1 1 of 24 POCSO SC.No. 16 of 2025
IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE FOR FAST TRACK COURT FOR
EXPEDITIOUS DISPOSAL OF CASES OF RAPE AND PROTECTION OF
CHILD FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES (POCSO) ACT AT MEDAK
PRESENT: Smt. R.M. SUBHAVALLI,
Spl. Sessions Judge for fast tracking the cases
relating to atrocities against women-cum- 1 st Addl.
District and Sessions Judge, Medak.
FAC- Spl. Judge, Fast Track Special Court for
Expeditious Trial And Disposal of Rape and POCSO
Act Cases At Medak.
FRIDAY, 08 th DAY OF MAY, 2026
POCSO SC . No. 16 of 2025
Crime No. & Police Station.Crime No. 04 of 2025 of P.S. Chegunta. Description of AccusedA1: Lakavath Praveen, S/o Jaisingh, Aged: 19 years, Caste: Lambadi, Occ: Plumber, R/o Nadimithanda (V), Masaipet (M), Medak District.
A2: Bandela Raju Kumar, S/o. Yadagiri, Aged: 25 years, Caste: SC Madiga, Occ: Decoration work, R/o. Chetlathimmaipally (V), Masaipet (M), Medak District. ChargesUnder Section 70 (2) BNS, Sec.5 (g) r/w. 6 of POCSO Act, 2012. Plea of the accusedPleaded not guilty Finding of the Court and sentence. In the result, the accused No.1 and 2 are not found guilty for the offences under Sections 70(2) of Bharatiya Nayaya Sanhita and Section 5(g) R/w 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and accordingly they are acquitted under Section 258(1) BNSS. Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled after the appeal time is over. If any un-marked property is there shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time is over.
RMSV 2 2 of 24 POCSO SC.No. 16 of 2025
Prosecution conducted bySri M. Balaiah, Special Public Prosecutor. Accused defended bySri. D. Nandu Naik, Advocate for the accused. Date of Offence03.01.2025 Date of FIR04.01.2025 Date of charge-sheet28.03.2025 Date of framing charge(s)15.10.2025 Date of commencement of evidence11.03.2026 Date on which Judgment is reserved09.04.2026 Date of Judgment08.05.2026 Date of sentencing Order, if any--
ACCUSED DETAILS:
Rank Name of the Date of Date of Offences charged Whether Sentence Periodof imposedDetention of the AccusedArrestRelease withAcquitted undergone Accuson BailU/Secor during Trial for edConvicted purpose of Sec.428 Cr.P.C. A1 Lakavath 07.01.11.03.U/Sec. 70 (2) BNS, Acquitted --– Praveen20252025Sec.5 (g) r/w. 6 of U/sec.235(1) POCSO Act, 2012Cr.P.C. A2 Bandela Raju 07.01.20.03.U/Sec. 70 (2) BNS, Acquitted --– Kumar20252025Sec.5 (g) r/w. 6 of U/sec.235(1) POCSO Act, 2012Cr.P.C.
This case is coming up for final hearing in the presence of Sri. M. Balaiah, Special Public Prosecutor for the State and that of Sri. D. Nandu Naik, Advocate for the Accused and upon perusing the material on record and upon hearing the arguments, this Court doth delivered the following:-
:: J U D G M E N T ::
1.This case is filed by Circle-Inspector of Police, PS Ramayampet
Circle filed a charge sheet in Crime No.04 of 2025 against accused No.1 and 2 under Section 70 (2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Section 5 (g) r/w. 6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
RMSV 3 3 of 24 POCSO SC.No. 16 of 2025
2. (i). In Nutshell Brief facts of the prosecution case is that on 04.01.2025 wherein the de facto-complainant/uncle of victim girl came to
Chegunta PS and lodged a Telugu written petition in which he stated that, they are two brothers and on 03.01:2025 his elder brother and sister-in-law met with an accident and shifted them to Gandhi Hospital for treatment by their son. Complainant brother's daughter/victim minor girl, Age: 16 yrs, was only present at their house alone. Later on 03.01.2025 at about 23:30 hrs, the complainant came out from his house for nature call, then he heard the sounds of victim minor girl from his brother's hut, on that when he went to the hut at that time two male persons were present in the hut, while trying to caught them, they pushed the complainant and escaped from there, further the complainant identified them as 1. Lakath Praveen R/o
Nadimi Thanda, 2. Rajkumar belongs to SC Madiga community, R/o Chetla
Thimmaipally village. Later the complainant asked victim what happened there? she replied that, on 03.01.2024 at about 21:00 hrs, she made phone call to Praveen from her father's mobile number to bring cold and cough tablets, at about 2300 hrs, Praveen and Rajkumar came into their hut, where Praveen closed her mouth with his hands and caught hold her hands forcible, mean time the Rajkumar removed her clothes and forcibly committed rape on her, then Rajkumar closed her mouth with his hand and
RMSV 4 4 of 24 POCSO SC.No. 16 of 2025 caught hold her hands, then Praveen Kumar forcible committed rape on her. Meantime the complainant came into her hut, on observing the complainant Praveen and Rajkumar escaped from there. Thus, the complainant requested to take necessary action against above said two persons who committed rape on victim minor girl.
(ii). Basing on the complaint of the uncle of victim girl the G.
Chathanya Kumar Reddy, Sub-Inspector of Police, Chegunta PS has registered a case in Cr. No. 04/2025, U/s 70 (2) BNS, Sec 5 (g), r/w 6 of
POCSO Act, issued FIR and dispatched the express FIR copies to the
Hon'ble court and all the concerned officers. On the receipt of express FIR
copy the Ranga Krishna, Circle-Inspector of Police, rushed to Chegunta PS and took up the further investigation examined and recorded detail statement of the complainant and incorporated in part-II case diary U/s 180
BNSS. Later sent the victim minor girl to Bharosa center under escort of
WPC-176 of Chegunta PS to record victim's statement. Then the Smt.
Bharathi Woman Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Bharosa center has examined and recorded detail statement of the victim and incorporated in part-II case diary U/s 180 BNSS under videography with the help of WPC-
176. Later the Ranga Krishna, Circle-Inspector has collected the statement of the victim girl.
RMSV 5 5 of 24 POCSO SC.No. 16 of 2025
(iii). Later sent the victim minor child to the MCH, Medak for medical examination under the escort of WPC-176 of Chegunta PS and there the
Dr. V. Vasudha Bhardwaj examined the victim minor child and preserved the vaginal smears and swabs of the victim for chemical examination.
During the course of the investigation the Ranga Krishna, Circle Inspector of police, proceeded to Nadimi Thanda (V) of Masaipet (M) and there visited the scene of offence situated at hut of the victim and there secured the presence of two mediators Megavath Ramji and Barmavath Ramesh
Chandra and observed the scene of offence and conducted the scene of offence panchanama in the presence of mediators under videography by the help of A. Prasad, PC-744 and prepared rough sketch and incorporated in CDF. Subsequently the Nodal Officer, Bharathi Airtel Limited has examined the aunt of victim girl and circumstantial witness and recorded their statement in detail and incorporated in part-Il case diary U/s 180
BNSS. The A. Prasad, PC-744 taken video with OPPO Reno, IMEI No:
86539206684643 and 865392066846424 and transferred video micro SD card and copy in computer. Later the A. Prasad, PC-744 generated hash value, ie, MD5: 4300d4b4298d27e0b17e1b84a5f5cded. Later the Ranga
Krishna, Circle Inspector of police filed a requisition to Potharaju
Siddiramulu Head Master, ZPHS Chandaipet and obtained the bonafide
RMSV 6 6 of 24 POCSO SC.No. 16 of 2025 certificate of the victim minor child, as per the bonafide certificate, the victim minor child's date of birth is 06.06.2009 (Age 15 years, 6 months 28 days at the time of offence). Subsequently the Ranga Krishna, Circle
Inspector of police has examined the Potharaju Siddiramulu and recorded his detailed statement and incorporated in part-Il case diary U/s 180 BNNS.
(iv). On 06.01.2025 the Aasham Venkat Raja Goud, Circle-Inspector of Police has took up the further investigation of this case and found investigation done by the Ranga Krishna, Circle Inspector of police on proper lines. While the investigation is in progress on 07-01-2025 at 10:00 hours, an credible information the G. Chaithanya Kumar Reddy, Sub-
Inspector of Police apprehended the accused persons A-1- Lakavath
Praveen S/o Jaisingh, A-2- Bandela Raju Kumar S/o Yadagiri, at
Chetlathimmaipally X road and informed the same to the Aasham Venkat
Raja Goud, Circle-Inspector of Police. On receiving an information the
Aasham Venkat Raja Goud, Circle-Inspector of Police rushed there and interrogated the accused persons. On interrogation the accused persons
Accused No.1 and 2 were ready to confess their guilt of this offence, then the Aasham Venkat Raja Goud, Circle-Inspector of Police secured the presence of two mediators/panchas i.e., Chittemilla Srikanth and Jakkula
Ramesh and in their presence recorded their confessional statements.
RMSV 7 7 of 24 POCSO SC.No. 16 of 2025
Later the Aasham Venkat Raja Goud, Circle-Inspector of Police seized one
One plus Nord CE2 Lite 5G black color phone IMEI 869964066220994, 869964066220986 with Airtel SIM 8978771586 and one Bajaj Pulsar Bike
Br.No. TS 32 A 6345 bike from the possession of the A-1 under cover of confession cum seizure panchanama by pasting the panchas signed slips under videography by the help of A.Prasad, PC-744. Later brought the accused No. 1 and 2 to Chegunta PS and effected their arrests by issuing of Arrest Memos., duly explaining them about the grounds for his arrest U/s 47 BNSS and accused persons was produced before the Dr. Sudhakar,
CAS for potency test and physical fitness examination and there the Dr.
Sudhakar, CAS has examined the accused who issued potency certificate in which he certified that "there is nothing to suggest that the accused persons are capable of performing the sexual act."
(v). The A.Prasad, PC-744 taken videography of seizure from the accused and transferred video into SD card. Later the A.Prasad, PC-744 generated hash value i.e., MD5: f3921ba62f34c7b1ce4f8eff12fd7f7a. The
A.Prasad, PC-744 handed over scene of offence and confession video loaded Xtreme SM 4 GB SD card to the Aasham Venkat Raja Goud,
Circle-Inspector of Police. Later the Aasham Venkat Raja Goud, Circle-
Inspector of Police collected certificate U/s. 63 (4), (C) of BSA from
RMSV 8 8 of 24 POCSO SC.No. 16 of 2025
A.Prasad, PC-744. Later accused was produced before the Hon'ble court along with remand report for judicial remand. The Aasham Venkat Raja
Goud, Circle-Inspector of Police filed a requisition before the Hon'ble
Principal Junior Civil Judge Cum Judicial First class Magistrate at Medak
with a request to record statement of the victim U/s 183 BNSS.
(vi).As per requisition of the Aasham Venkat Raja Goud, Circle-
Inspector of Police the Prl. JFCM, Medak has recorded statement of the victim girl U/s 183 BNSS vide Crl.M.P.No.25 of 2025, Dt: 20.01.2025.
During the course of further investigation of this case the Aasham Venkat
Raja Goud, Circle-Inspector of Police deposited the vaginal swabs of the victim in TSFBL for chemical examination. On 16.01.2025 the Aasham
Venkat Raja Goud, Circle-Inspector of Police has deposited the seized case property before the Hon'ble court vide CPR No. 02/15/2025. The
Aasham Venkat Raja Goud, Circle-Inspector of Police has obtained the
FSL analysis report from the A. Raja Naik, Assistant Director, TSFSL.
Basing on the FSL report, on 19.02.2025 the A. Raja Naik, Assistant
Director, TSFSL, lady medical officer has furnished final opinion.
Subsequently the Aasham Venkat Raja Goud, Circle-Inspector of Police collected the CDR, CAF and certificate U/s 63 (4) (c) of BNS Act-2023 of the mobile numbers 9573954482 & 8978771586 and found the accused
RMSV 9 9 of 24 POCSO SC.No. 16 of 2025 mobile 8978771586 CAF on his mother's name and 9573954482 CAF of victim's mother's name.
(vii). After completion of his investigation, Aasham Venkat Raja
Goud, Circle-Inspector of Police filed charge-sheet against the accused
No.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under section 70 (2) BNS, Sec.5 (g) r/w. 6 of POCSO Act, 2012.
3.This case was taken on file and taken cognizance by my
Predecessor Officer against the accused No.1 and 2 under section 70(2)
BNS, Section 5 (g) r/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012.
4.On appearance of accused No.1 and 2, copies of documents are furnished to the accused No.1 and 2 as required under section 207 Cr.P.C.
5.After hearing Learned Special Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for accused No.1 and 2, the accused No.1 and 2 are examined under section 249 BNSS. Upon considering the material on record under section 251 BNSS, charges for the offences under section 70(2) Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, Section 5(g), R/w 6 of The Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act, 2012 are framed against the accused No.1 and 2 and the same is read over to him and explained to the accused in Telugu for which he pleaded not guilt and claimed to be tried. The case was trasfered to this court on the point of jurisdiction.
RMSV 10 10 of 24 POCSO SC.No. 16 of 2025
6.During the course of trial, prosecution examined PW1 to PW3 out of 20 listed witnesses and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 on its behalf.
7.After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused No.1 and 2 are examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., as there is incriminating material evidence against them from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and same is read over to them in Telugu for which they denied the same and reported no defence evidence.
8.Heard both arguments : Heard.
9.Now, the point for determination is:
1. Whether the accused No.1 and 2 committed an offence under Section 70 (2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?
2. Whether the accused No.1 and 2 committed an offence under Section 5(g) R/w 6 of The POCSO Act, 2012?
3. Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused No.1
and 2 for the offences under sections 70(2) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
Section 5(g) R/w 6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences
Act, 2012 beyond all reasonable doubt?
4. To what relief?
POINT No.1 to 3 :
10.It is a case of gang rape against the minor victim girl allegedly done by accused No.1 and 2. To establish the same the prosecution adduced
PW1 to PW3 evidence out of 20 listed witnesses.
RMSV 11 11 of 24 POCSO SC.No. 16 of 2025
11.When we see PW1 evidence who is paternal uncle of victim girl who gave complaint, he stated before court that he does not know the accused persons and said at about one year back his brother and his sister-in-law met with an accident at that time they gave complaint after that he took his brother to Gandhi Hospital. The PW1 further said that police obtained his signature on written paper and said that he does not know the contents of said paper, but at the same time PW1 identified his signature in complaint as in Ex.P1. The PW1 specifically said that police not examined him and not recorded his statement. The PW1 not supported prosecution version and turned hostile and denied his earlier statement as in Ex.P2, the reason best known to him.
12.On seeing PW1 evidence prosecution adduced the PW2 evidence who is paternal aunt of minor victim girl, she stated that she does not know the accused persons and said that she does not know anything about the case facts, she too stated that police not examined her and not recorded her statement. The PW2 also not supported prosecution version and turned hostile and denied her earlier statement as in Ex.P3, the reason best known to her.
RMSV 12 12 of 24 POCSO SC.No. 16 of 2025
13.On seeing PW1 and PW2 evidence the prosecution adduced PW3 evidence who is victim minor girl, who allegedly sufferer from the hands accused persons, but before court PW3 stated that by admitting relationship with PW1 and PW2 and also said that she does not know the accused persons who are present in Video conference room and the PW3 specifically said that she does not know anything about the case facts. The
PW3 not disclosed anything about the case facts and the PW3 not disclosed anything against accused persons and she specifically said that police not examined her and not recorded her statement. PW3 also not supported prosecution version and turned hostile and denied her earlier statement as in Ex.P4, the reason best known to her.
14.On seeing PW1 to PW3 evidence, prosecution given up the evidence of aunt of victim minor girl, circumstantial witness, Potharaju
Siddiramulu, I/c Headmaster, Megavath Ramji, Barmavath Ramesh
Chandru, Chittemilla Srikanth, Jakkula Ramesh, A. Prasad, PC-744, Dr. V.
Vasudha Bhardwaj, CAS, MCH, Medak, Dr. Sudhakar, CAS, Dist.Hospital,
Medak, R. Siri Sowjanya, Prl.JFCM, Medak, A. Raja Naik, Asst. Director,
TSFSL, Nodal Officer, Bharathi Airtel, Smt. P. Bharathi, Women Assistant
Sub-Inspector of Police, G. Chanthanya Kumar Reddy, Sub-Inspector of
RMSV 13 13 of 24 POCSO SC.No. 16 of 2025
Police, Ranga Krishna, Circle-Inspector of Police, Toopran Circle I/c
Ramayampet Circle, Aasham Venkat Raja Goud, Circle-Inspector of
Police, Ramayampet Circle who are relatives, panch witnesses and confession witnesses and remaining are official witnesses, if they examined the real facts might be established.
15.Before going to further one again we observed the Section of law:
As per Section 70(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita – Gang rape.
(1) Where a woman is raped by one or more persons constituting a group or acting in furtherance of a common intention, each of those persons shall be deemed to have committed the offence of rape and shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than twenty years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of that person’s natural life, and with fine: Provided that such fine shall be just and reasonable to meet the medical expenses and rehabilitation of the victim: Provided further that any fine imposed under this sub-section shall be paid to the victim. (2) Where a woman under eighteen years of age is raped by one or more persons constituting a group or acting in furtherance of a common intention, each of those persons shall be deemed to have committed the offence of rape and shall be punished with imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of that person’s natural life, and with fine, or with death: Provided that such fine shall be just and reasonable to meet the medical expenses and rehabilitation of the victim:
RMSV 14 14 of 24 POCSO SC.No. 16 of 2025
Provided further that any fine imposed under this sub-section shall be paid to the victim.
16.The first and foremost the prosecution has to establish that the accused No.1 and 2 allegedly committed rape against the victim girl as mentioned in the complaint by PW1. On perusal of complaint in it specifically mentioned that Memu eedharam annadamulam maa anna,
vadina garlakuku ninna thedi 03.01.2025 nadu sayanthram accident
kaga, chikista gurinchi Gandhi asupatriki maa anna koduku
thiskellinadu valla inti daggara maa anna chinna kuthuru X victim girl
okkathe unnadi. Ninna rathri 03.01.2025 nadu andaja 11:30
nimishalaku nenu kalakruthyalu thirchukovadaniki maa inti bayataku
raga adhe samayamuna maa inti venukala unna maa anna gudiselo
nundi maa anna kuthuru arupulu vinabadaga maa anna gudise
vaddaku nenu vellaga, gudiselo eedaru mogavakthulu undaga,
varidharini evarani pattukundamane lopu nannu nettivesi paripoyaru
varilo okaru maa thandaku chendina Lakavath Praveen, mariyu chetla
thimmaipally gramaniki chendina Raj Kumar madiga kulasthudiga
gurthinchinanu, aa tharuvatha maa anna kuthuru emi jarigindani
adugaga ee roju rathri andaja 09:00 gantalaku naku daggu sardhi
unnadi, naku tablets thechievvamani maa nanna phone nundi
RMSV 15 15 of 24 POCSO SC.No. 16 of 2025
praveen ku phone chesi cheppaga, rathri andaja 11:00 gantalaku
Praveen mariyu Raj Kumarlu maa gudiseloniki vacchi Praveen naa
noru moosi chethulu pattukonaga, rajkumar maa yokka battalu
vippesi balavanthanga nannu rape chesinadu thadupari rajkumar naa
noru musi chethulu pattukonaga, praveen nannu balavanthanga rape
chesinadu, anthalone nuvvu raga vallu, nannu vidichipetti nainnu
nukivesi paripoyenarani naku thelpindi.
17.But before court PW1 not disclosed anything as mentioned in his complaint, but PW1 specifically said that when his brother and sister-in-law met with an accident at that time they gave complaint and he specifically said that police obtained his signature on written paper and also said that he does not know the contents of said paper. But PW1 identified his signature in complaint as in Ex.P1. The PW3 who is sufferer from the hands of accused she did not disclosed as mentioned in complaint as well as before police as in Ex.P4. The PW3 specifically stated that she does not know anything about the case facts, as per prosecution version basing on the PW1 complaint, G. Chaithanya Kumar Reddy, Sub-Inspector of Police, registered this case and issued First Information report, but due to non examination of G. Chaithanya Kumar Reddy, Sub-Inspector of Police, the
RMSV 16 16 of 24 POCSO SC.No. 16 of 2025 prima-facie registering case itself fails to prove by prosecution, further prosecution not adduced the evidence of Megavath Ramji, Barmavath
Ramesh Chandra, Chittemilla Srikanth and Jakkula Ramesh who are the panch witnesses for Crime Details Form and also seizure panchanama, if they examined the real facts might be established due to non examination of them prosecution fails to prove the Crime Details Form as well as Scene of offence panchanama and prosecution not adduced the evidence of
A.Prasad, PC-744 who taken v ideograph by a. Prasad, PC-744 due to non examination of A. Prasad, PC-744 the same was also fails to prove the prosecution. Further due to non examination of A. Prasad, PC-744 taken videography of seizure from the accused and transferred video into SD card and generated hash value.
18.Further the prosecution also not adduced the evidence of Dr.
Vasudha Bharadwaj, CAS, MCH, Medak, who examined victim girl and collected swabs and smears of victim girl and also not adduced the evidence of Prl.JFCM, Medak, A. Raja Naik, Ass. Director, TSFSL and
Smt. P. Bharathi Women Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, if they examined it might be established the PW3 stated before them as mentioned in her 180 BNSS and 183 BNSS and doctor preserved the swabs and smears and also whether they examined victim girl or not, due
RMSV 17 17 of 24 POCSO SC.No. 16 of 2025 to non examination of them prosecution fails to prove against PW3 committed rape by accused No.1 and 2. As such the prosecution fails to prove that the accused No.1 and 2 are committed gang rape against the
PW3.
19. As per Section 5(g) of The Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012 - Aggravated penetrative sexual assault.
(a) Whoever, being a police officer, commits penetrative sexual assault on a child —
(i) within the limits of the police station or premises at which he is appointed; or
(ii) in the premises of any station house, whether or not situated in the police station, to which he is appointed; or
(iii) in the course of his duties or otherwise; or
(iv) where he is known as, or identified as, a police officer; or
(b) whoever being a member of the armed forces or security forces commits penetrative sexual assault on a child—
(i) within the limits of the area to which the person is deployed; or
(ii) in any areas under the command of the forces or armed forces; or
(iii) in the course of his duties or otherwise; or
(iv) where the said person is known or identified as a member of the security or armed forces; or
(c) whoever being a public servant commits penetrative sexual assault on a child; or
(d) whoever being on the management or on the staff of a jail, remand home, protection home, observation home, or other place of custody or care and protection established by or under any law for the time being in force, commits penetrative sexual assault on a child, being inmate
RMSV 18 18 of 24 POCSO SC.No. 16 of 2025 of such jail, remand home, protection home, observation home, or other place of custody or care and protection; or
(e) whoever being on the management or staff of a hospital, whether Government or private, commits penetrative sexual assault on a child in that hospital; or
(f) whoever being on the management or staff of an educational institution or religious institution, commits penetrative sexual assault on a child in that institution; or
(g) whoever commits gang penetrative sexual assault on a child. Explanation.—When a child is subjected to sexual assault by one or more persons of a group in furtherance of their common intention, each of such persons shall be deemed to have committed gang penetrative sexual assault within the meaning of this clause and each of such person shall be liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone; or
(h) whoever commits penetrative sexual assault on a child using deadly weapons, fire, heated substance or corrosive substance; or
(i) whoever commits penetrative sexual assault causing grievous hurt or causing bodily harm and injury or injury to the sexual organs of the child; or
(j) whoever commits penetrative sexual assault on a child, which—
(i) physically incapacitates the child or causes the child to become mentally ill as defined under clause (l) of section 2 of the Mental Health Act, 1987 (14 of 1987) or causes impairment of any kind so as to render the child unable to perform regular tasks, temporarily or permanently;
(ii) in the case of female child, makes the child pregnant as a consequence of sexual assault;
(iii) inflicts the child with Human Immunodeficiency Virus or any other life threatening disease or Infection which may either temporarily or permanently impair the child by rendering him physically incapacitated, or mentally ill to perform regular tasks;
(iv) causes death of the child; or
(k) whoever, taking advantage of a child's mental or physical disability, commits penetrative sexual assault on the child; or
RMSV 19 19 of 24 POCSO SC.No. 16 of 2025
(l) whoever commits penetrative sexual assault on the child more than once or repeatedly; or
(m) whoever commits penetrative sexual assault on a child below twelve years; or
(n) whoever being a relative of the child through blood or adoption or marriage or guardianship or in foster care or having a domestic relationship with a parent of the child or who is living in the same or shared household with the child, commits penetrative sexual assault on such child; or
(o) whoever being, in the ownership, or management, or staff, of any institution providing services to the child, commits penetrative sexual assault on the child; or
(p) whoever being in a position of trust or authority of a child commits penetrative sexual assault on the child in an institution or home of the child or anywhere else; or
(q) whoever commits penetrative sexual assault on a child knowing the child is pregnant; or
(r) whoever commits penetrative sexual assault on a child and attempts to murder the child; or
(s) whoever commits penetrative sexual assault on a child in the course of communal or sectarian violence or during any natural calamity or in similar situations]; or
(t) whoever commits penetrative sexual assault on a child and who has been previously convicted of having committed any offence under this Act or any sexual offence punishable under any other law for the time being in force; or
(u) whoever commits penetrative sexual assault on a child and makes the child to strip or parade naked in public, is said to commit aggravated penetrative sexual assault.
As per Section 6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012 - Punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual
assault.
RMSV 20 20 of 24 POCSO SC.No. 16 of 2025
Whoever commits aggravated penetrative sexual assault shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than twenty years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of natural life of that person and shall also be liable to fine, or with death. (2) The fine imposed under sub-section (1) shall be just and reasonable and paid to the victim to meet the medical expenses and rehabilitation of such victim.
20.The first and foremost prosecution has to establish that as on the date of alleged incident PW3 is a minor and allegedly accused No.1 and 2 committed gang rape against minor girl, for that prosecution fails to adduced the evidence of Potharaju Siddiramulu, I/c Headmaster, from whom they have received the bonafide certificate of PW3 and in it shows that the victim girl is aged about 15 years and her date of birth is 06.06.2009, due to non examination of Potharaju Siddiramulu, I/c
Headmaster, the prosecution fails to prove the age of PW3. Further the prosecution not adduced the Aasham Venkat Raja Goud, Circle-Inspector of Police, Ramayampet evidence who sent the requisition to Potharaju
Siddiramulu, I/c Headmaster, for issuing bonafide certificate of PW3 further prosecution to prove the adduced the evidence of Nodal Officer, Bharathi
Airtel who issued 63(4) BNS, CDR/CDF details. On perusal of PW3 evidence before court she stated that she does not know anything about
RMSV 21 21 of 24 POCSO SC.No. 16 of 2025 case facts, she is the sufferer, but PW3 her self excuses acts of alleged accused the prosecution not shown any interest to produce remaining witnesses evidence if they produced there is every possibility for establishing their case, due to non examination of aunt of victim minor girl,
Halavath Srinivas, Potharaju Siddiramulu, I/c Headmaster, Megavath
Ramji, Barmavath Ramesh Chandru, Chittemilla Srikanth, Jakkula
Ramesh, A. Prasad, PC-744, Dr. V. Vasudha Bhardwaj, CAS, MCH,
Medak, Dr. Sudhakar, CAS, Dist.Hospital, Medak, R. Siri Sowjanya,
Prl.JFCM, Medak, A. Raja Naik, Asst. Director, TSFSL, Nodal Officer,
Bharathi Airtel, Smt. P. Bharathi, Women Assistant Sub-Inspector of
Police, G. Chanthanya Kumar Reddy, Sub-Inspector of Police, Ranga
Krishna, Circle-Inspector of Police, Toopran Circle I/c Ramayampet Circle,
Aasham Venkat Raja Goud, Circle-Inspector of Police, Ramayampet
Circle. The prosecution utterly fails to prove the guilty of accused No.1 and 2 as they committed an offence under section 5(g) r/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012.
21.In the above facts and circumstances, the prosecution utterly fails to prove the guilty of accused No.1 and 2 under sections 70(2) of Bharatiya
RMSV 22 22 of 24 POCSO SC.No. 16 of 2025
Nyaya Sanhita and Section 5(g) R/w 6 of the Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act, 2012 beyond all reasonable doubt.
Point No.4:
22.In the result, the accused No.1 and 2 are not found guilty for the offences under Sections 70(2) of Bharatiya Nayaya Sanhita and Section 5(g) R/w 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and accordingly they are acquitted under Section 258(1) BNSS. Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled after the appeal time is over. If any un-marked property is there shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time is over.
(Typed on my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III, Corrected and Pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 08 th day of May, 2026).
1 st Addl. District And Sessions Judge, Medak. FAC - Spl. Judge, Fast Track Special Court for expeditious trial and disposal Rape & POCSO Act cases, Medak.
List of Prosecution/Defence/Court Witnesses
A. Prosecution:
RANK NAME Nature of evidence (Eye witness, Police witness, Expert witness, medical witness, panch witness, other witness) PW.1XXXDe facto-complainant/Uncle of victim minor girl PW.2XXXAunt of victim girl
RMSV 23 23 of 24 POCSO SC.No. 16 of 2025
PW.3‘X’Victim girl
B. Defence Witnesses, if any:
RANK NAME Nature of evidence
(Eye witness, Police witness, Expert witness, medical witness, panch witness, other witness) - no -- no --no-
C. Court witnesses, if any:
RANK NAME Nature of evidence
(Eye witness, Police witness, Expert witness, medical witness, panch witness, other witness) - no -- no --no-
LIST OF PROSECUTION/DEFENCE/COURT EXHIBITS:
A. Prosecution:
Sl.No. Exhibit Number Description 1Exhibit P1/PW1Signature of PW.1 on report 2Exhibit P2/PW1161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW1 3Exhibit P3/PW2161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW2 4Exhibit P4/PW3161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW3
B. Defence:
Sl.No. Exhibit Number Description - nil -- nil -- nil -
RMSV 24 24 of 24 POCSO SC.No. 16 of 2025
C. Court Exhibits:
Sl.No. Exhibit Number Description - nil -- nil -- nil -
D. Material Objects:
Sl.No. Material Object Description - nil -- nil -- nil - 1 st Addl. District And Sessions Judge, Medak. FAC - Spl. Judge, Fast Track Special Court for expeditious trial and disposal Rape & POCSO Act cases, Medak.
RMSV