Sri P. Vasanth

Principal District and Sessions Judge , Mahabubabad

Mahabubabad, PDJ Court Complex · Mahabubabad · Telangana

SRI P. VASANTH, Principal District and Sessions Judge , Mahabubabad, is posted at Mahabubabad, PDJ Court Complex, Mahabubabad, Telangana, India. 501 court orders on record since 2022. 10 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles MVOP, EP, SC cases.

501

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

SC/122/2022 Acquitted

PS Mahabubabad vs Bhukya Balu

13 Apr 2023

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. SESSIONS JUDGE,

AT MAHABUBABAD

THURSDAY, THIS THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF APRIL, 2023

Present: P. Vasanth,

Principal Sessions Judge,

Mahabubabad

S.C. No.122 of 2022

1. Name of the Complainant:The State of Telangana through theInspectorPolice, Mahabubabad Town.

2. Name of the Accused : 1. Bhukya Balu, S/o.Gobriya, Aged: 25 years, Lambada, Vegetable Vendor, R/o.Bhavani Nagar Thanda, Mahabubabad (A.1)

2. Boda Ravi, S/o.Kishan Singh, Aged: 24 years, Lambada, Car Glass Shop Worker, R/o.Bhavani Nagar Thanda, Mahabubabad (A.2)

3. Boda Prasad, S/o.Kishan Singh, Aged: 26 years, Lambada, Car Glass Shop Worker, R/o.Bhavani Nagar Thanda, Mahabubabad(A.3).

4. Bhukya Lalu, S/o.Gobriya, Aged 26 years,Lambada,Coolie, R/o.BhavaniNagarThanda, Mahabubabad. (A.4)

5. Bhukya Hanman @ Ashok, S/o. Balu, Aged 25 years, Lambada, Contractor,R/o.H.No.2-1-48/3/1, BhavaninagarColony, Mahabubabad. (A.5)

Page 2 of 12

SC No.122 of 2022

Dated 13th day of April, 2023

6. Bhukya Gobriya, S/o.Tikya, Aged 81 years, Lambada, Coolie, R/o.BhavaniNagarThanda, Mahabubabad. (A.6, abated)

7. Boda Divya, W/o.Ravi, Aged 21 years, Lambada, House wife, R/o.BhavaninagarThanda, Mahabubabad. (A.7)

8. Boda Lalitha, W/o.Prasad, Aged 20 years, Lambada, House wife R/o.BhavaniNagarThanda, Mahabubabad.(A.8)

9. Bhuukya Uma @ Burri, W/o.Lalu, Aged 25 years, Lambada, Coolie, R/o.BhavaniNagarThanda, Mahabubabad. (A.9)

3. Offence under Sections:148, 302, 307 r/w 149 IPC

4. Crime Number and 197 of 2017 Name of Police Station:Mahabubabad Town

5. Plea of the accused :Pleaded Not Guilty

6. Finding of the Court :Found Not Guilty

7. Sentence of Order : In the result, the accused Nos.1 to 5 and 7 to 9 were found not guilty for the offences under Sections 143 r/w 149 of IPC, Section 147 r/w 149 of IPC, Section 452 r/w 149 of IPC, Section 324 r/w 149 IPC, Section 323 r/w 149 of IPC and Section 313 r/w 149 of IPC and they are acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C.

Page 3 of 12

SC No.122 of 2022

Dated 13th day of April, 2023

The bail bonds of the accused Nos.1 to 11 shall stand cancelled after SIX months.

The unmarked property, if any, shall be destroyed after the appeal time is over.

8. Prosecution conducted Sri K.Padmakar Reddy by : Spl. Public Prosecutor

9. Defence conducted by:Sri M.Suresh Reddy,Advocate,

This case is coming on 10.04.2023 before me, for fnal hearing in the presence of Sri K.Padmakar Reddy, Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri M.Suresh Reddy, Advocate

for the Accused; and upon perusal of the

material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

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

1.The Inspector of Police, Mahabubabad Town laid charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 302 and 307 r/w 149 IPC.

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

Page 4 of 12

SC No.122 of 2022

Dated 13th day of April, 2023

The deceased No.1 married one Bujji, who is daughter of Accused No.6 and sister of Accused Nos.1 and 4 and out of maritallife they begotten Accused Nos.2 and 3 and Soniya. Subsequently, due to death of said

Bujji, the deceased No.1 married deceased No.2 (Boda

Devi) who is own sister of Bujji and they were blessed with

PW-1. The deceased No.1 neglected the welfare of children born through frst wife. Accused No.1, 4 and 6 looked after their welfare and performed their marriages.

The deceased No.1 refused to give any properties to his children born through frst wife and handed over entire properties to deceased No.2. Inspite of intervention of elders also the deceased No.1 refused to give share to his children born through frst wife, due to which accused No.2 and 5 beat the deceased No.1 and a criminal case in

Cr.No.225/2014 also registered in that regard.

The deceased No.1 also used to threaten

Accused Nos.1, 4 and 6 to do away their lives, due to which accused Nos.1 to 9 developed bore grudge against

Page 5 of 12

SC No.122 of 2022

Dated 13th day of April, 2023

the deceased No.1 and decided to do away with his life and waiting for an opportunity. For this accused No.3 picked up two blades from his working place and handed over to Accused No.1 The deceased Nos.1 and 2 along with their son are staying at Krishna Colony,

Mahabubabad.

On 16.06.2017 early hours a panchayat was held

before the elders. After the panchayat when the deceased

No.1 came out the house, the Accused Nos.1 and 2 armed with blades, Accused No.3 and 4 armed with sticks and all the accused Nos.1 to 9 rushed to the deceased No.1 and the accused No.1 attacked on the deceased No.1 and sprinkled chilly powder in the eyes of deceased No.1, then the accused No.1 attacked and caused cut injuries to the deceased No.1 with blade on his throat, meantime the accused Nos. and 6 caught the deceased frmly, the accused Nos.1 to 4 attacked and beat the deceased No.1 with sticks and also caused cut injuries to the deceased indiscriminately. When PW-1 intervened to rescue the

Page 6 of 12

SC No.122 of 2022

Dated 13th day of April, 2023

deceased No.1, accused Nos.8 and 9 caught the deceased

No.2 frmly, accused No.7 snatched away the blade from the hands of accused No.2 and caused cut injuries to deceased No.2 Devi and the accused No.1 attacked and caused cut injuries to PW-1 with intention to do away with the lives of deceased. Resulting, the deceased No.1 died on the spot and the deceased No.2 received serious injuries to throat, neck and fell unconscious and died subsequently.

Basing on the report, LW-23/S.A.Jabbar,

Inspector of Police, P.S. Mahabubabad registered the same as a case in Crime No.197/2017 under Sections 148, 302, 307 r/w 149 IPC, issued FIR and took up the investigation.

He examined the witnesses and recorded their statements.

Police drafted rough sketch of the scene and noted the description in the Crime Details Form.

On 17.06.2017, the accused were apprehended and that after completion of investigation, the Inspector of

Police fled charge sheet against the accused.

Page 7 of 12

SC No.122 of 2022

Dated 13th day of April, 2023

4.The Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mahabubabad took cognizance for the offences under Section 148, 302 and 307 r/w 149 IPC. in P.R.C.No.7/2020 and committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Warangal. Subsequently, this case was made over to this Court.

5.On appearance of the accused Nos.1 to 5 and 7 to 9 charges for the offence under Section 148, 302, 307 r/w 149 IPC were framed against them, read over and explained to them, but they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.In order to bring home the guilt of the accused for the charge arraigned against him the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 8 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.18. The details of which shall be noted at the appendix of evidence.

7.On completion of the evidence on the prosecution side, the accused Nos.1 to 5 and 7 to 11 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. by putting the incriminating evidence appearing against them in the

Page 8 of 12

SC No.122 of 2022

Dated 13th day of April, 2023

evidence of prosecution witnesses for which they denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard the arguments of the learned Public

Prosecutor and learned defence counsel.

9.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the Prosecution proved the guilt of

the accused Nos.1 to 5 and 7 to 11 for

offences under Section 148 r/wn 14,, 302 r/wn

14, and 307 r/wn 14, IPC?

10.POINT:

In this case, in all (8) witnesses are examined but except the Investigating Ofcer all the witnesses turned hostile the prosecution case. PW-1 is the de facto- complainant and son of the deceased Nos.1 and 2 and he testifed that in the year 2017, he was studying 9th class and on one day some unknown offenders killed his parents.

Police obtained his signature Ex.P.1 but he does not its contents.

11. PW-2 and PW-3 who has been projected as an eye witnesses to the incident also turned hostile and they

Page , of 12

SC No.122 of 2022

Dated 13th day of April, 2023

denied that they are deposing false having compromised with the accused.

12.PW-4 and PW-5 who are circumstancial witnesses and PW-6 and PW-7 who are said to be mediators also turned hostile and did not state anything against the accused.

13.PW-8 is the Investigating Ofcer who examined the accused, conducted Crime Details Form, apprehended the accused and laid the charge sheet.

14.As already stated in the opening paragraph that all the prime and material witnesses turned hostile. In this view of the matter it may be noted that no reliance can be placed on the sole testimony of the Investigating Ofcer without its independent corroboration.

15.In view of the foregoing discussion, it is held that the accused Nos.1 to 5 and 7 to 9 were found not guilty for the offences under Section 148, 302, 307 r/w 149 IPC and they are entitled to be acquitted.

Page 10 of 12

SC No.122 of 2022

Dated 13th day of April, 2023

In the result, the accused Nos.1 to 5 and 7 to 9 are found not guilty for the charges under Section 148, 302, 307 r/w 149 IPC and they are acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of the accused Nos.1 to 5 and 7 to 9 shall stand canceled after SIX months.

The unmarked property, if any, shall be destroyed after the appeal time is over.

Dictated to shorthand writer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 13th

day of April, 2023.

Prl. Sessions Judge, Mahabubabad

:: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE ::

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

P.W-1B.Rama P.W-2B.Dasru P.W-3K.Manohar P.W-4B.Shanthi P.W-5B.Bichya P.W-6S.Somaiah P.W-7S.Rajamouli P.W-8S.Ravi Kumar

Page 11 of 12

SC No.122 of 2022

Dated 13th day of April, 2023

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

-Nil-

DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF

PROSECUTION

Ex.P-1Complaint

Ex.P-2Statement of P.W-1 under Section 161 of Cr.P.C

Ex.P-3Statement of P.W-2 under Section 161 of Cr.P.C

Ex.P-4Statement of P.W-3 under Section 161 of Cr.P.C

Ex.P-5Statement of P.W-4 under Section 161 of Cr.P.C

Ex.P-6Statement of P.W-5 under Section 161 of Cr.P.C

Ex.P-7Signature of PW-6 on the Crime Details Form

Ex.P-8Signature of PW-7 on the confession-cum-seizure panchanama Ex.P-9First Information Report

Ex.P-10Crime Details panchanama

Ex.P-11Inquest panchanama

Ex.P-12Confession-cum-seizure panchanama

Ex.P-13Inquest Panchanama

Ex.P-14Postmortem Examination Report

Ex.P-15Postmortem Examination Report

Ex.P-16Confession-cum-Seizure panchanama

Ex.P-17R.F.S.L Report

Ex.P-18Photos with C.D.

DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

-Nil-

Page 12 of 12

SC No.122 of 2022

Dated 13th day of April, 2023

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE

PROSECUTION

- Nil -

Prl. Sessions Judge, Mahabubabad

SC.POCSO/77/2020 Acquitted

Badavath Devika vs Banoth Mahesh

20 Apr 2023

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. SESSIONS JUDGE, AT

MAHABUBABAD

THURSDAY, THIS THE TWENTIETH DAY OF APRIL, 2023

Present: P. Vasanth,

Principal Sessions Judge,

Mahabubabad.

SC No. 77 of 2020

1.Name of the Complainant :The State of Telangana through the Sub Divisional Police Ofcer, Mahabubabad.

2.Name of the Accused :

1.Banoth Mahesh, S/o Balya, Aged: 21 years, Lambada, Student, R/o H.No.23-1-30/A/4, New Shayampeta, Hanamkonda, Warangal Urban District. (A-1)

2.Boda Nanda, S/o Vasram, Aged: 36 years, Lambada, Agriculture, R/o Seethla Thanda, H/o Andanalapadu village. (A-2)

3.Boda Kanthi, W/o Nanda, Aged: 34 years, Lambada, Agriculture, R/o Seethla thanda, H/o Andanalapadu village. (A-3)

3.Offence under Sections :376(2)(n) Section 5(I) r/w 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 against A.1 and under Section 16 r/w 17 of POCSO Act, 2012 against A.2 and A.3.

4.Crime Number and 136 of 2018 Name of Police Station :Dornakal

5.Plea of the accused :Pleaded Not Guilty

6.Finding of the Court :Found Not Guilty

Page 2 of 10

SC No.77 of 2020

Dated 20th day of April, 2023

7.Sentence of Order : The accused No.1 is found not guilty for the charge under Sections 376(2)Section 5(I) r/w 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 against A.1 and under Section 16 r/w 17 of POCSO Act, 2010 and accused Nos.2 and 3 are found not guilty for the charges under Section 16 r/w 17 of POCSO Act, 2012 and they are acquitted under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C for the said charges.

The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after SIX months.

The unmarked property, if any, shall be destroyed after the appeal time is over.

8.Prosecution conducted by :Sri K.Padmakar Reddy, Special Public Prosecutor,

9.Defence conducted by :Sri M. Suresh Reddy, Advocate,

This case is coming on 12.04.2023 before me, for final hearing in the presence of Sri K. Padmakar Reddy, Special Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri M. Suresh Reddy, Advocate for the Accused; and upon perusal of the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

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

1. The Sub-Divisional Police Ofcer, Mahabubabad laid charge sheet against the accused for the offences

Page 3 of 10

SC No.77 of 2020

Dated 20th day of April, 2023

punishable under Sections 376(2)(n) of IPC and Section 5(1) r/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012.

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

The victim is a minor girl. The accused No.1 is a native of Somavarapukunta thanda, H/o.Madipally Village. The accused No.2 is maternal aunt's son of Accused No.1 and accused No.3 is the wife of accused No.2. The house of accused Nos.2 and 3 is located nearby the house of the victim at Seethla Thana, H/o.Andanalapadu village, Dornkal

Mandal. In the year 2017, during Dasara festival vacations, when the victim girl came to her house, the accused No.1 came to the house of accused Nos.2 and 3 and laid evil eye on the victim girl. The accused No.1 deceived the victim girl on the name of love and used to talk on whatsapp chat through mobile phones. In the month of March, 2018 the victim girl came to the house after completion of 10th class examinations, some days accused No.1 also came to the

Page 4 of 10

SC No.77 of 2020

Dated 20th day of April, 2023

house of accused nos.2 and 3. On one day, the accused

No.1 enjoyed the victim girl sexually in her house while she was alone. Later on, the accused No.1 continued enjoying the victim sexually in the house of Accused Nos.2 and 3 with their active support and the accused No.1 threatened the victim to reveal the matter to anybody. In the month of

July, 2018 when the victim asked the accused to marry him, the accused refused to marry her and that in the meantime the victim was conceived. When panchayat was held on 17.06.2018 the accused No.1 not agreed to marry the victim and when another panchayat was held the accused did not attend the panchayat.

Basing on the report, LW-21/ Inspector of Police, P.S.

Dornakal registered the same as a case in Crime

No.136/2018 under Sections 376(2)(i) (n) IPC and Section 5 (L)r/w 6, 16 r/w 17 of POCSO Act, 2012 issued FIR and took up the investigation. He examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. Police drafted rough sketch of

Page 5 of 10

SC No.77 of 2020

Dated 20th day of April, 2023

the scene and noted the description in the Crime Details

Form.

On 20.05.2019, the accused No.1 was arrested and interrogated, wherein the accused No.1 confessed the commission of offence along with accused Nos.2 and 3. The vaginal smear, cervical smear and cervical swabs of the victim were sent to RFSL, Warangal for examination and that after examination RFSL authorities gave report that the victim is pregnant and that the accused was subjected to potency Test. After completion of investigation, the

Inspector of Police filed charge sheet against the accused.

4. The I Addl. Sessions Judge, Warangal took cognizance for the offences under Section 376(2)(n) IPC and Section 5(1) r/w 6 of POCSO Act. Subsequently, the case was transferred to this Court on the point of jurisdiction.

Page 6 of 10

SC No.77 of 2020

Dated 20th day of April, 2023

5. On appearance of the accused Nos.1 to 3 charges for the offence under Section 376(2)(n) IPC and Section 5(1) r/ w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 was framed against them, read over and explained to them, but they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused for the charge arraigned against him the prosecution examined

PWs 1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.10. The details of which shall be noted at the appendix of evidence.

7. On completion of the evidence on the prosecution side, the accused Nos.1 to 3 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. by putting the incriminating evidence appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses for which they denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8. Heard the arguments of the learned Public Prosecutor and learned defence counsel.

Page 7 of 10

SC No.77 of 2020

Dated 20th day of April, 2023

9. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the Prosecution proved the guilt

of the accused Nos.1 to 3 for ofences

under Section 376(2)(n) IPC and Section

5(1) r/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012?

10. POINT:

In this case, in all (3) witnesses have been examined out of whom Pws.1 and 2 are the victim girl and father respectively while PW-3 is the Investigating Ofcer.

The testimony of PW-1 is that in 2018 she was studying SSC, developed love affair with a boy and with whom she is sexual relationship due to which she conceived who on one find day that boy disappeared for good. Since there was enmity between her father and the accused, they made a false complaint Ex.P.1 against the accused. Police never examined her. She stated before LW- 20 judicial Magistrate of First Class Under Section 164 of

Cr.P.C. as instructed by the Police.

Page 8 of 10

SC No.77 of 2020

Dated 20th day of April, 2023

11. PW-2 is father of PW-1 and who deposed to the effect that in 2018 when she was unwell, she was taken to hospital where she was declared pregnant. Upon his enquiry, she replied that one boy has befriended her and impregnated her only to escape later. Since he had suspicion against the accused his daughter made police complaint. Police never examined him. He stated before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class as tutored by the

Police.

PW-1 and PW-2 were declared hostile and cross- examined by the prosecution but they gave clean chit to the accused denying that he impregnated PW-1 at the instigation of accused Nos.2 and 3 and at now they are deposing false having compromised the matter with the accused.

12. PW-3 is the Investigating Ofcer. evidence is formal one and which needs no discussion.

Page 9 of 10

SC No.77 of 2020

Dated 20th day of April, 2023

13. In view of the foregoing discussion, it is held that no reliance can be placed in the sole testimony the investigating Ofcer when key witnesses Pws.1 and 2 hostile.

In the result, the accused No.1 is found not guilty for the charges under Section 376(2)(n) IPC and Section 5(1) r/ w 6 of POCSO Act, 2010 and accused Nos.2 and 3 are found not guilty for the charges under Section 16 r/w 17 of POCSO

Act, 2012 and they are acquitted under Section 235(1)

Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of the accused shall stand canceled after SIX months.

The unmarked property, if any, shall be destroyed after the appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 20th day of April, 2023.

Prl. Sessions Judge-Cum- Special Sessions Judge, Mahabubabad.

Page 10 of 10

SC No.77 of 2020

Dated 20th day of April, 2023

: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE ::

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

P.W-1Victim P.W-2Father of the Victim P.W-3J. Shyamsunder, C.I. of Police

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

-Nil-

DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

Ex.P-1 Complaint given by PW-1

Ex.P-2 Statement of P.W-1 under Section 161 of Cr.P.C

Ex.P-3 Statement of P.W-2 under Section 161 of Cr.P.C

Ex.P-4 First Information Report

Ex.P-5 Crime Details panchanama

Ex.P-6 Date of Birth Certificate

Ex.P-7 R.F.S.L. Report

Ex.P-8 Final Opinion

Ex.P-9 Potency Certificate

Ex.P-10 Bunch of wedding photos

DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

-Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

- Nil -

Prl. Sessions Judge-Cum- Special Sessions Judge, Mahabubabad.

SC.POCSO/169/2022 Acquitted

S.H.O Garla vs Kunchapu Thirumalesh

24 Apr 2023

S.C.No.169 OF 2022

IN THE COURT OF FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT FOR

EXPEDITIOUS TRAIL AND DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND CASES

UNDER PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL

OFFENCES ACT, AT MAHABUBABAD

MONDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023

Present: P.Vasanth,

Principal Sessions Judge,

Mahabubabad FAC Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases, Mahabubabad.

S.C. No.169 of 2022

1.Name and description of :The State of Telangana, the complainant.through the Circle- Inspector of Police,Garla Police Station.

2.Name and description of :Kunchapu Thirumalesh, the accused.S/o Uppalaiah, Age: 23 years, R/o Pedda Kistapuram of Garla Mandal now at Adarsha nagar, Karimnagar.

3.Offences charged.:363, 417, 420, 376 IPC and Section 3 r/w Section 4 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Sec. 9 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006.

4.Crime Number and :154 of 2021 Name of Police StationGarla

5.Plea of the accused.:Pleaded not guilty.

6.Finding of the Court.:Found guilty.

7. Sentence of Order: the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 363, 417, 420, 376 IPC and Section 3 r/w Section 4 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Sec. 9 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act,

S.C.No.169 OF 2022 2006. Accordingly, the accused is acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after appeal time. The interim order given for M.O- 1 is made absolute.

8.Name of the Counsel for :Sri K.Padmakar Reddy Prosecution. Special Public Prosecutor

9.Name of the Counsel for :Sri A. Prem Chander, Advocate Accused.

This case is on 12.04.2023 before me, for fnal hearing in the presence of Sri K.Padmakar Reddy, Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri A. Prem Chander, Advocate for the Accused; and upon perusal of the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

:: JUDGMENT ::

1. This is a case fled by the Circle-Inspector of Police, Garla Police

Station, the offence punishable under Sections 363, 417, 420, 376

IPC and Section 3 r/w Section 4 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Sec. 9 of

Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, against accused.

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

S.C.No.169 OF 2022

(i) The Defacto complainant / victim's father lodged complaint in P.S. Garla stating that as usual on victim went to school and came back to home to have lunch at about 1.30 p.m.

and went to school. Later she did'nt returned from school, due to which he went to High school and enquired about victim, but school management said that evening session victim didn’t came to school. The defecto complainant and his family members searched here and there, but in vain.

(ii) On receipt of complaint, L.W.21(B. Ravi) Sub Inspector of police, registered a case in Crime No.154/2021 under Section 363, 417, 420, 376 IPC and Sec. 3 r/w 4 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Sec. 9 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006. During course of investigation, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Garla examined and recorded statement of complainant, later visited the scene of offence, secured the presence of L.Ws.2 to 4 examined and recorded their statements. On 21-11-2021 at 0900 hours, L.Ws.1 and 3 came to P.S. produced victim girl before L.W.21 and the victim girl stated that on 17-11-2021 the accused married victim girl at Durga matha temple, Koti, Hyderabad and from there they went to Vemulawada. On 18-11-2021 at Vemulawada they took

S.C.No.169 OF 2022 room near Rajanna temple and accused forcibly participated sexual intercourse with victim by making false words. Later

L.W.22 K. Thirupathi, Circle Inspector of Police, P.S. Garla, took investigation. On 13-12- 2021 at 1200 hours accused was surrendered before L.W.22. On interrogation, he voluntarily confessed to have committed this offence, L.W.22 secured presence of L.Ws.15 and 16, seized one Samsung black colour mobile and wheeler Bajaj 160 CC Pulsar Black and blue colour bearing No. TS 26 C 8366. After completion of investigation, he fled charge sheet against the accused.

3. This case was taken on fle, for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 417, 420, 376 IPC and Sec. 3 r/w 4 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Sec. 9 of

Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, against the accused, on the fle of this Court.

4. On appearance of the accused in the Court, he was furnished with the copies of the relevant documents, as contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

5. Later, on hearing the learned Special Public Prosecutor and the

Defence Counsel, under Section 226 of Cr.P.C. and considering the

S.C.No.169 OF 2022 material on record, as per Section 228 of Cr.P.C, charges under Sections 363, 417, 420, 376 IPC and Sec. 3 r/w 4 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Sec. 9 of

Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, against accused, were framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu. He pleaded not guilty for the said charges and claimed to be tried.

6. In support of its case, during the course of trial, the prosecution has examined P.Ws-1 to 3 and P-1 to P-10, M.0.1, were exhibited. PWs-1 and 2 are parents of victim and PW-3 is the Investigating Ofcer.

7. After closing the evidence on the prosecution side, the accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C and explained the incriminating evidence found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The accused denied the same and reported no defence witnesses and as such no witnesses were examined and no documents were exhibited, in defence.

8. This Court heard the arguments of the learned Special

Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for the accused.

9. The points that arise for determination are, as follows:

S.C.No.169 OF 2022

1. Whether the prosecution has proved its case

and established the guilt of accused for the

offence punishable under Section 363, 417t, 420,

37t6 IPC and Sec. 3 r/w 4 of POCSO Act, 2012 and

Sec. 9 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006,

beyond reasonable doubt?

10. POINT: It is the specifc case of the prosecution that the accused cheated the victim girl and got married her knowingly she is minor and participated in sexual intercourse forcibly by making false promises with her.

11. The de facto-complainant (P.W-1), who is the father of victim in this case, deposed that in the year 2021 one day victim went to school and did'nt returned to home, he searched, but invain. Then lodged Ex.P1 complaint. After fve days L.W.2/victim girl got back to home and stated that she had been on a tour with her girl friends without his permission.

12. PW-2 who is mother of the victim stated on the same lines as of PW-1. She too did not state anything against the accused.

13. PW-3/B.Ravi, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Garla, deposed as per the investigation done by him.

S.C.No.169 OF 2022

14. The material witnesses (P.Ws-1 and 2) have turned and did not state anything against the accused. Except the evidence of

Investigating ofcer, other material is available on record. In view of turning hostile of material witnesses, it is not safe to rely on the sole testimony of the Investigating Ofcer.

15. Ongoing through the material on record, it is clear that nothing incriminating is available against the accused. In view of non-availability of incriminating evidence, this Court holds that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish that the accused cheated the victim and got married her and forcibly committed rape on her. Therefore, the accused is entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, the point is answered against the prosecution.

16. For the foregoing reasons, this Court has no hesitation to come to conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of accused for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 417, 420, 376 IPC and Sec. 3 r/w 4 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Sec. 9 of

Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, beyond all reasonable doubt.

Accordingly, this point is answered.

17. IN THE RESULT: The accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 417, 420, 376 IPC and Sec. 3 r/w 4 of

POCSO Act, 2012 and Sec. 9 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act,

S.C.No.169 OF 2022 2006 and he is acquitted under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., for the said charges.

The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after 6 months.

The interim order given for M.O.1 is made absolute.

(Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 24th day of April, 2023)

FAC. SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL AND

DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND CASES UNDER

PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL

OFFENCES ACT, MAHABUBABAD.

:: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE ::

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

PW1: Victim

PW2: Father of the Victim

PW3: B. Ravi, Inspector of Police

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

-Nil-

DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

Ex.P-1 Complaint

Ex.P-2 First Information Report

S.C.No.169 OF 2022

Ex.P-3 CD panchanama

Ex.P-4 CD panchanama

Ex.P-5 Confession-cum-Seizure panchanama

Ex.P-6 Potency certifcate

Ex.P-7 Date of Birth Certifcate

Ex.P-8 Report

Ex.P-9 Customer application form Airtel

EX.P-10 Customer application form Jio

DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

-Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

M.O.1 Bajaj Pulsar Bike bearing No. TS 26 C 8366

FAC. SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL AND

DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND CASES UNDER

PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL

OFFENCES ACT, MAHABUBABAD.

SC.POCSO/166/2022 Acquitted

S.H.O Garla vs Guguloth Shivaji

20 Apr 2023

IN THE COURT OF FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT FOR

EXPEDITIOUS TRAIL AND DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND CASES

UNDER PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL

OFFENCES ACT, AT MAHABUBABAD

Thursday, the 20th day of April,, 2023

Present: P.Vasanth,

Principal Sessions Judge,

Mahabubabad FAC Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of Rape and Cases under Protection of Children from Sexual Ofences Act, Mahabubabad.

SPECIAL SESSIONS CASE No.166/2022

(Crime No.07/2020 of P.S. Garla)

1.Name and description of :The State of Telangana, the complainant.through Sub Inspector of Police, P.S. Garla.

2.Name and description of : the accused.

Guguloth Shivaji, S/o Somla Age: 19 years, Lambadi, Coolie, R/o Chinna Thanda of Karepalli Mandal, Khammam District.

3.Ofences charged.:Under Section 306 of IPC and Section 12 of POCSO Act, 2012.

4.Plea of the accused.:Pleaded not guilty.

5.Finding of the Court.:Found guilty.

6.Conviction/Sentence/: Accused is found not guilty for Acquittal.the ofences under Section 306 of IPC and Section 12 of POCSO Act and accordingly he is acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. His bail bonds shall stand cancelled after the appeal time is over.

7.Name of the Counsel for :Sri K.Padmakar Reddy Prosecution. Addl. Public Prosecutor

8.Name of the Counsel for :Sri D. Nageswar Rao, Advocate

Spl. S.C. No.166/2022

Accused.

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

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Garla laid charge sheet against the accused for the ofences under Sections 306 of IPC and

Section 12 of POCSO Act, 2012.

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

On 18-01-2020 at 11.00 hours, the defacto complainant viz., Banoth Vasram, made police complaint stating that the accused stalked the deceased/Banothu Supriya girl aged about 17 years by following her in the name of love and also called to her from his phone; later the accused denied to marry the Supriya and stated her to die by giving poison and left her.

Due to which the said Supriya committed suicide by consuming poison. Hence, the complaint.

3. Basing on the complaint, LW16 (Devalla Nageswar

Rao) Assistant Sub-Inspector of police registered the same as a case in Crime No.07/2020 under Sections 306 of IPC and Sec.12 of POCSO Act, 2012, issued FIR and took up the investigation of the case. During the course of investigation, he examined and

Spl. S.C. No.166/2022 recorded the statement of Lw 1; later get examined and recorded the statements of L.Ws.2 to 6, 11 to 13. Subsequently.

L.W.17 (Polireddy Srinivasa Reddy) sub Inspector of police, P.S.

Garla, took up investigation, he visited the scene of ofence and verified the investigation done by L.W.16 and found it on correct lines. On 24-01-2020 at 09.30 hours L.W.17 arrested the accused, produced before the Learned Additional Judicial

Magistrate at Yellandu remand. L.W.14( Y. Neeraja) is the Ofcer

incharge Regional Forensic Scidence Laboratory, Warangal examined Item Nos.1 to 3 are analysed and Organophosphate an insecticide poison is found. L.W.15 Dr. M. Surya Kumari, Civil

Assistant Surgeon, Area Hospital, Mahabubabad held inquest over the dead body of the deceased and issued opinion. After completion of investigation, LW17 (Sub-Inspector of Police), laid charge sheet against the accused.

4. The I Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal, took cognizance for the ofence under Sections 306 of IPC and Section 12 of POCSO Act, 2012. On appearance of the accused, he was examined Cr.P.C. Charges for the ofence under 306 of IPC and

Section 12 of POCSO Act, 2012 were framed against the accused,

Spl. S.C. No.166/2022 read over and explained to him but he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Consequent to the establishment of this

Special Fast Track Court, the case was made over to this Court for trial and disposal according to Law.

5. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused for the ofences arraigned against him the prosecution examined

PWs 1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P10, the details of which shall be noted at the appendix of evidence.

6. On completion of the evidence on the prosecution side. the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. by putting he incriminating evidence appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

7. Heard the arguments of the learned Addl. Public

Prosecutor and learned defence counsel.

8. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of

the accused for the ofences under Sections

Spl. S.C. No.166/2022

306 of IPC and Section 12 of POCSO Act, 2012

beyond all reasonable doubt?

9. Point:

In this case, in all three witnesses are examined as PWs 1 to 3 out of whom PWs 1 and 2 are de-facto complainant (father of deceased girl) and the mother of deceased girl respectively.

PW3 is the Investigating Ofcer.

10. Unfolding the prosecution case, PW1 (de-facto complainant) deposed that he and his wife went to farmland and by that time they came back to home, deceased consumed pesticide, she was shifted to government Area Hospital,

Mahabubabad, but she lost her breath on the following day at 03- 00 a.m. The accused has nothing to do with the suicide of his daughter. He filed Ex.P1 complaint basing on hearsay talk.

PW1 was declared hostile and cross-examined by the prosecution but he denied the suggestion to have stated to police as in Ex.P2 and that now he was deposing falsely having compromised the matter with the accused.

Spl. S.C. No.166/2022

11. PW2 is the mother of victim girl and who testified on the similar lines as stated by P.W.1.

She was also declared hostile and cross-examined by the prosecution but she denied the suggestion to have stated to police as in Ex.P3, and now she is deposing falsely having compromised the matter.

12. PW3 is the investigating ofcer whose evidence is formal one and which needs no discussion.

13. It is needless to add that when the prime and material witnesses, including the parents (P.Ws.1 and 2) of deceased, turned hostile to the prosecution case, no reliance can be placed on the sole testimony of the investigating ofcer without its independent corroboration.

14. In view of the foregoing discussion, it is held that the accused is entitled for acquittal. This point is answered accordingly.

Spl. S.C. No.166/2022

15.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the ofences under Sections 306 of IPC and Section 12 of the POCSO

Act, 2012 and he is acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after six months.

Spl. S.C. No.166/2022

The un-marked property, if any, shall be destroyed after the appeal time if over.

(Partly typed to my dictation and partly dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 20th day of April, 2022)

FAC. SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL AND

DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND CASES UNDER

PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL

OFFENCES ACT, MAHABUBABAD.

Appendix of Evidence/Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution:

PW1: B. Vasram Defacto complainant and father of deceased

PW2: B. Jija Wife of P.W.1 and mother of deceased

PW3: D. Nageshwar Rao I.O

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1: Complaint

Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1.

Ex.P3: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2.

Ex.P4: F.I.R.

Ex.P5: Inquest panchanama.

Spl. S.C. No.166/2022

Ex.P6: CD panchanama

Ex.P7 PME Report

Ex.P8: FSL Report

Ex.P9: Final Opinion

Ex.P10 Date of Birth certificate of victim.

For Defence:

Nil

Material Objects Marked

-Nil-

FAC. SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL AND

DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND CASES UNDER

PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL

OFFENCES ACT, MAHABUBABAD.

SC.POCSO/126/2022 Acquitted

P.S. GUDUR vs ISLAVATH SANTHOSH

19 Apr 2023

IN THE COURT OF FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT FOR

EXPEDITIOUS TRAIL AND DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND CASES

UNDER PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL

OFFENCES ACT, AT MAHABUBABAD

TUESDAY, THIS THE NINETEENTH DAY OF APRIL, 2023

Present: P.Vasanth,

Principal Sessions Judge,

Mahabubabad FAC Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of Rape and Cases under Protection of Children from Sexual Ofences Act, Mahabubabad.

S.C. No.126/2022

1.Name and description of :The State of Telangana, the complainant.through Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Mahabubabad.

2.Name and description of :Islavath Santhosh, the accused. S/o Eerya, Aged: 21 years, Lambada, Coolie, R/o Nallaabodu Thanda, H/o Ramsingh Thanda, Gudur Mandal.

3.Ofences charged.: 366, 376(3) IPC and Section 5 r/w. 6 of POCSO Act, 2012.

4.Criminal Number and18 of 2022 Name of Police StationGudur

4.Plea of the accused.:Pleaded not guilty.

5.Finding of the Court.:Found guilty.

6.Conviction/Sentence/: Accused is found not guilty for Acquittal.the ofences under Section 366, 376(3) IPC and Section 5 r/w. 6 of POCSO Act, 2012and accordingly he is acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds shall stand

Spl. S.C. No.126/2022

Dated, 19th day of April,.2023 cancelled after SIX months. The un-marked property, if any shall be destroyed after the appeal time is over.

7.Name of the Counsel for :Sri K.Padmakar Reddy Prosecution. Spl. Public Prosecutor

8.Name of the Counsel for :Sri K. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate Accused.

This case is coming on 12.04.2023 before me, for fnal hearing in the presence of Sri K.Padmakar Reddy, Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri K.Sanjay Kumar, Advocate for the Accused; and upon perusal of the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

:: JUDGMENT ::

1. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Mahabubabad laid charge sheet against the accused for the ofences punishable under Sections 363, 376(3) IPC and Section 5 r/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012.

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

The accused is resident of Nallabodu Thanda of Gudur

Mandal and the victim is studying SSC in a Private school at

Nekkonda and she used to attend her school from their

Spl. S.C. No.126/2022

Dated, 19th day of April,.2023 residence. Since three years, the accused used to attend agricultural work under the father of the victim and that the accused and minor victim got acquaintance and they fell in love. On 28.01.2022 night the accused took away the minor victim girl to Vemulawada and took a room on rent in

Nandishwara complex and on that night the accused forcibly participated in sexual intercourse with the victim by saying deceitful words. On the next day, they exchanged the garland and participated in sexual intercourse and on several occasions the accused participated in sexual intercourse with the victim.

Later, on coming to know about the registration of case the victim left away the company of the accused.

On report, initially, the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police registered a case in Cr.No.18/2022 for the ofence under

Section 363 IPC and issued FIR. Subsequently, basing on the statement of the victim, the Section of Law was altered to

Sections 376(3) IPC and Section 5 r/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 9 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 to

Section 363 IPC. Later, the Sub- Divisional Police Officer,

Mahabubabad took up the further investigation, got examined

Spl. S.C. No.126/2022

Dated, 19th day of April,.2023 the victim girl through Medical Officer, vaginal smears & swabs, same were forwarded to RFSL, Warangal for examination. The statement of the victim also got recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.

On 07.03.2022 the Sub-Inspector of Police arrested the accused and recorded his confessional statement in the presence of the mediators.

8. Heard the arguments of the learned Public Prosecutor and learned defence counsel.

9. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for ofences under Section 363, 376(2)(n), 376(3) IPC and Section 5(1) r/w 6 of POCSO Act?

10. POINT:

In this case, in all (3) witnesses are examined but except the

Investigating Officer all the witnesses turned hostile the prosecution case. PW-1 is the de facto- complainant and mother of the victim and she testifed that in the year 2022 the victim was

Spl. S.C. No.126/2022

Dated, 19th day of April,.2023 studying SSC at Government High School, Nekkonda but due to

Covid lockdown, she stayed at home. On 29.01.2022 her daughter went missing and she lodged Ex.P.1 complaint suspecting the accused with whom she was closely moving. Her daughter returned home fve days later and told that she had been to

Hyderabad with her girl friend and she did not seek permission fearing they would refuse.

11. PW-2 victim also deposed on the same lines as that of PW-1 that on 29.01.2022 she went missing and PW-1 lodged Ex.P.1 complaint suspecting the accused with whom she was closely moving. Accused has nothing to do with the ofence. PW-1 and 2 turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. They denied to have stated before the police that accused eloped PW-2 and that now they are deposing false.

12. PW-3 is the Investigating Officer who stated about the mode and manner of investigation conducted by him and laying of the charge sheet.

Spl. S.C. No.126/2022

Dated, 19th day of April,.2023

13. As the prime and material witnesses turned hostile, no reliance can be placed on the sole testimony of the Investigating

Officer without its independent corroboration.

14. In view of the foregoing discussion, it is held that the accused was found not guilty for the ofences under Section 363, 376(2)(n), 376(3) IPC and Section 5(1) r/w 6 of POCSO Act and he is entitled to be acquitted.

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the charges under Section 363, 376(2)(n), 376(3) IPC and Section 5(1) r/w 6 of POCSO Actand he is acquitted under Section 235(1)

Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of the accused shall stand canceled after SIX months.

The un-marked property, if any, shall be destroyed after the appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 19th day of April, 2023.

Spl. S.C. No.126/2022

Dated, 19th day of April,.2023

FAC. SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL AND

DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND CASES UNDER

PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL

OFFENCES ACT, MAHABUBABAD.

:: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE::

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

P.W-1 Mother of the Victim

P.W-2 Victim

P.W-3 B.Sathish, Sub-Inspector of Police

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

Nil

DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

Ex.P-1 Complaint given by PW-1

Ex.P-2 Statement of P.W-1 under Section 161 of Cr.P.C

Ex.P-3 Statement of P.W-2 under Section 161 of Cr.P.C

Ex.P-4 First Information Report

Ex.P-5 Crime Details panchanama

Ex.P-6 RFSL Report

Ex.P-7 Final Opinion

Ex.P-8 II CD Panchanama

Ex.P-9 Potency Certifcate

Ex.P-10 Date of Birth Certifcate

Spl. S.C. No.126/2022

Dated, 19th day of April,.2023

DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

Nil

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE

PROSECUTION

None

FAC. SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL AND

DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND CASES UNDER

PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL

OFFENCES ACT, MAHABUBABAD.

Order Record 480 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
MVOP/22/2022	Gurram Aliya @ Gurrapu Aliya vs Banoth Srikanth	24 Apr 2023	Copy of order	—
MVOP/53/2021	Gangaraboina Ramesh vs Guguloth Balaji	24 Apr 2023	Copy of order	—
MVOP/54/2021	Kunta Hyma @ Nandhini vs Guguloth Balaji	24 Apr 2023	Copy of order	—
MVOP/99/2020	Penugonda Gayathri vs V.Nelleswara Rao	24 Apr 2023	Copy of order	—
MVOP/100/2020	Penugonda Gayathri vs V. Neeleswara Rao	24 Apr 2023	Copy of order	—
SC.POCSO/169/2022	S.H.O Garla vs Kunchapu Thirumalesh	24 Apr 2023	Copy of judgment	Acquitted
EP/155/2022	M/s Shriram Tnasport Fiance Company Ltd vs Vissampalli balakrishna	20 Apr 2023	Copy of order	—
EP/177/2022	M/S SRIRAM TRANSPORT FIN LTD, MAHABUBABAD vs SINGARAPU PRATHAP	20 Apr 2023	Copy of order	—
SC.POCSO/77/2020	Badavath Devika vs Banoth Mahesh	20 Apr 2023	Copy of judgment	Acquitted
SC.POCSO/166/2022	S.H.O Garla vs Guguloth Shivaji	20 Apr 2023	Copy of judgment	Acquitted
EP/10/2022	M/s Shriram Transport Finance co.,Ltd, vs B. Balaji	19 Apr 2023	Copy of judgment	—
EP/37/2021	Shriram City Transport Finance Ltd. vs Sreenu Malath and other	19 Apr 2023	Copy of judgment	—
SC.POCSO/126/2022	P.S. GUDUR vs ISLAVATH SANTHOSH	19 Apr 2023	Copy of judgment	Acquitted
EP/44/2022	m/s shriram city union fin. ltd vs Nalamasa Ajay goud	18 Apr 2023	Copy of order	—
SC.POCSO/176/2022	PS DORNAKAL vs Boda Rajesh	18 Apr 2023	Copy of judgment	Acquitted
CRLRP/2/2023	Danda Praveen Kumar vs The State of Telangana	17 Apr 2023	Copy of judgment	—
SC.POCSO/35/2021	Dandu Suhasini vs Seelam Shiva kumar	17 Apr 2023	Copy of judgment	—
SC.POCSO/167/2022	S.H.O Garla vs Udugula Veerababu	17 Apr 2023	Copy of judgment	—
SC/122/2022	PS Mahabubabad vs Bhukya Balu	13 Apr 2023	Copy of judgment	Acquitted
SC.POCSO/29/2021	Boda Venkanna vs Gujjula Shiva	13 Apr 2023	Copy of judgment	—
SC.POCSO/136/2022	PS Gudur vs Bhukya Yakub	13 Apr 2023	Copy of judgment	—
MVOP/21/2022	Golllapalli Srinivas vs T. Venkataramana	12 Apr 2023	Copy of order	—
SC.POCSO/140/2020	Pilli Vasudev vs A1.Mandala Suresh	12 Apr 2023	Copy of judgment	—
OS/262/2019	Varukala Alias Parkala Sunil vs Engugala Sudhakar Reddy	11 Apr 2023	Copy of judgment	—
MVOP/178/2018	Govinda Sumalatha vs Mulakalapally Malsoor	03 Apr 2023	Copy of order	—
CRLA/63/2018	Vorigaddi Susheela vs S.H.O	03 Apr 2023	Copy of judgment	—
SC/331/2022	P.S. Garla Bayyaram vs Kedasu Ravi	03 Apr 2023	Copy of judgment	—
SC.POCSO/203/2022	PS Nellikudur vs Lanjapally Venkatesh	03 Apr 2023	Copy of judgment	—
EP/596/2022	M/S Mahindra Rural Housing finance Ltd vs Banothu Narsimha	31 Mar 2023	Copy of judgment	—
MVOP/106/2020	Anumolu Ravali vs Shanker Kathat	31 Mar 2023	Copy of order	—
G.W.O.P/1/2023	Mannuru Tejaswini vs To whomsoever it may concern	31 Mar 2023	Copy of judgment	—
G.W.O.P/120/2021	Nanabala alias Nagaraboina Swathi vs Nanabala Krishna	31 Mar 2023	Copy of judgment	—
SC.POCSO/181/2022	PS Garla vs Bhukya Ramesh	31 Mar 2023	Copy of judgment	—
SC.POCSO/220/2021	Vijayalaxmi Kavati vs Gundlapalli Thirumala rao	31 Mar 2023	Copy of judgment	—
EP/112/2022	Shriram transport finace Co ltd vs Veeranna Banoth	29 Mar 2023	Copy of order	—
MVOP/103/2020	Kudikala Venkatamma and 2 others vs Kandula Narsing Rao	29 Mar 2023	Copy of order	—
AS/11/2018	Mula Jayapal Reddy vs Kukkala Iddamma	28 Mar 2023	Copy of judgment	—
EP/38/2022	M/s Shriram Transport Finance co.,Ltd, vs Dasari Rahul	28 Mar 2023	Copy of order	—
EP/628/2022	M/s.Shriram Transport Finance Co.Ltd. rep.by R.Ashok vs Khadar Shaik	28 Mar 2023	Copy of judgment	—
EP/626/2022	M/s.Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited rep.by its GPA R.Ashok vs Venkanna Girukattula	27 Mar 2023	Copy of order	—
SC/249/2015	Kunta Naresh vs Kunta Suresh	27 Mar 2023	Copy of judgment	—
CRLRP/19/2022	Gudla Kiran Kumar vs Gudla Divya	21 Mar 2023	Copy of order	—
SC.POCSO/87/2021	Sub Inspector of Police vs Banoth Srikanth	21 Mar 2023	Copy of judgment	—
SC.POCSO/173/2022	PS KESAMUDRAM vs Mallam Pawan Kalyan	21 Mar 2023	Copy of judgment	—
SC/295/2022	TheState of Telangana Through SHO P.S Mahabubabad (T) vs Banoth Venkatesh	20 Mar 2023	Copy of judgment	—
EP/1/2020	Jakka Mehaboob Reddy vs Akkera Bhadra Chary	17 Mar 2023	Copy of order	—
OP/133/2022	NIMMASHETTI SATYAM vs To who so ever concern	17 Mar 2023	Copy of judgment	—
SC.POCSO/163/2021	Guguloth Balaji vs Mood Mahesh	17 Mar 2023	Copy of judgment	—
EP/162/2022	M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited. vs Sumasri Educational Society Rep	16 Mar 2023	Copy of order	—
SC/112/2018	SHO Kesamudram vs Korra Srinivas @ Ramulu	16 Mar 2023	Copy of judgment	—
SC.POCSO/8/2020	Ajmeera Venkanna . vs Guguloth Mohan.@Mohan Babu.	16 Mar 2023	Copy of judgment	—
EP/45/2022	M/S SHRIRAM CITY UNION FIN LTD vs BHUKYA CHANDRASHEKAR	15 Mar 2023	Copy of judgment	—
OS/1/2022	Paindla Chinna Mallaiah vs Karne Somaiah	15 Mar 2023	Copy of order	—
MVOP/37/2021	MD.Shameem and 2 others vs Kuthuru Kishan and others	14 Mar 2023	Copy of judgment	—
MVOP/56/2021	Gugulothu Hussaini vs Erpa Santhosh	14 Mar 2023	Copy of judgment	—
MVOP/57/2021	Eslavath Mali vs Erpa Santhosh	14 Mar 2023	Copy of judgment	—
MVOP/70/2020	Banoth Prasad vs Rajendra Singh and others	14 Mar 2023	Copy of judgment	—
OS/223/2014	Ganapuramm Somaiah vs Kallurii Ananthaiah	10 Mar 2023	Copy of judgment	—
SC/80/2020	SHO PS THORRUR vs Shivarathri Santhosh	10 Mar 2023	Copy of judgment	—
MVOP/90/2020	Vadkapuram Venkatanarsu vs Dussa Srikanth	09 Mar 2023	Copy of order	—
CRLA/25/2017	Boda Mansingh vs S.H.O. Guduru	09 Mar 2023	Copy of judgment	—
SC/88/2017	PS Nellikudur vs Kukkala Brahmmam	09 Mar 2023	Copy of judgment	—
AS/16/2017	Geetha Parishramika Gouda Sangham vs Gollapally Venkataiah	08 Mar 2023	Copy of judgment	—
SC/326/2016	PS Nellikudur vs Peernaka Sudhakar	08 Mar 2023	Copy of judgment	—
CRLRP/23/2022	Bandari Venkateshwar Rao vs Bandari jayanthi Chaithnya	03 Mar 2023	Copy of judgment	—
MVOP/73/2022	Vankudoth Samya vs Gatla Sivajee Reddy	02 Mar 2023	Copy of order	—
AS/11/2018	Mula Jayapal Reddy vs Kukkala Iddamma	28 Feb 2023	Copy of judgment	—
AS/13/2017	Gopala Chandramma vs Gundepaka Lachamma	28 Feb 2023	Copy of judgment	—
CMA/1/2022	Makkala Mallesh vs The Foresh Divisional Officer	28 Feb 2023	Copy of judgment	—
EP/54/2022	Mahinra Rural Housing Finance Ltd vs Ravi Daravat	28 Feb 2023	Copy of judgment	—
CRLA/25/2021	Kattam Mohan Rao vs Inspector of Police O/o Regional Vigilance and Enforecement office, Warangal	28 Feb 2023	Copy of order	—
CRLA/26/2021	Katka Mohan Rao vs Inspector of Police O/o Regional Vigilance and Enforcement Officer,	28 Feb 2023	Copy of order	—
CRLA/27/2021	Katka Mohan Rao vs Inspector of Police	28 Feb 2023	Copy of order	—
CRLA/28/2021	Katka Mohan Rao vs Inspector of Police	28 Feb 2023	Copy of order	—
SC.POCSO/194/2021	Datla Raju vs S.K.Imran	27 Feb 2023	Copy of judgment	—
EP/58/2022	India Infoline Finance Ltd vs Mamidi Naveen	24 Feb 2023	Copy of judgment	—
OP/85/2022	Pathri Swaroopa vs Pathiri Kanthamma	24 Feb 2023	Copy of judgment	—
OP/167/2022	Akkinapalli Naresh vs Pagidichembula @ Akkinapalli Soumya	24 Feb 2023	Copy of order	—
SC.POCSO/132/2022	Mahabubabad Town vs Badavath Kumar	24 Feb 2023	Copy of judgment	—
SC.POCSO/57/2021	Vankudothu Venkateshwarlu vs Amgoth Vijay	23 Feb 2023	Copy of judgment	—
SC.POCSO/192/2022	PS BAYYARAM vs Sree Ram Banoth	23 Feb 2023	Copy of judgment	—
SC.POCSO/196/2022	PS Kesamudram vs Korupoju Sambashiva Raju	23 Feb 2023	Copy of judgment	—
MVOP/11/2022	Banoth Jayaram vs Guguloth Kalyan Alias Pavan	22 Feb 2023	Copy of order	—
OS/11/2022	Voma Srimannarayana vs Akula Rajanna	22 Feb 2023	Copy of order	—
OS/71/2007	Gutha Ramadevi vs Shamakura Ilaiah	22 Feb 2023	Copy of judgment	—
OS/71/2007	Gutha Ramadevi vs Shamakura Ilaiah	22 Feb 2023	Copy of order	—
SC.POCSO/140/2022	S.H.O Garla vs Bhukya Naresh	22 Feb 2023	Copy of judgment	—
AS/180/2018	Syed Usman vs Bayya Venkanna	21 Feb 2023	Copy of judgment	—
EP/57/2022	India Infoline Finance Ltd vs Guguloth Srinu	20 Feb 2023	Copy of judgment	—
EP/59/2022	M/s. Indus Ind Bank ltd. vs A Mohitlal	17 Feb 2023	Copy of judgment	—
EP/25/2022	M/s Shriram Transport Finance co.,Ltd, vs K. Mahesh	16 Feb 2023	Copy of order	—
EP/53/2022	Mahindra Rural Housing Finance LTD vs Veranna Maloth	16 Feb 2023	Copy of judgment	—
CRLA/7/2014	allam somaiah vs Vssho ps nellikudur	16 Feb 2023	Copy of order	—
SC.POCSO/153/2021	Gugulothu.Hachhi vs Banoth Veeresh	16 Feb 2023	Copy of judgment	—
CRLA/6/2022	Potla Shivaprasad vs Sub Inspector of Police, Narsimhulapet	15 Feb 2023	Copy of order	—
G.W.O.P/1/2022	Vasam Arun Kumar vs Vasam @ Penaka Aparna	15 Feb 2023	Copy of judgment	—
SC.POCSO/115/2020	Kommu Uppalaiah vs Bojja Ganesh	15 Feb 2023	Copy of judgment	—
SC.POCSO/148/2022	PS KURAVI vs Guguloth Upender	15 Feb 2023	Copy of judgment	—
SC/330/2022	STATE THROUH INSPECTOR OF POLICE, P.S.GARLA BAYYARAM. vs KOPPULA APPI REDDY	14 Feb 2023	Copy of judgment	—
SC.POCSO/49/2021	Bhukya Hussain vs Bhukya .Bhasker	14 Feb 2023	Copy of judgment	—

Showing 100 of 480 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Apr 2023		28
Mar 2023		38
Feb 2023		70
Jan 2023		38
Dec 2022		34
Nov 2022		47
Oct 2022		37
Sep 2022		60
Aug 2022		26
Jul 2022		82
Jun 2022		41

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has SRI P. VASANTH handled?

SRI P. VASANTH has handled 501 court orders since 2022 at Mahabubabad, PDJ Court Complex. The average disposal rate is 47 orders per month.

What types of cases does SRI P. VASANTH hear?

Based on available records, SRI P. VASANTH primarily handles Civil matters (Execution Petitions, Appeal Suits) and Criminal matters (Sessions Cases, Criminal Appeals) and Motor Accident matters (Motor Accident Claims) at Mahabubabad, PDJ Court Complex.

Where is SRI P. VASANTH currently posted?

SRI P. VASANTH is posted as Principal District and Sessions Judge , Mahabubabad at Mahabubabad, PDJ Court Complex, Mahabubabad, Telangana.

Are judgments by SRI P. VASANTH available online?

Yes. 10 judgments by SRI P. VASANTH are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does SRI P. VASANTH dispose cases?

SRI P. VASANTH disposes approximately 47 cases per month, based on 501 orders handled over their tenure at Mahabubabad, PDJ Court Complex.

Since when is SRI P. VASANTH serving?

SRI P. VASANTH has been serving at Mahabubabad, PDJ Court Complex since 2022.

Case Types

MVOP 29%

EP 21%

SC 20%

CRLA 9%

AS 9%

OS 7%

CMA 4%

OP 2%

Posting History

Jun 2022 — Apr 2023

Principal District and Sessions Judge , Mahabubabad · 431 orders
Jun 2022 — Apr 2023

Fast Track Sessions Court for Expeditious Disposal of Cases of Rape and Protection of Children from Sexual Offences POCSO Act 2012 at Mahabubabad · 70 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 6

Other Judges at this Court

Mohd. Abdul Rafi

Principal District and Sessions Judge , Mahabubaba...

252 orders

Smt.Swathi Murari

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Mahahbubabad

965 orders

Sri. Arravapalli Krishna Thej

Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Mahabubabad

814 orders

Shalini Shakeli

Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubabad

178 orders

← View all judges at Mahabubabad, PDJ Court Complex