APSR140000142020
IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF
CASES UNDER THE PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL
OFFENCES ACT, 2012, SRIKAKULAM
Present: Smt. N.SUNEETHA,
Special Judge for trial of cases under POCSO Act
Friday, 27th day of February, 2026
SESSIONS CASE No.28/2021
(arose out of Crime No.135/2019 of Saravakota Police Station)
Between:
The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Saravakota Police Station.
...Complainant
And:
Urlana Satish Kumar S/o.Jammayya (late), aged about 20 years, Student, Ambedkar Colony, Saravakota village and Mandal, Srikakulam District.
...Accused.
Prosecution conducted by : Smt. G.V.S.U. Visalakshi Special Public Prosecutor, Srikakulam.
Accused is defended by : Sri G. Rama Rao, Advocate, Srikakulam
Offence : Under Section 354-D, 506(2), 509 of IPC and Section 11(iv) r/w. 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.
Plea of Accused : Pleaded not guilty.
Finding of the Judge : Found not guilty.
2
SC 28/2021 (FAIR)
Sentence or Order : In the result, the accused is not found guilty for the offence punishable
Under 354-D, 506(2), 509 of IPC
And Section 11(iv) r/w. 12 of
Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act.and he is acquitted under Sec. 235(1) of Cr.P.C for the said offences. MO1 shall be given to the P.W.2 after expiry of appeal time.
The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months, as per Section 437-A
Cr.P.C.
This Sessions Case is coming on 09.02.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Smt. G.V.S.U.Visalakshi, learned Special Public
Prosecutor for the complainant/State and of Sri G.Rama Rao, learned
Advocate for the accused and the matter is having been stood over to this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
01. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Saravakota Police Station has filed charge-sheet against the accused for the offence Under Sections 354-D, 506(2), 509 of IPC and Section 11(iv) r/w. 12 of Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act in Crime No.135/2019 of Saravakota Police Station as the victim girl is aged about 17 years. Basing on the statement of Victim girl, P.W-8/SI of Police registered a case in Crime No.135/2019 of 3
SC 28/2021 (FAIR)
Saravakota Police Station for the offences Under Sections 354-D, 506, 509 of IPC and Section 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences
Act on 14.09.2019.
02. As per the statement of the victim girl/P.W.1, about two years prior to the date of lodging of the report, the accused used to follow her and harass her with the intention of satisfying his sexual lust, which she rejected. Thereupon, the accused threatened that if she failed to satisfy his desires, he would beat her entire family along with his friends. However, she did not disclose the same to her family members. The accused continued his harassment against her, both physically and mentally, on two or three occasions. On noticing a change in her behaviour, her family members enquired about her condition, but she did not reveal the same to them. Subsequently, her family members verified her grandmother’s phone number, i.e., 9000505940, and found certain abusive messages received from phone numbers 7702704080 and 8639507711. Thereafter, on questioning the victim girl, she disclosed the harassment committed by the accused. Thereafter, she went to the police station and lodged a report
before the Saravakota Police on 14.09.2019. Based on the statement of
P.W.1, P.W.8 registered an FIR in Crime No. 135/2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 354-D, 506 and 509 of IPC and Section 12 of the POCSO Act.
4
SC 28/2021 (FAIR)
3. P.W.8 took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, he examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and L.W.6/Karra Koteswara Rao and recorded their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He visited the scene of offence in the presence of mediators, i.e., P.W.6 and L.W.8/G. Viswanadham, in- spected the scene of offence, drafted the scene observation report, pre- pared a rough sketch, and seized M.O.1 from the possession of P.W.1 un- der cover of a mediators’ report and on receipt of date of birth certificate of victim girl and after completion of the investigation, P.W.8 filed the charge sheet against the accused.
04. This case was taken on file Under Sections 354-D, 506(2), 509 of IPC and Section 11(iv) r/w. 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences
Act against accused.
05.On appearance of the accused before this court, he was furnished with the copies relied upon by the prosecution, as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C.
06.Having heard the learned Special Public Prosecutor and learned
Defense counsel and on considering the material on record, charges for the offence punishable Under Sections 354-D, 506(2), 509 of IPC and
Section 11(iv) r/w. 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act were framed against accused and the same were read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
Hence, for trial.
5
SC 28/2021 (FAIR)
07.During trial, in order to prove the case, prosecution examined PWs 1 to 8 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.8 and MO1. L.W.6/Karra Koteswara
Rao, Head Master was died and his evidence was closed by this court.
The evidence of L.W.8/G.Viswanadham, VRA was given up by the Special
Public Prosecutor.
08. After closure of adducing prosecution evidence, accused was examined as per Section 313 (1)(b) of Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating evidence against him for which he denied the incriminating evidence appears to have placed against him and reported no defense evidence.
09.Heard both sides.
Points for determination are:-
1. Whether the prosecution has proved, beyond reasonable doubt,
that the victim girl was below 18 years of age as on the date of the
alleged incident ?
2. Whether the accused, about two years prior to the lodging of
the complaint, followed and harassed the victim girl, with the
intention of satisfying his sexual lust, and whether such
conduct amounts to an offence under Section 354-D IPC
(stalking)?
3. Whether the accused threatened the victim girl and/or her
family with injury, thereby committing criminal intimidation
punishable under Section 506(2) IPC?
4. Whether the accused used words, gestures, or acts intended to
insult the modesty of the victim girl, and whether such conduct
constitutes an offence under Section 509 IPC?
6
SC 28/2021 (FAIR)
5. Whether the accused, being aware of the minor status of the
victim girl, committed acts with sexual intent, thereby violating
Section 11(iv) r/w. 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences (POCSO) Act?
6. Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt in respect of the aforesaid offences?
10. The charge leveled against the accused under Sections 354-D, 506(2), and 509 of the Indian Penal Code, read with Section 11(iv) r/w. 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, requires the prosecution to discharge its primary burden of proving that the accused habitually followed the victim, threatened her, insulted her modesty, and subjected her to sexual harassment, and that at the time of the alleged offence, the victim was a minor, being under the age of eighteen years.
11. The learned Special Public Prosecutor contended that the evidence of
P.W.1 is corroborated by the testimony of P.Ws.2 to 4, and that the allegations leveled against the accused have been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. He, therefore, prayed for the conviction of the accused.
12. The learned counsel for the defense argued that the evidence of
P.Ws.1 to 4 is untrustworthy and unreliable. He further submitted that there was a delay of twelve days in lodging the FIR, for which the prosecution did not offer any plausible explanation. He further submitted that the evidence of P.W.1 indicates that she was a consenting party and that the messages allegedly sent by the accused were not abusive and did not 7
SC 28/2021 (FAIR)
indicate any sexual intention. He also highlighted that no explanation was offered regarding the delay in sending the FIR to the Court and that, as admitted by the Investigating Officer, there were adequate transportation facilities between Saravakota and Pathapatnam, and that police personnel were available to appear in Court daily. In view of these circumstances, he prayed for the acquittal of the accused.
13.The victim girl was examined as P.W.1. She deposed that on 14.09.2019 she lodged a report against the accused at Saravakota Police
Station. She further deposed that about one year prior to the lodging of the report, the accused used to follow her and harass her to satisfy his sexual lust, which she rejected. She stated that the accused threatened that if she failed to satisfy him, he would beat her entire family with the help of his friends. However, she did not disclose the same to her family members, and the accused continued to harass her physically and mentally on two or three occasions. She further deposed that upon observing her behavior, her family members enquired about her condition, but she did not reveal the same to them. She further stated that on one day at about 11:55 p.m., a text message was received on her grandmother’s phone bearing No.
9000505940 from phone No. 8639507711 containing the word “Oley.”
Thereafter, at about 11:56 p.m., another text message was received on the same phone from phone No. 7702704080 containing the word “Osey.” On seeing the same, her family members enquired as to who had sent the 8
SC 28/2021 (FAIR)
messages, and she informed them that the person who sent the messages to her grandmother’s phone was the accused, Urlana Satish Kumar. Upon further enquiry, she informed them that the accused had been harassing her to fulfill his sexual lust and had threatened that otherwise he would beat her family members and drive them out of the village. Thereafter, her family members advised her to lodge a report with the police. Accordingly, she went to Saravakota Police Station and lodged a report on 14.09.2019.
She further deposed that the police seized her grandmother’s Samsung keypad mobile phone. Ex.P1 is the written report given by P.W.1. Ex.P2 is the statement of P.W.1 recorded under Section 24 of the POCSO Act.
14. During her cross-examination, she stated that she had known the accused for about one year prior to lodging the complaint. She deposed that the accused resides in SC Street, whereas she resides in Medara
Street, and both streets are adjacent to each other. She admitted that in order to reach her college, she had to pass through SC Street by crossing the house of the accused. She admitted that she and the accused used to chat with each other through her grandmother’s phone and frequently used to talk outside their houses. She admitted that she voluntarily given her phone number to the accused prior to one year from the lodging of report.
She further admitted that before lodging report she along with accused used to chit chat with each other and use to move closely. She admitted that one Gowtham, who was residing with them, knew that she was chat- 9
SC 28/2021 (FAIR)
ting and moving with the accused. She admitted that her neighbors had seen her chatting with the accused. . She lodged Ex.P1 report on 14.09.2019. She further stated that she, along with L.Ws.2 to 4, went to the police station to lodge the report and narrated the incident to the Sub-
Inspector of Police. She admitted that she was unable to remember the specific dates on which the accused followed or harassed her. She further admitted that prior to lodging the report, she and the accused used to chat and move closely with each other.
15. Upon a careful appreciation of the evidence of P.W.1 and Ex.P1, this
Court finds that her testimony is marked by material inconsistencies and stands substantially weakened by her own admissions elicited during cross-examination. In her chief-examination, P.W.1 deposed that about one year prior to the lodging of the complaint, the accused used to follow and harass her with the intention of satisfying his sexual lust, which ad- vances she claims to have consistently resisted. However, in cross-exami- nation, she admitted that nearly one year prior to the lodging of the report, she had voluntarily furnished her grandmother’s phone number to the ac- cused. She further admitted that she and the accused used to converse with each other through her grandmother’s phone and that they frequently engaged in conversations outside their respective houses. She also ac- knowledged that her brother, Gowtham, who resides with her, was aware of such conversations and interactions between her and the accused. Ad- 10
SC 28/2021 (FAIR)
ditionally, she admitted that neighbours had seen her conversing with the accused and that even prior to the lodging of the complaint, she and the accused used to chat and move closely with each other. These admis- sions, which go to the root of the matter, materially affect the prosecution case. If, as alleged, the accused had been continuously harassing and threatening her, the voluntary and frequent interactions admitted by P.W.1 create a serious doubt regarding the nature of the relationship between the parties and the veracity of the allegation of persistent harassment. Further, the messages allegedly sent by the accused, containing the words “Oley” and “Osey,” do not, on the face of the record, disclose any explicit sexual content or overtly suggestive intent. In the absence of contextual evidence establishing their alleged sexual connotation, the prosecution has failed to demonstrate the requisite mens rea for constituting sexual harassment.
There is also a material discrepancy between the version set out in Ex.P1 and the oral evidence of P.W.1. In Ex.P1, she alleged that the accused had been harassing her for a period of two years. In her chief-examination, she restricted the period of alleged harassment to one year prior to the lodging of the report. In cross-examination, however, she admitted to prior cordial interactions with the accused. These inconsistent versions cast se- rious doubt on the allegation of continuous threat and sexual harassment.
Moreover, in Ex.P1, P.W.1 stated that her family members, upon observ- ing her condition, verified her grandmother’s phone and found two mes- 11
SC 28/2021 (FAIR)
sages. However, in her oral evidence, she stated that on one day at about 11:55 p.m., a text message was received on her grandmother’s phone bearing No. 9000505940 from phone No. 8639507711 containing the word “Oley,” and at about 11:56 p.m., another text message was received from phone No. 7702704080 containing the word “Osey.” She deposed that upon seeing the said messages, her family members enquired about the sender, and she informed them that they were sent by the accused. The variation between the contents of the complaint and her deposition further affects the reliability of her version. Significantly, there is an unexplained delay of 12 days in lodging the First Information Report. P.W.1 has not of- fered any satisfactory explanation for such delay. It is trite law that while delay in lodging the FIR is not by itself fatal to the prosecution case, when the prosecution evidence is otherwise doubtful and suffers from material contradictions, unexplained delay assumes importance and creates further suspicion regarding the genuineness of the allegations. In view of the above inconsistencies, admissions, and discrepancies, the testimony of
P.W.1 does not inspire confidence and falls short of the standard of proof required in a criminal trial, namely proof beyond reasonable doubt.
16.L.W.2/Gorle Damayanthi, examined as P.W.2, deposed that on 02.09.2019 at about 12:00 midnight, they noticed P.W.1 while she was feeling upset and holding a mobile phone. She further deposed that at that time P.W.3 questioned P.W.1 as to why she was not going to sleep, why 12
SC 28/2021 (FAIR)
she was feeling disturbed, and why she was in possession of a cell phone at midnight. Thereafter, her son (P.W.3) verified the phone and found that two messages had been received at about 11:55 PM and 11:56 PM. The said messages contained abusive content. Accordingly, they enquired with
P.W.1 as to who had sent the said messages. P.W.1 informed them that the accused had sent the messages to her phone and further stated that the accused had been harassing her for the past one year prior to the incident, following her and demanding that she satisfy his sexual lust.
Thereafter, they placed the matter before the village elders. The mediators called the accused; however, he did not attend before them. Hence, they approached the police and lodged a report on 14.09.2019.
17. During her cross-examination, she admitted that she was not on talking terms with the accused and further admitted that P.W.1 used her cell phone (M.O.1). She stated that she had no knowledge as to whom
P.W.1 was making phone calls or sending messages through her cell phone. She further stated that she did not know whether P.W.1 used to talk with or move with the accused. She admitted that she did not know how to verify the messages received on her phone. She also stated that she did not know whether P.W.1 used to visit the house of the accused.
She admitted that she did not verify the messages received on her phone prior to 11:55 PM and after 11:56 PM on 02.09.2019. She further stated that she did not enquire with her neighbours as to whether P.W.1 was 13
SC 28/2021 (FAIR)
moving with the accused. She deposed that on 14.09.2019 they went to the police station at about 9:00 or 10:00 AM, and the S.I. of Police was present at that time. She admitted that they lodged the report against the accused at the request of the S.I. of Police after narrating the incident.
18. On careful scrutiny of evidence of P.W.2 is manifest that she is not a direct witness to any of the alleged acts of stalking, harassment, sexual overtures, or threats attributed to the accused. Her testimony is confined to the events of 02.09.2019 at about midnight, when she noticed P.W.1 in a disturbed condition, found two messages on the mobile phone, and, upon enquiry, was informed by P.W.1 that the accused had been harassing her.
Thus, with regard to the alleged prior acts of harassment and threats, her evidence is purely hearsay, as she had no personal knowledge of any in- teraction between P.W.1 and the accused. In her cross-examination,
P.W.2 candidly admitted that she did not know with whom P.W.1 had been communicating earlier; she had not verified any previous or subsequent messages; she did not know how to independently check the contents of the phone; and she was unaware whether P.W.1 used to converse or move closely with the accused. These admissions substantially diminish the probative value of her testimony.At best, the evidence of P.W.2 may be considered corroborative only to a limited extent, namely: (i) the receipt of certain messages at a particular point of time, and (ii) the fact that P.W.1 appeared disturbed immediately thereafter. However, it cannot be treated 14
SC 28/2021 (FAIR)
as substantive evidence to establish the commission of the alleged of- fences by the accused. Further, the explanation offered by P.W.2 regard- ing the delay in lodging the report is inconsistent with the versions of
P.W.3 and P.W.4. P.W.2 stated that the matter was placed before the el- ders, that mediators called the accused for settlement, and that the ac- cused did not appear before them. In contrast, P.W.3 deposed that the matter was placed before the elders on the advice of the police, but there was no change in the attitude of the accused. On the other hand, P.W.4 stated that she immediately approached the police station, and that the po- lice advised her to place the matter before the elders; however, according to her, the mediators did not take any steps to conduct any mediation.
These material contradictions regarding the sequence of events preceding the lodging of the complaint create serious doubt about the prosecution’s explanation for the delay. When the witnesses themselves are inconsistent on the foundational aspect of whether the police were first approached or whether the elders were first consulted, and whether any mediation in fact took place, the prosecution version becomes uncertain and unreliable. Ac- cordingly, the evidence of P.W.2, being hearsay in material particulars and inconsistent with the testimony of other prosecution witnesses on the issue of delay, cannot be relied upon as independent proof of the alleged of- fences and serves only a limited corroborative purpose.
15
SC 28/2021 (FAIR)
19. P.W.3/Gorle Tirupathi Rao deposed that on 02.09.2019 at about 11:55
PM, they observed PW1 awake, not having gone to sleep, and appearing upset while holding a mobile phone. Upon this, he questioned her as to why she was feeling upset and not sleeping, and also why she was in possession of a cell phone at midnight. Thereafter, he verified the phone and found two messages, namely “osay” and “olay,” which were received on PW2’s phone at about 11:55 PM and 11:56 PM. Accordingly, they enquired with PW1 as to who had sent the said messages to PW2’s phone. PW1 informed them that the accused was the person who had sent the messages and further stated that the accused had been harassing her for the past two years. He further deposed that he questioned her as to why she had not disclosed the same to them earlier. In response, she informed him that the accused had threatened to kill them, to drive them out of the village, and to harass them by lodging false cases against them.
He further deposed that, on the advice of the police, they placed the matter
before the village elders. However, there was no change in the attitude of
the accused. Thereafter, they went to the police station on 14.09.2019 and lodged a report.
20. During his cross-examination, he stated that on the next day of the in- cident, he met the police and informed them about the incident. He further stated that he placed the matter before the senior paternal uncle of the ac- cused and, at his request, waited to lodge the report until 14.09.2019. He 16
SC 28/2021 (FAIR)
admitted that PW1, PW2, and LW3 went to the police station and lodged the report. He admitted that PW1 did not inform him of the places where the accused had followed her.
21. On careful scrutiny of testimony of P.W.3, Upon careful evaluation of the testimony of P.W.3, it is evident that his knowledge of the alleged acts of harassment is not based on direct perception but is derived entirely from what was disclosed to him by P.W.1. His evidence establishes that on 02.09.2019 at about 11:55 p.m., he noticed P.W.1 in a disturbed condition while holding a mobile phone and that, upon verification, he found two messages containing the words “osay” and “olay” received on P.W.2’s phone. However, he did not witness the accused sending the messages, nor did he have any independent means of verifying that the messages originated from the accused. His testimony regarding the alleged prior ha- rassment for two years and the threats allegedly extended by the accused is purely hearsay, as it rests solely on the statement made by P.W.1 at that time. Significantly, in cross-examination, he admitted that on the very next day of the incident he met the police and informed them, yet the formal re- port was lodged only on 14.09.2019. He further stated that he placed the matter before the senior paternal uncle of the accused and, at his request, waited to lodge the complaint. This version introduces an additional cir- cumstance explaining the delay, which is not entirely consistent with the versions of other prosecution witnesses regarding mediation and approach 17
SC 28/2021 (FAIR)
to police. Further, he admitted that no one informed him that P.W.1 was moving closely with the accused and that P.W.1 did not specify the places where the accused allegedly followed her. These omissions assume signif- icance, particularly when the prosecution case rests substantially on alle- gations of stalking and continuous harassment. Thus, while P.W.3’s evi- dence corroborates the fact that certain messages were seen on the phone and that P.W.1 appeared disturbed at that point of time, it does not provide substantive proof of the alleged offences. His testimony, being largely derivative and containing certain inconsistencies regarding the se- quence of events preceding the lodging of the complaint, has limited pro- bative value and cannot, by itself, establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
22. P.W.4, namely Gorle Asha Jyothi, deposed that in the month of
September, 2019, she came to know through P.W.2 and P.W.3 that two messages had been sent by the accused to her mother’s phone at about 11:55 p.m. and 11:56 p.m. She stated that upon enquiry by her brother with P.W.1, P.W.1 disclosed that the accused had been harassing her with the intention of satisfying his sexual lust. She further deposed that she immediately went to the police station; however, the police advised her to place the matter before the village elders. According to her, as the mediators did not take any steps to conduct mediation, they again 18
SC 28/2021 (FAIR)
approached the police station and ultimately lodged the report on 14.09.2019.
23. In her cross-examination, she denied the suggestion that her brother bore grudge against the accused and his family on the ground that they had previously admonished him when he was allegedly beating his wife.
She further stated that her daughter, P.W.1, had known the accused since their school days.
24. The evidence of P.W.4, like that of P.Ws.2 and 3, is not based on direct knowledge of any alleged act of harassment but is founded upon what was informed to her by other family members and by P.W.1. Her version that she immediately approached the police and was advised to approach the elders stands in variance with the evidence of P.W.2 and
P.W.3 regarding the sequence of events preceding the lodging of the complaint. Further, there is inconsistency between the testimony of P.W.1 and P.W.3 with regard to the acquaintance of P.W.1 with the accused.
While P.W.3 deposed that P.W.1 had acquaintance with the accused from her school days, P.W.1 stated that she came into acquaintance with the accused only one year prior to the incident. These material inconsistencies assume significance while appreciating the explanation offered for the delay in lodging the First Information Report and in assessing the overall credibility of the prosecution case.
19
SC 28/2021 (FAIR)
25. P.W.5/Nivagana Anasuyamma deposed that she did not know anything about the facts of the case and that she was not examined by the police at any point of time.
26. P.W.6/Velamana Bala Krishna, VRO, deposed that on 15.09.2019 at about 7.00 a.m., on the instructions of the Tahsildar, he visited the Sar- avakota Police Station at about 7.45 a.m. Thereafter, along with L.W.8/G.
Viswanadham, VRA, he accompanied the Saravakota Police and pro- ceeded to the SC Colony, to the house of Yerayya. The police observed the scene of offence in his presence and also got the same photographed.
One of the constables drafted the scene observation report in their pres- ence, and he, along with L.W.8, signed the same. Ex.P4 is the scene ob- servation report. He further deposed that on the same day at about 11.30 a.m., he, along with L.W.8/G. Viswanadham, VRA, proceeded to the house of P.W.2 and seized M.O.1 from the possession of P.W.3. Accordingly, one of the constables drafted the mediators’ report. He, along with L.W.8 and the S.I. of Police, signed the same. Ex.P5 is the mediators’ report.
27. During his cross-examination, they observed the scene of offence which is situated infront of the house of Yerayya. He stated that there were no police people at the scene of offence at the time of his visit. Only Yer- ayya was present and said Yerayya shown the scene of offence to the SI of Police. He admitted that Ex.P4 and P5 does not reveals that one of con- 20
SC 28/2021 (FAIR)
stable scribed the said reports. The house of Yerayya is situated in an- other street of Tirupathi Rao. He also admitted that Ex.P5 did not mention about the colour of MO1.
28. On careful appraisal of the evidence of P.W.6, is procedural and for- mal in nature. It confirms that the scene was observed and documented and that the reports were signed by the mediators, lending some credibility to the official records. However, it does not provide direct evidence regard- ing the alleged offence or the involvement of the accused. The testimony serves to corroborate the procedural steps undertaken by the police rather than substantiate the commission of the offence itself.
29. P.W.7/N.Parvathi, WHC, deposed that on 14.09.2019 at about 8.00 p.m., she went to the house of P.W.2 and recorded the statement of
P.W.1.
30. P.W.8/Y. Ravi Kumar, SI of Police, deposed that on 14.09.2019 at about 8.00 p.m., the victim girl (P.W.1) came to the police station along with P.W.2 and presented a written report. Basing on the said report, he registered a case in Crime No.135/2019 under Sections 354-D, 506, and 509 of IPC and Section 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012, and issued the FIR.
He further deposed that he deputed P.W.7 to record the statement of the victim girl under Section 24 of the POCSO Act. On the same day, he ex- amined P.W.2 at the police station and recorded her statement under Sec- 21
SC 28/2021 (FAIR)
tion 161 Cr.P.C. On the next day, i.e., 15.09.2019, he secured the pres- ence of P.W.6 and L.W.8/G. Visawanadham, VRA, and proceeded to the scene of offence situated at the vacant site of Nivagana Anasuyamma in
Saravakota Village. He observed the scene of offence in the presence of mediators, prepared a rough sketch of the scene of offence, drafted the scene observation report, and seized M.O.1 under the cover of a media- tors’ report from the possession of P.W.3. He further deposed that he se- cured the presence of P.Ws.3 to 5, examined them, and recorded their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He further deposed that on 15.09.2019, he made a requisition to L.W.6/Karra Koteswara Rao, Head
Master of ZPH School, Saravakota, to issue the Date of Birth Certificate of the victim girl. He further deposed that on 16.09.2019, upon receiving credible information about the movements of the accused at Saravakota
Bus Stand, he proceeded to the said place, arrested the accused, and sent him for judicial remand. On 25.09.2019, he received the Date of Birth Cer- tificate of the victim girl from L.W.6/Karra Koteswara Rao, Head Master of
ZPH School, Saravakota. After completion of the investigation, he laid the charge sheet against the accused. Ex.P6 is the original FIR. Ex.P7 is the rough sketch of the scene of offence. Ex.P8 is the Study and Date of Birth
Certificate of the victim girl issued by L.W.6/Karra Koteswara Rao.
31. During cross-examination, he admitted that Ex.P1 does not reveal the specific date of the alleged offence. He also admitted that Ex.P1 does not 22
SC 28/2021 (FAIR)
mention that P.W.2 received messages containing the words “Osey” and “Oley.” He further admitted that he did not collect any call data records or consumer application forms relating to the phone numbers of P.W.2 or the phone number from which P.W.2 allegedly received the messages. He ad- mitted that he did not collect any evidence to show that the said messages were received on P.W.2’s phone from the phone number of the accused.
He also admitted that P.Ws.2 to 4 did not state before him specifically that
P.W.2 received messages containing the words “Osey” and “Oley.” He fur- ther admitted that by 15.09.2019 at about 2.15 p.m., he had completed most of the investigation in this case. The distance between the police sta- tion and Pathapatnam Court is about 20 kilometres. As per the court en- dorsement on the FIR, the Court received the FIR on 15.09.2019 at about 1.30 p.m. He admitted that he dispatched the FIR on 14.09.2019 at about 8.30 p.m., as per Column No.15 of the FIR. He further admitted that in Col- umn No.8 of Ex.P6/FIR he mentioned that there was no delay and did not state any reasons regarding delay in lodging the report. He stated that he did not mention any reasons in Column No.8 because there were no spe- cific dates of the alleged offences mentioned in Ex.P1. He admitted that he did not enquire about the reasons for delay in lodging the report by the vic- tim girl. He stated that he dispatched the FIR in time, but the constable submitted the same before the Court with delay. On perusal of Ex.P1/re- port, the witness stated that the age of the victim girl was shown as 17 23
SC 28/2021 (FAIR)
years. He further stated that his investigation does not reveal the reasons for delay in lodging the report by P.W.1. He did not enquire whether there were any disputes between the family of the accused and the family of the victim. He admitted that he did not mention in the scene observation report as to who identified the scene of offence. He further admitted that he did not examine the persons shown in the rough sketch and did not show the house of P.W.5 in the rough sketch. He admitted that he did not send
M.O.1 to the Forensic Science Laboratory. He also admitted that P.W.2 did not state before him that the accused had been following the victim girl for one year. He further admitted that P.Ws.1 to 3 did not state before him that they placed the matter before the elders and that the mediators called the accused but he did not turn up. He further admitted that in the Section 161
Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.3, it was not stated that P.W.1 informed him that the accused threatened to kill her. However, he added that P.W.3 stated
before him that P.W.1 informed him that the accused threatened her. He
also admitted that P.W.4 did not state before him that she came to know through P.Ws.2 and 3 that the accused harassed P.W.1 to satisfy his sex- ual lust, and that upon knowing the same she went to the police station and informed the police, who advised her to place the matter before the el- ders, and that though the matter was placed before the elders, they did not take any steps to conduct mediation.
24
SC 28/2021 (FAIR)
32.On careful appraisal of the evidence of P.W.7 (N. Parvathi), it is evi- dent that her testimony primarily relates to the procedural aspects of the investigation. P.W.7 deposed that she recorded the statement of the victim girl (P.W.1) at the house of P.W.2 under Section 24 of the POCSO Act, which is a formal step in the investigative process.
33.On careful scrutiny of testimony of P.W.8, the Investigating Officer, deposed in detail about registration of the FIR (Ex.P6), examination of wit- nesses, preparation of the rough sketch of the scene (Ex.P7), collection of the victim’s date of birth certificate (Ex.P8), and arrest of the accused.
34.In appreciation, while P.W.7 and P.W.8 confirm that the procedural steps of the investigation were followed, their evidence does not directly substantiate the alleged offences. The numerous admissions by P.W.8 re- veal material gaps, omissions, and lack of independent corroboration, which significantly undermine the reliability of the prosecution’s version.
The evidence confirms formal compliance with investigative requirements but cannot independently establish the accused’s guilt or the veracity of the allegations made by the victim and her family. Upon an anxious and comprehensive consideration of the entire oral and documentary evidence on record, this Court is required to examine whether the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, in accordance with the settled principles of criminal jurisprudence 25
SC 28/2021 (FAIR)
laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court. At the outset, it is trite law that in cases involving allegations of sexual harassment or offences under the
POCSO Act, the testimony of the victim, if found to be natural, cogent, and trustworthy, can form the sole basis for conviction without corroboration.
However, it is equally well settled that where the evidence of the pros- ecutrix suffers from material contradictions, improvements, and inherent improbabilities, the Court must exercise greater caution and seek assur- ance from surrounding circumstances. In the present case, P.W.1, the vic- tim girl, has made serious allegations of stalking, harassment, and threats.
However, her evidence is not free from material inconsistencies. In Ex.P1, she alleged that the accused had been harassing her for two years, whereas in her chief-examination she restricted the period to one year prior to the lodging of the report. In cross-examination, she admitted that she voluntarily furnished her grandmother’s phone number to the accused; that she used to chat with him through the said phone; that they frequently conversed outside their houses; and that prior to lodging the complaint, they used to move closely with each other. She further admitted that her brother Gowtham and neighbours were aware of such interactions. These admissions go to the root of the prosecution case and create serious doubt as to the nature of the relationship between the parties. If the accused had been persistently harassing and threatening her, the admitted cordial and 26
SC 28/2021 (FAIR)
voluntary interactions between them assume significance and render the prosecution version doubtful.
35.Further, the alleged incriminating messages containing the words “Oley” and “Osey” are, on the face of the record, innocuous expressions.
No contextual or expert evidence has been adduced to establish that such words carried any sexual connotation or constituted harassment within the meaning of law. The Investigating Officer (P.W.8) admittedly did not collect call data records, did not seize or verify the SIM ownership details, and did not produce any technical evidence to establish that the said messages originated from the accused. On verifying the MO1 it is not in a working condition to verify the said messages were came to the P.W.2 phone or not on the date alleged by the P.W.1. Hence, MO1 is not assist to the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused.
36.The delay of 12 days in lodging the FIR remains unexplained. While delay in sexual offence cases is not necessarily fatal, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has consistently held that where the prosecution evidence is other- wise doubtful and suffers from contradictions, unexplained delay assumes significance and may cast a cloud on the authenticity of the allegations. In the present case, the explanation for delay is not only unsatisfactory but in- consistent. P.W.2 stated that the matter was placed before elders and the accused did not attend. P.W.3 stated that the matter was placed before el- 27
SC 28/2021 (FAIR)
ders on police advice and that he waited at the request of the accused’s paternal uncle. P.W.4, on the other hand, stated that she immediately ap- proached the police and was advised to approach elders, but that the me- diators did not take steps. These contradictory versions create uncertainty regarding the sequence of events preceding the registration of the FIR.
37.The evidence of P.Ws.2 to 4 is largely hearsay in nature insofar as the alleged acts of harassment are concerned. None of them witnessed any act of stalking, threat, or sexual overture. Their knowledge is derived solely from what P.W.1 allegedly disclosed to them. The Apex Court has repeatedly held that hearsay evidence has limited probative value and cannot be treated as substantive proof of guilt.
38.The evidence of P.W.6 is formal and procedural, relating to scene observation and seizure. P.W.7 and P.W.8 speak to registration of the FIR and steps in investigation. However, P.W.8, the Investigating Officer, made several material admissions during cross-examination, including failure to collect technical evidence, failure to examine independent witnesses, omissions in Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements, and absence of specific dates of occurrence in Ex.P1. He also admitted that Column No.8 of the
FIR mentioned “no delay” without assigning reasons, and that he did not enquire into the reasons for delay. These investigative lapses assume im- 28
SC 28/2021 (FAIR)
portance when the prosecution case hinges primarily on the testimony of the victim.
39.It is a cardinal principle of criminal law that suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof. The burden rests entirely upon the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and such burden never shifts. Where two views are possible on the evidence adduced, the one favourable to the accused must be adopted.
In the present case, the cumulative effect of:
1. Material contradictions in the testimony of P.W.1;
2. Admissions of voluntary and cordial interaction with the accused;
3. Inconsistencies among P.Ws.2 to 4 regarding the delay and media- tion;
4. Absence of technical or independent corroborative evidence;
5. Investigative lapses and omissions; and
6. Unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and sending FIR to the court creates a reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution version.
40.In view of the settled principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court that the prosecution must stand on its own legs and prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, this Court is of the considered opinion that the evidence on record does not inspire confidence to base a 29
SC 28/2021 (FAIR)
conviction. The benefit of doubt, therefore, must necessarily enure to the accused. Accordingly, on overall appreciation of the entire evidence, this
Court holds that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the ac- cused beyond reasonable doubt.
POINTS FOR DETERMINATION AND DECISION THEREON
41.Point No. 1: Whether the prosecution has proved, beyond reason- able doubt, that the victim girl was below 18 years of age as on the date of the alleged incident?
Upon careful appreciation of the evidence relating to determination of age, it is seen that the prosecution relies upon the Study and Date of
Birth Certificate issued by the Head Master of the concerned school. The said certificate, having been issued by a public servant in discharge of offi- cial duty, is admissible under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, as it reflects an entry in the school records maintained in the ordinary course of business. However, the evidentiary value of such a certificate depends upon the manner in which the foundational entry was made. In the present case, though the certificate has been produced and marked, there is no clear evidence as to who furnished the date of birth at the time of admis- sion, nor is there material to show that the entry was based on any primary document such as a birth certificate issued by the competent authority. No enquiry appears to have been conducted regarding the source of the date 30
SC 28/2021 (FAIR)
of birth recorded in the admission register. It is settled law that a school certificate can be relied upon for determination of age if it is duly proved and its source is satisfactorily explained; otherwise, it only establishes that a particular date is recorded in the school register and does not conclu- sively prove the actual date of birth. Therefore, while the study certificate is relevant and admissible, its probative value must be assessed with caution in the absence of supporting foundational evidence.
42.Point No. 2: Whether the accused, about two years prior to the lodging of the complaint, followed and harassed the victim girl, who is al- leged to be a minor of about 17 years, with the intention of satisfying his sexual lust, and whether such conduct amounts to an offence under Sec- tion 354-D IPC (stalking)?
43.Reasoning: On perusal of the evidence, P.W.1 alleged in her chief examination that the accused followed and harassed her with sexual in- tent. However, in cross-examination, she admitted that she had known the accused for about one year prior to lodging the complaint, voluntarily com- municated with him through her grandmother’s phone, frequently met him outside their houses, and moved closely with him. She also admitted that neighbors were aware of their interactions. The inability of the victim to specify the dates of alleged harassment and the admitted voluntary inter- actions materially weaken the allegation of persistent harassment. In view of these inconsistencies, the conduct of the accused does not satisfy the legal threshold for stalking under Section 354-D IPC.
31
SC 28/2021 (FAIR)
44.Decision: The point is answered in the negative. The prosecution has not proved the offence under Section 354-D IPC.
45.Point No. 3 :Whether the accused threatened the victim girl and/or her family with injury, thereby committing criminal intimidation punishable under Section 506 IPC?
46.Reasoning: The victim alleged threats against her family in the event she did not satisfy the accused’s sexual demands. However, she did not disclose these threats contemporaneously to her family, and continued vol- untary communication with the accused prior to lodging the complaint caste serious doubt with regarding to the alleged threat. The absence of specific instances or corroborative evidence of threats, or proof that such threats caused alarm to the victim or her family, renders the charge under
Section 506 IPC unsubstantiated.
47.Decision: The point is answered in the negative. The prosecution has failed to prove the offence under Section 506 IPC.
48.Point No. 4 :Whether the accused used words, gestures, or acts in- tended to insult the modesty of the victim girl, thereby committing an of- fence under Section 509 IPC?
49.Reasoning: The alleged messages “Oley” and “Osey” are vague, and no evidence was adduced to demonstrate that these words carried a sexual or offensive connotation. Coupled with the admitted voluntary inter- 32
SC 28/2021 (FAIR)
action between the parties, it cannot be inferred that the accused intended to insult the modesty of the victim.
50.Decision: The point is answered in the negative. The prosecution has not proved the offence under Section 509 IPC.
51.Point No. 5 :Whether the accused, knowing the victim girl to be a minor, committed acts with sexual intent, thereby contravening Section 12 of the POCSO Act?
52.Reasoning: With regard to the offences under Section 11 read with
Section 12 of the POCSO Act, it is necessary to examine whether the ac- cused committed acts with sexual intent upon a minor. P.W.1 has alleged harassment by the accused to satisfy his sexual lust. However, her evi- dence is vague, lacking specific instances of sexual advances or acts di- rected toward her. She herself admitted in cross-examination that she vol- untarily communicated with the accused through her grandmother’s phone, frequently met him outside their houses, and moved closely with him. No corroborative evidence has been produced to establish sexual intent, and the alleged messages (“Oley” and “Osey”) are devoid of any sexually ex- plicit content. In view of the admissions of voluntary interaction and ab- sence of corroborative material indicating sexual intent, the Court finds that the prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed acts attracting Section 11 read with Section 12 of the
POCSO Act.
33
SC 28/2021 (FAIR)
53. Decision:- The point is answered in the negative. The prosecution has failed to prove the offence under the POCSO Act.
54.Point No. 6 :Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the ac- cused beyond reasonable doubt in respect of the aforesaid offences, hav- ing regard to the evidence on record, including the inconsistencies and ad- missions of the victim?
55.Reasoning: On careful scrutiny, the testimony of P.W.1 is materially inconsistent. Discrepancies regarding the duration of alleged harassment, admissions of voluntary communication, and close interaction, along with absence of corroborative evidence, cast serious doubt on the veracity of the allegations. The prosecution has therefore failed to discharge the bur- den of proving the charges beyond reasonable doubt.
56.Decision: The point is answered in the negative. The accused is en- titled to acquittal.
57.In the result, the accused is not found guilty for the Under
Sections 354-D, 506(2), 509 of IPC and Section 11(iv) r/w. 12 of
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and he is acquitted
under Sec.235(1) of Cr.P.C for the said offences.
The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a
period of six months, as per Section 437-A Cr.P.C.
Dictated to the Typist, type by him, corrected and pronounced by
me, in open court, on this the 27th day of February, 2026.
Sd/-Smt.N.Suneetha.
Special Judge,
POCSO Court, Srikakulam.
34
SC 28/2021 (FAIR)
Appendix of Evidence
Witnesses examined
For Prosecution:
PW.1:Victim girl
PW.2:Gorle Damayanthi.
PW.3:Gorle Tirupathi Rao.
PW.4:Gorle Ashajyothi
P.W.5:Nivagana Anasuyamma.
P.W.6:Velamala Bala Krishna.
P.W.7:N.Parvathi, WHC.
P.W.8:Y.Ravi Kumar, SI of Police.
For Defence: NONE
Documents marked
For Prosecution: Ex.P.1:Report of P.W.1.
Ex.P.2:Statement recorded under Section 24 of POCSO Act.
Ex.P.3:Section 161 CrPC Statement of P.W.5.
Ex.P.4:Scene observation report.
Ex.P.5:Mediators report.
Ex.P.6:First Information Act.
Ex.P.7:Rough sketch of the scene of offence. Ex.P8 : Manual and written study and Date of Birth certificate issued by the Head Master, ZPH School, Saravakota. For defense: NIL. Material objects marked:-
MO1: Samsung Keypad mobile phone.
Sd/-Smt.N.Suneetha
Special Judge,
POCSO Court, Srikakulam.
35
SC 28/2021 (FAIR)
IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES
UNDER THE PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES
ACT, 2012, SRIKAKULAM
Present: Smt. N.SUNEETHA,
Special Judge for trial of cases under POCSO Act
Friday, 27th day of February, 2026
SESSIONS CASE No.28/2021
(arose out of Crime No.135/2019 of Saravaota Police Station)
Between:
The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Saravakota Police Station.
...Complainant
And: Urlana Satish Kumar S/o.Jammayya (late), aged about 20 years, Student, Ambedkar Colony, Saravakota village and Mandal, Srikakulam District.
...Accused.
Prosecution was conducted by:Smt.G.V.S.U.Visalakshi, Learned Special Public Prosecutor, Srikakulam.
Accused was defended by:Sri G.Rama Rao Advocate, Srikakulam
Offence charged:Under section 354-D, 506(2), 509 of IPC and Section 11(iv) r/w. 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.
Date of offence:Prior to 14.09.2019
Date of report or complaint:14.09.2019
Date of appearance of accused:22.10.2021
Date of commencement of trial::17.11.2025
Date of close of trial:26.12.2025 Date of sentence or order:27.02.2026 36
SC 28/2021 (FAIR)
Explanation for the delay:
On 29.09.2021 this case was transferred from 1st Addl.District Judge Court, Srikakulam to this court as per the Prl. District Judge’s Court, Srikakulam proceedings in Dis.No.2377, dt.24.09.2021 and renumbered in this court in SC 28/2021, after registration of this number, this court issued summons to the both parties. This court regular Presiding Officer post is kept vacant from the establishment of this court. Hence, the 1st Addl.District Judge, Srikakulam is placed Full
Additional Charge of this court from the court
Establishment and the 1st Addl.District Judge is hold bench. On 17.09.2025 regular officer is appointed to the Court by the Hon’ble High Court’s vide Proceedings Order Roc.No.726/2025-B.Spl., dt.10.09.2025 and Notification No.674-B.Spl. Later, the accused was appeared on 22.10.2021. The trial was conducted from 17.11.2025 to 26.12.2025. The special public Prosecutor and Learned counsel for the accused requested time for submitting arguments. Finally the arguments were heard on 09.02.2026. The Judgment was pronounced on 27.02.2026. Sentence or Order: In the result, the accused is not found guilty for the
Under Sections 354-D, 506(2), 509 of IPC and Section 11(iv) r/w. 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act and he is acquitted under Sec.235(1) of
Cr.P.C for the said offences.
The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months, as per Section 437-A
Cr.P.C.
Sd/-Smt.N.Suneetha.
Special Judge,
POCSO Court, Srikakulam.