry coming in a rash and negligent manner at high speed from Narsapur direction and dashing the Auto and therefore he went to rescue them and he witnessed middle age lady sustained severe bleeding injuries on her head and the other inmates were also affected with grevious injuries all over the body and that he shifted them to

Government Area Hospital Medak and later came to know that the injured died on 17-2-2017 while undergoing treatment.

11.The document under Ex.P1 shows that the complaint has been registered against the accused in Crime No.10 of 2017 for the offence punishable under

Sec.337 I.P.C. and further altered to Section 304-A of I.P.C. Ex.P2 shows that the Police during their investigation conducted inquest over the dead body and prepared inquest panchanama and also drawn scene of offence panchanama along with rough sketch under Ex.P3. Ex.P4 is Postmortem examination report which clearly shows that the Doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of deceased opined that the cause of death was due to the injury to the spine.

Ex.P5 being the Motor Vehicle Inspector report shows that the accident did not take place due to any mechanical defect of the vehicle. Ex.P6 is the certified copy of charge sheet which shows that the Police filed charge sheet against the accused making him responsible for the accident.

12.Therefore, oral evidence of PW1 and PW2 coupled with the documents under Ex.P1 to P5 clinchingly proves the accident finding fault with the respondent No.2 for his rash and negligent act.

Page No. 7 of 11 MVOP 27 OF 2017

13.This is answered accordingly in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents holding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the crime vehicle i.e. the respondent No.2.

Issue No.2:

14.The evidence of PW1 with regard to the income of the deceased is that the deceased who was aged about 21 years was working as a sales supervisor in a private textiles shop and earning Rs.15,000/- per month and was spending the entire amount for the welfare of the family and since the deceased being the sole bread winner of the family in view of her old aged parents and the sisters

Dependant on her the petitioners are facing lot of financial crisis in view of the untimely death of the deceased and hence filed the OP for compensation of

Rs.8.00 lakhs.

15.Admittedly the petitioner did not file any document or salary certificate of the deceased to show that she was working as Sales Supervisor and earning

Rs.15,000/- per month. Therefore, this Court cannot take the income of the deceased as per their claim. But considering the fact that the family of the deceased is a huge family consisting of Six members, definitely the deceased being the elder might have been attending some or the other work to support her family in view of she attaining her majority. Further more in the villages the females would be going to some or the other works to earn money to eakout their livelihood and feed their family members. Therefore, considering the said fact this Court opines that it would be reasonable to fix the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month.

Page No. 8 of 11 MVOP 27 OF 2017

16.Since the age of the deceased is un-disputedly 21 years relying upon the table given in Sarla Varma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, the multiple applicable for the age group in between 21 to 25 is “18” .

Since the petitioner is not yet married, half of her income has to be deducted towards her personal expenditure had she been alive and the remaining amount of Rs.3,000/- would be her contribution towards her family. Now taking the multiplier “18” and calculation the income of the deceased for the maintenance of the family at Rs.3,000/- per month it is calculated as under:

Rs.6,000/- - 50% (personal expenditure) = Rs.3,000/-

Rs.3,000/- X 12 X ‘18’ = Rs.6,48,000/- (Rupees Six lakhs Fourty Eight thousand only)

Apart from awarding an amount of Rs.6,48,000/- (Rupees Six lakhs

Fourty Eight thousand only) further an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards Funeral charges and an amount of Rs.15,000/- towards transportation charge and another amount of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of estate, love and affection is awarded to the petitioners.

1 Loss of earnings Rs. 6,48,000-00 2 Funeral expensesRs. 25,000-00 3 Transportation chargesRs. 15,000-00 4 Love and affectionRs. 35,000-00

Total Compensation Rs. 7,23,000-00

17.The first respondent is the owner of the crime vehicle and the second respondent is the driver, while the third respondent is the Insurance company and the first and second respondents being the driver and owner of the crime vehicle failed to appear before the Court inspite of receipt of summons and hence they were set exparte by the Court. The third respondent filed Counter

Page No. 9 of 11 MVOP 27 OF 2017 disputing the mode and manner of accident and so also adduced oral evidence as RW1 stating that the they have issued policy to respondent No.1 in respect of Lorry No. AP 29 W 3218 to cover the claim of the third parties but the accident occurred due to the wrong side driving of the Auto Trolley bearing

No.AP 28 TD 5106 which came in the wrong side and hit the alleged crime lorry which resulted in the accident and as such their company is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners. It was also stated that the petitioners deliberately did not attribute any negligence against the petitioner No.2 who drove the Auto and the investigation Officer also wantedly did not file any charge sheet against the petitioner No.2.

18.During the cross-examination it was admitted that the policy was in force as on the date of accident and that the Auto is a third party and the Police is a

Government agency which would not have any special interest in any other persons. The witness also admitted that they did not challenge the charge sheet filed by the Police. Further more the Policy copy marked under Ex.R1 shows that the crime vehicle is duly insured with the Insurance company and in force as on the date of accident.

19.Hence Respondent No.1 being owner of the crime vehicle and the respondent No.2 is being Driver and the Respondent No.3 being the insurer of the crime vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners with costs and interest. Accordingly, the Issue No.2 is answered.

ISSUE NO.3: To what relief?

20. The Issues No.1 and 2 are decided in favour of the claimants No.1 to 3

Page No. 10 of 11 MVOP 27 OF 2017 and against the respondents No.1 to 3.

IN THE RESULT, the claim is partly allowed in favour of the Petitioners/

Claimants No.1 to 4 and against the Respondent No.1 to 3, granting compensation of Rs. 7,23,000=00 (Rupees Seven lakhs and Twenty Three thousand only) with interest and proportionate costs and Award is passed in the following terms:

i)Respondents No.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay a compensation of Rs. 7,23,000=00 (Rupees Seven lakhs and Twenty Three thousand only) with interest and proportionate costs @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. On such deposit the claimant

No.1/mother of the deceased share of compensation is Rs.4,73,000=00 (Rupees Four lakhs Seventy Three thousand only), the Claimant No.2/father of the deceased share of compensation is Rs.50,000=00 (Rupees Fifty thousand only), the claimant No.3/sister of the deceased share of compensation is

Rs.1,00,000=00 (Rupees One lakh only) and the claimant No.4/another sister of the deceased share of compensation is Rs.1,00,000=00 (Rupees One lakh only).

ii)Respondent No.1 to 3 shall deposit said Compensation amount within one month from the date of Award as mandate under Sec.168(3) of M.V.Act.

iii) The petitioners/Claimants No.1 to 4 are permitted to withdraw their share of compensation amount.

iv) The Advocate’s fee is fixed at Rs.3,000/-(Rupees Three thousand only).

Dictated to Stenographer Grade-I, transcribed by him, and Partly typed to my dictation,

corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 12 th day of November, 2021.

Chairperson, MV ACT-Cum-VIII Addl. District &

Sessions Judge, Medak.

Page No. 11 of 11 MVOP 27 OF 2017

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

witnesses examined for

CLAIMANTS: RESPONDENTS:

PW1 Myadari Yadamma (Claimant No.1) RW1 M. Jwanesu

PW2 Pathuri Anja Goud

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

CLAIMANTS:

1. Ex.P1 is certified copy of First Information Report,

2. Ex.P2 is certified copy of Inquest panchanama

3. Ex.P3 is certified copy of Scene of offence panchanama and rough sketch

4. Ex.P4 is postmortem examination report

5. Ex.P5 is certified copy of Motor Vehicle Inspector report

6. Ex.P6 is charge sheet

RESPONDENTS:

1. Ex.R1 Policy cover Note No. 150563116P100638918 valid period from 15-4-2016 to 14-4-2017

2. Ex.R2 certified copy of Crime detailed Form of P.S. Kulcharam in FIR No.10 of 2017.

Chairperson, MV ACT-Cum-VIII Addl. District &

Sessions Judge, Medak.

Page No.1 of 8 POCSO SC No. 79 of 2020

IN THE COURT OF SPL, JUDGE, FAST TRACK SPECIAL CoURT FOR

EXPEDITIOUS TRAIL AND DISPOSAL OF EXPEDITIOUS TRAIL AND

DISPOSAL OF RAPE & POCSO ACT CASES AT MEDAK

PRESENT: Smt. M.R.SUNITHA, VIII Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Medak. FAC: SPL. JUDGE, FAST TRACK SPECIAL CoURT FOR EXPEDITIOUS

TRAIL AND DISPOSAL OF EXPEDITIOUS TRAIL AND DISPOSAL OF

RAPE & POCSO ACT CASES AT MEDAK

WEDNESDAY, 10th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021

POCSO SC. No. 79 OF 2020

Crime No., Police Station. Crime No. 68 of 2019 of P.S. Medak-Town

Description of Accused Shaik Imran S/o Chand Pasha, Aged 21 yrs., Muslim, Occupation Car Driver, R/o Durga Colony, Medak Town.

Charge/s Under Sections 363, 376(2)(n) of I.P.C. & Section 3 & 4 of POCSO Act.

Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty

Finding of the Judge and In the result: Accused is found NOT sentence. GUILTY for the offence under Sections 363, 376(2)(n) of I.P.C. & Section 3 & 4 of POCSO |Act and accordingly, he is ACQUTTED under Section 232 Cr.P.C. for the said offence. Prosecution conducted by Sri N. Krishna,

Additional Public

Prosecutor.

Accused defended by Sri G. Hanmanth Reddy, Advocate for the |Accused

This case is conming up before nme for final hearing in the presence of Sri N. Krishna, l/c Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri G. Hanmanth Reddy, Advocate for the accused, upon perusing the material on record and upon hearing the arguments, the Court delivered

the following:

HJUDG MENT:

1. The Inspector of Police, Medak Town Police Station has filed the charge sheet in Crime No.68 of 2019 against the sole accused for the

Page No.2 of & POCSO SC No. 79 of 2020 offence punishable under Sections 363. 376(2)(n) of 1.P.C. & Section 3 & 4 of POCSO Act of P.S. Medak-Town with the following allegations.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief are that on 02-4-2019 at 20:00

hours the defacto-complainant/ Syed Ahmed S/o Magbool came to Police

Station and lodged a written complaint stating that on 31-3-2019 eveing at about 1830 hours his daughter Saba Sulthana Aged 16 years, and his

second son Feroz Aged 10 years both went to his daughter's friend's

house and on the way at new Market one Imaran S/o Chand Pasha Aged

about 21 years came in a Car No.AP 11 A| 1000 Swift Dezire and forcibly caught hold the is daughter and son's hand and dragged them into his car and proceeded to Bodhan X road, where he dropped his son at Gandhi

Nagar and later taken his daughter/victim into a lonely place and stopped the car and forcibly tear out victim clothes and committed rape on her,

meantime victim requested and pleaded him weeping but he did not hear

her words and committed rape and later he took her into car and also picked up his son and warned the victim and her brother not to tell about anything otherwise he will kill her and her family members brought them to Ambnedkar chowrastha and left them at about 20:00 hours. The whole story was said by the his daughter to him and he decided that this is a prestige issue and they fear of words of Imran did not given petition

immediately, hence caused delay in lodging complaint and requested to

take necessary legal actio against Imran.

On the said complaint given by the defacto-complainant/LW1, the

HC/LW19 registered the case in Crime No.68 of 2019 for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 376(2)(n) of I.P.C. & Section 3 & 4 of

POCSO Act and issued FIR to all the concerned. The LW20/lnspector of

Police examined and recorded the statement of the defacto-complainant.

During the course of investigation sent the LW2/minor girl to Government

Page No.3 of 8 POCSO SC No. 79 of 2020

Medical Officer Area Hospital, Medak for examination. LW14/Lady examined the victim collected Swabs & Smears to send them to FSL

Hyderabad for chemical analysis and report. Son 4-4-2019 LW20 visted the scene of offences at New Market, secured the presence of panch witnesses and conducted scene of offence panchanama, drafted rough sketch in the presence of panchas, later proceeded to second scene of offence situated at Gandhi nagar, Medak where the accused committed rape on victim girl and conducted scene of offence panchanama, drafted rough sketch in the presence of same panchas. Later examined and recorded the statements of LWs 3 to 7, conducted seizure panchanama and seized the apparels of victim girl clothes were wore by her at the time offence. During further course of investigation on requistion LW18/Addl.

JMFC, Gajwel recorded the 164 Cr.P.C. statement of the victim girl, and collected Bonafide Certificate of LW2/victim girl which reveal that the date of birth of victim is 01-8-2002 as per her school records, she is having 15 years and 8 months age on the date of offence and she is minor. On 30-4-2019 surrendered before Court. On requisition took the custody of accused for twO days, produced the accused before Medical Officer to conduct potency test. The Medical Officer conducted potency test on the

accused and issue report stating that there is nothing to suggest that the

individual is not capable of sexual intercourse. On interrogation the

accused confessed his guilty of offence, seized Car and mobile phone of

the accused which used by the accused in the commission of offence. And

after receipt of all the reports and after completion of investigation he

filed charge sheet alleging that accused has committed an offence and he

is liable for punishment for the offence under Sections 363, 376(2) (n) of

I.P.C. & Section 3 & 4 of POCSO Act. Hence, the charge.

Page No.4 of 8 POCSO SC No.79 o 202o

3. Cognizance is taken for the offences punishable under Sections 363,

376(2)(n) of I.P.C. & Section 3 & 4 of POCSO Act against the accused.

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

5 After appearance of the accused before this Court and after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State and after hearing the defense counsel, upon considering all the material placed by prosecution a charge under Sections 363, 376(2)(n) of I.P.C. & Section 3 & 4 of POCSO

Act has been framed, read over and explained to him under Section 228(2) Cr.P.C., he after having understood pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The accused is defended by his Advocate.

6 In order to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 376(2)(n) of I.P.C. & Section 3 & 4 of

POCSO Act the prosecution has examined PWs-1 to 7 and got marked

Exhibits P-1 to P-11 on the prosecution side. As the PWs 1 to 4, 6 and7 who are material witnesses including the victim-girl not supported the case of the prosecution, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor given-up the remaining list of witnesses. No defence witnesses are examined and no exhibits are marked on behalf of the defence.

7. As there is no incriminating evidence against the accused the examination of the Accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., is dispensed with.

8. Heard. After completion of trial the learned public prosecutor represented by state, and the learned defence counsel appearing for the accused submitted their arquments.

POCSO SC No.79 of 2020

Now. the following point that arise for determination is:

9.

Whether the prosecution has been able to prove the guilty of the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 376(2) (n) of I.P.C. & Section 3 & 4 of POCSO Act beyond all reasonable doubt, and whether the accused is liable for punishment for the said offences?

10. POINT:

The case of the prosecution is that the accused forcibly took the victim

and her brother in a Car from New Market, Fathenagar, Medak to an isolated

place and on the way, he pushed the brother of the victim girl out of the car

and committed rape on the victim on the road at Bodhan cross roads inspite

of the victim requesting him to leave her and returned back along with her and

took the brother of the victim into the Car and left them giving warning to them not to disclose the fact to any body or else to face grievous consequences.

In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution relied 11 upon the evidence of PW1 to PW7 and marked Exs P1 to P11.

PW1 is the complainant and father of the victim and PW3 is the mother 12.

of the victim and PW2 is the victim herself, PW4 is the panch for the seizure panchanama of the cloths and PW5 is the panch for confession and seizure panchanama, PW6 and PW7 are the panchas for the 1st and 2nd scene of offence.

The collective evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is that of total denial of the case 13.

of the prosecution. PWs 1 to 3 deposed that they did not give any complaint against the accused and the accused never committed any offence against

PW2. And infact the marriage of PW2 was fixed long back with another

person and they are getting ready for marriage and that the signature of PW1

Page No.6 of 8 POCSO SC No.79 of 2020 was obtained on white paper when he went to the Police Station along with his friend on some work.

14. The evidence of PW4 is that the Police did not seize anything in his presence and in fact the Police obtained his signatures on white papers at the instance of LW8.

15. PW5 being the Village Revenue Officer working for Medak town at that relevant part of time deposed that the accused confessed his guilt when he enquired the accused in the presence of CI of Police along with the Constable. The evidence of this witness is that the accused stated that he was in love with the victim but since his love was not considered and he was married to another girl, he could not control himself and therefore called the victim through her brother and committed rape on her.

16. This witness could not withstand the cross-examination and admitted that he do not know the Car number and on which part of the confession panchanama he put his signatures. Admittedly the confession made in the presence of Police is not admissible in evidence since there is every likelihood of the accused being threatened and forced to admit the guilt.

17. PW6 and PW7 are the panchas for the first and second scene of offence panchanamas and their evidence is that no panchanama was conducted in their presence and that in fact the Police obtained their signatures when they went to the Police Station on their personal work.

18. Since the evidence of PW1 to PW7 is not helpful to the case of the

prosecution in view of the hostile testimony of PWs 1 to 4 and PWs 6 and 7

and the evidence of PW5 is not worth to consider, the additional Public

Page No.7 of 8 POCSO SC No.79 of 2020

Prosecutor has given up the remaining witnesses and therefore the 313

Cr.P.C. examination of the accused was dispensed with and the matter has been posted for Judgment.

19. After considering the evidence on record this Court opines that this is a case of clear acquittal of the accused since no case is made out from the evidence of the material witnesses.

20. IN THE RESULT: I find the AcCused is NOT GUILTY for the offence under Sections 363, 376(2) (n) of 1.P.C. & Section 3 & 4 of POCSO Act, and accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 232 Cr.P.C. for the said offences.

The bail bond of accused shall stand canceled and the sureties are hereby discharged after appeal time is over. The case property, if any, shall be returned to the concerned on proper identification after appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, Grl, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the ioh day of November, 2021.

VII Addl. Sessions Judge, Medak

FAC:: Spl. Judge, Fast Track Special Court for

expeditious trail and disposal of expeditious trail

and disposal of Rape & POCSO Act cases at Medak

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION:

PW.1 Syed Ahmed (Defacto-Complainant/father of the Victim girl)

PW.2 Kum. Sabasulthana (victim-girl) PW.3 Smt. Lathif PW.4 Syed Bari PW.5 B. Nagaraju PW.6 Md. Fareedoddin PW.7 Md. Maimood

DEFENCE: None.

Page No.8 of 8 POCSO SC No. 79 of 2020

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE: NIL

Ex.Pl Signature of PW1 on the complaint Ex.P2 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1 Ex.P3 signature of PW2 on the 164 Cr.P.C. statement Ex.P4 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2 Ex.P5 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW3 Ex.P6 signature of PW4 on the seizure report Ex.P7 Confession panchananma of accused

Ex.P8 signature of PW6 on the 1* scene of offence panchanama

Ex.P9 signature of PW6 on the 2nd scene of offence panchanama

Ex.P10 signature of PW7 on the 1* scene of offence panchanama

Ex.Pll signature of PW7 on the 2nd scene of offence panchanama

MATERIAL OBIECTS MARKED FOR: NIL.

MoR.S

VIII Addl. Sessions Judge, Medak FAC: Spl. Judge, Fast Track Special Court for

expeditious trail and disposal of expeditious trail

and disposal of Rape & POCSO Act cases at Medak

Page No. 1 of 8 POCSO SC No.131 of 2016

IN THE COURT OF SPL. JUDGE, FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT FOR

EXPEDITIOUS TRAIL AND DISPOSAL OF EXPEDITIOUS TRAIL AND

DISPOSAL OF RAPE & POCSO ACT CASES AT MEDAK

PRESENT: Smt. M.R.SUNITHA, VII Addi. District & Sessions Judge, Medak. FAC: SPL. JUDGE, FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT FOR EXPEDITIOUS

TRAIL AND DISPOSAL OF EXPEDITIOUS TRAIL AND DISPOSAL OF

RAPE & POCSO ACT CASES AT MEDAK

THURSDAY, 11th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021

POCSO SC. No. 131 OF 2016

Crime No., Police Station. Crime No. 72 of 2016 of P.S. Toopran

Description of Accused Cheemaladari Ramesh |S/o Eshwar Goud, 21 years, Occupation Student & Agril., R/o Gundredpally Village, Toopran Manda, Medak District.

Under Sections 376(1), 420 of LP.C. & Charge/s Section 5(L) & 6 of POCSO Act, 2012.

Pleaded not guilty

Plea of the accused |In the result: Accused are found NOT Finding of the Judge and GUILTY for the offences under Sections sentence. 376(1), 420 of I.P.C. & Section 5(L) & 6 of |POCSO Act, 2012 and accordingly, he is ACQUITTED under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. for |the said offences. /c Additional Public Sri N. Krishna, Prosecution conducted by Prosecutor. Sri G. Chandrakanth, Advocate for the ACcused defended by Accused

This case is coming up before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri N. Krishna, /c Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri G.Chandrakanth, Advocate for the accused, upon perusing the material on record and upon hearing the arquments, the Court delivered

the following:

HUDG MEN T:

The Sub Divisional Police Officer, Toopran Sub Division has filed the 1 charge sheet in Crime No.72 of 2016 against the accused for the offences

Page No.2 of 8 POCSO SC No.131 of 2016

punishable under Sections 376(1), 420 of 1.P.C. & Section 5(L) & 6 of

POCSO Act, 2012 of P.S. Toopran with the following allegations.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief are that on 25-3-2016 at 18:00

hours the defacto-complainant/LW1/Kum. Abothu Shyamala D/o Ramulu,

Aged 17 years, came to Police Station and lodged a written complaint stating that about three years back her villager Cheemaladari Ramesh S/o

Eshwar Goud used to give smile on seeing her and from ast few days they goth got acquaintance. About one week back in the afternoon when no one present he took her to his agricultural fields by saying that he will marry and tried to have sex with her, she refused, but he forcibly

assaulted sexually by saying to marry her. Later after three days taken

her outside and forcibly raped her. On 21-3-2016 he took her to

agricultural fields and forcibly raped on her saying that he will marry, but

later he denied and refused to marry and cheated her, and thereby

requested to take necessary legal action.

On the said complaint given by the defacto-complainant, LW13/S.I.

of Police, Toopran registered the case in Crime No.72 of 2016 for the

offence punishable under Sections 376(1), 420 of I.P.C. & Section 5(L) &

6 of POCSO ACt, 2012 and issued FIR to all the concerned. During the

course of investigation examined and recorded the statement of victim

girl and LWs 2 and 3 who are parents of the victim-qirl, sent the victim girl to Government Area Hospital Gajwel for medical examination, where

LW9/Medical Officer examined the victim. On 26-3-2016 LW14/CI of Police

examined and recorded the statements of LWs 4 and 5 and conducted

Scene offence panchanama in the presence of panchas, drafted rough sketch. On 28-3-2016 at 0900 hours apprehended the accused and on

Page No.3 of 8 POCSO SC No.131 of 2016

interrogation

he confessed the guilty of offence.

On requisition

LW10/Medical Officer conducted potency test of the accused and isSued

report opining that the " it is not possible to say that he cannot perform

sexual intercourse", LW12/Woman SI of Police recorded the statement of

victim-girl. As per the bonafide certificate of the deceased she is Minor,

the date of birth is 06-6-1998. After receipt of FSL report and the opinion

of Medical Officers and after collecting the required records, after

completion of investigation he filed charge sheet alleging that accused

had committed an offences punishable under Sections 376(1), 420 of

I.P.C. & Section 5(L) & 6 of POCSO Act, 2012. Hence, the charge.

3. Cognizance is taken for the offences punishable under Sections 376(1), 420 of I.P.C. & Section 5(L) & 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 against the accused.

4. On appearance of the accused before the Court, furnished copies of the charge sheet and other connected documents to them under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5. After appearance of the accused before this Court and after hearing

the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State and after hearing the

defense counsel, upon considering all the material placed by prosecution

a charge under Sections 376(1), 420 of I.P.C. & Section 5(L) & 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 Act has been framed, read over and explained to him

under Section 228(2) Cr.P.C., he after having understood pleaded not

quilty and claimed to be tried. The accused is defended by his Advocate.

6. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence

punishable under Sections 376(1), 420 of 1.P.C. & Section 5(L) &6 of

Page No.4 of 8 POCSO SC No.131 of 2016

POCSO Act, 2012 the prosecution has examined PWs-1 to 11 and got

marked Exhibits P-1 to P-14 on the prosecution side.

7. After completion of prosecution side evidence, the accused was

examined under Section 313 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.

8. After completion of trial the learned public prosecutor represented by

state and the learned defence counsel appearing for the accused submitted

their arguments.

9 Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution has proved

the guilty of the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 376(1),

420 of I.P.C. & Section 5(L) & 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 beyond al reasonable

doubt?

10. POINT:

The case of the prosecution is that the accused induced the victim on

the guise of marriage and fulfilled his lust by having sexual intercourse with

her and there after denied to marry her and therefore the victim lodged complaint with the Police and the investigation also revealed that the accused induced the victim and took her to the agricultural fields and had forcibly raped

her which continued for one week and there after denied to marry the victim

and as such to take action against the accused.

In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution relied

11.

upon the evidence of PW1 to PW11 and marked Exs P1 to P14.

Page No.5 of 8 POCSO SC No.131 of 2016

PW1 is the victim, PW2 is the mother of the victim, PW3 is the brother 12. in-law of the victim, PW4 is circumstantial witness, PWs 5 and 6 are the panchas for scene of offence panchanama, PW7 is the school Head Mistress who has issued Bonafide Certificate to the victim, and PW8 and PW9 are the

Doctors who have examined the victim and accused, PW10 is the SDPO who

has filed charge sheet, and PW11is the Woman Sub Inspector who recorded

the 161 statement of the victim.

13. The evidence of PW1 is against the case of the prosecution. She deposed that the accused never cheated her and in fact he is her husband and that on the instigation of her brother, the Police scribed the complaint and

filed false case against the accused.

PW2 being mother of the victim also deposed on the same lines of

14.

PW1 stating that the marriage of the victim was performed with the accused

as per their wish and no offence was committed by the accused as alleged.

15. The evidence of PW3 is that since the accused refused to marry PW1

she lodged a complaint against him. Coming to the cross-examination this

witness stated that he was informed about the said incident through LW2 who

is the father of the victim but the said person is no more as on the date of

giving evidence.

16. The evidence of PW4 is also hearsay evidence said to have been informed by LW2 which carries no importance in vieW of the hostile testimony of the main victim herself.

Page No.6 of 8 POCSO SC No. 131 of 2016

17. The evidence of PW5 and PW6 is that they have never acted as

panchas for any scene of offence panchanama and that the Police obtained

their signatures on white papers when they are coming from their fields.

18. PW7 deposed that according to the Bonafide Certificate issued by her

the date of birth of the victim is 06-06-1998 which is not in dispute.

19, The evidence of PW8 is that on examination of the victim he opined that

the victim was subjected to rape. During the cross-examination it was

Suggested that the accused is no way connected to the said offence.

20. The evidence of PW9 is that the accused is Potent and capable of

performing sexual act.

21. The evidence of PW10 is that he has verified the investigation done by his predecessor and filed charge sheet.

22. The evidence of PW11 is that she recorded the statement of victim and

the victim deposed that she was subjected to rape.

23. On careful scrutiny of the evidence on record it is crystal clear that the

victim and her mother being material witnesses turned hostle and did not

support the case of the prosecution. The evidence of PWs 3 and 4 is only

hearsay evidence which cannot be relied upon. In view of the hostile

testimony of panch witnesses and the opinion given by the Doctors, this Court

cannot conclude that the accused is the person responsible for the alleged

offence against him. Therefore, in the above circumstances and in the absence of any reliable evidence this Court cannot rope the accused with the

alleged offence and he is entitled for acquittal.

Page No.7 of 8 POCSO SC No.131 of 2016

24. IN THE RESULT: find the Accused NOT GUILTY for the offence under Sections 376(1), 420 of I.P.C. & Section 5(L) & 6 of POCSO Act,

2012 and accordingly, he is ACQUITTED under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. for

the said offence. The bail bond of accused shall stand canceled and the

sureties are hereby discharged after appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, Grl, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 11h day of November, 2021.

VIlII AddI. Sessions Judge, Medak

FAC:: Spl. Judge, Fast Track Special Court for

expeditious trail and disposal of expeditious trail

and disposal of Rape & POCSO Act cases at Medak.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION

PW.1 A. Shyamala (Defacto-Complainant)

PW.2 A. Lakshami PW.3 B. Mallesham PW.4 A. Venkatesh PW.5 Ch.Raji Reddy PW.6 N. Mallesh PW.7 B.Radha Kumari PW.8 Dr.M.Rama Rani PW.9 Dr. N.Venkateshwara Prasad PW.10 N. Venkateshwarlu, I.0. PW.11 Smt.B. Prameela, I.0.

DEFENCE: None.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

DEFENCE: NIL

PROSECUTION

Ex.Pl is the report Ex.P2 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1 Ex.P3 164 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1 Ex.P4 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2 Ex.P5 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW3

Ex.P5 signature of PVW5 on the scene of offence panchanama

Ex.P6 signature of PW5 on the Rough sketch

Ex.P7 signature of PW6 on the scene of offence panchanama

Ex.P8 signature of PW6 on the Rough sketch

Ex.P9 Bonafide Certificate Ex.P10 Investigation report

Page No.8 of 8 POCSO SC No.131 of 2016

Ex.Pll Medical Certificate issued by PW8 Ex.P12 FSL rerport

Ex.P13 Requisition filed before PW9 to conduct potency test of accused

Ex.P14 Report issued by PW9

MATERIAL OBIECTS MARKED FOR: NIL.

MRS

VIII Addl. Sessions Judge, Medak

FAC:: Spl. Judge, Fast Track Special Court for

expeditious trail and disposal of expeditious trail

and disposal of Rape & POCSO Act cases at Medak

Page No. 1 of 7 POCSO SC No.102 of 2016

IN THE COURT OF SPL. JUDGE, FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT FOR

EXPEDITIOUS TRAIL AND DISPOSAL OF EXPEDITIOUS TRAIL AND

DISPOSAL OF RAPE & POCSO ACT CASES AT MEDAK

PRESENT: Smt. M.R.SUNITHA, VIII Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Medak. FAC: SPL. JUDGE, FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT FOR EXPEDITIOUS

TRAIL AND DISPOSAL OF EXPEDITIOUS TRAIL AND DISPOSAL OF

& POCSO ACT CASES AT MEDAK

RAPE

THURSDAY, 11th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021

POCSO SC. No. 102 OF 2016

Crime No. 8 of 2016 of P.S. Gowraram Crime No., Police Station.

Shaik Israil @ Bablu

Description of Accused

|S/o Ismail, Aged 20 yrs., Muslim,

Occupation Worder in Sitaram Spinning Mill, R/o Quarter No.10, Sitaram Spinning Mill, Tunkikhalsa (v), Wargal (Mandal) N/o Umarkhed Village, & TQ., Yothmal District, Maharastra State.

Under Sections 366(A), 343, 376(2)() of Charge/s I.P.C. & Section 3 & 4 of POCSO Act, 2012.

Pleaded not guilty Plea of the accused

In the result: Accused is found NOT Finding of the Judge and GUILTY for the offence under Sections sentence. 366(A), 343, 376(2)(i) of I.P.C. & Section 3 & 4 of POCSO Act, 2012 and accordingly, he is ACQUITTED under Section 232 Cr.P.C. for |the said offence. Prosecution conducted by Sri N. Krishna, /c Additional Public Prosecutor.

Accused defended by Sri G. Goverdhan Reddy, Sri M.K.Nizamuddin, Advocates for the Accused

This case is coming up before me for final hearing in the presence of

Sri N. Krishna, /c Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and of

Sri G. Goverdhan Reddy, Sri M.K. Nizamuddin, Advocates for the accused,

upon perusing the material on reCord and upon hearing the arguments, the Court delivered the following:

Page No.2 of 7 POCSO SC No. 102 of 2016

:JUDG ME NTI

1. The Circle Inspector of Police, Gajwel circle has filed the charge sheet in Crime No.8 of 2016 against the sole accused for the offence punishable under Sections 366(A), 343, 376(2)(i) of 1.P.C. && Section 3 4 of POCSO Act, 2012 of P.S. Gowraram with the following allegations.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief are that on 18-01-2016 at 16:30

hours the defacto-complainant/ Petlu Venkatamma @ Venkat Laxmi came

to Police Station and lodged a written complaint stating that about Ten years ago they migrated to Sitaram Spinning Mill at Tunkikhalsa Village from S.Timmapur village of East Godavari District, she alorng with her husband and her son Ravi working in Spinning Mill and her her daughter Soniya, aged 15 years discontinued her studies due to ill health and staying at house. On 16-01-2016 at 3-30 P.M. they returned to homne from company duties and did not found her daughter at house, they searched but could not trace. She further mentioned that she have Suspicion olver one Israth who is also working in same company and requested to take necessary legal action.

On the said complaint given by the defacto-complainant/LWI, the

SIP/LW19 registered the case in Crime No.8 of 2016 under head of Girl missing and issued FIR to all the concerned, examined and recorded the statements of LWs 1 to 4. While the investigation is in progress on 30-1 2016 at 1500 hours LW5/Minor victinm-girl along with LWs 1 and 2 came to

Police Station and revealed that one Israil @ Bablu who is also working in the same company and residing in Quarter No.10 of the company quarters followed the victim-girl stating that he is loving her. On 16-1-2016 when her parents and brother went to company the said Israil came to her and forcibly took her, make her to wear her burkha by stating that they will go up to Medchal and took her in a Auto and after that forcibly took her to

Page No.3 of 7 POCSO SC No.102 of 2016

Secunderabad and later took her to Guntur by train and later took her to

Mettapally Spinning Mill which is near by Narsaraopet and took her to

Israil friend Supraj and stated to him that they got marriage and

requested him to provide room as well as job in the company, as such said Supraj shown a quarter in the same spinning mill and got job to Israil in the said company and later Israil @ Bablu confined her in the room and forcibly committed sexual intercourse on her. On 29-01-2016 when Israil went to company she escaped from the room and came to her parents.

Basing on the statement altered the Section of Law to Sections 366(A), 343, 376(2) (i) of I.P.C. & Section 3 & 4 of POCSO Act, 2012. LW-20/CIP conducted further investigation examined the victim-girl and other

witnesses, sent the victim-girl to Government Hospital for examination,

collected Bonafide certificate of victim-girl, as per the Bonafide Certificate the victim-girl is minor. While investigation is in progress on 01-2-2016 apprehended the accused and on interrogation he confessed his guilty of offence, produced the accused before Medical Officer to conduct potency test. The Medical Officer/LW11 conducted potency test and issued report

opining that "there is nothing to suggest that the accused is not capable

of performing sexual act", On 03-2-2016 LW20 along with victim-girl proceeded to Mittapally Spinning Mill where the accused committed rape

on victim-girl, examined and recorded the statement of LW9 and LW10

and conducted scene of offence panchanama and drawn rough sketch. On

requisition Chief Judicial Magistrate recorded the 164 Cr.P.C. statement of

victim-girl and after receipt of FSL report and after completion of

investigation filed charge sheet against the accused he filed charge sheet alleging that accused has committed an offence and he is liable for punishment for the offence under Sections 366(A), 343, 376(2)(0) of 1.P.C.

& Section 3 &4 of POCSO Act, 2012. Hence, the charge.

Page No.4 of 7 POCSO SC No.102 of 2016

3. Cognizance is taken for the offences punishable under Sections 366(A), 343, 376(2)(i) of I.P.C. & Section 3 & 4 of POCSO Act, 2012 against the acCused.

4. On production of the accused from District Jail, Sangareddy before the Court, furnished copies of the charge sheet and other connected documents to him under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5. On production of the accused from District Jail, Sangareddy before

this Court and after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor representing

the State and after hearing the legal aid defense counsel, upon

considering all the material placed by prosecution a charge under

Sections 366(A), 343, 376(2)() of I.P.C. & Section 3 & 4 of POCS0 Act, 2012 has been framed, read over and explained to him under Section

228(2) Cr.P.C., he after having understood pleaded not guilty and claimed

to be tried. The accused is defended by his Legal-Aid counsel.

6. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 366(A), 343, 376(2)(i) of I.P.C. & Section 3 & 4 of POCSO Act, 2012 the prosecution has examined PWs-1 to 3 and got marked Exhibits P-1 to P-4 on the prosecution side. As the PWs 1 to 3 who are material witnesses including the victim-girl not supported the case of the prosecution, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor given-up the remaining list of witnesses. No defence witnesses are examined and no exhibits are marked on behalf of the defence.

As there is no incriminating evidence against the accused the 7.

examination of the Accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., is dispensed with.

Page No.5 of 7 POCSO SC No.102 of 2016

8. Heard. After completion of trial the learned public prosecutor represented by state, and the learned defence counsel appearing for the accused submitted their arguments.

Now, the following point that arise for determination is: 9 Whether the prosecution has been able to prove the guilty of the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 366(A), 343, 376(2)() of I.P.C. & Section 3 & 4 of POCSO Act, 2012 beyond all reasonable doubt, and whether the accused is liable for punishment for the said offences?

10. POINT: The case of the prosecution is that the accused kidnapped the minor victim girl from the lawful guardianship of her parents by stating illusive words and inducing her and confined her in a rom at Metpally Spinning Mill and

Committed rape on the victim and on one when the accused was out of the house the victim escaped from the said house and informed the matter to the

Police and he in turn along with the mother of the victim lodged a complaint with the Police and hence requested to take action.

In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution relied 11. upon the evidence of PW1 to PW3. PW1 is the mother of the victim and PW2 is the cousin of victim and PW3 is victim herself.

12. The collective evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is that the accused is also working in the Spinning Mill along with PW2 and that they were having cordial relation with each other but the Police obtained the thumb impression of PW1 when she was working at the Spinning Mill and that PW3 was married lona back and was having a child as on date and that they are all shifted to Andhra and that in view of the force by the Police they have come up all the way to give evidence.

Page No.6 of 7 POCSO SC No.102 of 2016

13. The 161 Statements along with the 164 statement of the victim were marked under Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 but in view of the hostile testimony of material witnesses on record the learned Public Prosecutor has given up the examination of the remaining witnesses and since there is no incriminating material against the accused the 313 Cr.P.C. examination of the accused is also dispensed with and the matter being posted for Judgment.

14. As already stated in view of the hostile testimony of material witnesses on record the accused is entitled for a clean acquittal.

15. IN THE RESULT: I find the Accused is NOT GUILTY for the offence under Sections 366(A), 343, 376(2)(i) of 1.P.C. & Section 3 & 4 of POCSO

Act, 2012, and accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 232 Cr.P.C. for the said offences.

The Accused is in District Jail, Sangareddy, the Superintendent,

District Jail, Sangareddy is directed to release the accused forthwith from your custody if he is not required in any other cases.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, Grl, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 11h day of November, 2021.

VII Addl. Sessions Judge, Medak FAC:: Spl. Judge, Fast Track Special Court for expeditious trail and disposal of expeditious trail

and disposal of Rape & POCSO Act cases at Medak

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION:

PW.1 Petlu Venkata Laxm @ Venkatamma (Defacto-Complainant/mother of the Victim girl)

PW.2 Petlu Ravi

Page No.7 of 7 POCSO SC No.102 of 2016

PW.3 Kum. Petlu Soniya @ Sony @ Surekha

DEFENCE: None.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE: NIL

Ex.P1 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PWi Ex.P2 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2 Ex.P3 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW3 Ex.P4 164 Cr.P.C. statement of PW3

MATERIAL OB|ECTS MARKED FOR: NIL.

VIII Addl. Sessions Judge, Medak FAC:: Spl. Judge, Fast Track Special Court for expeditious trail and disposal of expeditious trail and disposal of Rape & POCSO Act cases at Medak

Page No. 1 of 6 POCSO SC No.27 of 2017

IN THE COURT OF SPL. JUDGE, FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT FOR

EXPEDITIOUS TRAIL AND DISPOSAL OF EXPEDITIOUS TRAIL AND

DISPOSAL OF RAPE & POCSO ACT CASES AT MEDAK

PRESENT: Smnt. M.R.SUNITHA, VII Addi. District & Sessions Judge, Medak. FAC: SPL. JUDGE, FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT FOR EXPEDITIOUS

TRAIL AND DISPOSAL OF EXPEDITIOUS TRAIL AND DISPOSAL OF

RAPE & POCSO ACT CASES AT MEDAK

FRIDAY, 12th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021

POCSO SC. No. 27 OF 2017

Crime No. 71 of 2016 of P.S. Papannapet Crime No., Police Station.

JCL Chityala Vinay Kumar @ Vinay

Description of Accused/jCL S/o Pochaiah, Aged 17 yrs. & Ten months, Occupation Student, SC Madiga caste R/o |Arkela (v), Papannapet Mandal, Medak District.

|Under Sections 366(A), 376(2) (i) of I.PC, & Charge/s Section 3 & 4 of POCSO Act, 2012.

Pleaded not guilty Plea of the accused

In the result: JCL is found NOT GUILTY for Finding of the Judge and |the offence under Sections 366 (A), 376(2) sentence. J(i) of I.P.C. & Section 3 & 4 of POCSO Act, |2012 and accordingly, he is ACQUITTED under Section 232 Cr.P.C. for the said offenceS.

Additional Public

Prosecution conducted by Sri N. Krishna, I/c Prosecutor. Sri G. Hanmantha Reddy, Advocate for the AcCused defended by JCL

This case is coming up before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri N. Krishna, /c Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri G. Hanmantha Reddy, Advocate for the JCL, upon perusing the material on record and upon hearing the arguments, the Court delivered the

following:

:JUDG MEN T:

The Circle Inspector of Police, Medak-Rural Circle has filed the 1. charge sheet in Crime No.71 of 2016 against the sole accused for the

Page No.2 of 6 POCSO SC No.27 of 2017

offence punishable under Sections 366(A), 376(2) (i) of L.P.C. & Section 3

&4 of POCSO Act, 2012 of P.S. Papannapet with the following allegations.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief are that on 09-06-2016 at 10:00

hours the defacto-complainant/Mucha Vittal came to Police Station and

lodged a written complaint stating that his daughter Kum.Amrutha aged about 17 years had left their house on06-6-2016 afternoon about 3 P.M.

when none other were available in the house. They searched for her but she was not found, therefore requested for trace and necessary action.

On the said complaint given by the defacto-complainant/LW1, the

SIP/LW12 registered the case in Crime No.71 of 2016 under head of Girl missing and issued FIR to all the concerned, examined and recorded the statement of LW-1. WVhile the investigation is in progress on 19-6-2016

LW1/Mucha Vittal brought the missing girl to Police Station and the statement of girl recorded, in which she revealed that she was in love with one Chityala Vinay S/o Pochaiah of their village since last six months and he told her to marry her. One month back they had intercourse in the house of Vinay two to three times and on 06-06-2016 Vinay came to her

house and proposed to go some where to get marry, for which she agreed

and they went to Hyderabad and from there to Thirupathi and stayed

there for 4 or 5 days and from there went to Nagari and they are in

physical contact several times and as she told Vinay to see go to see her

parents he brought her to Arkela Vilage. Basing on the statement altered

the Section of Law to Sections 366(A), 376(2)(i) of .P.C. S& Section 3 & 4

of POCSO Act, 2012. LW-20/CIP conducted further investigation examined

the victim-girl and other witnesses, sent the victim-girl to Government

Hospital for examination, collected Bonafide certificate of victim-girl, as

per the Bonafide Certificate the victim-girl is minor. While investigation is

in progress on 21-6-2016 apprehended the accused and on interrogation

Page No.3 of 6 POCSO SC No.27 of 2017

he confessed his guilty of offence, produced the accused before Medical

Officer to conduct potency test.. The Medical Officer/LW11 conducted

potency test and issued report opining that "there is nothing to suggest

that the accused is not capable of performing sexual act". Collected

Bonafide Certificate of the accused and as per certificate his date of birth

is 07-8-1998, accordingly his age is 18 years therefore he is JCL. During

the course of investigation conducted scene of offence panchanama and drawn rough sketch. On requisition LW12/Chief Judicial Magistrate recorded the 164 Cr.P.C. statement of victim-girl and after receipt of FSL report and after completion of investigation filed charge sheet against the accused he filed charge sheet alleging that accused has committed an offence and he is liable for punishment for the offence under Sections 366(A), 376(2)(i) of I.P.C. & Section 3 & 4 of POCSO ACt, 2012. Hence, the charge.

3. Cognizance is taken for the offences punishable under Sections 366(A), 376(2)(i) of I.P.C. & Section 3 & 4 of POCSO Act, 2012 against the accused.

4. On appearance of the JCL before Court, furnished copies of the charge sheet and other connected documents to him under Section 207

Cr.P.C.

5. On appearnace of JCL before this Court and after hearing the

learned Public Prosecutor representing the State and after hearing the

learned defense counsel, upon considering al the material placed by

prosecution a charge under Sections 366(A), 376(2)(i) of I.P.C. & Section 3

&4 of POCSO Act, 2012 has been framed, read over and explained to JCL under Section 228(2) Cr.P.C., he after having understood pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The jCL is defended by his defence counsel.

Page No.4 of 6 POCSO SC No.27 of 2017

6. In order to bring home the guilt of the JCL for the offence punishable under Sections 366(A), 376(2)(0) of I.P.C. & Section 3 && 4 of

POCSO Act, 2012 the prosecution has examined PWs-1 to 5 and got

marked Exhibits P-1 to P-6 on the prosecution side. As the PWs 1 to 4 who

are material witnesses including the victim-girl not supported the case of the prosecution, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor given-up the remaining list of witnesses, No defence witnesses are examined and no exhibits are marked on behalf of the defence.

7 As there is no incriminating evidence against the JCL the examination of the JCL under Section 313 Cr.P.C., is dispensed with.

8. Heard. After completion of trial the learned public prosecutor represented by state, and the learned defence counsel appearing for the

JCL submitted their arguments.

Now. the following point that arise for determination is:

9.

Whether the prosecution has been able to prove the guilty of the

JCL for the offence punishable under Sections 366 (A) 376(2)() of

1.P.C. & Section 3 &4 of POCSO Act, 2012 beyond all reasonable

doubt, and whether thejCL is liable for punishment for the said

offences?

10. POINT:

The case of the prosecution is that the JCL who is a juvenile in conflict in Law was studying in Government Jr.college, Papannapet and the victim was also studying in the same college and since both of them were traveling

together daily in the same bus to college, the JCL developed sexual lust

against the victim and under the quise of false promise to marry her had sexual intercourse with the victim in her house when her parents were away

from house and there after took her to Thirupathi and stayed there fore four

or five days there after went to Nagari vilage of Chittore district and had

Page No.5 of 6 POCSO SC No.27 of 2017 enjoyed her sexually and there after when the victim wanted to see her parents, he brought doWn her to the village and went away and as such the complaint by the parents of the victim and the case on hand for punishment of the JCL.

11. In order to bring home the guilt of the JCL, the prosecution all examined

PW1 to PW5. PW1 is the victim, PW2 is her mother, PW3 and PW4 are the neighbours of the JCL and PW5 is the Sub Inspector of Police Special branch.

12. The evidence of PW1 to PW4 is total denial of the prosecution. The evidence of PW1 is that the JCL never committed any offence against her and she has not given any complaint to the Police. The evidence of PW2 is that she does not know anything about the case and that she had no knowledge about the JCL misbehaving with her daughter. PVWs 3 and 4 who were examined to speak that the JCL was residing in their neighborhood and having knowledge about the facts of the case turned hostile and deposed that they do not knoW anything about the case.

The evidence of PW5 is on the same lines of the charge sheet and

13.

according to his evidence PW1 informed that the JCL had intercourse with her

on the guise of marriage and took her from her house to get marry some

where and there after left her at her village. It was suggested to the witness

that PW1 never lodged any complaint and it was false case. Obviously PW5

denied the said suggestion.

On scrutiny of the evidence of PWs 1 to 5 it is evident that PWs 1 and 2

14.

being the material witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution and further PW3 and PW4 were also declared hostile as they did not raise any

allegation against the JCL. In these circumstances the evidence of PW5

Page No.6 of 6 POCSO SC No.27 of 201 7 cannot be looked into and rope the JCL with the alleged offence. Therefore, this Court opines that the JCL is entitled for acquittal.

15. IN THE RESULT: I find the JCL 0s NOT GUILTY for the offence under

Sections 366(A), 376(2) (i) of I.P.C. & Section 3 & 4 of POCSO Act, 2012,

and accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 232 Cr.P.C. for the said

offences. The bail bond of the JCL shall stand canceled and the sureties are hereby discharged after appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, Gr.l, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 12h day of November, 2021.

VII Addl. Sessions Judge, Medak

FAC:: Spl. Judge, Fast Track Special Court for

expeditious trail and disposal of expeditious trail

and disposal of Rape & POCSO Act cases at Medak

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION: PW.1 M, Amrutha PW.2 M. Shankaramma PW.3 M. Ushaiah PW.4 Ch. Ramesh PW.5 S. Sandeep Reddy, SIP I.0.

DEFENCE: None.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

DEFENCE: NIL

PROSECUTION

Ex.P1 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1 Ex.P2 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2 Ex.P3 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW3 Ex.P4 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW4 Ex.P5 First Information Report Ex.P6 Complaint

MATERIAL OBIECTS MARKED FOR: NIL.

VII Addi.'Sessions Judge, Medak

FAC:: Spl. Judge, Fast Track Special Court for expeditious trail and disposal of expeditious trail

and disposal of Rape & POCSO Act cases at Medak