Smt. P.Mukthida

Page 1 of 15 SC(POCSO).NO.01 of 2022 POCSO court, Bhuvanagiri

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL AND

DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL

OFFENCES(POCSO) ACT CASES: BHUVANAGIRI

Present :-Smt. P. Mukthida, I Addl.Sessions Judge, Bhuvanagiri, FAC Spl.SSJ for Expeditious Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases, Bhuvanagiri

Dated this the 27th day of October, 2025

SC.(POCSO) NO.01 OF 2022

(Cr.No.393/2020 of P.S. Bhuvanagiri Rural)

Name and description of The Circle-Inspector of Police, P.S. Bhuvanagiri the complainant:Rural.

Name and description of Pallapu Mahender, S/o: Yellaiah, age: 23 yrs., Occ: the accused:Driver, R/o: Kesaram village of Bhongir Mandal, Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri District. Offence charged:Sections 366, 343, 376 (3) and 506 IPC., Section-3 read with section-4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Plea of the accused:Pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the Court:Found not guilty

Sentence or Order :In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the charges punishable Sections 366, 343, 376(3), 506 of IPC, and Section 3 r/w 4 of POCSO Act, 2012 and he is acquitted under section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., for the above said charges. The bonds and bail bonds of accused shall remain in force till expiry of appeal time as provided U/Sec. 437 A, Cr.P.C.Interim custody of M.O.4 ie., Toyota Innova car bearing No. AP 21 L 3399 given to its owner shall be made absolute, and MO1 and 2 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. M.O.3 and 5 shall be returned to its original owner on proper identification and acknowledgment after expiry of appeal time.

This Sessions Case is coming before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Special Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri M. Venkateshwarlu, Advocate for the Accused and after hearing the arguments of both sides and after

Page 2 of 15 SC(POCSO).NO.01 of 2022 POCSO court, Bhuvanagiri having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court made the following:

: : JUDGMENT : :

1.The State represented by the Circle-Inspector of Police, Bhuvanagiri Rural filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 343, 376 (3) and 506 IPC, Sections 3 r/w 4 of the Protection of Children from

Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short, POCSO Act, 2012).

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

(i)A report was received by PW11, Circle-Inspector of Police, Bhuvanagiri Rural at 18.15 hours on 25.12.2020 from LW1/ YYYYY wherein he stated that he has two children, one daughter and one son, his daughter XXXXX, aged 14 yrs, was studying 8th class in Vidyajyothi school, Raigiri village, that on 24.12. 2020 at about 09.00 hours he went to Kunoor village and his wife/PW1 went to attend coolie works and in their absence, his daughter left home at about 5.00 pm without informing to anybody and since then he searched for his daughter in their relatives’ houses but her whereabouts are not known, and expressed suspicion over the accused that he might have taken away his daughter somewhere. Hence, he requested to take action against the accused.

(ii)Basing on contents of the above complaint, LW-17/ K.Saidulu, SI of Police,

Bhongir Rural registered a case in Cr.No. 393/2020 under Section 366 IPC and took up the investigation. He has examined the complainant/LW1 and recorded his statement and further visited Kesaram village and caused detailed inquiry and examined PW1 and recorded her statement and he found that the accused was

Page 3 of 15 SC(POCSO).NO.01 of 2022 POCSO court, Bhuvanagiri also missing from the village. As such, LW-17 deputed special teams to search and trace out the victim girl.

(iii)While the efforts were in progress, the parents of victim girl came to the

Police station along with the victim on 27-12-2020 at 11:00 hours and produced her

before LW-17. Then LW-17 perused copy of Date of Birth Certificate of the victim

produced by her parents and found that her date of birth of the victim is 26-03- 2007 which proved that she was a minor. On the request of LW-17, LW-16/

G.Manasa, WSI, Choutuppal PS visited the victim's house and examined her and recorded her detailed statement wherein the victim disclosed that since one year she got acquaintance with the accused who belonged to the same village and six months prior to the incident, he informed her that he was in love with her and he frequently talked with her over his cell bearing No.7670839694 to her mother’s cell No. 9573120152, that he put pressure on her to love him and that he intended to marry her, that she believed his deceitful words and started conversation with him and that he provoked her through phone call in the morning of 24.12.2020 that he would marry her and asked her to come out of her house and that they would go somewhere and live together, that accordingly, he came to the house of victim along with his Innova car on 24.12.2020 at about 17.30 hours and forcibly took her to Bhongir bus stand and from there to L.B.Nagar Hyderabad by bus and that he forcibly had sexual intercourse with her in a Lodge room near to Kamineni

Hospital and later, on 26-12-2020, he took her to Vizag by bus and when she requested him to take her to home and as his brother-in-Law also made a call to the accused asking him to return home, he brought her back to Hyderabad on 27- 12-2020 by bus and left her at Bhongir bus stand in the afternoon at 13.00 hours

Page 4 of 15 SC(POCSO).NO.01 of 2022 POCSO court, Bhuvanagiri and escaped and that she went to her village by auto and later she came to know that her parents have given petition in PS Bhongir Rural about her kidnap.

(iv)Basing on the statement of the victim, LW-17 added sections 376 (3), 506

IPC and Section 3 r/w 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012 to the existing section of law 366

IPC and filed before the Court and submitted copies to all concerned apart from informing the facts to PW-11/V. Janaiah, Circle-Inspector of Police, Bhongir Rural who in turn rushed to the PS and took up further investigation of the case as it is grave in nature. PW-11 referred the victim/PW2 to District Headquarters Hospital,

Bhongir for medical examination, where PW6 preserved her vaginal swabs for expert analysis at FSL, Hyderabad. PW6 also preserved the wearing apparel of the victim, ie. light pink color top having square checks, maroon color Legging, white color petty coat, and ash color underwear. As PW2 voluntarily gave consent to stay along with her parents, PW-11 handed over her to LW1 and PW1 under proper acknowledgment and he re-examined the parents of victim and re-recorded their statements .

(v)While the efforts were in progress, the special team headed by LW-17 searched for the accused and apprehended him at Raigiri village outskirts on 01- 01-2021 at 07:00 hours, brought him to the PS and produced him before PW-11. On interrogation, the accused admitted his guilt and so PW-11 secured the presence of two mediators PWs 9 and 10 and recorded the confession of the accused under a panchanama. In pursuance his confession, PW-11 along with the panch witnesses accompanied by the accused visited the scene of crime at room No.205 of Maruthi

Residency-Inn Lodge cum Hotel at located at Mansurabad X road, LB. Nagar near to

Kamineni Hospital and examined it and seized extract of the Occupancy Register

Page 5 of 15 SC(POCSO).NO.01 of 2022 POCSO court, Bhuvanagiri wherein the names of the accused and victim were entered on the day they boarded into the lodge. PW-11 recorded the details of the scene in the same confession panchanama in the presence of same mediators PWs-9 and 10 drafted its rough sketch map. PW-11 further seized the clothes of the accused, viz, black color jeans pant, light blue color cotton shirt, cotton banian having red, white and yellow images and ash color underwear, a Vivo smart phone and net cash of

Rs.14,600/- under cover of the same panchanama. Then the accused lead the police to Hanmanwada, Bhongir Town where PW-11 seized Toyota Innova car bearing No.

AP 21 L 3399 from in front of the house of PW4 under cover of same panchanama.

PW-11 has examined PW3, LW5/Gujjala SHankar, PW4 and PW5 and recorded their statements in detail and brought the accused to Bhongir Rural Police station at 11.00 hours, explained the grounds of arrest and affected his arrest and produced him before the Medical officer, Govt. Hqrs Hospital, Bhongir, where PW7 conducted potency test of the accused and issued report opining that there was nothing to suggest that he was not capable of performing sexual acts. Later, PW- 11 produced the accused before the Court for judicial remand and sent the seized material objects to FSL, Hyderabad for expert analysis. FSL report was received vide File No. SER/60/2021, Dt: 04.06.2021, in which the expert opined that human semen and spermatozoa were detected on item Nos.1, 2 and 9 but semen and spermatozoa were not detected on item No. 3 to 8, 10, 11 & 12, that blood was not detected on item Nos. 3 to 12 and foreign hair was not found in item No.3 and foreign material was not detected on item no.4. As per the instructions of FSL authorities, PW-11 produced the accused before FSL for DNA Comparison through

Court Order. After comparison, FSL issued report opining that the seminal stains

Page 6 of 15 SC(POCSO).NO.01 of 2022 POCSO court, Bhuvanagiri on the source of item nos. 2 and 3 matched with the DNA profile of the accused and conclusively proved that they are of same biological origin.

(vi)Basing on FSL report, PW6 furnished her final opinion stating that sexual assault happened. On the requisition filed by PW-11, LW-13/ the then Additional

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ramannapet has recorded the statement of

victim girl under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Subsequently, LW-19/T. Venugopal, Circle-

Inspector of Police, Bhongir took up the investigation and he collected Bonafide certificate of the victim from PW-8/Principal, Vidyajyothi school, Raigiri village and examined PW-8 and recorded his statement. On the requisition filed by

Investigating Officer, the Nodal officer, Reliance Jio (LW-14) submitted CAF of accused mobile with 65-B certificate and the Nodal officer, Airtel (LW-15) submitted CAF of victim mobile with 65-B certificate, as per Indian evidence Act, 1872. On perusal of the CAFs and CDRs, it was found that the accused and the victim talked through the above numbers frequently and that between 24.12.2021 at 21.44 hours and 25.12.2021 at 19.04 hours, the location of the accused was found at near Kamineni Hospital, LB Nagar, Hyderabad and on 26.12.2021 between 10.03 hours and 11.32 hours, his location was found at Jagadamba Centre, Vizag, and thus, his location details matched with the statement of victim. After completing investigation, LW19/Circle-Inspector of Police filed charge sheet against the accused.

3. This case was taken on file by this Court for the offences punishable under

Sections 366, 343, 376(3) and 506 IPC, Sections 3 r/w 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

On appearance of the accused before this Court, copies of all documents were furnished to him under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. and charges were framed U/Sec. 228

Page 7 of 15 SC(POCSO).NO.01 of 2022 POCSO court, Bhuvanagiri

Cr.P.C. for the offences under Sections 366, 343, 376(3) and 506 IPC, Sections 3 r/w 4 of POCSO Act, 2012 against him, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.To bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined PWs 1 to 11 and got marked Ex.P1 to P21 and M.O.s 1 to 5. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under sec.313 Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating material against him in the prosecution evidence to which he denied and reported no defence evidence.

5.Heard on both sides. Perused the record. The learned counsel for the accused relied upon the judgments rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Akhtar Ali alias Akhtar alias Shamim alias Raja Vs. State of

Uttarakhand, (2025 SCC online SC 1949), Karandeep Sharma @ Razia @ Raju Vs.

State of Uttarakhand ((2025 Supreme(SC) 607)and also relied upon judgment rendered by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of and in the case of

Paramesha Vs. State of Karnataka ((2020) SC (Kar) 2326)

6.Now the points that arise for consideration are :-

(1) Whether the accused has kidnapped the victim, punishable

under Section 366 of IPC ?

(2) Whether the accused has confined the victim for more than

three days, punishable under Section 343 of IPC?

(3) Whether the accused has committed rape on the victim who is

under sixteen years age, punishable under section 376 (3) of IPC ?

(3) Whether the accused has threatened the victim, punishable

under section 506 of IPC?

Page 8 of 15 SC(POCSO).NO.01 of 2022 POCSO court, Bhuvanagiri

(4) Whether the accused has committed penetrative sexual

assault on a minor victim, punishable under section 3 r/w 4 of

POCSO Act, 2012?

(5) Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused

for the charges beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINTS No.1 TO 5 :-

7.To prove the guilt of the accused in the crime, the prosecution has examined

PWs1 to 11 and got marked Ex.P1 to P21 and M.O.s 1 to 5. PW1 is mother of the victim. PW2 is the victim. PWs3 to 5 are circumstantial witnesses. PW6 is the doctor who examined the victim. PW7 conducted potency test of the accused. PW8 has issued Bonafide certificate of the victim. PW9 and 10 panch witnesses for scene of offence panchanama and confession cum seizure panchanama of the accused.

PW11 is the Investigating Officer in the case.

8.As per the prosecution case, the accused had induced the victim with his deceitful words under the guise of love and took her away her from the lawful custody of her parents and later, he forcibly exploited her sexually. During her testimony before the Court, the victim/PW2 testified that her date of birth is 26.03.2006, that in the year 2020 while she was studying 9th class in Vidya Jyothi

High School at Raigir she used to go to school by bus, that she has no acquaintance with the accused, that no one proposed to her in the name of love and marriage and that none kidnapped her. She further testified that her statement was recorded by the Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ramannapet and that police took her to Area Hospital, Bhuvanagiri. She was declared hostile by the

Special Public Prosecutor and he cross-examined her but she denied his suggestions.

Page 9 of 15 SC(POCSO).NO.01 of 2022 POCSO court, Bhuvanagiri

9. The testimony of PW1/mother of the victim, is that her daughter did not disclose anything to her, that about three years ago while her daughter was studying 7th class in Vidya Jyothi High School, Raigir, she did returned home after completion of school hours and so her husband lodged complaint under girl missing but her daughter returned home on the next day and on enquiry she disclosed that she went to her mother’s village. She was also declared hostile by the Special Public Prosecutor and he cross-examined her but she denied his suggestions.

10.The testimony of PW3/ circumstantial witness and maternal uncle of the victim is that hedoes not know the facts of the case and that PWs 1 and 2 did not disclose about the accused. The testimony of PW4/circumstantial witness is that he never gave his Innova vehicle to anyone to transport. The testimony of PW5/ circumstantial witness is that he did not receive Innova vehicle from the accused and that he did not handover the Innova car to PW4. PWs 3 to 4 were declared hostile by the Special Public Prosecutor and he cross-examined them but they denied his suggestions.

11. The testimony of PW6 is that upon the requisition of PS Bhongir Rural, she has examined the victim and collected her smears and swabs and sent the same to

FSL on 27.12.2020 and that no semen and spermatozoa were detected and pubic hair not found as per FSL report/Ex.P7 and that she opined that sexual assault cannot be ruled out and issued medical certificate under Ex.P8. PW7 testified that on the requisition of PS, Bhongir Rural, he conducted potency test of the accused and issued report under Ex.P9.

Page 10 of 15 SC(POCSO).NO.01 of 2022 POCSO court, Bhuvanagiri

12.PW8 testified that he issued Bonafide certificate of the victim under Ex.P10 upon receiving requisition from PS Bhongir Rural and that as per their school records, the victim studied 1st to 8th class in their school for the academic years 2008-2009 to 2013 to 2021 and that her date of birth is 26.3.2007. PW9 and testified that about 3 years ago, the police called him to police station and obtained his signature on blank paper and that nothing was seized in his presence.

PW10 testified that about four years ago, the police Bhongir Rural summoned him to the out skirts of Kesaram village and took his signatures on some written papers and he was read over the contents therein but no panchanama was held in his presence and that he did not see the accused at any time. The Investigating

Officer/PW11 testified about his role and the investigation done by him and his colleagues in the case.

13.Having regard to the prosecution evidence detailed above, it is apparent that except PW6 to PW8 and PW11, none of the prosecution witnesses, including the victim, have supported the prosecution case. Though FSL report was positive that the DNA of the accused matched with the semen and spermatozoa detected on the smears and swabs collected from the victim and with the same found on the jeans pant of the accused, the evidence of PWs 9 and 10 coupled with the testimony of PW1 and victim/PW2 nullifies the seizure of M.O.1 and M.O.2, i.e., clothes of the victim and the accused and the commission of the act of sexual assault by the accused at the scene lodge.

14.The learned Special Public Prosecutor argued that scientific evidence appearing from FSL report and CDRs and CAFs establish the nexs between the accused and the victim and that they connect the presence of the accused with the

Page 11 of 15 SC(POCSO).NO.01 of 2022 POCSO court, Bhuvanagiri victim/PW2 at the scene and hence, the accused is liable to be convicted irrespective of the hostile evidence of PWs 1 to 5 and PWs 9 and 10 since the correctness of the Bonafide certificate of the victim issued by PW8 is not disproved. In this regard, learned counsel for the accused has relied on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Akhtar Ali alias Akhtar alias

Shamim alias Raja Vs. State of Uttarakhand, (2025 SCC online SC 1949) wherein it was held : It is a well-established principle of criminal jurisprudence that a conviction may be based purely on circumstantial evidence, provided that such evidence is deemed credible and trustworthy. In cases based purely on circumstantial evidence, it is imperative to ensure that the facts leading to the conclusion of guilt are fully established and that all the established facts point irrefutably to the accused person’s guilt. The chain of incriminating circumstances must be conclusive and should exclude any hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused. In other words, from the chain of incriminating circumstances, no reasonable doubt can be entertained about the accused person's innocence, demonstrating that it was the accused and none other who committed the offence. ...It must be borne in mind that the present case involves the imposition of the ultimate punishment of death. The law is well settled that in cases resting on circumstantial evidence, every link in the chain must be firmly and conclusively established, leaving no room for doubt. Where two views are possible, the one favourable to the accused must be adopted.

15.The learned counsel for the accused has further relied on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Karandeep Sharma @ Razia @

Raju Vs. State of Uttarakhand ((2025 Supreme(SC) 607)in which it was held :“In order to make the DNA report acceptable, reliable and admissible, the prosecution would first be required to prove the sanctity and chain of custody of the samples/articles right from the time of their preparation/ collection till the time they reached the FSL. For this purpose, the link evidence would have to be established by examining the concerned witness. Evidently, there is not even a semblance of evidence on record to satisfy the Court that the samples/articles collected from the dead body of the

Page 12 of 15 SC(POCSO).NO.01 of 2022 POCSO court, Bhuvanagiri child-victim and those collected from the appellant which were later forwarded to the FSL were properly sealed or that the same remained in a self-same condition right from the time of the seizure till they reached the FSL. No witness from the FSL was examined by the prosecution to prove that the samples/articles were received in a sealed condition. Hence, there is every possibility of the samples being tampered/manipulated by the police officers so as to achieve a favourable result from the FSL, thereby, inculpating the appellant in the crime.”

The learned counsel for the accused has also relied upon judgment rendered by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Paramesha Vs. State of Karnataka ((2020) SC (Kar) 2326) in which it was held that the entire process of procuring the

DNA evidence is controlled by human agencies i.e., Investigating Officer and the forensic scientist and there is ample chance of manipulation or tampering of such evidence by the Corrupt Officers or Scientist which needless to say highly prejudice the accused persons and even preservation method adopted are not properly brought on record and under such circumstances, the prosecution has to establish the corroboration of such evidence and its truth.

16.Applying the ratio in the aforesaid judgments to the case on hand, when the material witnesses have absolutely failed to support the prosecution case and when there is no hint of incriminating evidence against the accused for the offences alleged to have been committed by him, this Court finds that it is not permissible under the law to convict the accused solely relying on the evidence of

PW6 to PW8 and PW11. Hence, this Court holds that the prosecution could not prove the guilt of the accused for the charges framed against him for the offences under Sections 366, 343, 376(3), 506 of IPC, and Section 3 r/w 4 of POCSO Act, 2012 and that the accused is entitled for acquittal.

Page 13 of 15 SC(POCSO).NO.01 of 2022 POCSO court, Bhuvanagiri

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the charges punishable

Sections 366, 343, 376(3), 506 of IPC, and Section 3 r/w 4 of POCSO Act, 2012 and he is acquitted under section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., for the above said charges. The bonds and bail bonds of accused shall remain in force till expiry of appeal time as provided U/Sec. 437 A, Cr. P.C. Interim custody of M.O.4 ie., Toyota Innova car bearing No. AP 21 L 3399 given to its owner shall be made absolute, and M.O.s 1 and 2 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. M.O.s 3 and 5 shall be returned to its original owner on proper identification and acknowledgment after expiry of appeal time.

...Typed to dictation by Stenographer Grade-I, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 27 th day of October, 2025.

I Additional Sessions Judge, Bhuvanagiri. FAC: Spl.Sessions Judge For Expeditious Trial & Disposal Of Rape And POCSO Act Cases, Bhuvanagiri.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

PW-1 XXXXXComplainant and mother of victim girl PW-2 MMMMM victim. PW-3 Gujjala Mahendarcircumstantial witness and maternal uncle of victim. PW-4Pallepati VenkateshCircumstantial witness and given his Innova to the accused. PW-5Mohammad GouseCircumstantial witness and handed over Innova car to the LW6 PW-6Dr. ParijathaExamined the victim

Page 14 of 15 SC(POCSO).NO.01 of 2022 POCSO court, Bhuvanagiri

PW-7Dr. Uday KiranHeld potency test of the accused PW-8Madanu Bala PrasadIssued Bonafide certificate of the victim PW-9Pakeergalla YellaiahPanch for scene confession cum seizure of accused PW-10Cheedarakanti SwamyPanch for scene confession cum seizure of accused PW-11V. JanaiahInvestigating Officer.

ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENSE

Nil

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

Ex.P1: is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1. Ex.P2: is the signature of PW2 on 164 Cr.P.C statement. Ex.P3: is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2. Ex.P4: is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3. Ex.P5: is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW4. Ex.P6: is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW5. Ex.P7: is the FSL report. Ex.P8: is the medical certificate. Ex.P9: is the potency test report. Ex.P10: is the Bonafide certificate. Ex.P11: is the signature of PW9 on confession cum seizure panchanama. Ex.P12: is the signature of PW10 on scene of offence cum confession and recovery panchanama. Ex.P13: is the complaint. Ex.P14: is the FIR. Ex.P15: is the 164 Cr.P.C statement of the victim Ex.P16: is the scene of offence, confession-cum- seizure panchanama of accused. Ex.P17: is FSL report as to DNA finger printing. Ex.P18: is log register of Maruthi residency Inn, dt: 23.4.2021. Ex.P19: is the CAF and CDR of mobile number 7670839694, dt: 26.3.2021 issued by LW14. Ex.P20: is the CDR and CAF of mobile number 9573120152 issued by LW15. Ex.P21: is the date of birth certificate of victim

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENSE

Nil

Page 15 of 15 SC(POCSO).NO.01 of 2022 POCSO court, Bhuvanagiri

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MO1: is the set of clothes of the victim MO2: is the set of clothes of accused. MO3: is the Vivo mobile of the accused. MO4: is the Toyota Innova car bearing No. AP 21 L 3399. MO5: is cash of Rs.14,600/-.

I Additional Sessions Judge, Bhuvanagiri. FAC: Spl.Sessions Judge For Expeditious Trial & Disposal Of Rape And POCSO Act Cases, Bhuvanagiri.

Page 1 of 11 SC(POCSO).NO.35 of 2023 POCSO court, Bhuvanagiri

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL AND

DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL

OFFENCES(POCSO) ACT CASES: BHUVANAGIRI

Present :-Smt. P. Mukthida, I Addl.Sessions Judge, Bhuvanagiri, FAC Spl.SSJ for Expeditious Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases, Bhuvanagiri

Dated this the 31st day of October, 2025

SC.(POCSO) NO.35 OF 2023

(Cr.No.114/2023 of P.S. Thurkapally)

Name and description of The Circle-Inspector of Police, P.S. Yadagirigutta the complainant:Rural.

Name and description of 1. Naram Janu, S/o Peddulu, age 24 yrs, Occu: the accused:Mechanic, R/o H. No. 11/1, Gopalapuram village, of Thurkapally mandal, Yadadri Bhongir District.

2. Naram Bixapathi, S/o Peddulu, age 27 yrs. Occu: Agrl, R/o H. No. 11/1, Gopalapuram village of Thurkapally mandal, Yadadri Bhongir District.

3. Kasaboina Kanaka Raju. S/o Janaradhan, age 25 yrs. Occu: Painter, R/o: Gopalapuram village of Thurkapally mandal, Yadadri Bhongir District. Offence charged:Sections 376(1), 341, 323 r/w 109 IPC and Sec. 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Plea of the accused:Pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the Court:Found not guilty

Sentence or Order :In the result, the accused no.1 to 3 are found not guilty for the charges punishable Sections 376(1), 341, 323 r/w 109 IPC and Sec. 4 of POCSO Act, 2012 and they are acquitted under section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., for the above said charges. The bonds and bail bonds of accused no.1 to 3 shall remain in force till expiry of appeal time as provided U/Sec. 437 A, Cr.P.C.Interim custody of M.O.4, ie., pulsar motor cycle bearing No. TS 30 C 1451, given to its owner shall be made

Page 2 of 11 SC(POCSO).NO.35 of 2023 POCSO court, Bhuvanagiri absolute, and M.O.s 1 and 2 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. M.O.3 shall be returned to its original owner on proper identification and acknowledgment after expiry of appeal time.

This Sessions Case is coming before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Special Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri V. Venkataiah Goud, Advocate for the Accused and after hearing the arguments of both sides and after having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court made the following:

: : JUDGMENT : :

1.The State represented by the Circle-Inspector of Police, Yadagirigutta Rural filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 376(1), 341, 323 r/w 109 IPC and Sec. 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual

Offences Act, 2012 (in short, POCSO Act, 2012).

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

(i) A report was received by LW19/K. Raghavendar Goud, Sub-Inspector of

Police, Thurkapally at 14.00 hours on 2.7.2023 from PW1 wherein she stated that the accused no.1 followed her in the name of love and proposed his love to her by saying "Nenu ninnu premisthunnanu nannupreminchakapothe chachhipothanu", and believing his deceitful words, she accepted his love; that one week prior to then, when her parents were not at house, the accused no.1 came to her and took her to the bushes lying beside her house and participated in sexual intercourse with her and later, on coming to know their love and as the accused no.1 was making rounds in front of her house, her uncle UUUU admonished him, and keeping the same in mind, one day while UUUU was proceeding to Gopalapuram from Nagaipally Thanda, the accused no.1 to 3 obstructed him and bet UUUU with

Page 3 of 11 SC(POCSO).NO.35 of 2023 POCSO court, Bhuvanagiri stones and hands, and as a result, he received injuries on his head, neck and right leg and then UUUU informed about the incident to his friend Nuthanakatti Sai and the accused no.1 to 3 bet Sai also and caused injuries to him. Hence, she requested to take necessary action against accused no.1 to 3.

(ii)Basing on the contents of aforesaid complaint, LW19 registered a case in

Cr.No.114/2023 for the offences under Sections. 376(1) 341, 323 r/w 34 IPC. Sec 4 of POCSO Act, 2012 and handed over the CD file to PW7 for further investigation as the case is grave in nature. On receiving the information, PW7 rushed to

Thurkapally PS and took up investigation. On the requisition of PW7, LW17/

Woman Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Bhuvanagiri recorded the statement of PW1.

PW7 examined the parents of the victim and recorded their statements as PWs2 and 3 and sent the victim to District Headquarters Hospital, Bhongir for medical examination, where LW13/Dr. Nirmala examined the victim and preserved her vaginal swabs for expert examination at SFSL. PW7 seized the victim’s clothes

before LW9/Kura Kanakaiah and LW10/Kura Chandraiah, for expert examination at

SFSL. Later, PW7 proceeded to the scene of offence, secured the presence of the same two mediators, observed the crime scene minutely but did not find any incriminating material there and drafted scene of offence panchanama and drew rough sketch of the scene on Crime Detail Form. He further examined uncle of the victim/PW3 and his friend/LW5/Nuthanakanti Sai, who were attacked by the accused no.1 to 3 and recorded their statements and then PW7 proceeded to the outskirts of Gopalapuram village where the accused no.1 to 3 attacked on PW3 and

LW5 but found no material evidence there to seize.

Page 4 of 11 SC(POCSO).NO.35 of 2023 POCSO court, Bhuvanagiri

(iii)PW7 sent a requisition to PW4 seeking Bonafide certificate of the victim and accordingly, PW4 issued the certificate in which date of birth of the victim was mentioned as 13.06.2008 and the victim’s age was 15 years and she was a minor.

PW7 examined PW4 and recorded her statement.On receiving credible information about presence of the accused, PW7 and LW-19 along with staff rushed to

Gopalapuram village of Thurkapally mandal and apprehended the accused no.1 to 3 at the house of accused no.1. On interrogation by PW7, the accused no.1 to 3 voluntarily admitted their guilt in the commission of the offence. Then PW7 secured the presence of LW11/Chiluka Anjaneyulu and LW12/Putta Sai and recorded confession cum seizure panchanama of accused no.1 to 3 and in pursuance of their confession, PW7 seized clothes of accused no.1 and seized fluid black colour Oppo company F19 Pro+ Mobile phone and motor cycle bearing No.

TS 30 C 1451 from the accused no.1 under cover of confession cum seizure panchanama in the presence of above mediators, accused no.2 and 3 voluntarily confessed their guilt of offence, and later brought them to Police Station on the same day at about 10.30 hours. PW7 affected arrest of the accused by duly following the procedure. He referred the accused No.1 to District Hospital, Bhongir for fitness test and potency test. LW-14/Dr. Swapna, conducted potency test of the accused no.1 and furnished report. After medical examination of the accused, they were produced before the Court for judicial remand. Later, PW7 forwarded the seized material objects to FSL for expert analysis and basing on FSL report,

LW13/Dr. Nirmala issued final opinion. LW-15/Dr. A Varun Reddy treated the injured PW3 and LW5 and issued their medical certificates. On the requisition of

PW7, LW-18/ the then Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhuvanagiri

Page 5 of 11 SC(POCSO).NO.35 of 2023 POCSO court, Bhuvanagiri recorded the statement of victim under Sec.164 Cr.P.C. PW7 collected CAF (Customer Application Form) of the accused no.1’s mobile No.9398105090 from which it came to be known that the mobile was registered on the name of accused

No.2/brother of accused No.1. After completing investigation, PW7 filed charge sheet against the accused.

3. This case was taken on file by this Court for the offences punishable under

Sections 376(1), 341, 323 r/w 109 IPC and Sec. 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

4. On appearance of the accused before this Court, copies of all documents were furnished to them under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. and charges were framed

U/Sec. 228 Cr.P.C. for the offences under Sections 376(1), 341, 323 r/w 109 IPC and

Sec. 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012 against them, read over and explained to them in

Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.To bring home the guilt of the accused no.1 to 3, the prosecution has examined PWs 1 to 7 and got marked Ex.P1 to P20 and M.O.s1 to 4 and Ex.D1 was marked for the defence. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused no.1 to 3 were examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating material against them in the prosecution evidence to which they denied and reported no defence evidence.

6.Heard on both sides. Perused the record.

7.Now the points that arise for consideration are :-

(1) Whether the accused no.1 has committed rape on the victim,

punishable under Section 376(1) of IPC ?

(2) Whether the accused no.1 to 3 have wrongfully restrained the

uncle of the victim, punishable under Section 341 of IPC?

Page 6 of 11 SC(POCSO).NO.35 of 2023 POCSO court, Bhuvanagiri

(3) Whether the accused has caused simple hurt to PW4 and LW5/

Nuthanakanti Sai, punishable under section 323 r/w 109 of IPC ?

(4) Whether the accused no.1 has committed penetrative sexual

assault on a minor victim, punishable under section 4 of POCSO

Act, 2012?

(5) Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused

no.1 to 3 for the charges beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINTS No.1 TO 5 :-

8.The prosecution has examined PWs1 to 7 and got marked Ex.P1 to P20 and

M.O.s1 to 4 and Ex.D1 is marked for the defence. PW1 is the victim, PW2 is mother of the victim, PW3 is uncle of the victim and injured. PW4 has issued Bonafide certificate of the victim. PW5 and PW6 are village elders. PW7 is the Investigating

Officer in the case.

9.As per the prosecution case, the accused No.1 induced the victim with his deceitful words under the guise of love and that he forcibly exploited her sexually and also caused injury to PW4, who admonished the accused no.1, and his friend

LW5/Nuthanakanti Sai. During hertestimony before the Court, the victim/PW1 testified that her date of birth is 13.06.2008, that in the year 2023 while she was studying Intermediate first year in Government Junior College at Koltur, she used to go to college by college bus, that she has no acquaintance with the accused and that he never proposed her in the name of love and marriage and that she lodged the complaint but she does not know its contents. She further testified that she gave statement before the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhongir.

10. The testimony of PW2/mother of the victim is that about 2 years ago, PW1 studied Intermediate and that she does not know anything about this case. The

Page 7 of 11 SC(POCSO).NO.35 of 2023 POCSO court, Bhuvanagiri testimony of PW5 and PW6/village elders is that they do not know anything about this case.

11.The testimony of PW3/uncle of the victim and injured is that he knows all the accused, that about 2 years ago, PW1 studied Intermediate and while she was going from in front of her house, the accused no.1 used to comment her, demanded her to love him and threatened her that if she did not love him, he would commit suicide, that PW1 told him that she fell in love with the accused no.1 in view of his repeated demands and that one day he took her into bushes near her house and under the guise of marrying her, he has raped her; that he questioned the accused no.1 about it and so he picked up grudge on him and all the accused together intercepted him while he was returning to his village one day and hit him with a stone on his head and caused injuries and that he took first aid in

Thurkapally village and thereafter he took treatment in Area Hospital, Bhongir.

12.It was elicited in his cross-examination that he saw the accused No.1 talking to PW1 but he did not see the accused No.2 and 3 talking to her and that he did not suspect the conversation between the accused No.1 and PW1 initially as he thought that it was a casual talk but he was informed by PW1 that the accused

No.1 was stalking her in the name of love. He further deposed that he did not see the accused No.1 misbehaving with PW1 at any time and that he did not state

before the police that the accused No.1 misbehaved with PW1, as in Ex.D1, but he

told the police that the accused No.1 was harassing PW1. He further testified that he did not complain to the police when PW1 told him about the harassment of accused No.1 and that he alone warned the accused No.1 and that the police examined him after two days after he was injured by the accused No.1 to 3.

Page 8 of 11 SC(POCSO).NO.35 of 2023 POCSO court, Bhuvanagiri

13.PW4 testified that she issued Bonafide certificate of the victim under Ex.P5 upon receiving requisition from PS Bommalaramaram and that as per their school records, the victim has studied 8th to 10 th class in their school for the academic years 2020 to 2023 and that her date of birth is 30.6.2008.

14.The Investigating Officer/PW7 has testified about his role and the investigation done by him in the case. During his cross-examination, PW7 admitted that PW3 and LW5/Nuthanakanti Sai did not give any separate complaint to the police when the accused attacked them, as alleged, and he added that it was part of the same incident. He has further admitted that specific date and time of te incident of sexual assault was not mentioned in the complaint/Ex.P1, FIR and also in the charge sheet and that no complaint was lodged soon after sexual assault by the accused No.1.

15.The prosecution has prima facie proved through Ex.P5 certificate that the victim/PW1 was a minor as on the date of Ex.P1 complaint. Apparently, the victim/PW1 did not prefer to disclose anything against the accused No.1 to 3, touching the allegations made by her in the complaint/Ex.P1 and in her statement given to the police. She was declared hostile by the Additional Public Prosecutor and she denied all the suggestions put to her in cross-examination. Her mother/PW2 and the elders of the village/PWs 5 and 6 also failed to support the prosecution case. The prosecution did not examine LW5/Nuthanakanti Sai who was also allegedly injured by the accused No.1 to 3. Though PW3 testified that the accused No.1 to 3 had intercepted him while he was returning to his village, by keeping grudge on him for questioning the accused No.1, and hit him with a stone on head and injured him, the said injuries are not proved by the prosecution by

Page 9 of 11 SC(POCSO).NO.35 of 2023 POCSO court, Bhuvanagiri examining the doctor who treated PW3. Admittedly, neither PW3 nor

LW5/Nuthanakanti Sai reported to the police soon after the said incident of accused injuring them happened and no reasons are forthcoming from the prosecution in that regard. Though PW7 deposed that the said incident was also part of the main incident of harassment of PW1 by the accused No.1, the victim/PW1 did not support the evidence of her uncle/PW3 that she informed him about the harassment of accused No.1 in the name of love. Ex.D1 is marked for the defence in the statement of PW3 given to the police, which discredits his testimony.

16.In the light of the aforesaid discussion and hostile evidence of victim/PW1 and the evidence of other prosecution witnesses detailed above, this Court finds that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused No.1 to 3 for any of the charges framed against them. Consequently, the accused No. 1 to 3 are entitled for acquittal.

In the result, the accused no.1 to 3 are found not guilty for the charges punishable Sections 376(1), 341, 323 r/w 109 IPC and Sec. 4 of POCSO Act, and they are acquitted under section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., for the above said charges. The bonds and bail bonds of accused no.1 to 3 shall remain in force till expiry of appeal time as provided U/Sec. 437 A, Cr.P.C. Interim custody of M.O.4, ie., Pulsar motor cycle bearing No. TS 30 C 1451 given to its owner shall be made absolute, and

M.O.s 1 and 2 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. M.O.3 shall be

Page 10 of 11 SC(POCSO).NO.35 of 2023 POCSO court, Bhuvanagiri returned to its original owner on proper identification and acknowledgment after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to dictation by Stenographer Grade-I, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 31 st day of October, 2025.

I Additional Sessions Judge, Bhuvanagiri. FAC: Spl. Sessions Judge For Expeditious Trial & Disposal Of Rape And POCSO Act Cases, Bhuvanagiri.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

PW-1 VVVVComplainant and victim minor girl PW-2 MMMMMother of victim/ circumstantial witness PW-3 UUUUUncle of the victim and injured PW-4V. MalathiIssued Bonafide certificate of the victim girl. PW-5Chikkudu ChandraiahVillage elder, who summoned the accused PW-6Naram LaxmaiahVillage elder, who summoned the accused PW-7Y. Surendar ReddyInvestigating Officer and arrested accused no.1 to 3.

ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENSE

Nil

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

Ex.P1: is the signature of PW1 on complaint Ex.P2: is the signature of PW1 on 164 Cr.P.C statement. Ex.P3: is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1. Ex.P4: is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2. Ex.P5: is the Bonafide certificate.

Page 11 of 11 SC(POCSO).NO.35 of 2023 POCSO court, Bhuvanagiri

Ex.P6: is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW5. Ex.P7: is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW6. Ex.P8 : is FIR. Ex.P9 : is scene of offence-1 panchanama, Ex.P10 : is scene of offence-2 panchanama, Ex.P11 : is two rough sketches, Ex.P12 : is seizure of clothes panchanama, Ex.P13 : is confession-cum-seizure panchanama of A1, Ex.P14 : is 164 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1, Ex.P15 : is FSL report of victim, Ex.P16 : is medical certificate of victim issued by LW13, Ex.P17 : is potency test report of accused No.1 issued by LW14, Ex.P18 : is medical certificate of PW3, Ex.P19 : is medical certificate of LW5, Ex.P20 : is certified CAF of A1 along with Section 65B certificate.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENSE

Ex.D1: is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARK

MO-1 is set of clothes of PW1.

MO-2 is set of clothes of Accused No.1.

MO-3 is Oppo phone seized from Accused No.1.

MO-4 is Pulsar motor cycle bearing No. TS 30 C 1451.

I Additional Sessions Judge, Bhuvanagiri FAC: Spl. Sessions Judge For Expeditious Trial & Disposal Of Rape And POCSO Act Cases, Bhuvanagiri.

Page 1 of 7 SC(POCSO).NO.125 of 2021 POCSO court, Bhuvanagiri

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL AND

DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL

OFFENCES(POCSO) ACT CASES: BHUVANAGIRI

Present :-Smt. P. Mukthida, I Addl.Sessions Judge, Bhuvanagiri, FAC Spl.SSJ for Expeditious Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases, Bhuvanagiri Dated this the 12th day of November, 2025.

SC.(POCSO) NO.125 OF 2021

(Cr.No.80/2021 of P.S. Bommalaramaram)

Name and description of TheSub-InspectorofPolice,P.S. the complainant:Bommalaramaram.

Name and description of Mailaram Sai kiran @ Sai, S/o: Yadagiri, Age: 24 the accused:yrs., Occ: driver, R/o: Rangapuram (v), Bommalaram (M), Yadadri-Bhongir District. Offence charged:Section 366 of IPC and Sec. 18 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

Plea of the accused:Pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the Court:Found not guilty

Sentence or Order :In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the charges punishable Sections 366 of IPC and Sec. 18 of POCSO Act, and he is acquitted under section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., for the above said charges. The bonds and bail bonds of accused shall remain in force till expiry of appeal time as provided U/Sec. 437 A, Cr.P.C.M.O.1 shall be returned to its original owner on proper identification and acknowledgment after expiry of appeal time.

This Sessions Case is coming before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Special Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri Ishaq Nehal, Advocate

for the Accused and after hearing the arguments of both sides and after having stood

over for consideration till this day, the Court made the following:

: : JUDGMENT : :

1.The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S>

Bommalaramaram filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences

Page 2 of 7 SC(POCSO).NO.125 of 2021 POCSO court, Bhuvanagiri punishable under Sections 366 of IPC and Sec. 18 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short, POCSO Act, 2012).

02.The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that:

(i) A report was received by PW6 at 18.00 hours on 8.5.2021 from PW1 wherein she stated that her younger daughter, ie., the victim has left the house at 1200 hours stating that she was going to Kirana Shop but did not return to house, that she searched for her in the surrounding villages and also caused enquiries with all their relatives over phone but could not trace her whereabouts and that she suspected the accused behind the missing of her daughter.

(ii)Basing on the contents of above complaint, PW6 registered a case in

Cr.No.80/2021, under Sec. 366 IPC & Sec. 18 of POCSO Act, 2012 and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, PW6 examined and recorded the statement of PW-1. Thereafter, he proceeded to the scene of offence and secured the presence of LW8/Jupally Ganesh & LW9/Toodi Shankaraiah, observed the scene minutely but did not find any incriminating material to seize and drafted the scene of offence panchanama and drew rough sketch of the scene. While efforts were in progress to trace out the victim, PW6 received reliable information on the same day and he along with his staff traced the victim at Yapral X Roads but the accused fled away by seeing the police. PW6 brought the victim/PW2 to police station and on his requisition, LW-14/G. Manasa, Sub-Inspector of Police, examined and recorded the detailed statement of PW-2 in which she revealed that she is the

Page 3 of 7 SC(POCSO).NO.125 of 2021 POCSO court, Bhuvanagiri younger daughter of her parents, that six months ago she came into contact with the accused and he followed her in the name of love and after some days, she accepted his love and from then onwards they both used to talk to each other, that gradually the accused started inducing her that he would marry her and to come along with him and on 08.05.2021 at 1200 hours she went out of the house stating that she was going to Kirana Shop and went along with accused on his Splendor

Plus bike bearing No.AP11 J 0825 and he took her to Yapral X Roads, Medchal

District, deciding to marry and at that time she was in menstruation and they did not participate in any physical relationship and they had no sexual relationship.

(iii)During the course of investigation, PW2/victim was referred to Govt

Hospital for medical examination and accordingly LW12/Dr.Y.Praveena examined the victim and issued medical report. PW6 examined PW3, LW4, PW4 and PW5 and recorded their statements and also collected copy of Bonafide Certificate of PW2 from LW7/Siliveru Mahesh, in which date of birth of the victim was mentioned as 10.08.2006 and she was minor of 14 years age. While the investigation was in progress, the accused came to police station on 11.05.2021 at 0800 hours and surrendered before PW6 admitting his guilt voluntarily in committing the offence and also filed a petition against father of the victim, i.e., PW3 alleging that on 08.05.2021 at 23:30 hours while he was proceeding on his bike to

Bommalaramaram, on the way near outskirts of Bommalaramaram Village, PW-3 stopped his bike and beat him with stick on his left hand and left leg causing fracture injuries and after getting treatment, he came to police station and filed the petition. On his petition, PW5 filed a case in Cr.No.81/2021, under Sec. 341, 324

IPC. Further when the accused was ready to confess his guilt in this case, PW5

Page 4 of 7 SC(POCSO).NO.125 of 2021 POCSO court, Bhuvanagiri secured the presence of LW10/Maduturi Narsimha & LW11/Mailaram Laxmaiah and recorded confession of the accused and in pursuance of his confession, PW5 seized

Hero Honda Splendor bike bearing No. AP-11-J-0825 from the possession of accused under cover of confession cum seizure panchanama in the presence of above mediators by duly affixing their signed panch chits. PW5 affected arrest of the accused at 0830 hours and produced him before the Court for Judicial Remand.

(iv)On the requisition filed by PW5, LW-13/the then Additional Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Ramannapet has recorded the statement of PW2/victim

under section 164 Cr.P.C. PW5 collected ownership particulars of Hero Honda

Splendor bike bearing No. AP 11 J 0825. After completing investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused.

03. This case was taken on file by the I Additional Sessions Court, Nalgonda for the offences punishable under Sections 366 of IPC and Sec.18 of POCSO Act, 2012.

In view of the establishment of this Court, this case was transferred to this Court on the point of jurisdiction.

04. On appearance of the accused before this Court, copies of all documents were furnished to him under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. and charges were framed

U/Sec. 228 Cr.P.C. for the offences under Sections 366 of IPC and Sec. 18 of

POCSO Act, 2012 against him, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

05.To bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined PWs 1 to 6 and got marked Ex.P1 to P14 and MO1. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under sec.313 Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating

Page 5 of 7 SC(POCSO).NO.125 of 2021 POCSO court, Bhuvanagiri material against him in the prosecution evidence to which he denied and reported no defence evidence.

06.Heard on both sides. Perused the record.

07.Now the points that arise for consideration are :-

(1) Whether the accused has kidnapped the victim, punishable

under Section 366 of IPC ?

(2) Whether the accused has attempted to commit POCSO offence

against the victim, punishable under Section 18 of POCSO Act?

(3) Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused

for the charges beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINTS No.1 TO 3 :-

08.The prosecution has examined PWs1 to 6 and got marked Ex.P1 to P14 and

MO1. PW2 is the victim while PW1 and 3 are her parents. PW4 is eye witness and

PW6 is a circumstantial witness to the case. PW6 is the Investigating Officer in the case.

09.As per the prosecution case, the accused followed the victim in the name of love and kidnapped the victim on his motor cycle to marry her. During her testimony before the Court, the victim/PW2 testified that her date of birth is 17.08.2005, that in the year 2021 while she was studying 9th class in Telangana

State Model School at Malyal, she used to go to school by auto, that she has no acquaintance with the accused and he never proposed to her in the name of love and marriage, that police took her to Area Hospital, Bhongir and she was also taken to Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhongir, where her statement was recorded.

10. The testimony of PW1, mother of the victim, is that in the year 2021 PW2 was studying Intermediate, that she lodged the complaint under head of girl

Page 6 of 7 SC(POCSO).NO.125 of 2021 POCSO court, Bhuvanagiri missing but her daughter returned home in the evening hours and that her daughter did not disclose anything to her and that she does not know the contents of complaint. The testimony of PW3, father of victim, is that his daughter did not disclose anything to him and that he does not know facts of the case.

11.The testimony of PW4 and PW5 is that they do not know anything about this case. The Investigating Officer/PW6 has testified about his role and the investigation done by him in the case.

12.Having regard to the prosecution evidence detailed above, it is apparent that except PW6, none of the prosecution witnesses, including the victim, have supported the prosecution case and consequently, the prosecution could not prove the guilt of the accused for the charges framed against him for the offences under Sections 366 of IPC and Sec. 18 of POCSO Act.

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the charges punishable

Sections 366 of IPC and Sec. 18 of POCSO Act, and he is acquitted under section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., for the above said charges. The bonds and bail bonds of accused shall remain in force till expiry of appeal time as provided U/Sec. 437 A, Cr.P.C.

M.O.1 shall be returned to its original owner on proper identification and acknowledgment after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to dictation by Stenographer Grade-I, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 12 th day of November, 2025.

I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE

BHUVANAGIRI

FAC: SPL.SESSIONS JUDGE FOR EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL &

DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND POCSO ACT CASES,

BHUVANAGIRI

Page 7 of 7 SC(POCSO).NO.125 of 2021 POCSO court, Bhuvanagiri

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

Name enclosed in Complainant and mother PW-1 sealed coverof victim girl PW-2 Name enclosed in victim sealed cover PW-3 Name enclosed in witness/father of victim sealed cover PW-4Mailaram NarsimhaEye witness PW-5Manchala GaneshCircumstantial witness PW-5N. VenkannaIssued FIR, I.O and filed charge sheet.

ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENSE

Nil

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

Ex.P1: is the signature of PW1 on complaint. Ex.P2: is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1. Ex.P3: is the signature of PW2 on 164 Cr.P.C statement. Ex.P4: is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2. Ex.P5: is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3. Ex.P6: is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW4. Ex.P7: is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW5. Ex.P7 : is complaint. Ex.P8 : is FIR Ex.P9 : is CDF. Ex.P10: is the report. Ex.P11: is the confession cum seizure panchanama of accused Ex.P12: is the 164 Cr.P.C statement of victim. Ex.P13: is the Bonafide certificate of victim, Ex.P14: is the requisition along with particulars issued by Additional Registering Authority.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENSE

Nil

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MO-1 is bike bearing No. AP 11 J 0825.

I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

BHUVANAGIRI

FAC: SPL. SESSIONS JUDGE FOR EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL &

DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND POCSO ACT CASES,

BHUVANAGIRI.

Page 1 of 8 SC(POCSO).NO.02 of 2022 POCSO court, Bhongir

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL AND

DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL

OFFENCES(POCSO) ACT CASES: BHONGIR

Present :-Smt. P. Mukthida, I Additional Sessions Judge, Bhongir, FAC Spl.SCJ for Expeditious Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases, Bhongir

Dated this the 25th day of September, 2025

SC.(POCSO) NO.2 OF 2022

(Cr.No. 95/2022 of P.S. Bhongir town)

Name and description of The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Bhongir town. the complainant: Name and description of Manda Kishore, S/o: Immaniyelu, Age: 22 years, the accused:Occ: Masion, R/o: Ankampally village, Valigonda Mandal,Yadadri-BhongirDistrict,N/o: Nekunambad, Chimakurthy Mandal, Prakasham district, AP State. Offence charged:Sections 363, 417, 506 of IPC and Section 11 read with section-12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Plea of the accused:Pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the Court:Found not guilty

Sentence or Order :In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the charges punishable Sections 363, 417, 506 of IPC and Section 11 read with section- 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and he is acquitted under section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., for the above said charges. The bonds and bail bonds of accused shall remain in force till expiry of appeal time as provided U/Sec. 437 A, Cr. P.C.

This Sessions Case is coming before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Special Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri Ch. Siddhi Ramulu,

Page 2 of 8 SC(POCSO).NO.02 of 2022 POCSO court, Bhongir

Advocate for the Accused and after hearing the arguments of both sides and after having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court made the following:

: : JUDGMENT : :

1.The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Bhuvanagiri town filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 417, 506 of IPC and Section 11 read with section12 of the Protection of

Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 ( in short, POCSO Act).

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

(i) A report was received by PW6 at 1.00 hours on 5.3.2022 from PW1 wherein he stated that his daughter/PW2 has been studying Inter First year in @@@@, that she went to college on 4.3.2021 at 8:00 hours and at 13:30 hours her teacher made a phone call and informed that his daughter/PW2 was weeping with stomach pain and hence he was sending her home but she did not return home till that day, and he and his son searched for his daughter in the nearby area but could not trace her, and sought action.

(ii) Basing on the contents of the said report, PW6 registered a case in Cr.

No.95/2022, under the head “Girl Missing” and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, PW6 received credible information on 06.03.2022 and sent

PCs 4469, 4407, and WPC 4160 to Ongole, Prakasham District with instructions to trace out the missing girl. Accordingly, said Police Constables visited Ongole and traced the victim and apprehended the accused at 1:00 hours at LW-6/Manda

Prasad’s house and brought them to Bhongir Town police station. PW6 examined

Page 3 of 8 SC(POCSO).NO.02 of 2022 POCSO court, Bhongir and recorded the statement of victim girl/PW2 at the PS in the presence of her parents and he further collected Bonafide and Conduct Certificate of PW2 from

LW7/B. Mallesham, Vice Principal of the college from which it was known that date of birth of PW2 is 17.11.2004 and that she was a minor aged 17 years, 03 months and 17 days old. From the statement of the PW2/victim girl, it was clearly established that the accused enticed her by making false promises and forcibly took her to Ongole, AP State from RTC bus stand, Bhongir. PW6 altered the sections of law to sections 366, 417, 509 IPC and Sec.12 of POCSO Act, 2012 from the head of Girl missing. Later, PW6 examined and recorded the statements of

PWs1 to 4 and LW5/Bathini Nagaiah and LW6/Manda Prasad.

(iii)On interrogation, the accused admitted his guilt in the offence in the presence of panchas LW8/Chilveri Ramesh and LW9/Taduri Srisailam and PW6 recorded confession panchanama of the accused and later he sent the accused to hospital for medical examination and Covid-19 test and thereafter produced the accused before the Court for Judicial remand. On the requisition of PW6, LW10/ the then Principal Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ramannapet recorded the statement of PW2 under Section 164 Cr.P.C. PW6 filed charge sheet against the accused after completing investigation.

3. This case was taken on file by this Court for the offences punishable under

Sections 366, 417, 506 of IPC, and section-11 read with section12 of POCSO Act, 2012.

Page 4 of 8 SC(POCSO).NO.02 of 2022 POCSO court, Bhongir

4. On appearance of the accused before this Court, copies of all documents were furnished to him under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. and charges were framed

U/Sec. 228 Cr.P.C. for the offences under Sections 363, 417, 506 of IPC, and section 11 read with section12 of POCSO Act, 2012 against him, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.To bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined PWs1 to 6 and got marked Ex.P1 to P11. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under sec. 313 Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating material against him in the prosecution evidence to which he denied and reported no defence evidence.

6.Heard on both sides. Perused the record.

7.Now the points that arise for consideration are :-

(1) Whether the accused has kidnapped the minor victim girl from

lawful guardianship of her parents, punishable under section 363

of IPC ?

(2) Whether the accused has cheated the victim, punishable under

section 417 of IPC ?

(3) Whether the accused has threatened the victim, punishable

under section 506 of IPC ?

(4) Whether the accused has committed sexual assault on the

victim, punishable under section 11 r/w 12 of Protection of

Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012?

(4) Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused

for the charges beyond all reasonable doubt?

Page 5 of 8 SC(POCSO).NO.02 of 2022 POCSO court, Bhongir

POINTS No.1 TO 4 :-

8.The prosecution has examined PWs1 to 6 and got marked Ex.P1 to

P11. PW1 and PW3 are parents of the victim, PW2 is the victim and PW4 is brother of the victim. PW5 is a panch witness for confession panchanama of the accused. PW7 is Investigating Officer in the case.

9.As per the prosecution case, PW2 was studying Intermediate first year at @@@@ college, Bhongir and her parents had built one house in their village in the previous year and the accused came to their house for masonry work and got introduced to PW2 and since then, they both became close; that PW2 went to college at Bhongir at 8:00 hours on 04.03.2022 and in the afternoon hours PW2 bunked the college and went to RTC Bus stand, Bhongir and made a phone call to the accused from an unknown person’s phone and called him, upon which the accused rushed to RTC Bus stand, Bhongir and made false promises and enticed PW2 to

Ongole by Pulsar motorcycle bearing No. AP 39 FJ 2220 and stayed for two days in the house of LW6/Manda Prasad and that the accused had cheated and kidnapped PW2 with sexual intent and committed sexual harassment on PW2, punishable under Sections 366, 417, 506 IPC and

Section 11 r/w 12 of POCSO Act, 2012.

10.In hertestimony before the Court, the victim/PW2 testified that she used to study Intermediate (Bi.P.C) in a College in Bhongir and she used to go to college by bus and that she does not know anything about the case.

Page 6 of 8 SC(POCSO).NO.02 of 2022 POCSO court, Bhongir

The testimony of PW1/father of the victim is that his daughter/ PW2 used to study Intermediate (Bi.P.C) in a Junior College in Bhongir, that she used to go to college by bus and that on 04th day in the year 2022 his daughter went to college as usual but did not return home on time and therefore, he got worried and complained to the police, PS Bhongir town, that the complaint was drafted by a policeman on his narration but he did not read the contents therein before putting his signature and that his daughter returned home on the same night and he came to know from her that she went to their relative’s house. The testimony of PW3/mother of the victim and PW4/brother of the victim is on the lines of evidence of PW2. The learned Special Public Prosecutor has declared PWs 1 to 4 hostile and cross-examined them but they denied the suggestions given by him.

11.The panch witness for confession panchanama/PW5 is that about 5 years ago the police Bhongir town called him and LW8/Chilveri Ramesh to

PS Bhongir Town and obtained their signatures on some written papers and that he does not know what was written in those papers. The

Investigating Officer/PW6 testified about his role in the investigation done in the case.

12.Having regard to the prosecution evidence detailed above, it is apparent that except PW6, none of the prosecution witnesses, including the victim, have supported the prosecution case and consequently, the prosecution could not prove the guilt of the accused for the charges

Page 7 of 8 SC(POCSO).NO.02 of 2022 POCSO court, Bhongir framed against him for the offences U/sec. 363, 417, 506 of IPC, and

Section 11 read with section 12 of POCSO Act, 2012. Hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the charges punishable

Sections 363, 417, 506 of IPC and Section 11 read with section12 of Protection of

Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and he is acquitted under section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., for the above said charges. The bonds and bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force till expiry of appeal time as provided U/Sec. 437 A, Cr.P.C.

Typed to dictation by Stenographer Grade-I, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 25 th day of September, 2025.

I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

FAC: SPL.SESSIONS JUDGE FOR EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL &

DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND POCSO ACT CASES, BHONGIR

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

PW-1 XXXXXXComplainant and father of victim PW-2 ZZZZZZVictim PW-3 YYYYYYMother of victim PW-4Gumidelli PavanBrother of victim PW-5Taduri SrisailamPanch for confession panchanama PW-6Tejam ReddyInvestigating Officer

ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE

Nil

Page 8 of 8 SC(POCSO).NO.02 of 2022 POCSO court, Bhongir

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

Ex.P1: is the signature of PW1 on the complaint. Ex.P2: is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1. Ex.P3: is the signature of PW2 on 164 Cr.P.C statement. Ex.P4: is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2. Ex.P5: is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3. Ex.P6: is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW4. Ex.P7: is the signature of PW5 on confession cum seizure panchanama. Ex.P8: is the complaint. Ex.P10:is the confession cum panchanama of accused. Ex.P11:is the bonafide certificate of PW2.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

Nil

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

Nil

I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

FAC: SPL. SESSIONS JUDGE FOR EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL &

DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND POCSO ACT CASES,

BHONGIR.

Page 1 of 7 SC(POCSO).NO.160 of 2022 POCSO court, Bhuvanagiri

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL AND

DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL

OFFENCES(POCSO) ACT CASES: BHUVANAGIRI

Present :-Smt. P. Mukthida, I Addl.Sessions Judge, Bhuvanagiri, FAC Spl.SSJ for Expeditious Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases, Bhuvanagiri

Dated this the 31st day of October, 2025

SC.(POCSO) NO.160 OF 2022

(Cr.No.220/2022 of P.S. Choutuppal)

Name and description of The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Choutuppal. the complainant: Name and description of Nakka Naveen, S/o: Shankaraiah, age: 23 yrs., Occ: the accused:private employee, R/o: Jaikesaram(v), Choutuppal (M). Offence charged:Sections 448, 354 and 506 of IPC and Sec. 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Plea of the accused:Pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the Court:Found not guilty

Sentence or Order :In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the charges punishable Sections 448, 354 and 506 of IPC and Sec. 12 of POCSO Act and he is acquitted under section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., for the above said charges. The bonds and bail bonds of accused shall remain in force till expiry of appeal time as provided U/Sec. 437 A, Cr.P.C. M.O.1 shall be returned to its original owner on proper identification and acknowledgment after expiry of appeal time.

This Sessions Case is coming before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Special Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri B. Goverdhan, Advocate

for the Accused and after hearing the arguments of both sides and after having stood

over for consideration till this day, the Court made the following:

: : JUDGMENT : :

1.The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Choutuppal filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 448,

Page 2 of 7 SC(POCSO).NO.160 of 2022 POCSO court, Bhuvanagiri 354 and 506 of IPC and Sec. 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences

Act, 2012 (in short, POCSO Act, 2012).

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

(i) A report was received by PW5 at 19.30 hours on 13.4.2022 from PW1 wherein she stated that while she was studying 10th Class at ZPHS, the accused harassed her continuously for 5 months, developed evil eye against her, advanced his proposition and created panic, with an intention to satisfy his sexual desire, and he teased her saying "I Love You", threatened the complainant and followed her daily while she was going to school, that she informed the same to her parents and they called the parents of accused in the presence of village elders and warned him but there was no change in his attitude, that on 12.04.2022 at about 10.00hrs while she was alone in their house, the accused has criminally trespassed in to their house, caught hold of her hand and threatened her with dire consequences to kill her and when she cried loudly, he fled away from the scene.

(ii)Basing on the contents of the above complaint, PW5 registered a case in

Cr.No. 220/2022, for the offences under Secs. 448, 354, 506 IPC and Sec 12 of

POCSO Act, 2012 and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, on the instructions of PW5, LW-12/G. Manasa, Sub-Inspector of Police examined PW1 in the presence of her mother/PW2 and recorded her statement. PW5 examined the parents of victim girl, i.e., PW-2 and PW-3 and recorded their statements. PW5 visited the scene of offence situated at the house of complainant on 14.04.2022, and examined uncles of the victim girl and recorded their statements. He observed the scene and conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of two

Page 3 of 7 SC(POCSO).NO.160 of 2022 POCSO court, Bhuvanagiri mediators Lws-07/Kante Ramulu Yadav & LW8/Kalkuri Sreekanth, and drew rough sketch of the scene in their presence.

(iii)PW5 addressed a letter to the Head Master, ZPH School, Jaikesaram (V) on 18.04.2022, with a request to furnish age proof certificate of the victim girl.

Accordingly, PW4 furnished Bonafide certificate of the victim girl which disclosed her date of birth was 21.08.2005 and her age was 16 years and that she was a minor. Subsequently, PW5 has examined PW4 and recorded her statement. PW5 deputed his staff to apprehend the accused and accordingly, the deputed staff rushed to Jaikesaram Village, Choutuppal Mandal on 18.04.2022 and apprehended the accused at his house at 12.00 hours, and brought the accused to the police station and produced before PW5 at 12.30 hours. During the course of interrogation, the accused admitted to have committed the offence. Upon that,

PW5 secured the presence of two mediators LW9/Nune Hanumanthu &

LW10/Karpuri Saidulu and recorded confession statement of the accused and seized a sky blue color REALME company touch screen mobile phone from his possession under cover of confession-cum-seizure panchanama, which was used by the accused in commission of this offence. Later, PW5 arrested the accused and produced him before the Court for judicial remand. On the request of PW5, LW- 11/the then Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ramannapet recorded the statement of victim under Sec.164 Cr.P.C. After completing investigation, PW5 filed charge sheet against the accused.

3. This case was taken on file by this Court for the offences punishable under

Sections 448, 354 and 506 of IPC and Sec. 12 of POCSO Act, 2012 against the accused. On appearance of the accused before this Court, copies of all documents

Page 4 of 7 SC(POCSO).NO.160 of 2022 POCSO court, Bhuvanagiri were furnished to him under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. and charges were framed

U/Sec. 228 Cr.P.C. for the offences under Sections 448, 354 and 506 of IPC and Sec.

12 of POCSO Act, 2012 against him, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.To bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined PWs 1 to 5 and got marked Ex.P1 to P9 and MO1. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under sec.313 Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating material against him in the prosecution evidence to which he denied and reported no defence evidence.

5.Heard on both sides. Perused the record.

6.Now the points that arise for consideration are :-

(1) Whether the accused has criminally trespassed into the house

of victim, punishable under Section 448 of IPC ?

(2) Whether the accused has caught hold of the hand of the victim

to outrage her modesty, punishable under Section 354 of IPC?

(3) Whether the accused has threatened the victim, punishable

under section 506 of IPC ?

(4) Whether the accused has sexually harassed the victim,

punishable under section 12 of POCSO Act, 2012?

(5) Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused

for the charges beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINTS No.1 TO 5 :-

07.The prosecution has examined PWs1 to 5 and got marked Ex.P1 to P9 and

MO1 to prove its case against the accused. PW1 is the victim while PW2 and PW3 are parents of the victim. PW4 has issued Bonafide certificate of the victim. PW5 is the Investigating Officer in the case.

Page 5 of 7 SC(POCSO).NO.160 of 2022 POCSO court, Bhuvanagiri

08.As per the prosecution case, the accused stalked the victim in the name of love while she was going to school and criminally trespassed into her house while she was alone and caught hold of her hand and threatened her with dire consequences and when she raised hues and cries, he fled away. During her testimony before the Court, the victim/PW1 testified that her date of birth is 21.08.2005, that in the year 2022 while she was studying Intermediate second year in JBM College at Choutuppal she used to go by bus, that she has no acquaintance with the accused and that no one proposed her in the name of love and marriage and she lodged the complaint but she does not know the contents of the complaint and she put her thumb impression and she went to Principal Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Ramannapet where her statement was recorded.

9. The testimony of PW2 and PW3, parents of the victim, is that they do not know anything about the facts of the case. PW4 testified that she issued Bonafide certificate of the victim under Ex.P5 upon receiving requisition from PS

Choutuppal and that as per their school records, the victim has studied 6th to 10 th class in their school for the academic years 2017 to 2022 and that her date of birth is 21.8.2005. The Investigating Officer/PW5 has testified about his role and the investigation done by him in the case.

10.Having regard to the prosecution evidence detailed above, it is apparent that except PW4 and PW5, none of the prosecution witnesses, including the victim, have supported the prosecution case. The Special Public Prosecutor has declared PWs 1 to 3 as hostile and cross-examined them but they denied his suggestions. Consequently, the prosecution could not prove the guilt of the accused for the charges framed against him for the offences under Sections 448,

Page 6 of 7 SC(POCSO).NO.160 of 2022 POCSO court, Bhuvanagiri 354 and 506 of IPC and Sec. 12 of POCSO Act, 2012. Hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the charges punishable

Sections 448, 354 and 506 of IPC and Sec. 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and he is acquitted under section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., for the above said charges. The bonds and bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force till expiry of appeal time as provided U/Sec. 437 A, Cr.P.C. M.O.1 shall be returned to its original owner on proper identification and acknowledgment after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to dictation by Stenographer Grade-I, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 31 st day of October, 2025.

I Additional Sessions Judge, Bhuvanagiri. FAC: Spl.Sessions Judge For Expeditious Trial & Disposal Of Rape And POCSO Act Cases, Bhuvanagiri.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

PW-1 Complainant and victim Complainant and victim girlgirl PW-2 Mother of complainantMother of victim and circumstantial witness PW-3 Father of victim girlFather of complainant/victim and circumstantial witness PW-4Ambati RenukaIssued Bonafide certificate of the victim girl. PW-5D. Anil.Investigating officer and filed charge sheet.

ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENSE

Nil

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

Ex.P1: is the signature of PW1 on 164 Cr.P.C statement.

Page 7 of 7 SC(POCSO).NO.160 of 2022 POCSO court, Bhuvanagiri

Ex.P2: is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1. Ex.P3: is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2. Ex.P4: is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3. Ex.P5: is the Bonafide certificate. Ex.P6: is the complaint. Ex.P7 : is FIR. Ex.P8 : is CDF Ex.P9 : is confession cum seizure panchanama of accused

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENSE

Nil

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MO-1 is phone.

I Additional Sessions Judge, Bhuvanagiri. FAC: Spl.Sessions Judge For Expeditious Trial & Disposal Of Rape And POCSO Act Cases, Bhuvanagiri.