Smt.P.Annie Rose Christian

Principal District and Sessions Judge Gadwal

Jogulamba Gadwal, PDJ Court Complex · Jogulamba Gadwal · Telangana

Smt.P.Annie Rose Christian, Principal District and Sessions Judge Gadwal, is posted at Jogulamba Gadwal, PDJ Court Complex, Jogulamba Gadwal, Telangana, India. 302 court orders on record since 2022. 15 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles SC, E, EP cases.

302

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

SC.POCSO/5/2023 Acquitted

State of Telangana vs Chittoor Parsharam @ C.Parshu Ram

22 Apr 2024

Judgment in S.C.(POCSO) No.5 of 2023 Page No. 1 of total 15 Pages.

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT FOR EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL AND

DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND POCSO ACT CASES AT GADWAL

Monday, the 22nd day of April, 2024

Present: Smt.P.Annie Rose Christian, I-Addl. District and Sessions Judge, FAC: Special Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court for Expeditious Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases at Gadwal

S.C. (POCSO) No. 05 of 2023

The State representing through the Circle Name of : Inspector of Police, Gadwal Circle; PS Gadwal Complainant Town.

Chittoor Parsharma @ C Parshu Ram S/o. Raju, Age: 26 Years, Occ: Petrol Bunk worker, R/o. : Name of H.No. 18-9-9/14/1, Chnadrayangutta, Accused Hyderabad.

Nature of Under section 366-A of IPC, alternatively, section Offence : 366 of IPC, section 5 (l) r/w. 6 of POCSO Act 2012, alternatively Section 376 (2) (n) of IPC.

Plea of Accused : Pleaded not guilty

Finding of the : Found not guilty Court

Sentence / : The accused is found not guilty for the offences under section 366-A of IPC, alternatively under Order section 366 of IPC, under section 5 (l) r/w. 6 of the POCSO Act, alternatively under section 376

Judgment in S.C.(POCSO) No.5 of 2023 Page No. 2 of total 15 Pages.

(2) (n) of IPC. Accordingly, the accused is acquitted under section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C. for the offences under section 366-A of IPC, alternatively under section 366 of IPC, under section 5 (l) r/w. 6 of the POCSO Act, alternatively under section 376 (2) (n) of IPC.

The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as per section 437-A of Cr.P.C. MO-1/light gold colour Vivo phone shall be return to the accused after expiry of appeal time. The un-marked non-valuable case property, if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Counsel for the : Sri K.Anand Kumar, Spl. Public Prosecutor, Prosecution POCSO Court, Gadwal.

Defence Counsel : Sri. T.Manohar Counsel for the Accused.

This Special Sessions Case is coming before me for final hearing on 19-04-2024 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 the Accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till today, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This case is tried for the offences under Section 366-A of

IPC, alternatively under section 366 of IPC, Section 5 (l) r/w. 6 of

POCSO Act 2012, alternatively under section 376 (2) (n) of IPC, against

Judgment in S.C.(POCSO) No.5 of 2023 Page No. 3 of total 15 Pages.

the Accused.

2.Prayer of the Prosecution:

The prayer of the prosecution is that the accused kidnapped the victim/girl child in the name of love and marriage and committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the victim/girl child repeatedly. Hence, the accused has committed offences punishable under section 366, 376 (2) (n) of IPC, under section 5 r/w. 6 of POCSO

Act 2012.

(The name of the victim/girl child and her family

members are not disclosed as barred under section 228 (A) of IPC

and as per the directions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case Nipun

Saxena and another Vs. Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs

vide Writ Petition (Civil) No. 565 of 2012, dated 11-12-2018,

reported in (2019) 2 SCC 703 at paragraph Nos. 11, 24 and 43).

3. The facts of the Prosecution case in a nutshell are as follows:-

The accused and the victim/girl child belong to the same caste and they are relatives. About three years ago, accused saw the victim/girl child at Jammulamma Festival. Thereafter, the accused with evil intention developed talking terms with her and secured her phone number and used to chat with the victim/girl child and he also used to make video calls to her.

4. Subsequently, accused proposed the victim/girl child that he was in love with her. When the parents of the victim/girl child came to know about the love affair between the victim/girl child and the

Judgment in S.C.(POCSO) No.5 of 2023 Page No. 4 of total 15 Pages.

accused, the parents of the victim/girl child admonished her and warned her to discontinue her relationship with the accused. The victim/girl child informed the same to the accused.

5. The accused intended to go to some other place and marry the victim/girl child and she agreed for the same. As per their plan, on 03-04-2022, victim/girl child left her house to attend the Intermediate

Exams and went to -- Bus Stand. Accused kidnapped the victim/girl child and took her to -- City and at about 16:00 hours, he tied a turmeric knot to her at a Temple at – Place and informed their parents about their marriage.

6. Accused took a room at -- Hotel at – Place and sexually assaulted the victim/girl child in the said hotel room. On the next day, accused took a rented room at – Place and there also, he sexually assaulted her repeatedly. As the victim/girl child became sick, she informed the same to her parents. On 12-10-2022, at about 08:00 AM,

Police traced their location and took back the victim/girl child with them to the Police Station.

7. Based on the complaint of the mother of the victim/girl child, Ch.Hari Prasad Reddy, Sub-Inspector of Police registered a case in Crime No.76 of 2022, under Section 366 of IPC and took up the investigation. He examined the mother and father of victim/girl child and recorded their detailed statements.

8. Ch.Hari Prasad Reddy, Sub-Inspector of Police proceeded to

Judgment in S.C.(POCSO) No.5 of 2023 Page No. 5 of total 15 Pages.

first scene of offence i.e., house of victim/girl child. He secured mediators J.Anjaneyulu and Md.Vaseem and in their presence he observed the first scene of offence and got drafted First Crime Details

Form. On 12-10-2022, at about 16:00 hours, I.D. party traced-out the victim/girl child and produced her before Ch.Hari Prasad Reddy, Sub-

Inspector of Police along with her parents.

9. Ch.Hari Prasad Reddy, Sub-Inspector of Police referred the victim/girl child to Bharosa Centre, Gadwal along with a requisition to record the statement of the victim/girl child. V.Rajitha, Sub-Inspector of Police examined and recorded the statement of the victim/girl child.

He referred the victim/girl child to Government Hospital, Gadwal.

10. Dr.Anurupa, Civil Assistant Surgeon examined the victim/ girl child and preserved the vaginal swabs of the victim/girl child to forward to Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical analysis and report. Based on the statement of the victim/girl child, Ch.Hari Prasad

Reddy, Sub-Inspector of Police added Section 376 (2) (n) of IPC and

Section 5 r/w. 6 of the POCSO Act to the existing section 366 of IPC.

11. On 12-10-2022, G.Chandra Sekhar, Circle Inspector of

Police took-up the further investigation of this case. He re-examined and re-recorded the statements of the father and mother of the victim/girl child. He filed a requisition before the Principal, Government

Junior College to issue Bonafide Certificate of the victim/girl child

12. Based on the requisition Principal, Government Junior

Judgment in S.C.(POCSO) No.5 of 2023 Page No. 6 of total 15 Pages.

College issued Bonafide Certificate. As per the Bonafide Certificate, the date of the birth of the victim/girl child is 12-04-2002 (under 18 years).

G.Chandra Sekhar, Circle Inspector of Police examined and recorded the statement of Principal.

13. On 15-10-2022, G.Chandra Sekhar, Circle Inspector of

Police apprehended the accused at Railway Station, Gadwal. On enquiry, the accused confessed to have committed the offence. He secured mediators K.Sriramulu and J.Shiva Kumar and in their presence he recorded the Confession-cum-Seizure Panchanama of the accused.

14. Based on the Confession-cum-Seizure Panchanama,

G.Chandra Sekhar, Circle Inspector of Police seized one Vivo Cell Phone from the possession of the accused. Later he proceeded to Second

Scene of Offence i.e. Temple where the accused married the victim/girl child.

15. G.Chandra Sekhar, Circle Inspector of Police, secured mediators K.Sriramulu and J.Shiva Kumar and in their presence, he observed Second Scene of Offence and got drafted Crime Details Form.

Accused led Police and mediators to Third Scene of Offence i.e. Hotel room where the accused assaulted the victim/girl child.

16. G.Chandra Sekhar, Circle Inspector of Police observed third

Scene of Offence and got drafted Crime Details Form in the presence of

K.Sriramulu and J.Shiva Kumar. He also examined owner of the hotel

Judgment in S.C.(POCSO) No.5 of 2023 Page No. 7 of total 15 Pages.

and recorded his detailed statement. Accused led the Police and mediators to Fourth Scene of Offence i.e. rented room where the accused assaulted the victim/girl child.

17. G.Chandra Sekhar, Circle Inspector of Police observed fourth Scene of Offence and got drafted Crime Details Form in the presence of K.Sriramulu and J.Shiva Kumar. He also examined owner of the rented room and recorded his detailed statement.

18. Accused was brought back to Police Station. The accused was referred to Government Hospital for Medical Examination.

G.Chandra Sekhar, Circle Inspector of Police produced the accused

before the Hon’ble Court for judicial custody. He forwarded the material

objects to FSL Hyderabad for chemical analysis and report.

19. Dr.G.Gopinath, Asst. Director, FSL, Hyderabad issued FSL

Report. Based on the FSL Report, Dr.D.Anurupa, Civil Assistant

Surgeon issued Final Opinion. Dr.Bheema Linga Reddy, conducted potency test of the accused and issued Potency Certificate. G.Chandra

Sekhar, Circle Inspector of Police filed a requisition before Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Alampur to record 164 Cr.P.C Statement of

the victim/girl child.

20. Accordingly, the Statement of the victim/girl child was recorded by Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Alampur. After completion of investigation he filed Charge Sheet against the accused.

Hence, the case.

Judgment in S.C.(POCSO) No.5 of 2023 Page No. 8 of total 15 Pages.

21. This case was taken on file for the offences under Section 366-A of IPC, alternatively under section 366 of IPC, Section 5 (l) r/w. 6 of the POCSO Act, alternatively under Section 376 (2) (n) of IPC against the Accused by this Court.

22. On appearance of accused, the copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C.

23. On considering the material on record, after hearing the

Special Public Prosecutor and the Defence counsel, charges were framed under Section 366-A of IPC, alternatively under section 366 of

IPC, Section 5 (l) r/w. 6 of the POCSO Act, alternatively under Section 376 (2) (n) of IPC against the accused, read over and explained about the said charges to the accused for which the accused denied the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

24. The prosecution has examined PWs-1 to 4 and got marked

Exs.P-1 to P-18 and MO-1 in order to prove its case. The learned

Special Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of remaining listed witnesses in this case, hence their evidence was closed. Hence prosecution evidence is closed.

25. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C with regard to the incriminating material appearing against the accused in the evidence of Prosecution

Witnesses to which he denied and reported no defence evidence.

Judgment in S.C.(POCSO) No.5 of 2023 Page No. 9 of total 15 Pages.

26. After the completion of the trial, the learned Special Public

Prosecutor representing the State and the learned Defence Counsel appearing for the accused submitted their arguments and thereafter, the case is coming for Judgment.

27. Points for determination:-

(i). Whether the Prosecution proved that the

accused induced the victim/girl child to leave her

house and committed aggravated penetrative

sexual assault on the victim/girl child repeatedly.

(ii). Whether the Prosecution proved that the

accused kidnapped the victim and forcibly

committed rape on the victim repeatedly.

(iii). Whether the evidence on the record is

contrary to the presumption under Sec.29 and 30

of the POCSO Act.

28. POINT No. (i):-

(i). Whether the Prosecution proved that the

accused induced the victim/girl child to leave her

house and committed aggravated penetrative

sexual assault on the victim/girl child repeatedly.

On behalf of the Prosecution, the following witnesses were examined:

PW-1 : Mother of the Victim / Girl child

PW-2 : Father of the Victim / Girl child

PW-3 : Victim / Girl Child

PW-4 : G.Chandra Sekhar/Investigation Officer.

Judgment in S.C.(POCSO) No.5 of 2023 Page No. 10 of total 15 Pages.

29. The evidence of the mother and father of the victim/girl child goes to show that they know the accused. Accused did not kidnap the victim/girl child and did not commit rape on her repeatedly. They do not know the case facts. The evidence of the mother of the victim/girl child further goes to show that at the request of the Police, she subscribed her signature on the plain blank papers. She do not know the contents of the Complaint.

30. The evidence of the victim/girl child goes to show that accused did not kidnap her and did not commit rape on her repeatedly.

Her evidence further goes to show that she do not know the case facts.

About one year ago, at the instance of Police, she gave her statement

before Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Alampur, but she do not

remember the contents of the said statement.

31. PW-4/G.Chandra Sekhar, Circle Inspector of Police reiterated the contents of the charge sheet as such his evidence is procedural in nature. As discussed above, the mother and father of the victim/girl child and victim/girl child turned hostile and failed to support the prosecution case. The evidence of the mother and father of the victim/girl child and victim/girl child is in contradiction to the evidence of PW-4/G.Chandra Sekhar.

32. The contradictory evidence is fatal to the case of prosecution. There is no evidence on the record, to show that the accused induced the victim/girl child to leave her house and committed

Judgment in S.C.(POCSO) No.5 of 2023 Page No. 11 of total 15 Pages.

aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the victim/girl child repeatedly.

33. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove that the accused induced the victim/girl child to leave her house and committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the victim/girl child repeatedly. Hence, this point No. (i) is accordingly answered.

34. Point No.(ii):-

Whether the Prosecution proved that the

accused kidnapped the victim and forcibly

committed rape on the victim repeatedly.

As discussed in Point No.(i), mother and father of the victim and victim turned hostile and failed to support the prosecution case.

The evidence of the mother and father of the victim and victim is in contradiction to the evidence of PW-4/G.Chandra Sekhar. The contradictory evidence is fatal to the case of prosecution.

35. Hence, there is no evidence on the record, to show that the accused kidnapped the victim and forcibly committed rape on the victim repeatedly. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove that the accused kidnapped the victim and forcibly committed rape on the victim repeatedly. Hence, the Point No.(ii) is answered accordingly.

36. Point No.(iii):-

Whether the evidence on the record is contrary

to the presumption under section 29 and 30 of

the POCSO Act.

As discussed in Points No.(i) and (ii), the prosecution, in the

Judgment in S.C.(POCSO) No.5 of 2023 Page No. 12 of total 15 Pages.

instant case, failed to prove that the accused committed offences under

Section 366-A of IPC, alternatively under section 366 of IPC, Section 5

(l) r/w. 6 of the POCSO Act, alternatively under Section 376 (2) (n) of

IPC. The mother and father of the victim/girl child and victim/girl child turned hostile and failed to support the prosecution case.

37. Furthermore, the victim/girl child deposed that accused did not kidnap her and did not commit rape on her. In the circumstances of the case, when the victim/girl child fails to depose the facts of the case, the presumptions under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act cannot be drawn.

38. Such is not the scope of presumption under sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act. Hence, the Point No. (iii) is answered accordingly.

Therefore, in the light of above discussions, I opine that the

Prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and doubt if any should be given in favour of the accused.

39. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences under section 366-A of IPC, alternatively under section 366 of IPC, under section 5 (l) r/w. 6 of the POCSO Act, alternatively under section 376 (2) (n) of IPC. Accordingly, the accused is acquitted under section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C. for the offences under section 366-A of IPC, alternatively under section 366 of IPC, under section 5 (l) r/w. 6 of the

POCSO Act, alternatively under section 376 (2) (n) of IPC. The bail

Judgment in S.C.(POCSO) No.5 of 2023 Page No. 13 of total 15 Pages.

bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as per section 437-A of Cr.P.C. MO-1/light gold colour Vivo phone shall be return to the accused after expiry of appeal time. The un-marked non- valuable case property, if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by Sri.Mohd. Irshad Ahmed, Superintendent, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 22nd day of April, 2024.

�I-Addl. District

and

Sessions

Judge,

I-Addl. District

and

Sessions

Judge,

FAC: Special

Sessions

Judge,

Fast Track Special Court for Expediti ous Trial

and

Disposal of Rape

and

POCSO Act Cases at Gadwal. ��

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Judgment in S.C.(POCSO) No.5 of 2023 Page No. 14 of total 15 Pages.

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION:

PW-1 : Mother of the Victim / girl child

PW-2 : Father of victim/girl child

PW-3 : victim / girl child

PW-4 : G.Chandra Sekhar/Investigation Officer

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF DIFENCE :

-NIL-

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION:

: Signature of the mother of victim/girl Dt:04-04-2022 Ex.P-1 child on Complaint : Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statement of mother of Dt: 12-10-2022 Ex.P-2 the Victim /girl child : 161 Cr.P.C Statement of the father of the Dt: 12-10-2022 Ex.P-3 victim/girl child : Signature portion of the victim/girl child Dt: 25-10-2022 Ex.P-4 on Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement : 161 Cr.P.C Statement of the victim/girl Dt: 12-10-2022 Ex.P-5 child

Ex.P-6 : Complaint Dt: 04-04-2022

Ex.P-7 : FIR Dt: 04-04-2022 : First Crime Details Form along with Dt: 04-04-2022 Ex.P-8 Rough Sketh

Ex.P-9 : Section Alteration Memo Dt: 12-10-2022 : Bonafide Certificate of the victim/girl Dt: 15-10-2022 Ex.P-10 child

Judgment in S.C.(POCSO) No.5 of 2023 Page No. 15 of total 15 Pages.

: Relevant portion of Confession-cum-Dt: 15-10-2022 Ex.P-11 Seizure Panchanama : Second Crime Details Form along with Dt: 15-10-2022 Ex.P-12 Rough Sketh : Third Crime Details Form along with Dt: 15-10-2022 Ex.P-13 Rough Sketh : Fourth Crime Details Form along with Dt: 15-10-2022 Ex.P-14 Rough Sketh

Ex.P-15 : Potency Certificate Dt: 15-10-2022

Ex.P-16 : Medical Examination Report Dt: 12-10-2022

Ex.P-17 : Forensic Science Laboratory Report Dt: 28-10-2022

Ex.P-18 : Final Opinion Dt: 02-11-2022

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE :

-Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:

MO-1: Light gold colour Vivo phone

I-Addl. District and Sessions Judge, FAC: Special Sessions Judge, FTSC for Expeditious Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases at Gadwal.

SC.POCSO/73/2022 Acquitted

PS Gadwal Town vs Mallikarjuna

03 Apr 2024

Page No. 1 of total 15 Pages. Judgment in S.C.(POCSO) No.73 of 2022

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT FOR EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL AND

DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND POCSO ACT CASES AT GADWAL

Wednesday, the 03rd day of April, 2024

S.C. (POCSO) No. 73 of 2022

The State representing through the Circle Name of : Inspector of Police, Gadwal Circle; Complainant Police Station Gadwal Town.

Mallikarjuna S/o. Pedda Laxmanna, Age: 22 Name of years, Occ: Agriculture and Cook, R/o. H.No. : Accused 4-57, Edigonipally Village, Gadwal Mandal, Jouglamba Gadwal Dist.

Nature of Under section 366-A of IPC, alternatively under Offence section 366 of IPC, under section 5 (l) r/w. 6 of : the POCSO Act, alternatively under section 376 (2) (n) of IPC

Plea of Accused : Pleaded not guilty

Finding of the : Found not guilty Court

Page No. 2 of total 15 Pages. Judgment in S.C.(POCSO) No.73 of 2022 (2) (n) of IPC. Accordingly, the accused is acquitted under section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C. for the offences under section 366-A of IPC, alternatively under section 366 of IPC, under section 5 (l) r/w. 6 of the POCSO Act, alternatively under section 376 (2) (n) of IPC.

The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as per section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The motorcycle bearing Reg.No.TS-33-

D-1421 was given to accused for interim custody, as per the orders in Crl.M.P.No.1106 of 2021, dated: 15-12-2021. The said orders shall be made absolute after expiry of appeal time.

The un-marked non-valuable case property, if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Counsel for the : Sri K.Anand Kumar, Spl. Public Prosecutor, Prosecution POCSO Court, Gadwal.

Defence Counsel : Sri. Srikanth, Counsel for the Accused.

This Special Sessions Case is coming before me for final hearing on 02-04-2024 in the presence of Sri.K.Anand Kumar, Spl. Public Prosecutor, POCSO Court, Gadwal for the Complainant/State and of Sri. Srikanth, Counsel for the Accused, counsel for the accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till today, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This case is tried for the offences under section 366-A of

IPC, alternatively under section 366 of IPC, under section 5 (l) r/w. 6 of the POCSO Act, alternatively under section 376 (2) (n) of IPC against

Page No. 3 of total 15 Pages. Judgment in S.C.(POCSO) No.73 of 2022 the Accused.

2.Prayer of the Prosecution:

POCSO Act.

3. (The name of the victim/girl child and her family

members are not disclosed as barred under section 228 (A) of IPC

and as per the directions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case Nipun

Saxena and another Vs. Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs

vide Writ Petition (Civil) No. 565 of 2012, dated 11-12-2018,

reported in (2019) 2 SCC 703 at paragraph Nos. 11, 24 and 43).

4. The facts of the Prosecution case in a nutshell are as follows:-

The accused and the victim/girl child belong to different village. One year prior to the date of incident, the accused, who went as cook with other caterers to a marriage saw the victim/girl child in the said marriage. He enquired the address of the victim/girl child and made friendship with her.

5. Accused gave a cell phone along with SIM to the victim/girl child and used to talk with her regularly. One month after he gained

Page No. 4 of total 15 Pages. Judgment in S.C.(POCSO) No.73 of 2022 acquaintance with the victim/girl child, the accused went to the house of the victim/girl child and in the absence of her parents, he participated in sexual intercourse with her forcibly.

6. The members of the family of the victim/girl child came to know about the friendship of the victim/girl child with the accused and they took the cell phone from her and put restrictions on her. They also started searching marriage alliances to the victim/girl child. The victim/girl child informed the same to the accused.

7. On 28-07-2021, during after-noon hours, as per the instructions of the accused, the victim/girl child left her house and met the accused who was waiting near her house. He took the victim/girl child on his motor cycle to a hillock besides his fields in the limits of his village and participated in sexual intercourse with her.

8. Later the accused took the victim/girl child to a temple at –

Village and tied a knot to her. Thereafter, he took the victim/girl child to a rented room situated at – city and forcibly participated in sexual intercourse with her repeatedly. When he came to know that a case was registered against him, he brought back the victim/girl child and dropped her near Police Station.

9. Based on the complaint of the father of the victim/girl child,

N.Rama Devi, Sub-Inspector of Police registered a case in Crime No.189 of 2021, under Section 363 of IPC and took up the investigation. She

Page No. 5 of total 15 Pages. Judgment in S.C.(POCSO) No.73 of 2022 examined the father and mother of victim/girl child and recorded their detailed statements.

10. N.Rama Devi, Sub-Inspector of Police proceeded to First scene of offence i.e., house of victim/girl child. She secured mediators

T.Darshelli and Y.Urkundu and in their presence she observed the first scene of offence and got drafted First Crime Details Form along with along with Rough Sketch. On 15-08-2021, the victim/girl child came to

Police Station.

11. N.Rama Devi, Sub-Inspector of Police recorded the statement of the victim/girl child. Based on the statement of the victim/girl child, she altered the section of law from 363 of IPC to

Section 366, 376 (2) (n) of IPC and Section 5 (l) r/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and got issued Alteration Memo.

12. Sk.Mahabub Basha, Circle Inspector of Police took up the further investigation of this case. He examined and recorded the statements of the father, mother, brothers, sister of the victim/girl child and other witnesses. He addressed a letter to Incharge Head Mistress to issue Bonafide Certificate of the victim/girl child. He obtained the

Bonafide Certificate of the victim/girl child.

13. As per the Bonafide Certificate, the date of birth of victim/girl child is 18-08-2004 (minor). On 16-08-2021, at 13:30 hours, Sk.Mahabub Basha, Circle Inspector of Police apprehended the accused near his house. On interrogation the accused confessed that

Page No. 6 of total 15 Pages. Judgment in S.C.(POCSO) No.73 of 2022 he committed the offence. He secured mediators N.Darma Naidu and

P.Raju and in their presence, he got recorded the Confession-cum-

Seizure Panchanama of the accused.

14. Based on the Confession-cum-Seizure Panchanama,

Sk.Mahabub Basha, Circle Inspector of Police seized one Samsung phone and motor cycle bearing Reg.No.TS-33-D-1421 from the possession of the accused. In pursuance of the confession of the accused, himself along with accused and mediators N.Darma Naidu and P.Raju proceeded to the second Scene of Offence i.e. place at his fields where the accused raped the victim/girl child.

15. At the second Scene of Offence, Sk.Mahabub Basha, Circle

Inspector of Police, prepared Panchanama in the presence of N.Darma

Naidu and P.Raju. He arrested the accused and referred him to

Government Hospital, Gadwal for Medical Examination and Potency

Test. Dr.Naveen Kranthi, Civil Assistant Surgeon examined the accused and issued Potency Certificate.

16. Later the accused was taken to Police Custody for one day as per the Orders vide Dis.No.692/2021, dated 27-08-2021. During the

Police Custody, the accused lead the Police and mediators M.Rajesh and M.Anjaneyulu to a rented room situated at –city where he stayed with the victim/girl child.

17. At the rented room, Sk.Mahabub Basha, Circle Inspector of

Police conducted Panchanama. Later the accused was produced before

Page No. 7 of total 15 Pages. Judgment in S.C.(POCSO) No.73 of 2022 the Hon’ble Court for judicial custody. V.Narayana, Nodal Officer,

Bharati Airtel, issued CDRs and CAFs of the cell phones of the accused and the victim/girl child.

18. Dr.Ashwini, Civil Assistant Surgeon, examined the victim/girl child and issued Medical Examination Report. She collected the specimens from the victim/girl child and they were forwarded to

Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical analysis and report.

19. Sk.Mahabub Basha, Circle Inspector of Police filed a requisition before Court to record 164 Cr.P.C Statement of the victim/girl child. Accordingly, the Statement of the victim/girl child was recorded. After completion of investigation, he filed charge-sheet against the accused. Hence, the case.

20. This case was taken on file for the offences under Section 366, 376 (2) (n) of IPC and 5 (l) r/w. 6 of the POCSO Act against the

Accused by the I-Addl. District and Sessions Court, Mahabubnagar.

21. As per the orders of the Principal District and Sessions

Court, Mahabubnagar vide Order Dis.No.250/2022, dated 14-03-2022, this case was transferred to Fast Track Special Court for Expeditious

Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act cases at Gadwal, for disposal according to law.

22. On appearance of accused, the copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C.

23. On considering the material on record, after hearing the

Page No. 8 of total 15 Pages. Judgment in S.C.(POCSO) No.73 of 2022

Special Public Prosecutor and the Defence counsel, charges were framed under Section 366-A of IPC, alternatively under section 366 of

24. The prosecution has examined PWs-1 to 5 and got marked

Exs.P-1 to P-18 in order to prove its case. The learned Special Public

Prosecutor has given up the evidence of remaining listed witnesses in this case, hence their evidence was closed. Hence prosecution evidence is closed.

Witnesses to which he denied and reported no defence evidence.

26. After the completion of the trial, the learned Special Public

Prosecutor representing the State and the learned Defence Counsel appearing for the accused submitted their arguments and thereafter, the case is coming for Judgment.

27. Points for determination:-

(i). Whether the Prosecution proved that the

accused induced the victim/girl child to leave her

house and committed aggravated penetrative

sexual assault on the victim/girl child repeatedly.

Page No. 9 of total 15 Pages. Judgment in S.C.(POCSO) No.73 of 2022

(ii). Whether the Prosecution proved that the

accused kidnapped the victim on the promise of

marriage and forcibly committed rape on her

against her will.

(iii). Whether the evidence on the record is

contrary to the presumption under Sec.29 and 30

of the POCSO Act.

28. POINT No. (i):-

(i). Whether the Prosecution proved that the

accused induced the victim/girl child to leave her

house and committed aggravated penetrative

sexual assault on the victim/girl child repeatedly.

On behalf of the Prosecution, the following witnesses were examined:

PW-1 : Father of the victim / girl child

PW-2 : Victim/girl child

PW-3 : Brother of the victim / girl Child

PW-4 : N.Rama Devi / Investigation Officer

PW-5 : Shaik Mahaboob Pahsa /Investigation Officer

29. The evidence of the father of the victim/girl child and brother of the victim/girl child goes to show that they know the accused. Accused did not kidnap the victim/girl child and did not

Page No. 10 of total 15 Pages. Judgment in S.C.(POCSO) No.73 of 2022 commit rape on her. They do not know the facts of the case. At the request of the Police, he affixed his thumb impression on plain blank paper. He do not know the contents of the complaint.

30. The evidence of the victim/girl child goes to show that accused did not kidnap her and did not commit rape on her. She do not know the facts of the case. About two years ago, at the instance of

Police, she gave statement before Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Alampur, but she do not remember the contents of the said statement.

31. PW-4/N.Rama Devi and PW-5/Shaik Mahabub Basha reiterated the contents of the charge sheet as such their evidence is procedural in nature. As discussed above, the father and brother of the victim/girl child and victim/girl child turned hostile and failed to support the prosecution case.

32. The evidence of the father and brother of the victim/girl child and victim/girl child is in contradiction to the evidence of PW- 4/N.Rama Devi and PW-5/Shaik Mahabub Basha. The contradictory evidence is fatal to the case of prosecution. There is no evidence on the record, to show that the accused induced the victim/girl child to leave her house and committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the victim/girl child repeatedly.

33. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove that the accused induced the victim/girl child to leave her house and committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the victim/girl child

Page No. 11 of total 15 Pages. Judgment in S.C.(POCSO) No.73 of 2022 repeatedly. Hence, this Point No. (i) is accordingly answered.

34. Point No.(ii):-

Whether the Prosecution proved that the

accused kidnapped the victim on the promise

of marriage and forcibly committed rape on her

against her will.

As discussed in Point No.(i), father and brother of the victim and victim turned hostile and failed to support the prosecution case.

The evidence of the father and brother of the victim and victim is in contradiction to the evidence of PW-4/N.Rama Devi and PW-5/Shaik

Mahabub Basha. The contradictory evidence is fatal to the case of prosecution.

35. Hence, there is no evidence on the record, to show that the accused kidnapped the victim on the promise of marriage and forcibly committed rape on her against her will. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove that the accused kidnapped the victim on the promise of marriage and forcibly committed rape on her against her will. Hence, the Point No.(ii) is answered accordingly.

36. Point No.(iii):-

Whether the evidence on the record is contrary to the presumption under section 29 and 30 of the

POCSO Act.

As discussed in Points No.(i) and (ii), the prosecution, in the instant case, failed to prove that the accused committed offences under

Page No. 12 of total 15 Pages. Judgment in S.C.(POCSO) No.73 of 2022

Section 366-A of IPC, alternatively under section 366 of IPC, under section 5 (l) r/w. 6 of the POCSO Act, alternatively under section 376 (2) (n) of IPC. The father and brother of the victim/girl child and victim/girl child turned hostile and failed to support the prosecution case.

37. Furthermore, the victim/girl child deposed that accused did not kidnap her and did not commit penetrative sexual assault on her.

In the circumstances of the case, when the victim/girl child fails to depose the facts of the case, the presumptions under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act cannot be drawn.

38. Such is not the scope of presumption under sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act. Hence, the Point No. (iii) is answered accordingly.

Therefore, in the light of above discussions, I opine that the

Prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and doubt if any should be given in favour of the accused.

POCSO Act, alternatively under section 376 (2) (n) of IPC. The bail

Page No. 13 of total 15 Pages. Judgment in S.C.(POCSO) No.73 of 2022 bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as per section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The motorcycle bearing Reg.No.TS-33-D-1421 was given to accused for interim custody, as per the orders in

Crl.M.P.No.1106 of 2021, dated: 15-12-2021. The said orders shall be

made absolute after expiry of appeal time. The un-marked non- valuable case property, if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by Sri.Mohd. Irshad Ahmed, Superintendent, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 03rd day of April, 2024.

I-Addl. District and Sessions Judge, FAC: Special Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court for Expeditious Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases at Gadwal.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION:

PW-1 : Father of the Victim / girl child

PW-2 : Victim girl / child

PW-3 : Brother of the victim / girl Child

PW-4 : N.Rama Devi /Investigation Officer

PW-5 : Shaik Mahaboob Pahsa /Investigation Officer.

Page No. 14 of total 15 Pages. Judgment in S.C.(POCSO) No.73 of 2022

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF DIFENCE :

-NIL-

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION:

: 161 Cr.P.C of Cr.P.C Statement father of Dt: 16-08-2021 Ex.P-1 the victim/girl child : Signature of the victim/girl child on Dt: 27-08-2021 Ex.P-2 Sec.164 of Cr.P.C Statement : 161 Cr.P.C of Cr.P.C Statement of the Dt: 15-08-2021 Ex.P-3 victim/girl child : Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statement of brother of Dt: 16-08-2021 Ex.P-4 the Victim /Girl Child.

Ex.P-5 : Compliant Dt: 31-07-2021

Ex.P-6 : FIR Dt: 31-07-2021 : First Crime Details Form along with Dt: 31-07-2021 Ex.P-7 Rough Sketh

Ex.P-8 : Section Alteration Memo Dt: 15-08-2021

Ex.P-9 : Requisition to issue Bonafide Certificate Dt: 16-08-2021 : Bonafide Certificate of the victim/girl Dt: 16-08-2021 Ex.P-10 child : Relevant portion of Confession-cum-Dt: 16-08-2021 Ex.P-11 Seizure Panchanama

Ex.P-12 : Second Crime Details Form Dt: 16-08-2021

Ex.P-13 : Third Crime Details Form Dt: 16-08-2021

Ex.P-14 : Potency Certificate Dt: 17-08-2021

Ex.P-15 : Fourth Crime Details Form Dt: 27-08-2021

Ex.P-16 : Medical Examination Report Dt: 15-08-2021

Page No. 15 of total 15 Pages. Judgment in S.C.(POCSO) No.73 of 2022

Ex.P-17 : Forensic Science Laboratory report Dt: 22-10-2021

Ex.P-18 : Final Opinion Dt: 08-11-2021

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE :

-Nil-

I-Addl. District and Sessions Judge, FAC: Special Sessions Judge, FTSC for Expeditious Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases at Gadwal.

SC.POCSO/293/2021 Acquitted

PS Ghattu vs Vadla Tharunu

10 Apr 2024

Judgment in S.C.(POCSO) No. 293 of 2021 Page No. 1 of total 14 Pages.

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT FOR EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL AND

DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND POCSO ACT CASES AT GADWAL

Wednesday, the 10th day of April, 2024

S.C. (POCSO) No. 293 of 2021

The State representing through the Circle Name of : Inspector of Police, Gadwal Circle; Police Station Complainant Gattu.

Vadla Tharunu S/o. Vadla Narsimhulu, Name of Age: 21 Years, Occ: Bike Mechanic and Hotel Accused : Worker, R/o. H.No.2-115, Thummala Cheruvu Village, Gattu Mandal.

Section 366 of IPC, under Section 5 (l) r/w. 6 of Nature of : the POCSO Act, under Section 376 (2) (n) of IPC. Offence

Plea of Accused : Pleaded not guilty

Finding of the : Found not guilty Court

Sentence / : The accused is found not guilty for the offences under Section 366 of IPC, under Section 5 (l) Order r/w. 6 of the POCSO Act, under Section 376 (2)

(n) of IPC. Accordingly, the accused is acquitted

Judgment in S.C.(POCSO) No. 293 of 2021 Page No. 2 of total 14 Pages.

under section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C. for the offences under Section 366 of IPC, under Section 5 (l) r/w. 6 of the POCSO Act, under Section 376 (2)

Two SIM cards shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The un-marked non-valuable case property, if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Counsel for the : Sri K.Anand Kumar, Spl. Public Prosecutor, Prosecution POCSO Court, Gadwal.

Defence Counsel : Sri.U.Rajesh, Counsel for the Accused.

This Special Sessions Case is coming before me for final hearing on 04-04-2024 in the presence of Sri.K.Anand Kumar, Spl. Public

Prosecutor, POCSO Court, Gadwal for the Complainant/State and of

Sri.U.Rajesh, counsel for the accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till today, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. This case is tried for the offences under Section 366 of IPC, under Section 5 (l) r/w. 6 of the POCSO Act, under Section 376 (2) (n) of IPC against the Accused.

2.Prayer of the Prosecution:

The prayer of the prosecution is that the accused kidnapped

Judgment in S.C.(POCSO) No. 293 of 2021 Page No. 3 of total 14 Pages.

the victim/girl child in the name of love and marriage and committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the victim/girl child repeatedly. Hence, the accused has committed offences punishable under section 366, 376 (2) (i), 376 (2) (n) of IPC and Section 5 (l) r/w 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

(The name of the victim/girl child and her family

members are not disclosed as barred under section 228 (A) of IPC

and as per the directions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case Nipun

Saxena and another Vs. Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs

vide Writ Petition (Civil) No. 565 of 2012, dated 11-12-2018,

reported in (2019) 2 SCC 703 at paragraph Nos. 11, 24 and 43).

3. The facts of the Prosecution case in a nutshell are as follows:-

The de-facto complainant/foster father of the victim/girl child adopted the victim/girl child who is one of the four daughters of the brother of the de-facto complainant. The victim/girl child is studying IX-Class at – Place and due to Corona, Schools were closed and the victim/girl child was staying at home.

4. The accused, who belongs to the same village, followed the victim/girl child and harassed the victim/girl child in the name of love.

Accused used to call the victim/girl child to her father’s phone and used to talk with her frequently. The Accused induced the victim/girl child to leave her house. Accordingly on the intervening night of 26/27-

Judgment in S.C.(POCSO) No. 293 of 2021 Page No. 4 of total 14 Pages.

04-2021, the victim/girl child left her house.

5. Accused took the victim/girl child to a rented room at – City and participated in sexual intercourse with her till 07-05-2021 under the guise of love and marriage. On knowing that a case was registered against him, he brought the victim/girl child and dropped her near

Police Station of their village.

6. Based on the complaint of the foster father of the victim/girl child, J.Ram Chander Ji, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Gattu PS registered a case in Crime No.39 of 2021, under the Section 363 of IPC and took up the investigation. J.Ram Chander Ji, Assistant Sub-

Inspector of Police examined the foster father of victim/girl child and recorded his detailed statement.

7. J.Ram Chander Ji, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police proceeded to First scene of offence i.e. house of the victim/girl child.

He recorded the statements of foster mother, biological father and mother of the victim/girl child. He secured mediators T.Narsimha

Reddy and Anjaneyulu and in their presence, he observed the first scene of offence and drawn Rough Sketch.

8. On 07-05-2021, the victim/girl child came before Police

Station Gattu. As the offence was grave in nature, S.Manjunath Reddy,

Sub Inspector of Police took-up the further investigation of the case. He got recorded the statement of the victim/girl child through N.Rama

Judgment in S.C.(POCSO) No. 293 of 2021 Page No. 5 of total 14 Pages.

Devi, Woman Sub Inspector of Police.

9. Based on the statement of the victim/girl child,

S.Manjunath Reddy, Sub Inspector of Police altered the section of law to Section 366, 376 of IPC and Section 5 r/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and got issued Alteration Memo. Jakkula Hanmanthu, Circle Inspector of

Police took-up further investigation of this case.

10. Jakkula Hanmanthu, Circle Inspector of Police referred the victim/girl child to Government Hospital, Gadwal for Medical

Examination and Report. Dr.Ch.Priyanka, Civil Assistant Surgeon examined the victim/girl child and issued Medical Examination Report.

She also preserved specimen material objects of the victim/girl child and the same were forwarded to Forensic Science Laboratory for

Chemical Analysis and Report.

11. Jakkula Hanmanthu, Circle Inspector of Police re-examined and re-recorded the statements of the foster father, foster mother, biological father and biological mother and maternal uncle of the victim/girl child. He addressed a letter to Principal, where the victim/girl child studied to issue Bonafide Certificate of the victim/girl child.

12. Based on the letter of the Jakkula Hanmanthu, Circle

Inspector of Police, Bonafide Certificate of the victim/girl child was issued. As per the Bonafide Certificate, the date of birth of victim/girl child is 18-04-2005 (minor). On 10-05-2021, at about 14:45 hours,

Judgment in S.C.(POCSO) No. 293 of 2021 Page No. 6 of total 14 Pages.

Jakkula Hanmanthu, Circle Inspector of Police apprehended the accused at his house.

13. On interrogation, the accused confessed to have committed the offence. Jakkula Hanmanthu, Circle Inspector of Police secured mediators B.Chinna Narsimulu and D.Gattanna and in their presence, he got recorded the Confession-cum-Seizure Panchanama of the accused. Based on the Confession-cum-Seizure Panchanama, he seized

MI mobile phone along with two Jio sims from the possession of the accused.

14. In pursuance of the confession of the accused, Jakkula

Hanmanthu, Circle Inspector of Police along with accused and mediators B.Chinna Narsimulu and D.Gattanna proceeded to the second Scene of Offence i.e. rented room of the accused. He observed second Scene of Offence and got drafted second Crime Details Form.

The accused was sent to Government hospital for Potency test. Later the accused was produced before the court for judicial custody.

15. G.Swarna Rani, Assistant Director, Forensic Science

Laboratory, Hyderabad issued Forensic Science Laboratory report.

Based on the Forensic Science Laboratory report, Dr.Ch.Priyanka, Civil

Assistant Surgeon issued Final Opinion. Dr.Naveen Kranthi, Civil

Assistant Surgeon examined the accused and issued Potency Certificate of the accused.

16. Jakkula Hanmanthu, Circle Inspector of Police filed a

Judgment in S.C.(POCSO) No. 293 of 2021 Page No. 7 of total 14 Pages.

requisition before Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Alampur to record 164 Cr.P.C Statement of the victim/girl child. Accordingly, the statement of the victim/girl child was recorded. SK.Mahabub Basha,

Circle Inspector of Police took-up further investigation of the case and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet. Hence, the case.

17. This case was taken on file for the offences under Section 366 of IPC, under Section 376 (2) (i), 376 (2) (n) of IPC and under

Section 5 (l) r/w. 6 of the POCSO Act, against the Accused by the I-

Additional District and Sessions Judge’s Court, Mahabubnagar.

18. As per the orders of the Principal District and Sessions

Court, Mahabubnagar vide Order Dis.No.1232/2021, dated: 09-11- 2021, 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.

19. On appearance of accused, the copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C.

20. On considering the material on record, after hearing the

Special Public Prosecutor and the Defence counsel, charges were framed under Section 366 of IPC, under Section 5 (l) r/w. 6 of the

POCSO Act, under Section 376 (2) (n) of IPC against the accused, read over and explained about the said charges to the accused for which the accused denied the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

21. The prosecution has examined PWs-1 to 4 and got marked

Judgment in S.C.(POCSO) No. 293 of 2021 Page No. 8 of total 14 Pages.

Exs.P-1 to P-15 and MO-1 in order to prove its case. The learned

Special Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of remaining listed witnesses in this case, hence their evidence was closed. Hence prosecution evidence is closed.

22. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C with regard to the incriminating material appearing against the accused in the evidence of Prosecution

Witnesses to which he denied and reported no defence evidence.

23. After the completion of the trial, the learned Special Public

Prosecutor representing the State and the learned Defence Counsel appearing for the accused submitted their arguments and thereafter, the case is coming for Judgment.

24. Points for determination:-

(i). Whether the Prosecution proved that the

accused kidnapped the victim/girl child and

committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault

on the victim/girl child repeatedly.

(ii). Whether the Prosecution proved that the

accused kidnapped the victim and forcibly

committed rape on the victim repeatedly.

(iii). Whether the evidence on the record is

contrary to the presumption under Sec.29 and 30

of the POCSO Act.

25. POINT No. (i):-

(i). Whether the Prosecution proved that the

Judgment in S.C.(POCSO) No. 293 of 2021 Page No. 9 of total 14 Pages.

accused kidnapped the victim/girl child and

committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault

on the victim/girl child repeatedly.

On behalf of the Prosecution, the following witnesses were examined:

PW-1 : Foster father of victim/girl child

PW-2 : Foster mother of victim/girl child

PW-3 : Victim/girl child

PW-4 : S.Manjunath Reddy/Investigation Officer

26. The evidence of the foster father of the victim/girl child and foster mother of the victim/girl child goes to show that they do not know the accused and accused did not kidnap the victim/girl child and did not commit rape on her repeatedly. Their evidence further goes to show that they do not know the case facts.

27. The evidence of foster father of the victim/girl child further goes to show that at the request of the Police, he affixed his thumb impression on plain blank paper. He do not know the contents of the

Complaint/Ex.P-5. The evidence of the victim/girl child goes to show that she do not know the accused.

28. The evidence of the victim/girl child further goes to show that accused did not kidnap her and did not commit penetrative sexual assault on her repeatedly. Her evidence further goes to show that she do not know the case facts.

Judgment in S.C.(POCSO) No. 293 of 2021 Page No. 10 of total 14 Pages.

29. The evidence of the victim/girl child further goes to show that about three years ago, at the instance of Police, she gave statement

before Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Alampur, but she do not

remember the contents of the said statement. PW-4/S.Manjunath

Reddy, Investigation Officer, reiterated the contents of the charge sheet as such his evidence is procedural in nature.

30. As discussed above, the foster father and foster mother of the victim/girl child and victim/girl child turned hostile and failed to support the prosecution case. The evidence of the foster father and foster mother of the victim/girl child and victim/girl child is in contradiction to the evidence of PW-4/S.Manjunath Reddy.

31. The contradictory evidence is fatal to the case of prosecution. There is no evidence on the record, to show that the accused kidnapped the victim/girl child and committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the victim/girl child repeatedly.

32. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove that the accused kidnapped the victim/girl child and committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the victim/girl child repeatedly.

33. Point No.(ii):-

Whether the Prosecution proved that the

accused kidnapped the victim and forcibly

committed rape on the victim repeatedly.

Judgment in S.C.(POCSO) No. 293 of 2021 Page No. 11 of total 14 Pages.

As discussed in Point No.(i), foster father and foster mother of the victim and victim turned hostile and failed to support the prosecution case. The evidence of the foster father and foster mother of the victim and victim is in contradiction to the evidence of PW- 4/S.Manjunath Reddy. The contradictory evidence is fatal to the case of prosecution.

34. Hence, there is no evidence on the record, to show that the accused kidnapped the victim and forcibly committed rape on the victim repeatedly. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove that the accused kidnapped the victim and forcibly committed rape on the victim repeatedly. Hence, the Point No.(ii) is answered accordingly.

35. Point No.(iii):-

Whether the evidence on the record is contrary to the presumption under section 29 and 30 of the

POCSO Act.

As discussed in Points No.(i) and (ii), the prosecution, in the instant case, failed to prove that the accused committed offences under

Section 366 of IPC and under Section 5 (l) r/w section 6 of the POCSO

Act and under Section 376 (2) (n) of IPC. The foster father and foster mother of the victim/girl child and victim/girl child turned hostile and failed to support the prosecution case.

36. Furthermore, the victim/girl child deposed that she do not

Judgment in S.C.(POCSO) No. 293 of 2021 Page No. 12 of total 14 Pages.

know the accused and accused did not kidnap her and did not commit penetrative sexual assault on her repeatedly. In the circumstances of the case, when the victim/girl child fails to identify the accused and fails to depose the facts of the case, the presumptions under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act cannot be drawn.

37. Such is not the scope of presumption under sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act. Hence, the Point No. (iii) is answered accordingly.

Therefore, in the light of above discussions, I opine that the

Prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and doubt if any should be given in favour of the accused.

38. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences under Section 366 of IPC, under Section 5 (l) r/w. 6 of the POCSO Act, under Section 376 (2) (n) of IPC. Accordingly, the accused is acquitted under section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C. for the offences under Section 366 of

IPC, under Section 5 (l) r/w. 6 of the POCSO Act, under Section 376 (2)

(n) of IPC. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as per section 437-A of Cr.P.C. MO-1/MI mobile phone shall be returned to accused after expiry of appeal time. Two SIM cards shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The un-marked non- valuable case property, if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Judgment in S.C.(POCSO) No. 293 of 2021 Page No. 13 of total 14 Pages.

Typed to my dictation by Sri.S.Ashok Kumar, Senior Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 10th day of April, 2024.

I-Addl. District and Sessions Judge, FAC: Special Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court for Expeditious Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases at Gadwal.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION:

PW-1 : Foster father of victim/girl child

PW-2 : Foster mother of victim/girl child

PW-3 : Victim/girl child

PW-4 : S.Manjunath Reddy/Investigation Officer

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE::

-Nil-

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION:

: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of foster father of Dt: 08-05-2021 Ex.P-1 victim/girl child.

: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of foster mother Dt: 08-05-2021 Ex.P-2 of victim/girl child.

: Signature of portion of Victim/girl child Dt: 05-06-2021 Ex.P-3 on section 164 Cr.P.C statement.

: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of victim/girl Dt: 07-05-2021 Ex.P-4 child.

Ex.P-5 : Complaint Dt: 27-04-2021

Judgment in S.C.(POCSO) No. 293 of 2021 Page No. 14 of total 14 Pages.

Ex.P-6 : First Information Report Dt: 27-04-2021 : First Crime Details Form along with Dt: 10-05-2021 Ex.P-7 Rough Sketch

Ex.P-8 : Section Alteration Memo Dt: 07-05-2021

Ex.P-9 : Medical Examination Report Dt:07-05-2021

Ex.P-10 : Bonafide Certificate Dt:10-05-2021

Ex.P-11 : Relevant portion of Confession-cum-Dt: 10-05-2021 Seizure Panchanama

Ex.P-12 : Second Crime Details Form along with Dt: 10-05-2021 Rough Sketch

Ex.P-13 : Potency Certificate Dt: 11-05-2021

Ex.P-14 : Forensic Science Laboratory report Dt: 21-08-2021

Ex.P-15 : Final Opinion Dt: 07-09-2021

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE :

-Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED::

MO-1: MI mobile phone along with two Jio sims

I-Addl. District and Sessions Judge, FAC: Special Sessions Judge, FTSC for Expeditious Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases at Gadwal.

SC.POCSO/292/2021 Acquitted

K.T.Doddi vs Mekala Kareeppa

28 Mar 2024

Judgment in S.C.(POCSO) No.292 of 2021 Page No. 1 of total 14 Pages.

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT FOR EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL AND

DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND POCSO ACT CASES AT GADWAL

Thursday, the 28th day of March, 2024

S.C. (POCSO) No. 292 of 2021

The State representing through the Circle Name of : Inspector of Police, Gadwal Circle, Police Station Complainant K.T.Doddy.

Mekalodu @ Mekalanna @ Makalanna @ Mekala Name of Karreppa @ Harijan Makalanna @ Mekalappa @ Accused : Karreppa S/o. Harijan Kurmanna, Age: 48 Years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. H.No.2-58/1, Harijanawada, K.T.Doddi Village and Mandal.

Nature of Under section 452 of IPC and under section 5 Offence : (m) r/w. 6 of the POCSO Act, section and 376 (3) of IPC.

Plea of Accused : Pleaded not guilty

Finding of the : Found not guilty Court

Sentence / : The accused is found not guilty for the offences under section 452 of IPC and under section 5 Order

(m) r/w. 6 of the POCSO Act, section and 376 (3) of IPC. Accordingly, the accused is acquitted under section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C. for the offences

Judgment in S.C.(POCSO) No.292 of 2021 Page No. 2 of total 14 Pages.

under section 452 of IPC and under section 5

(m) r/w. 6 of the POCSO Act, section and 376 (3) of IPC. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as per section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The un-marked non-valuable case property, if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Counsel for the : Sri K.Anand Kumar, Spl. Public Prosecutor, Prosecution POCSO Court, Gadwal.

Defence Counsel : Sri.T.Manohar, Counsel for the Accused.

This Special Sessions Case is coming before me for final hearing on 20-03-2024 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 the accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till today, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This case is tried for the offences under section 452 of IPC and under section 5 (m) r/w. 6 of the POCSO Act, section and 376 (3) of

IPC against the Accused.

2.Prayer of the Prosecution:

The prayer of the prosecution is that the accused trespassed into the hut of the victim/girl child and committed penetrative sexual assault on the victim/girl child. Hence, the accused has committed

Judgment in S.C.(POCSO) No.292 of 2021 Page No. 3 of total 14 Pages.

offences punishable under sections 452, 376 (3) of IPC and Section 5

(m) r/w. 6 of the POCSO Act.

3. (The name of the victim/girl child and her family

members are not disclosed as barred under section 228 (A) of IPC

and as per the directions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case Nipun

Saxena and another Vs. Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs

vide Writ Petition (Civil) No. 565 of 2012, dated 11-12-2018,

reported in (2019) 2 SCC 703 at paragraph Nos. 11, 24 and 43).

4. The facts of the Prosecution case in a nutshell are as follows:-

The accused is neighbor of the victim/girl child’s family and he used to visit the house of the victim/girl child frequently. The victim/girl child, was aged about 9 years and she was studying IV-

Class. On 14-12-2020, during morning hours, the members of the family of the victim/girl child went to their fields and the victim/girl child was alone in their house.

5. At about 15:30 hours, on noticing that the victim/girl child was alone in their house, accused entered into the house of the victim/girl child and noticed that the victim/girl child was sleeping, and locked the doors from inside. He removed his clothes and clothes of the victim/girl child and slept on her. While assaulting the victim/girl child, she woke-up and made hue and cries and pulled the tuft of the hair of the accused.

6. The accused gagged towel in the mouth of the victim/girl

Judgment in S.C.(POCSO) No.292 of 2021 Page No. 4 of total 14 Pages.

child and sexually assaulted her. Meanwhile, the members of the family of the victim/girl child reached their hut and noticed that the door of their hut was locked from inside. They forcibly pushed the door and noticed the incident. Then the accused got-up, wore his clothes and ran away from their house.

7. Based on the complaint of the mother of the victim/girl child, A.Savaranna, Head Constable, registered a case in

Cr.No.235/2020, under Sections 452, 376 (3) of IPC and Section 5 (m) r/w. 6 of the POCSO Act and got issued First Information Report. He sent the victim/girl child to Sakhi Centre, Gadwal. On 14-12-2020,

J.Hanmanthu, Circle Inspector of Police took-up the further investigation of this case.

8. J.Hanmanthu, Circle Inspector of Police got recorded the statement of the victim/girl child through N.Rama Devi, Sub Inspector of Police. He visited the Scene of Offence i.e. hut of the victim/girl child.

He secured mediators D.Srinu and D.Shiva Krishna. In their presence, he observed first Scene of Offence and got drafted first Crime Details

Form. He seized the hair from the First Scene of Offence.

9. J.Hanmanthu, Circle Inspector of Police referred the victim/girl child to Government Hospital, Gadwal for examination.

Dr.Narmada, Civil Assistant Surgeon, examined the victim/girl child and preserved the vaginal swabs and handed over the clothes of the victim/girl child to him. He secured the mediators K.Thayamma and

Judgment in S.C.(POCSO) No.292 of 2021 Page No. 5 of total 14 Pages.

D.Yankamma and in their presence, he seized the clothes of the victim/girl child.

10. On requisition of J.Hanmanthu, Circle Inspector of Police,

K.Muralidhar, Head Master, issued Bonafide Certificate of the victim/girl child. As per the Bonafide Certificate, the date of birth of victim/girl child is 05-07-2011. He recorded the statement of

K.Muralidhar, Head Master.

11. On 15-12-2020, J.Hanmanthu, Circle Inspector of Police, arrested the accused. On interrogation, accused confessed to have committed the offence. He secured two mediators D.Kishore and

D.Venkatesh and in their presence, he got recorded the Confession- cum-seizure Panchanama of the accused. Based on the Confession- cum-Seizure Panchanama, he seized the clothes of the accused.

12. J.Hanmanthu, Circle Inspector of Police, referred the accused to Government Hospital for Potency Test and Medical

Examination. Dr.B.Chukka Parushuram, Civil Assistant Surgeon examined the accused and issued Potency Certificate. On 17-12-2020, he forwarded the seized objects to FSL for chemical analysis and report.

13. On 28-12-2020, J.Hanmanthu, Circle Inspector of Police, filed a requisition before Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Alampur to record 164 Cr.P.C Statement of the victim/girl child. Accordingly, the

Statement of the victim/girl child was recorded by Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Alampur.

Judgment in S.C.(POCSO) No.292 of 2021 Page No. 6 of total 14 Pages.

14. J.Hanmanthu, Circle Inspector of Police, filed a requisition

before I-Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar to refer the

accused to FSL, Hyderabad for extracting DNA profile and to compare the same with DNA found on the seized objects. On 16-01-2021,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Alampur conducted Test

Identification Parade of the accused with the witnesses E.Ramesh and

Maddileti.

15. On 06-02-20201, Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Alampur recorded the 164 Cr.P.C. statements of the mother of victim/girl child, victim girl child, father of the victim/girl child, elder brother of the victim/girl child and younger brother of the victim/girl child.

16. On 18-02-2021, as per the Orders of the I-Addl. District and

Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar, the accused was produced before the

FSL, Hyderabad for extracting DNA profile to compare the same with the material objects forwarded to Forensic Science Laboratory.

S.Mahabub Ali, Circle Inspector of Police took-up the further investigation of the case.

17. S.Mahabub Ali, Circle Inspector of Police received FSL report. Based on the FSL report, Dr.Narmada, Civil Assistant Surgeon issued Final Opinion. After completion of investigation he filed Charge

Sheet against the accused. Hence, the case.

18. This case was taken on file for the offences under Section 5

(m) r/w. 6 of the POCSO Act and under Section 452 and 376 (3) of IPC

Judgment in S.C.(POCSO) No.292 of 2021 Page No. 7 of total 14 Pages.

against the accused by the I-Additional District and Sessions Judge’s

Court, Mahabubnagar.

19. As per the orders of the Principal District and Sessions

Court, Mahabubnagar vide Order Dis.No.1232, dated: 09-11-2021, 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.

20. On appearance of Accused, the copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C.

21. On considering the material on record, after hearing the

Special Public Prosecutor and the Defence counsel, charges were framed under section 452 of IPC and under section 5 (m) r/w. 6 of the

POCSO Act, section and 376 (3) of IPC against the accused, read over and explained about the said charges to the accused for which the accused denied the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

22. The prosecution has examined PWs-1 to 5 and got marked

Exs.P-1 to P-14 in order to prove its case. The learned Special Public

Prosecutor has given up the evidence of remaining listed witnesses in this case, hence their evidence was closed. Hence prosecution evidence is closed.

23. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C with regard to the incriminating

Judgment in S.C.(POCSO) No.292 of 2021 Page No. 8 of total 14 Pages.

material appearing against the accused in the evidence of Prosecution

Witnesses to which he denied and reported no defence evidence.

24. After the completion of the trial, the learned Special Public

Prosecutor representing the State and the learned Defence Counsel appearing for the accused submitted their arguments and thereafter, the case is coming for Judgment.

25. Points for determination:-

(i). Whether the Prosecution proved that the

accused trespassed into the hut of the victim/girl

child, aged under 12 years and committed

penetrative sexual assault on her.

(ii). Whether the Prosecution proved that the

accused trespassed into the hut of the victim aged

under 16 years and committed rape on her.

(iii). Whether the evidence on the record is

contrary to the presumption under Sec.29 and 30

of the POCSO Act.

26. POINT No. (i):-

Whether the Prosecution proved that the accused

trespassed into the hut of the victim/girl child,

aged under 12 years and committed penetrative

sexual assault on her.

On behalf of the Prosecution, the following witnesses were examined:

PW-1 : Mother of victim/girl child

PW-2 : Father of the victim/girl child

Judgment in S.C.(POCSO) No.292 of 2021 Page No. 9 of total 14 Pages.

PW-3 : Victim/girl child

PW-4 : A.Savaranna/Investigation Officer

PW-5 : S.Mahabub Ali/Investigation Officer

27. The evidence of the mother of the victim/girl child, father of the victim/girl child goes to show that they know the accused. Accused did not trespass into their hut and did not commit sexual assault on the victim/girl child. Their evidence further goes to show that they do not know the case facts.

28. The evidence of the mother of the victim/girl child goes to show that at the request of the Police, she affixed her thumb impression on a paper. She do not know the contents of the complaint.

She further deposed that about three years ago, she gave statement

before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Alampur, but she do not

remember the contents of the Statement.

29. The evidence of the victim/girl child goes to show that she do not know the accused. Accused did not trespass into their hut and did not commit sexual assault on her. Her evidence further goes to show that she do not know the case facts. About three years ago, at the instance of Police, she gave statement before Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Alampur, but she do not remember the contents of the said

statement.

30. PW-4/A.Savaranna and Pw-5/S.Mahabub Basha reiterated

Judgment in S.C.(POCSO) No.292 of 2021 Page No. 10 of total 14 Pages.

the contents of the charge sheet as such their evidence is procedural in nature. As discussed above, the mother of the victim/girl child, father of the victim/girl child and victim/girl child turned hostile and failed to support the prosecution case. The evidence of the mother of the victim/girl child, Father of the victim/girl child and victim/girl child is in contradiction to the evidence of PW-4/A.Savaranna and Pw- 5/S.Mahabub Basha.

31. The contradictory evidence is fatal to the case of the prosecution. There is no evidence on the record, to show that the accused trespassed into the hut of the victim/girl child, aged under 12 years and committed penetrative sexual assault on her.

32. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove that the accused trespassed into the hut of the victim/girl child, aged under 12 years and committed penetrative sexual assault on her. Hence, this point No.

(i) is accordingly answered.

33. Point No.(ii):-

Whether the Prosecution proved that the accused

trespassed into the hut of the victim aged under 16

years and committed rape on her.

As discussed in Point No.(i), mother of the victim, father of the victim and victim turned hostile and failed to support the prosecution case. The evidence of the mother of the victim, father of the

Judgment in S.C.(POCSO) No.292 of 2021 Page No. 11 of total 14 Pages.

victim and victim is in contradiction to the evidence of PW- 4/A.Savaranna and Pw-5/S.Mahabub Basha. The contradictory evidence is fatal to the case of prosecution.

34. Hence, there is no evidence on the record, to show that the accused trespassed into the hut of the victim aged under 16 years and committed rape on her. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove that the accused trespassed into the hut of the victim aged under 16 years and committed rape on her. Hence, the Point No.(ii) is answered accordingly.

35. Point No.(iii):-

Whether the evidence on the record is contrary to the presumption under section 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act.

As discussed in Points No.(i) and (ii), the prosecution, in the instant case, failed to prove that the accused committed offences under section 452 of IPC and under section 5 (m) r/w. 6 of the POCSO Act, section and 376 (3) of IPC. The mother of the victim/girl child, father of the victim/girl child and victim/girl child turned hostile and failed to support the prosecution case.

36. Furthermore, the victim/girl child deposed that she do not know the accused and accused did not tress pass into their hut and did not commit sexual assault on her. In the circumstances of the case, when the victim/girl child fails to identify the accused and fails to depose the facts of the case, the presumptions under Sections 29 and

Judgment in S.C.(POCSO) No.292 of 2021 Page No. 12 of total 14 Pages.

30 of the POCSO Act cannot be drawn.

37. Such is not the scope of presumption under sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act. Hence, the Point No. (iii) is answered accordingly.

Therefore, in the light of above discussions, I opine that the

Prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and doubt if any should be given in favour of the accused.

38. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences under section 452 of IPC and under section 5 (m) r/w. 6 of the POCSO

Act, section and 376 (3) of IPC. Accordingly, the accused is acquitted under section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C. for the offences under section 452 of

IPC and under section 5 (m) r/w. 6 of the POCSO Act, section and 376 (3) of IPC. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as per section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The un-marked non- valuable case property, if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by Sri.Mohd. Irshad Ahmed, Superintendent, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 28th day of March, 2024.

I-Addl. District and Sessions Judge, FAC: Special Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court for Expeditious Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases at Gadwal.

Judgment in S.C.(POCSO) No.292 of 2021 Page No. 13 of total 14 Pages.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION:

PW-1 : Mother of victim/girl child

PW-2 : Father of victim/girl child

PW-3 : Victim/girl child

PW-4 : A.Savaranna/Investigation Officer

PW-5 : Shaik Mahabub Basha/Investigation Officer

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE:

-Nil-

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION:

: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of mother of Dt: 15-12-2020 Ex.P-1 victim/girl child.

: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of father of Dt: 15-12-2020 Ex.P-2 victim/girl child.

: Signature of victim/girl child on 164 Dt: 06-02-2021 Ex.P-3 Cr.P.C Statement : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of victim/girl Dt: 14-12-2020 Ex.P-4 child.

Ex.P-5 : Complaint Dt: 14-12-2020

Ex.P-6 : First Information Report Dt: 14-12-2020 : First Crime Details Form along with Dt: 14-12-2020 Ex.P-7 Rough Sketch

Ex.P-8 : Medical Examination Report Dt: 14-12-2020

Judgment in S.C.(POCSO) No.292 of 2021 Page No. 14 of total 14 Pages.

: Victim/girl child clothes seizure Dt: 14-12-2020 Ex.P-9 Panchanama

Ex.P-10 : Bonafide Certificate Dt: 15-12-2020

Ex.P-11 : Potency Certificate Dt: 16-12-2020

Ex.P-12 : Forensic Science Laboratory Report Dt: 20-03-2021

Ex.P-13 : Forensic Science Laboratory Report Dt: 27-07-2021

Ex.P-14 : Final Opinion Dt: 24-08-2021

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE :

-Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:

-Nil-

I-Addl. District and Sessions Judge, FAC: Special Sessions Judge, FTSC for Expeditious Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases at Gadwal.

SC.POCSO/24/2021 Acquitted

PS Alampur vs Boya Laxman Naidu

08 Apr 2024

Judgment in S.C.(POCSO) No.24 of 2021 Page No. 1 of total 11 Pages.

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT FOR EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL AND

DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND POCSO ACT CASES AT GADWAL

Monday, the 8 th day of April, 2024

S.C. (POCSO) No. 24 OF 2021

Name of : The State representing through the Circle Complainant Inspector of Police, Alampur.

Name of Boya Laxman Naidu S/o. Sri Ramulu, Age: 21 Accused : years, Occ: Car Driver, R/o. Gundimalla Village of Alampur Mandal.

Nature of : Under section 11 r/w. 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012, Offence under section 354-D and 506 of IPC against accused

Plea of Accused : Pleaded not guilty

Finding of the : Found not guilty Court

Sentence / The accused is found not guilty for the offences : under sections 11 r/w. 12 of the POCSO Act, Order 2012, under sections 354-D and 506 of IPC.

Accordingly, the accused is acquitted under section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C. for the offences under

Judgment in S.C.(POCSO) No.24 of 2021 Page No. 2 of total 11 Pages.

sections 11 r/w. 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012, under sections 354-D and 506 of IPCagainst accused. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as per section 437-

A of Cr.P.C. The un-marked non-valuable case property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Counsel for the : Sri K.Anand Kumar, Spl. Public Prosecutor, Prosecution POCSO Court, Gadwal.

Defence Counsel : U.Rajesh, Counsel for the accused

This Special Sessions Case is coming before me for final hearing on 04-04-2024 in the presence of Sri.K.Anand Kumar, Special

Public Prosecutor, POCSO Court, Gadwal for the Complainant/State and of Sri. U.Rajesh, Counsel for the accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till today, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. This case is tried under sections 11 r/w. 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012, under sections 354-D and 506 of IPC against accused.

2.Prayer of the Prosecution:

The prayer of the prosecution is that the accused followed the victim/girl child repeatedly and sexually harassed her to love him and to marry him. Accused also threatened the victim/girl child that he would not allow her to get married to any other person. Hence, the accused has committed offences punishable under sections 354-D and 506 of IPC and

Judgment in S.C.(POCSO) No.24 of 2021 Page No. 3 of total 11 Pages.

under sections 10 r/w. 11 of the POCSO Act.

(The name of the victim/girl child and her family members are not

disclosed as barred under section 228(A) of IPC and as per the

directions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case Nipun Saxena and

another Vs. Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs vide Writ

Petition (Civil) No. 565 of 2012, dated 11-12-2018, reported in (2019)

2 SCC 703 at paragraph Nos. 11, 24 and 43).

3. The facts of the Prosecution case in the nut shell are as follows:-

The victim/girl child was studying I-Year Intermediate at –

College at – Place. Few days, prior to lodging the Complaint, the accused followed the victim/girl child and harassed her to love him and to marry him. Accused also threatened the victim/girl child that he would not allow her to get married to any other person.

4. The victim/girl child informed about the harassment of the accused to her parents. The parents warned the accused to change his attitude. Upon that, the accused threatened the father of the victim/girl child with dire consequences. On 12-12-2019, at about 16:30 hours, the accused again followed the victim/girl child from her college and harassed her to marry him.

5. The victim/girl child due to fear, did not inform about the harassment of the accused to her father. On 16-12-2019 the victim/girl child lodged complaint. Based on the said complaint of victim/girl child,

S.Madhusudhan Reddy, Sub Inspector of Police, registered a case in

Judgment in S.C.(POCSO) No.24 of 2021 Page No. 4 of total 11 Pages.

Crime No. 157 of 2019 under sections 354-D, 506 of IPC and sections 10 r/w 11 of POCSO Act, 2012 and got issued FIR.

6. S.Madhusudhan Reddy, Sub Inspector of Police during the course of investigation, got recorded the statement of the father of the victim/girl child. On the next day, he proceeded to Scene of Offence i.e.

the college where the victim/girl child studied. He recorded the statements of the mother of the victim/girl child and two circumstantial witnesses.

7. S.Madhusudhan Reddy, Sub Inspector of Police secured two mediators N.Srinivasulu and T.Anjaneyulu and in their presence, he observed the Scene of Offence and got drafted Scene of Offence

Panchanama along with rough sketch. He collected the Bonafide

Certificate of the victim/girl child from the college. As per the Bonafide

Certificate, the date of birth of the victim/child is 18-01-2004 (minor).

8. On 18-12-2019, M.Madhusudhan Reddy, Sub Inspector of

Police arrested the accused. He produced the accused before the Hon’ble

Court for judicial custody. He filed a requisition before the Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Alampur to record 164 Cr.P.C statement of

victim/girl child. Accordingly, the statement of the victim/girl child was recorded.

9. After receiving the relevant documents and after completion of

Judgment in S.C.(POCSO) No.24 of 2021 Page No. 5 of total 11 Pages.

investigation, S.Madhusudhan Reddy, Sub Inspector of Police filed the charge sheet. Hence, the case.

10. This case was taken on file for the offences under sections 354-D and 506 of IPC and under sections 10 r/w. 11 of the POCSO Act against the accused by the I-Additional District and Sessions Judge’s

Court, Mahabubnagar.

11. 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 the Fast Track Special Court for Expeditious Trial and

Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act cases at Gadwal, for disposal according to law.

12. On appearance of accused, the copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C.

13. On considering the material on record, after hearing the

Special Public Prosecutor and the Defence counsel, charges were framed under section 11 r/w 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012, under section 354-D and 506 of IPC against the accused, read over and explained about the said charges to the accused for which the accused denied his charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

14. The prosecution has examined PWs-1 to 3 and got marked

Judgment in S.C.(POCSO) No.24 of 2021 Page No. 6 of total 11 Pages.

Exs.P-1 to P-6 in order to prove its case. The learned Special Public

Prosecutor has given up the evidence of remaining listed witnesses in this case, hence their evidence was closed.

15. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C with regard to the incriminating material appearing against the accused in the evidence of Prosecution

Witnesses to which he denied and reported no defence evidence.

16. After the completion of the trial, the learned Special Public

Prosecutor representing the State and the learned Defence Counsel appearing for the accused submitted their arguments and thereafter, the case is coming for Judgment.

17. Points for determination:-

(i). Whether the Prosecution proved that the accused

constantly followed the victim/girl child and

sexually harassed her and threatened her and her

father.

(ii). Whether the Prosecution proved that the

accused followed the victim/girl child and tried to

contact her to foster personal interaction repeatedly

and threatened the victim/girl child and her father.

(iii). Whether the evidence on the record is contrary

to the presumption under Sec.29 and 30 of the

POCSO Act.

Judgment in S.C.(POCSO) No.24 of 2021 Page No. 7 of total 11 Pages.

18. POINT Nos. (i):-

(i). Whether the Prosecution proved that the accused

constantly followed the victim/girl child and

sexually harassed her and threatened her and her

father.

On behalf of the Prosecution, the following witnesses were examined:

PW-1 : Father of the Victim/girl child

PW-2 : Mother of the victim/girl child

PW-3 : S.Madhusudhan Reddy/Investigating officer

19. The evidence of the father and mother of the victim/girl child goes to show that the victim/girl child is no more. They do not know the accused. Accused did not follow their daughter/victim/girl child and did not force her to love him and marry him and did not follow her repeatedly.

20. The evidence of the father of the victim/girl child and mother of the victim/girl child further goes to show that accused did not threaten the victim/girl child. They do not know the facts of the case. PW3/

S.Madhusudhan Reddy/Investigation Officer reiterated the contents of the charge sheet as such his evidence is procedural in nature.

21. As discussed above, the father of the victim/girl child and mother of the victim/girl child turned hostile and failed to support the

Judgment in S.C.(POCSO) No.24 of 2021 Page No. 8 of total 11 Pages.

prosecution case. The evidence of the father of the victim/girl child and mother of the victim/girl child is in contradiction to the evidence of PW- 3/S.Madhusudhan Reddy, Investigation Officer. The contradictory evidence is fatal to the case of prosecution.

22. There is no evidence on the record, to show that the accused constantly followed the victim/girl child and sexually harassed her and threatened her and her father. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove that the accused constantly followed the victim/girl child and sexually harassed her and threatened her and her father. Hence, this point No. (i) is accordingly answered.

23. Point No.(ii):-

Whether the Prosecution proved that the accused

followed the victim/girl child and tried to contact

her to foster personal interaction repeatedly and

threatened the victim/girl child and her father.

As discussed in Point No.(i), the father of the victim/girl child and mother of the victim/girl child turned hostile and failed to support the prosecution case. The evidence of the father of the victim/girl child and mother of the victim/girl child is in contradiction to the evidence of PW- 3/S.Madhusudhan Reddy, Investigation Officer.

24. The contradictory evidence is fatal to the case of prosecution.

There is no evidence on the record, to show that the accused followed the victim/girl child and tried to contact her to foster personal interaction

Judgment in S.C.(POCSO) No.24 of 2021 Page No. 9 of total 11 Pages.

repeatedly and threatened the victim/girl child and her father.

25. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove that the accused followed the victim/girl child and tried to contact her to foster personal interaction repeatedly and threatened the victim/girl child and her father.

Hence, the Point No.(ii) is answered accordingly.

26. Point No.(iii):-

Whether the evidence on the record is contrary to

the presumption under Sec.29 and 30 of the POCSO

Act.

As discussed in Points No.(i) and (ii), the prosecution, in the instant case, failed to prove that the accused has committed offences under section 11 r/w 12 of POCSO Act, under sections 354-D and 506 of

IPC. The father of the victim/girl child and mother of the victim/girl child clearly deposed that the accused did not follow their daughter/victim/girl child and did not force her to love him and marry him.

27. The evidence of father and mother of victim/girl child further goes to show that the accused did not threatened their daughter/victim/girl child and followed her repeatedly. Their evidence further goes to shows that they do not know the case facts. In the circumstances of the case, when the parents of the victim/girl child fails to depose the facts of the case, the presumptions under sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act cannot be drawn.

Judgment in S.C.(POCSO) No.24 of 2021 Page No. 10 of total 11 Pages.

28. Such is not the scope of presumption under sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act. Hence, the Point No. (iii) is answered accordingly.

29. Therefore, in the light of above discussion, I opine that the

Prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and doubt if any should be given in favour of the accused.

30. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences under sections 11 r/w. 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012, under sections 354-D and 506 of IPC. Accordingly, the accused is acquitted under section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C. for the offences under sections 11 r/w. 12 of the POCSO

Act, 2012, under sections 354-D and 506 of IPCagainst accused. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as per section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The un-marked non-valuable case property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by Sri.S.Ashok Kumar, Senior Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 8th day of April, 2024.

I-Addl. District and Sessions Judge, FAC: Special Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court for Expeditious Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases at Gadwal.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:

PW-1 : Father of the victim/girl child

Judgment in S.C.(POCSO) No.24 of 2021 Page No. 11 of total 11 Pages.

PW-2 : Mother the victim/girl child

PW-3 : S.Madhusudhan Reddy/Investigating Officer

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE::

-Nil-

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:

Ex.P-1 : 161 of Cr.P.C Statement of the father of dated: 16.12.2019 the victim/girl child 161 of Cr.P.C Statement of the mother of dated: 17.12.2019 Ex.P-2 : the victim/girl child

Ex.P-3 : Complaint dated: 16.12.2019

Ex.P-4 : First Information Report dated: 16.12.2019

Crime Details Form along with Rough dated: 17.12.2019 Ex.P-5 Sketch : Bonafide Certificate of the victim/girl dated: 18.12.2019 Ex.P-6 child

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE :

-Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED::

-Nil-

I-Addl. District and Sessions Judge, FAC: Special Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court for Expeditious Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases at Gadwal.

Order Record 302 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
SC.POCSO/5/2023	State of Telangana vs Chittoor Parsharam @ C.Parshu Ram	22 Apr 2024	Judgement	Acquitted
EP/50/2023	Shriram Finance limited, Gadwal Branch vs Subhakar Rao	19 Apr 2024	Order	—
EP/53/2023	Shriram Finance limited vs Munagala Thimmappa	19 Apr 2024	Order	—
EP/62/2023	Shriram Finance ltd Branch Gadwal vs Gandam Venkatesh	19 Apr 2024	Order	—
SC.POCSO/293/2021	PS Ghattu vs Vadla Tharunu	10 Apr 2024	Judgement	Acquitted
SC.POCSO/24/2021	PS Alampur vs Boya Laxman Naidu	08 Apr 2024	Judgement	Acquitted
EP/173/2022	Shriram City Union Finance Ltd., vs B. Yerra Sathyam	04 Apr 2024	Order	—
SC.POCSO/73/2022	PS Gadwal Town vs Mallikarjuna	03 Apr 2024	Judgement	Acquitted
SC.POCSO/292/2021	K.T.Doddi vs Mekala Kareeppa	28 Mar 2024	Judgement	Acquitted
SC.POCSO/165/2021	PS Gadwal Rural vs Koripati Venkatesh	26 Mar 2024	Judgement	—
MVOP/8/2023	K.Chandana vs Chandrappa	23 Mar 2024	Order	—
EP/60/2023	Shriram Finance Limited (formerly known as Shriram City union finance lts. vs T.Srinivasulu	22 Mar 2024	Order	—
EP/177/2022	Shriram City Union Finance Ltd., vs Renamma	22 Mar 2024	Order	—
EP/181/2022	Shriram City Union Finance Ltd., vs J. Satyanarayana	22 Mar 2024	Order	—
SC.POCSO/172/2022	State of Telangana through PS Gadwal Town vs Kurva Shiva @ Shiva Kumar	20 Mar 2024	Judgement	—
EP/34/2023	Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited vs Narasimhulu Goud	19 Mar 2024	Order	—
SC/160/2022	State of Telangana Through PS Gadwal Town vs Shiva Kumar@Shiva@Pagadakula Shiva Kumar	19 Mar 2024	Judgement	—
MVOP/7/2020	Bodrai Jayamma and others vs Md.Khayyum and others	16 Mar 2024	Order	—
EP/33/2023	Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited vs R Anjaneyulu	15 Mar 2024	Order	—
SC.POCSO/241/2021	PS Gadwal Rural vs Pichiguntla Nagaraju	12 Mar 2024	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/178/2021	PS KT Doddi vs Boya Suman @ Nallabothula Suman	07 Mar 2024	Judgement	—
EP/17/2023	M/s Shriam Transport Finance Company Limited vs Ravi B	01 Mar 2024	Order	—
SC.POCSO/201/2022	SHO PS Dharoor vs Polangari Vivek @ P Vivek @ Vivek	27 Feb 2024	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/27/2019	PS Ghattu, Bapuram Pakeeraiah vs Boyapandla Nagaraju	22 Feb 2024	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/306/2021	PS Ieeja vs Telugu Raju	20 Feb 2024	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/38/2023	State of Telangana of P.S.Rajoli vs Bhasodi Veeresh	16 Feb 2024	Judgement	—
EP/32/2023	Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited vs K Sudhakar	16 Feb 2024	Order	—
AS/9/2022	Nelluri Kistanna vs Balram	15 Feb 2024	Order	—
SC/158/2022	State of Telangana Through PS Undavelly vs Valluru rajashekar	14 Feb 2024	Judgement	—
EP/197/2022	Shriram City Union Finance Ltd., vs MA Saleem	09 Feb 2024	Order	—
CMA/10/2018	Abdul Rahman @ Abdul Raheem vs M.Rajashekhar	08 Feb 2024	Order	—
AS/21/2023	Kadinti Alivella vs Kadinti Yellamma	07 Feb 2024	Judgement	—
SC/199/2022	SHO,P.S.Ghattu vs Arkela Thayappa @ Pedda Thyappa	06 Feb 2024	Judgement	—
MVOP/4/2022	T.Renuka @ Renukamma vs Jagannadha C and F Services rep.by S.Srinivasa Rao	03 Feb 2024	Order	—
MVOP/43/2015	N.Harinath Reddy vs Boya Krishna	25 Jan 2024	Order	—
AS/33/2019	Gopal Govind Naik vs Pidugu Ramulu	24 Jan 2024	Order	—
OS/7/2015	Dama Maheshwar Babu vs Smt.D.Saraswathamma	24 Jan 2024	Order	—
OS/9/2023	Dama Naga Raju vs Dama Saraswathamma	24 Jan 2024	Order	—
SC.POCSO/209/2022	SHO PS Kodandapur vs Telugu Bhaskar	12 Jan 2024	Judgement	—
EP/43/2023	Shriram Finance Limited vs K.Krishnaiah	12 Jan 2024	Order	—
EP/190/2022	M/s. Shriram City Union Finance Company Limited, Gadwal vs B Raghavan	12 Jan 2024	Order	—
EP/191/2022	M/s. Shriram City Union Finance Company Limited, Gadwal vs K Deva Raju	12 Jan 2024	Order	—
SC.POCSO/30/2019	PS Dharoor Gurrala Venkateshwari vs Kandakam Narsimha	09 Jan 2024	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/203/2022	SHO PS Dharoor vs Boya Ravi @ B Ravi @ Ravi	05 Jan 2024	Judgement	—
MVOP/6/2021	Nizamuddin vs Thimmappa	30 Dec 2023	Order	—
MVOP/9/2022	Kurva Umapathi vs TATA AIG General Insurance co.Ltd.,	30 Dec 2023	Order	—
MVOP/12/2022	Vadde Savaramma vs Shaik Shapeer Basha	30 Dec 2023	Order	—
MVOP/24/2018	Gowni Jayalaxmi vs Vs	30 Dec 2023	Order	—
SC.POCSO/25/2021	PS Kodandapur vs Kurva Gopal	20 Dec 2023	Judgement	—
EP/51/2023	Shriram Finance limited vs M.Gopal Reddy	06 Dec 2023	Order	—
E.M.C/18/2023	APTS Vigilance, Mahabubnagar vs Kurva Veeresh	25 Nov 2023	Judgement	—
MVOP/41/2016	Boya Padmamma vs N.Harinatha Reddy	22 Nov 2023	Order	—
MVOP/31/2018	Smt.Manikyamma vs Vs	21 Nov 2023	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/21/2022	PS Dharoor vs Harijan Narender	17 Nov 2023	Judgement	—
EP/22/2023	Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited vs MD Shizade Begum	17 Nov 2023	Order	—
SC.NDPS/6/2023	PS Excise Alampur vs Gondi Shekar	07 Nov 2023	Judgement	—
SC.NDPS/5/2023	PS Excise Alampur vs Venkateshwarlu	03 Nov 2023	Judgement	—
ID/6/2023	K Raju vs Sandhya @ Yaswanthi	02 Nov 2023	Order	—
ID/5/2023	Byni Swamy vs Byni Narasamma	31 Oct 2023	Order	—
E.M.C/15/2023	APTS Vigilance, Mahabubnagar vs Paramesh Goud @ Edigi Parmesh Goud	31 Oct 2023	Judgement	—
E.M.C/17/2023	APTS Vigilance, Mahabubnagar vs Nallabai Bheemi Reddy @ Bheem Reddy	31 Oct 2023	Judgement	—
E.M.C/16/2023	APTS Vigilance, Mahabubnagar vs Nethanna @ Boya Nethanna	26 Oct 2023	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/89/2022	PS Shanthinagar vs Parige Ramudu @ Rami Reddy	20 Oct 2023	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/78/2021	PS KT Doddi vs Boya Mahesh @ Pujari Mahesh	17 Oct 2023	Judgement	—
EP/194/2022	Shriram City Union Finance Ltd., vs Md. Shabber	13 Oct 2023	Order	—
SC.NDPS/2/2023	State of Telangana of Excise, Alampur vs Sanjay Sahani	12 Oct 2023	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/153/2022	State of TelanganaThrough PS Shanthinagar vs Repalle Sunil	10 Oct 2023	Judgement	—
E.M.C/9/2023	State of Telangana, APTS Vigilance, Mahabubnagar vs Boya Narsappa @ Ampagala Narsappa	09 Oct 2023	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/294/2021	PS Maldakal vs Laxman @ K.Laxmanna	05 Oct 2023	Judgement	—
SC.NDPS/4/2023	PS Excise Alampur vs Krishna Goud @ E.Krishnaiah Goud	05 Oct 2023	Order	—
E.M.C/8/2023	State of Telangana, APTS Vigilance, Mahabubnagar vs T.Pedda Ranganna @ Telugu Ranganna	30 Sep 2023	Judgement	—
E.M.C/13/2023	State of Telangana, APTS Vigilance, Mahabubnagar vs Manikyam Ravi Kumar	30 Sep 2023	Judgement	—
E.M.C/10/2023	State of Telangana, APTS Vigilance, Mahabubnagar vs Kori Ramudu	29 Sep 2023	Judgement	—
E.M.C/14/2023	State of Telangana, APTS Vigilance, Mahabubnagar vs Vadla Jagadeesh	29 Sep 2023	Judgement	—
E.M.C/11/2023	State of Telangana, APTS Vigilance, Mahabubnagar vs Poosala Thimmappa	27 Sep 2023	Judgement	—
E.M.C/12/2023	State of Telangana, APTS Vigilance, Mahabubnagar vs Rameshwar Reddy @ Palle Rameshwar Reddy	27 Sep 2023	Judgement	—
SC/172/2022	State of Telangana vs Dasari Venkatesh @ Venkatigadu	26 Sep 2023	Judgement	—
SC/154/2022	State of Telangana Through PS,K.T Doddy vs Boya Thimmappa	25 Sep 2023	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/175/2020	PS Gadwal Town vs Nasir	20 Sep 2023	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/305/2020	Maldakal vs D.Bhaskar	20 Sep 2023	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/186/2022	P.S. Gadwal Town vs Boya Nagaraju	14 Sep 2023	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/291/2021	PS Dharoor vs Kavali Anjaneyulu @ Anji	12 Sep 2023	Judgement	—
AS/4/2023	Shakeela Begum vs G Ramalingappa	09 Sep 2023	Order	—
MVOP/29/2019	K.Srinivasulu vs Telugu Eedhanna	09 Sep 2023	Order	—
CRLA/9/2023	U.Sridevi vs P.Rajini	09 Sep 2023	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/211/2021	PS Gadwal Town vs Vojagone Akhil Goud	06 Sep 2023	Judgement	—
ID/4/2023	V Meena vs Nil	05 Sep 2023	Judgement	—
ID/5/2022	D Deva Raju @ D Srinu vs Nil	05 Sep 2023	Judgement	—
EP/183/2022	Shriram City Union Finance Ltd., vs G. Narayana	31 Aug 2023	Order	—
SC.NDPS/48/2022	PS Ghattu vs Urbai Narsimhulu	31 Aug 2023	Judgement	—
SC.NDPS/42/2022	PS Ghattu vs Boya Urukundu	30 Aug 2023	Judgement	—
CRLRP/3/2022	N.Pandu vs V.Raghavendra Chary	29 Aug 2023	Order	—
SC.NDPS/2/2022	G.B.V.Ramana, SI of Police, Rajoli, PS Manopad vs Ediga Amaresh Goud	29 Aug 2023	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/16/2021	PS Alampur vs Pinjari Khaleel @ Khaleel Basha	18 Aug 2023	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/252/2020	PS Ghattu vs Gattu Chandrasekhar @ Chandrappa	18 Aug 2023	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/339/2021	PS Ieeja vs Ponna Chandrashekar Shekar	14 Aug 2023	Judgement	—
EP/8/2023	M/s. Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited, Gadwal vs Agraram Venkatesh	11 Aug 2023	Order	—
SC.NDPS/47/2022	PS Itikyala vs Kurva Ramudu @ Anumula Ramudu	11 Aug 2023	Judgement	—
SC.POCSO/249/2020	PS Jogulamba Gadwal vs Devarapogu Shashi Kumar	10 Aug 2023	Judgement	—
SC.NDPS/1/2023	State of Telangana vs Ramakkalabai Ramakrishna	09 Aug 2023	Judgement	—

Showing 100 of 302 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Apr 2024		8
Mar 2024		14
Feb 2024		12
Jan 2024		10
Dec 2023		6
Nov 2023		8
Oct 2023		12
Sep 2023		18
Aug 2023		16
Jul 2023		17
Jun 2023		27
May 2023		10

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Smt.P.Annie Rose Christian handled?

Smt.P.Annie Rose Christian has handled 302 court orders since 2022 at Jogulamba Gadwal, PDJ Court Complex. The average disposal rate is 22 orders per month.

What types of cases does Smt.P.Annie Rose Christian hear?

Based on available records, Smt.P.Annie Rose Christian primarily handles Criminal matters (Sessions Cases) and Civil matters (Execution Petitions, Appeal Suits) and Motor Accident matters (Motor Accident Claims) at Jogulamba Gadwal, PDJ Court Complex.

Where is Smt.P.Annie Rose Christian currently posted?

Smt.P.Annie Rose Christian is posted as Principal District and Sessions Judge Gadwal at Jogulamba Gadwal, PDJ Court Complex, Jogulamba Gadwal, Telangana.

Are judgments by Smt.P.Annie Rose Christian available online?

Yes. 15 judgments by Smt.P.Annie Rose Christian are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Smt.P.Annie Rose Christian dispose cases?

Smt.P.Annie Rose Christian disposes approximately 22 cases per month, based on 302 orders handled over their tenure at Jogulamba Gadwal, PDJ Court Complex.

Since when is Smt.P.Annie Rose Christian serving?

Smt.P.Annie Rose Christian has been serving at Jogulamba Gadwal, PDJ Court Complex since 2022.

Case Types

SC 59%

E 18%

EP 15%

MVOP 4%

AS 2%

ID 1%

CRLRP 1%

G 1%

Posting History

Apr 2023 — Jul 2023

Principal District and Sessions Judge Gadwal · 11 orders
Jun 2022 — Apr 2024

I Additional District and Sessions Judge Gadwal · 191 orders
May 2022 — Apr 2024

Fast Track Special Court for Rape and POCSO Act cases,Gadwal · 100 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 5

Other Judges at this Court

S.ravi Kumar

Principal District and Sessions Judge Gadwal

12 orders

Vodela Srinivas

Fast Track Special Court for Rape and POCSO Act ca...

52 orders

Mr. Venkatesh Durva

Prl. Junior Civil Judges Court, Gadwal

0 orders

Sri. A.Nagaraju

Principal Senior Civil Judge cum Assistant Session...

0 orders

Smt.T Lakshmi

Additional Senior Civil Judge cum Additional Assis...

205 orders

← View all judges at Jogulamba Gadwal, PDJ Court Complex