Page No. 1 of total 22 Pages. Judgment in Spl. S.C. No.83 of 2019
IN THE COURT OF THE FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT FOR
EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL AND DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND POCSO ACT
CASES AT GADWAL
Monday, the 02 nd day of May, 2022
Present Sri.N.Santosh Kumar, Spl. Sessions :Judge, FTSC for Expeditious Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases at Gadwal
Spl.S.C.No.83 OF 2019
Name ofThe State representing through the Circle : ComplainantInspector of Police, Shanthinagar A-1: Telugu Venkatesh, S/o.Budidapad Sathyanna Age: 20 Years, Occ:Coolie, R/o.Telugupet, Ieeja Village. Name of : accused A-2: Telugu Krishna, S/o.Keshanna Age: 25 Years, Occ:Fruit Vendor, R/o.Durga Nagar, Ieeja Village.
under Sections 366-A and 376 (2)(i)(n) of the IPC Nature ofand Sec.5 (l) r/w. Sec. 6 of the POCSO Act against : Offencethe accused no.1 and under Section 366-A r/w. Sec. 109 of IPC against the accused no.2. Plea of :Pleaded not guilty accused Finding of :Found not guilty the Court Sentence /:The Accused No.1 is found not guilty for the Ordercharges under Sections 366-A and 376 (2)(i)(n) of the IPC and Sec.5 (l) r/w. Sec. 6 of the POCSO Act; and the Accused No.2 is found not guilty for the charges under Section 366-A r/w. Sec. 109 of IPC and accordingly the accused no.1 and 2 are acquitted U/Sec.235(1) Cr.P.C for the said charges. The MO-1/Motor cycle bearing Reg.No.TS-06-C-T/R-1681, which was given to the Accused No.2 as interim custody vide Orders in
Crl.M.P.No.673/2017, dated 06-11-2017 shall be
made absolute after completion of appeal time. The un-marked case property i.e. Intex company cell phone seized from the possession of Accused No.1 shall be returned to the Accused No.1 after completion of appeal time. The bail bonds of
Page No. 2 of total 22 Pages. Judgment in Spl. S.C. No.83 of 2019 accused no.1 and 2 shall be in force for a period of six months as contemplated under Section 437-A Cr.P.C. Counsel for Sri.K.Anand Kumar, the: Spl. Public Prosecutor, POCSO Court, Gadwal. Prosecution Counsel for :Sri.T.Manohar, Counsel for accused no.1 and 2 defence
This Special Sessions case is coming on before me for final hearing on 26-04-2022 in the presence of Sri.K.Anand Kumar, Spl.
Public Prosecutor, POCSO Court, Gadwal for the Complainant/State and of Sri.T.Manohar, Counsel for accused no.1 and 2 and the matter having stood over for consideration till today, this court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
The State represented through the Circle Inspector of
Police, Shanthinagar filed the charge sheet against the accused no.1 for the offences U/Secs.366-A, 376 r/w. Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal
Code (for short as “IPC”) and Sec. 6 r/w. Sec. 5(l) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short as “POCSO
Act”); and filed charge-sheet against the accused no.2 for the offence U/Sec. 366-A, 109 r/w. 34 of IPC and Sec. 17 of the POCSO
Act in Cr.No.191 of 2017, Police Station Ieeja.
2.The brief case of the Prosecution as disclosed from the charge sheet is that on the night of 16/17-07-2017 at about 12:00 midnight, the accused no.1, on the abetment of accused no.2, kidnapped PW-05/victim girl (the name of the of victim girl is not
Page No. 3 of total 22 Pages. Judgment in Spl. S.C. No.83 of 2019 disclosed in view of the bar under Section 33 (7) of the POCSO Act) and took her to Gonegandla Village where the accused no.1, on the abetment of accused no.2, committed rape and aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the victim girl. After completion of investigation, the CI of Police, Gadwal filed the charge-sheet against the Accused No.1 for the offences U/Secs.366-A, 376 r/w. Sec. 34 IPC and Sec. 6 r/w. Sec. 5(l) of the POCSO Act; and filed charge-sheet against the accused no.2 for the offence U/Sec. 366-A, 109 r/w. 34 of
IPC and Sec. 17 of the POCSO Act, before the Special Court designated under the POCSO Act viz. I-Additional District and
Sessions Judge’s Court, Mahabubnagar.
3.Later this case was taken on file for the offences under
Secs. 366-A, 376, 109 r/w. Sec. 34 IPC and Sec. 6 r/w. Sec. 5(l) of the
POCSO Act against the Accused No.1 and 2 by the Special Court designated under the provisions of the Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act, 2012 viz. I-Additional District and Sessions
Judge’s Court, Mahabubnagar. Later on appearance of Accused No.1
to 2, the copies of documents have been furnished to them as required under section 207 Cr.P.C. Later on consideration of material on record, charges under Sections 366-A and 376 (2)(i)(n) of the IPC and Sec.5 (l) r/w. Sec. 6 of the POCSO Act are framed against the accused no.1 and charges under Section 366-A r/w. Sec.
Page No. 4 of total 22 Pages. Judgment in Spl. S.C. No.83 of 2019 109 of IPC are framed against the accused no.2, read over and explained the said charges to the respective Accused No.1 and 2, for which the Accused No.1 and 2 denied their respective charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Later on, as per the orders of the Principal District and Sessions Court, Mahabubnagar vide Order Dis.No.2819, dated: 29-10-2020, this case was transferred to this Fast Track Special Court for Expeditious Trial and
Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act cases at Gadwal, for disposal according to law.
4.In order to prove its case, the Prosecution has examined
PWs-1 to 16 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-32 besides marking MO-1 on its behalf. The learned Special Public Prosecutor given up the evidence of other list of witnesses listed in this case.
5. After closure of the Prosecution evidence, the Accused
No.1 and 2 are examined U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C by placing before them the incriminating material appearing in the evidence of
Prosecution witnesses for which they denied the same and reported no evidence in support of their defence.
6.Heard the arguments on both sides and perused the material on record.
Page No. 5 of total 22 Pages. Judgment in Spl. S.C. No.83 of 2019
7.Basing on the contentions of both sides, now the points that would arise for determination before this court are:
1. “Whether on 16-07-2017 PW-05/victim girl was under eighteen years of age and a MINOR under section 2 (1) (d) of the Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act, 2012?”
2. “Whether the Prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused no.1 for the offences under Sec. 366-A and 376 (2)(i)(n) of the IPC and Sec.5 (l) r/w. Sec. 6 of the POCSO Act and the guilt of the accused no.2 for the offence under Sec. 366-A r/w. Sec. 109 of
IPC, beyond reasonable doubt? “
8.POINT No.1 :- One of the offences alleged against the
Accused No.1 is that he has committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on PW-05/victim girl, for which a charge under Sec. 5
(l) r/w. Sec. 6 the POCSO Act was framed against the Accused No.1.
To attract this offence, one of the essential ingredients to be proved by the Prosecution is that PW-05/victim girl shall be considered as a child on the date of commission of alleged offences under the
POCSO Act. Section 2 (1) (d) of the POCSO Act defines the child means any person below the age of eighteen years. Therefore, now it is to be seen is whether PW-05/victim girl was a child on the date of alleged offences under the POCSO Act.
Page No. 6 of total 22 Pages. Judgment in Spl. S.C. No.83 of 2019
9.In the charge sheet, it is alleged that PW-05/victim girl was a minor aged below 18 years on the date of alleged offence.
PW-05/victim girl in her evidence before the Court on 14-12-2021 testified that that on that day she was aged 20 years and that the alleged offence under the POCSO Act was taken place on 16-07- 2017. The Bonafide certificate issued by LW-06/B.Vasundhara Devi,
H.M. ZPHS (Girls), Ieeja shows that the date of birth of PW-05/victim girl as 26-04-2002. It is to be noted that the Accused No.1 and 2 did not place any suggestion either to PW-05/victim girl or
PW-12/Investigating Officer denying the date of birth of
PW-05/victim girl as 26-04-2002 as noted in bonafide certificate.
Moreover, it was also not suggested to Pws-5 and 12 suggesting any other date as the date of birth of PW-05/victim girl. Moreover, no documentary evidence is placed before the court by the defense to rebut Bonafide Certificate regarding the date of birth of
PW-05/victim girl. Thus, the date of birth of PW-05/victim girl as 26- 04-2002 is almost remained uncontroverted. Hence, without requiring any further proof, the date of birth of PW-05/victim girl can be accepted as 26-04-2002. Since PW-05/victim girl was below the age of 18 years as on the date of alleged commission of the offence, it can be held that she was a ‘child’ as defined in Section 2 (1) (d) of the POCSO Act as on the date of commission of alleged offence upon her. Therefore, the Point No.1 is answered in-favour of Prosecution
Page No. 7 of total 22 Pages. Judgment in Spl. S.C. No.83 of 2019 holding that PW-05/victim girl was a ‘child’ below the age of eighteen years, as on the date of commission of alleged offence upon her.
10.POINT No.2:- To bring home the guilt of the accused no.1 for the offences under sections 366-A, 376 (2)(i)(n) of the
Indian Penal Code and Sec.5(l) r/w 6 of the POCSO Act; and the guilt of the accused no.2 for the offence under Sec. 366-A r/w. Sec. 109 of the Indian Penal Code, the Prosecution has to prove that 16-07- 2017, the accused no.1, on the abetment of accused no.2, by saying indusive words to PW-05/victim girl to marry her, kidnapped her from the lawful guardianship of her parents and thereafter committed rape and aggravated penetrative sexual assault on PW- 05/victim girl (minor).
11.In Criminal Jurisprudence, a person accused of an offence is presumed to be innocent until his guilt is proved. This is but another way of saying that it is for the Prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In case if the Prosecution fails to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the accused is entitled for acquittal.
12.On the contrary, Section 29 of the POCSO Act provides for a reverse burden upon the accused in a prosecution under Sections 3, 5, 7 and 9 of the POCSO Act. In this regard, it is
Page No. 8 of total 22 Pages. Judgment in Spl. S.C. No.83 of 2019 very much relevant to go through the legal position contained in
Sec. 29 of the POCSO Act which reads as under:-
Sec.29: Presumption as to certain offences:- Where a person is prosecuted for committing or abetting or attempting to commit any offence under Secs. 3, 5, 7 and 9 of the POCSO Act, the Special Court shall presume, that such person has committed, or abetted or attempted to commit the offence as the case may be, unless the contrary is proved.
13.The above said provision makes it clear that whenever the accused is prosecuted for the offences under Secs. 3, 5, 7 and 9 of the POCSO Act, the court shall presume that the accused has committed the said offences, unless the contrary is proved. Sec. 29 of the POCSO Act raises a presumption of guilt of accused and the same shall hold good and continued until the contrary is proved by the accused. The person against whom the presumption is raised will be duty bound to prove the contrary. In other words, the onus to rebut the said presumption is on the accused.
14.A presumption is not in itself evidence, but only makes a prima-facie case for a party in whose favour it exists. Presumptions may be rebuttable or irrebuttable. Where a presumption operates, the court may or must draw a certain conclusion. The use of the words “shall presume” in Sec. 29 of the POCSO Act, makes it clear
Page No. 9 of total 22 Pages. Judgment in Spl. S.C. No.83 of 2019 that the court is bound to draw certain presumption whenever the accused is prosecuted either for commission, abetment or attempt to commit the offence, as the case may be. Section 4 of the
Indian Evidence Act provides for raising a rebuttable presumption, which provides that whenever it is directed that the court shall presume a fact, it shall regard such fact as proved, unless and until it is disproved. The expression “shall presume” must be understood as having some import of compulsion.
15.It is pertinent to note that the concluding part of the
Sec.29 of POCSO Act further makes it clear that the presumption so raised in the said section is neither conclusive proof of the fact presumed nor it is an un-rebuttable presumption. As per Sec. 29 of the POCSO Act, it is a rebuttable presumption. In case of rebuttable presumption, the onus to rebut the presumption is upon the party against whom the said presumption is drawn. Despite the fact that court shall presume against the accused as laid down under Sec. 29 of the POCSO Act, it can be said that the initial onus is on the
Prosecution to lay foundation for the Prosecution case remains as
before, and only on discharge of this burden, the accused will be
called upon to prove the contrary. In the light of the above said discussion, now let me discuss the evidence of Prosecution
Page No. 10 of total 22 Pages. Judgment in Spl. S.C. No.83 of 2019
Witnesses to know whether the Prosecution has discharged its initial burden.
16.Coming to the facts of the present case on hand, PW-1 is the de-facto complainant and father of victim girl, PW-2 is the mother of victim girl, PW-3 is the younger brother of victim girl, PW- 4 is the relative of victim girl, PWs-5 is the victim girl, PW-6 is the elder brother of victim girl, PWs-7 and 15 are the circumstantial witness in this case in one voice deposed that the accused no.1, has not kidnapped PW-05/victim girl and not caused any sexual assault against PW-05/victim girl and that the accused no.2 have not abetted the accused no.1 in commission of said offence at any time.
PW-1 is the father of victim girl, who set the law in motion further deposed that about five years ago, the Police, Ieeja obtained his signature on white blank paper. PW-05/victim girl is none other than the victim girl specifically deposed that the accused no.1 with the help of accused no.2 did not kidnap and did not commit any offence against her and that about five years ago, at the instance of Police,
Ieeja, she gave her 164 Cr.P.C. Statement before the JFCM, Alampur.
Thus, PWs-1 to 7 and 15 did not support the case of the Prosecution and turned hostile. Though the learned Special Public Prosecutor with the permission of the court declared PWs-1 to 7 and 15 as hostile and cross-examined PWs-1 to 7 and 15 to elicit truth, but in
Page No. 11 of total 22 Pages. Judgment in Spl. S.C. No.83 of 2019 spite of cross-examination of PWs-1 to 7 and 15, nothing has been elicited in favour of Prosecution, except placing certain suggestion in support of the Prosecution case, which have been denied by them.
17.PWs-8 and 9 are the two mediators for scene of offence panchanama; PWs-10 and 11 are the two mediators for confessional- cum-seizure panchanama of Accused No.1 and also mediators for scene of offence panchanama; PW-14 is the one among two mediators for confessional-cum-seizure panchanama of Accused
No.2 deposed that they does not know anything about the facts of this case and that about five years ago, the Police have obtained their signatures on some paper and that no panchanamas were conducted in their presence. Thus, PWs-8 to 11 and 14 does not support the Prosecution and turned hostile. Though the learned
Special Public Prosecutor with the permission of the court declared
PWs. 8 to 11 and 14 as hostile and cross-examined them to elicit the truth, but nothing in favour of the Prosecution has been elicited.
18.Pw-12 Sri.J.Venkateshwar Rao is the investigation officer in this case deposed that on 17-07-2017 at 15:00 hours, PW-1/father of victim girl came to the Police Station, Ieeja and lodged Ex.P18 report
dated 17-07-2017 to LW-21/Sri.S.Seshi Reddy, ASI of Police, Ieeja,
basing on which, he registered a case in Cr.No.191 of 2017 under the head of ‘girl missing’ and took up the investigation by issuing Ex.P19
Page No. 12 of total 22 Pages. Judgment in Spl. S.C. No.83 of 2019
FIR issued by LW-21/Sri.S.Seshi Reddy, ASI of Police. He further deposed that during the course of investigation, LW-21/Sri.S.Seshi
Reddy, ASI of Police, Ieeja examined and recorded the 161 Cr.P.C.
Statements of Pws. 1 to 4 and later he proceeded to scene of offence, where he secured the presence of PWs-8 and 9; and conducted scene of offence panchanama besides drawn rough sketch map of scene of offence by incorporating its details in Ex.P-20/first crime details form
dated 17-07-2017. Pw-12 further deposed that later PW-5 victim girl
came to PS, hence her 161 Cr.P.C. Statement got recorded through PW- 16/Smt.S.Sudha Rani, WPC of PS Gadwal Town and basing on the statement of victim girl, LW-22/Sri.GBV Raman, SI of Police, Ieeja prepared Ex.P21 section alteration from the head girl missing to Sec.
366-A, 376 r/w. 109 of IPC and Sec. 3 and Sec. 4 of POCSO Act. Pw-12 further deposed that later PW-5 victim girl was sent to Govt. Area
Hospital, Gadwal for her medical examination and accordingly
PW-13/Dr.Varalakshmi, Lady Medical Officer at Area Hospital, Gadwal examined PW-5 victim girl besides preserved vaginal swabs and accordingly she furnished Ex.P-22/Medical Examiantion Report of PW-5 victim girl. Subsequently the Telangana State FSL issued Ex.P-23/FSL report dated 26-09-2017. Ex.P-24 final opinion dated 19-10-2017.
19.Pw-12 further deposed that in view of the gravity of offence, he took-up the CD file of this case for further investigation, verified the investigation done by the earlier investigating officers and
Page No. 13 of total 22 Pages. Judgment in Spl. S.C. No.83 of 2019 found the same on proper lines. Pw-12 further deposed that later he examined and recorded the statements of PWs-1, 2 6, 7 and
LW-7/S.Sudha Rani. Later on 31-07-2017, he visited the second scene of offence at Telugu Peta, Ieeja illage, where secured the presence of
PWs-10 and 11 and conducted second scene of offence panchanama besides drawn rough sketch map of scene of offence by incorporating the details in Ex.P-25/second crime details form dated 31-07-2017 besides examined and recorded the statements of LWs-6 Vasundara
Devi and LW-10 Katike Khadar.
20.Pw-12 further deposed that on 31-07-2017, he apprehended the accused no.1, secured the presence of PWs-10 and 11, before whom the accused no.1 made a confessional statement pertains to this case, wherein the accused No.1 confessed that the accused No.1 was in possession of Cell phone of Intex Company with two SIMs of Airtel company, which the Accused No.1 used to make conversation with PW-5 victim girl and that pursuant to the said confessional statement of the accused, he seized the said cell phone besides two SIM cards of Aritel Company. Pw-12 further deposed that in the said confessional statement, the Accused No.1 also confessed that the motor cycle on which the victim girl was kidnapped is in the custody of the A-2. Ex.P-26 is the portion of confessional-cum-seizure panchanama dated 31-07-2017 of the Accused No.1. He further deposed that on 04-08-2017, he apprehended the accused no.2,
Page No. 14 of total 22 Pages. Judgment in Spl. S.C. No.83 of 2019 secured the presence of Kaulabavi Ranganna and Angadi Ravi Kumar,
before whom the accused no.2 made a confessional statement pertains
to this case and stated that the Accused No.2 is in possession of the motor cycle which was used in the commission of offence for kidnapping of victim girl by the A-1. In the said confessional statement, the Accused No.2 also confessed that the Accused No.2 will show one motor cycle on which the A-1 kidnapped the victim girl. Ex.P-27 is the portion of confessional-cum-seizure panchanama dated 04-08-2017 of the Accused No.2.
21.Pw-12 further deposed that subsequently the Accused NO.2 being led by the above said two mediators proceeded to house of the accused No.2 where the A2 seized the crime vehicle MO-1HF Deluxe motor cycle Br.Reg.No.TS06-CTR-1681 from the possession of the A-2 under the cover of Ex.P-28seizure panchanama dated 04-08-2017 at 17:30 hours. Pw-12 further deposed that later he effected the arrest of the accused no.1 and 2 and produced both of the A1 and A2 before the concerned court for judicial remand. In the meanwhile, the accused no.1 was sent to Govt. Area Hospital, Gadwal to know the potency of the accused no.1 and accordingly LW-18/Dr.K.Kishore Kumar, CAS, Dist.
Hospital, Gadwal, issued Ex.P-29Potency certificate in which it was opined that there is no evidence to say that the accused no.1 is impotent. Pw-12 further deposed that basing on the requisition,
Page No. 15 of total 22 Pages. Judgment in Spl. S.C. No.83 of 2019
LW-20/JFCM, Alampur recorded Ex.P-09/164 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW-5/ victim girl.
22.Pw-13 Dr.T.Varalaxmi, Civil Asst. Surgeon, Govt. Dist.
Hospital, Gadwal, who examined the victim girl, deposed that on 23-07- 2017, on receiving a requisition from the Police, Ieeja for medical examination of PW-5/victim girl, she examined her and found that hymen of PW-5/victim girl was not intact and that old tear at 6’O clock position and that vagina was admitting one finger and perineum is normal and at that time, she obtained two vaginal swabs and thereafter sent the same to FSL for examination and report. Ex.P-22 is the medical examination certificate of Pw-5 victim girl dated 23-07- 2017, Pw-12 further deposed that subsequently Telangana State FSL issued Ex.P-23 report of TS-FSL, dated 26-09-2017. Based on the above said FSL report, she issued Ex.P-24 final opinion.
23.Pw-13 further deposed that as per the record that on 31- 07-2017 while LW-18/Dr.Kishore Kumar who was the Civil Asst.
Surgeon, Govt. Area Hospital, Gadwal was on duty, on receiving a requisition from the Police concerned to conduct potency test examination of the accused No.1 and accordingly he examined the accused No.1 and issued Ex.P-29/Potency Certificate dated 31-07-2017 of the A1.
24.Pw-16 Smt.S.E.SudhaRani, W-PC at Gadwal Town Station, who recorded the statement of victim girl, deposed that on 23-07-2017,
Page No. 16 of total 22 Pages. Judgment in Spl. S.C. No.83 of 2019 on the instructions of her superior Police Officers, she examined and recorded Ex.P-8/161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW-5/victim girl which reveals the involvement of the A1 and A2.
25.Out of total 16 witnesses examined on behalf of the
Prosecution, PWs-1 to 7 and 15 are the parents of victim girl, brothers of victim girl, circumstantial witnesses and the victim girl in this case, but all of them specifically deposed that no offence has been committed against PW-05/victim girl. As seen from the testimony of PW-05/victim girl, she categorically deposed that she never complained against anybody and that earlier she gave her 164 Cr.P.C statement at the instance of Police.
26.Though the accused no.1, on the abetment of accused no.2, alleged to have kidnapped PW-05/victim girl from lawful guardianship of her parents and subjecting the victim girl to sexual assault, but coming to the evidence, PWs-1 to 7 and 15 who are the crucial witnesses for the Prosecution, did not state anything about the involvement of the Accused No.1 and 2 in any manner connecting them for the charges framed against them.
27.As stated above, though the Prosecution could able to prove the age of the PW-05/victim girl as child below the age of 18 years under section 2 (1) (d) of the POCSO Act, but other allegations of kidnapping and subjecting PW-05/victim girl to sexual assault by
Page No. 17 of total 22 Pages. Judgment in Spl. S.C. No.83 of 2019 the accused no.1, on the abetment of accused no.2, have not been proved by the Prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Though PW-12 testified about the manner of conducting his investigation on proper lines, but he being the Police Official and in the absence of any corroboration in particular from the PWs-1 to 7 and 15 who are material witnesses, the testimony of Pw-12 cannot be given any weight.
28. In this regard, it is pertinent note that as per Section 29 of the POCSO Act, where a person is prosecuted for committing or abetting or attempting to commit any offense under Sections 3, 5, 7 and 9 of the POCSO Act, the POCSO Court shall presume that the accused has committed or abetted or attempted to commit the offense, as the case may be unless the contrary is proved. The presumption provided under Section 29 of the POCSO Act is rebuttable by the accused by proving that he has not committed the offense alleged against him. In the present case on hand, though the accused no.1 on the abetment of accused no.2, prosecuted for committing the offense of penetrative sexual assault under Sec. 5 (l) r/w. Sec. 6 of the POCSO Act, but PWs-1 to 7 and 15 being the crucial witnesses for the Prosecution did not state about the involvement of the Accused No.1 and 2 in any manner. Thus, the testimonies of PWs-1 to 7 and 15 coming to the aid of the Accused
Page No. 18 of total 22 Pages. Judgment in Spl. S.C. No.83 of 2019
No.1 and 2 in the process to rebut the presumption raised under
Section 29 of the POCSO Act against the accused.
29. In view of the above said facts, circumstances and discussion above, I hold that the Prosecution has failed to prove that on 16-07-2017 , the accused no.1, on the abetment of accused no.2, kidnapped PW-05/victim girl from the lawful guardianship of her parents and subjected her to sexual assault, hence I hold that the
Prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the Accused No.1 and 2 for the charges framed against them beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly the Accused No.1 and 2 are to be acquitted for the charges framed against them. In this case, the Police, Ieeja deposited MO-1/Motor cycle bearing Reg.No.TS-06-CTR-1681, which was given to the Accused No.2 as interim custody vide Orders in
Crl.M.P.No.673/2017, dated 06-11-2017. In view of the disposal of
the case, it is just and necessary to make absolute of the said interim custody orders after appeal time is over. In this case, the
Police also deposited one Intex Company Mobile Phone seized from the possession of Accused No.1, therefore, in view of the disposal of the case, it is just and necessary to return the mobile phone to the
Accused No.2 after appeal time is over. Thus, the Point No.2 is answered against the Prosecution.
Page No. 19 of total 22 Pages. Judgment in Spl. S.C. No.83 of 2019
30.In the result, The Accused No.1 is found not guilty for the charges under Sections 366-A and 376 (2)(i)(n) of the IPC and
Sec.5 (l) r/w. Sec. 6 of the POCSO Act; and the Accused No.2 is found not guilty for the charges under Section 366-A r/w. Sec. 109 of IPC and accordingly the accused no.1 and 2 are acquitted U/Sec.235(1)
Cr.P.C for the said charges. The MO-1/Motor cycle bearing
Reg.No.TS-06-C-T/R-1681, which was given to the Accused No.2 as interim custody vide Orders in Crl.M.P.No.673/2017, dated 06-11- 2017 shall be made absolute after completion of appeal time. The un-marked case property i.e. Intex company cell phone seized from the possession of Accused No.1 shall be returned to the Accused
No.1 after completion of appeal time. The bail bonds of accused no.1 and 2 shall be in force for a period of six months as contemplated under Section 437-A Cr.P.C.
Typed to my dictation by the Field Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 02nd day of May, 2022.
Spl. Sessions Judge, FTSC for Expeditious Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases at Gadwal
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Page No. 20 of total 22 Pages. Judgment in Spl. S.C. No.83 of 2019
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR
PROSECUTION: PW-1Father of victim girl [the name of father of victim girl is not disclosed in view of the bar under Sec. 33 (7) of the POCSO Act, 2012] PW-2:Mother of victim girl [the name of mother of victim girl is not disclosed in view of the bar under Sec. 33 (7) of the POCSO Act, 2012] PW-3:Junior paternal uncle of victim girl [the name of uncle of victim girl is not disclosed in view of the bar under Sec. 33 (7) of the POCSO Act, 2012] PW-4:Uncle of victim girl [the name of uncle of victim girl is not disclosed in view of the bar under Sec. 33 (7) of the POCSO Act, 2012] PW-5:victim girl [the name of victim girl is not disclosed in view of the bar under Sec. 33 (7) of the POCSO Act, 2012] PW-6:Senior paternal uncle of victim girl [the name of senior paternal uncle of victim girl is not disclosed in view of the bar under Sec. 33 (7) of the POCSO Act, 2012] PW-7:Cousin brother of victim girl [the name of cousin brother of victim girl is not disclosed in view of the bar under Sec. 33 (7) of the POCSO Act, 2012] PW-8:Telugu Govindu [1st Mediator for I-Scene of offence Panchanama] PW-9:Telugu Timmaiah [2nd Mediator for I-Scene of offence Panchanama] PW-10: Gokari Naidu [1st Mediator panch for confession of A-1, seizure panchanama and II- Scene of offence Panchanama] PW-11:A.Naganna [2nd Mediator panch for confession of A-1, seizure panchanama and II- Scene of offence Panchanama] PW-12: Sri.J.Venkateshwar Rao [C.I of Police, Shanthinagar and the I.O]
PW-13:Dr.T.Varalakshmi [CAS, Govt. Hospital, Gadwal, who treated the victim girl] PW-14Sri.Koulabavi Ranganna, [1st mediator for confession panchanama of A-2 and mediator for seizure panchanama] PW-15 Katike Khadar [eye witness and owner of room] PW-16 S.E.Sudharani, WPC who recorded the statement of victim girl
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR
PROSECUTION:
Ex.P-1:Portion of signature of PW-1 on original report dated 17-07-2017
Page No. 21 of total 22 Pages. Judgment in Spl. S.C. No.83 of 2019
Ex.P-2:161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-1, dated: 17-07-2017 Ex.P-3:161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-2, dated: 17-07-2017 Ex.P-4:161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-2, dated: 28-07-2017 Ex.P-5:161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-3, dated: 18-07-2017 Ex.P-6:161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-4, dated: 18-07-2018. Ex.P-7:Signature of PW-5 on 164 Cr.P.C. statement dated: 05-08-2017 Ex.P-8:161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-5, dated: 23-07-2017. Ex.P-9:164 Cr.P.C. Statement dated 05-08-2017 Ex.P- :161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-06, dated: 28-07-2017 10 Ex.P- :161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-7, dated: 28-07-2017 11 Ex.P- :Signature of PW-08 on Crime Detail form dated: 17-07-2017 12 Ex.P- :Signature of PW-9 on Crime Detail form dated: 17-07-2017 13 Ex.P-Signature of PW-10 on confession and seizure panchanama : 14dated 31-07-2017 Ex.P- :Signature of PW-10 on CDF dated 31-07-2017 15 Ex.P-Signature of PW-11 on confession and seizure panchanama : 16dated 31-07-2017 Ex.P- :Signature of PW-11 on CDF dated 31-07-2017 17 Ex.P- :Original report by PW-12, dated 17-07-2017 18 Ex.P- :FIR dated 17-07-2017 19 Ex.P- :I-CDF by PW-12, dated 17-07-2017 20 Ex.P- :Section Alteration Memo by Pw-12 21 Ex.P- :Medical examination report by PW-12 22 Ex.P- :FSL report, dated 26-09-2017 23 Ex.P- :Final opinion dated 19-10-2017 24 Ex.P- :II-CDF by PW-12, dated 31-07-2017 25 Ex.P-Portion of confession-cum-seizure panchanama of A-1 dated 31- : 2607-2017 Ex.P- :Portion of confession-cum-seizure panchanama of A-2 dated 04-
Page No. 22 of total 22 Pages. Judgment in Spl. S.C. No.83 of 2019 2708-2017 Ex.P- :Seizure panchanama dated 04-08-2017 28 Ex.P- :Potency certificate of A-1 issued by PW-12 29 Ex.P-Signature of PW-14 on confession panchanama dated 04-08- : 302017 Ex.P- :Signature of PW-14 on seizure panchanama dated 04-08-2017 31 Ex.P- :161 Cr.P.C. Statement of Pw-15, dated 31-07-2017 32 DEFENSE : -Ni.-
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED
MO1:HF Deluxe Motor cycle bearing Reg.No.TS-06-C-T/R-1681
Spl. Sessions Judge, FTSC for Expeditious Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases, Gadwal.