Currently Serving

Naseem Sultana

Fast Track Special Court for Rape and POCSO Act cases,Nagarkurnool

Nagarkurnool, PDJ Court Complex · Nagarkurnool · Telangana

Naseem Sultana, Fast Track Special Court for Rape and POCSO Act cases,Nagarkurnool, is posted at Nagarkurnool, PDJ Court Complex, Nagarkurnool, Telangana, India. 55 court orders on record since 2025. 1 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles SC cases.

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Posting

Featured Judgments

SC.POCSO/19/2025 Acquitted

PS Pentlavelly vs Madugam Vigneshwar alias Vignesh

07 May 2026

Pg. 1 of 15 SC.(POCSO).No.19 of 2025

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE, FAST TRACK

SPECIAL COURT FOR EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL AND DISPOSAL OF RAPE

AND POCSO ACT CASES AT NAGARKURNOOL.

Present: Smt. Naseem Sultana,

Spl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court for Rape

and POCSO Act cases, Nagarkurnool

On Thursday, this the 07thday of May, 2026.

S.C.(POCSO). No. 19 of 202 5

Name of the Complainant: XXXX, W/o. XXXX, Age: 34 years, Occ: ANM at KGBV Pentlavelly village and Mandal, R/o. Thirmalampalli village of Peddakothapally Mandal.

Name of the Accused: A1: Madugam Vigneshwar @ Vignesh, S/o. Nagendram, Age: 19 years, Caste: Golla, Occ: Student, R/o. Malleshwaram village of Pentlavelly Mandal.

A2: Madgam Varalaxmi @ Lakshmi, W/o. Nagendram, Age: 53 years, Caste: Golla, Occ: Labour, R/o. Malleshwaram village of Pentlavelly Mandal.

Charge: 137(2) r/w 3(5), 75 of BNS and Sec.11 r/w 12 of POCSO Act – 2012 against Accused No.1 and 137(2)r/w 3(5) of BNS against Accused No.2.

Cr.No. and Name of the : 73 of 2024, P.S., Pentlavelly Police Station

Plea of the Accused : Pleaded not guilty

Finding of the Court: Not guilty

Sentence of Order : In the result, Accused No.1 is found not guilty for the offences punishable U/ss. 137(2) r/w 3(5), 75

Spl. Sessions Judge, Nagarkurnool

Pg. 2 of 15 SC.(POCSO).No.19 of 2025 of BNS and Sec.11 r/w 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Accused No.2 is found not guilty for the offences punishable U/ss.

137(2) r/w 3(5) of BNS and accordingly the Accused

No.1 and No.2 are acquitted U/s.258(1) BNSS. The bail bonds of the Accused No.1 and No.2 shall remain in force for a period of six months as contemplated U/s.481(1) BNSS. MO.1 is ‘OPPO’ mobile phone, which shall be confiscated to the state, after appeal time is over. MO.2 is one Bajaj CD 100

Motorcycle bearing No.AP 10 AE 6209, which shall be handed over to its registered owner, after appeal time is over.

This Case is coming up for hearing before me on dt.06.05.2026 in the presence of Sri. P. Damodar Reddy, Learned Special Public Prosecutor,

Nagarkurnool and of Sri. B. Rajashekar, counsel for Accused and upon perusing the material on record, upon hearing the arguments and the matter stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, P.S., Pentlavelly has filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 and No.2 in Cr.No.73 of 2024 of P.S., Pentlavelly for the offences punishable under Sec.137(2) r/w 3(5), 75 of BNS and

Sec.11 r/w 12 of POCSO Act – 2012 against Accused No.1 and for the offences punishable under Sec.137(2) r/w 3(5) of BNS against Accused

No.2.

Spl. Sessions Judge, Nagarkurnool

Pg. 3 of 15 SC.(POCSO).No.19 of 2025

2.The case of the prosecution is that Accused No.1 is the son of

Accused No.2 and they belongs to Malleshwaram village. The Juvenile inconflict with Law(JCL) also belongs to Malleshwaram village. Accused

No.1 has completed his intermediate and was searching for the jobs. PW3, minor victim girl was studying 8th class at KGBV School, Pentlavely.

Accused No.1 was loving PW3, victim girl since last three years. When it was known to the parents of PW3 they admonished accused No.1 but his behavior has not changed. On 01.12.2024, accused No.1 has told accused

No.2 that the victim was suffering from fever and he wanted to take her to the hospital for treatment and threatened accused No.2 to talk as the mother of the victim girl, PW3 with the staff of KGBV school on phone.

Accused No.1 has sent the Juvenile inconflict with Law(JCL) to the school of PW3 by impersonating himself as the brother of PW3, victim girl and he made a call to accused No.2, wherein the accused No.2 has talked with the

PW4, staff of KGBV school, Pentlavelly, by impersonating herself as the mother of PW3. The Juvenile inconflict with Law(JCL) has brought the minor victim girl from the school and handed over her to accused No.1.

Then accused No.1 took PW3, victim girl to Nagarala village of Srirangapur

Mandal, wherein his maternal uncle has scolded him by saying his act was not proper. Then they went to Pebbair on motorcycle and he kept his motorcycle at Pebbair bus stand and from there on the same night they

Spl. Sessions Judge, Nagarkurnool

Pg. 4 of 15 SC.(POCSO).No.19 of 2025 went to Bongurala mitta, Kollapur by bus. Accused No.1 has hugged the minor victim girl, PW3. Later on 02.12.2024, in the early hours at 03:30Am accused No.1 along with PW3 went to Kollapur bus stand and from there they both went to Hyderabad by bus and stayed at the Hyderabad bus station for two days. On 04.12.2024 at 07:30Am they came to Bongurala mitta, Kollapur. Accused No.1 got afraid with the parents of PW3, as they might beat him. Hence accused No.1 asked the minor victim girl, PW3 to stay there and that he will go to attend nature call but he did not returned back to the place where he left PW3, the minor victim girl. After that PW3, minor victim girl came to Kollapur police station. As such, PW4, who is the staff of KGBV school, Pentlavelly has lodged a report in the PS Pentlavelly for taking necessary action.

3.Basing on the said report, a case in Cr.No.73 of 2024 for the offences punishable under Sec.137(2) BNS of P.S., Pentlavelly was registered by police. During the course of investigation, police has examined and recorded the statements of witnesses, prepared crime details form, visited the scene of offence situated at KGBV School, Pentlavelly village and drawn the rough sketch of the scene of offence in the crime details form itself. Police has collected the Bonafide certificate of the victim girl/PW3.

Basing on the statement of PW3, police has added the section of Law to

Sec.137(2) BNS to Sec.75 of BNS and Sec.11 r/w 12 of Protection of

Spl. Sessions Judge, Nagarkurnool

Pg. 5 of 15 SC.(POCSO).No.19 of 2025

Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Police has also collected the

Bonafide certificate of the Juvenile inconflict with Law(JCL).On 06.12.2024, police has apprehended the accused No.1, No.2 and Juvenile inconflict with

Law(JCL) and on their interrogation in the presence of the mediators, they confessed to have committed this offence and in pursuance of his confession of Accused No.1, police has seized one OPPO Mobile phone and one Bajaj CD 100 Motorcycle bearing No.AP 10 AE 6029, by preparing confession cum recovery panchanama and after the arrest of the accused

No.1 and No.2, sent them to the court for judicial remand and after the arrest of the Juvenile inconflict with Law(JCL), sent him to the Juvenile

Board, for judicial custody. After completion of the investigation, police has filed the charge sheet against the accused No.1, Accused No.2 and the

Juvenile inconflict with Law(JCL) for the offences U/Sec.137(2), 75 of BNS and Sec.11 r/w 12 of POCSO Act – 2012.

4.The learned Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Nagarkurnool, took cognizance for the offences U/s. 137(2), 75 r/w 3(5) BNS and Sec.11 r/w 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 against No.1 and

No.2 and registered as SC.(POCSO).No.19 of 2025. As per the the orders of the Prl. District and Sessions Court, Nagarkurnool vide Dis.

No.448/2025, dt:19.02.2025 the case is madeover to this court for disposal of the same in accordance with law.

Spl. Sessions Judge, Nagarkurnool

Pg. 6 of 15 SC.(POCSO).No.19 of 2025

5.On appearance of accused, case copies and the documents upon which the prosecution is relied upon are furnished to the accused, U/sec.

230 BNSS. Charges are framed against the accused, for the offences U/S.

137(2) r/w 3(5), 75 of BNS and Sec.11 r/w 12 of POCSO Act – 2012 against Accused No.1 and for the offences U/s.137(2) r/w 3(5) of BNS against No.2, read over and explained to them in their vernacular language, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During trial the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 7 and got marked

Ex.P1 to Ex.P14, MO1 and MO2. After the closure of prosecution evidence, the accused No.1 and No.2 were examined U/S.351 BNSS, in respect of the incriminating material appearing against them in the prosecution evidence for which the accused No.1 and No.2 denied the same and reported no defence evidence and no documents were marked on their behalf.

7.Heard the arguments of learned Spl. Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused and perused the record.

8.The learned Special Public Prosecutor would submit that the evidence of PW4 and PW7 and Exs.P5, P8 to P14 are supporting the prosecution evidence and thus proved its case against the accused No.1 and No.2 beyond all reasonable doubt for the charged offences and as

Spl. Sessions Judge, Nagarkurnool

Pg. 7 of 15 SC.(POCSO).No.19 of 2025 such, the accused No.1 and No.2 are liable to be punished in accordance with law.

9.On the contrary, the learned counsel for the accused No.1 and No.2 would submit that there is no trustworthy evidence on record and that

Pws.1 to 3, 5 and 6 who are the material witnesses has not supported the prosecution case and hence the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused No.1 and No.2 beyond all reasonable doubt and thus, the accused No.1 and No.2 are entitled for an acquittal.

10.Now, the points for determination are:-

1) Whether the prosecution could able to prove the charges U/Sec.

137(2) r/w 3(5) BNS against the accused No.1 and No.2 beyond all reasonable doubt?

2) Whether the prosecution could able to prove the charges U/Sec.

75 BNS against the accused No.1 beyond all reasonable doubt?

3) Whether the prosecution could able to prove the charges

U/Sec.11 r/w 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences

Act – 2012 against the accused No.1 beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT No.1 to 3:-

For the sake of convenience, brevity and to avoid repetitions of evidence, these points are taken up together for discussion.

11.To bring home the guilt of the accused, the question is whether a case U/s.137(2) r/w 3(5), 75 of BNS and Sec.11 r/w 12 of POCSO Act –

Spl. Sessions Judge, Nagarkurnool

Pg. 8 of 15 SC.(POCSO).No.19 of 2025 2012 against Accused No.1 and for the offences U/s.137(2) r/w 3(5) of BNS against No.2, has been made out against the accused by the prosecution.

12.Before adverting to the evidence of prosecution, it is proper to have a glance over the provisions u/s.137(2) r/w 3(5), 75 of BNS and Sec.11 r/w 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

Sec.137(2) BNS reads, (2) Whoever kidnaps any person from India or from lawful guardianship shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine... Sec.3(5) BNS reads, When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone. Sec.75 BNS reads,

1) A man committing any of the following acts:

(i) physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures; or

(ii) a demand or request for sexual favours; or

(iii) showing pornography against the will of a woman; or

(iv) making sexually coloured remarks, shall be guilty of the offence of sexual harassment. Sec. 11 of POCSO Act 2012 reads as, Sexual Harassment: A person is said to commit sexual harassment upon a child when such person with sexual intent,

(i) utters any word or makes any sound, or makes any gesture or exhibits any object or part of body with the intention that such word or sound shall be heard, or such gesture or object or part of body shall be seen by the child; or… Sec. 12 of POCSO Act 2012 reads as, Punishment for sexual harassment: Whoever, commits sexual harassment upon a child shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

13.PW4, who worked as ANM at KGBV school, Pentlavelly wherein the minor victim girl, PW3 has studied, at the relevant period is the complainant, who has set criminal law in motion by lodging Ex.P5/report in

PS Pentlavelly on 01.12.2024. PW4 has deposed that on 01.12.2024 at 11:00AM PW3, the minor victim girl has informed that her younger brother came to the school and that one Srikanth has told her that he will take PW3 and show her in the hospital as she was suffering with typhoid fever and

Spl. Sessions Judge, Nagarkurnool

Pg. 9 of 15 SC.(POCSO).No.19 of 2025 then send her back after one hour to the school. PW4 further stated that the said boy made her to talk with a woman by stating that she is the mother of

PW3 and after talking with her, she has sent PW3 along with that boy, by taking his photo in her cell phone. PW3 has not returned till 03:00PM and that the mother of PW3 came there and enquired about her daughter. For which she has told that on the instructions of her on phone, she has sent

PW3 along with a boy. Wherein the mother of PW3 has stated that she has not talked on phone with her and it was another woman. PW4 further stated that she came to know that the said boy has took PW3 and handed over to another person. Hence she has lodged the report with the police,

Pentlavelly. As such, it can be found that, PW4 has stated that one boy impersonating himself as the brother of PW3 has taken away PW3 from the school by stating that he will get treated PW3, as she was suffering with typhoid fever. PW4 has further stated that she came to know that the said boy who has took PW3 from the school has handed over PW3 to another person. But PW4 has not identified accused No.1 as the person to whom the said boy has handed over PW3. Moreover though she stated that she has took the photo of the said boy in her cell phone, but the said photo is not filed before this court, to accept the contention of PW4. As such PW4 has not identified the accused No.1 and accused No.2 nor the Juvenile inconflict with law (JCL). Moreover an omission is marked in her evidence.

Spl. Sessions Judge, Nagarkurnool

Pg. 10 of 15 SC.(POCSO).No.19 of 2025

Furthermore PW3, the victim girl and her mother, PW1 and her brother,

PW2, who are the material witnesses has not supported the prosecution case. As such the version of PW4 is not supported by the evidence of either

PW3, victim girl or her family members, PW1 and PW2. As such, the evidence of PW4 is not creditworth to prove the charges charged against the accused.

14.PW1 is the mother of the victim girl. PW1 has deposed that she do not know anything about this case and that she is not having any grievance against the accused No.1 and accused No.2 and Juvenile inconflict with

Law(JCL) nor they have committed any offence against her daughter/PW3.

PW1 has also denied to have stated before the police as in Ex.P1. Though

PW1 was cross examined at length by learned Special public prosecutor, but nothing could be elicited in favour of the prosecution. Hence evidence of PW1 is of no value to the prosecution.

15.PW2 is the uncle of the victim girl. PW2 has deposed that he do not know anything about this case and that he is not having any grievance against the accused No.1, No.2 and Juvenile inconflict with Law(JCL) nor they have committed any offence against PW3. PW2 has also denied to have stated before the police as in Ex.P2. Though PW2 was cross examined at length by learned Special public prosecutor, but nothing could

Spl. Sessions Judge, Nagarkurnool

Pg. 11 of 15 SC.(POCSO).No.19 of 2025 be elicited in favour of the prosecution. Hence evidence of PW2 is of no value to the prosecution.

16.PW3 is the minor victim girl and she is the crucial evidence in this case. PW3 has clearly stated that she is not having any grievance against the accused No.1, Accused No.2 and Juvenile inconflict with Law(JCL) and that they have not committed any offence against her. PW3 has denied to have stated before the police as in Ex.P3. PW3 has also denied to have stated as in her 164 Cr.P.C statement vide Ex.P4. There is no allegation in the evidence of PW3 that the accused No.1 and No.2 with common intention has kidnapped her and that accused No.1 has sexually harassed her with sexual intent.Hence, PW3 has resiled from the statement recorded by police as in Ex.P3. Hostile evidence of PW3 is not helpful to the prosecution. PW3 gave death blow to the case of prosecution.

17.PW5 and PW6 who are said to be the mediators while conducting confession cum recovery panchanama has stated that the police has merely obtained their signatures on written papers and that they do not know the contents of the confession cum recovery panchanama. Though they admitted their signatures reflecting on the confession cum recovery panchanama but they denied about their knowledge about the contents of the confession cum recovery panchanama. Thus, they resiled from their

Spl. Sessions Judge, Nagarkurnool

Pg. 12 of 15 SC.(POCSO).No.19 of 2025 earlier statement. On their cross examination by learned special Public

Prosecutor, they denied the suggestions put forth by learned special Public

Prosecutor that the police has conducted confession cum recovery panchanama of the accused No.1 in their presence and seized one OPPO cellphone and also one Bajaj CD 100 motorcycle bearing No.AP 10 AE 6029 from accused No.1 in their presence. They have also denied the suggestion that they are deposing false. As such, the evidence of PW5 and

PW6 are not helpful to the prosecution.

18.Hence there remains the evidence of PW7, who is the investigating officer. The investigating officer undeniably provided the comprehensive details, including the accused’s arrest. Undoubtedly as per the bonafide certificate/Ex.P10, PW3 isa minor girl. However, as mentioned earlier,

PW1, the mother of victim girl, PW2, uncle of the victim girl, PW5 and PW6, who are the material prosecution witnesses has not supported the prosecution case. Similarly the evidence of PW3, the victim girl has failed to provide concrete evidence to substantiate the claim of prosecution that the accused No.1 and No.2 with common intention has kidnapped her and that accused No.1 has sexually harassed the victim girl, PW3 with sexual intent.

Hence, in the absence of corroborating and cogent evidence either from the victim or from other witnesses, this Court finds that the testimony of PW7 is

Spl. Sessions Judge, Nagarkurnool

Pg. 13 of 15 SC.(POCSO).No.19 of 2025 not particularly useful, in proving the case of the prosecution against the accused No.1 and Accused No.2.

19.Regardless of the circumstances, as previously discussed in this case, there is no evidence on record to substantiate that the accused No.1 and No.2 with common intention said to have kidnapped PW3, the minor victim girl and that accused No.1 has sexually harassed her with sexual intent. As a result, the prosecution is unable to establish the guilt of the accused No.1 and No.2 beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, points

No.1 to 3 are resolved in favour of the accused No.1 and Accused No.2 and against the prosecution.

In the result, Accused No.1 is found not guilty for the offences punishable U/ss. 137(2) r/w 3(5), 75 of BNS and Sec.11 r/w 12 of

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Accused No.2 is found not guilty for the offences punishable U/ss. 137(2) r/w 3(5) of BNS and accordingly the Accused No.1 and Accused No.2 are acquitted

U/s.258(1) BNSS. The bail bonds of the Accused No.1 and Accused No.2 shall remain in force for a period of six months as contemplated U/s.481(1)

BNSS. MO.1 is ‘OPPO’ mobile phone, which shall be confiscated to the state, after appeal time is over. MO.2 is one Bajaj CD 100 Motorcycle bearing No.AP 10 AE 6209, which shall be handed over to its registered owner, after appeal time is over.

Spl. Sessions Judge, Nagarkurnool

Pg. 14 of 15 SC.(POCSO).No.19 of 2025

Typed to my direct dictation by the stenographer G-III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 07th day of May, 2026.

Sd/-

Special Sessions Judge, FTSC for expeditious trial and disposal of Rape & POCSO Act cases, Nagarkurnool.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

For Prosecution:-

PW1 :Mother of victim girl

PW2 :Uncle of victim girl

PW3 :Victim

PW4 :Complainant

PW5 :C. Chiranjeevi, Mediator to the Confession cum recovery panchanama

PW6 :B. Vinod, Mediator to the Confession cum recovery panchanama

PW7 :E. Raman Goud, Sub Inspector of Police, Investigation officer

For defence:- Nil.

EXHIBITS MARKED

For prosecution :

Ex.P1:161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1

Ex.P2:161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2

Ex.P3:161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3

Ex.P4:164 Cr.P.C statement of PW3

Ex.P5:Report

Ex.P6:Signature of PW5 on confession cum recovery panchanama

Ex.P7:Signature of PW6 on confession cum recovery panchanama

Spl. Sessions Judge, Nagarkurnool

Pg. 15 of 15 SC.(POCSO).No.19 of 2025

Ex.P8:First Information Report

Ex.P9:Crime Detail form

Ex.P10: Bonafide certificate

Ex.P11: Section added memo

Ex.P12: Confession cum recovery panchanama

Ex.P13: One photo of MO1

Ex.P14: Three photos of MO2

For defence: Nil

MATERIAL OBJECTS

MO1 is one “OPPO” Mobile Phone

MO2 is one Bajaj CD 100 Motorcycle bearing No.AP 10 AE 6209

Sd/-

Special Sessions Judge, FTSC for expeditious trial and disposal of Rape & POCSO Act cases, Nagarkurnool.

Spl. Sessions Judge, Nagarkurnool

Order Record 53 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
SC.POCSO/62/2022	PS Kollapur vs Katraju Jutti Linganna @ Mavella Lingaswamy	13 May 2026	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/19/2025	PS Pentlavelly vs Madugam Vigneshwar alias Vignesh	07 May 2026	Judgement	Acquitted
SC.POCSO/11/2024	PS Nagarkurnool vs Mahendar Yamarajula	05 May 2026	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/58/2023	The state through Asst SI of police BIJINAPALL vs Myathari Sai Kumar	05 May 2026	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/74/2024	PS Nagarkurnool vs Sandeep Mallegani	05 May 2026	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/72/2023	State of Telangana nagarkurnool vs Radha Bushapaga	04 May 2026	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/241/2022	PS Nagarkurnool vs Mailgani Sandeep	30 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/2/2023	S.H.O Nagarkurnool vs Modhalla Shiva	10 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/70/2023	PS Nagarkurnool vs Kurumurthy Muchinthala	10 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/60/2024	PS Bijinapally vs Harshith Kongari	07 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/158/2019	PS Kalwakurthy, Kum Vijaya Laxmi vs Medala Dasharatham	07 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/317/2021	PS Amrabad vs Permula Anwesh	01 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/19/2022	PS Thimmajipet vs Yerolla Mahesh	30 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/67/2024	PS Bijinapally vs Jillela Sandeep	26 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/72/2024	PS Bijinapally vs Shiva Kumar Mallepogu	26 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
SC/14/2024	PS Kalwakurthy vs Maddelabanda Mallesh	24 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/64/2023	CI of Police Achampet vs Songa Shiva Kumar @ Shiva	18 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/77/2025	State of Telangana vs Shiva Reddy Puram	17 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/75/2023	State of Telangana of police Kalwakurthy vs Kokali Shiva @ Konkati Shiva kumar	16 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/62/2024	PS Nagarkurnool vs Mahendar Yamarajula	13 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/17/2022	PS Kodair vs Amaravadi Vinod Kumar	10 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/186/2022	P.S Tadoor vs Madgula Raju @ Rajashekar	09 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/83/2024	PS Nagarkurnool vs Suji Kumar Vanarasi	05 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
SC/71/2023	PS Kalwakurthy vs Gaddi Praveen @ Bhagavanthu	28 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/9/2022	PS Nagarkurnool vs Maredu Shiva	28 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/213/2022	State through Police Kalwakurthy vs Vemula mallesh	28 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/242/2022	PS Nagarkurnool vs Thapeta Thirupathi Alliaze thirupathaiah	28 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/329/2020	S.H.O. Peddakothapally vs Chiluka Saidulu	27 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/208/2022	State through Police Kollapur vs Chinchetti kiran kumar	25 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/71/2025	PS Achampet vs Uppari Mallaiah alias Mallesh	24 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/38/2024	P.S. Siddapur vs Suresh Kethavath	29 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/46/2024	P.S. Telkapally vs Thirumala Sai Gorla	29 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/187/2022	P.S Uppununthala vs Kallu Mahesh @ Mahi	29 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/193/2021	PS Tadoor vs Madaramoni Mahesh	29 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/216/2022	Kollapur P.S. vs Erukali Vamshi Alias Ulagondla Vamshi	29 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/76/2022	PS Lingal vs Sura Madhu	28 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/206/2022	State through Police Lingal vs Kurupala sreenu	28 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/5/2025	PS Kalwakurthy vs Rafi Mahammad	23 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/15/2023	P.S.Vangoor vs Derangula Narsimha	23 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/258/2021	PS Thimmajipet vs Kotha Raju @ Janardhan	23 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/3/2025	PS Telkapally vs Shivudu Jajala alias Shiva	08 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/16/2023	P.S. Peddakothapally vs Bolle Kiran	31 Dec 2025	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/62/2023	SHO Kollapur vs Veerapogu Vamshi	31 Dec 2025	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/205/2022	State through PS Kollapur vs Puttapaga Ramudu @ Ramu	31 Dec 2025	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/1/2023	S.H.O Nagarkurnool vs Md. Sameer	30 Dec 2025	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/29/2023	The state through SI of police NAGARKURNOL vs Md. Asif	30 Dec 2025	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/30/2023	The state through SI of police NAGARKURNOOL vs MD. Sammer	30 Dec 2025	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/63/2024	PS Nagarkurnool vs Bhaskar Korupula	30 Dec 2025	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/16/2025	PS Telkapally vs Saleshwaram Mollakunta	22 Dec 2025	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/44/2024	P.S. Telkapally vs Saleshwaram Mollakunta	22 Dec 2025	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/217/2020	PS Bijinapally vs Mandala Niranjan	10 Dec 2025	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/183/2019	PS Telkapally, Kyathavoni Maisamma vs Aleti Ramesh	28 Nov 2025	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/3/2024	The state through Asst SI of police CHARAKONDA vs Dasari Mahesh	24 Nov 2025	Judgement	—

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

May 2026		6
Apr 2026		6
Mar 2026		13
Feb 2026		7
Jan 2026		11
Dec 2025		10
Nov 2025		2

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Naseem Sultana handled?

Naseem Sultana has handled 55 court orders since 2025 at Nagarkurnool, PDJ Court Complex. The average disposal rate is 8 orders per month.

What types of cases does Naseem Sultana hear?

Based on available records, Naseem Sultana primarily handles Criminal matters (Sessions Cases) at Nagarkurnool, PDJ Court Complex.

Where is Naseem Sultana currently posted?

Naseem Sultana is posted as Fast Track Special Court for Rape and POCSO Act cases,Nagarkurnool at Nagarkurnool, PDJ Court Complex, Nagarkurnool, Telangana.

Are judgments by Naseem Sultana available online?

Yes. 1 judgment by Naseem Sultana are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Naseem Sultana dispose cases?

Naseem Sultana disposes approximately 8 cases per month, based on 55 orders handled over their tenure at Nagarkurnool, PDJ Court Complex.

Since when is Naseem Sultana serving?

Naseem Sultana has been serving at Nagarkurnool, PDJ Court Complex since 2025. and is currently posted there.

Case Types

SC 100%

Posting History

Nov 2025 — Present

Fast Track Special Court for Rape and POCSO Act cases,Nagarkurnool · 55 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 1

Other Judges at this Court

Sri D.ramakanth

Principal District and Sessions Judge Nagarkurnool

399 orders

Ms. Nadigottu Srinidhi

Prl JCJ cum JMFC

53 orders

Smt A Sreedevi

Senior Civil Judge-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge,Na...

102 orders

← View all judges at Nagarkurnool, PDJ Court Complex