Smt P Lakshmi Sarada

1 of 19

FAIR POCSO.SC No.172 of 2019

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE FOR FAST TRACK COURT FOR

EXPEDITIOUS DISPOSAL OF CASES OF RAPE AND PROTECTION OF

CHILD FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES (POSCO) ACT AT MEDAK

PRESENT: SMT. P. LAKSHMI SARADA,

Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Medak.

FAC - Spl. Judge, Fast Track Special Court for Expeditious Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases At Medak.

Monday, 10th day of March, 2025

POCSO. SC. No. 172 of 2019

Crime No. & Police Station.Crime No.10 of 2018 of P.S. Chegunta Description of Accused.Chalimeda Suresh S/o Balnarsaiah, Aged about 35 Years, SC Madiga caste, Occupation Agriculture, R/o Chittojipally Village, Chegunta Mandal, Medak District. Charge/sUnder Sections 354(A)(B) I.P.C. Section 12 of The POCSO Act, 2012. Plea of the accusedPleaded not guilty. Finding of the Court In the result: The accused is found GUILTY for the offences punishable U/Secs. 354(B) of I.P.C. and Sec.12 of The POCSO Act, 2012 and accordingly, he is CONVICTED under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C. Prosecution conducted bySri P. Raj Kumar, I/c Additional Public Prosecutor. Accused defended bySri. Akula Srinivas, Advocate for the Accused.

Date of Offence20.01.2018

Date of First Information Report 21.01.2018

Date of charge-sheet27.03.2018

Date of framing charge(s)09.02.2023

Date of commencement of evidence09.08.2024

Date on which Judgment is reserved29.01.2025 2 of 19

FAIR POCSO.SC No.172 of 2019

Date of Judgment10.03.2025

Date of sentencing Order, if any10.03.2025

ACCUSED DETAILS

RankName of Date Date OffencesWhetherSentence imposedPeriod Acquittedof of thethe of of charged detentio or AccuAccusedArrestRelewith n Convicted sedase underg one on during Bailtrial for purpos e of section 428 Cr.P.C. SoleChalimeda25.0101.03U/Sec.ConvictedThe Accused is sentenced to undergo36 U/Sec. Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of (3) years Suresh.2018.2018354(A),days for the offence U/s 12 of The POCSO Act and he (B)235(2) shall pay a Fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten I.P.C.,Cr.P.C. thousand only), and in default of payment of Fine, and he shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of Six months. Section The Accused is further sentenced to undergo 12of Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of (5) years The for the offence U/s 354-B of I.P.C. and he shall POCSOpay a Fine of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand only), and in default of payment of Fine, Act, he shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a 2012. period of One year. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. The remand period shall be set off U/s 428 of Cr.P.C. The total Fine amount of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand only) on deposit shall be given to the victim. The accused is also informed his right to appeal against the Judgment before Hon’ble High Court. The accused is further informed his right for free legal aid in the event of he is not having capacity to engage Advocate for preferring appeal.

This case is coming up for final hearing in the presence of Sri P.Raj- Kumar, in-charge Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and that of Sri Akula Srinivas, Advocate for the Accused, upon perusing the material on record and upon hearing the arguments, the Court delivered the following:-

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

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Chegunta Police Station has filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.10 of 2018 for the offence 3 of 19

FAIR POCSO.SC No.172 of 2019

punishable under Sections 354(A), (B) I.P.C., and Section 12 of The

POCSO Act, 2012.

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that;

(a) On 21.01.2018 at 02.00 hours, the LW1/Smt.Arutla Prameela

W/o Bixapathi came to Police Station and lodged a petition stating that on 20.01.2018 at 17:30 hours she along with her daughter X (name not to be revealed), aged 15 years who is mentally ill were in the house, meantime

Chelmeda Suresh S/o Balnarsaiah came to her house and forcibly caught hold her daughter hand to fulfill his sexual desires and beat her with hands and when she came out of house he ran away from the scene and thus requested to take necessary legal action against him.

(b) Based on the above said complaint, LW11/K.Satyanarayana, Sub

Inspector of Police, PS Chegunta registered a case in Cr.No.10 of 2018, for the offence under Sections 354(A), (B) I.P.C., and Section 12 of The

POCSO Act, 2012 and investigated into it. During the course of investigation, LW11 examined the defacto complainant and victim-girl, recorded their statement, visited scene of offence at victim-girl house situated at Chittojipally village examined and recorded the statements of

LWs 3 and 4/Arutla Bixapathi, Arutla Kistamma respectively, secured the presence of LWs 5 and 6/Arutla Ganda Swamy and Madigela Bixapathi respectively, conducted scene of offence panchanama in their presence.

4 of 19

FAIR POCSO.SC No.172 of 2019

(c) During further course of investigation on requisition LW8/Incharge head Master of UPS Chittojipally was issued Bonafide Certificate and Age

Certificate of the victim-girl. As per the certificate, date of birth of victim was 09.11.2002, thus victim was minor. On requisition LW7/Woman Sub

Inspector of Police, Sangareddy visited the house of victim-girl and recorded her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. On requisition, the

Spl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, (Mobile), Medak recorded statement of lvictim U/s 164 Cr.P.C. On 25.01.2018 at 10:00 hours apprehended the accused and on interrogation he admitted his guilt.

(d) After receiving all the documents and after completion of investigation, LW.11 filed charge sheet against the accused, alleging that accused has committed the offences and he is liable for punishment for the offences under Sections 354(A), (B) I.P.C., and Section 12 of The POCSO

Act, 2012. Hence, the charge.

3.Cognizance is taken for the offences punishable under Sections 354(A), (B) I.P.C., and Section 12 of The POCSO Act, 2012 against the accused.

4.On appearance of the Accused, copies of the charge sheet and other connected documents were furnished to him under Section 207

Cr.P.C. The case is made over to this court for trial and disposal.

5 of 19

FAIR POCSO.SC No.172 of 2019

5.On appearance of Accused, and after hearing the learned I/c Addl.

Public Prosecutor representing the State and after hearing the learned defense counsel, upon considering all the material placed by prosecution, charge under Sections 354(A), (B) I.P.C., and Section 12 of The POCSO

Act, 2012, have been framed against Accused, read over and explained the same to the accused under Section 228(2) Cr.P.C. After having understood the gist, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

The Accused is defended by learned Defence counsel.

6. In order to bring home the guilt of the Accused for the offence punishable under Sections 354(A), (B) I.P.C., and Section 12 of The

POCSO Act, 2012, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P1 to P8 on prosecution side. No defence witnesses are examined and no exhibits are marked on behalf of the defence.

7.After closure of the prosecution evidence, Accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating material found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. He denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard the learned public prosecutor represented by State and the learned defence counsel appearing for the Accused.

6 of 19

FAIR POCSO.SC No.172 of 2019

9.Now, the following point that arise for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the Accused for the offence punishable under Sections 354(A), (B) I.P.C., and Section 12 of The POCSO Act, 2012, and whether the accused is guilty for culpable state of mind and liable for punishment for the said offences?

10.POINT:-

The charges framed against the accused are that on 20.01.2018 at 17:30 hours the accused sexually assaulted on the victim minor girl who was suffering from mental ill-health by birth, at Chittojipally village at her house, by forcibly holding her hand and demanding to fulfill his sexual desires and beating her and thus committed offences punishable U/s 354(A), (B) I.P.C. and section 12 of POCSO Act.

11.The case of the prosecution as unfold by prosecution witnesses is that PW2 is victim girl. She was unable to say her age. As per the observation of the court PW2 appeared to be of mild intelligent with mild understanding capacity and was talking very slowly. Her evidence was recorded in question and answer form. When she was asked as to what happened, she deposed that she was cleaning utensils at the backyard of her house on one day and Suresh (the accused) came there and held her hand and made some gestures and asked her to come. As she did not go near to him he slapped on her cheek. Her parents and Kistamma came there on which he ran away from that place. He also asked her to remove 7 of 19

FAIR POCSO.SC No.172 of 2019

her clothes and lay-down. Like this he committed similar acts for four times asking her to remove clothes and holding her hand. At present he is not coming to her. Police asked her and she gave the same statement and one

Judge Madam also recorded her statement. She further deposed that she

is married and living with her husband at her mother’s house and looking after buffaloes.

12.PW1 is the mother of victim-girl and complainant, her evidence reveals that when PW2 was minor and they were at their house, PW1 was attending at kitchen and PW2 was clearing utensils, the accused entered their house on the pretext of cutting leaves of a tree at their house with a sickle and went to her daughter and asked her to sleep with him. On hearing noises PW1 raised her voice and asked as to what he was doing and accused ran away from that place. One Kistamma witnessed the incident. Her daughter was mild intelligent and at that time she was studying fourth class. PW1 lodged complaint on the next day. Her husband is died.

13. PW3 is the said Kistamma as per her evidence she knew PWs 1 and 2 and the accused and they are all residents of Chittojipally. She does not know anything and she was not examined by Police.

14.PW7 is the Investigating Officer as per his evidence he received complaint from PW1 on 21.01.2018 at 2 AM and registered the case, he 8 of 19

FAIR POCSO.SC No.172 of 2019

has recorded the statements of PWs 1 and 2 at Police Station, at 7 AM on that day he visited the crime scene which is the house of one Arutla

Bixapathi in which PWs 1 and 2 were residing, and conducted scene of offence panchanama. He collected the age certificate of the victim, issued 41-A Cr.P.C. Notice to the accused. The statement of victim-girl was recorded by woman Sub Inspector of Police and Judicial First Class

Magistrate, Spl. Mobile Court, Medak. He has arrested the accused on

25.01.2018 and he filed charge-sheet after completion of investigation.

(a) His evidence further reveals that the incident took place in the evening hours of the previous day and the complaint was lodged at 2 AM.

PW1 did not mention in the complaint that PW2 was cleaning utensils. She did not also state that accused also brought a sickle with him. PW2 did not state that accused demanded her to remove her clothes. He did not obtain the signatures of panch witnesses on scene of offence panchanama filed in the court. Another case is pending against the accused in SC 50 of 2020 and the scene of offence in both the cases are one and the same. Rough sketch was filed in both the cases. The crime scene in the present case is backyard of the house and the crime scene in another case is within the house.

15.PWs 4 and 5 are examined as panch witnesses, their evidence reveals that Police did not conduct any panchanama, but their signatures 9 of 19

FAIR POCSO.SC No.172 of 2019

were obtained at Grampanchayath office about six years ago. Both the witnesses identified their signatures on rough sketch.

16.PW6 is secondary grade teacher in MPPS Dongala Dharmaram,

Ramayampet Mandal. He worked in MP UPS Chittojipally and was

Incharge Head Master on 23.01.2018. As per his evidence he has issued

Bonafide Certificate of victim-girl. As per their school records victim studied from 1st class to 7th class from 2007-08 to 2015-16. As per their records her date of birth was 09.11.2002. His evidence further reveals that the record in Anganwadi school will be taken as basis for the date of birth of any student if Aadhar card is not available. In the connected case also he has prepared the Bonafide Certificate of the same victim-girl and it was signed by the Head Master of the school.

17.The cross-examination of PWs 1 and 2 was done subsequently in which PW1 deposed that their lands and lands of accused are situated at one place and there are disputes in respect of the land and in that regard they went to Police Station. On the instructions of Police she gave her earlier evidence that accused mis-behaved with her daughter, but accused did not do anything to her daughter. PW2 deposed during cross examination that the accused dragged her by holding her hand and that accused did not come to their house at any time and he did not speak 10 of 19

FAIR POCSO.SC No.172 of 2019

anything to her and during re-examination she deposed that accused dragged her by holding her hand.

18.Ex.P1 is the complaint said to have been lodged by PW1. It was stated in the complaint that on 20.01.2020 evening at 5:30 PM the accused came to the vacant place of their backyard of the house and PW1 went into kitchen room and PW2 was in front of the kitchen room and accused dragged her with hand and asked her to sleep with him and slapped on her cheek. Immediately PW1 went to her daughter and accused ran away from that place. As per the rough sketch under Ex.P8 a door towards backyard was shown to the house and the kitchen room of PW1 and vacant place was shown, which is exact crime scene.

19.The Spl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mobile Court, Medak has recorded the statement of victim-girl under Sec. 164 Cr.P.C., which forms part of this record. As per the said statement U/s 164 Cr.P.C. it was recorded on 23.03.2018. It was mentioned that PW2 was cleaning utensils and accused came there and asked her to come into bath room and offered to give amount, she thought to beat him with broom stick and her mother came there and beat the accused and Police came and took him away.

20.During the chief examination of PWs 1 and 2 they have categorically deposed that when PW2 was cleaning utensils at the backyard the 11 of 19

FAIR POCSO.SC No.172 of 2019

accused came and held the hand of PW2 and asked her with abusive gestures and asked her to remove her dress and lay down. The evidence of PWs 1 and 2 when read together with these documents they are all corroborating with each other and inspires the confidence of the court in respect of the incident. There are ssome minor discrepancies which do not affect their evidence about the acts of the accused.

21.In the case of Selvamani Vs. The state represented by Inspector

of Police in Crl.Appeal No. 906 of 2023 – Neutral citation 2024 INSC

393 Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that “ on account of long gap between the examination in chief and cross-examination, the witnesses were won over by the accused and they resiled from the version as deposed in the examination in chief, which fully incriminates the accused.

However, when the evidence of victim as well as her mother and Aunt is tested with the FIR, the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and the medical expert, we find that there is sufficient corroboration with the version given by prosecutrix in her examination in chief ”. Hon’ble Supreme

Court relied upon the Judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajesh Yadav

and another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh – (2022) 12 SCC 200 – 2022

INSC 148 and C.Muniyappan & others Vs. State of Tamilnadu – (2010)

9 SCC 567 – 2010 INSC 553.

12 of 19

FAIR POCSO.SC No.172 of 2019

22.In the case of Rajesh Yadav, Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that a witness may depose in favour of a party in whose favour it is meant to be giving through his chief examination, while later on, change his view in favour of the opposite side….. with respect to this category the court is not denuded of its power to make an appropriate assessment of the evidence rendered by such a witness. Even a chief examination could be termed as evidence. Such evidence would become complete after the cross examination. Once evidence is completed the said testimony as a whole is meant for the court to assess and appreciate qua a fact. In a situation where the chief examination was completed and there are circumstances indicating the reasons behind the subsequent statement which could be deciphered by the court…… the evidence of such witnesses cannot be treated as effaced or washed out the record all together but the same can be accepted to the extent their version is found to be dependable on a careful scrutiny.

23.In the case of Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Punjab – (2015) 3 SCC 220 – 2014 INSC 670 Hon’ble Apex Court observed that “ it is settled in law that the testimony of a hostile witness can be relied upon by the prosecution as well as defence. In the re-examination by the Public

Prosecutor, PW7 has accepted about the correctness of his statement in the court on 13.09.1999. He has also accepted that he had not made any 13 of 19

FAIR POCSO.SC No.172 of 2019

complaint to the Presiding Officer of the court that the Inspector was threatening him to make a false statement in the court. …. Reading the evidence in entirety, the evidence of PW7 cannot be brushed a-side. The delay in cross-examination has resulted in his prevarication from the examination in-chief. But a significant one, his examination in chief and the re-examination impels us to accept the testimony ” .

24.Following the guidelines of Hon’ble Apex Court in the above cases, when the facts of the present case are considered, it reveals that PWs 1 and 2 were examined in chief on 09.08.2024 and on the pretext of boycott of Advocates the counsel did not cross-examine the witnesses and again on petition by the accused, cross-examination of PWs 1 and 2 was permitted and recorded on 25.09.2024. At that time, during cross- examination PWs 1 and 2 deposed that accused did nothing to PW2.

However, during the re-examination by the learned APP, PW2 the victim deposed that accused dragged her and it is a true fact.

25.Considering these circumstances, it proves that the gap between chief examination and cross-examination has led the witnesses i.e. PWs 1 and 2 to change their version. However, PW2 who was the victim deposed in re-examination that it was a fact that accused dragged her. In these circumstances, the chief examination of PWs 1 and 2 is completely 14 of 19

FAIR POCSO.SC No.172 of 2019

corroborating with the FIR, 164 Cr.P.C statement of the victim and thus inspires the confidence of the court about the incident. The cross- examination of PWs 1 and 2 do not in any way shatter the evidence of

PWs 1 and 2 deposed in their chief examination and corroborated with the

FIR and 164 Cr.P.C. statement.

26.The evidence of Investigating Officer i.e. PW7 categorically proves that the accused committed similar acts for which another case in SC 50 of 2020 has been registered and pending, which is also taken up along with the present case for Judgment. PW2, the victim also deposed that the accused did similar acts with her like that four times, which proves the same.

27.As such all the above evidence categorically proves the acts of the accused in misbehaving with the victim-girl with sexual desires. As per

Section 30 of The POCSO Act, the culpable mental state of the accused is proved and no rebuttal evidence produced to disprove it. The evidence of

PW6 and Ex.P5 Bonafide Certificate categorically prove that victim was minor girl, aged about 15 years by the date of incident and was of mild intelligent. As such it is proved that the accused committed sexual harassment upon the minor victim-girl and liable for punishment.

15 of 19

FAIR POCSO.SC No.172 of 2019

28.It is proved that the accused assaulted the victim-girl by slapping her and compelled her to remove her clothes, attracting punishment under

Section 354-B I.P.C.

29.As per Section 42 of The POCSO Act where an act constitutes an offence under the POCSO Act and also under different sections of IPC (including Section 354-A I.P.C.), then the offender who found guilty for such offence shall be liable to punishment under POCSO Act or under

I.P.C. which provides for punishment which is greater in degree.

30.In the present case the acts committed by the accused in this case attracts Section 354-A I.P.C. and also Section 12 of The POCSO Act and the punishment under Section 12 of The POCSO Act is greater in degree, when compared with Section 354-A I.P.C. As such, the accused is liable for punishment under Section 12 of The POCSO Act.

31.In the result, Accused is found GUILTY for the offences punishable

U/Section 12 of The POCSO Act, and U/Sections 354-B of I.P.C. and accordingly, he is CONVICTED U/s 235(2) Cr.P.C. for the said offences.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, Gr.I, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 10 th day of March, 2025.

Prl. Sessions Judge, Medak, FAC:: Spl. Judge, Fast Track Special Court for expeditious trial and disposal of expeditious trial and disposal of Rape & POCSO Act cases at Medak.

16 of 19

FAIR POCSO.SC No.172 of 2019

Date: 10 th March, 2025:

32.The accused is questioned about the quantum of sentence.

He stated that he has wife and three children and they are depended on him and pleaded for mercy. Considering the acts of the accused on minor girl, who is mentally ill, no lenient view can be taken for the accused in imposing punishment.

33.Hence the following sentence is passed.

The Accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of (3) years for the offence U/s 12 of The POCSO Act and he shall pay a Fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only), and in default of payment of Fine, he shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of Six months.

The Accused is further sentenced to undergo Rigorous

Imprisonment for a period of (5) years for the offence U/s 354-B of I.P.C.

and he shall pay a Fine of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand only), and in default of payment of Fine, he shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of One year.

Both the sentences shall run concurrently. The remand period shall be set off U/s 428 of Cr.P.C.

17 of 19

FAIR POCSO.SC No.172 of 2019

The total Fine amount of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand only) on deposit, shall be given to the victim.

The accused is also informed his right to appeal against the

Judgment before Hon’ble High Court.

The accused is further informed his right for free legal aid in the event of his not having capacity to engage Advocate for preferring appeal.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, Gr.I, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 10 th day of March, 2025.

Prl. Sessions Judge, Medak, FAC:: Spl. Judge, Fast Track Special Court for expeditious trial and disposal of expeditious trial and disposal of Rape & POCSO Act cases at Medak.

List of Prosecution/Defence/Court Witnesses A. Prosecution:

RANK NAME Nature of evidence

(Eye witness, Police witness, Expert witness, medical witness, panch witness, other witness) PW.1Smt.Arutla PrameelaDe-facto complainant/Mother of Victim girl PW.2“X”Victim girl. PW.3Smt.Arutla KistammaEye witness PW.4Arutla Ganda SwamyPanch Witness for Scene of offence panchanama PW.5Madigela BixpathiPanch Witness for Scene of offence panchanama PW.6Arugonda madhusudhan,Issued Bonafide/Age certificate of victim I/c Head Master PW.7K. Satyanarayana, SI of Investigating Officer 18 of 19

FAIR POCSO.SC No.172 of 2019

Police B. Defence Witnesses, if any:

RANK NAME Nature of evidence (Eye witness, Police witness, Expert witness, medical witness, panch witness, other witness) - no -- no --no-

C. Court witnesses, if any:

RANK NAME Nature of evidence

(Eye witness, Police witness, Expert witness, medical witness, panch witness, other witness) - no -- no --no-

LIST OF PROSECUTION/DEFENCE/COURT EXHIBITS:

A. Prosecution:

Sl.No. Exhibit Number Description 1Ex.P1/PW1Complaint 2Ex.P2/PW3161 Cr.P.C., Statement of PW3. 3Ex.P3/PW4Signature of PW4 on rough sketch 4Ex.P4/PW5Signature of PW5 on rough sketch 5Ex.P5/PW6Bonafide Certificate 6Ex.P6/PW7First Information Report 7Ex.P7/PW7Scene of offence panchanama 8Ex.P8/PW7Rough sketch

B. Defence:

Sl.No. Exhibit Number Description - nil -- nil -- nil - 19 of 19

FAIR POCSO.SC No.172 of 2019

C. Court Exhibits:

Sl.No. Exhibit Number Description - nil -- nil -- nil -

D. Material Objects:

Sl.No. Material Object Description - nil -- nil -- nil -

PRL. SESSIONS JUDGE, MEDAK

FAC - Spl. Judge, Fast Track Special Court for expeditious trial and disposal Rape & POCSO Act cases, Medak.

1 of 18

FAIR POCSO.SC No.50 of 2020

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE FOR FAST TRACK COURT FOR

EXPEDITIOUS DISPOSAL OF CASES OF RAPE AND PROTECTION OF

CHILD FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES (POSCO) ACT AT MEDAK

PRESENT: SMT. P. LAKSHMI SARADA,

Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Medak.

FAC - Spl. Judge, Fast Track Special Court for Expeditious Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases At Medak.

Monday, 10th day of March, 2025

POCSO. SC. No. 50 of 2020

Crime No. & Police Station.Crime No.137 of 2019 of P.S. Chegunta Description of Accused.Chalimeda Suresh S/o Balnarsaiah, Aged about 36 Years, SC Madiga caste, Occupation Agriculture, R/o Chittojipally Village, Chegunta Mandal, Medak District. Charge/sUnder Sections 354(D) IPC, Section 12 of The POCSO Act, 2012. Plea of the accusedPleaded not guilty. Finding of the Court In the result: The accused is found GUILTY for the offences punishable U/Secs. 12 of The POCSO Act, 2012, Secs. 354-D I.P.C. and accordingly, he is CONVICTED under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C. Prosecution conducted bySri P. Raj Kumar, I/c Additional Public Prosecutor. Accused defended bySri. Akula Srinivas, Advocate for the Accused.

Date of Offence17.08.2019

Date of First Information Report 20.08.2019

Date of charge-sheet31.12.2019

Date of framing charge(s)09.02.2023

Date of commencement of evidence09.08.2024 2 of 18

FAIR POCSO.SC No.50 of 2020

Date on which Judgment is reserved29.01.2025

Date of Judgment10.03.2025

Date of sentencing Order, if any10.03.2025

ACCUSED DETAILS

RankName of Date Date OffencesWhethSentence imposedPeriod of of thethe of of chargeder detentio AccuAccusedArrestRelewithAcquitte n d sedase underg or one on during Convicte Bailtrial for d purpos e of section 428 Cr.P.C. SoleChalimeda30.0825.09U/Sec.ConvictedThe Accused is sentenced to undergo27 U/Sec.Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of (3) years Suresh.2019.2019354(D)days for the offence U/s 12 of The POCSO Act and he 235(2) I.P.C., shall pay a Fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten and Cr.P.C thousand only), and in default of payment of Fine, Sectionhe shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of Six months. 12of The Accused is further sentenced to undergo The Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of (5) years POCSO for the offence U/s 354-D of I.P.C. and he shall Act,pay a Fine of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand only), and in default of payment of Fine, 2012. he shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of One year. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. The remand period shall be set off U/s 428 of Cr.P.C. The total Fine amount of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand only) on deposit shall be given to the victim. The accused is also informed his right to appeal against the Judgment before Hon’ble High Court. The accused is further informed his right for free legal aid in the event of he is not having capacity to engage Advocate for preferring appeal.

This case is coming up for final hearing in the presence of Sri P.Raj- Kumar, In-charge Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and that of Sri Akula Srinivas, Advocate for the Accused, upon perusing the material on record and upon hearing the arguments, the Court delivered the following:-

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

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Chegunta Police Station has filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.137 of 2019 for the offence 3 of 18

FAIR POCSO.SC No.50 of 2020

punishable under Sections 354(D) I.P.C., and Section 12 of The POCSO

Act, 2012.

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that;

(a) On 20.08.2019 at 17.30 hours, the LW1/Smt.Arutla Prameela

W/o Bixapathi came to Police Station and lodged a petition stating that on 17.08.2019 at 13:00 hours she along with her daughter X (name not to be revealed), aged 16 years who is mentally ill (dumb) were in the house, meantime Chelmeda Suresh S/o Balnarsaiah came to the front side of her house and called her daughter outside and made signals misbehaving with her daughter and when she came out of house he ran away from the scene and thus requested to take necessary legal action against him.

(b) Based on the above said complaint, LW12/K.Satyanarayana, Sub

Inspector of Police, PS Chegunta registered a case in Cr.No.137 of 2019, for the offence under Sections 354(D) I.P.C., and Section 12 of The

POCSO Act, 2012 and investigated into it. During the course of investigation, LW12 examined the defacto complainant and victim-girl, recorded their statement, visited scene of offence at victim-girl house situated at Chittojipally village examined and recorded the statements of

LWs 3 and 4/Arutla Venkataswamy, Thalari Chinna Bhushanam respectively, secured the presence of LWs 6 and 7/Madigela Bixapathi and 4 of 18

FAIR POCSO.SC No.50 of 2020

Arutla Mallesham respectively, conducted scene of offence panchanama in their presence.

(c) During further course of investigation on requisition LW8/Woman

Sub Inspector of Police, Sangareddy visited the house of victim-girl and recorded her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and on requisition

LW9/Incharge head Master of UPS Chittojipally was issued Bonafide

Certificate and Age Certificate of the victim-girl. As per the certificate, date of birth of victim was 09.11.2002, thus she was minor. On 30.08.2019 at 14:00 hours apprehended the accused and on interrogation he admitted his guilt.

(d) During further course of investigation on requisition

LW11/Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gajwel recorded the statement of victim-girl under Section 164 Cr.P.C. under videograph by LW10/

Pulimamidi Arun, Videographer.

(e) After receiving all the documents and after completion of investigation, LW.13/Sub Inspector of Police, Chegunta Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused, alleging that accused has committed the offences and he is liable for punishment for the offences under

Sections 354(D) I.P.C., and Section 12 of The POCSO Act, 2012. Hence, the charge.

5 of 18

FAIR POCSO.SC No.50 of 2020

3.Cognizance is taken for the offences punishable under Sections 354(D) I.P.C., and Section 12 of The POCSO Act, 2012 against the accused.

4.On appearance of the Accused, copies of the charge sheet and other connected documents were furnished to him under Section 207

Cr.P.C. The case is made over to this court for trial and disposal.

5.On appearance of Accused, and after hearing the learned I/c Addl.

Public Prosecutor representing the State and after hearing the learned defense counsel, upon considering all the material placed by prosecution, charge under Sections 354(D) I.P.C., and Section 12 of The POCSO Act, 2012, have been framed against Accused, read over and explained the same to the accused under Section 228(2) Cr.P.C. After having understood the gist, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The

Accused is defended by learned Defence counsel.

6. In order to bring home the guilt of the Accused for the offence punishable under Section 354(D) I.P.C., and Section 12 of The POCSO

Act, 2012, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 6 and got marked

Exs.P1 to P10 on prosecution side. No defence witnesses are examined and no exhibits are marked on behalf of the defence.

7.After closure of the prosecution evidence, Accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating material found in 6 of 18

FAIR POCSO.SC No.50 of 2020

the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. He denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard the learned public prosecutor represented by State and the learned defence counsel appearing for the Accused.

9.Now, the following point that arise for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the Accused for the offence punishable under Sections 354(D) I.P.C., and Section 12 of The POCSO Act, 2012, and whether the accused is guilty for culpable state of mind and liable for punishment for the said offences?

10.POINT:- The charges framed against the accused are that on 17.08.2019 at 13:00 hours the accused sexually harassed the victim minor girl who was suffering from mental ill health by birth, at Chittojipally village at her house, by calling her to come outside and while making such signals which amount to sexual harassment and committed similar acts earlier and thus he committed offences punishable U/s 354(D) of I.P.C. and section 12 of POCSO Act.

11.The case of the prosecution as unfold by prosecution witnesses is that PW2 is victim girl. She was unable to say her age. As per the observation of the court PW2 appeared to be of mild intelligent with mild understanding capacity and was talking very slowly. Her evidence was 7 of 18

FAIR POCSO.SC No.50 of 2020

recorded in question and answer form. When she was asked as to what happened she deposed that she was cleaning utensils at the backyard of her house on one day and Suresh (the accused) came there and held her hand and made some gestures and asked her to come. As she did not go near to him he slapped on her cheek. Her parents and Kistamma came there on which he ran away from that place. He also asked her to remove her clothes and lay down. Like this he committed similar acts for four times asking her to remove clothes and holding her hand. At present he is not coming to her. Police asked her and she gave the same statement and one

Judge Madam also recorded her statement. She further deposed that she

is married and living with her husband at her mother’s house and looking after buffaloes.

12.PW1 is the mother of victim-girl and complainant, her evidence reveals that when PW2 was minor and at house, the accused misbehaved with her daughter for which she lodged a Police complaint and after one year on one day at about 4 PM he came to their house and was making abusive signs towards her daughter. At that time PW1 was not at home and the children playing in front of her house, immediately came to her and informed about it and PW1 immediately returned home. Her daughter informed her that accused was making signs asking her to come to him as such she again lodged complaint. Her husband is dead.

8 of 18

FAIR POCSO.SC No.50 of 2020

13. PW3 is a neighbour and he knew PWs 1 and 2 and the accused. His evidence reveals that he is now residing at Hyderabad and he does not know anything about the case and he was not examined by police.

14.PW6 is the Investigating Officer as per his evidence he received complaint from PW1 on 20.08.2019 at 17:30 hours on which he registered the case, and conducted investigation. He recorded the statements of witnesses, visited crime scene, conducted scene of offence panchanama, collected Bonafide Certificate of the victim and arrested the accused. After completion of investigation, his successor in office filed charge-sheet.

(a) His evidence further reveals that there is three days delay in lodging complaint. The incident took place at 1 PM in the afternoon as per the complaint. The other case in SC 172 of 2019 is also pending against the accused and the scene of offence is same in both the cases, but the crime took place at the backyard of the house in SC 172 of 2019 and in the present case the crime scene is within the house. The victim gave statement before Woman SI and Magistrate.

15.PWs 4 and 5 are the panch witnesses, their evidence reveals that

Police did not conduct any panchanama, but their signatures were obtained at Grampanchayath office about six years ago. Both the witnesses identified their signatures on scene of offence panchanama and rough sketch.

9 of 18

FAIR POCSO.SC No.50 of 2020

16.The cross-examination of PWs 1 and 2 was done subsequently in which PW1 deposed that their lands and lands of accused are situated at one place and there are disputes in respect of the land and in that regard they went to Police Station. On the instructions of Police she gave her earlier evidence that accused mis-behaved with her daughter, but accused did not do anything to her daughter. PW2 deposed during cross examination that accused did not come to their house at any time and he did not speak anything to her and during re-examination she deposed that accused dragged her by holding her hand.

17.Ex.P1 is the complaint said to have been lodged by PW1. It was stated in the complaint that on 17.08.2019 at about 1 PM when both PWs 1 and 2 were at house, accused came in front of their house and made abusive signs asking PW2 to come out of house and behaving abusively and when PW1 saw him he went away from that place. The matter was placed before elders and later she lodged complaint with delay.

18.The I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gajwel, has recorded the statement of victim-girl under Sec. 164 Cr.P.C. which forms part of this record. As per the said statement U/s 164 Cr.P.C., it was recorded on 16.11.2019. It was mentioned that her mother slept due to fever and the accused made signs to her. She went to her junior aunt’s house and the accused asked her to come to him.

10 of 18

FAIR POCSO.SC No.50 of 2020

19.During the chief examination of PWs 1 and 2 they have categorically deposed that when PW2 was at home the accused came and made abusive signs and asked PW1 to come to him. The evidence of PWs 1 and 2 when read together with these documents they are all corroborating with each other and inspires the confidence of the court in respect of the incident. Moreover, it has come on record that earlier about one year ago the accused committed similar acts with the victim-girl on which PW1 lodged complaint and again after one year, the accused was taking advantage of the mental condition of the victim and again made similar acts of sexual harassment upon victim.

20.The reason mentioned by PW1 in the complaint that she kept the matter before the locality elders and discussed with them for which delay occurred in lodging complaint, seems to be absolutely natural course of event, which a mother would take when such incidents happen with her mentally challenged minor girl. As per the complaint PW1 is working as labour and she has to attend to her work for her livelihood and PW2 has to be at home due to her mental condition. PW2 categorically deposed that the accused committed similar acts with her for about four times which itself is sufficient to prove the acts of the accused. There are minor descrepancies in their evidence which do not affect the case of the prosecution.

11 of 18

FAIR POCSO.SC No.50 of 2020

21.In the case of Selvamani Vs. The state represented by Inspector

of Police in Crl.Appeal No. 906 of 2023 – Neutral citation 2024 INSC

393 Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that “ on account of long gap between the examination in chief and cross-examination, the witnesses were won over by the accused and they resiled from the version as deposed in the examination in chief, which fully incriminates the accused.

However, when the evidence of victim as well as her mother and Aunt is tested with the FIR, the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and the medical expert, we find that there is sufficient corroboration with the version given by prosecutrix in her examination in chief ”. Hon’ble Supreme

Court relied upon the Judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajesh Yadav

and another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh – (2022) 12 SCC 200 – 2022

INSC 148 and C.Muniyappan & others Vs. State of Tamilnadu – (2010)

9 SCC 567 – 2010 INSC 553.

22.In the case of Rajesh Yadav, Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that a witness may depose in favour of a party in whose favour it is meant to be giving through his chief examination, while later on change his view in favour of the opposite side….. with respect to this category the court is not denuded of its power to make an appropriate assessment of the evidence rendered by such a witness. Even a chief examination could be termed as evidence. Such evidence would become complete after the cross 12 of 18

FAIR POCSO.SC No.50 of 2020

examination. Once evidence is completed the said testimony as a whole is meant for the court to assess and appreciate qua a fact. In a situation where the chief examination was completed and there are circumstances indicating the reasons behind the subsequent statement which could be deciphered by the court…… the evidence of such witnesses cannot be treated as effaced or washed out the record all together but the same can be accepted to the extent their version is found to be dependable on a careful scrutiny.

23.In the case of Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Punjab – (2015) 3 SCC 220 – 2014 INSC 670 Hon’ble Apex Court observed that “ it is settled in law that the testimony of a hostile witness can be relief upon by the prosecution as well as defence. In the re-examination by the Public

Prosecutor, PW7 has accepted about the correctness of his statement in the court on 13.09.1999. He has also accepted that he had not made any complaint to the Presiding Officer of the court that the Inspector was threatening him to make a false statement in the court. …. Reading the evidence in entirety, the evidence of PW7 cannot be brushed a-side. The delay in cross-examination has resulted in his prevarication from the examination in-chief. But a significant one, his examination in chief and the re-examination impels us to accept the testimony ”...

13 of 18

FAIR POCSO.SC No.50 of 2020

24.Following the guidelines of Hon’ble Apex Court in the above cases when the facts of the present case are considered, it reveals that PWs 1 and 2 were examined in chief on 09.08.2024 and on the pretext of boycott of Advocates, the counsel did not cross-examine the witnesses and again on petition by the accused cross-examination of PWs 1 and 2 was permitted and recorded on 25.09.2024. At that time during cross- examination PWs 1 and 2 deposed that accused did nothing to PW2.

However, during the re-examination by the learned Addl.Public Prosecutor,

PW2 the victim deposed that accused dragged her and it is a true fact.

25.Considering these circumstances it proves that the gap between chief examination and cross-examination has led the witnesses i.e. PWs 1 and 2 to change their version. However, PW2 who was the victim deposed in re-examination that it was a fact that accused dragged her. In these circumstances, the chief examination of PWs 1 and 2 is completely corroborating with the FIR, 164 Cr.P.C statement of the victim and thus inspires the confidence of the court about the incident. The cross- examination of PWs 1 and 2 do not in any way shatter the evidence of

PWs 1 and 2 deposed in their chief examination and corroborated with the

FIR and 164 Cr.P.C. statement.

26.The evidence of Investigating Officer i.e. PW6 categorically proves that the accused committed similar acts for which another case in SC 172 14 of 18

FAIR POCSO.SC No.50 of 2020

of 2019 has been registered and pending, which is also taken up along with the present case for Judgment. PW2, the victim also deposed that the accused did similar acts with her like that four times which proves the same.

27.As such all the above evidence categorically proves the acts of the accused in misbehaving with the victim-girl with sexual desires. As per

Section 30 of The POCSO Act, the culpable mental state of mind of the accused is proved and the accused failed to produce any rebuttal evidence. The evidence of PW6 and Ex.P10 Bonafide Certificate categorically prove that victim was minor girl, aged about 16 years by the date of incident and was of mild intelligent. As such it is proved that the accused committed sexual harassment upon the minor victim-girl and liable for punishment.

28.It is proved that the accused sexually harassed the victim-girl by following her taking advantage of her mental condition and thus committed offences punishable under Section 354-D I.P.C., and Section 12 of The

POCSO Act. Both the cases i.e. the present case and SC 172 of 2019 are taken up for judgment today. It is proved with cogent evidence that accused committed the offences previously and he is being convicted in

SC 172 of 2019. As such the present offence which is proved against the

accused is second and subsequent offence and hence accused is liable for 15 of 18

FAIR POCSO.SC No.50 of 2020

punishment for the second and subsequent conviction under Section 354-D I.P.C.

29.In the result, Accused is found GUILTY for the offences punishable

U/Section 12 of The POCSO Act, and U/Sections 354-D of I.P.C. and accordingly, he is CONVICTED U/s 235(2) Cr.P.C. for the said offences.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, Gr.I, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 10 th day of March, 2025.

Prl. Sessions Judge, Medak, FAC:: Spl. Judge, Fast Track Special Court for expeditious trial and disposal of expeditious trial and disposal of Rape & POCSO Act cases at Medak.

Date: 10 th March, 2025:

30.The accused is questioned about the quantum of sentence.

He stated that he has wife and three children and they are depended on him and pladed for mercy. Considering the acts of the accused on minor girl, who is mentally ill, no lenient view can be taken for the accused in imposing punishment.

31.Hence the following sentence is passed.

The Accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of (3) years for the offence U/s 12 of The POCSO Act and he shall pay a Fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only), and in default of 16 of 18

FAIR POCSO.SC No.50 of 2020

payment of Fine, he shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of Six months.

The Accused is further sentenced to undergo Rigorous

Imprisonment for a period of (5) years for the offence U/s 354-D of I.P.C.

and he shall pay a Fine of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand only), and in default of payment of Fine, he shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of One year.

Both the sentences shall run concurrently. The remand period shall be set off U/s 428 of Cr.P.C.

The total Fine amount of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand only) on deposit, shall be given to the victim.

The accused is also informed his right to appeal against the

Judgment before Hon’ble High Court.

The accused is further informed his right for free legal aid in the event of his not having capacity to engage Advocate for preferring appeal.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, Gr.I, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 10 th day of March, 2025.

Prl. Sessions Judge, Medak, FAC:: Spl. Judge, Fast Track Special Court for expeditious trial and disposal of expeditious trial and disposal of Rape & POCSO Act cases at Medak.

17 of 18

FAIR POCSO.SC No.50 of 2020

List of Prosecution/Defence/Court Witnesses

A. Prosecution:

RANK NAME Nature of evidence

(Eye witness, Police witness, Expert witness, medical witness, panch witness, other witness) PW.1Smt.Arutla PrameelaDe-facto complainant/Mother of Victim girl PW.2“X”Victim girl. PW.3Thalari Chinna Eye witness Bhushanam PW.4Madigela BixpathiPanch Witness for Scene of offence panchanama PW.5Arutla MalleshamPanch Witness for Scene of offence panchanama PW.6K. Satyanarayana, SI of Investigating Officer Police

B. Defence Witnesses, if any:

RANK NAME Nature of evidence (Eye witness, Police witness, Expert witness, medical witness, panch witness, other witness) - no -- no --no-

C. Court witnesses, if any:

RANK NAME Nature of evidence

(Eye witness, Police witness, Expert witness, medical witness, panch witness, other witness) - no -- no --no-

LIST OF PROSECUTION/DEFENCE/COURT EXHIBITS: A. Prosecution:

Sl.No. Exhibit Number Description 1Ex.P1/PW1Complaint 18 of 18

FAIR POCSO.SC No.50 of 2020

2Ex.P2/PW3161 Cr.P.C., Statement of PW3. 3Ex.P3/PW4Signature of PW4 on scene of offence panchanama 4Ex.P4/PW4Signature of PW4 on rough sketch 5Ex.P5/PW5Signature of PW4 on scene of offence panchanama 6Ex.P6/PW5Signature of PW4 on rough sketch 7Ex.P7/PW6First Information Report 8Ex.P8/PW6Scene of offence panchanama 9Ex.P9/PW6Rough sketch 10Ex.P10/PW6Bonafide Certificate

B. Defence:

Sl.No. Exhibit Number Description - nil -- nil -- nil -

C. Court Exhibits:

Sl.No. Exhibit Number Description - nil -- nil -- nil -

D. Material Objects:

Sl.No. Material Object Description - nil -- nil -- nil -

PRL. SESSIONS JUDGE, MEDAK

FAC - Spl. Judge, Fast Track Special Court for expeditious trial and disposal Rape & POCSO Act cases, Medak.

1 of 16 FAIR SC No.451 of 2021 Prl.Dist.& Sessions Court, Medak

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE:

MEDAK

PRESENT: Smt. P. Lakshmi Sarada,

Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Medak.

TUESDAY, 15 th DAY OF APRIL, 2025

SC. No. 451 OF 2021

(Crime No.32/2021 of P.S. Narsingi)

Complainant:State of Telangana through P.S. Narsingi

Represented by:Sri Shaik Fazal Ahmed, Public Prosecutor.

Accused: Mohammed Basheer, S/o. Hussain Sab, Aged: 35 years, Caste: Thuraka Kasha, R/o. Kashiya Thanda H/o. Japthishivnoor village, Narsingi Mandal. Represented by:Sri. J. Sripathi Rao, Learned Counsel for the Accused

Date of Offence01.04.2021 Date of FIR01.04.2021 Date of charge-sheet01.04.2021 Date of framing charge(s)03.10.2023 Date of commencement of evidence17.02.2025 Date of which Judgment is reserved15.04.2025 Date of Judgment15.04.2025 Date of sentencing Order, if any15.04.2025 2 of 16 FAIR SC No.451 of 2021 Prl.Dist.& Sessions Court, Medak

ACCUSED DETAILS:

RankName ofDate Date OffenceWhether Sentence imposed Period of of the of of chargeAcquitted Detention d withundergone the AccusedArrestReleaor U/Secduring Trial Accuse onConvicted for purpose sedBail of Sec. 428 Cr.P.C.

SoleMoham06.04.19.06302 Accused -(74) days med 2021.2021I.P.C.is BasheerAcquitted U/s 235(1) Cr.P.C. for the offences U/s 302 I.P.C.

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

1.The Circle Inspector of Police, Ramayampet Circle, PS Narsingi has filed the charge sheet in Crime No.32 of 2021 against the sole accused for the offence punishable under Sections 302 of I.P.C. of P.S. Narsingi.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 01.04.2021 at 12:00 hours the de facto-complainant/LW1/Smt. Shaik Hyder Bee W/o Shaik

Moulana came to Police Station and lodged a written complaint stating that her daughter namely Zaheera Bee’s marriage was performed with

Mohammed Basheer and at the time of marriage, they gave five lakh rupees net cash, 05 tulas gold, one motor cycle and other household 3 of 16 FAIR SC No.451 of 2021 Prl.Dist.& Sessions Court, Medak articles as dowry and after that they were blessed with four daughters.

Several times clashes took place as they were not blessed with boy and in this regard, several panchayaths were held. Eight months back, Basheer got second marriage and four days before panchayath was held where the village elders sent Zaheera Bee along with Basheer. On 01-04-2021 at morning around 06:30 hours, the complainant got information through

Ameena Bee/second wife of Basheer that her daughter was found dead.

On receipt of such information, she rushed to the spot and found correct and hence requested to take necessary legal action.

(a) Based on the said complaint, LW18/Woman Sub Inspector of

Police, Narsingi Police Station registered a case in Crime No.32 of 2021 for the offence punishable under Section 174 Cr.P.C. and issued FIR to all the concerned. LW18/Woman Sub Inspector of Police, Narsingi examined and recorded the statement of LW1/ Smt. Shaik Hyder Bee at police station, visited the scene of offence situated at Kashiya Thanda village and obtained the photographs of scene of offence and he secured the presence of mediators LWs 10 and 11/Shaik Chand and Azeemoddin respectively, drawn rough sketch of the scene of crime which is existence in CDF.

Subsequently, LW18/Woman SIP conducted inquest panchanama over the 4 of 16 FAIR SC No.451 of 2021 Prl.Dist.& Sessions Court, Medak dead body of deceased in the presence of mediators LWs 12 to 14/ Syed

Ali, Shaik Valiuddin and Sayed Goribee respectively. LW18/ Woman SIP examined and recorded the statements of LW2 to LW5/Shaik Moulana,

Shaik Saleem, Shaik Chand an Ameena Bee respectively. The dead body was shifted to Government Hospital, Ramayampet for PME. On requisition

LW17/Medical Officer conducted Autopsy over the dead body of deceased and preserved viscera and hyoid bone of deceased for chemical analysis.

(b) On 05.04.2021 LW18/ Woman SIP obtained opinion from

LW17/medical officer that the death of deceased occurred due to asphyxia secondary to smothering and blunt injury over right temporal region. Basing on the opinion of LW17/medical officer, LW18/Woman SIP altered section of law to 302 IPC from 174 Cr.P.C and handed over CD file to LW19/Circle

Inspector of Police for further investigation. On 06-04-2021, LW19/CI of police apprehended the accused and on interrogation he admitted his guilt, secured the presence of LWs 15 and 16/Gangireddy Raju and Kaboji

Balanarsimlu respectively and in their presence recorded confession panchanama of accused, effected the arrest and produced him before

Hon’ble Court for judicial remand.

5 of 16 FAIR SC No.451 of 2021 Prl.Dist.& Sessions Court, Medak

(c) LW19/CI of police deposited viscera of deceased in TS FSL,

Redhills, Hyderabad, the experts furnished opinion that “No poisonous substance is found in viscera.” LW19/CI of police deposited hyoid bone and as per LW13/medical officer furnished final opinion that the cause of death of deceased is due to asphyxia secondary to smothering and blunt injury over right temporal region and after collecting all relevant documents and after completion of entire investigation, LW19/Circle Inspector of

Police, Narsingi filed charge sheet against the accused alleging that he committed the offence and he is liable for punishment for the offence under

Section 302 I.P.C. Hence, the charge.

3.Cognizance is taken for the offence punishable under Section 302 of

I.P.C. against the accused.

4.On production of the accused before Court, furnished copies of the charge sheet and other connected documents were furnished to him under

Section 207 Cr.P.C. Case was committed to Prl. Sessions Court, and then made over to this Court, for trial and disposal.

5.On hearing the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State and after hearing the learned legal aid defense counsel, upon considering all the material placed by prosecution, a Charge under Section 302 I.P.C. has 6 of 16 FAIR SC No.451 of 2021 Prl.Dist.& Sessions Court, Medak been framed against Accused, read over and explained to him under

Section 228(2) Cr.P.C. After having understood the gist, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. In order to bring home the guilt of the Accused for the offence punishable under under Section 302 I.P.C., the prosecution has examined

PWs-1 to 13 and got marked Exhibits P-1 to P-19 on the prosecution side.

No defence witnesses were examined on behalf of the accused.

7.After completion of prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating evidence found against him. The accused denied the evidence of prosecution and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

8.Heard the learned public prosecutor represented by State, and the learned counsel appearing for the Accused submitted their arguments.

9.Now, the following point that arise for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the

Accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C.,

beyond reasonable doubt, and accused is liable for punishment for the said offence?

POINT:

10.The charges leveled against the accused is that one Zaheera Bee was married to accused and at that time, five lakhs rupees cash, five tulas 7 of 16 FAIR SC No.451 of 2021 Prl.Dist.& Sessions Court, Medak gold and one motor cycle and household articles were given as dowry and the accused married second time and on 01-04-2021, in the early hours at 1:00 AM, there was quarrel between accused and Zaheera Bee and at that time, the accused pushed Zaheera Bee to the ground and throttled her neck and closed her mouth and neck to kill her and she died and as such, the accused committed an offence punishable under section 302 IPC.

11.The case of the prosecution as unfold by prosecution witnesses is that PW1 and 2 are the parents and PW3 is the brother of the deceased

Zaheera Bee. Their evidence reveals that Zaheera Bee was married to the accused about 11 years ago and at that time, they have presented household articles and they lived happily and begot three daughters out of their wedlock. Zaheera Bee was suffering from cough and asthma and due to ill-health she died. PW.1 did not lodge any compliant but Zaheera Bee has small children and as such, a case was registered. PW1 does not now which case was registered. The three daughters of deceased are living with the accused and accused is looking after them well.

12.PW.4 is the person who first saw the deceased. As per her evidence, she is sister of PW1. The deceased was suffering with ill-health cough and 8 of 16 FAIR SC No.451 of 2021 Prl.Dist.& Sessions Court, Medak asthma due to which, she died and the deceased lived happily with her husband i.e., accused during her life time.

13.PW5 is a known person and as per his evidence, he does not know the matrimonial affairs of the deceased but to his knowledge, the deceased died due to ill-health.

14.PW.12 is the first investigating officer. As per her evidence, she received complaint from PW1 and registered a case. She has recorded the statements of witnesses. She visited the house of deceased at Kashya thanda, Zapthishivnoor and collected panch witnesses and observed crime scene and recorded in crime detail form. She conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased. The dead body was shifted to government hospital. She received report from medical officer that the cause of death was smothering and pressing of neck and as such, alteration memo was submitted and further investigation was handed over to the Circle Inspector of police. The evidence of PW13 further reveals that she concluded inquest by 4 PM.

15.PW6 and 7 are the panch witnesses for the scene observation. As per their evidence, the police have obtained their signatures on some 9 of 16 FAIR SC No.451 of 2021 Prl.Dist.& Sessions Court, Medak papers in connection with the death of deceased Zaheera Bee but no panchanama was conducted in their presence.

16.PW8 to PW10 are the panch witnesses for inquest conducted over the dead body of the deceased. Their evidence reveals that no panchanama was conducted in their presence but their signatures were obtained by the police in connection with death of Zaheera Bee.

17.PW13 is the second investigating officer. As per his evidence, he took up investigation from PW12. On 06-04-2021 he has apprehended the accused at Zapthishivnoor bus stop and conducted confession panchanama. The accused admitted his guilt. He was arrested and produced before the Court. The viscera of the deceased was forwarded to

FSL analysis and the hyoid bone of the deceased was forwarded for expert opinion. After collecting all the documents and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet. His evidence further reveals that dead body was sent for autopsy on 01-04-2021 at 4:00 PM. As per the PME report, the time of commencement was noted as 2:30 PM and concluding time was 3:30 PM.

18.PW11 is one of the confession panch witness. As per his evidence, he is working as panchayat Secretary of Zapthishivnoor. On the 10 of 16 FAIR SC No.451 of 2021 Prl.Dist.& Sessions Court, Medak instructions of police, he has attended at the bus stop of Zapthishivnoor about two years ago and accused was present there and he admitted that he killed his wife due to family disputes. Police recorded the panchanama and he signed on it. His evidence further reveals that he did not receive any written requisition to attend as panch witness. He did not obtain any written permission from MPDO to go as panch witness. On that day morning, he came to know that Zaheera Bee died, panchanama was conducted on the day when Zaheera Bee died. He was there at bus stop about 10 minutes. He did not observe when the dead body was shifted to hospital.

19.The evidence of prosecution witnesses shows that the parents, brother and relatives of the deceased i.e., PW1 to PW4 and the circumstantial witness i.e., PW5 categorically deposed that deceased was suffering with cough and asthma and due to the same, she died. As per

Ex.P15/PME report, the cause of death was awaited for FSL report. The injuries were recorded as blackening over right side of face extending from right temporal region to right side of chin indication blunt injury and blackening over tip of nose indicating smothering. The medical officer furnished final opinion Ex.P15, shows that death may be due to asphyxia 11 of 16 FAIR SC No.451 of 2021 Prl.Dist.& Sessions Court, Medak secondary to smothering and blunt injury over right temporal region.

Ex.P19 is expert opinion which shows that the the hyoid bone sent did not show any bony ante mortem fractures. Ex.P18/FSL report shows that no poisonous substance is found in viscera. As per Ex.P16/final opinion it was again recorded as death may be due to asphyxia secondary to smothering and blunt injury over right temporal region.

20.The doctor who conducted PME was not examined before the Court.

As per the Ex.P14/Inquest report, inquest was conducted at the house of deceased at Zapthishivnoor from 2PM till 4 PM on 01-04-2021. As per

Ex.P15, autopsy commenced at 2:30 PM at Community Health Centre,

Ramayampet and concluded at 3:30 PM. However, it was recoded in the requisition in Ex.P15 that the dead body was brought through police constable on 01-04-2021 at 4:00 PM to the hospital. During the evidence of

PW12, the first investigating officer it was revealed that the distance between Zapthishivnoor to Ramayampet hospital is about 7 Kms. In these circumstances, the time of conducting inquest and the time of conducting

PME are not corroborating with each other which raises doubt about the injuries mentioned in the PME.

12 of 16 FAIR SC No.451 of 2021 Prl.Dist.& Sessions Court, Medak

21.None of the prosecution witnesses supported the case of the prosecution and learned public prosecutor could not elicit any relevant information from the witnesses to prove the charges leveled against the accused.

22.So far as the confession statement said to have been given by the accused, PW13 deposed that on 06-04-2021, the accused was apprehended at Zapthishivnoor bus stop and his confession panchanama was recorded in the presence of panch witnesses. PW11 one of the panch witnesses categorically deposed that on the day when Zaheera Bee died, the accused made confession at Zapthishivnoor bus stop and within 10 minutes the confession was recorded and PW11 went away from that place and then, the dead body was shifted to hospital.

23.The evidence of PW11 is not corroborated with the evidence of

PW13 in respect of recording the confession statement of the accused.

However, the evidence of PW.13 shows that in the presence of police the confession statement of the accused was recorded and as such, the confession statement is not admissible in the evidence as per Section 26 of

Indian Evidence Act.

13 of 16 FAIR SC No.451 of 2021 Prl.Dist.& Sessions Court, Medak

24.The circumstance revealed that the the wife of the deceased Zaheed

Bee found died at her house and her parents and relatives categorically deposed that she was suffering from ill-health cough and asthma due to which she died and there is no evidence produced by prosecution to prove that the accused killed the deceased or in any way the accused caused the death of the deceased.

25.In these circumstances, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the charges leveled against him and the accused is entitled for acquittal.

26.In the result, the accused is found NOT GUILTY for the offence under section 302 of I.P.C. and accordingly, he is ACQUITTED under

Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. for the said offence. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of Six months u/Sec. 437 (A)

Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-II, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 15 th day of April, 2025.

Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Medak.

14 of 16 FAIR SC No.451 of 2021 Prl.Dist.& Sessions Court, Medak

List of Prosecution/Defence/Court Witnesses:

A. Prosecution:

RANK NAME Nature of evidence

(Eye witness, Police witness, Expert witness, medical witness, panch witness, other witness) PW1Shaik Hyder BeeDe facto Complainant and mother of deceased. PW2Shaik MoulanaFather of deceased. PW3Shaik Saleem Brother of deceased. PW4Shaik Ameena BeeCircumstantial witness. PW5Syed MoinuddinCircumstantial witness. PW6Shaik Chand PashaPanch witness on crime detail form. PW7Md. AzeemuddinPanch witness on crime detail form. PW8Syed Ali Panch witness on inquest panchanama. PW9Shaik Wali UddinPanch witness on inquest panchanama. PW10Syed Gori BeePanch witness on inquest panchanama. PW11G. RajuWitness for Confession panchanama of accused. PW12S. NagaraniFirst Investigating officer PW13T. Nagarjuna GoudSecond Investigating officer

B. Defence Witnesses, if any: RANKNAMENature of evidence (Eye witness, Police witness, Expert witness, medical witness, panch witness, other witness)

------

C. Court witnesses, if any: RANKNAMENature of evidence (Eye witness, Police witness, Expert witness, medical witness, panch witness, other witness)

------

15 of 16 FAIR SC No.451 of 2021 Prl.Dist.& Sessions Court, Medak

LIST OF PROSECUTION/DEFENCE/COURT EXHIBITS: A. Prosecution: Sl. Exhibit Number Description No. 1Exhibit P-1/PW1161 Cr.P.C. Statement 2Exhibit P-2/PW2161 Cr.P.C. Statement 3Exhibit P-3/PW3161 Cr.P.C. Statement 4Exhibit P-4/PW4161 Cr.P.C. Statement 5Exhibit P-5/PW5161 Cr.P.C. Statement 6Exhibit P-6/PW6Signature of panch witness on crime detail form 7Exhibit P-7/PW7Signature of panch witness on crime detail form 8Exhibit P-8/PW8Signature of panch witness on inquest panchanama 9Exhibit P-9/PW9Signature of panch witness on inquest panchanama 10Exhibit P-10/PW11Signature of panch witness on confession panchanama 11Exhibit P-11/PW12Complaint 12Exhibit P-12/PW12FIR 13Exhibit P-13/PW12Crime detail form 14Exhibit P-14/PW12Inquest report 15Exhibit P-15/PW12Post mortem examination report 16Exhibit P-16/PW12Final opinion 17Exhibit P-17/PW12Alternation memo 18Exhibit P-18/PW13FSL report dt. 04-06-2021 19Exhibit P-19/PW13Expert opinion dt. 27-07-2021

B. Defence:

Sl. Exhibit Number Description No.

------

16 of 16 FAIR SC No.451 of 2021 Prl.Dist.& Sessions Court, Medak

C. Court Exhibits:

Sl. Exhibit Number Description No.

------

D. Material Objects:

Sl. Material Object Number Description No.

------

Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Medak.

1 Of 10

FAIR POCSO.SC No.98 of 2022

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE FOR FAST TRACK COURT FOR

EXPEDITIOUS DISPOSAL OF CASES OF RAPE AND PROTECTION OF

CHILD FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES (POSCO) ACT AT MEDAK

PRESENT: SMT. P. LAKSHMI SARADA, Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Medak. FAC- Spl. Judge, Fast Track Special Court for Expeditious Trial And Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases At Medak.

Dated this the Monday, 3rd day of March, 2025.

POCSO. SC.No. 98 OF 2022

Crime No. & Police Crime No.51 of 2021 of P.S.Chilipched. Station.

Description of Accused. A-1. Kowdipally Machendar S/o Anjaiah, Aged about 19 Years, Mudiraj caste, Occupation: Student, R/o Gouthapur Village, Chilipched Mandal, Medak District. A-2. Kowdipally Anjaiah S/o Manaiah, Aged about 53 Years, Mudiraj caste, Occupation: Agriculture, R/o H.No.2-16, Gouthapur Village, Chilipched Mandal, Medak District. A-3. Kowdipally Bhagya W/o Anjaiah, Aged about 40 Years, Mudiraj caste, Occupation: House wife, R/o H.No.2-16, Gouthapur Village, Chilipched Mandal, Medak District. Charge/sU/s 363, 417 I.P.C., Sec.12 of The POCSO Act, 2012 against Accused No.1. U/s 417 I.P.C., Sec.12, 16 R/w 17 of The POCSO Act, 2012 against Accused No.2 & 3 Plea of the accusedPleaded not guilty.

Finding of the Court In the result: The accused No.1 foundNOT GUILTY for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 417 I.P.C., Sec.12 of The POCSO Act, 2012, and accused No.2 & 3 are found NOT GUILTY for the offences punishable under Sections U/s 417 I.P.C., Sec.12,16 R/w 17 of The POCSO Act, 2012 and accordingly, they are ACQUITTED under Section 232 Cr.P.C.

2 Of 10

FAIR POCSO.SC No.98 of 2022

Prosecution conducted Sri P. Raj Kumar, I/c Additional Public Prosecutor. by

Accused defended bySri K. Janardhan Reddy, Counsel for Accused No.1 to 3.

Date of Offence26.09.2021 Date of First Information Report 26.09.2021 Date of charge-sheet -- Date of framing charge(s)12.12.2024 Date of commencement of evidence19.02.2025 Date on which Judgment is reserved19.02.2025 Date of Judgment03.03.2025 Date of sentencing Order, if any --

ACCUSED DETAILS

Rank Name of Date Date ofOffences charged Whether SentencePeriod of Acquitted imposeddetention of the the of Releasewith or undergone AccusAccusedArreston Bail during trial Convicted ed for purpose of section 428 Cr.P.C. A-1Kowdipally 19.01.26.02.U/s 363, 417 I.P.C.,Acquitted ---- MachendarU/s. 232 20222022Sec.12ofThe Cr.P.C. POCSO Act, 2012 A-2Kowdipally 41(A) --U/s417I.P.C.,Acquitted --– AnjaiahU/s. 232 Cr.PCSec.12, 16 R/w 17 of Cr.P.C. The POCSO Act, 2012 A-3Kowdipally 41(A) --U/s417I.P.C.,Acquitted---- BhagyaU/s. 232 Cr.PCSec.12, 16 R/w 17 of Cr.P.C. The POCSO Act, 2012

This case is coming up for final hearing in the presence of Sri P. Raj Kumar, in-charge Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and that of Sri K.Janardhan- Reddy, Advocate for the Accused No.1 to 3, upon perusing the material on record and upon hearing the arguments, the Court delivered the following:- 3 Of 10

FAIR POCSO.SC No.98 of 2022

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

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, P.S.Chilipched has filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 3 in Crime No.51 of 2021 of P.S.Chilipched, for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 417, 420 I.P.C. and Sec.12 of The POCSO Act, 2012.

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that;

(a) On 26.09.2021 at about 10:00 hours, the complainant/LW1/Victim girl ‘X’ (name not to be revealed) lodged a complaint with Police,

Chilipched stating that while she was studying Polytechnic course at

Suryapet in the year 2018, staying in hostel, one Kowdipally Machender

S/o Anjaiah/her villager used to contact to her phone No.9550342867 from his phone No.970409652 and expressed that he was loving her and would marry her. She further mentioned that about seven months ago he came to her and believing his words she got agreed to elope with him and on 07.07.2021 he took her to Hyderabad and on 09.07.2021 he left her at the outskirts of her village. She further mentioned that her parents settled her marriage with a person of Paithara village, on knowing the same

Machender told her that he would marry her and forced her to refuse the marriage alliance and she did the same. On knowing the facts, her parents went to the house of Machender and asked him to marry her, but he 4 Of 10

FAIR POCSO.SC No.98 of 2022 refused to marry her and necked out her parents from there. Hence the complainant requested for taking necessary legal action.

(b) Based on the above said complaint, LW16/Sub Inspector of

Police registered a case in Cr.No.51 of 2021, under sections 363, 417, 420

I.P.C. Section 12 of The POCSO Act and investigated into it. During the course of investigation LW14/Woman Asst.Sub Inspector of Police, examined and recorded the statement of the LW1/victim. While investigation was in progress LW16 visited the scene of offence in

Gouthapur village, secured the presence of LWs 9 and 10/Manne

Hanmanthu and Manne Bhoomaiah respectively and conducted panchanama, drawn rough sketch, later examined and recorded statements of Lws 2 to 8/father of victim, mother of victim, Kummari

Shankaraiah, Natari Krishna, Mumthaz, Kummari Chennaiah and Indla

Suresh respectively.

(c) On requisition LW15/Prl.JFCM, Medak recorded the statement of victim-girl under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on 27.10.2021. On 19.01.2022 at 08:00 hours apprehended the accused no.1 and on interrogation he admitted his guilt, recorded his confession statement in the presence of panch witnesses/LWs Venkatapathi Goverdhan Reddy and Darpally Ashok respectively. On requisition LW13/Incharge Head Master of ZPHS, 5 Of 10

FAIR POCSO.SC No.98 of 2022

Gouthapur issued Bonafide Certificate of victim-girl, that the date of birth of victim-girl was 29.08.2003.

(d) After receiving all the relevant documents and after completion of investigation, LW.17/Sub Inspector of Police filed charge sheet alleging that accused No.1 to 3 have committed the offences and they are liable for punishment for the offences under Sections 363, 417, 420 of I.P.C., Sec.12 of The POCSO Act, 2012. Hence, the charge.

3.Cognizance is taken for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 417, 420 of I.P.C., Sec.12 of The POCSO Act, 2012 against Accused

No.1 to 3.

4.On appearance of the Accused No.1 to 3, copies of the charge sheet and other connected documents were furnished to them under Section 207

Cr.P.C.

5.As per instructions of Hon’ble High Court in ROC.No. 346/E1/2022,

dated 01.06.2022, this case is transferred to this Court on the point of

jurisdiction.

6.On appearance of Accused No.1 to 3, and after hearing the learned

Addl.Public Prosecutor representing the State and after hearing the learned defense counsels, upon considering all the material placed by prosecution, charges under Sections 363, 417 of I.P.C., Sec.12 of The 6 Of 10

FAIR POCSO.SC No.98 of 2022

POCSO Act, 2012 against accused No.1, and under Section 417 of I.P.C.,

Sec.12, 16 R/w 17 of The POCSO Act, 2012 against accused No.2 and 3, have been framed, read over and explained the same to them under

Section 228(2) Cr.P.C. After having understood the gist, the accused No.1 to 3 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The Accused are defended by learned defence counsel.

7. In order to bring home the guilt of the Accused for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 417 of I.P.C., Sec.12 of The POCSO Act, 2012 against accused No.1, and under Section 417 of I.P.C., Sec.12, 16

R/w 17 of The POCSO Act, 2012 against accused No.2 and 3, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4 on prosecution side. No defence witnesses examined and no exhibits marked on behalf of the defence.

8.As there is no incriminating evidence against the Accused, the examination of the Accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., is dispensed with.

9.Heard the learned I/c Addl. public prosecutor represented by State and the learned defence counsels appearing for the Accused.

10.Now, the following point that arise for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the Accused No.1 for the offence punishable U/s 363, 417 of I.P.C., Sec.12 of The POCSO Act, 2012 and the accused No.2 and 3 for 7 Of 10

FAIR POCSO.SC No.98 of 2022 the offences punishable under Section 417 of I.P.C., Sec.12, 16 R/w 17 of The POCSO Act, 2012 against accused No.2 and 3 and Whether the accused are guilty for culpable state of mind and liable for punishment for the said offences?

11.POINT:-

The charges leveled against the accused are that the Accused No.1 by saying to the victim-minor-girl that he loved her and promised to marry her, taken her to Hyderabad for two days and later took the victim-girl to the outskirts of her village and later refused to marry her on abetment of

Accused No.2 and 3 and thus Accused No.1 committed the offences punishable under Sections 363, 417 of I.P.C., Sec.12 of The POCSO Act, 2012 and the accused No.2 and 3 have committed the offences punishable under Section 417 of I.P.C., Sec.12, 16 R/w 17 of The POCSO Act, 2012.

12.PW1 is the victim-girl, PW2 is father of victim-girl, PW3 is mother of victim-girl. PW1 deposed that she did not lodge any complaint at any time.

As per her evidence on one day in 2021 when she did not return home from college, her parents went to Police Station and informed that she was missing and on the next day she returned home, as such they went to

Police Station and the Police obtained her signature on some paper. She does not know the contents of the paper. She further deposed that she was 8 Of 10

FAIR POCSO.SC No.98 of 2022 not taken by anybody and none harassed her. Her parents performed her marriage with accused No.1, when she became major.

13.PW2 and 3 who are parents of PW1 deposed in similar lines that about four years ago on one day their daughter did not return home from college, as such they went to police station and informed to about he missing. They further deposed that accused No.1 is their son in law and accused NO.2 and 3 are his parents. Accused never taken PW1 without their knowledge and they were not examined by Police.

14.PWs 1 to 3 who are victim-girl and her parents are crucial witnesses and not supported the case of the prosecution. There is no iota of evidence in prosecution evidence against the accused for the charges leveled against them. Nothing was elicited from witnesses by the learned I/c

Additional Public Prosecutor in support of prosecution case to prove

involvement of Accused No.1 to 3. As such, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused No.1 to 3 with cogent evidence. Hence, the accused are entitled for acquittal.

15.In the result, Accused No.1 found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 417 of I.P.C., Sec.12 of The POCSO Act, 2012 and accused No.2 and 3 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Section 417 of I.P.C., Sec.12, 16 R/w 17 of The POCSO 9 Of 10

FAIR POCSO.SC No.98 of 2022

Act, 2012, and accordingly, they are ACQUITTED U/sec. 232 Cr.P.C. for the said offences.

The bail bonds of the Accused No.1 to 3 shall remain in force for a period of six months U/Sec.437-A Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, Gr.I, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 3 rd day of March, 2025.

Prl. Sessions Judge, Medak, FAC:: Spl. Judge, Fast Track Special Court for expeditious trial and disposal of expeditious trial and disposal of Rape & POCSO Act cases at Medak.

List of Prosecution/Defence/Court Witnesses

A. Prosecution:

RANK NAME Nature of evidence

(Eye witness, Police witness, Expert witness, medical witness, panch witness, other witness)

PW.1“X”Victim girl PW.2K. VeeraiahFather of victim girl PW.3K. LalithaMother of victim-girl

B. Defence Witnesses, if any:

RANK NAME Nature of evidence (Eye witness, Police witness, Expert witness, medical witness, panch witness, other witness) - no -- no --no- 10 Of 10

FAIR POCSO.SC No.98 of 2022

C. Court witnesses, if any:

RANK NAME Nature of evidence

(Eye witness, Police witness, Expert witness, medical witness, panch witness, other witness) - no -- no --no-

LIST OF PROSECUTION/DEFENCE/COURT EXHIBITS: A. Prosecution:

Sl.No. Exhibit Number Description 1Ex.P1/PW1Signature of PW1 on Complaint. 2Ex.P2/PW1161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1 3Ex.P3/PW2161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2 4Ex.P4/PW3161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW3

B. Defence: Sl.No. Exhibit Number Description - nil -- nil -- nil -

C. Court Exhibits: Sl.No. Exhibit Number Description - nil -- nil -- nil -

D. Material Objects: Sl.No. Material Object Description - nil -- nil -- nil -

PRL. SESSIONS JUDGE, MEDAK

FAC - Spl. Judge, Fast Track Special Court for expeditious trial and disposal Rape & POCSO Act cases, Medak.

1 Of 10

FAIR POCSO.SC No.133 of 2021

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE FOR FAST TRACK COURT FOR

EXPEDITIOUS DISPOSAL OF CASES OF RAPE AND PROTECTION OF

CHILD FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES (POSCO) ACT AT MEDAK

PRESENT: SMT. P. LAKSHMI SARADA, Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Medak. FAC- Spl. Judge, Fast Track Special Court for Expeditious Trial And Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases At Medak.

Dated this the Friday, 21st day of March, 2025.

POCSO. SC.No. 133 OF 2021

Crime No. & Police Crime No.229 of 2018 of P.S. Narsapur. Station.

Description of Accused. A-1. Kandi Chenna Goud S/o Malla Goud, Aged about 29 Years, Goud caste, Occupation: Mechanic, R/o H.No.2-43, ITI Colony, Hathnoora Village & Mandal. A-2. Danampally Shravan S/o Arjun, Aged about 23 Years, Occupation: School bus Driver (St.Anthony School, Sangareddy), R/o H.No.1-2, Konyala Village, Hanthnoora Mandal.

Charge/sU/s 363 R/w 107 I.P.C. and Sec.12 R/w 16 of The POCSO Act, 2012 Plea of the accusedPleaded not guilty.

Finding of the Court In the result: The accused No.1 & 2 are foundNOT GUILTY for the offences punishable under Sections U/s 363 R/w 107 I.P.C. and Sec.12 R/w 16 of The POCSO Act, 2012 and accordingly, they are ACQUITTED under Section 232 Cr.P.C. Prosecution conducted Sri P. Raj Kumar, I/c Additional Public Prosecutor. by

Accused defended bySri K.V. Raghavulu, Counsel for Accused No.1 & 2.

Date of Offence29.10.2018 Date of First Information Report 31.10.2018 2 Of 10

FAIR POCSO.SC No.133 of 2021

Date of charge-sheet30.08.2019 Date of framing charge(s)08.01.2025 Date of commencement of evidence05.03.2025 Date on which Judgment is reserved05.03.2025 Date of Judgment21.03.2025 Date of sentencing Order, if any --

ACCUSED DETAILS

Rank Name of Date Date ofOffences charged Whether SentencePeriod of Acquitted imposeddetention of the the of Releasewith or undergone AccusAccusedArreston Bail during trial Convicted ed for purpose of section 428 Cr.P.C. A-1Kandi Got--U/s 363 R/w 107Acquitted ---- ChennaU/s. 232 AnticiI.P.C. and Sec.12 GoudCr.P.C. patory R/w 16 of The bail POCSO Act, 2012 A-2Danampally Got--U/s 363 R/w 107Acquitted --– ShravanU/s. 232 AnticiI.P.C. and Sec.12 R/w Cr.P.C. patory16 of The POCSO bailAct, 2012

This case is coming up for final hearing in the presence of Sri P. Raj Kumar, in-charge Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and that of Sri K.V.Raghavulu, Advocate for the Accused No.1 and 2, upon perusing the material on record and upon hearing the arguments, the Court delivered the following:-

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

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, P.S.Narsapur has filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 and 2 in Crime No.229 of 2018 of P.S.Narsapur, for the offence punishable under Sections 363 I.P.C. and Sec.12 of The

POCSO Act, 2012.

3 Of 10

FAIR POCSO.SC No.133 of 2021

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that;

(a) On 31.10.2018 at about 20:00 hours, the defacto complainant/LW1/mother of victim girl came to Police Station and lodged a

Telugu written complaint stating that on 29.10.2018 her daughter ‘X’ (name not to be revealed) went to Gayathri Degree College, Narsapur and not returned to home till 21:30 hours and on the next day when she asked

College Management they informed that her daughter has left college at 14:00 hours and she further mentioned that her daughter returned back on 31.10.2018 in the evening hours and when she enquired her daughter she revealed that their villager by name Kaveli Suman Goud S/o Satya Goud proposed love and want to marry her and made illusive words and made her to believe and taken her away from Narsapur. Hence the complainant requested for taking necessary legal action.

(b) Based on the above said complaint, LW7/Sub Inspector of Police,

Narsapur registered a case in Cr.No.229 of 2018, under sections 363

I.P.C., Section 12 of The POCSO Act and investigated into it. During the course of investigation, examined and recorded the statements of the LWs 1 and 2/ mother and father of victim girl respectively. While investigation was in progress on requisition LW5/Woman Sub Inspector of Police,

DCRB, Medak examined and recorded the statement of LW3/victim-girl. As 4 Of 10

FAIR POCSO.SC No.133 of 2021 per the statement of victim-girl while Kaveli Suman Goud taking her away from Narsapur to Maharastra, on the way Yellareddy Police personnel stopped them on suspicion and took them to Police Station and asked to call elders, and then Chenna Goud and Sravan (Accused No.1 and 2) came there and said that they are known persons and took them away from Police Station and left there itself. On requisition LW4/Vice Principal has issued Bonafide Certificate of victim-girl, as per bonafide certificate her date of birth was 12.01.2001.

(c) During the course of investigation on 10.11.2018 at 08:00 hours

LW7 taken into custody of Kaveli Suman and on enquiry he admitted his guilt of offence. On requisition Principal, DSR College, Narsapur issued

Bonafide Certificate of Kaveli Suman and as per the certificate his date of birth was 06.03.2001 according to it his age was 17 years, 7 months and he was minor and affected his apprehension report on 10.11.2018 at 09:00 hours by issuing the apprehension memo and produced him before

Juvenile Justice Board Principal Magistrate cum Additional JFCM Court,

Sangareddy.

(d) While investigation was in progress Accused No.1 and 2 got

Anticipatory Bail from I Addl. District & Sessions Judge Court, Sangareddy.

On requisition LW6/Addl.JFCM, Gajwel recorded the statement of victim- 5 Of 10

FAIR POCSO.SC No.133 of 2021 girl under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The further investigation took up by LW8/Sub

Inspector of Police, Narsapur, verified the investigation done by LW7 found on correct lines.

(e) After receiving all the relevant documents and after completion of investigation, LW.8/Sub Inspector of Police filed charge sheet alleging that accused No.1 and 2 have committed the offences and they are liable for punishment for the offences under Sections 363 of I.P.C., Sec.12 of The

POCSO Act, 2012. Hence, the charge.

3.Cognizance is taken for the offences punishable under Sections under Sections 363 of I.P.C., Sec.12 of The POCSO Act, 2012 against

Accused No.1 and 2.

4.On appearance of the Accused No.1 and 2, copies of the charge sheet and other connected documents were furnished to them under

Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5.As per instructions of Hon’ble High Court in ROC.No. 2035/B Spl.,

dated 06.07.2021, this case is transferred to this Court on the point of

jurisdiction.

6.On appearance of Accused No.1 and 2, and after hearing the learned Addl.Public Prosecutor representing the State and after hearing the learned defense counsels, upon considering all the material placed by 6 Of 10

FAIR POCSO.SC No.133 of 2021 prosecution, charges under Sections 363 R/w 107 I.P.C. and Sec.12 R/w 16 of The POCSO Act, 2012 against accused No.1 and 2, have been framed, read over and explained to them under Section 228(2) Cr.P.C.

After having understood the gist, the accused No.1 and 2 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The Accused are defended by learned defence counsel.

7. In order to bring home the guilt of the Accused 1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Sections 363 R/w 107 I.P.C. and Sec.12 R/w 16 of The POCSO Act, 2012 the prosecution has examined PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P1 and P2 on prosecution side. No defence witnesses examined and no exhibits marked on behalf of the defence.

8.As there was no incriminating evidence against the Accused, the examination of the Accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., was dispensed with.

9.Heard the learned I/c Addl. public prosecutor represented by State and the learned defence counsels appearing for the Accused.

10.Now, the following point that arise for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the Accused No.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Sections 363 R/w 107 I.P.C. and Sec.12 R/w 16 of The POCSO Act, 2012 and Whether the accused are guilty for culpable state of mind and liable for punishment for the said offences?

7 Of 10

FAIR POCSO.SC No.133 of 2021

11.POINT:-

The charges leveled against the accused are that the Accused No.1 and 2, knowing that one Suman Goud (JCL) loved victim minor girl and kidnapped her from her lawful guardianship of her parents and while enquiring the victim-girl and Suman Goud (JCL) went there posing themselves as elders of JCL and victim-girl, knowing that JCL brought the victim-girl and took them out of Police Station and left them there itself to kidnap the victim-girl and cooperated to JCL in kidnapping victim-girl and thus Accused No.1 and 2 have committed the offences punishable under

Sections 363 R/w 107 I.P.C. and Sec.12 R/w 16 of The POCSO Act, 2012.

12.PW1 is the mother of victim-girl. PW2 is victim-girl herself. PW1 deposed that she knows Accused no.1 and she do not know Accused No.2 and the Juvenile involved in the case Suman Goud is her son in-law. She further deposed that about seven years ago when her daughter did not return to home from college, she informed to Police and on the next day her daughter returned and her daughter informed that she went to their relatives house. PW1 further deposed that she did not raise any suspicion on any person before Police when her daughter was not found.

13.PW2 who is victim-girl deposed that Accused No.1 is maternal uncle of her husband and she does not know accused No.2, the Juvenile 8 Of 10

FAIR POCSO.SC No.133 of 2021 involved in the case Suman Goud is her husband. About seven years ago while she was pursuing Degree 1st year in Gayathri college, at Narsapur and aged about 18 years, she went to her grand parents’ house from college and returned to home after two days. She further deposed that none taken her away and nothing has happened to her. Her parents performed her marriage with Suman Goud and they are living happily and begot children.

14.PWs 1 and 2 who are mother of victim-girl and victim-girl herself are crucial witnesses and not supported the case of the prosecution. There is no iota of evidence in prosecution evidence against the accused for the charges leveled against them. Nothing was elicited from witnesses by the learned I/c Additional Public Prosecutor in support of prosecution case to prove involvement of Accused No.1 and 2. No evidence that victim was minor on the date of incident and the incident not at all proved. As such, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused No.1 and 2 with cogent evidence. Hence, the accused No.1 and 2 are entitled for acquittal.

15.In the result, Accused No.1 and 2 are found NOT GUILTY for the offences punishable under Sections 363 R/w 107 I.P.C. and Sec.12 R/w 16 9 Of 10

FAIR POCSO.SC No.133 of 2021 of The POCSO Act, 2012 and accordingly, they are ACQUITTED U/sec.

232 Cr.P.C. for the said offences.

The bail bonds of the Accused No.1 and 2 shall remain in force for a period of six months U/Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. Un-marked case property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, Gr.I, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 21 st day of March, 2025.

Prl. Sessions Judge, Medak, FAC:: Spl. Judge, Fast Track Special Court for expeditious trial and disposal of expeditious trial and disposal of Rape & POCSO Act cases at Medak.

List of Prosecution/Defence/Court Witnesses

A. Prosecution:

RANK NAME Nature of evidence

(Eye witness, Police witness, Expert witness, medical witness, panch witness, other witness) PW.1Smt.Madduri PochammaMother of victim girl PW.2“X”Victim girl

B. Defence Witnesses, if any:

RANK NAME Nature of evidence (Eye witness, Police witness, Expert witness, medical witness, panch witness, other witness) - no -- no --no- 10 Of 10

FAIR POCSO.SC No.133 of 2021

C. Court witnesses, if any:

RANK NAME Nature of evidence

(Eye witness, Police witness, Expert witness, medical witness, panch witness, other witness) - no -- no --no-

LIST OF PROSECUTION/DEFENCE/COURT EXHIBITS:

A. Prosecution:

Sl.No. Exhibit Number Description 1Ex.P1/PW1161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1 2Ex.P2/PW2161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2

B. Defence:

Sl.No. Exhibit Number Description - nil -- nil -- nil -

C. Court Exhibits:

Sl.No. Exhibit Number Description - nil -- nil -- nil -

D. Material Objects:

Sl.No. Material Object Description - nil -- nil -- nil -

PRL. SESSIONS JUDGE, MEDAK

FAC - Spl. Judge, Fast Track Special Court for expeditious trial and disposal Rape & POCSO Act cases, Medak.