Currently Serving

Sri. Milind Kamble

Fast Track Special Court for Trial of Rape and POCSO Act Cases, Bhongir

Yadadri Bhuvanagiri, PDJ Cout Complex · Yadadri Bhuvanagiri · Telangana

Sri. Milind Kamble, Fast Track Special Court for Trial of Rape and POCSO Act Cases, Bhongir, is posted at Yadadri Bhuvanagiri, PDJ Cout Complex, Yadadri Bhuvanagiri, Telangana, India. 41 court orders on record since 2025. 5 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles SC cases.

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Posting

Featured Judgments

SC.POCSO/240/2021 Acquitted

SHO Rep by Choutuppal vs Hasina Baigari Sardar Basha

28 Apr 2026

Page 1 of 13

SC.NO.240 of 2021

POCSO Court, Bhuvanagiri.

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL AND

DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES

(POCSO) ACT CASES :: BHUVANAGIRI.

Present :-Sri. Milind Kamble , Special Sessions Court Judge for Expeditious Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases, Bhuvanagiri.

(Dated this the 28th day of April, 2026)

SC(POCSO).NO.240 OF 2021

(Cr.No.229/2021 of P.S.Choutuppal)

Name and description of The State through the Assistant Commissioner of the complainant:Police, Choutuppal-Division. Name and description of Hasina Baigari Sardar Basha, S/o.Shareef, Aged about the accused:20 years, Occ:Labour, present R/o.Lingampally, Old Ramachandrapuram, H.No.2-88, near GHMC Circle office-13, Hyderabad. N/o.Chinthakunta Village, Duvvuru Mandal, Kadapa District, Andhra Pradesh State. Offence charged:offence under sections 366, 342, 376(2)(n) of IPC and Section 5(l) r/w 6 of POCSO Act-2012 and section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act. Plea of the accused:Pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the Court:Not guilty

Sentence or Order :In the result, under section 235 (1) Cr.P.C., accused is acquitted for the offences punishable under sections 366, 342, 376(2)(n) of IPC and Section 5(l) r/w 6 of POCSO Act-2012, section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled as per Section 437-A Cr.P.C. The case property i.e., MO-1 to MO4 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time, MO5 and MO6 shall be returned to its original after expiry of appeal time.

Page 2 of 13

SC.NO.240 of 2021

POCSO Court, Bhuvanagiri.

This session’s case is coming before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Smt S.Krishnaveni, Spl. P.P. for the State and Sri.B.Venkatesham Legal Aid Counsel for the Accused and after having stood over for consideration today the Court made the following :

:: JUDGMENT ::

01) The brief facts of the case are that:-

a) On 06.06.2021 at about 17:00 hours, LW1/YYYY gave a report to police stating that he has daughter who is aged about 16 years and that on 06.06.2021 at about 05:00 hours, while they were sleeping in the house at that time his daughter/LW4/XXXX went missing, he searched for his daughter/LW4/XXXX in the nearby houses and also at relatives houses but he could not trace out his daughter. Hence he filed this report to trace out his daughter.

b) Basing on the report, the LW25/Sub-Inspector of Police, Choutuppal has registered a case in Cr.No.229/2021, for the offence punishable under

Sections 366 of IPC and took up investigation.

c) During the course of investigation, LW25 has examined and recorded the statement of LW1/YYYY, later he visited the scene of offence situated at

Malkapur Village of Choutuppal Mandal and conducted scene of offence in the presence of mediators i.e., LW9/Yedla Yadagiri and

LW10/Jonnaganti Shivaji and drew its rough sketch. Thereafter LW25 examined and recorded the statements of LW2/ZZZZ and LW3/WWWW.

On 08.06.2021 LW25 along with staff visited the house bearing No.2-88,

Page 3 of 13

SC.NO.240 of 2021

POCSO Court, Bhuvanagiri.

Lingampally, Hyderabad and traced out the victim girl and brought the victim girl to Anganwadi Center Choutuppal where LW24/Women Sub-

Inspector of Police has examined and recorded the statement of victim girl/LW4/XXXX and also seized the clothes of victim girl which were wore at the time of offence, under the cover of panchanama in the presence of

LW11/Vishwapathi Sujatha and LW12/Md.Saffiya. Basing on the statement of victim girl, LW25 added the section of law 342, 376(2)(n) of

IPC, Section 5(l) r/w 6 of POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(v) of SCs/STs (POA)

Amendment Act to the existing section 366 of IPC and same is forwarded to all concerned. Then LW25 sent the victim girl to Government

Community Health Center Choutuppal for medical examination, which was conducted by LW18/Civil Assistant Surgeon, Choutuppal, who preserved vaginal smears for expert analysis.

Then LW26/Assistant Commissioner of Police was appointed as investigating officer as the offence pertains to SC/ST (POA) Act, on further investigation LW26 re-examined the Lws 1 to 3 at police station, later he also collected the bonafide certificate of victim girl from LW5/Headmaster of victim girl school, as per the bonafide certificate, it was concluded that the victim girl is minor as on the date of incident. On 09.06.2021 LW26 along with staff and victim girl visited the second scene of offence, where

Page 4 of 13

SC.NO.240 of 2021

POCSO Court, Bhuvanagiri.

the accused had sexual intercourse with the victim girl, he summoned the friend of accused who was in adjacent room and examined the friend as

LW6/Daddanala Azad and also examined the owner of the house.

Thereafter LW26 conducted second scene of offence panchanama in the presence of LW13/Chittampally Jangaiah and LW14/sukka Ravindar and drew its rough sketch. Later LW26 addressed separate letters to the

Tahsildars of Choutuppal Mandal and Duvvuru Mandal of Kadapa District,

Andhra Pradesh State to furnish caste certificates of the victim girl and accused. Accordingly same were collected.

On 10.06.2021 at about 06:00 hours, the LW25/Sub-Inspector of

Police apprehended the accused and produced before the LW26. During the course of interrogation, the accused confessed about committing the offence as such the confession statement of accused was recorded in the presence of mediators i.e., LW15/Perumandla Bixapathi and

LW16/Kalagoni Narsimha and one motorcycle bearing No.AP-39-FT-5684,

Samsung mobile phone and one blue colour jeans pant were seized from the possession of accused under the cover of panchanama. Thereafter the accused was sent to Community Health Center Choutuppal for potency test, which was conducted by LW19/Dr.J.Gopal Civil Assistant

Surgeon Choutuppal, who issued the potency report. Then

Page 5 of 13

SC.NO.240 of 2021

POCSO Court, Bhuvanagiri.

LW27/M.Shankaraiah assumed charge as Assistant Commissioner of

Police on the transfer of LW26, who on further investigation made a request to LW21/Hon’ble Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Bhuvanagiri to record the statement of victim girl under Section 164

Cr.P.C, accordingly LW21 recorded the same. On 26.08.2021 LW28/N.Uday

Reddy Assistant Commissioner of Police, Choutuppal Division assumed the charge, who on further investigation, forwarded the seized vaginal smears and clothes of victim girl to FSL for analysis. Basing on FSL report,

LW18/Dr.P.Subhashini, Civil Assistant Surgeon gave her final opinion.

Further LW28 made a request to LW22/Nodal Officer, Vodafone-Idea

Limited, Hyderabad and LW23/Nodal Officer, Reliance Jio Infocom Limited to furnish Customer Application Form and Call Data Record of mobile numbers of 9640988748 (victim girl) and 7659026866 (accused) for the investigation purpose and accordingly same was issued by LW22 and

LW23. Basing on the record available a charge sheet was filed for the offence under Sections 366, 342, 376(2)(n) of IPC and Section 5(l) r/w 6 of

POCSO Act-2012, section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act.

02)In view of the establishment of this court, the case was made over to this court for disposal according to law.

Page 6 of 13

SC.NO.240 of 2021

POCSO Court, Bhuvanagiri.

03) On appearance of the accused before this court, charges were framed for the offence Under sections 366, 342, 376(2)(n) of IPC and Section 5(l) r/w 6 of

POCSO Act-2012, section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act. The charges were read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried as per law. As such, the accused was preceded with the case as he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried as per law.

04)On behalf of prosecution PW1 to PW11 are examined Ex.P1 to P25 and

MO1 to MO6 are marked.

05)The accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., with reference to the incriminating evidence appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Accused denied such allegation and reported no evidence on his behalf in this case.

06)Heard both sides.

07)On consideration of the entire facts of the prosecution case, evidence let in and the arguments, the points that arise for consideration are :

1) Whether the prosecution proved the foundational facts of the case beyond reasonable doubt?

2) Whether the accused has committed the offences under

Sections 366, 342, 376(2)(n) of IPC and Section 5(l) r/w 6 of

POCSO Act-2012, section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act ?

08) The case of the prosecution is that the accused knowingly very well that the victim girl is a minor, he developed a relationship with her with sexual intent,

Page 7 of 13

SC.NO.240 of 2021

POCSO Court, Bhuvanagiri.

then he has kidnapped the victim girl and confined her in a room and committed penetrative sexual assault on her and thereby committed an offence under Sections 366, 342, 376(2)(n) of IPC and Section 5(l) r/w 6 of POCSO Act- 2012, section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act.

To substantiate the above said fact, the prosecution got examined PW1 to

PW11 and Ex.P1 to P25 and MO1 to MO6 are marked. Among the said witnesses, the father of victim girl who gave report to the police is examined as

PW1 and he categorically deposed that he lodged the report with the police but he does not know the contents of the report however he identified his signature on report and it is marked as Ex.P1.

09)PW2 is the victim girl, she categorically deposed that while studying intermediate second year at Thurkapally, she used to stay at hostel and she knows accused as he is her maternal aunt son, but however she categorically deposed that accused never harassed her in the name of love and marriage nor he kidnapped her. According to PW2 police took her to Area Hospital

Bhuvanagiri and also to the Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Bhuvanagiri where her statement was recorded. However she categorically deposed that police never examined her nor recorded her statement.

Page 8 of 13

SC.NO.240 of 2021

POCSO Court, Bhuvanagiri.

10)PW3 is the mother of victim girl, she categorically deposed that she does not know the accused and that her daughter never disclosed anything about accused. Police never examined her nor recorded her statement.

11)PW4 is the grandmother of victim girl, she categorically deposed that she does not know the accused and she does not know the facts of this case. Police never examined her nor recorded her statement.

12)All the material witnesses i.e., PW1 to PW4 did not support the prosecution case, as such they were cross examined at length by Learned

Special Public Prosecutor but however he was not successful in eliciting the facts that when they were examined by the police, they have stated to police as that in Ex.P2, Ex.P4, Ex.P5 and Ex.P6 respectively.

13)PW5 is the principal who gave bonafide certificate of victim girl under

Ex.P7. The said document is not in dispute. PW6 is the neighbor of rented room of accused, he categorically deposed that he does not know the facts of the case and police never examined him nor recorded his statement.

14)PW7 is the mediator for scene of offence panchanama, he categorically deposed that about two years back, he went to the police station at that time police have obtained his signature on some white papers and he identified his signature on Ex.P9.

Page 9 of 13

SC.NO.240 of 2021

POCSO Court, Bhuvanagiri.

15)PW8 is the another mediator in whose presence the clothes of the victim girl were seized under the seizure panchanama i.e., Ex.P10.

16)PW9 and PW10 are the mediators, in whose presence scene of offence panchanama was conducted however these witnesses categorically deposed that police have obtained their signatures on some written papers but they do not know the contents of it. Both the witnesses identified their signatures on

Ex.P11, Ex.P12, Ex.P13 and Ex.P14 respectively.

17)PW11 is the investigating officer, according to him, PW1 gave report to police, basing on the report, LW25 registered crime and scene of offence panchanama was conducted in the presence of mediators and statement of victim girl was recorded by LW24 and also the statements of all other witnesses were recorded and section of law was altered, as the offence was grave in nature, then the investigation was taken up by other police officers who has conducted upgrade their role in different manner by examining the witnesses and concluding the record for the purpose of this case.

Through him the report given by LW1 to police is marked as Ex.P15, the

First Information Report is marked as Ex.P16, the first scene of offence panchanama is marked as Ex.P17, the second scene of offence panchanama is marked as Ex.P18, the caste certificate of victim girl is marked as Ex.P19, the caste certificate of accused is marked as Ex.P20, the medical examination of

Page 10 of 13

SC.NO.240 of 2021

POCSO Court, Bhuvanagiri.

victim girl along with FSL report is marked as Ex.P21, the Section 164 Cr.P.C statement is marked as Ex.P22, the customer application form, call data record along with section 65-B certificate of Indian Evidence Act of mobile number 9640988748 is marked as Ex.P23, the customer application form, call data record along with section 65-B certificate of Indian Evidence Act of mobile number 7659026866 is marked as Ex.P24, the recovery panchanama of mobile phone and bike is marked as Ex.P25, the mobile phone is marked as MO5 and

Black colour Samsung mobile phone is marked as MO6.

18)The above discussion clearly goes to show that except the evidences of

PW5/Principal of victim girl school and PW11/investigating officer, no other material witnesses have not supported the prosecution case. Once the material witness i.e., victim girl/PW2 did not support the prosecution case, there is nothing to believe that the accused has committed sexual assault on the victim girl. Even the medical examination of the victim girl under Ex.P21 cannot be relied upon as corroboration is required from the victim girl to believe that accused was the person who committed the offence. Therefore, prosecution failed to prove its foundational case. Once it is held that there is no foundational case of the prosecution, then it is held that prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence.

Page 11 of 13

SC.NO.240 of 2021

POCSO Court, Bhuvanagiri.

19) In the result, under section 235 (1) Cr.P.C., accused is acquitted for the offences punishable under sections 366, 342, 376(2)(n) of IPC and Section 5(l) r/w 6 of POCSO Act-2012, section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled as per Section 437-A Cr.P.C. The case property i.e., MO-1 to MO4 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time, MO5 and MO6 shall be returned to its original after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced

by me in the open court on this the 28 th day of April, 2026.

Sd/-(Sri Milind Kamble)

SPL. SESSIONS JUDGE FOR EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL

& DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND POCSO ACT CASES,

BHUVANAGIRI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

PW-1 LW1YYYYComplainant and father of victim girl

PW-2 LW4XXXXVictim girl PW-3 LW2ZZZZMother of victim girl PW-4LW3WWWWGrandmother of Victim girl

PW-5LW5Rayapuraju ShobharaniIssued bonafide certificate of victim girl

PW-6LW6Daddanala AzadCo-Worker and adjacent tenant of rented room of accused PW7LW9Yedla YadagiriPanch witness for 1st scene of offence

PW-8LW11Vishwapathi SujathaPanch for seizure of clothes of victim girl

PW-9LW13Chittampally JangaiahPanch for 2nd scene of offence

PW-10LW14Sukka RavindarPanch for 2nd scene of offence

PW-11LW28N.Uday ReddyInvestigating officer

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE

-Nil-

Page 12 of 13

SC.NO.240 of 2021

POCSO Court, Bhuvanagiri.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

Ex.P1 is the Signature of PW1 on report

Ex.P2 is the Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1

Ex.P3 is the Signature of PW2 on Section 164 Cr.P.C statement

Ex.P4 is the Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2

Ex.P5 is the Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3

Ex.P6 is the Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW4

Ex.P7 is the Bonafide Certificate of victim girl

Ex.P8 is the Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW6

Ex.P9 is the signature of PW7 on Crime Detail Form

Ex.P10 is the Cloth seizure panchanama of victim girl

Ex.P11 is the Signature of PW9 on 2nd scene of offence panchanama

Ex.P12 is the Signature of PW9 on 2nd rough sketch

Ex.P13 is the Signature of PW10 on 2nd scene of offence panchanama

Ex.P14 is the Signature of PW10 on 2nd rough sketch

Ex.P15 is the Report given by LW1 to police.

Ex.P16 is the First Information Report

Ex.P17 is the First scene of offence panchanama

Ex.P18 is the Second scene of offence panchanama

Ex.P19 is the Caste certificate of victim girl

Ex.P20 is the Caste certificate of accused

Ex.P21 is the Medical examination of victim girl along with FSL report

Ex.P22 is the Section 164 Cr.P.C statement of victim girl

Ex.P23 is the Customer Application Form, Call Data Record along with Section 65-B Certificate of Indian Evidence Act of mobile number 9640988748

Ex.P24 is the Customer Application Form along with Call Data Record along with Section 65- B Certificate of Indian Evidence Act of mobile number 7659026866

Ex.P25 is the Recovery panchanama of mobile phone and bike

Page 13 of 13

SC.NO.240 of 2021

POCSO Court, Bhuvanagiri.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

--NIL--

MATERIAL OBJECTS

1.MO1 is the Red colour top with black and white flowers.

2. MO2 is the Navy-Blue colour legging.

3. MO3 is the Blue colour pettycoat.

4. MO4 is the Brown colour underwear.

5. MO5 is the Black colour Samsung mobile phone.

6. MO6 is the Pulsar Bike.

Sd/-(Sri Milind Kamble)

SPL. SESSIONS JUDGE FOR EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL

& DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND POCSO ACT CASES,

BHUVANAGIRI.

SC.POCSO/17/2024 Acquitted

SHO Thurkapally vs Karunakar Gundeboina

29 Apr 2026

Page 1 of 11

SC.NO.17 of 2024

POCSO Court, Bhuvanagiri.

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL AND

DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES

(POCSO) ACT CASES :: BHUVANAGIRI.

Present :-Sri. Milind Kamble , Special Sessions Court Judge for Expeditious Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases, Bhuvanagiri.

(Dated this the 29th day of April, 2026)

SC(POCSO).NO.17 OF 2024

(Cr.No.07/2024 of P.S.Thurkapally)

Name and description of The State through the Assistant Commissioner of the complainant:Police, Yadadri-Division. Name and description of Gundeboina Karunakar, S/o.Ramesh, Aged about 23 the accused:years, Occ:Auto driver, R/o.Thurkapally Village and Mandal. Offence charged:offence under sections 376(1), 323, 506 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act, Section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST (POA) Act, Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Act and Section 4 of POCSO Act. Plea of the accused:Pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the Court:Not guilty

Sentence or Order :In the result, under section 235 (1) Cr.P.C., accused is acquitted for the offences punishable under sections 376(1), 323, 506 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act, Section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST (POA) Act, Section 3(2) (va) of SC/ST (POA) Act and Section 4 of POCSO Act. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled as per Section 437-A Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property i.e., Auto bearing No.AP-24-W-7755 and one Oppo Company mobile phone which are returned to the accused through Crl.M.P.No.162/2023 and 163/2023

dated:08.04.2023 shall be made absolute after expiry of

appeal time.

Page 2 of 11

SC.NO.17 of 2024

POCSO Court, Bhuvanagiri.

This session’s case is coming before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri Gajjala Ravinder Reddy, Spl. P.P. for the State and Sri. Ch.Rajashekar Reddy Counsel for the Accused and after having stood over for consideration today the Court made the following :

:: JUDGMENT ::

01) The brief facts of the case are that:-

a) On 10.01.2024 at about 20.30 hours, LW1/MMMM lodged a report with the police stating that her daughter i.e., victim girl/LW4/VVVV studying 10th standard at Thurkapally. On 10.01.2024 at 18:00 hours, her daughter/LW4 came to home and started weeping, when she enquired with her daughter/LW4, as to what has happened then her daughter told that in the month of September 2022 one Gundeboina Karunakar used deceitful words to her in the name of love and took her into his house and forcibly participated in sexual intercourse and that on 10.01.2024 at 17:00 hours after completion of her school, when she along with her friend was waiting for bus in order to go to their home at that time the said Karunakar came over there and beat her daughter/LW4/VVVV with hands by saying that “NATHO ENDUKU MATLADATLEVU, NATO MATLADU”.

Therefore she filed this report to take action against accused.

b) Basing on the report, the LW22/Sub-Inspector of Police, Thurkapally has registered a case in Cr.No.07/2024, for the offence punishable under

Sections 376(1), 323, 506 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act,

Section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST (POA) Act, Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Act and

Page 3 of 11

SC.NO.17 of 2024

POCSO Court, Bhuvanagiri.

Section 4 of POCSO Act and issued FIR. On the instructions of

Commissioner of Police, LW23/K.Shivaram Reddy, Assistant

Commissioner of Police took up investigation.

c) During the course of investigation, LW23 has examined and recorded the statements of LW1/MMMM, LW2/BBBB and LW3/FFFF. Then LW23 made a requisition to LW21/P.Andalu, Women Sub-Inspector of Police, Women

Police Station to record the statement of victim girl, accordingly LW21 examined and recorded the statement of victim girl. Thereafter the victim girl was sent to District Headquarters Hospital Bhuvanagiri for medical examination, which was conducted by LW16/Dr.Surya, Civil Assistant

Surgeon District Headquarters Hospital Bhuvanagiri, LW16 preserved vaginal swabs for expert analysis. Later LW23 made a requisition to

LW5/Headmaster of the victim girl school to issue the bonafide certificate of victim girl, accordingly LW5 issued the same, basing on the bonafide certificate, it was concluded that the victim girl is minor as on the date of incident and also statement of LW5 was recorded by LW23. Then LW23 visited the scene of offence where the accused beat the victim girl and secured the presence of mediators i.e., LW11/Akula Naveen Kumar and

LW12/Palle Venkatesh in their presence LW23 conducted scene of offence panchanama and drew its rough sketch and also one Hero Honda

Page 4 of 11

SC.NO.17 of 2024

POCSO Court, Bhuvanagiri.

Splendor motorcycle bearing No.AP-09-AJ-1522 was seized from the possession of accused under the cover of panchanama, later LW23 also examined and recorded the statements of LW6/Akula Laxmi and

LW7/Boddu Bhanu Prasad. Then LW23 addressed a letter to

LW15/Tahsildar, Thurkapally Mandal to furnish the caste certificates of

LW1/MMM, LW4/VVVV/victim girl and accused. Accordingly LW15 furnish the same.

On 11.01.2024 at 12:00 hours, LW22/Sub-Inspector of Police,

Thurkapally along with staff apprehended the accused and produced him

before the LW23. During the course of interrogation, the accused

confessed about committing the crime on which LW23 secured the presence of LW13/Bingi Pundareekam and LW14/Challuri Karunakar and recorded the confession statement of the accused and recovered one

Auto bearing No.AP-24-W-7755 under the cover of panchanama, later

LW23 retrieved the entire messages of accused through the Technician and also examined and recorded the statement of the Technician as LW8 and collected the 65-B certificate through LW8, later LW23 seized the blue colour Oppo mobile phone from the possession of accused. The accused lead the police party and mediators to his house where the accused participated in sexual intercourse with the victim girl there LW23 noted

Page 5 of 11

SC.NO.17 of 2024

POCSO Court, Bhuvanagiri.

down second crime detail form in presence of mediators LW13/Bingi

Pundareekam and LW14/Challuri Karunakar and drew the rough sketch.

Later the accused was brought to the police station and subjected to

District Headquarters Hospital Bhuvanagiri for Potency Test, which was conducted by LW17/Dr.Anil Kumar, Civil Assistant Surgeon District

Headquarters Hospital Bhuvanagiri, and gave his report. After completion of due legal formalities, LW23 arrested the accused and produced before the Court for Judicial Remand. Then LW22 forwarded the material objects to FSL for analysis. Thereafter the FSL expert gave report, basing on which LW16 gave his final opinion. Thereafter, LW23 made a requisition to LW20/Hon’ble Additionl Judicial Magistrate of First

Class Bhuvanagiri to record the statement of victim girl under Section 164

Cr.P.C and accordingly LW20 recorded the same. Basing on the record available a charge sheet was filed for the offence under Sections 376(1), 323, 506 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act, Section 3(1)(r) of

SC/ST (POA) Act, Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Act and Section 4 of

POCSO Act.

02)In view of the establishment of this court, the case was made over to this court for disposal according to law.

Page 6 of 11

SC.NO.17 of 2024

POCSO Court, Bhuvanagiri.

03) On appearance of the accused before this court, charges were framed for the offence Under sections 376(1), 323, 506 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act, Section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST (POA) Act, Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Act and Section 4 of POCSO Act. The charges were read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried as per law. As such, the accused was preceded with the case as he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried as per law.

04)On behalf of prosecution PW1 to PW5 are examined Ex.P1 to P16 are marked.

06)Heard both sides.

07)On consideration of the entire facts of the prosecution case, evidence let in and the arguments, the points that arise for consideration are :

1) Whether the prosecution proved the foundational facts of the case beyond reasonable doubt?

2) Whether the accused has committed the offences under

Sections 376(1), 323, 506 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST

(POA) Act, Section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST (POA) Act, Section 3(2)(va)

of SC/ST (POA) Act and Section 4 of POCSO Act ?

Page 7 of 11

SC.NO.17 of 2024

POCSO Court, Bhuvanagiri.

08) The case of the prosecution is that the accused knowingly well that the victim girl is a minor and that the victim girl belong to Schedule Tribe community, he sexually exploited her and subsequently when the victim girl refused to speak with him, then he threatened her with dire consequences and beat her with hands and thereby committed an offence under Sections 376(1), 323, 506 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act, Section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST (POA) Act, Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Act and Section 4 of POCSO Act.

To substantiate the above said fact, the prosecution got examined PW1 to

PW5 and Ex.P1 to P16 are marked. Among the said witnesses, the first informant of the crime to the police, who is the mother of the victim girl is examined as PW1, she categorically deposed that about two years back at the request of well wishers and police, she has put her thumb impression on a paper and that police never examined her nor recorded her statement. PW2 is the victim girl, she categorically deposed that she knows that accused as he is an Auto driver. But she does not know anything about the case and that she has no acquaintance with the accused. PW2 also deposed that her statement was not recorded by Women Sub-Inspector of police and that on the advice of police she gave her statement before the Magistrate. PW3 and PW4 are the eye witnesses to this case, they also categorically deposed that they do not know the accused and that they do not know anything about the case.

Page 8 of 11

SC.NO.17 of 2024

POCSO Court, Bhuvanagiri.

All the material witnesses i.e., PW1 to PW4 did not support the prosecution case as such they were cross examined at length by the Learned

Special Public Prosecutor but nothing could be brought on record in favour of prosecution when they were cross examined by Learned Special Public

Prosecutor.

09)Now the remaining witness who supported the prosecution case is the investigating officer, who examined as PW5, he categorically deposed that LW1 gave report to the police, basing on which LW22 registered a crime and investigation was conducted by examining the witnesses by noting down crime detail forms and the police was seized Oppo mobile phone and Auto from the possession of accused and also collecting all medical evidences, caste certificates and arresting the accused and getting the statement of victim girl recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.

Through PW5 the report is given by LW1 to the police is marked as Ex.P5, the First Information Report is marked as Ex.P6, the bonafide certificate is marked as Ex.P7, the CC footage in CD along with Section 65-B Certificate Indian

Evidence Act is marked as Ex.P8, the first crime detail form dated:11.01.2024 at 10:00 hours is marked as Ex.P9, the second crime detail form dated:11.01.2024

dated:15:00 hours is marked as Ex.P10, the recovery panchanama of Auto

bearing No.AP-24-W-7755 and one Oppo company mobile phone is marked as

Page 9 of 11

SC.NO.17 of 2024

POCSO Court, Bhuvanagiri.

Ex.P11, the caste certificate of LW1 and LW4 is marked as Ex.P12, the caste certificate of accused is marked as Ex.P13, the medical examination of the victim girl along with FSL report is marked as Ex.P14, the potency certificate is marked as Ex.P15, the section 164 Cr.P.C statement is marked as Ex.P16, the customer application form of accused is marked as Ex.P15, the customer application form of victim girl is marked as Ex.P16.

10)No doubt the investigating officer/PW5 has supported the prosecution case. But the material witness i.e., victim girl/PW2 has turned hostile. The sole testimony of investigating officer/PW5 has no value in the eye of law for convicting the accused when the victim girl herself did not support the prosecution case. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove its foundational case. Once it is held that there is no foundational case of the prosecution, then it is held that prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

11) In the result, under section 235 (1) Cr.P.C., accused is acquitted for the offences punishable under sections 376(1), 323, 506 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of

SC/ST (POA) Act, Section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST (POA) Act, Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA)

Act and Section 4 of POCSO Act. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled as per Section 437-A Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property i.e., Auto bearing No.AP-24-W-7755 and one Oppo Company mobile phone which are

Page 10 of 11

SC.NO.17 of 2024

POCSO Court, Bhuvanagiri.

returned to the accused through Crl.M.P.No.162/2023 and 163/2023

dated:08.04.2023 shall be made absolute after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced

by me in the open court on this the 29 th day of April, 2026.

Sd/-(Sri Milind Kamble)

SPL. SESSIONS JUDGE FOR EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL

& DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND POCSO ACT CASES,

BHUVANAGIRI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

PW-1 LW1MMMMComplainant and mother of victim girl

PW-2 LW4VVVVVictim girl PW-3 LW6Akula LaxmiEye witness PW-4LW7Boddu Bhanu PrasadEye witness

PW-5LW24P.Ramesh KumarInvestigating officer

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE

-Nil-

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

Ex.P1 is the Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1

Ex.P2 is the Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2

Ex.P3 is the Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3

Ex.P4 is the Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW4

Ex.P5 is the Report given by LW1 to police

Ex.P6 is the First Information Report

Ex.P7 is the Bonafide certificate of victim girl

Ex.P8 is the CC footage in CD along with Section 65-B certificate of Indian Evidence Act

Ex.P9 is the First Crime Detail Form dated:11.01.2024 at 10:00 hours

Ex.P10 is the Second Crime Detail Form dated:11.01.2024 at 15:00 hours

Page 11 of 11

SC.NO.17 of 2024

POCSO Court, Bhuvanagiri.

Ex.P11 is the Recovery panchanama of Auto and mobile phone

Ex.P12 is the Caste certificate of LW1 and LW4

Ex.P13 is the Caste certificate of accused

Ex.P14 is the Medical examination of victim girl

Ex.P15 is the Potency test certificate

Ex.P16 is the Section 164 Cr.P.C statement of victim girl

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

--NIL--

MATERIAL OBJECTS

- NIL -

Sd/-(Sri Milind Kamble)

SPL. SESSIONS JUDGE FOR EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL

& DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND POCSO ACT CASES,

BHUVANAGIRI.

SC.POCSO/36/2022 Acquitted

STATE OF TELANGANA SHO MOTHKUR vs Kurella Babu

27 Apr 2026

Page 1 of 11

SC.NO.36 of 2022

POCSO Court, Bhuvanagiri.

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL AND

DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES

(POCSO) ACT CASES :: BHUVANAGIRI.

Present :-Sri. Milind Kamble , Special Sessions Court Judge for Expeditious Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases, Bhuvanagiri.

(Dated this the 27th day of April, 2026)

SC(POCSO).NO.36 OF 2022

(Cr.No.39/2021 of P.S.Mothkur)

Name and description of The State through the Assistant Commissioner of the complainant:Police, Choutuppal Division. Name and description of A1 – Kurella Babu, S/o.Bixam, Aged about 23 years, the accused:Occ:Labour (Accused No.1 Died, the case is abated against accused No.1 on 25.08.2022 ) A2 – Kurella Bixam, S/o.Sailu, Aged about 55 years, Occ:Labour. A3 – Kurella Yadamma, W/o.Bixam, Aged about 48 years, Occ:Labour. All are R/o.Gandhi Nagar, Mothkur Village and Mandal. Offence charged:under sections 417, 420, 354-D, 376(2)(n)(3) r/w 109 of IPC and Section 5(l) r/w 6 of POCSO Act-2012.

Plea of the accused:Pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the Court:Not guilty

Sentence or Order :In the result, under section 235 (1) Cr.P.C., accused No.2 and 3 are acquitted for the offence punishable under sections 417, 420, 354-D, 376(2)(n)(3) of IPC and Section 5(l) r/w 6 of POCSO Act-2012. The bail bonds of the accused No.2 and 3 shall stand cancelled as per Section 437-A Cr.P.C. The case property i.e., MO1 to MO5 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Page 2 of 11

SC.NO.36 of 2022

POCSO Court, Bhuvanagiri.

This session’s case is coming before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri Gajjala Ravinder Reddy, Spl. P.P. for the State and Sri B.Venkatesham Legal Aid Counsel for the Accused and after having stood over for consideration today the Court made the following : :: JUDGMENT ::

01) The brief facts of the case are that:-

a) On 31.03.2021 at 21:00 hours, LW1/YYYY gave report to police stating that she has three children and her younger daughter/LW2/XXXX i.e., victim girl was studying intermediate 1st year at Mothkur and that when her younger daughter i.e., victim girl was in 9th standard at Mothkur, as her villager by name Kurella Babu/Accused No.1 used to stalk her daughter/LW2/XXXX in the name of love and harassed her daughter with a sexual intent. On coming to know this she and her husband/LW3/ZZZZ warned the accused No.1 and later made her daughter/LW2/XXXX joined in 10th standard at Athmakur Village and Mandal, on knowing this the said accused No.1 followed her daughter/LW2/XXXX with sexual intention even at Athmakur Village and Mandal, then her daughter/LW2/XXXX informed the same to her, on which she informed her brother-in-law, as such her brother-in-law went to Athmakur along with his friend and warned the accused No.1 not to stalk the victim girl and even the same was informed to his parents i.e., Accused No.2 and 3. After completion of 10th class, the victim girl/LW2/XXXX joined Junior College at Mothkur

Village and Mandal, then also the accused No.1 used to stalk her

Page 3 of 11

SC.NO.36 of 2022

POCSO Court, Bhuvanagiri.

daughter/LW2/XXXX in the name of love, induced her with false promise, told delusive words and forcibly committed rape on her daughter/LW2/XXXX four to five times repeatedly at stone hills outskirts of Shivanagar and the accused No.1 has done all the acts on abetment of his parents i.e., Accused No.2 and 3. Hence she requested to take action against said Kurella Babu/Accused No.1, Kurella Bixam/Accused No.2 and

Kurella Yadamma/Accused No.3.

b) On receipt of report, the LW19/G.Uday Kiran, Sub-Inspector of Police

Mothkur has registered a case in Cr.No.39/2021, for the offence punishable under Sections 354-D, 376(2)(n) r/w 109 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of POCSO Act-2012 and took up investigation.

c) During the course of investigation, LW19/Sub-Inspector of Police has examined and recorded the statement of LW1/YYYY at police station, later

LW19 made a request to LW18/Women Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police to examine and record the statement of LW2/XXXX/victim girl.

Accordingly the statement of victim girl was recorded. Basing on the statement of victim girl, as the crime is grave in nature then

LW20/Ch.Srinivas, Circle Inspector of Police, Mothkur took up the further investigation, on 01.04.2021 at 06:00 hours, LW20 visited the house of victim girl/LW2/XXXX, there he examined and recorded the statements of

Page 4 of 11

SC.NO.36 of 2022

POCSO Court, Bhuvanagiri.

LW1, LW3/ZZZZ, LW4/Vaddepally Nagesh and LW5/Dasari Narsimha and also seized the clothes of victim girl in the presence of two mediators i.e.,

LW8/Ittaboina Mangamma and LW9/Panga Mamatha under the cover of seizure panchanama. Later LW20 addressed a letter to LW7/Headmaster of victim girl school to issue bonafide certificate of victim girl, accordingly

LW7 issued bonafide certificate of victim girl, which concluded that the victim girl is minor as on the date of incident. Then the victim girl was subjected to medical examination at Area Hospital Bhuvanagiri which was conducted by LW14/Civil Assistant Surgeon, Area Hospital Bhuvanagiri and also preserved vaginal swabs for chemical analysis. Later LW20 proceeded to the scene of offence and conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of mediators i.e., LW10/Purugula Srinivas and LW11/Anneboina Yellaiah and also drew its rough sketch.

On 01.04.2021 the accused No.1 was apprehended, during the course of interrogation accused No.1 confessed about committing the offence, as such the confession statement of accused No.1 was recorded in the presence of mediators i.e., LW12/Kalletla Srinivasulu and

LW13/Annepu Yakub and also underwear of accused No.1 was recovered under the cover of panchanama in the presence of same mediators. Then the accused No.1 was sent to Government Area Hospital, Ramannapet for

Page 5 of 11

SC.NO.36 of 2022

POCSO Court, Bhuvanagiri.

potency test, which was conducted by LW15/Civil Assistant Surgeon,

Ramannapet, who issued potency test certificate. Thereafter the accused

No.1 was sent to the Court for Judicial Remand. On 09.04.2021

LW17/Hon’ble Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhuvanagiri recorded the statement of victim girl/LW2/XXXX under Section 164 Cr.P.C.

Later LW21/Ch.Mothiram, Circle-Inspector of Police Ramannapet has assumed the charge as Circle Inspector of Ramannapet and took up further investigation. During the course of investigation, LW21 received the FSL report and case property from FSL. On 20.10.2021 at 10:00 hours,

LW6/Kurella Chandra Shekar produced the accused No.2 and 3 before

LW21, then LW21 examined and recorded the statement of LW6. During the course of interrogation, accused No.2 and 3 confessed about committing the offence, then accused No.2 and 3 were remanded to

Judicial Custody. Further LW22/Assistant Commissioner of Police,

Choutuppal Division took up further investigation, then LW22 verified the investigation done by LW19 to LW21 and found correct. Basing on the available record and depositing the case property, LW22/PW4 filed a charge sheet against the accused No.1 for the offence under Section 417, 420, 354-D, 376(2)(n)(3) of IPC and Section 5(l) of r/w 6 of POCSO Act and

Page 6 of 11

SC.NO.36 of 2022

POCSO Court, Bhuvanagiri.

against accused No.2 and 3 for the offence under Sections 417, 420 r/w 109 of IPC and Section 17 of POCSO Act.

02)In view of the establishment of this court, the case was made over to this court for disposal according to law.

03)During the service of summons, the accused No.1 died, as such the case was abated against accused No.1 on 25.08.2022.

04) On appearance of the accused No.2 and 3 before this court, charges were framed Under sections 417, 420, 354-D, 376(2)(n)(3) of IPC and Section 5(l) r/w 6 of POCSO Act. The charges were read over and explained to the accused No.2 and 3 in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried as per law. As such, the accused No.2 and 3 were preceded with the case as they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried as per law.

05)On behalf of prosecution PW1 to PW4 are examined, Ex.P1 to P11 and

MO1 to MO5 are marked.

06)The accused No.2 and 3 were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., with reference to the incriminating evidence appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Accused No.2 and 3 denied such allegation and reported no evidence on their behalf in this case.

07)Heard both sides.

Page 7 of 11

SC.NO.36 of 2022

POCSO Court, Bhuvanagiri.

08)On consideration of the entire facts of the prosecution case, evidence let in and the arguments, the points that arise for consideration are :

1) Whether the prosecution proved the foundational facts of the case beyond reasonable doubt?

2) Whether the accused No.2 and 3 have committed the

offence under Sections 417, 420, 354-D, 376(2)(n)(3) of IPC

and Section 5(l) r/w 6 of POCSO Act?

09) The case of the prosecution is that, the accused No.1 knowingly well that the victim girl is minor, he started stalking with victim girl when she was in 9th standard and parents of the victim girl warned the accused No.1 and shifted the victim girl to Athmakur Village and mandal for further studies, inspite of that accused No.1 followed victim girl and when the the victim girl was joined Junior

College at Mothkur he even followed her and committed rape on her with abetment of his parents i.e., accused No.2 and 3 and thereby committed the offence.

To substantiate the above fact, the prosecution got examined PW1 to

PW4 and Ex.P1 to P11 along with MO1 to MO5 are marked. Among the said witnesses, the mother of victim girl is examined as PW1, she merely deposed that as the accused No.1 took her daughter without her consent, as such she gave report to police against accused No.1 under Ex.P1. PW1 did not support the prosecution case, as such she was cross examined by Learned Special Public

Prosecutor in which she categorically deposed that she has not stated to police

Page 8 of 11

SC.NO.36 of 2022

POCSO Court, Bhuvanagiri.

as that in Ex.P1 (Section 161 Cr.P.C statement). The victim girl is examined as

PW2, she categorically deposed that in the year 2021 she was studying intermediate in Government Junior College at Mothkur, she used to go to college by walk and on way the accused No.1 used to harassed her by approaching and preventing her from going to college in peaceful manner, and once the accused No.1 pulled her hand. Therefore she informed the same to her parents as such her mother gave report to police and that she was referred to medical examination at Area Hospital Bhuvanagiri and she gave her statement before LW17 i.e., Magistrate. PW2 did not support the prosecution case. Immediately she was cross examined by Learned Special Public Prosecutor in which she categorically deposed that she has not stated to police as that in

Ex.P3 (Section 161 Cr.P.C statement). PW3 who issued bonafide certificate of victim girl under Ex.P4. PW5 is the investigating officer, who deposed that he has issued First Information Report under Ex.P5 and during the course of investigation he has conducted the clothes seizure panchanama of victim girl under Ex.P6, the first scene of offence is under Ex.P7, the recovery panchanama of accused No.1 underwear under Ex.P8. The medical examination along with

FSL report is marked as Ex.P9, the potency test certificate is marked as Ex.P10, the section 164 Cr.P.C statement of victim girl is marked as Ex.P11, the clothes of

Page 9 of 11

SC.NO.36 of 2022

POCSO Court, Bhuvanagiri.

victim girl are marked as MO1 to MO3 and clothes of accused are marked as

MO4 and MO5 through PW4.

10)If the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is perused, the report under

Ex.P1 would disclose nothing about accused No.2 and 3 abetting accused No.1 in commission of the offence. PW1 and 2 did not attribute anything about the involvement of accused No.2 and 3 in this crime. The evidence of investigating officer more particularly the documents under Ex.P5 to Ex.P10 does not attribute anything about involvement of the accused No.2 and 3 in this case.

The case against accused No.1 was abated on 25.08.2022 as accused No.1 died.

11)The material witnesses i.e., PW1 and PW2 have not supported the prosecution case. As such the Learned Special Public Prosecutor has given up the remaining witnesses i.e., LW4 to LW21. Therefore, it is held that there is no iota of evidence to believe that the accused No.2 and 3 have committed the offence.

Hence, prosecution failed to prove its foundational case. Once it is held that there is no foundational case of the prosecution, then it is held that prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence.

12) In the result, under section 235 (1) Cr.P.C., accused No.2 and 3 are acquitted for the offence punishable under sections 417, 420, 354-D, 376(2)(n)(3)

Page 10 of 11

SC.NO.36 of 2022

POCSO Court, Bhuvanagiri.

of IPC and Section 5(l) r/w 6 of POCSO Act-2012. The bail bonds of the accused

No.2 and 3 shall stand cancelled as per Section 437-A Cr.P.C. The case property i.e., MO1 to MO5 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by

me in the open Court on this the 27 th day of April, 2026.

Sd/-(Sri Milind Kamble)

SPL. SESSIONS JUDGE FOR EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL

& DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND POCSO ACT CASES,

BHUVANAGIRI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

PW-1 LW1YYYYComplainant and mother of victim girl

PW-2 LW2XXXXVictim girl PW-3 LW3Taduri AnjaiahIssued bonafide certificate

PW-4LW22N.Uday ReddyInvestigating Officer

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE

-Nil-

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

Ex.P1 is the Complaint

Ex.P2 is the Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1

Ex.P3 is the Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2

Ex.P4 is the Bonafide certificate of victim girl

Ex.P5 is the First Information Report

Ex.P6 is the Cloth seizure panchanama of victim girl

Ex.P7 is the First scene of offence panchanama

Ex.P8 is the Recovery panchanama of accused No.1

Ex.P9 is the Medical Examination along with FSL Report

Ex.P10 is the Potency Test certificate

Page 11 of 11

SC.NO.36 of 2022

POCSO Court, Bhuvanagiri.

Ex.P11 is the Section 164 Cr.P.C statement

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

-- NIL --

MATERIAL OBJECTS

MO-1 is the Red colour cotton kurtha. MO-2 is the Cream colour leggin. MO-3 is the Grey colour mild made cutdrawer. MO-4 is the Cream colour banyan. MO-5 is the Brown colour underwear.

Sd/-(Sri Milind Kamble)

SPL. SESSIONS JUDGE FOR EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL

& DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND POCSO ACT CASES,

BHUVANAGIRI.

SC.POCSO/7/2022 Acquitted

SHO Choutuppal vs Kathoraju Mahesh @ Teja

28 Apr 2026

Page 1 of 10

SC.NO.07 of 2022

POCSO Court, Bhuvanagiri.

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL AND

DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES

(POCSO) ACT CASES :: BHUVANAGIRI.

Present :-Sri. Milind Kamble , Special Sessions Court Judge for Expeditious Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases, Bhuvanagiri.

(Dated this the 28th day of April, 2026)

SC(POCSO).NO.07 OF 2022

(Cr.No.192/2022 of P.S.Choutuppal)

Name and description of The State through the Assistant Commissioner of the complainant:Police, Yadadri-Division. Name and description of Kathoju Mahesh @ Teja, S/o.Venkata Chary, Aged the accused:about 27 years, Occ:Senior Chemist at Dashami Lab, Velminedu, Chityal, R/o.Venkateshwara Colony, Choutuppal Town. N/o.Nandipadu Road, Miryalaguda. Offence charged:under sections 376(2)(n), 417 of IPC and Section 5 (l) r/w 6 of POCSO Act-2012.

Plea of the accused:Pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the Court:Not guilty

Sentence or Order :In the result, under section 235 (1) Cr.P.C., accused is acquitted for the offence punishable under sections 376(2)(n), 417 of IPC and Section 5 (l) r/w 6 of POCSO Act-2012. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled as per Section 437-A Cr.P.C. The case property i.e., MO1 shall be returned to its original owner after expiry of appeal time.

This session’s case is coming before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri Gajjala Ravinder Reddy, Spl. P.P. for the State and Sri Ch.Anil Kumar Counsel for the Accused and after having stood over for consideration today the Court made the following :

Page 2 of 10

SC.NO.07 of 2022

POCSO Court, Bhuvanagiri.

:: JUDGMENT ::

01) The brief facts of the case are that:-

a) On 03.04.2022 at 19:00 hours, LW1/XXXX/victim girl gave a report to police stating that about six months one person by name Mahesh @ Teja made a wrongful phone call to her and got himself introduced to her stating his name as Mahesh through his mobile phone bearing

No.7680059828 to her mobile number. Subsequently Mahesh made love proposal to her with deceitful words and in that connection Mahesh asked her to meet him once at Choutuppal, by believing the deceitful words of accused, she went to Venkateshwara Colony, Choutuppal in the month of August 2021 from there Mahesh took her to a rented room, which belong to his friend and the accused sexually exploited her forcibly.

Then Mahesh used to call her to that room and sexually exploited her several times by knowingly well that she is minor. About one month back when she asked said Mahesh to marry her, the said Mahesh started postponing the matter. As such she filed this report.

b) On receipt of report, LW22/D.Yakanna, Sub-Inspector of Police

Choutuppal has registered a case in Cr.No.192/2022, for the offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 417 of IPC and issued FIR, further

LW23/G.Manasa, Women Sub-Inspector of Police took up investigation.

Page 3 of 10

SC.NO.07 of 2022

POCSO Court, Bhuvanagiri.

c) During the course of investigation, LW23 has examined and recorded the statement of LW1/XXXX/victim girl at Anganwadi Center Choutuppal, then

LW23 secured the presence of mediators i.e., LW10/Md.Safeeya and

LW11/Polepally Sabitha in their presence LW23 seized the clothes of victim girl under the cover of panchanama. Later the victim girl was subjected to medical examination, which was conducted by

LW16/Dr.Prathyusha Civil Assistant Surgeon and preserved material objects for expert analysis.

As the offence was grave in nature, LW24/N.Srinivas, Inspector of

Police, Choutuppal took up further investigation, he visited scene of offence along with victim girl and secured the presence of mediators i.e.,

LW12/Gangidi Anand Reddy and LW13/Miryala Ganesh in their presence

LW24 conducted scene of offence panchanama and drew its rough sketch. Later LW24 examined and recorded the statements of

LW2/Thipparthy Kiran Kumar Reddy, LW3/Pathinen Sai Deepak,

LW4/Velpuguda Saikumar and LW5/Nampally Venkatesh. Then LW24 addressed a letter to LW6/Headmaster of victim girl school to issue bonafide certificate of victim girl, accordingly LW6 issued bonafide certificate of victim girl and the statement of LW6 was recorded by LW24.

Basing on the bonafide certificate, LW24 added the section of law 5(l) r/w

Page 4 of 10

SC.NO.07 of 2022

POCSO Court, Bhuvanagiri.

6 of POCSO Act to the existing sections 376(2)(n), 417 of IPC. On 05.04.2022 LW24 also examined the LW7/YYYY and LW8/ZZZZ who are the parents of victim girl.

On 06.04.2022 at 05:00 hours, LW22 along with staff apprehended the accused. During the course of interrogation, accused confessed about committing the offence, the confession panchanama of accused was recorded in the presence of two mediators i.e. LW14/Pandula

Lingaiah and LW15/Pathuri Shiva Kumar and also seized Brown colour underwear, mobile phone from the possession of accused under the cover of panchanama. Later the accused was sent to Community Health

Center Choutuppal for potency test, which was conducted by

LW18/Dr.Sairam, Civil Assistant Surgeon Choutuppal and issued report.

Thereafter the accused was sent to the Court for Judicial Custody.

Then LW24 forwarded the material objects seized by LW16 to the FSL.

Basing on the FSL report, LW16 gave her final opinion. Further LW25 took up further investigation. Then LW25 made a request to LW19/Hon’ble

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ramannapet to record the

statement of victim girl under Section 164 Cr.P.C and same was recorded by LW19.

Page 5 of 10

SC.NO.07 of 2022

POCSO Court, Bhuvanagiri.

On the requisition of LW25, the Nodal Officer, Airtel Services/LW25 and

LW21/Nodal Officer, Jio Services furnished Customer Application Form and Call Data Record of mobile numbers of accused and victim girl.

Basing on the entire record, LW25/PW6 filed charge sheet for the offence under Sections 376(2)(n), 417 of IPC and Section 5 (l) r/w 6 of POCSO Act- 2012.

02)In view of the establishment of this court, the case was made over to this court for disposal according to law.

03) On appearance of the accused before this court, charges were framed

Under under sections 376(2)(n), 417 of IPC and Section 5 (l) r/w 6 of POCSO Act- 2012. The charges were read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried as per law. As such, the accused was preceded with the case as he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried as per law.

04)On behalf of prosecution PW1 to PW6 are examined, Ex.P1 to P15 and

MO1 are marked.

Page 6 of 10

SC.NO.07 of 2022

POCSO Court, Bhuvanagiri.

06)Heard both sides.

07)On consideration of the entire facts of the prosecution case, evidence let in and the arguments, the points that arise for consideration are :

1) Whether the prosecution proved the foundational facts of the case beyond reasonable doubt?

2) Whether the accused has committed the offence under

Sections 376(2)(n), 417 of IPC and Section 5 (l) r/w 6 of

POCSO Act-2012?

08) The case of the prosecution is that, the accused knowingly well that the victim girl is a minor, he came in contact with her on mobile phone, introduced her, lured her and took her to room and committed penetrative sexual assault on her more than once and thereby committed an offence under Sections 376(2)(n), 417 of IPC and Section 5 (l) r/w 6 of POCSO Act-2012.

To substantiate the above fact, the prosecution got examined PW1 to

PW6 and Ex.P1 to P15 along with MO1 are marked. Among the said witnesses,

PW1 is the victim girl, in her evidence she categorically deposed that she used to go to school by walk and she has no acquaintance with the accused nor accused proposed love to her and she did not lodge any report with the police.

But she identified her signature on the report i.e., Ex.P1. PW1 also categorically deposed that her statement was recorded before Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class Ramannapet and that she identified her signature on Ex.P2 (Section 164 Cr.P.C statement), she further deposed that the police never took

Page 7 of 10

SC.NO.07 of 2022

POCSO Court, Bhuvanagiri.

her to hospital and police never examined her nor recorded her statement. PW1 did not support the prosecution case.

09)PW2 is the mother of victim girl, she categorically deposed that her daughter i.e., PW1 did not disclose anything to her and she does not know the facts of this case, and that police never examined her nor recorded her statement.

10) Father of victim girl is examined as PW3, he categorically deposed that his daughter i.e., PW1 did not disclose anything to him and he does not know the facts of this case, as such police never examined him nor recorded his statement.

11) All the three material witnesses i.e., PW1 to PW3 did not support the prosecution, as such they were cross examined by Learned Special Public

Prosecutor but however all these three witnesses categorically deposed that they have not stated to police as that in Ex.P3, Ex.P4 and Ex.P5 (section 161

Cr.P.C statements) and further PW1 was cross examined by learned counsel for accused, she categorically deposed that she does not know the contents of the statement given before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class.

12)PW4 is the person who issued bonafide certificate of victim girl, the bonafide certificate is marked as Ex.P6. The said document is not at all disputed nor rebutted.

Page 8 of 10

SC.NO.07 of 2022

POCSO Court, Bhuvanagiri.

13)PW5 is the mediator for recovery of MO1, he categorically deposed that one day he went to police station on the instruction of Tahsildar Choutuppal and there the police have recovered mobile phone from the possession of accused.

14)Now the remaining witness is the investigating officer, who examined as

PW6, through him the report given by LW1 to police is marked as Ex.P8, the First

Information Report is marked as Ex.P9, the Crime Detail Form is marked as

Ex.P10, the medical examination along with FSL report is marked as Ex.P11, the potency test certificate is marked as Ex.P12, the Section 164 Cr.P.C statement of victim girl is marked as Ex.P13, the Customer Application Form, Call Data Record along with 65-B Certificate under Indian Evidence Act of mobile number 7680059828 is marked as Ex.P14, the Customer Application Form, Call Data

Record along with 65-B Certificate under Indian Evidence Act of mobile number 6303488285 is marked as Ex.P15.

15)If the evidences of all the witnesses is perused, except the recovery of

MO1 and bonafide certificate under Ex.P6, all other witnesses of the prosecution did not support the case. The perusal of Ex.P14 and Ex.P15 it only prove that there was a conversation between two persons on the said mobile phone numbers through MO1, but as PW1 did not support the case it cannot be believed that accused spoke with PW1, as there is no corroboration to such fact.

Page 9 of 10

SC.NO.07 of 2022

POCSO Court, Bhuvanagiri.

Coming to Ex.P11 the medical report of the victim girl, it is just a preliminary report. There is no FSL report or final report given by doctor. Ex.P11 requires corroboration from PW1. Therefore Ex.P11 is of no help to believe prosecution case. Under such circumstances, the prosecution failed to prove its foundational case. Once it is held that there is no foundational case of the prosecution, then it is held that prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence.

16) In the result, under section 235 (1) Cr.P.C., accused is acquitted for the offence punishable under sections 376(2)(n), 417 of IPC and Section 5 (l) r/w 6 of

POCSO Act-2012. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled as per

Section 437-A Cr.P.C. The case property i.e., MO1 shall be returned to its original owner after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in

the open court on this the 28 th day of April, 2026.

Sd/-(Sri Milind Kamble)

SPL. SESSIONS JUDGE FOR EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL

& DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND POCSO ACT CASES,

BHUVANAGIRI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

PW-1 LW1XXXXComplainant and victim girl

PW-2 LW7YYYYMother of victim girl PW-3 LW8ZZZZFather of victim girl

PW-4LW6Masku PrabhudasIssued bonafide certificate of victim girl

PW-5LW14Pandula LingaiahPanch witness for confession of accused

Page 10 of 10

SC.NO.07 of 2022

POCSO Court, Bhuvanagiri.

PW-6LW25N.Uday ReddyInvestigating Officer

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE

-Nil-

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

Ex.P1 is the signature on report given by PW1

Ex.P2 is the Signature of PW1 on Section 164 Cr.P.C statement

Ex.P3 is the Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1

Ex.P4 is the Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2

Ex.P5 is the Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3

Ex.P6 is the Bonafide certificate of victim girl

Ex.P7 is the Recovery panchanama of mobile phone

Ex.P8 is the Report given by LW1 to police

Ex.P9 is the First Information Report

Ex.P10 is the Crime Detail Form

Ex.P11 is the Medical Examination along with FSL report

Ex.P12 is the Potency Test certificate

Ex.P13 is the Section 164 Cr.P.C statement of victim girl

Ex.P14 is the Customer Application Form, Call Data Record along with 65-B Certificate under Indian Evidence Act of mobile number 7680059828

Ex.P15 is the Customer Application Form, Call Data Record along with 65-B Certificate under Indian Evidence Act of mobile number 6303488285

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE -- NIL --

MATERIAL OBJECTS

MO-1 is the Mobile phone

Sd/-(Sri Milind Kamble)

SPL. SESSIONS JUDGE FOR EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL

& DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND POCSO ACT CASES,

BHUVANAGIRI.

SC.POCSO/44/2022 Acquitted

SHO Choutuppal vs Saripelli Surya

10 Apr 2026

Page 1 of 10

SC.NO.44 of 2022

POCSO Court, Bhuvanagiri.

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL AND

DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES

(POCSO) ACT CASES :: BHUVANAGIRI.

Present :-Sri. Milind Kamble , Special Sessions Court Judge for Expeditious Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases, Bhuvanagiri.

(Dated this the 10th day of April, 2026)

SC(POCSO).NO.44 OF 2022

(Cr.No.460/2022 of P.S.Choutuppal)

Name and description of The State through the Sub-Inspector of Police, the complainant:Choutuppal Name and description of Saripelli Surya, S/o.Narasimha, Aged about 19 years, the accused:Occ:Coolie, R/o.Thallasingaram Village, Choutuppal Mandal, Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri District. Offence charged:under sections 363, 354, 354-D of IPC and Section 12 of POCSO Act-2012.

Plea of the accused:Pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the Court:Not guilty

Sentence or Order :In the result, under section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. Accused is acquitted for the offence punishable under section 363, 354, 354-D of IPC and Section 12 of POCSO Act-2012. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled as per Section 437-A Cr.P.C. The case property i.e., MO1 shall be returned to its original owner after expiry of appeal time.

This session’s case is coming before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri Gajjala Ravinder Reddy, Spl. P.P. for the State and Sri K.Bhoopal Reddy Counsel for the Accused and after having stood over for consideration today the Court made the following :

Page 2 of 10

SC.NO.44 of 2022

POCSO Court, Bhuvanagiri.

:: JUDGMENT::

01) The brief facts of the case are that:-

a) On 17.08.2022 at 12:30 hours, LW1/mother of victim girl gave a report to police stating that on 16.08.2022 at around 21:30 hours, her daughter i.e., victim girl/LW2 went missing from the house, she searched for her daughter/LW2 at her relative houses, but she could not get any information. She suspects one Saripelli Surya, R/o.Thallasingaram might have kidnapped her daughter/LW2 and requested to take action in this regard.

b) Basing on the report, the LW11/G.Prabhakar, Sub-Inspector of Police

Choutuppal has registered a case in Cr.No.460/2022, for the offence punishable under Sections 363 of IPC and took up investigation.

c) During the course of investigation LW11 examined and recorded the statement of LW1/mother of victim girl and visited Kuntlagudem Village and observed the scene of offence and noted down the crime detail form by drawing the rough sketch of scene of offence in presence of mediators

LW5/Jangili Sainath and LW6/Yadla Shiva Kumar. Thereafter he made a request to LW1/mother of victim girl to furnish the age proof of victim girl. Subsequently the victim girl/LW2 along with LW1/mother of victim girl, LW3/father of victim girl and LW4/M.Rambabu came to police station, then LW11 made a request to LW10/G.Manasa, Sub-Inspector of

Page 3 of 10

SC.NO.44 of 2022

POCSO Court, Bhuvanagiri.

police, Choutuppal to examine and record the statement of victim girl and accordingly the statement of victim girl was recorded, then LW1 handed over the conduct certificate and attested copy of SSC marks memo of victim girl to LW11 wherein as per the documents, the victim girl was less than 18 years. Then LW11 examined and recorded the statements of LW3/father of victim girl and LW4/Uncle of victim girl.

Basing on the statements of the witnesses, LW11 added the provision under Sections 354, 354-D of IPC and Section 12 of POCSO Act to the existing law under Section 363 of IPC. On 18.08.2022 the accused was apprehended and he was produced before LW11, during the course of interrogation, accused admitted the committing the offence, as such in the presence of LW7/Choula Sagar and LW8/Kancharla Prem Das the confession panchanama of accused was recorded and one sky blue colour Vivo mobile phone with sim No.8499907035 was recovered from the possession of the accused under the cover of panchanama.

Thereafter the accused was arrested and he was sent to the Court under escort for Judicial Custody. On 07.09.2022 LW11 made a request to

LW9/Hon’ble Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ramannapet to record the statement of victim girl under Section 164 Cr.P.C and accordingly the same was recorded by LW9. Basing on the materiel available LW11 filed a

Page 4 of 10

SC.NO.44 of 2022

POCSO Court, Bhuvanagiri.

charge sheet for the offence under Sections 363, 354, 354-D of IPC and

Section 12 of POCSO Act-2012 against accused.

02)In view of the establishment of this court, the case was made over to this court for disposal according to law.

03) On appearance of the accused before this court, charges were framed

Under sections 363, 354, 354-D of IPC and Section 12 of POCSO Act-2012. The charges were read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried as per law. As such, the accused was preceded with the case as he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried as per law.

04)On behalf of prosecution PW1 to PW8 are examined, Ex.P1 to P11 and

MO1 is marked.

06)Heard both sides.

07)On consideration of the entire facts of the prosecution case, evidence let in and the arguments, the points that arise for consideration are :

Page 5 of 10

SC.NO.44 of 2022

POCSO Court, Bhuvanagiri.

1) Whether the prosecution proved the foundational facts of the case beyond reasonable doubt?

2) Whether the accused has committed the offence under

Sections 363, 354, 354-D of IPC and Section 12 of POCSO Act-

2012?

08) The case of the prosecution is that, the accused stalked the victim minor girl and followed her in the name of love and that on 16.08.2022 he has kidnapped the victim girl without consent of her guardians and thereby committed this offence.

To substantiate the above fact, the prosecution got examined PW1 to

PW8 and Ex.P1 to P11 along with MO1 is marked. In this case, PW1 is the mother of victim girl, PW2 is the father of victim girl and PW4 is the relative of

PW1. If the evidences of these witnesses is perused according to them on 16.08.2022 the victim girl/PW2 was not found at house at around 09:30 PM on which PW1 made a search to trace out the victim girl but when she could not, she informed the same to PW3 who was at MGBS Hyderabad discharging his duty and also PW1 informed the same to PW4. According to PW1 she suspected that it would be accused who might have kidnapped her daughter. As such PW1 along with PW3 and PW4 went to police station and gave report to police under

Ex.P1 and that time their statements were recorded. Even in Ex.P1 PW1 stated that she suspects accused would be the person who might have kidnapped the victim girl. The witnesses PW3 and PW4 also deposed the same fact.

Page 6 of 10

SC.NO.44 of 2022

POCSO Court, Bhuvanagiri.

09)The suspicion turns into reality only when the victim girl supports the versions of PW1, PW3 and PW4. The victim girl/PW2 in her evidence categorically deposed that on 16.08.2022 at 09:30 PM there was a petty quarrel with her and her mother/PW1, later she went to a temple situated at Nalgonda without informing her mother and returned to home on the next day morning and she came to know that her mother gave report to police, for which reasons her statement was recorded by the police and also before the Magistrate at

Ramannapet and she in both of her statements deposed the same fact.

10)The evidence of PW2 is very much crucial to the prosecution case. The victim girl/PW2 did not attribute anything about accused stalking her continuously and kidnapping her on 16.08.2022 under such circumstances the evidences of PW1, PW3 and PW4 cannot be believed about accused stalking and kidnapping the victim girl on 16.08.2022.

11)The other witnesses in this case are PW5 in whose presence the crime detail form under Ex.P4 was conducted. PW6 is the mediator in whose presence the confession and recovery panchanama/Ex.P6 was conducted and MO-1 was recovered in his presence. These two witnesses have supported the prosecution case. However, only the recovery portion panchanama of MO1 is marked as

Ex.P6 through PW6 because according to PW6 the confession of the accused was recorded while accused was in police custody. As such the confession of

Page 7 of 10

SC.NO.44 of 2022

POCSO Court, Bhuvanagiri.

accused cannot be proved against the accused as the same is hit under Section 26 of Indian Evidence Act. The MO1 is mere a mobile phone but there is no other relevant document filed by the prosecution to believe that MO1 was used by the accused in committing the offence. Therefore the Ex.P6 and MO1 are of no use to help the prosecution case to prove the guilt of the accused.

12)Now the remaining witnesses are PW7 and PW8 who are the investigating officers. According to PW7, he received a report from LW1 in this case under

Ex.P1, basing on which he issued First Information Report under Ex.P7.

Thereafter he recorded the statement of LW1 at police station. On 18.08.2022

LW1 along with victim girl came to police station as such he requested to

LW10/Women Sub-Inspector of police Choutuppal to record the statement of victim girl and thereafter he added the section of law to the existing section of law. Thereafter he arrested the accused and conducted confession-cum-seizure panchanama of the accused in presence of mediators LW7/Choula Sagar and

LW8/Kancharla Prem Das under Ex.P9 and recovered MO1. Thereafter the accused was arrested and sent to the Court under escort for Judicial Custody.

Then he made a request to LW9/Hon’ble Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Ramannapet to record the statement of victim girl under Section 164 Cr.P.C and the same was recorded. Thereafter he deposited the case property and filed charge sheet against accused.

Page 8 of 10

SC.NO.44 of 2022

POCSO Court, Bhuvanagiri.

Through PW7 the section 164 Cr.P.C is marked as Ex.P10 and the attested copy of SSC Memo is marked as Ex.P11.

13)PW8 is the Women Sub-Inspector of Police to record the statement of victim girl and according to her, on 17.08.2022 she received an oral requisition from PW7, then she examined and recorded the statement of victim girl at the residence of victim girl and handed over the statement to LW11/PW7.

14)The evidences of these two investigating officers, clearly goes to show that basing on the documents and on the oral statements of witnesses, it was concluded that the accused has committed the offence. But as discussed above the evidences of PW1, PW3 and PW4 are not relied upon, because they merely suspected that accused might have committed the offence. Moreover PW2 did not attribute anything about accused kidnapped or stalking her. Ex.P6 and Ex.P4 are of no help to the prosecution case to prove that accused committed the offence, so also the MO1. Thereafter it is held that prosecution failed to prove its foundational facts of the case. Once it is held that there is no foundational case of the prosecution, then it is held that prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence.

15) In the result, under section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. Accused is acquitted for the offence punishable under section 363, 354, 354-D of IPC and Section 12 of

POCSO Act-2012. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled as per

Page 9 of 10

SC.NO.44 of 2022

POCSO Court, Bhuvanagiri.

Section 437-A Cr.P.C. The case property i.e., MO1 shall be returned to its original owner after expiry of appeal time.

Typed on my dictation by the Steno, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 10 th day of April, 2026.

Sd/-(Sri Milind Kamble)

SPL. SESSIONS JUDGE FOR EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL

& DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND POCSO ACT CASES,

BHUVANAGIRI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

PW-1 LW1Mother of victim girlMother of Victim girl

PW-2 LW2Victim girlVictim girl PW-3 LW3Father of victim girlFather of victim girl

PW-4LW4Malleboina RambabuCircumstantial witness

PW-5LW6Yadla Shiva KumarPanch witness for scene of offence panchanama PW-6 LW8Kancharla Prem DasPanch witness for confession-cum-seizure panchanama PW-7LW10G.PrabhakarInvestigating officer

PW-8LW09G.ManasaInvestigating Officer

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE

-Nil-

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

Ex.P1 is the Complaint

Ex.P2 is the Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2

Ex.P3 is the Signature of PW2 on Section 164 Cr.P.C statement of victim girl

Ex.P4 is the Crime Detail Form

Ex.P5 is the Signature on recovery panchanama

Page 10 of 10

SC.NO.44 of 2022

POCSO Court, Bhuvanagiri.

Ex.P6 is the Recovery panchanama of mobile phone

Ex.P7 is the First Information Report

Ex.P8 is the Crime Detail Form along with rough sketch

Ex.P9 is the Recovery panchanama of Vivo mobile phone

Ex.P10 is the Section 164 Cr.P.C statement of victim girl

Ex.P11 is the attested copy of SSC Memo

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

-- NIL --

MATERIAL OBJECTS

MO1 is the mobile phone.

Sd/-(Sri Milind Kamble)

SPL. SESSIONS JUDGE FOR EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL

& DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND POCSO ACT CASES,

BHUVANAGIRI.

Order Record 40 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
SC.POCSO/17/2024	SHO Thurkapally vs Karunakar Gundeboina	29 Apr 2026	Judgement	Acquitted
SC.POCSO/7/2022	SHO Choutuppal vs Kathoraju Mahesh @ Teja	28 Apr 2026	Judgement	Acquitted
SC.POCSO/240/2021	SHO Rep by Choutuppal vs Hasina Baigari Sardar Basha	28 Apr 2026	Judgement	Acquitted
SC.POCSO/36/2022	STATE OF TELANGANA SHO MOTHKUR vs Kurella Babu	27 Apr 2026	Judgement	Acquitted
SC.POCSO/44/2022	SHO Choutuppal vs Saripelli Surya	10 Apr 2026	Judgement	Acquitted
SC.POCSO/56/2024	SHO BHONGIR TOWN vs Vootla Tharun	09 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/133/2022	SHO MOTHKUR vs Morigati Shivasai	09 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/38/2023	SHO Rep by Ramannapet vs Naresh Velimineti	08 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/204/2019	SHO PS YADADRI TOWN vs Gajeela Saikiran	07 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/37/2024	SHO BHONGIR RURAL vs Jagan Macha	06 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/15/2019	Bodige Srinu vs Pebbe Mallesham@ Mallesh	02 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/242/2022	SHO BIBINAGAR vs Bandagonda Kanakappa	02 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/27/2024	SHO BHONGIR TOWN vs Raghu Suresh Kumar Allias Raghu Venkata Suresh Kumar	01 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/38/2024	SHO BHONGIR RURAL vs Mudugula Upender .	01 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/118/2022	SHO Alair vs Kunchal Durga Rao	31 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/22/2022	SHO BHONGIR RURAL vs Babburi Nagaraju	30 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/111/2021	STATE OF TELANGANA SHO CHOUTUPPAL vs Shaik Khaja Hussain	26 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/19/2023	Stat of Telangana vs Sony Rahul Kumar	25 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/54/2021	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Kallepalli Ajay	25 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/2/2024	SHO RAMANNAPET vs Boddu Raviteja	24 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/102/2022	STATE OF TELANGANA SHO MOTAKONDUR vs Vangapally Madhu	24 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/22/2024	SHO BHONGIR TOWN vs Sanjay Belli	18 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/42/2023	SHO Rep by Bibinagar vs Gaddam Kishor Kumar	17 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/181/2021	STATE OF TELANGANA SHO YADAGIRIGUTTA vs Repaka Prashanth	17 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/143/2021	STATE OF TELANGANA SHO RAJAPET vs Madrugalla Prashanth	16 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/44/2023	SHO Rep by Bibinagar vs Bhukya Rajashekar Bhukya	12 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/225/2021	SHO Choutuppal vs Bolguri Shiva	12 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/43/2024	SHO RAMANNAPET vs Banuprakash Bandameedi	11 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/175/2021	SHO BIBINAGAR vs Bontha Narsimha	11 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/36/2023	SHO Rep by Thurkapally vs Banothu Praveen	10 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/31/2023	Stat of Telangana Rep by SHO Bommalaramaram vs Ravulapally Narsimhulu	09 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/15/2025	Korra Lachu vs Ramavath Bhaskar	05 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/42/2022	STATE OF TELANGANA SHO MOTAKONDUR vs Kandula manikumar	02 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/160/2020	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Devasani Jampanna @ Jampaiah	24 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/15/2023	Stat of Telangana vs Chiluka Sathish	23 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/48/2024	SHO BHongir Rural vs Shiva Shankar Kanneboina	29 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/83/2020	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Muthyala Naveen @ Titlu	29 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/266/2020	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Talari Rajashekhar	29 Dec 2025	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/13/2022	SHO Thurkapally vs Pallerla Banu @ Bhanu Prasad	10 Dec 2025	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/7/2023	SHO BIBINAGAR vs Banda Shravan @ Shraveen	27 Nov 2025	Judgement	—

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Apr 2026		14
Mar 2026		19
Feb 2026		3
Jan 2026		2
Dec 2025		2
Nov 2025		1

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Sri. Milind Kamble handled?

Sri. Milind Kamble has handled 41 court orders since 2025 at Yadadri Bhuvanagiri, PDJ Cout Complex. The average disposal rate is 6 orders per month.

What types of cases does Sri. Milind Kamble hear?

Based on available records, Sri. Milind Kamble primarily handles Criminal matters (Sessions Cases) at Yadadri Bhuvanagiri, PDJ Cout Complex.

Where is Sri. Milind Kamble currently posted?

Sri. Milind Kamble is posted as Fast Track Special Court for Trial of Rape and POCSO Act Cases, Bhongir at Yadadri Bhuvanagiri, PDJ Cout Complex, Yadadri Bhuvanagiri, Telangana.

Are judgments by Sri. Milind Kamble available online?

Yes. 5 judgments by Sri. Milind Kamble are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Sri. Milind Kamble dispose cases?

Sri. Milind Kamble disposes approximately 6 cases per month, based on 41 orders handled over their tenure at Yadadri Bhuvanagiri, PDJ Cout Complex.

Since when is Sri. Milind Kamble serving?

Sri. Milind Kamble has been serving at Yadadri Bhuvanagiri, PDJ Cout Complex since 2025. and is currently posted there.

Case Types

SC 100%

Posting History

Nov 2025 — Present

Fast Track Special Court for Trial of Rape and POCSO Act Cases, Bhongir · 41 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 5

Other Judges at this Court

Smt. Gedam Swathi

Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Bhongir

82 orders

Mr. Shaik Arif

Addl. Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Bhongir

0 orders

Smt. M.Ushashree

Senior Civil Judge, Bhongir

303 orders

Sri A Jaya Raju

Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bhongir

421 orders

Smt. P.Mukthida

I Additional District and Sessions Court, Bhongir

301 orders

← View all judges at Yadadri Bhuvanagiri, PDJ Cout Complex