Smt. P.lakshmi Sarada

Fair Page 1 of 18 SC POCSO No. 118 of 2022

THE COURT OF THE FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT FOR EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL

AND DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND POCSO ACT CASES, SURYAPET

Dated this 19 th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025.

PRESENT: Smt. P. Lakshmi Sarada,

Prl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Suryapet

FAC: The Fast Track Spl. Court for Expeditious Trial and

Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases, Suryapet

SC POCSO No. 118 OF 2022

Complainant:The State of Telangana through Sub-Inspector of Police, Kodad town.

Crime No. & Police Crime No. 120 of 2022, Kodad Town P.S. station:

Description of accused: A1 Bhimishetty Nithin, S/o. Srinu, Age: 19 years, Occ:Student, R/o. H. No. 11-113/2, Azadnagar, Kodad Town. A2 Pandi Vinod Kumar, S/o. Brahmam, Age: 20 years, Occ:Student, R/o. Ghandhinagar, Kodad Town.

Charge/s: Under Sections 354-A, 506 of IPC and Sec. 7 r/w 8 of POCSO Act-2012.

Plea of the accused: Pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the court: In the result, Accused no.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Sec. 354-A, 506 of IPC and Sec. 7 r/w 8 of POCSO Act- 2012 and accordingly, they are acquitted U/s 235(1) Cr.P.C. for the said offence.

Prosecution conducted Sri. K. Lingaiah, Addl. Public Prosecutor, by: Suryapet.

Accused defended by : Sri. Banala Vijay Kumar, counsel for the accused No.1 and 2.

Date of Offence 23.03.2022

Date of FIR 26.03.2022

Date of charge-sheet 18.04.2022

Date of framing charge(s) 03.08.2022

Date of commencement of evidence 14.11.2022

Fair Page 2 of 18 SC POCSO No. 118 of 2022

Date of which Judgment is reserved 11.09.2025

Date of Judgment 19.09.2025

Date of sentencing Order, if any ---

:: ACCUSED DETAILS ::

Rank of Name Date of Date of Offences Whether Sentence imposed Period of Detention the of the Arrest Release charged with Acquitted undergone Accused Accuseon Bail U/Sec or during Trial for purpose d Convicted of Sec. 428 Cr.P.C. A1 Bheemi31.03.2022 29.04.2022 U/sec. 354-A, Acquitted -- shetty 506 of IPC U/Sec. In the result, Accused no.1 and Nithin and Sec. 7 r/w 235(1) 2 are found not guilty for the 8 of POCSO Cr.P.C. offences punishable U/Sec. Act-2012 354-A, 506 of IPC and Sec. 7 r/w 8 of POCSO Act-2012 and accordingly, they are acquitted A2 Pandi 31.03.2022 29.04.2022 U/sec. 354-A, Acquitted U/s 235(1) Cr.P.C. for the said Vinod 506 of IPC U/Sec. offence. Kumar and Sec. 7 r/w 235(1) 8 of POCSO Cr.P.C.- Act-2012

Upon considering the material on record and upon hearing Arguments, the court delivered the following:

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

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kodad town police station has filed the charge sheet in Crime No. 120 of 2022 against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 354-A, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Sec. 7 r/w 8 of

The Protection of Children from Sexual offences Act (herein after referred as POCSO Act for brevity) of Kodad Town Police Station.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief was that on 26.03.2022, at 11.00 hours the defacto-complainant/LW1/father of the victim girl came to Police

Station and lodged a Telugu written complaint that his daughter i.e. victim girl was studying B.Tech 1st year. For few days, he observed that his daughter was chatting in her mobile. On enquiry, the victim girl revealed that the accused no.1 followed her in the name of love and marriage since six months and visited Anurag Engineering College and was harassing her.

Fair Page 3 of 18 SC POCSO No. 118 of 2022

Immediately, LW1 visited the house of accused no.1 and reprimanded him

before his parents. But, he did not change his behavior and continued

harassing his daughter. About three days back, the victim girl told him that when she was waiting for college bus at Reliance smart point, he came there and caught hold of her and asked her to fulfill his desire. Again he placed the matter before the elders and family members and warned him not to follow his daughter. But he did not heed the same and followed his daughter on his bike bearing no. TS-29-E-999 along with his friend/accused no.2 and they warned the victim girl that he will kill her parents, if she does not marry him. There is life threat for them. Hence, he requested to take necessary legal action against the accused no.1 and 2.

(a) Based on the said complaint, LW14/Sub-Inspector of police, Kodad

Town Police station had registered a case in crime No. 120 of 2022 for the offence punishable under Section 354-A, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Sec. 7 r/w 8 of The POCSO Act-2012 and issued First Information Report.

(b) LW14 examined LW1 and recorded his statement and visited the house of the complainant, where he examined and recorded the statements of LW2 to LW5 including victim girl/LW5 and visited the scene of offence situated at the Real smart point, Huzurnagar road, kodad Town and conducted scene of offence panchanama and drawn rough sketch in presence of LW8/Erukala Sravan Kumar and LW9/Shaik Rafi.

(c) On requisition of LW14, LW7/Head Master of Vaishnavi School,

Kodad town furnished Study & Conduct certificate of the victim girl. As per

Fair Page 4 of 18 SC POCSO No. 118 of 2022 the same, the victim girl was minor. On that LW14 examined and recorded the statement of LW7.

(d) On 27.03.2022, LW14 served a notice U/sec.41(A) (1) Cr.P.C. to the accused no.1 and 2 directing them to appear before LW14, but they failed to comply Sec. 41(a) (1) Cr.P.C. proceedings. On 31.03.2022 at noon hours, LW14 apprehended the accused no.1 and 2 and on interrogation the accused confessed to have committed the offence. LW14 recorded the confession-cum-seizure panchanama of accused no.1 and 2 in the presence of LW10 and LW11 and seized KTM RC-200 bike bearing no.TS- 29-E-9992 and I-mobile phone from the accused no.1 and sent the accused no.1 and 2 for judicial remand.

(e) On requisition of LW14, LW13/ Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Kodad recorded the Sec. 164 Cr.P.C. statement of victim girl/LW5 on 11.04.2022. After collecting all relevant documents and after completion of entire investigation, LW14 filed charge sheet against the accused no.1 and 2 alleging that they committed the offence and liable for punishment for the offence under Sections 354-A, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Sec. 7 r/w 8 of

POCSO Act-2012. Hence, the charge.

3. Cognizance is taken for the offences punishable under Sections 354-A, 506 of IPC and Sec. 7 r/w 8 of POCSO Act-2012 against the accused no.1 and 2.

4. On appearance of accused no.1 and 2 before Court, furnished copies of the charge sheet and other connected documents to them under

Fair Page 5 of 18 SC POCSO No. 118 of 2022

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

5. On hearing the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State and after hearing the learned defense counsel, upon considering all the material placed by prosecution, charges under Sections 354-A, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Sec. 7 r/w 8 of POCSO Act-2012 have been framed against accused, 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 the learned Defence counsel.

6. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused no.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Sections 354-A, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Sec. 7 r/w 8 of POCSO Act-2012, the prosecution has examined PWs-1 to 8 and got marked Exhibits P-1 to P-8 on the prosecution side and MO1 marked. No defence witnesses were examined and no documents got marked on behalf of the accused no.1 and 2.

7. After completion of prosecution side evidence, the accused no.1 and 2 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating evidence found against them. The accused denied the evidence of prosecution and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

8. Heard the learned public prosecutor representing State, and the learned defence counsel appearing for the Accused.

Fair Page 6 of 18 SC POCSO No. 118 of 2022

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

1. “Whether the prosecution has been able to prove the

guilt of the accused no.1 and 2 for the offences

punishable under Sections 354-A, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and

Sec.7 r/w 8 of POCSO Act-2012 and whether the accused

no.1 and 2 are guilty for culpable state of mind and liable

for punishment for the said offences?”

2. To what result?”

POINT No.1:

10. The charges levelled against the accused are that the accused no.1 with the help of accused no.2 followed the minor victim girl, made phone calls and took her to Hyderabad to movie and touched her on the chest and gave kisses and demanded to fulfill his lust and committed offences punishable offence U/sec., 354-A and 506 IPC and Sec.7 r/w 8 of POCSO

Act and A2 is liable for punishment for helping accused no.1.

11. The case of the prosecution as unfold by the prosecution witnesses is that, PW1 is the victim girl and PW2 is the father of the victim girl and their evidence reveal that the accused no.1 is resident of their locality. The wife of PW2 saw the victim girl chatting with the accused no.1 and they had admonished him.

12. PW1 deposed that she and accused no.1 were friends while studying intermediate and after writing examination of intermediate first year, when she got holidays, due to Covid-19 pandemic, she attended online classes, the accused no.1 used to chat with her through Whatsapp. After completing intermediate, they appeared for competitive exams, but the accused no.1 did not attend counseling. PW1 joined in Anurag Engineering

Fair Page 7 of 18 SC POCSO No. 118 of 2022 college and they continued chatting. Then on one day, A1 proposed his love, but she did not accept it. For six months, he continued to propose his love and then she accepted it in March-2022, A1 asked her to come to

Suryapet on his bike and she went accordingly. But, the accused no.1 took her to Hyderabad and they went to a movie at Hyderabad. In the theater accused no.1 started kissing her and touched her chest. As such she came out of the theater, the accused no.1 followed her, when she asked him to take her home, he requested to come to his room and took her to Kodad.

(a) During that night, when she was chatting with the accused no.1, PW1 saw her and asked her and then she revealed everything. Her father advised to complete her studies and then think about marriage and also told the same to the parents of the accused no.1. On the next day, when

PW1 was boarding a bus to go to college, A1 came and touched her waist and asked her to come with him. She refused and boarded the bus and informed the same to her father. Her father scolded and advised accused no.1. On the next day, the brother of PW1 came with her to college and A1 came to college and scolded her brother. Again they informed to PW2, then PW2 and his brother went to college and questioned accused no.1, on which accused no.1 threatened to kill her father and as such PW2 lodged complaint.

13. PW3 is said to be eye witness and as per his evidence PW2 told him that A1 and A2 were harassing PW1 and PW3 went to Anurag Engineering

College to look after the victim girl. A1 and A2 came there and abused him

Fair Page 8 of 18 SC POCSO No. 118 of 2022 that he was no way concerned with the victim girl and kicked his bike, on which he fell down.

14. PW6 is the Investigating Officer. As per his evidence, he received the complaint from PW2 and registered the case in Cr. No.120/2022 and issued FIR and recorded their statements. He visited Real Smart point,

Huzurnagar road, Kodad and recorded scene of offence panchanama and drawn rough sketch. The victim statement was recorded by Woman ASI at

Barosa centre. He has collected the study and conduct certificate of the victim girl from PW4. PW6 issued Rule 41(A) Cr.P.C. notice to the accused, but he failed to comply and as such he apprehended the accused no.1 and 2 on 31.03.2022 and recorded their confession statements and seized one mobile phone and one bike and the accused were produced

before the Court. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

15. PW4 is the Principal of Sri Vaishnavi High School, Gudibanda Road,

Kodad. As per his evidence on the requisition of police, he issued study certificate of the victim girl after verifying the school record. As per the school record, the date of birth of the victim girl was 10.08.2004 and she studied from 3rd class to 10th class in that school. The original Admission

Register was brought to court and was verified.

16. PW5 is one of the panch witness for scene of offence panchanama.

As per his evidence, when they were proceeding to Kodad town in front of

Reliance Smart on 26.03.2022 police stopped him and conducted scene of offence panchanama and drafted rough sketch and he signed on it. His evidence further reveals that there were Sub Inspector and three

Fair Page 9 of 18 SC POCSO No. 118 of 2022 constables at that time and SI told him that the case was about teasing a girl. He has acquaintance with accused no.1, but he does not know PW1.

The police did not call any person from Reliance smart or neighboring people.

17. PW7 was one of the panch witness for confession panchanama. As per his evidence on 31.03.2022 at 12.30 hours, while he was passing through Azadnagar, the police called him and A1 and A2 were arrested and in the custody of police. On enquiry, A1 and A2 confessed the commission of offence. The police seized one mobile phone and one motor cycle. His evidence further reveals that he has no previous acquaintance with A1 and A2. After date of confession, for the first time he saw both the accused in the court hall. The panchanama was prepared in the Lab top.

18. As per the evidence of PW2, the father of victim, his daughter and A1 were friends, their houses are nearer to each other. They did not hand over the chat history between them to police. PW2, one RMP doctor and one

Musthafa went to the house of the accused no.1 and Ramesh and

Musthafa went inside of the house and talked to them. Due to fear that A1 may do something, he lodged the complaint.

19. The evidence of PW1 reveals that her date of birth was 14.10.2004.

Generally, while leaving the house, she informs to her mother. She cannot say the exact date on which they went to Hyderabad. On that day, the college was functioning and they returned at about 7.30 or 08.00 Pm.

They went to Radheshyam Movie. She does not know the name of the theater. They belong to Vysya community and accused no.1 belonged to

Fair Page 10 of 18 SC POCSO No. 118 of 2022

Naidu community. She was not present when A1 and A2 abused her father, brother and junior paternal uncle. Her Junior paternal uncle made a recording when A1 and A2 abused them and shown it to PW1.

20. The evidence of PW6, the IO reveals that he did not seize the mobile phone of the victim girl as the victim stated that she deleted the chatting.

He did not collect any material that A1 and victim girl went to Hyderabad.

As per his investigation on 23.03.2022 victim girl was teased by A1 in front of Reliance Smart. The incident of threatening took place on 24.03.2022.

He did not examine any of the students at the college. His investigation did not reveal the exact date on which the victim girl and A1 went to

Hyderabad. As per his knowledge, there was no video recording and he did not collect any video recordings about any incident at college. He does not know that CC TV cameras are fixed at Reliance Smart. He did not collect any evidence about misbehavior of the accused. He did not collect any evidence that victim travelled in bus.

21. The evidence as discussed above reveals that PW1 and Accused no.1 were classmates and they were studying intermediate and they were attending to online classes, due to Covid-19 pandemic i.e. in the 2020 and they used to chat with each other. The specific evidence of PW1 was that accused no.1 stopped his studies though he got rank in the competitive exam and PW1 joined in Anurag Engineering College. Her evidence further reveals that they continued chatting. She did not state in which year she joined in Engineering college. Her evidence further reveals that during the chatting, accused no.1 proposed his love to her and she did not accept the

Fair Page 11 of 18 SC POCSO No. 118 of 2022 proposal and for six months, he continued his proposal. The evidence reveals that PW1 did not stop chatting with accused no.1 and she continued her communication with accused no.1 even during the said period of six months. She further deposed that she accepted his love. Thus it is proved that till then any of these acts do not constitute any offence under any law including the POCSO Act.

22. The evidence of PW1 was that in the month of March-2022, the accused no.1 asked and took her to Hyderabad on his bike to a movie, where he misbehaved with her by touching her body and she came out of the theater and he brought her back to Kodad. There was no evidence produced by the prosecution to prove this first crime scene. PW6 the

Investigating Officer did not conduct any scene of offence in theater, in which they said to have watched the movie. PW6 did not also collect any details as to in which theater PW1 and A1 went to watch movie. The evidence of PW1 shows that even after returning from the movie, she continued chatting with accused no.1, which was heard by her father. Then her father i.e. PW2 started observing the issues and he has advised PW1 to complete her studies and then think about marriage. No complaint was lodged by them. By then PW1 was attending to Engineering college on her own with liberty to move with her friends.

23. The evidence of PW2 reveals that he informed the matter to the parents of accused no.1 through elders i.e. one RMP doctor Ramesh and one Musthafa. The said Ramesh was cited as witness by the prosecution,

Fair Page 12 of 18 SC POCSO No. 118 of 2022 but he was not examined before the court. The said Musthafa was not at all cited as witness.

24. The evidence of PW1 and PW2 show that on one day when PW1 was boarding college bus near Reliance Smart point, the accused came and touched her waist and asked her to marry him. Ex.P4 is crime details form with rough sketch for the said crime scene. As per the rough sketch the crime scene was shown on road in front of reliance smart point. There is no bus stand shown in the rough sketch. The Investigating Officer admitted that he did not collect the CC TV footages from reliance smart point in this case. Thus, the prosecution did not produce the crucial and best evidence, which would prove the presence of accused no.1, when the victim girl was boarding the bus and any of his acts towards victim girl.

25. The evidence of PW2 shows that the incident happened three days prior lodging complaint. The evidence of PW1 and PW2 was that A1 and

A2 went to the college and harassed PW1 and threatened to kill her parents and PW2 and his wife on knowing it from PW1 went to the college.

However, the evidence of PW1 was that the brother of PW1 accompanied her to the college and accused came to college and abused her brother, on which her brother called her father and PW2 and her junior paternal uncle came there, but accused no.1 scolded them and threatened to kill them.

26. PW1 further deposed that she was not present when accused no.1 scolded her father. However, PW2 did not state any such incident. On the other hand, the evidence of PW3 was that PW2 sent him to college to lookafter PW1/victim girl and when he went to college both the accused

Fair Page 13 of 18 SC POCSO No. 118 of 2022 abused him in filthy language and kicked his bike, due to which fell down.

The evidence of PW1 to PW3 is contradictory to each other in respect of this material incidents.

27. Ex.P1 is the complaint lodged by PW2, it was mentioned that accused no.1 was following PW1 and demanding to fulfill his desire and touched her at objectionable place and inspite of warnings, he went to her college and harassed PW1 and threatened to kill the family and due to fear of life, they lodged the complaint. The statements of PW1 and PW2 were also to that effect. PW2 did not state in earlier statement that three days prior to lodging complaint, the accused no.1 misbehaved with PW1 while boarding the bus.

28. In view of these material contradictions as discussed above, the delay in lodging the complaint is a crucial point. The evidence of investigating officer reveals that he did not collect the chat history between PW1 and

A1 from PW1 as she stated that she deleted entire chat and PW6 seized mobile phone of accused no.1, but no chat record was retrieved and produced before the court, to corroborate with the evidence of prosecution to prove who was the caller and who was the receiver among PW1 and A1.

It is further essential to prove the genunity about the incidents mentioned by PW1 about sexual harassment.

29. In these circumstances and in view of these material contradictions and the nonproduction the best possible evidence that could have been collected by the IO, but was not collected, it all raises doubts with regard to the incidents said to have taken place as per the evidence of PW1 and

Fair Page 14 of 18 SC POCSO No. 118 of 2022

PW2. The statement and evidence of PW1 that she accepted the love of accused no.1 and that both of them belonged to different communities raises doubts beyond reasonable probabilities about happening of any such events of sexual abuse by accused no.1 towards PW1. The prosecution failed to produce the prima facie proof to prove the said incidents and failed to discharge burden laid on it to prove the guilt of accused no.1 U/sec. 354-A and 506 IPC or Section 7 of POCSO Act.

30. The evidence as discussed above revealed that the involvement of accused no. 2 was only going along with accused no.1 to college. Due to material contradictions in the evidence of PW1 and PW2, the involvement of accused no.2 in any of the incidents was not proved. As per the complaint, it was only mentioned that accused no.1 along with his friend accused no.2 was going to college and harassing PW1, but no direct overt acts of the accused no. 2 were mentioned. As such the prosecution failed to prove the involvement of accused no.2 in any of the incidents and hence, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused no.2.

31. The learned counsel for the accused submitted during arguments that the age of PW1 was shown as above 17 years by the date of incidents.

When a person crosses the age of 17 years, he or she entered into the age of 18 years and as such cannot be treated as minor.

32. The evidence reveals that PW1 was studying Engineering at the time of lodging complaint, which shows that PW1 has completed SSC and also completed intermediate. Ex.P3 is the study -cum-conduct certificate

Fair Page 15 of 18 SC POCSO No. 118 of 2022 produced by the prosecution in respect of the date of birth of PW1/victim girl.

33. Section 94 of The Juvenile Justice (care & protection of children) Act, prescribe the documents which shall be taken as criteria for determination of age of a child. The first document is matriculation and equivalent certificate. Though there is possibility of production of SSC certificate of victim girl, it was not produced and only a study and conduct certificate from school produced though best evidence is available. The non- production of the same shall be presumed to be to suppress the true fact of date of birth of the victim. As per the date of birth given under Ex.P3 PW1 was born on 10.08.2004. The incident if any to be covered under the

POCSO Act said to have happened in march-2022. Thus, by then as per the date of birth of PW1 was aged above 17 years seven months or so.

There was only few months period for PW1 to attain majority by the date of so called the incident.

34. It is settled law that determination of age of a victim girl about her minority at the time of incident is essential to extend the protection under the POCSO Act. The exact age is to be taken as criteria and no benefit of doubt can be given while computing the age of the victim girl, as in the case of juvenile. The benefit of doubt about age of victim if any, has to go to the accused. The non production of SSC certificate of PW1, which is the crucial document for determination of age, when considered together with the fact that there was only five months period, by which PW1 may have attained majority, raises serious doubts as to whether PW1 was minor by

Fair Page 16 of 18 SC POCSO No. 118 of 2022 the date of the so called incident to extent the protection under the POCSO

Act.

35. For all the reasons discussed above, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused no. 1 with cogent and corroborative evidence. The prosecution is not entitled to draw any presumptions under section 29 and 30 in view of the material contradictions and other issues as discussed above. Hence, the accused no.1 and 2 are entitled to be acquitted.

36. In the result, the Accused No. 1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offences under sections 354-A,506 of IPC and Sec. 7 r/w 8 of POCSO Act- 2012 and accordingly they are acquitted under section 235(1) Cr.P.C.for the said offences. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of Six months U/Sec. 437(A) Cr.P.C./ Section 481 BNSS Act. MO1 mobile is to be returned to the true owner on proper acknowledgment. The return of unmarked case property i.e. bike to the original owner shall hold good.

Dictated to steno, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 19 th day of September,

2025.

Sd/-

Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Suryapet

FAC: The Fast Tract Spl. Court for Expeditious

Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act cases,

Suryapet

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)

Fair Page 17 of 18 SC POCSO No. 118 of 2022

PW 1xxx Victim girl

PW2xxx Complainant and father of the Victim girl

PW3Shaik Peda Lalu Saheb Eye witness

PW4Mohammad Arifuddin Head Master, issued Date of birth certificate of the victim girl

PW5Erukala Sravan Kumar Panch witness for scene of offence

PW6S. Rambabu Investigating officer and filed charge sheet.

PW7Tejawath Ravi Panch witness for confession-cum- seizure of accused no.1 and 2

PW8L. Mounika Recorded the statement 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)

---- -

C. Court witnesses, if any:

RANK NAME Nature of evidence (Eye witness, Police witness, Expert witness, medical witness, panch witness, other witness)

---- --

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

Sl. Exhibit Number Description No.

1 Exhibit P-1/PW2 Report 2 Exhibit P-2/PW4 Extract of the Admission register 3 Exhibit P-3/PW4 Study and Conduct certificate of victim girl 4 Exhibit P-4/PW5 CDF along with rough sketch 5 Exhibit P-5/PW6 FIR 6 Exhibit P-6/PW6 Confession-cum-seizure panchanama

Fair Page 18 of 18 SC POCSO No. 118 of 2022 7 Exhibit P-7/PW1 Attested copy of SCC Memo of the victim girl 8 Exhibit P-8/PW7 Statement of the victim girl

B. Defence: Sl. Exhibit Description No. Number

-- - -

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

-- -- --

D. Material Objects: Sl. Material Object Description No. Number 1 MO-1 Mobile phone

sd/-

Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Suryapet

FAC: The Fast Tract Spl. Court for Expeditious

Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act cases Suryapet

Fair Page 1 of 18 SC POCSO No. 44 of 2019

THE COURT OF THE FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT FOR EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL

AND DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND POCSO ACT CASES, SURYAPET

Dated this 16 th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025.

PRESENT: Smt. P. Lakshmi Sarada,

Prl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Suryapet

FAC: The Fast Track Spl. Court for Expeditious Trial and

Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases, Suryapet

SC POCSO No. 44 OF 2019

Complainant:The State of Telangana through Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Kodad.

Crime No. & Police Crime No. 149 of 2018, Nereducherla P.S. station:

Description of accused: Parika Naveen, S/o. Janaiah(late), Age:22 years, Occ:Hamali, R/o. Ramapuram village, Nereducherla Mandal.

Charge/s: Under Sections 376(2)(i)(n) of IPC and Sec. 5(l) r/w 6 of POCSO Act-2012.

Plea of the accused: Pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the court: In the result, Accused is found guilty for the offences punishable U/Sec. 5 (i) & (l) r/w 6 of POCSO Act-2012 and accordingly, he is CONVICTED U/s 235(2) Cr.P.C. .(Sec.258 (2) of BNSS ) for the said offence.

Prosecution conducted Sri. K. Lingaiah, Addl. Public Prosecutor, by: Suryapet.

Accused defended by : Sri. Bolleddu Venkata Rathnam, District Legal counsel on behalf of the accused.

Date of Offence 12.10.2018

Date of FIR 14.10.2018

Date of charge-sheet 05.03.2019

Date of framing charge(s) 10.01.2024

Date of commencement of evidence 30.05.2024

Date of which Judgment is reserved 07.08.2025

Date of Judgment 16.09.2025

Fair Page 2 of 18 SC POCSO No. 44 of 2019

Date of sentencing Order, if any 16.09.2025

:: ACCUSED DETAILS ::

Rank of Name Date of Date of Offences Whether Sentence imposed Period of Detention the of the Arrest Release charged with Acquitted undergone Accused Accuseon Bail U/Sec or during Trial for purpose d Convicted of Sec. 428 Cr.P.C. Accused Parika 17.10.2018 02.01.2019 U/sec. Convicted In the result, Accused is -- Naveen 376(2)(i)(n) of U/Sec. found guilty for the offences IPC and Sec. 235(2) punishable U/Sec. 5(i) &(l) r/w 6 5(l) r/w 6 of Cr.P.C.of POCSO Act-2012 and POCSO Act-accordingly, he is CONVICTED 2012 U/s 235(2) Cr.P.C. .( Sec.258 (2) of BNSS ) for the said offence. The accused is convicted for the offence punishable U/sec. 5(l) r/w 6 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of twenty years and he shall also pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one year. The Fine amount of Rs. 25,000/-, on deposit, shall be given to PW2 towards compensation under section 6(2) of The POCSO Act. In addition, the victim is entitled for compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) under Rule 7 of the POCSO Rules, 2012 for the physical and mental agony suffered by her. The Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Suryapet is instructed to take necessary steps for payment of the said compensation to the victim girl as early as possible. The accused is appraised about his right to prefer an Appeal before the Hon’ble High Court and he is further informed that he will be provided Legal- aid counsel if required.

Upon considering the material on record and upon hearing Arguments, the court delivered the following:

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

1. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Kodad has filed the charge sheet in Crime No. 149 of 2018 against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(i)(n) of IPC and Sec. 5(l) r/w 6 of the Protection of

Fair Page 3 of 18 SC POCSO No. 44 of 2019

Children from Sexual offences Act (herein after referred as POCSO Act for brevity) of Nereducherla Police Station.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief was that on 14.10.2018, at 18.00 hours the defacto-complainant/LW1/mother of the victim girl came to Police

Station and lodged a Telugu written complaint that her daughter i.e. victim girl, aged eight years was studying 2nd class. While she was giving bath to victim girl, observed pus oozing from vagina, due to infection. On 26.09.2018, she took her daughter to the hospital of Dr.Sahithi,

Miryalaguda for treatment and the medical officer asked her whether any sexual harassment has occurred on victim, then the complainant replied no such assault has been occurred and the medical officer gave medicine, but the infection was not cured. Again on 12.10.2018 she took the victim girl to the hospital and the medical officer informed that sexual assault has been occurred on her daughter. On enquiry, the victim girl told that her maternal uncle i.e. accused deceived her stating that he can show videos in cell phone, took her to his room and touched her in private parts and forcibly committed rape on her and he threatened to kill her, if informed to anybody. Hence, she requested to take necessary legal action.

(a) Based on the said complaint, LW12/Sub-Inspector of police,

Nereducherla Police station had registered a case in crime No. 149 of 2018 for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(i) of IPC and Sec. 5(l) r/w 6 of POCSO Act-2012 and issued First Information Report.

(b) LW15/Sub-Division Police Officer, Kodad sent the victim girl to Area

Hospital, Suryapet for medical examination. LW10/Dr.A.Silpa, CAS area

Fair Page 4 of 18 SC POCSO No. 44 of 2019 hospital, Suryapet examined the victim girl and preserved the vaginal swabs and forwarded the same to FSL, Hyderabad. During the course of investigation, LW15 visited Ramapuram village, examined and recorded the statements of LW1 to LW4. On request of LW15, LW14/Woman Police

Constable visited the house of LW1, examined and recorded the statements of LW5/victim girl. LW15 visited scene of offence situated at the house of LW3 at Ramapruam village and conducted scene of offence panchanama and drawn rough sketch in presence of LW8/Kodamagundla

Buchaiah and LW9/Kodati Srikanth.

(c) On requisition of LW15, LW6/Principal of Mariananda Vidyapeeth

English Medium, Ramapuram village furnished Study & Conduct certificate of the victim girl. As per the same, the victim girl was minor. On that LW14 examined and recorded the statement of LW6.

(d) On 17.10.2018 at Morning hours, LW14 apprehended the accused and on interrogation the accused confessed to have committed the offence. Thereafter, LW15 sent the accused for potency test at

Government CHC, Kodad. After examination of the accused by Duty

Medical Officer/LW11/ Dr. Vijay, CHC Kodad, he issued potency report, in which he opined that “there is nothing to suggest that the male examined is not capable of performing of sexual acts” and sent the accused for judicial remand.

(e) On requisition of LW15, LW12/Prl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Nalgonda recorded the Sec. 164 Cr.P.C. statements of LW1 to LW5 on 27.10.2018. On 26.10.2018, LW15 visited Miryalaguda, examined and

Fair Page 5 of 18 SC POCSO No. 44 of 2019 recorded the statement of LW7. On 12.01.2019, LW15 received FSL report from FSL Hyderabad and opined that item no. 1 and 2 are examined, semen and spermatozoa are not detected on item no.1 and 2.

After collecting all relevant documents and after completion of entire investigation, LW15 filed charge sheet against the accused alleging that he committed the offence and he is liable for punishment for the offence under

Sections 376(2)(i)(n) of IPC and Sec. 5(l) r/w 6 of POCSO Act-2012.

Hence, the charge.

3. Cognizance is taken for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(i)(n) of IPC and Sec. 5(l) r/w 6 of POCSO Act-2012 against the accused.

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

Cr.P.C. Case was made over to this Court, for trial and disposal.

5. On hearing the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State and after hearing the learned defense counsel, upon considering all the material placed by prosecution, charges under Sections 376(2)(i)(n) of IPC and Sec. 5(l) r/w 6 of POCSO Act-2012 have 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. The Accused is defended by the learned Defence counsel.

6. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(i)(n) of IPC and Sec. 5(l) r/w 6 of

Fair Page 6 of 18 SC POCSO No. 44 of 2019

POCSO Act-2012, the prosecution has examined PWs-1 to 10 and got marked Exhibits P-1 to P-10 on the prosecution side. No defence witnesses were examined and no documents got marked 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 representing State, and the learned defence counsel appearing for the Accused. Written arguments filed on behalf of accused.

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

1. “Whether the prosecution has been able to prove the

guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under

Sections 376(2)(i)(n) of IPC and Sec. 5(l) r/w 6 of POCSO

Act-2012 and whether the accused is guilty for culpable

state of mind and liable for punishment for the said

offences?”

2. To what result?”

POINT No.1:

10. The charges levelled against the accused are that the accused committed forcible penetrative assault repeatedly upon the minor victim girl, due to which she got infected and the accused is liable for punishment

U/sec.376(2)(i)(n) IPC and Sec. 5(l) r/w 6 of POCSO Act.

11. The case of the prosecution as unfold by the prosecution witnesses is that, PW1 is the mother of the victim girl and PW2 is the victim girl. As per

Fair Page 7 of 18 SC POCSO No. 44 of 2019 their evidence the accused is resident of next room of the house /room of

PW1 and PW2 and PW2 was aged about 8 years and studying second class in Mariyananda Vidyanekethan School. On one day, when she returned from school and was alone at home, the accused came to her and on the pretext of giving cell phone to play games, he took her to his room and made her sit upon him. He unzipped his pant and placed his private part in the washroom area/vagina of PW2, due to which she felt pain.

When she complained about pain, the accused stated that nothing will happen and asked to continue the games in the cell phone. He repeatedly committed such acts upon her and threatened to take away of her life, if she reveals to anybody.

12. On 26.09.2018 when PW1 was giving bath to PW2, she observed discharge from the vagina of PW2 and immediately took her to

Miryalaguda Hospital to Dr. Sahithi. The doctor enquired whether PW2 was subjected to any sexual assault and PW1 replied in negative. Medication was given. The infection was not reduced. Again, she took PW2 to the same doctor on 12.10.2018 and the doctor confirmed that it was infection from sexual assault. On enquiry, PW2 revealed that about two months ago, the accused committed the acts of touching her at her private parts and she felt pain etc., Then, PW1 lodged complaint. PW1 deposed that she does not know the contents of complaint.

13. PW4 is the doctor, who treated PW2. As per her evidence, on 26.09.2018 PW1 brought PW2, aged about seven or eight years, with a complaint of ulcer on external genitalia and discharge with foul smell. On

Fair Page 8 of 18 SC POCSO No. 44 of 2019 examination, PW4 suspected sexual assault upon victim girl, but her mother stated that no such incident occurred. On 12.10.2018, again the victim girl brought to her. Then PW4 counselled and enquired the victim girl, when she revealed about sexual assault acts of known person. PW4 suggested to take her to gynecologist.

14. PW9 was the SI of police of police station Nereducherla at that time.

As per his evidence on 14.10.2018 at 06.00 pm, PW1 came to police station and lodged complaint, on which he registered a case. PW1 brought a written complaint.

15. PW10 is Investigating Officer, SDPO, Kodad. As per his evidence, he visited Ramapuram village and recorded the statement of witnesses. The statement of the victim girl recorded by Woman Head Constable/PW7. He has conducted scene of offence panchanama at H.No. 1-25 at Ramapuram village, where the crime occurred and drawn rough sketch. He collected date of birth certificate of the victim girl from PW3. On 17.10.2018 accused was apprehended and produced before PW10. The accused admitted the commission of offence. He was subjected to medical examination and potency test. The material objects were forwarded to FSL analysis and after collecting all the documents, PW10 filed charge sheet.

16. His evidence reveals that he did not seize any material from the scene of offence. The panch witnesses were available locally. During his investigation, it was revealed that the accused and father of victim girl are close relatives. The parents of accused died and his maternal grandmother brought him up.

Fair Page 9 of 18 SC POCSO No. 44 of 2019

17. As per the evidence of PW7 the Woman Head Constable, on 15.08.2018, she has examined the victim girl at her residence at

Ramapuram and recorded the statement in writing.

18. As per the evidence of PW3, the Principal of Mariyananda Vidyapet school, the victim girl joined in their school and her date of birth was recorded as 06.10.2011 and she studied up to second class. The attested copy of Register of Admissions was also produced.

19. As per the evidence of PW5, one of the panch witness for scene of offence panchanama, on 15.10.2018 the police came to the house of PW1 and conducted scene observation and prepared panchanama and rough sketch and PW5 signed on it.

20. As per the evidence of PW6, the Civil Assistant Surgeon, Suryapet

Government Hospital, on 15.10.2018 at 06.00 am, the victim girl was brought to her and on examination, she found raw area /redness on perineum and vaginal wall congested and Hyman was deeply seated. The victim girl was not co-operative for further examination. She collected vaginal swabs and smears on glass slides and nail clipping and sent for

FSL analysis. As per FSL report and preliminary clinical examination, she gave final opinion that sexual assault cannot be ruled out. She does not remember whether the victim girl stated anything about incident. She did not note the history of the case.

21. PW8 is Civil Assistant Surgeon, Kodad government hospital and he conducted potency test on the accused and gave opinion that there is nothing to suggest that the accused is not capable of performing sexual

Fair Page 10 of 18 SC POCSO No. 44 of 2019 act. However, he further deposed that potency test can be conducted only by urologist and andrologist.

22. The evidence as discussed above, proves that the victim girl was minor and seven years aged during the period of incident. There is nothing to dispute the study certificate under Ex.P2, which reveals that the date of birth of the victim girl was 16.10.2011. The evidence further reveals that the accused is neighbour and relative of the victim girl family.

23. Ex.P4/scene of offence panchanama and rough sketch shows the location of the houses of PW1 family and accused. The rough sketch shows that it is H. No.1-25 with two rooms from east to west. The western side room was shown as that of complainant, middle room is the residence of accused and the eastern side room belonged to one Theegala

Saidamma. The location of the houses of complainant and accused as reflected in the rough sketch is also not disputed.

24. So far as the incident is concerned, PW2 the victim girl clearly stated the acts of the accused committed upon her. At the time of her evidence, she was aged 14 years. Her evidence further reveals that the accused used to play music in band. He used to reside along with his wife and grandparents and brother.

25. PW2 deposed that at the time of incident, the wife of accused went to her parents house, the grandfather of accused went to work and grandmother mostly spends her time outside sitting under the trees and the brother of the accused was working at GV Mall and went on work. The accused used to go to work occasionally and returns home whenever work

Fair Page 11 of 18 SC POCSO No. 44 of 2019 is finished and there were no specific timings for him. The mother of PW2 used to go to work from 06.00 am till 06.00 pm and her father used to go to for auto driving from 05.00 am till 10.00 pm. PW2 returns to home from school by 04.00 or 04.30 pm.

26. She further deposed that her mother gives her bath regularly and her mother found the infection on private parts of PW2. The accused molested her for five times. It was suggested to PW2/victim girl that there were quarrels between their families with regard to rent and as such false case was foisted against the accused, which was denied by victim girl. No suggestion was given to PW1.

27. Again, it was suggested to PW10/Investigating Officer that the father of the victim girl promised to give 10 gts., of land to the accused and mother of the victim girl raised objection and refused, for which several panchayaths took place. As per the evidence of PW10, his investigation revealed that grandfather of the victim girl is brother of mother of the accused.

28. The evidence as discussed above reveals that PW4 the first medical practitioner who examined the victim girl, has strongly suspected that sexual assault took place upon the victim girl, in view of the medical condition of the victim girl. Till then there was no hint of any such thing to

PW1. Even at that time, PW1 negatived the possibility of any such incident upon victim.

29. Ex.P5 is the medical report of PW6 on preliminary examination. It shows that the victim girl has not attained Menarche (first menstrual period)

Fair Page 12 of 18 SC POCSO No. 44 of 2019 and secondary sexual characters not developed. This preliminary report, with the evidence of PW2 proves that PW2 was not in a position to understand what was happening to her by any acts of accused.

30. The evidence of PW1 and PW2 reveals that after several days of sexual assault, PW1 found the infection at the vaginal part of PW2 while giving her bath, which shows that there may not be any traces of sexual assault left on the physical body of PW2 by the time of her clinical examination by PW4 or PW6. The evidence of PW4 is crucial to the case, who has categorically deposed that on the first examination and on noticing the discharge with foul smell at the vagina of the victim girl, she suspected sexual assault.

31. It reveals that the infection was not possible unless the victim girl was subjected to sexual assault. Though, the medical prescription was not produced by the prosecution, the evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW4 is corroborative with each other and consistent and proves that PW2 suffered infection. Nothing could be elicited from PW4 to falsify her evidence in respect of her opinion about the infection of PW2.

32. PW2 withstood to the cross examination and specifically stated how the accused has managed to get lonely time with the victim girl and how he lured her to play games in his mobile phone and his specific acts done upon her. Thus, the evidence of PW2 inspires the confidence of the court and proves the acts of the accused, without scope for any other doubts.

33. Though PW1 deposed that she does not know the contents of complaint, she has categorically deposed in the same lines of the contents

Fair Page 13 of 18 SC POCSO No. 44 of 2019 of complaint. PW2 also has deposed in the same lines in which she gave her statement to PW7 and the Magistriate and it is consistent from the beginning. PW6 has examined the victim girl after lodging complaint, even as per her opinion, sexual assault cannot be ruled out. All the circumstances, with clear, cogent and corroborative evidence proves the acts of the accused upon the victim girl.

34. The answer of the accused to incriminating circumstances revealed against him during his examination U/sec. 313 Cr.P.C. (351 of BNSS), is one of a denial and he did not give any explanation. As discussed above, no suggestions were given to PW1, who is mother of victim girl in respect of any disputes between the family of accused and PW1. It was only suggested to PW2, who is a minor girl. However, she denied the said suggestion. The accused did not produce any corroborative evidence to rule out the possibility of his access to the victim girl or to substantiate his suggestion of disputes.

35. As per section 29 of POCSO Act, it shall be presumed that the accused has committed the offence upon the victim girl unless and until the contrary is proved. As per section 30 of POCSO Act it shall also be presumed that there is culpable mental state for the accused in committing the acts upon the victim. As per section 30 of POCSO Act, it shall be the defence for the accused to prove the fact that he had no such culpable mental state and it shall be established beyond reasonable doubt.

36. The accused did not produce any iota of evidence to prove the contrary and the evidence of prosecution is corroborative, consistent and

Fair Page 14 of 18 SC POCSO No. 44 of 2019 cogent which has proved the guilt of the accused. It is proved that the accused is relative of victim who is tender aged and vulnerable and believed his words and accused committed heinous acts of aggravated penetrative sexual assault repeatedly, resulting in bodily harm to the sexual organs of the victim child. As such the accused is liable for punishment for the said acts.

37. Section 6 of POCSO Act provides for punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault with rigorous imprisonment for a term, which shall not be less than twenty years, but which may extend to imprisonment for a life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of natural life of the accused or death. Section 376 (2) (n) of IPC provides for punishment with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than Ten years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life. As such, in view of

Section 42 of The POCSO Act, the punishment provided under POCSO

Act is greater in degree and as such punishment to be imposed upon the accused under The POCSO Act.

38. In the result, Accused is FOUND GUILTY for the offences punishable

U/Sec. 5 (i) & (l) r/w 6 of The POCSO Act and accordingly, he is CONVICTED

U/sec. 235(2) Cr.P.C.( 258 (2) of BNSS ) for the said offence.

Dictated to steno, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 16 th day of September,

2025.

Sd/-

Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Suryapet

FAC: The Fast Tract Spl. Court for Expeditious

Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act cases,

Suryapet

Fair Page 15 of 18 SC POCSO No. 44 of 2019

Dated: 16-09-2025 .

39. The accused is questioned about the quantum of sentence. He stated that he has two daughters, his wife suffering from fits, he is orphan and brought up in the house of complainant.

40. These circumstances also not exonerate the crime of accused and lenient view cannot be taken towards accused. Considering all these facts, the following sentence is passed.

The accused is convicted for the offence punishable U/sec. 5 (i) & (l) r/w 6 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of twenty years and he shall also pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one year.

The Fine amount of Rs. 25,000/-, on deposit, shall be given to PW2 towards compensation under section 6(2) of the POCSO Act.

In addition, the victim is entitled for compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) under Rule 7 of the POCSO Rules, 2012 for the physical and mental agony suffered by her.

The remand period of the accused shall be set off U/sec., 428 Cr.P.C./

Sec. 468 of BNSS Act.

The Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Suryapet is instructed to take necessary steps for payment of the said compensation to the victim girl as early as possible.

Fair Page 16 of 18 SC POCSO No. 44 of 2019

The accused is appraised about his right to prefer an Appeal before the

Hon’ble High Court and he is further informed that he will be provided

Legal-aid counsel if required.

Typed to my dictation by the Steno-Grade-I, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 16 th day of September, 2025.

Sd/-

Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Suryapet

FAC: The Fast Tract Spl. Court for Expeditious

Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act cases,

Suryapet

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 1xxx Defacto-complainant/mother of the victim girl

PW2xxx Victim girl

PW3P. Lukas Principal, Mariyananda, Vidyapet, issued Date of birth certificate of the victim girl

PW4Dr.Vasireddy Sahithi Medical Practitioner, Sahithi Hospital, Miryalaguda

PW5R. Buchaiah Panch witness for scene of offence

PW6Dr. A. Shilpa Examined the victim girl and issued final opinion

PW7G. Shivanagaphani Recorded the statement of the victim girl

PW8Dr. Vijay Mutha Deputy Civil Surgeon, Secunderabad

PW9Vislavath Sardar Naik Investigating officer, issued FIR

PW10B. Sudharshan Reddy Investigating officer, filed charge sheet

B. Defence Witnesses, if any: RANK NAME Nature of evidence (Eye witness, Police witness,

Fair Page 17 of 18 SC POCSO No. 44 of 2019

Expert witness, medical witness, panch witness, other witness)

---- -

C. Court witnesses, if any:

RANK NAME Nature of evidence (Eye witness, Police witness, Expert witness, medical witness, panch witness, other witness)

---- --

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

Sl. Exhibit Number Description No.

1 Exhibit P-1/PW1 Report 2 Exhibit P-2/PW3 Study and conduct certificate of the victim girl 3 Exhibit P-3/PW3 Attested copy of Register of Admissions 4 Exhibit P-4/PW5 Scene of offence panchanama along with rough sketch 5 Exhibit P-5/PW6 Preliminary report 6 Exhibit P-6/PW6 Final opinion 7 Exhibit P-7/PW6 FSL report 8 Exhibit P-8/PW7 Statement of the victim girl 9 Exhibit P-9/PW8 Potency test report 10 Exhibit P-10/PW9 FIR

B. Defence: Sl. Exhibit Description No. Number

-- - -

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

-- -- --

Fair Page 18 of 18 SC POCSO No. 44 of 2019

D. Material Objects: Sl. Material Object Description No. Number

-- -- --

Sd/-

Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Suryapet

FAC: The Fast Tract Spl. Court for Expeditious

Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act cases Suryapet //True Copy//

Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Suryapet FAC: The Fast Tract Spl. Court for Expeditious Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act cases Suryapet

Fair Page 1 of 12 SC POCSO No. 2 of 2019

THE COURT OF THE FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT FOR EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL

AND DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND POCSO ACT CASES, SURYAPET

Dated this 06 th DAY OF November, 2025.

PRESENT: Smt. P. Lakshmi Sarada,

Prl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Suryapet

FAC: The Fast Track Spl. Court for Expeditious Trial and

Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases, Suryapet

SC POCSO No. 02 OF 2019

Complainant:The State of Telangana through Sub-Inspector of Police, Noothankal.

Crime No. & Police Crime No. 40 of 2018, Noothankal P.S. station:

Description of accused: A1: Aitharaju Somaiah, S/o. Pitchaiah, Age: 55 years, Occ:Coolie, R/o. Patharlapad village of Athmakur-S mandal. A2: Aitharaju Mangamma, W/o. Somaiah, Age: 50 years, Occ:Coolie, R/o. Patharlapad village of Athmakur-S mandal. A3: Pagilla Umesh, S/o. Salaiah, Age: 22 years, R/o. Reponi of Danthalapally Mandal.

Charge/s: Under Sections 366, 343, 506 r/w 109 of IPC and Sec.8 of POCSO Act-2012.

Plea of the accused: Pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the court: In the result, the Accused No. 1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offences under sections 366, 343 r/w 109 IPC and Sec. 506 r/w 109 of IPC and Sec. 8 of POCSO Act and accordingly they are acquitted under section 235(1) Cr.P.C.for the said offences. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of Six months U/Sec. 437(A) Cr.P.C./Section 481 BNSS Act. Since, there is no case property, there is no order as to the case property.

Prosecution conducted Sri. K. Lingaiah, Addl. Public Prosecutor, by: Suryapet.

Accused defended by :Sri. A. Papa Rao, counsel for the accused No.1 to 3.

Fair Page 2 of 12 SC POCSO No. 2 of 2019

Date of Offence 29.03.2018

Date of FIR 31.03.2018

Date of charge-sheet 18.04.2022

Date of framing charge(s) 31.01.2024

Date of commencement of evidence 04.06.2024

Date of which Judgment is reserved 27.10.2025

Date of Judgment 03.11.2025

Date of sentencing Order, if any ---

:: ACCUSED DETAILS ::

Rank of Name of Date of Date of Offences Whether Sentence imposed Period of Detention the the Arrest Release charged with Acquitted undergone Accused Accused on Bail U/Sec or during Trial for purpose Convicted of Sec. 428 Cr.P.C. A1 Aitharaju 06.04.2018 18.04.2018 U/sec. 366, Acquitted -- -- Somaiah 343 r/w 109 IPC under section and Sec. 506 235(1) Cr.P.C r/w 109 of IPC and Sec. 8 of POCSO Act

A2 Aitharaju 06.04.2018 18.04.2018 U/sec. 366, Acquitted Mangam343 r/w 109 IPC under section -- -- ma and Sec. 506 235(1) Cr.P.C r/w 109 of IPC and Sec. 8 of POCSO Act

A3 Pagilla 12.05.2018 06.06.2018 U/sec. 366, Acquitted Umesh 343 r/w 109 IPC under section -- -- and Sec. 506 235(1) Cr.P.C r/w 109 of IPC and Sec. 8 of POCSO Act

Upon considering the material on record and upon hearing Arguments, the court delivered the following:

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

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Noothankal police station has filed the charge sheet in Crime No. 40 of 2018 against the accused no.1 to 3 for the offence punishable under Sections 366, 343, 506 r/w 109 of IPC and Sec.8 of The Protection of Children from Sexual offences Act (herein after referred as POCSO Act for brevity) of Noothankal Police Station.

Fair Page 3 of 12 SC POCSO No. 2 of 2019

2. The case of the prosecution in brief was that on 31.03.2018, at 18.30 hours the defacto-complainant/LW1/victim girl came to Police Station and lodged a Telugu written complaint that on 24.03.2018 when the victim girl alone in the house, Pagilla Sai, who is child in conflict with law and the accused no.1 and 2 came to their house and forcibly got sit her on a scooter driven by Sai and took her to Railway station at Khammam. From there, Pagilla Sai took her to Channai in train, wrongfully confined in a room and married her, even knowing she was minor girl. At Chennai, the accused no.3 and two other co-operated to Sai. On 29.03.2018, she left the room by saying that she would bring house hold articles, escaped and returned to their house. Hence, she requested to take necessary legal action against the accused no.1 to 3.

(a) Based on the said complaint, LW16/Sub-Inspector of police,

Noothankal Police station had registered a case in crime No. 40 of 2018 for the offence punishable under Section 366, 506 r/w 109, 34 of IPC and

Sec.8 of The POCSO Act-2012 and issued First Information Report.

(b) During the course of investigation, LW16 examined and recorded statement of LW2 at police station. LW15/Woman Sub-Inspector of police,

Huzurnagar examined the victim girl and recorded her statement. LW16 visited the house of the complainant at Thallasingaram, where he examined and recorded the statements of LW3 and LW4 and conducted scene of offence panchanama and drawn rough sketch in presence of

LW10/Uppula Naresh and LW11/Mattapally Vasu.

Fair Page 4 of 12 SC POCSO No. 2 of 2019

(c) On requisition of LW16, LW5/Head Master and LW6/Head Master furnished Study & Conduct certificate of the victim girl and Juvenile in conflict with law/Aitharaju Sai Kumar. As per the same, the victim girl and

Juvenile conflict with law/Aitharaju Sai Kumar were minors. On that LW16 examined and recorded the statements of LW5 and LW6. On requisition of

LW16, LW14/Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nakrekal recorded the Sec.

164 Cr.P.C. statement of victim girl.

(d) On 06.04.2018, LW16 apprehended the Juvenile in conflict with law/Aitharaju Sai Kumar and recorded his confessional statement in presence of LW12/Mattapally Sathish and LW13/Yellamula Paramesh and seized cell phone and motor cycle bearing no.AP-36-AX-0351 from the possession of the accused under the cover of confessional-cum-seizure panchanama. On 06.04.2018 the accused no.1 and 2 were arrested and on 12.05.2018, the accused no.3 was arrested and sent them for judicial remand. After collecting all relevant documents and after completion of entire investigation, LW14 filed charge sheet against the accused no.1 and 2 alleging that they committed the offence and liable for punishment for the offence under Sections 366, 343, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Sec.8 of The

Protection of Children from Sexual offences Act. Hence, the charge.

3. Cognizance is taken for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 343, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Sec.8 of The POCSO Act-2012 against the accused no.1 to 3.

Fair Page 5 of 12 SC POCSO No. 2 of 2019

4. On appearance of accused no.1 to 3 before Court, furnished copies of the charge sheet and other connected documents to them under Section 207 Cr.P.C. Case was made over to this Court, for trial and disposal.

5. On hearing the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State and after hearing the learned defense counsel, upon considering all the material placed by prosecution, charges under Sections 366, 343, 506 r/w 109 of IPC and Sec.8 of The POCSO Act-2012 have been framed against accused, read over and explained 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 the learned Defence counsel.

6. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused no.1 to 3 for the offence punishable under Sections 366, 343, 506 r/w 109 of IPC and Sec.8 of The POCSO Act-2012, the prosecution has examined PWs-1 to 7 and got marked Exhibits P-1 to P-7 on the prosecution side. No defence witnesses were examined and no documents got marked on behalf of the accused no.1 to 3.

7. After completion of prosecution side evidence, the accused no.1 to 3 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating evidence found against them. The accused denied the evidence of prosecution and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

8. Heard the learned public prosecutor representing State, and the learned defence counsel appearing for the Accused.

Fair Page 6 of 12 SC POCSO No. 2 of 2019

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

1. “Whether the prosecution has been able to prove the

guilt of the accused no.1 to 3 for the offence punishable

under Sections 366, 343, 506 r/w 109 of IPC and Sec.8 of

T he POCSO Act-2012 and whether the accused no.1 to 3

are guilty for culpable state of mind and liable for

punishment for the said offences?”

2. To what result?”

POINT No.1:

10. The charges levelled against the accused no.1 to 3 are that the accused no.1 and 2 are the parents of the Child in conflict with law and abetted him, on which on 24.03.2018 at 04.00 pm, he went to the house of minor victim girl and brought her to Khammam by motor cycle and from there they have taken her to Chennai and with the help of accused no.3, the minor victim girl was wrongfully confined and Child in conflict with law forcibly tied yellow thread to the neck of victim girl and threatened her with dire consequences and as such the accused no.1 to 3 committed offence punishable U/sec. 366, 343 r/w 109 IPC and Sec. 506 r/w 109 of IPC and

Sec. 8 of POCSO Act.

11. The case of the prosecution as unfold by the prosecution witnesses is that, PW2 is the victim girl. Her evidence reveals that she failed SCC and stayed at home during 2018 and by then she was aged about 17 years.

The Child in conflict with law used to stalk her in the name of love. On 23.03.2018, he came to her house, when she was alone and asked to elope with him and arranged her clothes in a bag and took along with him.

PW2 did not inform the said incident to any person. On 24.03.2018, the

Fair Page 7 of 12 SC POCSO No. 2 of 2019

Child in conflict with law with his parents i.e. accused no.1 and 2 came to her house, took her by bike to Khammam and from there to Chennai and

Child in conflict with law forcibly tied yellow thread around her neck with the help of the accused no.3 and threatened her. On the pretext of bringing groceries, she came out of the house by taking Rs.1000/- from Child in conflict with law and returned to home on 31.03.2018 and she thrown out the yellow thread in train. She informed the incident to her parents and they lodged report. Her evidence further reveals that she wrote 10th class exam in March. She denied that she attended science exam on 23.03.2018 and 24.03.2018. She admitted that she testified before Juvenile Board that she attended science exam on 23.03.2018.

12. PW1 is the father of the victim girl. As per his evidence, PW2 informed him that Child in conflict with law was harassing her in the name of love and he admonished him, but later the accused no.1 and 2 came to her house and took away to Khammam and from there to Chennai in train and yellow thread was tied to his daughter and on the pretext bringing groceries, PW2 came out of the house and returned to home. His evidence further reveals that he did not lodge any missing complaint, PW2 known information that A1 came to his house through PW1. The case in JCC

No.125/2019 before Juvenile Justice Board, ended in acquittal.

13. PW6 is the Investigating Officer. As per his evidence on 31.03.2018 at 18.30 hours, PW2 lodged complaint, on which he registered the case and he recorded the statement of victim girl and other witnesses, conducted scene of offence panchanama, collected date of birth certificate of victim

Fair Page 8 of 12 SC POCSO No. 2 of 2019 girl and Child in conflict with law, apprehended Child in conflict with law on 06.04.2018 and seized one cell phone. As per his evidence one Jatangi

Mallaiah is neighbour at victim girl residence, he was recorded his statement, but he has not cited as witness. The Woman Sub-Inspector of police recorded the statement of the victim girl. PW7 is the second

Investigating Officer, who completed investigation and filed charge sheet.

14. PW3 is the one of the panch witness. As per his evidence on 12.04.2018, the Sub-Inspector of police called him to act as panch witness and observed the scene of offence and prepared scene of offence panchanama. PW4 is Woman Sub-Inspector of police, who recorded the statement of the victim girl.

15. PW5 is teacher in ZPHS, Thimmapuram, Jajireddygudem, who worked as incharge Headmaster from ZPHS, Thallasingaram. As per his evidence, on the request of police, he has issued conduct certificate of the victim girl with her date of birth. As per the Admission register, the admission number and date of birth were recorded. As per his evidence, he did not record the entries in Admission register and he was not custodian for the said register.

The father of the victim girl requested him to issue the certificate.

16. The evidence as discussed above reveals that it was not noticed that the victim girl was not at home and no missing complaint was lodged by the father of the victim girl and PW1/father of the victim girl does not know anything till PW2/victim girl informed him about any such incident. Thus, it reveals that the only crucial witness is PW2/victim girl, who herself informed in respect of the incident.

Fair Page 9 of 12 SC POCSO No. 2 of 2019

17. As per the evidence of PW2, on 23.03.2018, the Child in conflict with law approached her and took her baggage with him and she did not inform to anybody about the same. On the next day, again Child in conflict with law along with A1 and A2 came to her house and took her by bike. As per the evidence, the victim girl is resident of Thallasingaram. It was deposed that altogether four persons travelled by bike including victim girl, Child in conflict with law, A1 and A2 to Khammam.

18. PW2 further deposed that she was taken to Chennai and CICL tied yellow thread around her neck. PW2 did not specify as to where the incident of tying thalli took place and where she was kept in Chennai. PW2 did not specify as to whether the accused no.3 is residing at Chennai or any other place and where he joined A1 and A2 to follow up the incident.

PW2 did not specify how she returned to home from Chennai either by way of train or any other mode of transport. It is her evidence that she removed her thali and thrown it away in train. PW2 did not produce any train ticket

before the Investigating Officer to prove that she returned from Chennai to

her home.

19. On the other hand, PW2 herself admitted that she gave evidence

before JJB that she attended for science exam on 23.03.2018 and the case

against Child in conflict with law ended in acquittal. Ex.P2 is the scene of offence panchanama conducted at Thallasingaram village, which is house of PW1. As per the case of prosecution, the victim girl was taken from her house at Thallasingaram. She was taken to Khammam at first and from there to Chennai.

Fair Page 10 of 12 SC POCSO No. 2 of 2019

20. As per the evidence of victim girl, she was kept in house at Chennai.

The Investigating Officer did not conduct any scene of offence panchanama either at Khammam or at Chennai, where the victim girl was kept, which was offence of wrongful confinement. The Investigating Officer did not collect any evidence to prove that the victim girl was seen with the accused no.1 and 2 and Child in conflict with law at Chennai or she stayed with them at any point of time.

21. The evidence of victim girl itself shows that she returned home on her own by starting from Chennai, but no evidence produced to show that the victim girl came from Chennai. The crucial period of time was from 23.03.2018 till 31.03.2018. Though, the victim girl was away from home,

PW1 did not lodge any missing complaint and it was not observed that victim girl was missing from home. These are contradictory circumstances reveal in the evidence of prosecution. Except the oral testimony of

PW2/victim girl, there is no other evidence to prove that she was away from home from 23.03.2018 till 31.03.2018. Moreover, it was elicited that during March-2018, the victim girl attended to 10th class exams.

22. In these circumstances and in view of these material contradictions, the evidence of PW2 do not inspire the confidence of the court about her allegations made against the accused no.1 to 3. The prosecution failed to produce any cogent evidence that PW2 was kidnapped or wrongfully confined by the accused no.1 to 3 at any place and they were involved in any way in the matter of victim girl. In these circumstances, the prosecution

Fair Page 11 of 12 SC POCSO No. 2 of 2019 failed to prove guilt of the accused no.1 to 3 for the charges leveled against them, as such the accused no.1 to 3 are entitled for acquittal.

23. In the result, the Accused No. 1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offences under sections 366, 343 r/w 109 IPC and Sec. 506 r/w 109 of IPC and Sec. 8 of POCSO Act and accordingly they are acquitted under section 235(1) Cr.P.C.for the said offences. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of Six months U/Sec. 437(A) Cr.P.C./ Section 481 BNSS Act. Since, there is no case property, there is no order as to the case property.

Dictated to steno, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 06 th day of November,

2025.

Sd/-

Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Suryapet

FAC: The Fast Tract Spl. Court for Expeditious

Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act cases,

Suryapet

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 1xxx Father of the Victim girl

PW2xxx Victim girl

PW3Mattapally Vasu Panch witness for scene of offence panchanama

PW4M. Esther Rani Woman Sub-Inspector of Police

PW5Vardelli Krishnaiah Head Master, issued Birth certificate

PW6M. Lingaiah 1st Investigating officer

PW7M. Shiva Kumar Investigating Officer, filed charge sheet B. Defence Witnesses, if any: RANK NAME Nature of evidence

Fair Page 12 of 12 SC POCSO No. 2 of 2019 (Eye witness, Police witness, Expert witness, medical witness, panch witness, other witness)

---- -

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

---- --

LIST OF PROSECUTION/DEFENCE/COURT EXHIBITS: A. Prosecution: Sl. Exhibit Number Description No.

1 Exhibit P-1/PW2 Report 2 Exhibit P-2/PW3 Relevant portion of scene of offence panchanama 3 Exhibit P-3/PW3 Rough sketch 4 Exhibit P-4/PW4 Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of victim girl 5 Exhibit P-5/PW5 Study conduct certificate of the victim girl 6 Exhibit P-6/PW6 FIR 7 Exhibit P-7/PW7 Sec. 164 Cr.P.C. statement of the victim girl

B. Defence: Sl. Exhibit Description No. Number

-- - -

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

-- -- --

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

Sd/-

Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Suryapet

FAC: The Fast Tract Spl. Court for Expeditious

Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act cases Suryapet

Fair Page 1 of 11 SC POCSO No. 7 of 2024

THE COURT OF THE FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT FOR

EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL AND DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND POCSO ACT

CASES, SURYAPET

DATED THIS 01 st DAY OF APRIL, 2026.

PRESENT: Smt. P. Lakshmi Sarada,

Prl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Suryapet

FAC: The Fast Track Spl. Court for Expeditious Trial and

Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases, Suryapet

SC POCSO No. 7 OF 2024

(Split up from main case SC POCSO No. 137 of 2015)

Complainant:The State of Telangana through Sub-Inspector of Police, Huzurnagar.

Crime No. & Police Crime No. 194 of 2014, Huzurnagar P.S. station:

Description of accused: A-1 Vemula Gopi, S/o.Late Veeraiah, Age: 22 years, Occ: Mason, R/o. MLG Road in Huzurnagar.

Charge/s: Under Sections 366-A, 343 IPC and Sec. 8 r/w 7 of the POCSO Act.

Plea of the accused: Pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the court: In the result, the Accused No. 1 is found not guilty for the offences under sections 366-A, 343 IPC and Sec. 8 r/w 7 of the POCSO Act and accordingly he is acquitted under section 235(1) Cr.P.C. for the said offences. The bail bonds of the accused no.1 shall remain in force for a period of Six months U/Sec. 437(A) Cr.P.C./Section 481 BNSS Act. Since, there is no case property, there is no order as to the case property.

Prosecution conducted Sri. K. Raghu Ramaiah, Spl. Public Prosecutor, by: Suryapet.

Accused defended by : Sri. Palleti Ramudu, counsel for the accused.

Date of Offence 12.08.2014

Date of FIR 23.08.2014

Fair Page 2 of 11 SC POCSO No. 7 of 2024

Date of charge-sheet 25.09.2014

Date of framing charge(s) 02.07.2019

Date of commencement of evidence 23.03.2021

Date of which Judgment is reserved 24.03.2026

Date of Judgment 01.04.2026

Date of sentencing Order, if any ---

:: ACCUSED DETAILS ::

Rank of the Name of the Date of Arrest Date of Offences charged Whether Sentence imposed Period of Accused Accused Release on with Acquitted Detention Bail U/Sec or undergone Convicted during Trial for purpose of Sec. 428 Cr.P.C. A1 Vemula Gopi 23.09.2014 14.11.2014 U/sec. 366-A and Acquitted under -- -- 343 of IPC and section 235(1) Sec. 8 r/w 7 of the Cr.P.C. POCSO Act.

Upon considering the material on record and upon hearing Arguments, the court delivered the following:

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

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Huzurnagar police station has filed the charge sheet in Crime No. 194 of 2014 against the accused no.1 for the offence punishable under Sections 366-A and 343 of IPC and Sec.8 r/w 7 of The Protection of Children from Sexual offences Act (herein after referred as POCSO Act for brevity) of Huzurnagar Police Station.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief was that on 23.08.2014, at 13.00 hours the defacto-complainant/LW1/father of the victim girl came to Police

Station and lodged a Telugu written complaint that the daughter of LW1 i.e.

victim girl/LW5 was studying intermediate first year in Sri Gayathri Junior

College, Huzurnagar and daughter of LW2 i.e., victim girl/LW6 was also studying intermediate first year in New Generation college. On 12.08.2014,

Fair Page 3 of 11 SC POCSO No. 7 of 2024 at 05.300 am, the victim girls (LW5 and LW6) went to attend study hours in their colleges by informing the same in their houses, but did not turn up to their house until late at night. Since then, LW1 and LW2 searched for their daughters. On 16.08.2014, LW1 received information regarding his daughter and went to Bhadrachalam, in the meantime, the accused A1 accompanied his daughter i.e. Victim girl/LW5. On seeing LW1, the accused A1 escaped from the house. On enquiry, LW5 and LW6/victim girls informed him that the accused A1 followed LW5, when he proceeded to college by saying that he had fallen in love and he would marry her. On 12.08.2014, evening hours, while the victim girl proceeded to college to attend study hours, on the way, the accused A1 and their friends i.e.

accused A2 and A3 took the victim girl forcibly to Bhadrachalam and demanded to marry him. If the victim girl did not accept the same, the accused A1 threatened to kill her and the accused A1 forcibly married the victim girl(LW5). Thereafter, LW1 gave a report to the police against the accused A1. Hence, he requested to take necessary legal action against the accused no.1.

(a) Based on the said complaint, LW8/Sub-Inspector of police,

Huzurnagar Police station had registered a case in crime No. 194 of 2014 for the offence punishable under Sections 366-A and 343 of IPC and Sec.8 r/w 7 of The POCSO Act-2012 against the accused no.1 and issued First

Information Report.

(b) During the investigation, LW8 examined and recorded the statements of LW1 and LW2. On request of LW8, LW7 examined and recorded the

Fair Page 4 of 11 SC POCSO No. 7 of 2024 statement of the victim girl as LW5. On 23.09.2014, LW9/Shaik Akhil Jama,

Sub-Inspector of Police, Huzurnagar arrested the accused no. 1 and sent him to judicial custody. After collecting all relevant documents and after completion of entire investigation, LW9/Shaik Akhil Jama,Sub-Inspector of

Police, Huzurnagar filed charge sheet against the accused no.1 alleging that he committed the offence and liable for punishment for the offence under Sections 366-A and 343 of IPC and Sec.8 r/w 7 of The Protection of

Children from Sexual offences Act. Hence, the charge.

3. Cognizance is taken for the offences punishable under Sections 366-A and 343 of IPC and Sec.8 r/w 7 of The POCSO Act-2012 against the accused no.1.

4. On appearance of accused no.1 before Court, furnished copies of the charge sheet and other connected documents to him under Section 207 Cr.P.C. Case was made over to this Court, for trial and disposal.

5. On hearing the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State and after hearing the learned defense counsel, upon considering all the material placed by prosecution, charges under Sections 366-A and 343 of

IPC and Sec.8 r/w 7 of The POCSO Act-2012 have been framed against accused no.1, read over and explained to him under Section 228(2)

Cr.P.C. After having understood the gist, the accused no.1 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The Accused no.1 is defended by the learned Defence counsel.

6. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused no.1 for the offence punishable under Sections 366-A and 343 of IPC and Sec.8 r/w 7 of The

Fair Page 5 of 11 SC POCSO No. 7 of 2024

POCSO Act-2012, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 9 and Exs.P1 to P4 were exhibited on the prosecution side. No defence witnesses were examined and no documents got marked on behalf of the accused no.1.

7. After completion of prosecution side evidence, the accused no.1 was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating evidence found against him. The accused no.1 denied the evidence of prosecution and reported no defence evidence on his behalf. Initially, the case was registered as SC No. 137 of 2015 against A1 to A3. At the stage of examination of accused U/sec. 313 Cr.P.C. A1 was absent and NBW was issued and hence case against A1 was split up and registered as SC

POCSO No. 7 of 2024. Later, A1 appeared and NBW recalled.

8. Heard the learned public prosecutor representing State, and the learned defence counsel appearing for the Accused no.1.

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

1. “Whether the prosecution has been able to prove the

guilt of the accused no.1 for the offence punishable

under Sections 366-A and 343 of IPC and Sec.8 r/w 7 of

T he POCSO Act-2012 and whether the accused is guilty

for culpable state of mind and liable for punishment for

the said offences?”

2. To what result?”

10. POINT No.1:

The charges leveled against the accused are that the accused forcibly took the victim girls, who were minors to marry one of the victim girl and committed sexual assault upon her and thus, the accused is liable for

Fair Page 6 of 11 SC POCSO No. 7 of 2024 punishment U/sec., 366-A, 343 IPC and Section 7 r/w 8 of POCSO Act- 2012.

11. The case of the prosecution as unfold by the prosecution witnesses is that, PW1 is the father of the victim girl and PW4 is father of another victim girl. The evidence of PW1 reveals that his daughter i.e. PW5 was studying intermediate 1st year and went to attend college along with her friend and did not return home. After four days, on information they went to

Bhadrachalam, Ramulawari temple and found both the victim girls and that the victim girls revealed that the accused took them to temple, on the ground that the accused herein loved the daughter of PW1 and the other accused cooperated them and thus, they brought both the victim girls back.

After deliberations for about 10 days, they lodged police complaint on 23.08.2014.

12. PW4 deposed that he does not know about complaint given by PW1.

The evidence of PW1 further revealed that there are family disputes between the families of the accused and himself and on the advice, he signed on some white papers and that the accused is no way concerned with the victim girls.

13. PW6 is daughter of PW1. As per her evidence she deposed initially that accused no.1 to 3 forcibly took her in an auto to Bhadrachalam and accused no.1 married her on 16.08.2014. Her father came to

Bhadrachalam and brought her back. Later she deposed that there were family disputes between the parties and on the advice of the elders, she signed on some papers and the accused are not related to this case.

Fair Page 7 of 11 SC POCSO No. 7 of 2024

14. PW2 and PW3 are examined as eye witnesses. PW2 deposed that on 12.08.2014, when he was near Gayathri college, he noticed that A1 and

PW6 were going in an auto. He does not have any friendship with PW1 and he never worked with him. PW3 deposed that he is auto driver by profession and on 12.08.2014 he noticed that the victim girl no.2 was going in another auto and the accused no.1 to 3 were also there in that auto. His evidence further reveals that he does not own auto and at that time of accident, he drove the auto on rent. He is resident of Daddanalachervu colony. He is a friend of PW4.

15. PW5 is another victim girl. She deposed that the accused no.2 is her husband and she married him in 2015. She does not know about the complaint given by PW1.

16. PW7 is the first investigating officer, who registered the case, who was working as ASI of police. He has recorded the statements of the witnesses.

When the victim girls were produced, they were called to ICDS Supervisor for recording their statements and further investigation was taken up by the

Sub-Inspector of police. As per his evidence the date of incident was 12.08.2014 and FIR was registered on 23.08.2014. He did not examine any person at the temple at Bhadrachalam. He did not seize the auto, in which the victim girl was taken.

17. As per the evidence of PW8/the Sub-Inspector of police, Huzurnagar, he has arrested the accused no.1 to 3 and filed charge sheet. As per the evidence of PW9/ICDS Supervisor, Suryapet, she recorded the statements of the victim girls.

Fair Page 8 of 11 SC POCSO No. 7 of 2024

18. The accused in the present case is the accused no.1. As per case of the prosecution, the daughter of PW1 i.e. PW6 was taken by the accused no.1 forcibly and she was married by the accused no.1 at Bhadrachalam, when she was minor.

19. As per the complaint lodged by PW1, it was lodged on 23.08.2014 that from 12.08.2014 onwards his daughter and the daughter of his brother were missing and they were searching for them and on 16.08.2014 on information, he went to Bhadrachalam and found both the victim girls and the accused no.1 to 3, and the accused ran away from that place and on enquiry the victim girls informed that the accused no.1 and 2 were harassing them in the name of love and they were forcibly brought to

Bhadrachalam and immediately, PW1 brought the victim girls back and after deliberations on 23.08.2014, PW1 lodged the complaint.

20. The evidence of prosecution witnesses and the complaint under Ex.P1 categorically show that there is delay of more than 10 days in lodging the complaint. The victim girl/PW5 categorically deposed that she was not taken by any person and she married the accused no.2 after attaining majority and the accused did not commit any offence against them.

21. Though, PW6 another victim girl deposed that the accused no.1 to 3 took them forcibly to Bhadrachalam, she further deposed that due to family disputes between the parties, she gave such evidence and that the accused did not commit any offence towards them.

22. The Investigating Officer did not produce any cogent evidence to prove that the victim girls were taken away by any person from out the custody of

Fair Page 9 of 11 SC POCSO No. 7 of 2024 their guardians without their consent by any persons and that the victim girls were traced at Bhadrachalam.

23. The evidence of other witnesses was very vague. The evidence of

PW1 and PW6, which is crucial to the present case do not in any way support the case of the prosecution. The long delay in lodging the complaint was not satisfactorily explained. It was the version of PW1 that the victim girls informed him that they were forcibly brought by the accused to Bhadrachalam. It is only hearsay evidence, without any supporting evidence.

24. For all the reasons discussed above, the prosecution failed to produce any cogent and corroborative evidence to prove the guilt of the accused for the charges levelled against him. Hence no presumption can be drawn against A1 under POCSO Act. As such the accused no.1 is entitled for acquittal.

25. In the result, the Accused No. 1 is found not guilty for the offences under sections 366-A, 343 IPC and Sec. 8 r/w 7 of the POCSO Act and accordingly he is acquitted under section 235(1) Cr.P.C. for the said offences. The bail bonds of the accused no.1 shall remain in force for a period of Six months U/Sec. 437(A) Cr.P.C./Section 481 BNSS Act. Since, there is no case property, there is no order as to the case property.

Dictated to steno, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 01 st day of April, 2026.

Prl . District & Sessions Judge, Suryapet

FAC: The Fast Tract Spl. Court for Expeditious

Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act cases,

Suryapet

Fair Page 10 of 11 SC POCSO No. 7 of 2024

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)

P.W-1 XXX Father of the victim girl

P.W-2 Deshaboina Ramakrishna Eye witness

P.W-3 Baptla Rambabu Eye witness

P.W-4 XXX Father of the Victim girl

P.W-5 XXX Victim girl

P.W-6 XXX Victim girl

P.W-7 Sk. Pakeer Investigating Officer, who issued FIR

P.W-8 Shaik Akhil Jama Second Investigating Officer, who filed charge sheet

P.W-9 Sheelam Satyavathi Recorded the statement of victim girls B. Defence Witnesses, if any: RANK NAME Nature of evidence (Eye witness, Police witness, Expert witness, medical witness, panch witness, other witness)

---- -

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

---- --

LIST OF PROSECUTION/DEFENCE/COURT EXHIBITS: A. Prosecution: Sl. Exhibit Number Description No.

1 Ex.P-1 Report 2 Ex.P-2 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW4 3 Ex.P-3 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW5

Fair Page 11 of 11 SC POCSO No. 7 of 2024 4 Ex.P-4 First Information Report B. Defence: Sl. Exhibit Number Description No.

-- - -

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

-- -- --

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

Prl . District & Sessions Judge, Suryapet

FAC: The Fast Tract Spl. Court for Expeditious

Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act cases,

Suryapet

Fair Page 1 of 8 SC POCSO No. 31 of 2022

THE COURT OF THE FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT FOR

EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL AND DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND POCSO ACT

CASES, SURYAPET

PRESENT: SMT. P. LAKSHMI SARADA, Prl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Suryapet FAC: The Fast Track Spl. Court for Expeditious Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases, Suryapet.

Dated this 6 th day of April, 2026

SC POCSO No. 31 OF 2022

Complainant:The State of Telangana through Circle- Inspector of Police, Nagaram Circle police station.

Crime No. & Police Crime No. 57 of 2021, Nagaram circle P.S. station:

Description of accused: Chippalapally Tharun, S/o. Saidulu, Age: 20 years, Occ:Student, R/o. Laxmapuram village of Nagaram mandal.

Charge/s: Under Sections 417, 420, 312, 376(2)(i)(n) of IPC and Sec. 5(j) (ii)(L) r/w 6 of POCSO Act- 2012.

Plea of the accused: Pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the court: In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences under sections 417, 420, 312, 376(2)(i)(n) of IPC and Sec. 5(j) (ii)(l) r/w 6 of POCSO Act-2012 and accordingly he is acquitted under section 232 Cr.P.C.(Sec.255 BNSS) 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. (Section 481 BNSS). Since, there is no case property, there is no order as to the case property.

Prosecution conducted Sri. K. Raghu Ramaiah, Spl. Public Prosecutor, by: Suryapet.

Accused defended by : Sri. Y. Venkata Bucheshwar Rao, counsel for the accused.

Date of Offence 23.05.2021

Date of FIR 22.06.2021

Fair Page 2 of 8 SC POCSO No. 31 of 2022

Date of charge-sheet 21.12.2021

Date of framing charge(s) 25.07.2024

Date of commencement of evidence 09.03.2026

Date of which Judgment is reserved 31.03.2026

Date of Judgment 06.04.2026

Date of sentencing Order, if any -

:: ACCUSED DETAILS ::

Rank of Name of the Date of Date of Offences charged Whether Sentence Period of Detention the Accused Arrest Release on with U/Sec. Acquitted imposed undergone during Trial Accused Bail or for purpose of Sec. Convicted 428 Cr.P.C. Accused Chippalapal25.06.2021 27.07.2021 U/sec.417, 420, Acquitted -- -- ly Tharun 312, 376(2)(i)(n) U/s 232 of IPC and Sec. Cr.P.C. 5(j) (ii)(l) r/w 6 of POCSO Act-2012

Upon considering the material on record and upon hearing Arguments, the court delivered the following:

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

1. The Circle Inspector of Police, Nagaram circle has filed the charge sheet in Crime No. 57 of 2021 against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 417, 420, 312, 376(2)(i)(n) of IPC and Sec. 5(j)

(ii)(l) r/w 6 of POCSO Act-2012.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief was that on 21.06.2021 at 19.00 hours the defacto-complainant/LW1/father of the victim girl came to Police

Station and lodged a Telugu written complaint stating that in the year 2019 his daughter i.e. victim girl got acquaintance with accused and they both fell in love with each other and he participated sexual intercourse with her at his friend’s house at Nagaram, as a result the victim girl became two times pregnant, for which he gave unknown tablets to her and she got abortion. Later she requested him about their marriage, but he was not

Fair Page 3 of 8 SC POCSO No. 31 of 2022 responding properly and kept her away. Hence, he requested to take necessary legal action against the accused.

(a) Based on the said complaint, Inspector of police, Uppal Police station registered a ZERO FIR vide Cr. No.0-5 /2021 U/sec. 376(2)(i)(n)

IPC and Sec. 5 r/w 6 of POCSO Act-2012 of Uppal Police station. On the point of jurisdiction transferred to police station Nagaram. On receipt of FIR through Sri Kavali Ramakrishna, PC 11466, LW16/P. Harikrishna of police station Nagarm re-registered a case in Cr. No. 57 of 2021 for the offence under section 376(2)(i)(n) of IPC and Sec. 5 r/w 6 of POCSO Act-2012 and took up the investigation.

(b) Immediately, LW17/Circle Inspector of Police, Nagaram took up the

Investigation of this case since the offence is grave in nature and examined and recorded his statement at police station as LW1. On requisition of

LW17, LW15 visited Nagaram police station and examined and recorded the statement of victim girl. On requisition of LW17, LW12/Lady Medical

Officer, Govt. General Hospital, Suryapet examined the victim girl and seized foreign material like fibers, hair etc., and also collected her vaginal swabs and sent them to FSL. On 22.06.2021 at 10.30 hours, LW17 visited the scene of offence at the outskirts of Gopalapuram village and conducted scene of offence panchanama in presence of LW8/Adepu Avilaiah and

LW9/Podila Durga Prasad and drawn the rough sketch.

(c) On requisition of LW17, LW7/ZPHS, Eatur village has furnished date of birth certificate of the victim girl. As per the said certificate, the age of the victim girl is 06.06.2005.

Fair Page 4 of 8 SC POCSO No. 31 of 2022

(d) On 25.06.2021, LW15 apprehended the accused and on requisition of

LW17, LW13/Medical Officer conducted potency test on the accused and given his report “ there is nothing to suggest that the male examined is not capable of performing sexual act” and arrested the accused for judicial remand. After collecting all relevant documents and after completion of entire investigation, LW17 filed charge sheet against the accused and alleging that he committed the offence and he is liable for punishment for the offence under Sections 417, 420, 312, 376(2)(i)(n) of IPC and Sec. 5(j)

(ii)(l) r/w 6 of POCSO Act-2012. Hence, the charge.

3. Cognizance is taken for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 420, 312, 376(2)(n) of IPC and Sec. 5(j) (ii)(l) r/w 6 of POCSO Act- 2012, against the accused.

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

Cr.P.C. Case was made over to this Court, for trial and disposal.

5. On hearing the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State and after hearing the learned defense counsel, upon considering all the material placed by prosecution, charges under Sections 417, 420, 312, 376(2)(n) of IPC and Sec. 5(j) (ii)(l) r/w 6 of POCSO Act-2012 have 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. The Accused is defended by the learned

Defence counsel.

Fair Page 5 of 8 SC POCSO No. 31 of 2022

6. In order to bring home the guilt of the Accused for the offence punishable under Sections 417, 420, 312, 376(2)(n) of IPC and Sec. 5(j)

(ii)(l) r/w 6 of POCSO Act-2012, the prosecution has examined PW-1 to

PW5 and got marked Exhibits P-1 to P-6 on prosecution side. No defence witnesses were examined and no documents marked on behalf of the accused.

7. After closure of the evidence, as there was no incriminating evidence found in the testimonials of the prosecution witnesses, against the accused, the examination of accused as contemplated under Section 313

Cr.P.C. has been dispensed with.

8. Heard the learned public prosecutor representing State, and the learned defence counsel appearing for the Accused.

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

1. Whether the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 420, 312, 376(2)(n) of IPC and Sec. 5(j) (ii)(l) r/w 6 of POCSO Act-2012 and whether the accused is guilty for culpable state of mind and liable for punishment for the said offences?

2. To what result?”

POINT No.1:

10. The charges leveled against the accused are that knowing that the victim girl was minor, accused cheated her in the name of love and marriage and by inducing to marry her, he had participated sexual intercourse several times with her at the outskirts of Gopalapuram and

Fair Page 6 of 8 SC POCSO No. 31 of 2022 thereby the accused committed the offences punishable U/secs. 417, 420, 312, 376(2)(n) of IPC and Sec. 5(j) (ii)(l) r/w 6 of POCSO Act-2012.

11. The evidence of prosecution reveals that PW1 and PW3 are father and mother of the victim girl, PW2 is victim girl and they deposed that they do not know the accused and no incident took place at any time. PW1 deposed that he did not lodge any complaint in 2021 and there was small galata took place, at that time, he signed on a paper. PW2/victim girl stated that nobody stated to her that the accused loved her and she does not know why this case was filed. PW4 and PW5 are the circumstantial witnesses. As per their evidence they do not know anything about this case.

12. PW1 to PW3 are crucial witnesses and did not support the case of prosecution. No sexual assault upon victim girl by the accused deposed by prosecution witnesses. PW4 and PW5 also did not support the case of the prosecution. Nothing could be elicited from them by the learned Public

Prosecutor, against the accused. Hence, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for any of the charges leveled against him.

13. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under sections 417, 420, 312, 376(2)(n) of IPC and Sec. 5(j) (ii)(l) r/w 6 of

POCSO Act-2012 and accordingly he is acquitted under section 232

Cr.P.C. (Sec.255 BNSS) 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. (Section 481 BNSS). Since, there is no case property, there is no order as to the case property.

Fair Page 7 of 8 SC POCSO No. 31 of 2022

(a) In view of hostile evidence of PW2/victim girl /crucial witness, the interim compensation, if any paid in this case, shall be returned within two months by /on behalf of victim girl, failing which necessary steps to be taken by the office to recover the same.

Typed to my dictation by the Steno-Grade-I, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 06th day of April, 2026.

Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Suryapet FAC: The Fast Tract Spl. Court for Expeditious Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act cases Suryapet

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) PW1 xxx Father of the victim girl PW2 xxx victim girl PW3 xxx Mother of the victim girl PW4 Vanguri Nagaraju Circumstantial witness PW5 Gangi Bixmaiah Circumstantial witness

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

---- -

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

---- --

Fair Page 8 of 8 SC POCSO No. 31 of 2022

LIST OF PROSECUTION/DEFENCE/COURT EXHIBITS: A. Prosecution: Sl. Exhibit Number Description No . 1 Exhibit P-1/PW1 Signature of PW1 on the complaint 2 Exhibit P-2/PW1 Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1 3 Exhibit P-3/PW2 Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2 4 Exhibit P-4/PW3 Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW3 5 Exhibit P-5/PW4 Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW4 6 Exhibit P-5/PW5 Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW5

B. Defence:

Sl. Exhibit Number Description No.

-- - -

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

-- -- --

D. Material Objects: Sl. Material Object Description No. Number

-- -- --

Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Suryapet FAC: The Fast Tract Spl. Court for Expeditious Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act cases Suryapet