R V V S Murali Krishna

1

TABULAR FORM ANNEXED TO THE JUDGMENT IN

SESSIONS CASE NO.177 of 2025

IN THE COURT OF V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE-

CUM-SPECIAL COURT FOR TRIAL OF OFFENCES AGAINST WOMEN,

WEST GODAVARI, ELURU.

UNDER RULE 318 OF THE CRIMINAL RULES OF PRACTICE.

1.Sessions Case No. and P.R.C.No::S.C.177/2025 and P.R.C.No.18 of with name of the committal court2023 of I Addl.Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-I Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tadepalligudem.

2.Name of the Police station:Crime No.118/2023 of Tadepalligudem Town Police Station,

3.Name of the Accused and:1. Surisetti Manoj Kumar S/o late Bala Ram, aged 37 yrs, D.No.7- particulars37/1, Road No.2, Satyavathi nagar, Tadepalligudem Town.

2. Surisetti Aruna Devi W/o Manoj Kumar, aged 33 yrs, D.No.7-38/1, Near Andhra Bank Chest, 11th ward,SatyavathiNagar, Tadepalligudem.

3. Surisetti Dharmavathi W/o late Bala Ram, aged 60 yrs, D.No.7- 38/1, Near Andhra Bank Chest, 11thward, Satyavathi nagar, Tadepalligudem.

4. Penubaka Madhavi W/o Srikanth Reddy, aged 34 yrs, Easteren street, Suraiahpalem village, Podalakuru mandal, Potti Sri Ramulu Nellore District.

5. Sanam Madhu Babu S/o Nageswara Rao, 68 yrs, FCI Road, No.4, Near 3rd Water Tank, Tadepalligudem Town.

4.Date of offence:12-06-2023

5.Date of complaint:13-06-2022

6.Date of apprehension:14-06-2023 2

7.Date of release on bail:20-07-2025

8.Date of committal order:15-07-2025

9.Date of commencement of trial:17-02-2026 10Date of close of Trial:04-05-2026 11Date of Sentence of Order: 08-05-2026 12Sentence:In the result, A1 is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 376(2)(n), 417, 323, 506 of IPC.

Accordingly, he is acquitted under section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. The A2 to A5 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 506 r/w 34 of

IPC. Accordingly, they are acquitted under section 235(1) of Cr.P.C.

The A1 found guilty for the offence punishable under section 420 of IPC.

He is convicted under section 235(2) of

Cr.P.C.

The case property MO1 Samsung mobile phone shall be confiscated to state after expiry of appeal time.

Accordingly, A1 is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of three years (3) and shall pay compensation of Rs.5 lakhs to the victim (PW1) under section 357(3)

Cr.P.C, I.D S.I for six months for the 3 offence punishable under section 420 of IPC 13Explanation for the delay:No avoidable Delay 14Appeals as prescribed under rule: -- 319 of Crl.Rules of Practice with regard to the diary extract submitted by the Committing Court.

Sd/-R.V.V.S.Murali Krishna

V Addl. District & Sessions Judge-cum- Special Court for trial of offences against women West Godavari, Eluru.

4

IN THE COURT OF V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE –

CUM SPECIAL COURT FOR TRIAL OF OFFENCES AGAINST WOMEN,

WEST GODAVARI AT ELURU.

Present: Sri R.V.V.S.Murali Krishna, V Addl. District Judge-cum – Spl. Court for trial of offences against women, Eluru.

Friday, this the 8th day of May, 2026

SESSIONS CASE No.177 of 2025

1.Name of the Accused and :1. Surisetti Manoj Kumar S/o late bala Particulars Ram, aged 37 yrs, D.No.7-37/1, Road No.2,Satyavathinagar, Tadepalligudem Town.

2. Surisetti Aruna Devi W/o Manoj Kumar, aged 33 yrs, D.No.7-38/1, Near Andhra Bank Chest, 11thward, Satyavathi Nagar, Tadepalligudem.

3. Surisetti Dharmavathi W/o late Bala Ram, aged 60 yrs, D.No.7-38/1, Near Andhra Bank Chest, 11thward, Satyavathi nagar, Tadepalligudem.

4. Penubaka Madhavi W/o Srikanth Reddy, aged 34 yrs, Easteren street, Suraiahpalem village, Podalakuru mandal, Potti Sri Ramulu Nellore District.

5. Sanam Madhu Babu S/o Nageswara Rao, 68 yrs, FCI Road, No.4, Near 3rd Water Tank, Tadepalligudem Town.

2.Charge:Under Section 376(2)(n), 420, 417, 323, 506 r/w 34 of IPC.

3.Plea of accused:Pleaded not guilty

4.Finding of the Judge and:A1 found guilty under section 420 of IPC order Sentence

5.Theprosecutionis:Additional Public Prosecutor conducted by

6.The accused is defended by:Sri M.Yesupadam, the learned defence counsel for A1 to A5.

5

7.The case committed by:I Addl.Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-I Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tadepalligudem.

8.Date of Sentence or Order:In the result, A1 is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 376(2)(n), 417, 323, 506 of IPC. Accordingly, he is acquitted under section 235(1) of Cr.P.C.

The A2 to A5 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 506 r/w 34 of IPC. Accordingly, they are acquitted under section 235(1) of Cr.P.C.

The A1 found guilty for the offence punishable under section 420 of IPC. He is convicted under section 235(2) of Cr.P.C.

The case property MO1 Samsung mobile phone shall be confiscated to state after expiry of appeal time.

Accordingly, A1 is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of three years (3) and shall pay compensation of Rs.5 lakhs to the victim (PW1) under section 357(3) Cr.P.C, I.D S.I for six months for the offence punishable under section 420 of

IPC .

This case is coming on 04.05.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri

M.Yesupadam, learned Defence Counsel for A1 to A5 and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:- 6

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

The Inspector of Police, Tadepalligudem Police Station filed charge sheet against accused in Cr.No.118/2023 of Tadepalligudem Town Police

Station for the offence punishable Under Section 376(2)(n), 420, 417, 323, 506 r/w 34 of IPC.

2. The story of the prosecution which leads to file charge sheet against the accused in brief:

The A1 to A4 are the residents of Tadepalligudem village. A2 is the wife of A1 and A2 is mother, A4 is the elder sister and A5 is uncle of A1. The victim is native of Dendukuru village, Madhira mandal, Khamam District. In the year 2012 her marriage took place with Samineni Seshu Babu of

Khammam district. The husband of the victim working in borewell company at

Kondapalli village, Krishna District. During their wedlock, she gave birth to a male child. The victim along with her husband and son staying at Kondapalli village and used to send her son for skating at Ibrahimpatnam. She along with her son went to Delhi for skating events where she got acquaintance with A1 and A2, and they also brought their son for skating. Subsequently, they become family friends. On every Sunday, the A1 and A2 used to visit the house of the victim. While so, on 31-07-2021 the husband of the victim died due to heart stroke. Since then A1 and his family members used to come to her house frequently. During that time, the A1 and A2 lured the victim that she is well educated person and promised her to secure job in Horticulture,

Nallajerla. By believing the said words, she got transferred an amount of

Rs.1,25,000/- to the account of A2 from her phonepay. The victim several times asked the A1 and A2 for job and they asked her to come to

Tadepalligudem where she will get the job soon. In the month of December, 2021 the A1 took a house in FCI colony, road No.5 and kept the victim and 7 her son in the house. The A1 used to take care of the victim and her son. In the month of January, 2022 after dropping her son, when the victim returned to home and take bath. Then A1 came behind her, closed her mouth and committed rape against her without her will and consent. Due to which she struggled mentally and she revealed the same to the A3 to A5 and they assured that they will take care of her and her son. The A1 also assured that he will arrange job to her and look after welfare of her son. A1 promised the victim to circulate her husband’s death benefits for interest, so that she can live on interest amount with her son and made believe her. On believing the words of A1, she transferred amount to the account of A1’s friends through phonepay. The A1 also used to run the victim’s husband car bearing No.AP 39 CD 4152 as she does not have driving license. She instructed the A1 to dispose off the car so as to clear the finance. The A1 sold the car to one

Sathish Kumar of Tirupathi but he did not give that amount to the victim.

When the victim questioned the A1 for job, he proposed to do business and take away her gold chain and pledged in Muthoot finance, A1 did not return that amount. Subsequently, the victim learnt that A1 also did not pay the house rent for eight months. Then she questioned A1, all the accused threatened her that if she revealed the incident and other incident to anybody, they will defame her son in school.

i).In the month of March, 2023, the victim went to ANL parcel office, near bus stand, Tadepalligudem town, the A1 took her on his motor cycle and proceeded ahead and pushed her from the motor cycle and somebody noticed and brought her to the house. Then the victim vexed with the attitude of the accused, she gave complaint before Spandana but the A1 assured to settle the problem before the elders and managed to withdraw her petition.

The victim several times asked the A1 to give amount because she is facing economic struggles but he dodged time. On 12-06-2023 at about 8.00 p.m the victim proceeded towards Tadepalligudem Police Station, the A1 came 8 and stopped her near bike parking area and questioned her for coming to report against him and abused her in filthy language and man handled her and pushed on the road and hit her head to the road. The victim anticipated peril to her and her son in the hands of A1 to A5, the victim turned up to

Tadepalligudem Police Station and gave report. Basing on the report, the

Police registered the case in Cr.No.118/2023 under section 420, 417, 376(2)

(n), 323 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC. During the course of investigation, the Police arrested the A1 at his house at 14-06-2023 and sent him to Judicial custody.

A2 to A5 were enlarged on bail from the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra

Pradesh. After completion of investigation, the investigating officer filed the charge sheet.

3. The learned I Addl.Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-I Addl.Judicial

Magistrate of I Class, Tadepalligudem took cognizance for the offence

U/sec. 420, 417, 376(2)(n), 420, 323 and 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code assigned P.R.C.No.18/2023 and issued summons to accused. On appearance of the accused, the trial Court furnished copies of case documents to the accused as required U/s.207 of Cr.P.C.

4. After following due procedure, this case was committed to the Court of Sessions by the learned trial Judge U/s.209 Cr.P.C. proceedings. The

Hon’ble Prl.District Court assigned S.C.No.177/2025 and made over to V

Additional District Court, Eluru, for trial and disposal according to Law.

5.After receipt of record and on appearance of accused having heard the counsel for accused and learned Addl.PP, this court framed charges

U/Sec.417, 376 (2)(n), 420, 323, 506 of IPC against A1 and against A2 to

A5 for the offence punishable under section 506 r/w 34 of IPC read over and explained the charges to them in Telugu U/Sec.228 (2) Cr.P.C., for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

9

6.In support of the prosecution case, the prosecution cited as many

as 19 witnesses and examined 14 witnesses i.e., P.W.1 to P.W.14 and got

marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12 and Ex.X1 and MO1 and closed the prosecution evidence. On behalf of defence, Ex.D1 to Ex.D3 are marked.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., explained incriminating evidence to the accused.

He denied the incriminating material appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and reported no defense evidence.

8. Heard arguments on both sides.

9. Now, the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt against the

A1 for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n), 417,

420, 323 and 506 of IPC and under section 506 of r/w

34 of IPC against A2 to A5 beyond all reasonable doubt or not?

10. P O I N T ::-

It is the case of the prosecution that originally the victim is resident of Dendukuru village, Madhira mandal, Khamam District. Her marriage took place in the year 2012 with Samineni Seshu Babu of Khammam district. She along with her husband used to stay at Kondapalli village,

Krishna district. During their wedlock, she gave birth to a male child and he is a scatter. The victim used to take her son to the scatting events in various places. The A2 is the wife of A1. They have one son, who is also scatter. The A2 used to took her son to the scatting events. Accordingly, they both A2 and victim become friends. Through the A2, the A1 also become friend of the victim. Both A1 and A2 and victim’s family are become family friends. The A1 and A2 used to visit the house of victim frequently and used to stay in their house. While so, on 31-07-2021 the 10 husband of victim Seshu Babu died due to heart stroke. Subsequently, A1 and A2 lured the victim that she will educated person and promised that they will secure a job at Nallajerla Horticulture department. By believing the words of A1 and A2, the victim transferred an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- to the account of A2. Thereafter, the A1 and A2 asked her to come to

Tadepalligudem, so that she will get job soon. In the month of December, 2021 the A1 took the house in FCI colony, Tadepalligudem. Since then A1 used to visit the house of the victim frequently and also used to pickup and drop the victim’s son to the school. While so, in the month of

January, 2022 when the victim alone in the house, the A1 forcefully committed sexual intercourse with her and thereafter convinced her that he will take care of her and her son. When she reported the same to A2 to

A5 and they also assured that they will take care of her and her son.

Thereafter, the victim transferred huge amounts to the A1 and the A1 also sold her car for Rs.5,50,000/- and utilized it and he returned Rs.5 lakhs and kept with him for Rs.50,000/-. So also he take away her gold on the promise that he will start a business and make victim as a partner. The A1 pledged the gold in the name of A3 and A5. The A1 also came to the house of the victim and stayed for some time. When the victim questioned

A1 for job, he made proposal of business and take gold and pledged it.

Later, the victim came to know that A1 not paid house rents also. When the victim questioned A1, the A1 along with A2 to A5 went to her house and altercated with her. In the month of March, 2023 when the victim went to ANL parcel office, near bus stand, Tadepalligudem, the A1 allowed her motor cycle and proceeded ahead and all of sudden he pushed her on the motor cycle. Accordingly, she sustained injuries. The victim vexed with the attitude of A1 to A5 and gave complaint before “Spandana”. On the instance of A1, she withdrew the complaint. Thereafter, victim asked the

A1 for return of the amount taken by the A1 but he has not paid. While so on 12-06-2023 the victim went to the Police Station to give a report, the 11 A1 also assaulted her nearby Police Station. Later, Pw1 gave report which resulted the present case.

11.At the outset the allegations levelled against the A1 and A2 that they both lured the victim that they will provide a job to the victim and collected Rs.1, 25,000/-. The victim transferred that amount through the phonepay. The allegations levelled against A1 is that he forcefully committed sexual assault and thereafter he assured that he will take care of her and her son and subsequently he received the huge amount from the victim to circulate the same for interest but he did not return it and thereby A1 cheated her. The A2 to A5 threatened the victim with dire consequences and

A1 also assaulted her before the Police Station.

12. The case of the defence is total denial of the prosecution case and contended that A1 has no physical relationship with the victim and he has not received any amount from the victim. The A2 is not residing with A1. The

A3 is residing at Hyderabad, the A4 is native of Nellore. The A5 is also staying at Hyderabad and they are no way concerned with the offence.

13.Since it is a criminal trial, the burden lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution cited as many as 19 witnesses and examined 14 witnesses i.e., P.W.1 to P.W.14 and got marked Ex.P.1 to

Ex.P.12 and Ex.X1 and MO1.

14.Now, coming into the evidence of PW1, her evidence reveals that her son is skating player. The A1’s son also practicing skating. When she gone to the events along with her son, she has acquaintance with A1 and

A2. Accordingly her family and accused’s family become family friends. They used to visit her house and used to stay one or two days in her house and the A1’s son and her son are used to practice skating. Her husband working 12 as accountant in borewells at Kondapalli. Her husband died in the month of

July, 2021. A1 came to her house for express condolence. In that connection the A1 stated that he will arrange job in Nallajerla horticulture and instructed her to transfer 1,25,000/- to the account of A2 by phonepe and he further advised to shift her residence to Tadepalligudem from Kondapalli.

Accordingly she shifted to Tadepalligudem in the month of December, 2021.

A1 admitted her son in a school. He used to pick up and drop her son from school to house. In the month of January, 2022, before 10th, after dropping her son, she came to house and went to bath after closing the main door.

There is one side door to that portion. That door is not known to the others except who has acquaintance with that portion. After take bath she came from the attached bath room. Then A1 came from her behind and closed her mouth with his hand and attempted to commit rape. Her strength is not enough to restrain the A1 force. After the incident the A1 stated that he will take care of her and her son, he will also arrange job and asked her to stay with their family. She informed the incident to A3 to A5. A2 blocked her number that is why she has not informed. The A1 parents also assured that

A1 will look after her and her son properly and request her to stay with them.

The A1 used to took her to his house and she used to stay one or two days.

In the year 2022, the A1 stayed with her for four months as he has disputes with his wife. During that stay the A1 used to took his son to her house and keep him two days and again sent him back. The A3 asked her to undergo family planning operation as she was staying with A1. She has undergone family planning operation.

15. On close examination evidence of PW1, her evidence reveals that on the advise of A1, she shifted to Tadepalligudem. Nowhere she deposed the role of A2. As per the prosecution case, both A1 and A2 lured the victim that they will provide a job. Accordingly, the victim transferred an amount of

Rs.1,25,000/- to the account of A2. But she categorically deposed that when 13 A1 came to her house to express condolence and he stated that he will arrange job in Nallajerla Horticulture department and instructed her to transfer Rs.1,25,000/- to the account of A2 through phonepay and advised her to shift to Tadepalligudem from Kondapalli. Accordingly, she shifted to

Tadepalligudem in the month of December, 2021. Absolutely, there is no evidence against A2 that she assured the victim that she herself and A1 provide job and collected Rs.1,25,000/-.

16.The evidence of PW1 further reveals that in the month of January, 2022, before 10th, after dropping her son she came to house and went to bath after closing the main door. One side door is existing to that portion which is only known to the persons, who have acquaintance with that portion. After take bath when she came from the attached bath room, A1 came from her behind and closed her mouth with his hand and attempted to commit rape. Her strength is not enough to restrain the A1 force. Her evidence is not clear whether the A1 forcefully have sexual intercourse with her or she consented after A1 attempted to commit sexual intercourse. Her evidence further reveals that after the incident A1 stated that he will take care of her and her son. He will also arrange a job and asked her to stay with their family. She informed the incident to A3 to A5, A2 blocked her number that is why she has not informed. The A1’s parents also assured that the A1 will look after her and her son properly and request her to stay with them. The A1 used to took her to his house and she used to stay one or two days. In the year 2022, the A1 stayed with her for four months as he has disputes with his wife. During that stay the A1 also used to took his son to her house and keep him two days. The mother of A1 asked her to undergo family planning operation as she is staying with A1. Accordingly, she also undergone family planning operation. On perusal of the evidence of PW1, nowhere she deposed that A1 assured that he would marry her and by believing the said promise, she participated in sexual intercourse.

14

17.It is evident prior to PW1 came to Tadepalligudem, she has acquaintance with A1 and on the advise of A1, the PW1 shifted to

Tadepalligudem. The A1 take rented house for PW1 and from the beginning

A1 paid the house rent to the house owner. All the circumstances reveals that the A1 and PW1 are living in relationship and in that process the PW1 also undergone family planning operation. She further deposed that admittedly she has not gave any report to the Police against the alleged incident of rape in the month of January, 2022 and not discarded the A1.

She further admitted that thereafter she herself and A1 lead relationship in her house and he used to took her to his family functions. During that stay her father came to her house at Tadepalligudem. Her father gave sweets to

A1 and she informed her relationship with A1 to her father. Absolutely there is no evidence A1 made false promise that he would marry PW1 and had sexual intercourse with her. It is also pertinent to note that PW1 not informed the said relationship to the wife of A1 i.e A2. The A2 also blocked the number of PW1. Therefore, it is also culled out the relationship between the

PW1 and A1 was not accepted by the A2. The alleged sexual act of A1 in

January, 2021 was not reported to the Police till 13-06-2023 and continued relationship with A1. Therefore, the evidence of PW1 that in January 2021,

A1 forcefully committed sexual act is highly doubtful and not basis to hold that the A1 committed offence punishable under section 376(2)(n) of IPC.

18.The other allegations made by the prosecution is that the A1 collected huge money from the PW1 with a promise that he would circulate the said money for higher interest and thereby cheated her. Now, coming into the evidence of PW1, she deposed in her evidence that she received the death benefits of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight lakhs only) of her deceased husband, the A1 promised that he will circulate the said amount for interest and instructed her to transfer the amount to the accounts of 15 PW5, PW6, Ganapathi, P.Pavani, Kranthi Kumar. She transferred One lakh fifty thousand rupees to the account of Ganapathi, one lakh rupees to Pw6, one lakh rupees to P.Pavani, one lakh rupees to PW5, one lakh seventy five thousand rupees to one Kranthi kumar. She has the messages sent by the

A1 acknowledging the amounts received by her. The A1 informed that the

Ganapathi is died and he will not get any interest by giving Whatsapp messages. The A1 arranged one job in Sasi College, Tadepalligudem.

Subsequently, he vacated from the house portion of PW1. When she questioned, A1 assured that he will look after her and her son as the public commenting that the A1 left his wife staying with Pw1, he vacated her house.

Later, she came to know that the A1 not paying the house rent for eight months. Then after her enquiry the A1 paid the house rent amount. The A1 also sold away her husband’s car to one Santhosh kumar for an amount of

Rs.6,00,000/- by obtaining her signature. He utilized the same and sum of

Rs.5,00,000/- was transferred from the account of Santhosh to the account of A1. A1 transferred fifty thousand rupees to her. Thereafter, he returned

Rs.4,50,000/- to Santhosh Kumar. The A1 not gave any interest for

Rs.8,00,000/-.

19.With regarding to the financial transaction is concerned, the evidence of PW1 reveals that she received the death benefits of

Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight lakhs only) of her deceased husband. Out of which she transferred Rs.1,50,000/- to the account of Ganapathi, Rs.1 lakh to the account of PW6, Rs.1 lakh to P.Pavani, Rs.1 lakh to PW5 and Rs.1, 75,000/- to Kranthi Kumar. There is no evidence with regarding to the transfer of amounts to the accounts of Ganapthi and Kranthi Kumar. Now, the evidence of PW1 reveals that she transferred an amount of Rs.1 lakh to

PW6, Rs.1 lakh to P.Pavani and Rs.1 lakh to PW5. Though the PW1 deposed that A1 sold the car to one Santhosh Kumar for Rs.6 lakhs. Her evidence reveals that a sum of Rs.5 lakhs only transferred to the account of 16 A1 from the account of Santosh Kumar and A1 gave Rs.50,000/- to the PW1 and later returned Rs.4,50,000/- to Santosh Kumar. Therefore, no amount is pending with A1 with regarding to the car transaction. Though the PW1 deposed that Rs.8 lakhs was given to the A1 out of the death benefits of her husband. She furnished the details to an extent of Rs.6,25,000/- out of which the prosecution not collected any evidence with regarding to the transfer of

Rs.1,50,000/- to the account of Ganapathi and Rs.1,75,000/- to the Kranthi

Kumar.

20.With regarding to the remaining payments are concerned, the prosecution examined PW5 and PW6. The evidence of PW5 reveals that A1 is his friend. A1 asked one lakh rupees as hand loan. He gave it through his phone pe on 26.06.2021. He transferred the one lakh rupees on 2nd

January, 2022. He received the said one lakh rupees from the account of

Samineni Pavani I.e PW1. The A1 informed by phone that he is transferring

Rs.1,00,000/- through the account of Samineni Pavani. PW5 furnished his account details to the A1.

21.A perusal of Ex.P4, which is account copy of PW1 clearly reveals that a sum of Rs.1 lakh was transferred to one Ranjith I.e PW5. The evidence of PW5 reveals that amount was received towards repayment of hand loan given to the A1. He deposed in the cross examination that he transferred ninety thousand, eight thousand and two thousand rupees to A1.

He handed over the copy of payments to the police. The A1 also paid the interest on the said amount. The PW1 used to came along with her son to participate in the games. To his knowledge the PW1 and A1 lived together as wife and husband. He denied the suggestion that Pw1 borrowed a sum of

Rs.1 lakh from him and repaid it. The PW5 categorically deposed that A1 informed that PW1 paying amount.

17

22.So also, the evidence of PW6 reveals that he know the A1 since five years. A1 borrowed one lakh rupees from him in the year 2020 as hand loan. He gave thirty five thousand rupees cash and sixty five thousand rupees through phonepe. In the year 2021, the A1 asked his account particulars accordingly he gave his CANARA bank account ended with 177.

The A1 transferred one lakh rupees through one woman account. After transfer the A1 informed that he transferred one lakh rupees through woman account. The A1 paid in two spells i.e., fifty thousand and fifty thousand rupees on the same day i.e., on 31.12.2021. Ex.P4 reflects that transaction

dated 31.12.2021 to his account. A perusal of Ex.P4 which is account copy

of PW1, she transferred Rs.50,000/- to Canara Bank account ended with 177 and also another Rs.50,000/- to the same account in total she transferred Rs.1 lakh on 31-10-2021. From the evidence of PW6, the said amount was received towards the repayment of the loan given to A1. He also denied the suggestion that Pw1 borrowed money from him and repaid to his account. The PW6 categorically deposed that A1 confirmed that his wife paid that amount to him. He also identified the photograph of PW1 photograph shown by the accused counsel.

23.The husband of P.Pavani examined as PW7. His evidence reveals that he know A1. The A1 is used to be a tenant in the upstairs of his uncle’s house at Tadepalligudem and he was also a customer to him. A1 asked his account particulars for transfer one lakh rupees as his ATM card is not working. Accordingly he gave account particulars of his wife Pavani to the

A1. A sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was transferred to the account his wife from the account of Samineni Pavani. The A1 withdraw the said amount through his

ATM card. That transaction took place on 06.06.2022. The one lakh was transferred in two spells as fifty thousand and fifty thousand on 06.06.2022 and 07.06.2022. It was elicited from the evidence of Pw7 that Rs.50,000/- was transferred from the account of PW1 on 06-06-2022 and another sum of 18 Rs.50,000/- was transferred from PW1 on 07-06-2022. The said amount was transferred on the instance of A1. There are no financial transaction between the P.Pavani and Samineni Pavani. A sum of Rs.20,000/- was withdrawn by

A1 through ATM on 06-06-2022 as ATM limit is Rs.20,000/-. On the request of A1, he get transferred an amount of Rs.30,000/- from his wife’s account to his account and gave that cash to A1. Again on 08-06-2022 the A1 withdrawn an amount of Rs.9,500/- through ATM, Rs.5,500/- and the remaining amount of Rs.35,000/-, he get transfers from his wife’s account as

Rs.15,000/-, 20,000/- and gave it to the A1. As per his evidence, the PW1 was transferred Rs.1 lakh to the account of PW7’s wife. The PW7 gave his

ATM card to the A1. The A1 withdrawn an amount of Rs.20,000/- cash from the ATM card of PW7 on 06-06-2022. The PW7 get transfer of Rs.50,000/- from the account of his wife and gave it to the A1. He also transfers for a sum of Rs.15,000/- through his wife’s account. The A1 withdrawn the same two spells I.e Rs.9,500/- and Rs.5,500/-. Ex.X1 reflects the account statement of wife of PW7 it reveals that credit of Rs.50,000/- on 06-06-2022 and Rs.50,000/- on 08-06-2022 and withdraws of Rs.50,000/-, Rs.30,000/- and Rs.20,000/- by her husband on 08-06-2022 and 11-06-2022. Therefore, from the evidence of PW5 to PW7 coupled with Ex.X1 and Ex.P4 and Ex.P5 it is evident that PW1 was transferred Rs.1 lakh to the PW5, Rs.1 lakh to the

PW6, Rs.1 lakh to the wife of PW7 total Rs.3 lakhs on the instance of A1. He received the said amounts from PW5 to PW7.

24.The accused argued that the prosecution not placed any evidence that A1 borrowed an amount from the Pw5, Pw6 and the wife of PW7. It is evident that Pw1 and A1 lived together in the same house. It is also evident that they both lived together as wife and husband and PW1 and A1 are living in relationship. The evidence of PW5 to PW7 clearly reveals that they are close to A1 and they are lent amount to the A1 and A1 repaid the said amounts to them through the bank account of PW1. The said transactions 19 were reflected in the account of PW1 as well as the accounts of wife of

PW7. Therefore, it is evident that A1 received a sum of Rs.3 lakhs from

Pws 5, 6 and wife of PW7 and repaid through the account of PW1. By make believing the PW1 that he circulated the said amounts for higher interest and thereby cheated PW1.

25.The PW2 and PW10 are tenants in the same building in which the

PW1 stayed. Their evidence did not reveals anything about the prosecution case. The evidence of PW3 reveals that he is the house owner where Pw1 is tenant. He categorically deposed that the A1 took the house and A1 and

PW1 stayed in that house. The PW1 and A1 stayed in the house during the period from 2021 to 2023 for 19 months and later they vacated in the year 2023.

26.The evidence of PW8 reveals that she examined Pw1 and opined that she is habituated to sexual intercourse. Since the relationship between the PW1 and A1 is not dispute. The evidence of PW8 is not much helpful to the case of prosecution. Since the A1 is married person and having one son.

The evidence of PW9 medical officer who examined the A1 and gave certificate that he is capable of performing the sexual act. His evidence also not much helpful to the prosecution case.

27.The another allegations made by the prosecution that when Pw1 went to Police Station to gave report, the A1 assaulted her before Police

Station. To prove that fact the prosecution examined the PW4. His evidence reveals that on 12.06.2023, he went to the Xerox shop of LW6. While he is talking with him at about 8.00 PM, the A1 and one woman discussing before the Shivalayam near Tadepalligudem Town PS. In that discussion A1 slapped that woman and she fell on the ground. When he is shouting who are you then the A1 left that place. On enquiry the PW1 stated that she is not local and A1 brought her by make believe her that he will provide job and 20 committed rape against her. Thereafter not provided job and when she came to gave report he slapped her. On the next day Police examined him. His evidence reveals that previously he opened juice shop opposite to the police station. The place of incident is busy locality. He has not taken the PW1 to the police station. He has not observed any bleeding injuries. He admitted that he stated before Police as in Ex.D3 i.e eerjojuna Police station athenipi and athani kutumba sabyulu mida case pedamani vaste baita ame pi godavadi kotinattu anta memu vachi apinattu nato chepinadi. Though PW4 not repeated the exact words stated before the Police. His evidence reveals that he witnessed that the A1 slapped PW1 before Sivalayam I.e near Police

Station. As per the evidence of PW1, on 12-06-2023 when she went to

Police Station to gave report, the A1 came there to the parking place and beat her then she gave report to the Police.

28.The evidence of PW13 reveals that he is the then SI of Police,

Tadepalligudem Police Station. On 13-06-2023 at 11.45 am the PW1 came to the Police Station and gave Ex.P1 report. The evidence of PW1 and

PW13 is not consistent, if PW1 came to the Police Station area on 12-06- 2023 and the A1 beat her I.e slapped her, there is no explanation why she has not gave report on that day. As per her evidence, she came to the

Police Station on 12-06-2023 and A1 slapped her, then she gave report. Her evidence did not reveals that she gave report on the next day. But whereas the evidence of PW13 reveals that the PW1 gave report to the Police on 13- 06-2023 and PW14 also not obtained any medical evidence to prove the assault on PW1. Initially the evidence of PW1 is not consistent with the evidence of PW13 with regarding to the date of report. Therefore, the episode on 12-06-2023 when PW1 went to the Police Station to gave report the A1 slapped her before the Police Station is doubtful.

29.The evidence of PW11 with regarding to the recording of statement 21 of PW1. The evidence of PW12 reveals that he visited the scene of offence along with Pw14. Their evidence is formal in nature and not much helpful to the prosecution case. The evidence of Pw14 with regarding to the recording of statements of the prosecution witnesses and seizure of MO1 I.e mobile phone of A1. Though PW14 seized mobile phone of A1, he has not take steps to analyze the data. On perusal of the entire evidence on record, the prosecution not established the overtacts against the A2 I.e she lured to

PW1 that she herself and A1 arrange job at Tadepalligudem. By believing the said words, the PW1 transferred Rs.1,25,000/- to the A2 in the month of

July, 2021. A perusal of Ex.P4 bank statement, the said transaction was also not reflected, the police filed the bank statement from December, 2021. The allegations levelled against A2 to A5 that they threatened the PW1 with dire consequences. But nowhere the evidence of PW1 reveals that A2 to A5 threatened the PW1 with dire consequences. The evidence of PW1 reveals that her mother in law A3 asked her to undergo family planning operation, accordingly, she undergone family planning operation and A5 not paid rent for some time. She informed the alleged sexual assault by A1 to A2. As discussed in earlier paragraphs, nowhere the PW1 deposed that A1 to A5 threatened the PW1 with dire consequences. Therefore, the prosecution not proved the guilt of A1 to A5 for the offence punishable under section 506 of

IPC beyond all reasonable doubt.

30.A perusal of the entire evidence on record, it is evident that prior to the death of PW1’s husband, she has acquaintance with A1 and after death of her husband, on the advise of A1, she shifted her residence to

Tadepalligudem. The A1 took the rented house through the A5 and he himself paid the rent to the house owner. The PW4 not even met the house owner at any point of time. It is not the evidence of PW1 that after she shifted to Tadepalligudem, the A2 also visited her house. The evidence of

Pw1 reveals that A1 only visited her house along with his son and he also 22 stayed in her house for four months . Her evidence is also silent when the

A1 came to her house while she is bathing. Her evidence also not reveals that she resisted A1 when he made attempt to sexual intercourse. Her evidence reveals that only strengthen is not sufficient to resist. Nowhere her evidence reveals that A1 assured that he would marry her and had sexual intercourse with her. So also her evidence is not specific that A1 forcefully committed sexual intercourse against her will and consent and she has not reported the alleged sexual assault to the police and after alleged incident she continued relationship with the A1 without any kind of resistance. The

PW1 further admitted that when her father came to her house, he gave sweets to the A1. She informed her relationship with A1 to her father. The A2 also blocked her number. She admitted that she herself and A1 are lived in relationship and after A1 vacated, she started demanding the amounts and

A1 not paid the amounts taken by the A1 with a promise that he would circulate the amounts for higher interest. Though the PW1 claimed that she transferred the Rs.8 lakhs to the A1 to circulate for higher interest. Her accounts statement proved that she transferred Rs.3 lakhs on behalf of A1 and the A1 got transferred those amounts with a promise that he will circulate the same for higher interest thereby the A1 cheated the PW1.

Though it is alleged that A1 and A2 make promise that they will arrange job and get transferred an amount of Rs.1,25,000/-, thereby committed the offence punishable under section 417 of IPC. As discussed in earlier paragraphs, the evidence of PW1 did not reveals anything about the role of

A2 and her evidence reveals that A1 advised her to shift Tadepalligudem. So also the alleged transferred amount of Rs.1,25,000/- was also not proved.

There is no evidence that A2 to A5 threatened PW1 with dire consequences.

On sumup the entire evidence of prosecution, I am convinced to hold that the prosecution failed to prove guilt against the A1 for the offence punishable 417, 376(2) (n), 323, 506 of IPC and against A2 to A5 for the offence punishable under section 506 of IPC. The prosecution proved the guilt 23 against the A1 for the offence punishable under section 420 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, the A1 found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 376(2)(n), 417, 323, 506 of IPC. A2 to A5 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 506 r/w 34 of IPC.

The A1 found guilty for the offence punishable under section 420 of IPC.

This point is answered accordingly.

31.In the result, A1 is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 376(2)(n), 417, 323, 506 of IPC. Accordingly, he is acquitted under section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. The A2 to A5 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 506 r/w 34 of IPC. Accordingly, they are acquitted under section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. The A1 found guilty for the offence punishable under section 420 of IPC. He is convicted under section 235(2) of Cr.P.C. The case property MO1 Samsung mobile phone shall be confiscated to state after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced

by me in open Court, on this the 8th day of May, 2026.

Sd/-R.V.V.S.Murali Krishna

V Addl. District & Sessions Judge-cum- Special Court for trial of offences against women West Godavari, Eluru.

When accused questioned with regard to quantum of sentence, accused represented that he is doing job in HDFC bank and if he was sentenced, he will lost his job. His wife and children depended upon him and he has to look after his mother and pleaded mercy.

On considering the case facts and circumstances and representation made by the accused, I felt it is just and necessary to award sentence of imprisonment for a period of three years (3) and shall pay a compensation 24 of Rs.5 lakhs to the victim (PW1) under section 357(3) of Cr.P.C, I.D.S.I for six months for the offence punishable under section 420 of IPC to meet the ends of justice.

Accordingly, A1 is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of three years (3) and shall pay compensation of Rs.5 lakhs to the victim (PW1) under section 357(3) Cr.P.C, I.D S.I for six months for the offence punishable under section 420 of IPC.

The remand period already undergone by the accused shall be set off under section 428 of Cr.P.C. The right of appeal is intimated to the accused, the availability of the legal service authority has explained to the accused. District

Legal Services Authority, Eluru contact number 9849094346.

Dictated to the Stenographer-Gr.III, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 8th day of May, 2026.

Sd/-R.V.V.S.Murali Krishna

V Addl. District & Sessions Judge-cum-

Special Judge for trial of offences against women

West Godavari, Eluru.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

PW1- Samineni Pavani

PW2- Unikili Sathish

PW3- Thota Satyanarayana

PW4- Ammissetti Venkata Satyanarayana @ Prasad

PW5- Addu Ranjith

PW6- Pulla Lakshmi Surya Vara Prasad

PW7- Penumatsa Dinesh.

PW8- Dr. U. Keerthi, CAS, AH, Tadepalligudem 25 PW9- Dr. G. Chaitanya Kiran, CAS, AH, Tadepalligudem

PW10- Kothapalli Sulochana

PW11- Ch. Jaya Lakshmi, WSI of Police, Narsapuram

PW12- Dadala Prabhavathi, Mahila Police, Tadepalligudem Town

PW13- G.J.Prasad, SI of Police, Palakol Town PS

Pw14- S.S.V.Nagaraju, Inspector of Police, Krishna Lanka,Vijayawada

For Defence ::

None

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution::

Ex.P1/ Report given by PW1

Ex.P2/ 164 Cr.P.C statement of PW1

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

Ex.P4/ Account copy of Samineni Pavani.

Ex.P5/ Account statement of Samineni Pavani reflecting the present transaction

Ex.P6/ Wound certificate

Ex.P7/ Potency certificate

Ex.P8/161 Cr.P.C statement of PW10

Ex.P9/Scene observation report

Ex.P10/Original FIR

Ex.P11/Rough sketch

Ex.P12/Rough sketch

Ex.X1/ Bank statement of PW7’s wife Penumatsa Pavani 26

For Defence::

Ex.D1 Xerox copy of that deed

Ex.D2 Photographs belongs to PW1, A1, her son and A1’s son

Ex.D3 Relevant portion statement of PW4

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MO1- Samsung mobile phone

Sd/-R.V.V.S.Murali Krishna

V AD & SJ, Eluru

Copies to:

1. The Registrar (Judl.) High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Nelapdu, Guntur District (through C.D).

2. The District Collector, W.G., Eluru.

3. The Director of prosecution, Vijayawada.

4. The Superintendent of Police, W.G., Eluru.

5. The DLSA, West Godavari, Eluru.

6. I Addl.Civil Judge’s Court, Tadepalligudem.

27 //True copy//

V Addl. District & Sessions Judge-cum-

Special Judge for trial of offences against women

West Godavari, Eluru

1

TABULAR FORM ANNEXED TO THE JUDGMENT IN

SESSIONS CASE NO.177 of 2025

IN THE COURT OF V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE-

CUM-SPECIAL COURT FOR TRIAL OF OFFENCES AGAINST WOMEN,

WEST GODAVARI, ELURU.

UNDER RULE 318 OF THE CRIMINAL RULES OF PRACTICE.

1.Sessions Case No. and P.R.C.No::S.C.177/2025 and P.R.C.No.18 of with name of the committal court2023 of I Addl.Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-I Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tadepalligudem.

2.Name of the Police station:Crime No.118/2023 of Tadepalligudem Town Police Station,

3.Name of the Accused and:1. Surisetti Manoj Kumar S/o late Bala Ram, aged 37 yrs, D.No.7- particulars37/1, Road No.2, Satyavathi nagar, Tadepalligudem Town.

2. Surisetti Aruna Devi W/o Manoj Kumar, aged 33 yrs, D.No.7-38/1, Near Andhra Bank Chest, 11th ward,SatyavathiNagar, Tadepalligudem.

3. Surisetti Dharmavathi W/o late Bala Ram, aged 60 yrs, D.No.7- 38/1, Near Andhra Bank Chest, 11thward, Satyavathi nagar, Tadepalligudem.

4. Penubaka Madhavi W/o Srikanth Reddy, aged 34 yrs, Easteren street, Suraiahpalem village, Podalakuru mandal, Potti Sri Ramulu Nellore District.

5. Sanam Madhu Babu S/o Nageswara Rao, 68 yrs, FCI Road, No.4, Near 3rd Water Tank, Tadepalligudem Town.

4.Date of offence:12-06-2023

5.Date of complaint:13-06-2022

6.Date of apprehension:14-06-2023 2

7.Date of release on bail:20-07-2025

8.Date of committal order:15-07-2025

9.Date of commencement of trial:17-02-2026 10Date of close of Trial:04-05-2026 11Date of Sentence of Order: 08-05-2026 12Sentence:In the result, A1 is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 376(2)(n), 417, 323, 506 of IPC.

Accordingly, he is acquitted under section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. The A2 to A5 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 506 r/w 34 of

IPC. Accordingly, they are acquitted under section 235(1) of Cr.P.C.

The A1 found guilty for the offence punishable under section 420 of IPC.

He is convicted under section 235(2) of

Cr.P.C.

The case property MO1 Samsung mobile phone shall be confiscated to state after expiry of appeal time.

Accordingly, A1 is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of three years (3) and shall pay compensation of Rs.5 lakhs to the victim (PW1) under section 357(3)

Cr.P.C, I.D S.I for six months for the 3 offence punishable under section 420 of IPC 13Explanation for the delay:No avoidable Delay 14Appeals as prescribed under rule: -- 319 of Crl.Rules of Practice with regard to the diary extract submitted by the Committing Court.

Sd/-R.V.V.S.Murali Krishna

V Addl. District & Sessions Judge-cum- Special Court for trial of offences against women West Godavari, Eluru.

4

IN THE COURT OF V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE –

CUM SPECIAL COURT FOR TRIAL OF OFFENCES AGAINST WOMEN,

WEST GODAVARI AT ELURU.

Present: Sri R.V.V.S.Murali Krishna, V Addl. District Judge-cum – Spl. Court for trial of offences against women, Eluru.

Friday, this the 8th day of May, 2026

SESSIONS CASE No.177 of 2025

1.Name of the Accused and :1. Surisetti Manoj Kumar S/o late bala Particulars Ram, aged 37 yrs, D.No.7-37/1, Road No.2,Satyavathinagar, Tadepalligudem Town.

2. Surisetti Aruna Devi W/o Manoj Kumar, aged 33 yrs, D.No.7-38/1, Near Andhra Bank Chest, 11thward, Satyavathi Nagar, Tadepalligudem.

3. Surisetti Dharmavathi W/o late Bala Ram, aged 60 yrs, D.No.7-38/1, Near Andhra Bank Chest, 11thward, Satyavathi nagar, Tadepalligudem.

4. Penubaka Madhavi W/o Srikanth Reddy, aged 34 yrs, Easteren street, Suraiahpalem village, Podalakuru mandal, Potti Sri Ramulu Nellore District.

5. Sanam Madhu Babu S/o Nageswara Rao, 68 yrs, FCI Road, No.4, Near 3rd Water Tank, Tadepalligudem Town.

2.Charge:Under Section 376(2)(n), 420, 417, 323, 506 r/w 34 of IPC.

3.Plea of accused:Pleaded not guilty

4.Finding of the Judge and:A1 found guilty under section 420 of IPC order Sentence

5.Theprosecutionis:Additional Public Prosecutor conducted by

6.The accused is defended by:Sri M.Yesupadam, the learned defence counsel for A1 to A5.

5

7.The case committed by:I Addl.Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-I Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tadepalligudem.

8.Date of Sentence or Order:In the result, A1 is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 376(2)(n), 417, 323, 506 of IPC. Accordingly, he is acquitted under section 235(1) of Cr.P.C.

The A2 to A5 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 506 r/w 34 of IPC. Accordingly, they are acquitted under section 235(1) of Cr.P.C.

The A1 found guilty for the offence punishable under section 420 of IPC. He is convicted under section 235(2) of Cr.P.C.

The case property MO1 Samsung mobile phone shall be confiscated to state after expiry of appeal time.

Accordingly, A1 is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of three years (3) and shall pay compensation of Rs.5 lakhs to the victim (PW1) under section 357(3) Cr.P.C, I.D S.I for six months for the offence punishable under section 420 of

IPC .

This case is coming on 04.05.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri

M.Yesupadam, learned Defence Counsel for A1 to A5 and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:- 6

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

The Inspector of Police, Tadepalligudem Police Station filed charge sheet against accused in Cr.No.118/2023 of Tadepalligudem Town Police

Station for the offence punishable Under Section 376(2)(n), 420, 417, 323, 506 r/w 34 of IPC.

2. The story of the prosecution which leads to file charge sheet against the accused in brief:

The A1 to A4 are the residents of Tadepalligudem village. A2 is the wife of A1 and A2 is mother, A4 is the elder sister and A5 is uncle of A1. The victim is native of Dendukuru village, Madhira mandal, Khamam District. In the year 2012 her marriage took place with Samineni Seshu Babu of

Khammam district. The husband of the victim working in borewell company at

Kondapalli village, Krishna District. During their wedlock, she gave birth to a male child. The victim along with her husband and son staying at Kondapalli village and used to send her son for skating at Ibrahimpatnam. She along with her son went to Delhi for skating events where she got acquaintance with A1 and A2, and they also brought their son for skating. Subsequently, they become family friends. On every Sunday, the A1 and A2 used to visit the house of the victim. While so, on 31-07-2021 the husband of the victim died due to heart stroke. Since then A1 and his family members used to come to her house frequently. During that time, the A1 and A2 lured the victim that she is well educated person and promised her to secure job in Horticulture,

Nallajerla. By believing the said words, she got transferred an amount of

Rs.1,25,000/- to the account of A2 from her phonepay. The victim several times asked the A1 and A2 for job and they asked her to come to

Tadepalligudem where she will get the job soon. In the month of December, 2021 the A1 took a house in FCI colony, road No.5 and kept the victim and 7 her son in the house. The A1 used to take care of the victim and her son. In the month of January, 2022 after dropping her son, when the victim returned to home and take bath. Then A1 came behind her, closed her mouth and committed rape against her without her will and consent. Due to which she struggled mentally and she revealed the same to the A3 to A5 and they assured that they will take care of her and her son. The A1 also assured that he will arrange job to her and look after welfare of her son. A1 promised the victim to circulate her husband’s death benefits for interest, so that she can live on interest amount with her son and made believe her. On believing the words of A1, she transferred amount to the account of A1’s friends through phonepay. The A1 also used to run the victim’s husband car bearing No.AP 39 CD 4152 as she does not have driving license. She instructed the A1 to dispose off the car so as to clear the finance. The A1 sold the car to one

Sathish Kumar of Tirupathi but he did not give that amount to the victim.

When the victim questioned the A1 for job, he proposed to do business and take away her gold chain and pledged in Muthoot finance, A1 did not return that amount. Subsequently, the victim learnt that A1 also did not pay the house rent for eight months. Then she questioned A1, all the accused threatened her that if she revealed the incident and other incident to anybody, they will defame her son in school.

i).In the month of March, 2023, the victim went to ANL parcel office, near bus stand, Tadepalligudem town, the A1 took her on his motor cycle and proceeded ahead and pushed her from the motor cycle and somebody noticed and brought her to the house. Then the victim vexed with the attitude of the accused, she gave complaint before Spandana but the A1 assured to settle the problem before the elders and managed to withdraw her petition.

The victim several times asked the A1 to give amount because she is facing economic struggles but he dodged time. On 12-06-2023 at about 8.00 p.m the victim proceeded towards Tadepalligudem Police Station, the A1 came 8 and stopped her near bike parking area and questioned her for coming to report against him and abused her in filthy language and man handled her and pushed on the road and hit her head to the road. The victim anticipated peril to her and her son in the hands of A1 to A5, the victim turned up to

Tadepalligudem Police Station and gave report. Basing on the report, the

Police registered the case in Cr.No.118/2023 under section 420, 417, 376(2)

(n), 323 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC. During the course of investigation, the Police arrested the A1 at his house at 14-06-2023 and sent him to Judicial custody.

A2 to A5 were enlarged on bail from the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra

Pradesh. After completion of investigation, the investigating officer filed the charge sheet.

3. The learned I Addl.Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-I Addl.Judicial

Magistrate of I Class, Tadepalligudem took cognizance for the offence

U/sec. 420, 417, 376(2)(n), 420, 323 and 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code assigned P.R.C.No.18/2023 and issued summons to accused. On appearance of the accused, the trial Court furnished copies of case documents to the accused as required U/s.207 of Cr.P.C.

4. After following due procedure, this case was committed to the Court of Sessions by the learned trial Judge U/s.209 Cr.P.C. proceedings. The

Hon’ble Prl.District Court assigned S.C.No.177/2025 and made over to V

Additional District Court, Eluru, for trial and disposal according to Law.

5.After receipt of record and on appearance of accused having heard the counsel for accused and learned Addl.PP, this court framed charges

U/Sec.417, 376 (2)(n), 420, 323, 506 of IPC against A1 and against A2 to

A5 for the offence punishable under section 506 r/w 34 of IPC read over and explained the charges to them in Telugu U/Sec.228 (2) Cr.P.C., for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

9

6.In support of the prosecution case, the prosecution cited as many

as 19 witnesses and examined 14 witnesses i.e., P.W.1 to P.W.14 and got

marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12 and Ex.X1 and MO1 and closed the prosecution evidence. On behalf of defence, Ex.D1 to Ex.D3 are marked.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., explained incriminating evidence to the accused.

He denied the incriminating material appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and reported no defense evidence.

8. Heard arguments on both sides.

9. Now, the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt against the

A1 for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n), 417,

420, 323 and 506 of IPC and under section 506 of r/w

34 of IPC against A2 to A5 beyond all reasonable doubt or not?

10. P O I N T ::-

It is the case of the prosecution that originally the victim is resident of Dendukuru village, Madhira mandal, Khamam District. Her marriage took place in the year 2012 with Samineni Seshu Babu of Khammam district. She along with her husband used to stay at Kondapalli village,

Krishna district. During their wedlock, she gave birth to a male child and he is a scatter. The victim used to take her son to the scatting events in various places. The A2 is the wife of A1. They have one son, who is also scatter. The A2 used to took her son to the scatting events. Accordingly, they both A2 and victim become friends. Through the A2, the A1 also become friend of the victim. Both A1 and A2 and victim’s family are become family friends. The A1 and A2 used to visit the house of victim frequently and used to stay in their house. While so, on 31-07-2021 the 10 husband of victim Seshu Babu died due to heart stroke. Subsequently, A1 and A2 lured the victim that she will educated person and promised that they will secure a job at Nallajerla Horticulture department. By believing the words of A1 and A2, the victim transferred an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- to the account of A2. Thereafter, the A1 and A2 asked her to come to

Tadepalligudem, so that she will get job soon. In the month of December, 2021 the A1 took the house in FCI colony, Tadepalligudem. Since then A1 used to visit the house of the victim frequently and also used to pickup and drop the victim’s son to the school. While so, in the month of

January, 2022 when the victim alone in the house, the A1 forcefully committed sexual intercourse with her and thereafter convinced her that he will take care of her and her son. When she reported the same to A2 to

A5 and they also assured that they will take care of her and her son.

Thereafter, the victim transferred huge amounts to the A1 and the A1 also sold her car for Rs.5,50,000/- and utilized it and he returned Rs.5 lakhs and kept with him for Rs.50,000/-. So also he take away her gold on the promise that he will start a business and make victim as a partner. The A1 pledged the gold in the name of A3 and A5. The A1 also came to the house of the victim and stayed for some time. When the victim questioned

A1 for job, he made proposal of business and take gold and pledged it.

Later, the victim came to know that A1 not paid house rents also. When the victim questioned A1, the A1 along with A2 to A5 went to her house and altercated with her. In the month of March, 2023 when the victim went to ANL parcel office, near bus stand, Tadepalligudem, the A1 allowed her motor cycle and proceeded ahead and all of sudden he pushed her on the motor cycle. Accordingly, she sustained injuries. The victim vexed with the attitude of A1 to A5 and gave complaint before “Spandana”. On the instance of A1, she withdrew the complaint. Thereafter, victim asked the

A1 for return of the amount taken by the A1 but he has not paid. While so on 12-06-2023 the victim went to the Police Station to give a report, the 11 A1 also assaulted her nearby Police Station. Later, Pw1 gave report which resulted the present case.

11.At the outset the allegations levelled against the A1 and A2 that they both lured the victim that they will provide a job to the victim and collected Rs.1, 25,000/-. The victim transferred that amount through the phonepay. The allegations levelled against A1 is that he forcefully committed sexual assault and thereafter he assured that he will take care of her and her son and subsequently he received the huge amount from the victim to circulate the same for interest but he did not return it and thereby A1 cheated her. The A2 to A5 threatened the victim with dire consequences and

A1 also assaulted her before the Police Station.

12. The case of the defence is total denial of the prosecution case and contended that A1 has no physical relationship with the victim and he has not received any amount from the victim. The A2 is not residing with A1. The

A3 is residing at Hyderabad, the A4 is native of Nellore. The A5 is also staying at Hyderabad and they are no way concerned with the offence.

13.Since it is a criminal trial, the burden lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution cited as many as 19 witnesses and examined 14 witnesses i.e., P.W.1 to P.W.14 and got marked Ex.P.1 to

Ex.P.12 and Ex.X1 and MO1.

14.Now, coming into the evidence of PW1, her evidence reveals that her son is skating player. The A1’s son also practicing skating. When she gone to the events along with her son, she has acquaintance with A1 and

A2. Accordingly her family and accused’s family become family friends. They used to visit her house and used to stay one or two days in her house and the A1’s son and her son are used to practice skating. Her husband working 12 as accountant in borewells at Kondapalli. Her husband died in the month of

July, 2021. A1 came to her house for express condolence. In that connection the A1 stated that he will arrange job in Nallajerla horticulture and instructed her to transfer 1,25,000/- to the account of A2 by phonepe and he further advised to shift her residence to Tadepalligudem from Kondapalli.

Accordingly she shifted to Tadepalligudem in the month of December, 2021.

A1 admitted her son in a school. He used to pick up and drop her son from school to house. In the month of January, 2022, before 10th, after dropping her son, she came to house and went to bath after closing the main door.

There is one side door to that portion. That door is not known to the others except who has acquaintance with that portion. After take bath she came from the attached bath room. Then A1 came from her behind and closed her mouth with his hand and attempted to commit rape. Her strength is not enough to restrain the A1 force. After the incident the A1 stated that he will take care of her and her son, he will also arrange job and asked her to stay with their family. She informed the incident to A3 to A5. A2 blocked her number that is why she has not informed. The A1 parents also assured that

A1 will look after her and her son properly and request her to stay with them.

The A1 used to took her to his house and she used to stay one or two days.

In the year 2022, the A1 stayed with her for four months as he has disputes with his wife. During that stay the A1 used to took his son to her house and keep him two days and again sent him back. The A3 asked her to undergo family planning operation as she was staying with A1. She has undergone family planning operation.

15. On close examination evidence of PW1, her evidence reveals that on the advise of A1, she shifted to Tadepalligudem. Nowhere she deposed the role of A2. As per the prosecution case, both A1 and A2 lured the victim that they will provide a job. Accordingly, the victim transferred an amount of

Rs.1,25,000/- to the account of A2. But she categorically deposed that when 13 A1 came to her house to express condolence and he stated that he will arrange job in Nallajerla Horticulture department and instructed her to transfer Rs.1,25,000/- to the account of A2 through phonepay and advised her to shift to Tadepalligudem from Kondapalli. Accordingly, she shifted to

Tadepalligudem in the month of December, 2021. Absolutely, there is no evidence against A2 that she assured the victim that she herself and A1 provide job and collected Rs.1,25,000/-.

16.The evidence of PW1 further reveals that in the month of January, 2022, before 10th, after dropping her son she came to house and went to bath after closing the main door. One side door is existing to that portion which is only known to the persons, who have acquaintance with that portion. After take bath when she came from the attached bath room, A1 came from her behind and closed her mouth with his hand and attempted to commit rape. Her strength is not enough to restrain the A1 force. Her evidence is not clear whether the A1 forcefully have sexual intercourse with her or she consented after A1 attempted to commit sexual intercourse. Her evidence further reveals that after the incident A1 stated that he will take care of her and her son. He will also arrange a job and asked her to stay with their family. She informed the incident to A3 to A5, A2 blocked her number that is why she has not informed. The A1’s parents also assured that the A1 will look after her and her son properly and request her to stay with them. The A1 used to took her to his house and she used to stay one or two days. In the year 2022, the A1 stayed with her for four months as he has disputes with his wife. During that stay the A1 also used to took his son to her house and keep him two days. The mother of A1 asked her to undergo family planning operation as she is staying with A1. Accordingly, she also undergone family planning operation. On perusal of the evidence of PW1, nowhere she deposed that A1 assured that he would marry her and by believing the said promise, she participated in sexual intercourse.

14

17.It is evident prior to PW1 came to Tadepalligudem, she has acquaintance with A1 and on the advise of A1, the PW1 shifted to

Tadepalligudem. The A1 take rented house for PW1 and from the beginning

A1 paid the house rent to the house owner. All the circumstances reveals that the A1 and PW1 are living in relationship and in that process the PW1 also undergone family planning operation. She further deposed that admittedly she has not gave any report to the Police against the alleged incident of rape in the month of January, 2022 and not discarded the A1.

She further admitted that thereafter she herself and A1 lead relationship in her house and he used to took her to his family functions. During that stay her father came to her house at Tadepalligudem. Her father gave sweets to

A1 and she informed her relationship with A1 to her father. Absolutely there is no evidence A1 made false promise that he would marry PW1 and had sexual intercourse with her. It is also pertinent to note that PW1 not informed the said relationship to the wife of A1 i.e A2. The A2 also blocked the number of PW1. Therefore, it is also culled out the relationship between the

PW1 and A1 was not accepted by the A2. The alleged sexual act of A1 in

January, 2021 was not reported to the Police till 13-06-2023 and continued relationship with A1. Therefore, the evidence of PW1 that in January 2021,

A1 forcefully committed sexual act is highly doubtful and not basis to hold that the A1 committed offence punishable under section 376(2)(n) of IPC.

18.The other allegations made by the prosecution is that the A1 collected huge money from the PW1 with a promise that he would circulate the said money for higher interest and thereby cheated her. Now, coming into the evidence of PW1, she deposed in her evidence that she received the death benefits of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight lakhs only) of her deceased husband, the A1 promised that he will circulate the said amount for interest and instructed her to transfer the amount to the accounts of 15 PW5, PW6, Ganapathi, P.Pavani, Kranthi Kumar. She transferred One lakh fifty thousand rupees to the account of Ganapathi, one lakh rupees to Pw6, one lakh rupees to P.Pavani, one lakh rupees to PW5, one lakh seventy five thousand rupees to one Kranthi kumar. She has the messages sent by the

A1 acknowledging the amounts received by her. The A1 informed that the

Ganapathi is died and he will not get any interest by giving Whatsapp messages. The A1 arranged one job in Sasi College, Tadepalligudem.

Subsequently, he vacated from the house portion of PW1. When she questioned, A1 assured that he will look after her and her son as the public commenting that the A1 left his wife staying with Pw1, he vacated her house.

Later, she came to know that the A1 not paying the house rent for eight months. Then after her enquiry the A1 paid the house rent amount. The A1 also sold away her husband’s car to one Santhosh kumar for an amount of

Rs.6,00,000/- by obtaining her signature. He utilized the same and sum of

Rs.5,00,000/- was transferred from the account of Santhosh to the account of A1. A1 transferred fifty thousand rupees to her. Thereafter, he returned

Rs.4,50,000/- to Santhosh Kumar. The A1 not gave any interest for

Rs.8,00,000/-.

19.With regarding to the financial transaction is concerned, the evidence of PW1 reveals that she received the death benefits of

Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight lakhs only) of her deceased husband. Out of which she transferred Rs.1,50,000/- to the account of Ganapathi, Rs.1 lakh to the account of PW6, Rs.1 lakh to P.Pavani, Rs.1 lakh to PW5 and Rs.1, 75,000/- to Kranthi Kumar. There is no evidence with regarding to the transfer of amounts to the accounts of Ganapthi and Kranthi Kumar. Now, the evidence of PW1 reveals that she transferred an amount of Rs.1 lakh to

PW6, Rs.1 lakh to P.Pavani and Rs.1 lakh to PW5. Though the PW1 deposed that A1 sold the car to one Santhosh Kumar for Rs.6 lakhs. Her evidence reveals that a sum of Rs.5 lakhs only transferred to the account of 16 A1 from the account of Santosh Kumar and A1 gave Rs.50,000/- to the PW1 and later returned Rs.4,50,000/- to Santosh Kumar. Therefore, no amount is pending with A1 with regarding to the car transaction. Though the PW1 deposed that Rs.8 lakhs was given to the A1 out of the death benefits of her husband. She furnished the details to an extent of Rs.6,25,000/- out of which the prosecution not collected any evidence with regarding to the transfer of

Rs.1,50,000/- to the account of Ganapathi and Rs.1,75,000/- to the Kranthi

Kumar.

20.With regarding to the remaining payments are concerned, the prosecution examined PW5 and PW6. The evidence of PW5 reveals that A1 is his friend. A1 asked one lakh rupees as hand loan. He gave it through his phone pe on 26.06.2021. He transferred the one lakh rupees on 2nd

January, 2022. He received the said one lakh rupees from the account of

Samineni Pavani I.e PW1. The A1 informed by phone that he is transferring

Rs.1,00,000/- through the account of Samineni Pavani. PW5 furnished his account details to the A1.

21.A perusal of Ex.P4, which is account copy of PW1 clearly reveals that a sum of Rs.1 lakh was transferred to one Ranjith I.e PW5. The evidence of PW5 reveals that amount was received towards repayment of hand loan given to the A1. He deposed in the cross examination that he transferred ninety thousand, eight thousand and two thousand rupees to A1.

He handed over the copy of payments to the police. The A1 also paid the interest on the said amount. The PW1 used to came along with her son to participate in the games. To his knowledge the PW1 and A1 lived together as wife and husband. He denied the suggestion that Pw1 borrowed a sum of

Rs.1 lakh from him and repaid it. The PW5 categorically deposed that A1 informed that PW1 paying amount.

17

22.So also, the evidence of PW6 reveals that he know the A1 since five years. A1 borrowed one lakh rupees from him in the year 2020 as hand loan. He gave thirty five thousand rupees cash and sixty five thousand rupees through phonepe. In the year 2021, the A1 asked his account particulars accordingly he gave his CANARA bank account ended with 177.

The A1 transferred one lakh rupees through one woman account. After transfer the A1 informed that he transferred one lakh rupees through woman account. The A1 paid in two spells i.e., fifty thousand and fifty thousand rupees on the same day i.e., on 31.12.2021. Ex.P4 reflects that transaction

dated 31.12.2021 to his account. A perusal of Ex.P4 which is account copy

of PW1, she transferred Rs.50,000/- to Canara Bank account ended with 177 and also another Rs.50,000/- to the same account in total she transferred Rs.1 lakh on 31-10-2021. From the evidence of PW6, the said amount was received towards the repayment of the loan given to A1. He also denied the suggestion that Pw1 borrowed money from him and repaid to his account. The PW6 categorically deposed that A1 confirmed that his wife paid that amount to him. He also identified the photograph of PW1 photograph shown by the accused counsel.

23.The husband of P.Pavani examined as PW7. His evidence reveals that he know A1. The A1 is used to be a tenant in the upstairs of his uncle’s house at Tadepalligudem and he was also a customer to him. A1 asked his account particulars for transfer one lakh rupees as his ATM card is not working. Accordingly he gave account particulars of his wife Pavani to the

A1. A sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was transferred to the account his wife from the account of Samineni Pavani. The A1 withdraw the said amount through his

ATM card. That transaction took place on 06.06.2022. The one lakh was transferred in two spells as fifty thousand and fifty thousand on 06.06.2022 and 07.06.2022. It was elicited from the evidence of Pw7 that Rs.50,000/- was transferred from the account of PW1 on 06-06-2022 and another sum of 18 Rs.50,000/- was transferred from PW1 on 07-06-2022. The said amount was transferred on the instance of A1. There are no financial transaction between the P.Pavani and Samineni Pavani. A sum of Rs.20,000/- was withdrawn by

A1 through ATM on 06-06-2022 as ATM limit is Rs.20,000/-. On the request of A1, he get transferred an amount of Rs.30,000/- from his wife’s account to his account and gave that cash to A1. Again on 08-06-2022 the A1 withdrawn an amount of Rs.9,500/- through ATM, Rs.5,500/- and the remaining amount of Rs.35,000/-, he get transfers from his wife’s account as

Rs.15,000/-, 20,000/- and gave it to the A1. As per his evidence, the PW1 was transferred Rs.1 lakh to the account of PW7’s wife. The PW7 gave his

ATM card to the A1. The A1 withdrawn an amount of Rs.20,000/- cash from the ATM card of PW7 on 06-06-2022. The PW7 get transfer of Rs.50,000/- from the account of his wife and gave it to the A1. He also transfers for a sum of Rs.15,000/- through his wife’s account. The A1 withdrawn the same two spells I.e Rs.9,500/- and Rs.5,500/-. Ex.X1 reflects the account statement of wife of PW7 it reveals that credit of Rs.50,000/- on 06-06-2022 and Rs.50,000/- on 08-06-2022 and withdraws of Rs.50,000/-, Rs.30,000/- and Rs.20,000/- by her husband on 08-06-2022 and 11-06-2022. Therefore, from the evidence of PW5 to PW7 coupled with Ex.X1 and Ex.P4 and Ex.P5 it is evident that PW1 was transferred Rs.1 lakh to the PW5, Rs.1 lakh to the

PW6, Rs.1 lakh to the wife of PW7 total Rs.3 lakhs on the instance of A1. He received the said amounts from PW5 to PW7.

24.The accused argued that the prosecution not placed any evidence that A1 borrowed an amount from the Pw5, Pw6 and the wife of PW7. It is evident that Pw1 and A1 lived together in the same house. It is also evident that they both lived together as wife and husband and PW1 and A1 are living in relationship. The evidence of PW5 to PW7 clearly reveals that they are close to A1 and they are lent amount to the A1 and A1 repaid the said amounts to them through the bank account of PW1. The said transactions 19 were reflected in the account of PW1 as well as the accounts of wife of

PW7. Therefore, it is evident that A1 received a sum of Rs.3 lakhs from

Pws 5, 6 and wife of PW7 and repaid through the account of PW1. By make believing the PW1 that he circulated the said amounts for higher interest and thereby cheated PW1.

25.The PW2 and PW10 are tenants in the same building in which the

PW1 stayed. Their evidence did not reveals anything about the prosecution case. The evidence of PW3 reveals that he is the house owner where Pw1 is tenant. He categorically deposed that the A1 took the house and A1 and

PW1 stayed in that house. The PW1 and A1 stayed in the house during the period from 2021 to 2023 for 19 months and later they vacated in the year 2023.

26.The evidence of PW8 reveals that she examined Pw1 and opined that she is habituated to sexual intercourse. Since the relationship between the PW1 and A1 is not dispute. The evidence of PW8 is not much helpful to the case of prosecution. Since the A1 is married person and having one son.

The evidence of PW9 medical officer who examined the A1 and gave certificate that he is capable of performing the sexual act. His evidence also not much helpful to the prosecution case.

27.The another allegations made by the prosecution that when Pw1 went to Police Station to gave report, the A1 assaulted her before Police

Station. To prove that fact the prosecution examined the PW4. His evidence reveals that on 12.06.2023, he went to the Xerox shop of LW6. While he is talking with him at about 8.00 PM, the A1 and one woman discussing before the Shivalayam near Tadepalligudem Town PS. In that discussion A1 slapped that woman and she fell on the ground. When he is shouting who are you then the A1 left that place. On enquiry the PW1 stated that she is not local and A1 brought her by make believe her that he will provide job and 20 committed rape against her. Thereafter not provided job and when she came to gave report he slapped her. On the next day Police examined him. His evidence reveals that previously he opened juice shop opposite to the police station. The place of incident is busy locality. He has not taken the PW1 to the police station. He has not observed any bleeding injuries. He admitted that he stated before Police as in Ex.D3 i.e eerjojuna Police station athenipi and athani kutumba sabyulu mida case pedamani vaste baita ame pi godavadi kotinattu anta memu vachi apinattu nato chepinadi. Though PW4 not repeated the exact words stated before the Police. His evidence reveals that he witnessed that the A1 slapped PW1 before Sivalayam I.e near Police

Station. As per the evidence of PW1, on 12-06-2023 when she went to

Police Station to gave report, the A1 came there to the parking place and beat her then she gave report to the Police.

28.The evidence of PW13 reveals that he is the then SI of Police,

Tadepalligudem Police Station. On 13-06-2023 at 11.45 am the PW1 came to the Police Station and gave Ex.P1 report. The evidence of PW1 and

PW13 is not consistent, if PW1 came to the Police Station area on 12-06- 2023 and the A1 beat her I.e slapped her, there is no explanation why she has not gave report on that day. As per her evidence, she came to the

Police Station on 12-06-2023 and A1 slapped her, then she gave report. Her evidence did not reveals that she gave report on the next day. But whereas the evidence of PW13 reveals that the PW1 gave report to the Police on 13- 06-2023 and PW14 also not obtained any medical evidence to prove the assault on PW1. Initially the evidence of PW1 is not consistent with the evidence of PW13 with regarding to the date of report. Therefore, the episode on 12-06-2023 when PW1 went to the Police Station to gave report the A1 slapped her before the Police Station is doubtful.

29.The evidence of PW11 with regarding to the recording of statement 21 of PW1. The evidence of PW12 reveals that he visited the scene of offence along with Pw14. Their evidence is formal in nature and not much helpful to the prosecution case. The evidence of Pw14 with regarding to the recording of statements of the prosecution witnesses and seizure of MO1 I.e mobile phone of A1. Though PW14 seized mobile phone of A1, he has not take steps to analyze the data. On perusal of the entire evidence on record, the prosecution not established the overtacts against the A2 I.e she lured to

PW1 that she herself and A1 arrange job at Tadepalligudem. By believing the said words, the PW1 transferred Rs.1,25,000/- to the A2 in the month of

July, 2021. A perusal of Ex.P4 bank statement, the said transaction was also not reflected, the police filed the bank statement from December, 2021. The allegations levelled against A2 to A5 that they threatened the PW1 with dire consequences. But nowhere the evidence of PW1 reveals that A2 to A5 threatened the PW1 with dire consequences. The evidence of PW1 reveals that her mother in law A3 asked her to undergo family planning operation, accordingly, she undergone family planning operation and A5 not paid rent for some time. She informed the alleged sexual assault by A1 to A2. As discussed in earlier paragraphs, nowhere the PW1 deposed that A1 to A5 threatened the PW1 with dire consequences. Therefore, the prosecution not proved the guilt of A1 to A5 for the offence punishable under section 506 of

IPC beyond all reasonable doubt.

30.A perusal of the entire evidence on record, it is evident that prior to the death of PW1’s husband, she has acquaintance with A1 and after death of her husband, on the advise of A1, she shifted her residence to

Tadepalligudem. The A1 took the rented house through the A5 and he himself paid the rent to the house owner. The PW4 not even met the house owner at any point of time. It is not the evidence of PW1 that after she shifted to Tadepalligudem, the A2 also visited her house. The evidence of

Pw1 reveals that A1 only visited her house along with his son and he also 22 stayed in her house for four months . Her evidence is also silent when the

A1 came to her house while she is bathing. Her evidence also not reveals that she resisted A1 when he made attempt to sexual intercourse. Her evidence reveals that only strengthen is not sufficient to resist. Nowhere her evidence reveals that A1 assured that he would marry her and had sexual intercourse with her. So also her evidence is not specific that A1 forcefully committed sexual intercourse against her will and consent and she has not reported the alleged sexual assault to the police and after alleged incident she continued relationship with the A1 without any kind of resistance. The

PW1 further admitted that when her father came to her house, he gave sweets to the A1. She informed her relationship with A1 to her father. The A2 also blocked her number. She admitted that she herself and A1 are lived in relationship and after A1 vacated, she started demanding the amounts and

A1 not paid the amounts taken by the A1 with a promise that he would circulate the amounts for higher interest. Though the PW1 claimed that she transferred the Rs.8 lakhs to the A1 to circulate for higher interest. Her accounts statement proved that she transferred Rs.3 lakhs on behalf of A1 and the A1 got transferred those amounts with a promise that he will circulate the same for higher interest thereby the A1 cheated the PW1.

Though it is alleged that A1 and A2 make promise that they will arrange job and get transferred an amount of Rs.1,25,000/-, thereby committed the offence punishable under section 417 of IPC. As discussed in earlier paragraphs, the evidence of PW1 did not reveals anything about the role of

A2 and her evidence reveals that A1 advised her to shift Tadepalligudem. So also the alleged transferred amount of Rs.1,25,000/- was also not proved.

There is no evidence that A2 to A5 threatened PW1 with dire consequences.

On sumup the entire evidence of prosecution, I am convinced to hold that the prosecution failed to prove guilt against the A1 for the offence punishable 417, 376(2) (n), 323, 506 of IPC and against A2 to A5 for the offence punishable under section 506 of IPC. The prosecution proved the guilt 23 against the A1 for the offence punishable under section 420 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, the A1 found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 376(2)(n), 417, 323, 506 of IPC. A2 to A5 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 506 r/w 34 of IPC.

The A1 found guilty for the offence punishable under section 420 of IPC.

This point is answered accordingly.

31.In the result, A1 is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 376(2)(n), 417, 323, 506 of IPC. Accordingly, he is acquitted under section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. The A2 to A5 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 506 r/w 34 of IPC. Accordingly, they are acquitted under section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. The A1 found guilty for the offence punishable under section 420 of IPC. He is convicted under section 235(2) of Cr.P.C. The case property MO1 Samsung mobile phone shall be confiscated to state after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced

by me in open Court, on this the 8th day of May, 2026.

Sd/-R.V.V.S.Murali Krishna

V Addl. District & Sessions Judge-cum- Special Court for trial of offences against women West Godavari, Eluru.

When accused questioned with regard to quantum of sentence, accused represented that he is doing job in HDFC bank and if he was sentenced, he will lost his job. His wife and children depended upon him and he has to look after his mother and pleaded mercy.

On considering the case facts and circumstances and representation made by the accused, I felt it is just and necessary to award sentence of imprisonment for a period of three years (3) and shall pay a compensation 24 of Rs.5 lakhs to the victim (PW1) under section 357(3) of Cr.P.C, I.D.S.I for six months for the offence punishable under section 420 of IPC to meet the ends of justice.

Accordingly, A1 is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of three years (3) and shall pay compensation of Rs.5 lakhs to the victim (PW1) under section 357(3) Cr.P.C, I.D S.I for six months for the offence punishable under section 420 of IPC.

The remand period already undergone by the accused shall be set off under section 428 of Cr.P.C. The right of appeal is intimated to the accused, the availability of the legal service authority has explained to the accused. District

Legal Services Authority, Eluru contact number 9849094346.

Dictated to the Stenographer-Gr.III, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 8th day of May, 2026.

Sd/-R.V.V.S.Murali Krishna

V Addl. District & Sessions Judge-cum-

Special Judge for trial of offences against women

West Godavari, Eluru.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

PW1- Samineni Pavani

PW2- Unikili Sathish

PW3- Thota Satyanarayana

PW4- Ammissetti Venkata Satyanarayana @ Prasad

PW5- Addu Ranjith

PW6- Pulla Lakshmi Surya Vara Prasad

PW7- Penumatsa Dinesh.

PW8- Dr. U. Keerthi, CAS, AH, Tadepalligudem 25 PW9- Dr. G. Chaitanya Kiran, CAS, AH, Tadepalligudem

PW10- Kothapalli Sulochana

PW11- Ch. Jaya Lakshmi, WSI of Police, Narsapuram

PW12- Dadala Prabhavathi, Mahila Police, Tadepalligudem Town

PW13- G.J.Prasad, SI of Police, Palakol Town PS

Pw14- S.S.V.Nagaraju, Inspector of Police, Krishna Lanka,Vijayawada

For Defence ::

None

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution::

Ex.P1/ Report given by PW1

Ex.P2/ 164 Cr.P.C statement of PW1

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

Ex.P4/ Account copy of Samineni Pavani.

Ex.P5/ Account statement of Samineni Pavani reflecting the present transaction

Ex.P6/ Wound certificate

Ex.P7/ Potency certificate

Ex.P8/161 Cr.P.C statement of PW10

Ex.P9/Scene observation report

Ex.P10/Original FIR

Ex.P11/Rough sketch

Ex.P12/Rough sketch

Ex.X1/ Bank statement of PW7’s wife Penumatsa Pavani 26

For Defence::

Ex.D1 Xerox copy of that deed

Ex.D2 Photographs belongs to PW1, A1, her son and A1’s son

Ex.D3 Relevant portion statement of PW4

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MO1- Samsung mobile phone

Sd/-R.V.V.S.Murali Krishna

V AD & SJ, Eluru

Copies to:

1. The Registrar (Judl.) High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Nelapdu, Guntur District (through C.D).

2. The District Collector, W.G., Eluru.

3. The Director of prosecution, Vijayawada.

4. The Superintendent of Police, W.G., Eluru.

5. The DLSA, West Godavari, Eluru.

6. I Addl.Civil Judge’s Court, Tadepalligudem.

27 //True copy//

V Addl. District & Sessions Judge-cum-

Special Judge for trial of offences against women

West Godavari, Eluru

1

TABULAR FORM ANNEXED TO THE JUDGMENT IN

SESSIONS CASE NO.177 of 2025

IN THE COURT OF V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE-

CUM-SPECIAL COURT FOR TRIAL OF OFFENCES AGAINST WOMEN,

WEST GODAVARI, ELURU.

UNDER RULE 318 OF THE CRIMINAL RULES OF PRACTICE.

1.Sessions Case No. and P.R.C.No::S.C.177/2025 and P.R.C.No.18 of with name of the committal court2023 of I Addl.Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-I Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tadepalligudem.

2.Name of the Police station:Crime No.118/2023 of Tadepalligudem Town Police Station,

3.Name of the Accused and:1. Surisetti Manoj Kumar S/o late Bala Ram, aged 37 yrs, D.No.7- particulars37/1, Road No.2, Satyavathi nagar, Tadepalligudem Town.

2. Surisetti Aruna Devi W/o Manoj Kumar, aged 33 yrs, D.No.7-38/1, Near Andhra Bank Chest, 11th ward,SatyavathiNagar, Tadepalligudem.

3. Surisetti Dharmavathi W/o late Bala Ram, aged 60 yrs, D.No.7- 38/1, Near Andhra Bank Chest, 11thward, Satyavathi nagar, Tadepalligudem.

4. Penubaka Madhavi W/o Srikanth Reddy, aged 34 yrs, Easteren street, Suraiahpalem village, Podalakuru mandal, Potti Sri Ramulu Nellore District.

5. Sanam Madhu Babu S/o Nageswara Rao, 68 yrs, FCI Road, No.4, Near 3rd Water Tank, Tadepalligudem Town.

4.Date of offence:12-06-2023

5.Date of complaint:13-06-2022

6.Date of apprehension:14-06-2023 2

7.Date of release on bail:20-07-2025

8.Date of committal order:15-07-2025

9.Date of commencement of trial:17-02-2026 10Date of close of Trial:04-05-2026 11Date of Sentence of Order: 08-05-2026 12Sentence:In the result, A1 is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 376(2)(n), 417, 323, 506 of IPC.

Accordingly, he is acquitted under section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. The A2 to A5 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 506 r/w 34 of

IPC. Accordingly, they are acquitted under section 235(1) of Cr.P.C.

The A1 found guilty for the offence punishable under section 420 of IPC.

He is convicted under section 235(2) of

Cr.P.C.

The case property MO1 Samsung mobile phone shall be confiscated to state after expiry of appeal time.

Accordingly, A1 is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of three years (3) and shall pay compensation of Rs.5 lakhs to the victim (PW1) under section 357(3)

Cr.P.C, I.D S.I for six months for the 3 offence punishable under section 420 of IPC 13Explanation for the delay:No avoidable Delay 14Appeals as prescribed under rule: -- 319 of Crl.Rules of Practice with regard to the diary extract submitted by the Committing Court.

Sd/-R.V.V.S.Murali Krishna

V Addl. District & Sessions Judge-cum- Special Court for trial of offences against women West Godavari, Eluru.

4

IN THE COURT OF V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE –

CUM SPECIAL COURT FOR TRIAL OF OFFENCES AGAINST WOMEN,

WEST GODAVARI AT ELURU.

Present: Sri R.V.V.S.Murali Krishna, V Addl. District Judge-cum – Spl. Court for trial of offences against women, Eluru.

Friday, this the 8th day of May, 2026

SESSIONS CASE No.177 of 2025

1.Name of the Accused and :1. Surisetti Manoj Kumar S/o late bala Particulars Ram, aged 37 yrs, D.No.7-37/1, Road No.2,Satyavathinagar, Tadepalligudem Town.

2. Surisetti Aruna Devi W/o Manoj Kumar, aged 33 yrs, D.No.7-38/1, Near Andhra Bank Chest, 11thward, Satyavathi Nagar, Tadepalligudem.

3. Surisetti Dharmavathi W/o late Bala Ram, aged 60 yrs, D.No.7-38/1, Near Andhra Bank Chest, 11thward, Satyavathi nagar, Tadepalligudem.

4. Penubaka Madhavi W/o Srikanth Reddy, aged 34 yrs, Easteren street, Suraiahpalem village, Podalakuru mandal, Potti Sri Ramulu Nellore District.

5. Sanam Madhu Babu S/o Nageswara Rao, 68 yrs, FCI Road, No.4, Near 3rd Water Tank, Tadepalligudem Town.

2.Charge:Under Section 376(2)(n), 420, 417, 323, 506 r/w 34 of IPC.

3.Plea of accused:Pleaded not guilty

4.Finding of the Judge and:A1 found guilty under section 420 of IPC order Sentence

5.Theprosecutionis:Additional Public Prosecutor conducted by

6.The accused is defended by:Sri M.Yesupadam, the learned defence counsel for A1 to A5.

5

7.The case committed by:I Addl.Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-I Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tadepalligudem.

8.Date of Sentence or Order:In the result, A1 is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 376(2)(n), 417, 323, 506 of IPC. Accordingly, he is acquitted under section 235(1) of Cr.P.C.

The A2 to A5 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 506 r/w 34 of IPC. Accordingly, they are acquitted under section 235(1) of Cr.P.C.

The A1 found guilty for the offence punishable under section 420 of IPC. He is convicted under section 235(2) of Cr.P.C.

The case property MO1 Samsung mobile phone shall be confiscated to state after expiry of appeal time.

Accordingly, A1 is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of three years (3) and shall pay compensation of Rs.5 lakhs to the victim (PW1) under section 357(3) Cr.P.C, I.D S.I for six months for the offence punishable under section 420 of

IPC .

This case is coming on 04.05.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri

M.Yesupadam, learned Defence Counsel for A1 to A5 and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:- 6

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

The Inspector of Police, Tadepalligudem Police Station filed charge sheet against accused in Cr.No.118/2023 of Tadepalligudem Town Police

Station for the offence punishable Under Section 376(2)(n), 420, 417, 323, 506 r/w 34 of IPC.

2. The story of the prosecution which leads to file charge sheet against the accused in brief:

The A1 to A4 are the residents of Tadepalligudem village. A2 is the wife of A1 and A2 is mother, A4 is the elder sister and A5 is uncle of A1. The victim is native of Dendukuru village, Madhira mandal, Khamam District. In the year 2012 her marriage took place with Samineni Seshu Babu of

Khammam district. The husband of the victim working in borewell company at

Kondapalli village, Krishna District. During their wedlock, she gave birth to a male child. The victim along with her husband and son staying at Kondapalli village and used to send her son for skating at Ibrahimpatnam. She along with her son went to Delhi for skating events where she got acquaintance with A1 and A2, and they also brought their son for skating. Subsequently, they become family friends. On every Sunday, the A1 and A2 used to visit the house of the victim. While so, on 31-07-2021 the husband of the victim died due to heart stroke. Since then A1 and his family members used to come to her house frequently. During that time, the A1 and A2 lured the victim that she is well educated person and promised her to secure job in Horticulture,

Nallajerla. By believing the said words, she got transferred an amount of

Rs.1,25,000/- to the account of A2 from her phonepay. The victim several times asked the A1 and A2 for job and they asked her to come to

Tadepalligudem where she will get the job soon. In the month of December, 2021 the A1 took a house in FCI colony, road No.5 and kept the victim and 7 her son in the house. The A1 used to take care of the victim and her son. In the month of January, 2022 after dropping her son, when the victim returned to home and take bath. Then A1 came behind her, closed her mouth and committed rape against her without her will and consent. Due to which she struggled mentally and she revealed the same to the A3 to A5 and they assured that they will take care of her and her son. The A1 also assured that he will arrange job to her and look after welfare of her son. A1 promised the victim to circulate her husband’s death benefits for interest, so that she can live on interest amount with her son and made believe her. On believing the words of A1, she transferred amount to the account of A1’s friends through phonepay. The A1 also used to run the victim’s husband car bearing No.AP 39 CD 4152 as she does not have driving license. She instructed the A1 to dispose off the car so as to clear the finance. The A1 sold the car to one

Sathish Kumar of Tirupathi but he did not give that amount to the victim.

When the victim questioned the A1 for job, he proposed to do business and take away her gold chain and pledged in Muthoot finance, A1 did not return that amount. Subsequently, the victim learnt that A1 also did not pay the house rent for eight months. Then she questioned A1, all the accused threatened her that if she revealed the incident and other incident to anybody, they will defame her son in school.

i).In the month of March, 2023, the victim went to ANL parcel office, near bus stand, Tadepalligudem town, the A1 took her on his motor cycle and proceeded ahead and pushed her from the motor cycle and somebody noticed and brought her to the house. Then the victim vexed with the attitude of the accused, she gave complaint before Spandana but the A1 assured to settle the problem before the elders and managed to withdraw her petition.

The victim several times asked the A1 to give amount because she is facing economic struggles but he dodged time. On 12-06-2023 at about 8.00 p.m the victim proceeded towards Tadepalligudem Police Station, the A1 came 8 and stopped her near bike parking area and questioned her for coming to report against him and abused her in filthy language and man handled her and pushed on the road and hit her head to the road. The victim anticipated peril to her and her son in the hands of A1 to A5, the victim turned up to

Tadepalligudem Police Station and gave report. Basing on the report, the

Police registered the case in Cr.No.118/2023 under section 420, 417, 376(2)

(n), 323 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC. During the course of investigation, the Police arrested the A1 at his house at 14-06-2023 and sent him to Judicial custody.

A2 to A5 were enlarged on bail from the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra

Pradesh. After completion of investigation, the investigating officer filed the charge sheet.

3. The learned I Addl.Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-I Addl.Judicial

Magistrate of I Class, Tadepalligudem took cognizance for the offence

U/sec. 420, 417, 376(2)(n), 420, 323 and 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code assigned P.R.C.No.18/2023 and issued summons to accused. On appearance of the accused, the trial Court furnished copies of case documents to the accused as required U/s.207 of Cr.P.C.

4. After following due procedure, this case was committed to the Court of Sessions by the learned trial Judge U/s.209 Cr.P.C. proceedings. The

Hon’ble Prl.District Court assigned S.C.No.177/2025 and made over to V

Additional District Court, Eluru, for trial and disposal according to Law.

5.After receipt of record and on appearance of accused having heard the counsel for accused and learned Addl.PP, this court framed charges

U/Sec.417, 376 (2)(n), 420, 323, 506 of IPC against A1 and against A2 to

A5 for the offence punishable under section 506 r/w 34 of IPC read over and explained the charges to them in Telugu U/Sec.228 (2) Cr.P.C., for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

9

6.In support of the prosecution case, the prosecution cited as many

as 19 witnesses and examined 14 witnesses i.e., P.W.1 to P.W.14 and got

marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12 and Ex.X1 and MO1 and closed the prosecution evidence. On behalf of defence, Ex.D1 to Ex.D3 are marked.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., explained incriminating evidence to the accused.

He denied the incriminating material appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and reported no defense evidence.

8. Heard arguments on both sides.

9. Now, the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt against the

A1 for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n), 417,

420, 323 and 506 of IPC and under section 506 of r/w

34 of IPC against A2 to A5 beyond all reasonable doubt or not?

10. P O I N T ::-

It is the case of the prosecution that originally the victim is resident of Dendukuru village, Madhira mandal, Khamam District. Her marriage took place in the year 2012 with Samineni Seshu Babu of Khammam district. She along with her husband used to stay at Kondapalli village,

Krishna district. During their wedlock, she gave birth to a male child and he is a scatter. The victim used to take her son to the scatting events in various places. The A2 is the wife of A1. They have one son, who is also scatter. The A2 used to took her son to the scatting events. Accordingly, they both A2 and victim become friends. Through the A2, the A1 also become friend of the victim. Both A1 and A2 and victim’s family are become family friends. The A1 and A2 used to visit the house of victim frequently and used to stay in their house. While so, on 31-07-2021 the 10 husband of victim Seshu Babu died due to heart stroke. Subsequently, A1 and A2 lured the victim that she will educated person and promised that they will secure a job at Nallajerla Horticulture department. By believing the words of A1 and A2, the victim transferred an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- to the account of A2. Thereafter, the A1 and A2 asked her to come to

Tadepalligudem, so that she will get job soon. In the month of December, 2021 the A1 took the house in FCI colony, Tadepalligudem. Since then A1 used to visit the house of the victim frequently and also used to pickup and drop the victim’s son to the school. While so, in the month of

January, 2022 when the victim alone in the house, the A1 forcefully committed sexual intercourse with her and thereafter convinced her that he will take care of her and her son. When she reported the same to A2 to

A5 and they also assured that they will take care of her and her son.

Thereafter, the victim transferred huge amounts to the A1 and the A1 also sold her car for Rs.5,50,000/- and utilized it and he returned Rs.5 lakhs and kept with him for Rs.50,000/-. So also he take away her gold on the promise that he will start a business and make victim as a partner. The A1 pledged the gold in the name of A3 and A5. The A1 also came to the house of the victim and stayed for some time. When the victim questioned

A1 for job, he made proposal of business and take gold and pledged it.

Later, the victim came to know that A1 not paid house rents also. When the victim questioned A1, the A1 along with A2 to A5 went to her house and altercated with her. In the month of March, 2023 when the victim went to ANL parcel office, near bus stand, Tadepalligudem, the A1 allowed her motor cycle and proceeded ahead and all of sudden he pushed her on the motor cycle. Accordingly, she sustained injuries. The victim vexed with the attitude of A1 to A5 and gave complaint before “Spandana”. On the instance of A1, she withdrew the complaint. Thereafter, victim asked the

A1 for return of the amount taken by the A1 but he has not paid. While so on 12-06-2023 the victim went to the Police Station to give a report, the 11 A1 also assaulted her nearby Police Station. Later, Pw1 gave report which resulted the present case.

11.At the outset the allegations levelled against the A1 and A2 that they both lured the victim that they will provide a job to the victim and collected Rs.1, 25,000/-. The victim transferred that amount through the phonepay. The allegations levelled against A1 is that he forcefully committed sexual assault and thereafter he assured that he will take care of her and her son and subsequently he received the huge amount from the victim to circulate the same for interest but he did not return it and thereby A1 cheated her. The A2 to A5 threatened the victim with dire consequences and

A1 also assaulted her before the Police Station.

12. The case of the defence is total denial of the prosecution case and contended that A1 has no physical relationship with the victim and he has not received any amount from the victim. The A2 is not residing with A1. The

A3 is residing at Hyderabad, the A4 is native of Nellore. The A5 is also staying at Hyderabad and they are no way concerned with the offence.

13.Since it is a criminal trial, the burden lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution cited as many as 19 witnesses and examined 14 witnesses i.e., P.W.1 to P.W.14 and got marked Ex.P.1 to

Ex.P.12 and Ex.X1 and MO1.

14.Now, coming into the evidence of PW1, her evidence reveals that her son is skating player. The A1’s son also practicing skating. When she gone to the events along with her son, she has acquaintance with A1 and

A2. Accordingly her family and accused’s family become family friends. They used to visit her house and used to stay one or two days in her house and the A1’s son and her son are used to practice skating. Her husband working 12 as accountant in borewells at Kondapalli. Her husband died in the month of

July, 2021. A1 came to her house for express condolence. In that connection the A1 stated that he will arrange job in Nallajerla horticulture and instructed her to transfer 1,25,000/- to the account of A2 by phonepe and he further advised to shift her residence to Tadepalligudem from Kondapalli.

Accordingly she shifted to Tadepalligudem in the month of December, 2021.

A1 admitted her son in a school. He used to pick up and drop her son from school to house. In the month of January, 2022, before 10th, after dropping her son, she came to house and went to bath after closing the main door.

There is one side door to that portion. That door is not known to the others except who has acquaintance with that portion. After take bath she came from the attached bath room. Then A1 came from her behind and closed her mouth with his hand and attempted to commit rape. Her strength is not enough to restrain the A1 force. After the incident the A1 stated that he will take care of her and her son, he will also arrange job and asked her to stay with their family. She informed the incident to A3 to A5. A2 blocked her number that is why she has not informed. The A1 parents also assured that

A1 will look after her and her son properly and request her to stay with them.

The A1 used to took her to his house and she used to stay one or two days.

In the year 2022, the A1 stayed with her for four months as he has disputes with his wife. During that stay the A1 used to took his son to her house and keep him two days and again sent him back. The A3 asked her to undergo family planning operation as she was staying with A1. She has undergone family planning operation.

15. On close examination evidence of PW1, her evidence reveals that on the advise of A1, she shifted to Tadepalligudem. Nowhere she deposed the role of A2. As per the prosecution case, both A1 and A2 lured the victim that they will provide a job. Accordingly, the victim transferred an amount of

Rs.1,25,000/- to the account of A2. But she categorically deposed that when 13 A1 came to her house to express condolence and he stated that he will arrange job in Nallajerla Horticulture department and instructed her to transfer Rs.1,25,000/- to the account of A2 through phonepay and advised her to shift to Tadepalligudem from Kondapalli. Accordingly, she shifted to

Tadepalligudem in the month of December, 2021. Absolutely, there is no evidence against A2 that she assured the victim that she herself and A1 provide job and collected Rs.1,25,000/-.

16.The evidence of PW1 further reveals that in the month of January, 2022, before 10th, after dropping her son she came to house and went to bath after closing the main door. One side door is existing to that portion which is only known to the persons, who have acquaintance with that portion. After take bath when she came from the attached bath room, A1 came from her behind and closed her mouth with his hand and attempted to commit rape. Her strength is not enough to restrain the A1 force. Her evidence is not clear whether the A1 forcefully have sexual intercourse with her or she consented after A1 attempted to commit sexual intercourse. Her evidence further reveals that after the incident A1 stated that he will take care of her and her son. He will also arrange a job and asked her to stay with their family. She informed the incident to A3 to A5, A2 blocked her number that is why she has not informed. The A1’s parents also assured that the A1 will look after her and her son properly and request her to stay with them. The A1 used to took her to his house and she used to stay one or two days. In the year 2022, the A1 stayed with her for four months as he has disputes with his wife. During that stay the A1 also used to took his son to her house and keep him two days. The mother of A1 asked her to undergo family planning operation as she is staying with A1. Accordingly, she also undergone family planning operation. On perusal of the evidence of PW1, nowhere she deposed that A1 assured that he would marry her and by believing the said promise, she participated in sexual intercourse.

14

17.It is evident prior to PW1 came to Tadepalligudem, she has acquaintance with A1 and on the advise of A1, the PW1 shifted to

Tadepalligudem. The A1 take rented house for PW1 and from the beginning

A1 paid the house rent to the house owner. All the circumstances reveals that the A1 and PW1 are living in relationship and in that process the PW1 also undergone family planning operation. She further deposed that admittedly she has not gave any report to the Police against the alleged incident of rape in the month of January, 2022 and not discarded the A1.

She further admitted that thereafter she herself and A1 lead relationship in her house and he used to took her to his family functions. During that stay her father came to her house at Tadepalligudem. Her father gave sweets to

A1 and she informed her relationship with A1 to her father. Absolutely there is no evidence A1 made false promise that he would marry PW1 and had sexual intercourse with her. It is also pertinent to note that PW1 not informed the said relationship to the wife of A1 i.e A2. The A2 also blocked the number of PW1. Therefore, it is also culled out the relationship between the

PW1 and A1 was not accepted by the A2. The alleged sexual act of A1 in

January, 2021 was not reported to the Police till 13-06-2023 and continued relationship with A1. Therefore, the evidence of PW1 that in January 2021,

A1 forcefully committed sexual act is highly doubtful and not basis to hold that the A1 committed offence punishable under section 376(2)(n) of IPC.

18.The other allegations made by the prosecution is that the A1 collected huge money from the PW1 with a promise that he would circulate the said money for higher interest and thereby cheated her. Now, coming into the evidence of PW1, she deposed in her evidence that she received the death benefits of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight lakhs only) of her deceased husband, the A1 promised that he will circulate the said amount for interest and instructed her to transfer the amount to the accounts of 15 PW5, PW6, Ganapathi, P.Pavani, Kranthi Kumar. She transferred One lakh fifty thousand rupees to the account of Ganapathi, one lakh rupees to Pw6, one lakh rupees to P.Pavani, one lakh rupees to PW5, one lakh seventy five thousand rupees to one Kranthi kumar. She has the messages sent by the

A1 acknowledging the amounts received by her. The A1 informed that the

Ganapathi is died and he will not get any interest by giving Whatsapp messages. The A1 arranged one job in Sasi College, Tadepalligudem.

Subsequently, he vacated from the house portion of PW1. When she questioned, A1 assured that he will look after her and her son as the public commenting that the A1 left his wife staying with Pw1, he vacated her house.

Later, she came to know that the A1 not paying the house rent for eight months. Then after her enquiry the A1 paid the house rent amount. The A1 also sold away her husband’s car to one Santhosh kumar for an amount of

Rs.6,00,000/- by obtaining her signature. He utilized the same and sum of

Rs.5,00,000/- was transferred from the account of Santhosh to the account of A1. A1 transferred fifty thousand rupees to her. Thereafter, he returned

Rs.4,50,000/- to Santhosh Kumar. The A1 not gave any interest for

Rs.8,00,000/-.

19.With regarding to the financial transaction is concerned, the evidence of PW1 reveals that she received the death benefits of

Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight lakhs only) of her deceased husband. Out of which she transferred Rs.1,50,000/- to the account of Ganapathi, Rs.1 lakh to the account of PW6, Rs.1 lakh to P.Pavani, Rs.1 lakh to PW5 and Rs.1, 75,000/- to Kranthi Kumar. There is no evidence with regarding to the transfer of amounts to the accounts of Ganapthi and Kranthi Kumar. Now, the evidence of PW1 reveals that she transferred an amount of Rs.1 lakh to

PW6, Rs.1 lakh to P.Pavani and Rs.1 lakh to PW5. Though the PW1 deposed that A1 sold the car to one Santhosh Kumar for Rs.6 lakhs. Her evidence reveals that a sum of Rs.5 lakhs only transferred to the account of 16 A1 from the account of Santosh Kumar and A1 gave Rs.50,000/- to the PW1 and later returned Rs.4,50,000/- to Santosh Kumar. Therefore, no amount is pending with A1 with regarding to the car transaction. Though the PW1 deposed that Rs.8 lakhs was given to the A1 out of the death benefits of her husband. She furnished the details to an extent of Rs.6,25,000/- out of which the prosecution not collected any evidence with regarding to the transfer of

Rs.1,50,000/- to the account of Ganapathi and Rs.1,75,000/- to the Kranthi

Kumar.

20.With regarding to the remaining payments are concerned, the prosecution examined PW5 and PW6. The evidence of PW5 reveals that A1 is his friend. A1 asked one lakh rupees as hand loan. He gave it through his phone pe on 26.06.2021. He transferred the one lakh rupees on 2nd

January, 2022. He received the said one lakh rupees from the account of

Samineni Pavani I.e PW1. The A1 informed by phone that he is transferring

Rs.1,00,000/- through the account of Samineni Pavani. PW5 furnished his account details to the A1.

21.A perusal of Ex.P4, which is account copy of PW1 clearly reveals that a sum of Rs.1 lakh was transferred to one Ranjith I.e PW5. The evidence of PW5 reveals that amount was received towards repayment of hand loan given to the A1. He deposed in the cross examination that he transferred ninety thousand, eight thousand and two thousand rupees to A1.

He handed over the copy of payments to the police. The A1 also paid the interest on the said amount. The PW1 used to came along with her son to participate in the games. To his knowledge the PW1 and A1 lived together as wife and husband. He denied the suggestion that Pw1 borrowed a sum of

Rs.1 lakh from him and repaid it. The PW5 categorically deposed that A1 informed that PW1 paying amount.

17

22.So also, the evidence of PW6 reveals that he know the A1 since five years. A1 borrowed one lakh rupees from him in the year 2020 as hand loan. He gave thirty five thousand rupees cash and sixty five thousand rupees through phonepe. In the year 2021, the A1 asked his account particulars accordingly he gave his CANARA bank account ended with 177.

The A1 transferred one lakh rupees through one woman account. After transfer the A1 informed that he transferred one lakh rupees through woman account. The A1 paid in two spells i.e., fifty thousand and fifty thousand rupees on the same day i.e., on 31.12.2021. Ex.P4 reflects that transaction

dated 31.12.2021 to his account. A perusal of Ex.P4 which is account copy

of PW1, she transferred Rs.50,000/- to Canara Bank account ended with 177 and also another Rs.50,000/- to the same account in total she transferred Rs.1 lakh on 31-10-2021. From the evidence of PW6, the said amount was received towards the repayment of the loan given to A1. He also denied the suggestion that Pw1 borrowed money from him and repaid to his account. The PW6 categorically deposed that A1 confirmed that his wife paid that amount to him. He also identified the photograph of PW1 photograph shown by the accused counsel.

23.The husband of P.Pavani examined as PW7. His evidence reveals that he know A1. The A1 is used to be a tenant in the upstairs of his uncle’s house at Tadepalligudem and he was also a customer to him. A1 asked his account particulars for transfer one lakh rupees as his ATM card is not working. Accordingly he gave account particulars of his wife Pavani to the

A1. A sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was transferred to the account his wife from the account of Samineni Pavani. The A1 withdraw the said amount through his

ATM card. That transaction took place on 06.06.2022. The one lakh was transferred in two spells as fifty thousand and fifty thousand on 06.06.2022 and 07.06.2022. It was elicited from the evidence of Pw7 that Rs.50,000/- was transferred from the account of PW1 on 06-06-2022 and another sum of 18 Rs.50,000/- was transferred from PW1 on 07-06-2022. The said amount was transferred on the instance of A1. There are no financial transaction between the P.Pavani and Samineni Pavani. A sum of Rs.20,000/- was withdrawn by

A1 through ATM on 06-06-2022 as ATM limit is Rs.20,000/-. On the request of A1, he get transferred an amount of Rs.30,000/- from his wife’s account to his account and gave that cash to A1. Again on 08-06-2022 the A1 withdrawn an amount of Rs.9,500/- through ATM, Rs.5,500/- and the remaining amount of Rs.35,000/-, he get transfers from his wife’s account as

Rs.15,000/-, 20,000/- and gave it to the A1. As per his evidence, the PW1 was transferred Rs.1 lakh to the account of PW7’s wife. The PW7 gave his

ATM card to the A1. The A1 withdrawn an amount of Rs.20,000/- cash from the ATM card of PW7 on 06-06-2022. The PW7 get transfer of Rs.50,000/- from the account of his wife and gave it to the A1. He also transfers for a sum of Rs.15,000/- through his wife’s account. The A1 withdrawn the same two spells I.e Rs.9,500/- and Rs.5,500/-. Ex.X1 reflects the account statement of wife of PW7 it reveals that credit of Rs.50,000/- on 06-06-2022 and Rs.50,000/- on 08-06-2022 and withdraws of Rs.50,000/-, Rs.30,000/- and Rs.20,000/- by her husband on 08-06-2022 and 11-06-2022. Therefore, from the evidence of PW5 to PW7 coupled with Ex.X1 and Ex.P4 and Ex.P5 it is evident that PW1 was transferred Rs.1 lakh to the PW5, Rs.1 lakh to the

PW6, Rs.1 lakh to the wife of PW7 total Rs.3 lakhs on the instance of A1. He received the said amounts from PW5 to PW7.

24.The accused argued that the prosecution not placed any evidence that A1 borrowed an amount from the Pw5, Pw6 and the wife of PW7. It is evident that Pw1 and A1 lived together in the same house. It is also evident that they both lived together as wife and husband and PW1 and A1 are living in relationship. The evidence of PW5 to PW7 clearly reveals that they are close to A1 and they are lent amount to the A1 and A1 repaid the said amounts to them through the bank account of PW1. The said transactions 19 were reflected in the account of PW1 as well as the accounts of wife of

PW7. Therefore, it is evident that A1 received a sum of Rs.3 lakhs from

Pws 5, 6 and wife of PW7 and repaid through the account of PW1. By make believing the PW1 that he circulated the said amounts for higher interest and thereby cheated PW1.

25.The PW2 and PW10 are tenants in the same building in which the

PW1 stayed. Their evidence did not reveals anything about the prosecution case. The evidence of PW3 reveals that he is the house owner where Pw1 is tenant. He categorically deposed that the A1 took the house and A1 and

PW1 stayed in that house. The PW1 and A1 stayed in the house during the period from 2021 to 2023 for 19 months and later they vacated in the year 2023.

26.The evidence of PW8 reveals that she examined Pw1 and opined that she is habituated to sexual intercourse. Since the relationship between the PW1 and A1 is not dispute. The evidence of PW8 is not much helpful to the case of prosecution. Since the A1 is married person and having one son.

The evidence of PW9 medical officer who examined the A1 and gave certificate that he is capable of performing the sexual act. His evidence also not much helpful to the prosecution case.

27.The another allegations made by the prosecution that when Pw1 went to Police Station to gave report, the A1 assaulted her before Police

Station. To prove that fact the prosecution examined the PW4. His evidence reveals that on 12.06.2023, he went to the Xerox shop of LW6. While he is talking with him at about 8.00 PM, the A1 and one woman discussing before the Shivalayam near Tadepalligudem Town PS. In that discussion A1 slapped that woman and she fell on the ground. When he is shouting who are you then the A1 left that place. On enquiry the PW1 stated that she is not local and A1 brought her by make believe her that he will provide job and 20 committed rape against her. Thereafter not provided job and when she came to gave report he slapped her. On the next day Police examined him. His evidence reveals that previously he opened juice shop opposite to the police station. The place of incident is busy locality. He has not taken the PW1 to the police station. He has not observed any bleeding injuries. He admitted that he stated before Police as in Ex.D3 i.e eerjojuna Police station athenipi and athani kutumba sabyulu mida case pedamani vaste baita ame pi godavadi kotinattu anta memu vachi apinattu nato chepinadi. Though PW4 not repeated the exact words stated before the Police. His evidence reveals that he witnessed that the A1 slapped PW1 before Sivalayam I.e near Police

Station. As per the evidence of PW1, on 12-06-2023 when she went to

Police Station to gave report, the A1 came there to the parking place and beat her then she gave report to the Police.

28.The evidence of PW13 reveals that he is the then SI of Police,

Tadepalligudem Police Station. On 13-06-2023 at 11.45 am the PW1 came to the Police Station and gave Ex.P1 report. The evidence of PW1 and

PW13 is not consistent, if PW1 came to the Police Station area on 12-06- 2023 and the A1 beat her I.e slapped her, there is no explanation why she has not gave report on that day. As per her evidence, she came to the

Police Station on 12-06-2023 and A1 slapped her, then she gave report. Her evidence did not reveals that she gave report on the next day. But whereas the evidence of PW13 reveals that the PW1 gave report to the Police on 13- 06-2023 and PW14 also not obtained any medical evidence to prove the assault on PW1. Initially the evidence of PW1 is not consistent with the evidence of PW13 with regarding to the date of report. Therefore, the episode on 12-06-2023 when PW1 went to the Police Station to gave report the A1 slapped her before the Police Station is doubtful.

29.The evidence of PW11 with regarding to the recording of statement 21 of PW1. The evidence of PW12 reveals that he visited the scene of offence along with Pw14. Their evidence is formal in nature and not much helpful to the prosecution case. The evidence of Pw14 with regarding to the recording of statements of the prosecution witnesses and seizure of MO1 I.e mobile phone of A1. Though PW14 seized mobile phone of A1, he has not take steps to analyze the data. On perusal of the entire evidence on record, the prosecution not established the overtacts against the A2 I.e she lured to

PW1 that she herself and A1 arrange job at Tadepalligudem. By believing the said words, the PW1 transferred Rs.1,25,000/- to the A2 in the month of

July, 2021. A perusal of Ex.P4 bank statement, the said transaction was also not reflected, the police filed the bank statement from December, 2021. The allegations levelled against A2 to A5 that they threatened the PW1 with dire consequences. But nowhere the evidence of PW1 reveals that A2 to A5 threatened the PW1 with dire consequences. The evidence of PW1 reveals that her mother in law A3 asked her to undergo family planning operation, accordingly, she undergone family planning operation and A5 not paid rent for some time. She informed the alleged sexual assault by A1 to A2. As discussed in earlier paragraphs, nowhere the PW1 deposed that A1 to A5 threatened the PW1 with dire consequences. Therefore, the prosecution not proved the guilt of A1 to A5 for the offence punishable under section 506 of

IPC beyond all reasonable doubt.

30.A perusal of the entire evidence on record, it is evident that prior to the death of PW1’s husband, she has acquaintance with A1 and after death of her husband, on the advise of A1, she shifted her residence to

Tadepalligudem. The A1 took the rented house through the A5 and he himself paid the rent to the house owner. The PW4 not even met the house owner at any point of time. It is not the evidence of PW1 that after she shifted to Tadepalligudem, the A2 also visited her house. The evidence of

Pw1 reveals that A1 only visited her house along with his son and he also 22 stayed in her house for four months . Her evidence is also silent when the

A1 came to her house while she is bathing. Her evidence also not reveals that she resisted A1 when he made attempt to sexual intercourse. Her evidence reveals that only strengthen is not sufficient to resist. Nowhere her evidence reveals that A1 assured that he would marry her and had sexual intercourse with her. So also her evidence is not specific that A1 forcefully committed sexual intercourse against her will and consent and she has not reported the alleged sexual assault to the police and after alleged incident she continued relationship with the A1 without any kind of resistance. The

PW1 further admitted that when her father came to her house, he gave sweets to the A1. She informed her relationship with A1 to her father. The A2 also blocked her number. She admitted that she herself and A1 are lived in relationship and after A1 vacated, she started demanding the amounts and

A1 not paid the amounts taken by the A1 with a promise that he would circulate the amounts for higher interest. Though the PW1 claimed that she transferred the Rs.8 lakhs to the A1 to circulate for higher interest. Her accounts statement proved that she transferred Rs.3 lakhs on behalf of A1 and the A1 got transferred those amounts with a promise that he will circulate the same for higher interest thereby the A1 cheated the PW1.

Though it is alleged that A1 and A2 make promise that they will arrange job and get transferred an amount of Rs.1,25,000/-, thereby committed the offence punishable under section 417 of IPC. As discussed in earlier paragraphs, the evidence of PW1 did not reveals anything about the role of

A2 and her evidence reveals that A1 advised her to shift Tadepalligudem. So also the alleged transferred amount of Rs.1,25,000/- was also not proved.

There is no evidence that A2 to A5 threatened PW1 with dire consequences.

On sumup the entire evidence of prosecution, I am convinced to hold that the prosecution failed to prove guilt against the A1 for the offence punishable 417, 376(2) (n), 323, 506 of IPC and against A2 to A5 for the offence punishable under section 506 of IPC. The prosecution proved the guilt 23 against the A1 for the offence punishable under section 420 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, the A1 found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 376(2)(n), 417, 323, 506 of IPC. A2 to A5 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 506 r/w 34 of IPC.

The A1 found guilty for the offence punishable under section 420 of IPC.

This point is answered accordingly.

31.In the result, A1 is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 376(2)(n), 417, 323, 506 of IPC. Accordingly, he is acquitted under section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. The A2 to A5 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 506 r/w 34 of IPC. Accordingly, they are acquitted under section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. The A1 found guilty for the offence punishable under section 420 of IPC. He is convicted under section 235(2) of Cr.P.C. The case property MO1 Samsung mobile phone shall be confiscated to state after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced

by me in open Court, on this the 8th day of May, 2026.

Sd/-R.V.V.S.Murali Krishna

V Addl. District & Sessions Judge-cum- Special Court for trial of offences against women West Godavari, Eluru.

When accused questioned with regard to quantum of sentence, accused represented that he is doing job in HDFC bank and if he was sentenced, he will lost his job. His wife and children depended upon him and he has to look after his mother and pleaded mercy.

On considering the case facts and circumstances and representation made by the accused, I felt it is just and necessary to award sentence of imprisonment for a period of three years (3) and shall pay a compensation 24 of Rs.5 lakhs to the victim (PW1) under section 357(3) of Cr.P.C, I.D.S.I for six months for the offence punishable under section 420 of IPC to meet the ends of justice.

Accordingly, A1 is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of three years (3) and shall pay compensation of Rs.5 lakhs to the victim (PW1) under section 357(3) Cr.P.C, I.D S.I for six months for the offence punishable under section 420 of IPC.

The remand period already undergone by the accused shall be set off under section 428 of Cr.P.C. The right of appeal is intimated to the accused, the availability of the legal service authority has explained to the accused. District

Legal Services Authority, Eluru contact number 9849094346.

Dictated to the Stenographer-Gr.III, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 8th day of May, 2026.

Sd/-R.V.V.S.Murali Krishna

V Addl. District & Sessions Judge-cum-

Special Judge for trial of offences against women

West Godavari, Eluru.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

PW1- Samineni Pavani

PW2- Unikili Sathish

PW3- Thota Satyanarayana

PW4- Ammissetti Venkata Satyanarayana @ Prasad

PW5- Addu Ranjith

PW6- Pulla Lakshmi Surya Vara Prasad

PW7- Penumatsa Dinesh.

PW8- Dr. U. Keerthi, CAS, AH, Tadepalligudem 25 PW9- Dr. G. Chaitanya Kiran, CAS, AH, Tadepalligudem

PW10- Kothapalli Sulochana

PW11- Ch. Jaya Lakshmi, WSI of Police, Narsapuram

PW12- Dadala Prabhavathi, Mahila Police, Tadepalligudem Town

PW13- G.J.Prasad, SI of Police, Palakol Town PS

Pw14- S.S.V.Nagaraju, Inspector of Police, Krishna Lanka,Vijayawada

For Defence ::

None

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution::

Ex.P1/ Report given by PW1

Ex.P2/ 164 Cr.P.C statement of PW1

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

Ex.P4/ Account copy of Samineni Pavani.

Ex.P5/ Account statement of Samineni Pavani reflecting the present transaction

Ex.P6/ Wound certificate

Ex.P7/ Potency certificate

Ex.P8/161 Cr.P.C statement of PW10

Ex.P9/Scene observation report

Ex.P10/Original FIR

Ex.P11/Rough sketch

Ex.P12/Rough sketch

Ex.X1/ Bank statement of PW7’s wife Penumatsa Pavani 26

For Defence::

Ex.D1 Xerox copy of that deed

Ex.D2 Photographs belongs to PW1, A1, her son and A1’s son

Ex.D3 Relevant portion statement of PW4

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MO1- Samsung mobile phone

Sd/-R.V.V.S.Murali Krishna

V AD & SJ, Eluru

Copies to:

1. The Registrar (Judl.) High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Nelapdu, Guntur District (through C.D).

2. The District Collector, W.G., Eluru.

3. The Director of prosecution, Vijayawada.

4. The Superintendent of Police, W.G., Eluru.

5. The DLSA, West Godavari, Eluru.

6. I Addl.Civil Judge’s Court, Tadepalligudem.

27 //True copy//

V Addl. District & Sessions Judge-cum-

Special Judge for trial of offences against women

West Godavari, Eluru

1

TABULAR FORM ANNEXED TO THE JUDGMENT IN

SESSIONS CASE NO.208 of 2025

IN THE COURT OF V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE-

CUM-SPECIAL COURT FOR TRIAL OF OFFENCES AGAINST WOMEN,

WEST GODAVARI, ELURU.

UNDER RULE 318 OF THE CRIMINAL RULES OF PRACTICE.

1.Sessions Case No. and P.R.C.No::S.C.208/2025 and P.R.C.No.25 of 2025 with name of the committal courtof Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Chintalapudi

2.Name of the Police station:Crime No.79/2025 of Chintalapudi Police Station.

3.Name of the Accused and:1. NarapamNarayanaS/o Abraham, 38 yrs, Yerraguntapalli particularsvillage, Chintalapudi mandal.

2. Narapam Tirupathi Rao S/o Pentayya, 33 yrs, Yerraguntapalli village, Chintalapudi mandal.

3. NarapamAbrahamS/o Narayana, aged 55 yrs, Yerraguntapallivillage, Chintalapudi mandal.

4. NarapamJayammaW/o Abraham, 50 yrs, Yerraguntapalli village, Chintalapudi mandal.

5. NarapamLidiyeswariW/o Narayana,28yrs, Yerraguntapallivillage, Chintalapudi mandal.

6. Tananki Ramadevi W/o Srinu, aged 38 yrs, Marlapalem village, Chatrai mandal.

4.Date of offence:18-03-2025

5.Date of complaint:19-03-2025

6.Date of apprehension: Under section 35(3) of B.N.S.S.

7.Date of release on bail: -- 2

8.Date of committal order:20-11-2025

9.Date of commencement of trial: 28-04-2026 10Date of close of Trial:06-05-2026 11Date of Sentence of Order: 11-05-2026 12Sentence:In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 75(2), 329(4), 118 (1) and 115(2) of B.N.S. Accordingly, they are acquitted under section 258 (1) of B.N.S.S. A3 to A6 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 118 (1) and 115 (2) r/w 3(5) of B.N.S. Accordingly, they are acquitted under section 258(1) of B.N.S.S. 13Explanation for the delay:No avoidable Delay 14Appeals as prescribed under rule: -- 319 of Crl.Rules of Practice with regard to the diary extract submitted by the Committing Court.

SD/-R.V.V.S.Murali Krishna

V Addl. District & Sessions Judge-cum- Special Court for trial of offences against women West Godavari, Eluru.

3

IN THE COURT OF V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE –

CUM SPECIAL COURT FOR TRIAL OF OFFENCES AGAINST WOMEN,

WEST GODAVARI AT ELURU.

Present: Sri R.V.V.S.Murali Krishna, V Addl. District Judge-cum – Spl. Judge for trial of offences against women, West Godavari, Eluru.

Monday, this the 11th day of May, 2026

SESSIONS CASE No.208 of 2025

1.Name of the Accused and :1. Narapam Narayana S/o Abraham, 38 Particulars yrs,Yerraguntapallivillage, Chintalapudi mandal.

2. Narapam Tirupathi Rao S/o Pentayya, 33 yrs, Yerraguntapalli village, Chintalapudi mandal.

3. Narapam Abraham S/o Narayana, aged 55 yrs, Yerraguntapalli village, Chintalapudi mandal.

4. Narapam Jayamma W/o Abraham, 50 yrs,Yerraguntapallivillage, Chintalapudi mandal.

5. Narapam Lidiyeswari W/o Narayana, 28 yrs, Yerraguntapalli village, Chintalapudi mandal.

6. Tananki Ramadevi W/o Srinu, aged 38 yrs, Marlapalem village, Chatrai mandal.

2.Charge:U/Sec. 75(2), 329(4), 118(1), 115(2), 351(2) r/w 3(5) of B.N.S

3.Plea of accused:Pleaded not guilty

4.Finding of the Judge and:Found not guilty order Sentence

5.Theprosecutionis:Additional Public Prosecutor conducted by

6.The accused is defended by:Sri N.Y.V.Prasad, learned Defence Counsel

for accused.

7.The case committed by:Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial

Magistrate of I Class, Chintalapudi.

4

8.Date of Sentence or Order:In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 75(2), 329(4), 118 (1) and 115(2) of B.N.S. Accordingly, they are acquitted under section 258 (1) of B.N.S.S. A3 to A6 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 118 (1) and 115 (2) r/w 3(5) of B.N.S. Accordingly, they are acquitted under section 258(1) of B.N.S.S.

This case is coming on 06.05.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri

N.Y.V.Prasad, learned Defence Counsel for accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Chintalapudi Police Station filed charge sheet against accused in Cr.No.79/2025 of Chintalapudi Police Station for the offence punishable U/Sec.75(2), 329(4), 118(1), 115(2), 351(2) r/w 3(5) of

B.N.S.

2. The story of the prosecution which leads to file charge sheet against the accused in brief:

The defacto complainant is resident of Yerraguntapalli village,

Chintalapudi mandal. The LW2-Galanki Vanitha is his daughter and they both are residing in the same house. The defacto complainant has one son and three daughters. His son and wife died in a road accident. He performed the marriages of his two daughters. The defacto complainant is staying with his third daughter. The A1 to A6 are residents of Yerraguntapalli village,

Chintalapudi mandal and they are interrelated with each other. There are house site dispute between the accused’s family and defacto complainant’s family. Some days ago, the A2’s son brought one Muslim woman and kept 5 her in their house and he was in living relationship with that Muslim woman.

Later, the A2 sent the Muslim woman out from their house. Then she approached the defacto complainant herein and requested him to give shelter in his house by assuring that she will attend house hold works. On her request, the defacto complainant gave shelter to that Muslim woman in his house. Since then the accused developed grudge against the defacto complainant and harassing the defacto complainant and his daughter by behaving indecently by showing their private parts and opening their pant zips. In this regard on 18-03-2025 at 6.45 p.m the defacto complainant questioned the accused about their indecent behaviour towards his daughter.

On that the accused entered into the house of defacto complainant and altercated with him and beat the defacto complainant with sticks and hands and legs and caused injuries. When the daughter of the defacto complainant tried to rescue him, the accused also beat her with sticks and hands and legs and caught hold her hair and dragged on the ground and outrage her modesty by behaving with her obscene and showing their private parts by opening their pant zips and threatened the defacto complainant and his daughter with dire consequences. Later, the defacto complainant and his daughter shifted to PHC, Yerraguntapalli and from there they were shifted to

Government Hospital, Chintalapudi for treatment. On receipt of the hospital intimation, the Police registered the case in Cr.No.79/2025 under section 75(2), 329(4), 118(1), 115(2), 351(2) r/w 3(5) of B.N.S and conducted investigation. After completion of investigation, the investigating officer filed charge sheet.

3. The learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate of

I Class, Chintalapudi took cognizance for the offence U/sec. 75(2), 329(4),

118(1), 115(2), 351(2) r/w 3(5) of B.N.S assigned P.R.C.No.25/2025 and issued summons to accused. On appearance of the accused, the trial Court 6 furnished copies of case documents to the accused as required U/s.207 of

Cr.P.C.

4. After following due procedure, this case was committed to the Court of Sessions by the learned trial Judge U/s.209 Cr.P.C. proceedings. The

Hon’ble Prl.District Court assigned this case as S.C.No.208/2025 and made

over to V Additional District Court, Eluru, for trial and disposal according to

Law.

5.After receipt of record and on appearance of accused having heard the counsel for accused and learned Addl.PP, this court framed charges

U/Sec.75(2), 329(4), 118(1), 115(2) of B.N.S against A1 and A2 and under section 329(4), 118(1) of B.N.S against A3 to A6 read over and explained to them in Telugu U/Sec.228 (2) Cr.P.C., for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.In support of the prosecution case, the prosecution cited as many

as 9 witnesses and examined 7 witnesses i.e., P.W.1 to P.W.7 and got

marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., explained incriminating evidence to the accused.

They denied the incriminating material appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and reported no defense evidence.

8. Heard the learned Additional Public prosecutor and the counsel for the accused.

9. Now, the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of

the A1 and A2 for the offence punishable

U/Sec.75(2), 329(4), 118(1), 115(2) of B.N.S and

under section 329(4), 118(1) of B.N.S against A3

to A6 beyond all reasonable doubt or not?

7

10. P O I N T ::-

It is the case of prosecution that The defacto complainant is resident of Yerraguntapalli village, Chintalapudi mandal. The LW2-Galanki Vanitha is his daughter and they both are residing in the same house. The defacto complainant has one son and three daughters. His son and wife died in a road accident. He performed the marriages of his two daughters. The defacto complainant is staying with his third daughter. The A1 to A6 are residents of

Yerraguntapalli village, Chintalapudi mandal and they are interrelated with each other. There are house site dispute between the accused’s family and defacto complainant’s family. Some days ago, the A2’s son brought one

Muslim woman and kept her in their house and he was in living relationship with that Muslim woman. Later, the A2 sent the Muslim woman out from their house. Then she approached the defacto complainant herein and requested him to give shelter in his house by assuring that she will attend house hold works. On her request, the defacto complainant gave shelter to that Muslim woman in his house. Since then the accused developed grudge against the defacto complainant and harassing the defacto complainant and his daughter by behaving indecently by showing their private parts and opening their pant zips. In this regard on 18-03-2025 at 6.45 p.m the defacto complainant questioned the accused about their indecent behaviour towards his daughter.

On that the accused entered into the house of defacto complainant and altercated with him and beat the defacto complainant with sticks and hands and legs and caused injuries. When the daughter of the defacto complainant tried to rescue him, the accused also beat her with sticks and hands and legs and caught hold her hair and dragged on the ground and outrage her modesty by behaving with her obscene and showing their private parts by opening their pant zips and threatened the defacto complainant and his daughter with dire consequences. Later, the defacto complainant and his daughter shifted to PHC, Yerraguntapalli and from there they were shifted to 8 Government Hospital, Chintalapudi for treatment. On receipt of the hospital intimation, the Police registered the case in Cr.No.79/2025 under section 75(ii), 329(4), 118(1), 115(2), 351(2) r/w 3(5) of B.N.S and conducted investigation. After completion of investigation, the investigating officer filed charge sheet.

11.The case of the accused is total denial of the prosecution case and contended that there are site disputes between the accused’s family and defacto complainant’s family, in that connection the defacto complainant gave false report. With conducting proper investigation, the investigating officer file the charge sheet. The story of the prosecution was not revealed by the prosecution witnesses. None of the prosecution witnesses deposed that the son of A2 brought one Muslim woman and A2 necked her out. The

Muslim Woman take shelter from PW1, on that grudge the accused harassed her. Except the PWs1 and 2 the prosecution not examined any eye witnesses. The evidence of Pws 1 and 2 was not corroborated with the medical evidence. The evidence of investigating officer did not reveals anything about the using of chilli powder by the accused. The evidence of prosecution witnesses with exaggerations and manipulations and the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

12.Since it is a criminal trial, the burden lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution cited as many as 9 witnesses and examined 7 witnesses and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P7. The Pws 1 and 2 are injured, PW3 is medical officer, Pws 4 and 5 are said to be eye witnesses to the incident, PW6 is Head Constable and PW7 is the investigating officer.

9

13.Now, coming into the evidence of PW1, who is the defacto complainant-cum-injured in this case. He deposed in his evidence that he is resident of Yerraguntapalli village and PW2 is his own daughter. PW4 and

PW5 are his nearest relatives. He know all the accused. The house of accused and his house is separated with one wall. The A1 to A3 are showing their private parts by opening their short zips to PW2 from their house and talking indecently with her. PW2 informed the same to him. Then he questioned A1 to A3. They stated “Nuvventra cheppedhi” and PW1 replied that this is not correct thing and left to fetch the milk from his she buffaloes.

At about 7.00 p.m he returned to his house with milk cans, by the time all the accused sprinkled the chilli powder on him. On hearing his cries, the PW2 came out from the house. Then all the accused beat her with sticks. After cleaning his eyes when he tried to enter into his house, the accused also beat him with sticks. The other neighbors shifted him and PW2 to PHC

Yerraguntapalli. From there they were shifted to the Chintalapudi hospital in an ambulance. PW2 sustained injuries on her left leg up to thighs. He sustained injuries on his left hand shoulder and on his left side of the body.

Police came to the hospital and recorded his statement which is Ex.P1.

14.The evidence of PW2 reveals that on 18.03.2025, morning at 9.00

AM, while she was coming outside from her home, A1 to A3 removed their pants and showing their bare body to her. Then immediately she informed the same to her father. Her father questioned the accused about their acts.

They replied that they will do as per their wish and aksed PW1 who is he.

On the evening, at about 6.30 PM, when her father came to house with milk cans, all the accused sprinkled chilli powder on PW1 and beating PW1 with sticks. Then she came outside from the house. When she interfered and tried to rescue PW1, all the accused attacked her and beat with sticks. She sustained injuries on her left side chest portion to thigh portion. Her father sustained injures on his left eye, chest and legs. The accused also sprinkled 10 chilli powder on her face. Then she fell unconscious. The neighbors shifted her and PW1 to the hospital, Yerraguntapalli and from there to Chintalapudi hospital. She regained consciousness at Chintalapudi hospital. The Police examined her. She took photos when the accused sprinkled chilli powder on

PW1 and beating PW1 with mobile phone. Her father was in the hospital for three days. After three days of the incident, she informed to the police about the photos but they stated that they already filed the charge sheet. She filed the CD containing one video which appears that A3 to A6 are moving with sticks but those visuals not reveals any attack. As could be seen from the evidence of PW1, his evidence did not reveals anything about the warning episode on 18-03-2025. So also his evidence did not reveals anything about the earlier disputes with regarding to the fact that A2’s son brought one

Muslim woman, the A2 necked her out, PW1 gave shelter to her on that they developed grudge. It is the case of PW1 and PW2 that the accused sprinkled chili powder on PW1 and PW2. It was suggested to PW1 that he has not stated before police that the accused sprinkled chili powder on him, for which PW1 denied the said suggestion. The learned defence counsel not confronted the said omission to the investigating officer. But nowhere the charge sheet reveals that the accused sprinkled chili powder on Pws 1 and 2. The investigating officer not seized any chill powder from the scene of offence. The PW1 further deposed in his chief examination that he was in the hospital for 15 days but the evidence of PW3 who is the medical officer reveals that PW1 accompanied by self. He examined PW1 at 10.15 PM.

The PW1 complaining the pain over the chest. The patient stated that he sustained dumb injuries. The doctor does not found any visible injuries over the PW1. The evidence of PW1 did not reveals that PW1 was treated as in patient for 15 days. The PW1 further deposed that the A1 to A3 are his brothers by courtesy. The PW1 denied that he was occupying the house site of accused, they objected him, on that he gave false report. The PW1 deposed that prior to the incident there was a wall dispute taken place. He 11 constructed the wall with the police protection. Since then there are disputes going on. On close examination of the evidence of PW2, she deposed in her chief examination that after attack she lost her consciousness from PHC, Yerraguntapalli and she regained her consciousness from Government Hospital, Chintalapudi. As per the evidence of PW3, the PW2 sustained one contusion on the left leg and he opined that the said injury is simple in nature and he issued Ex.P3 and

Ex.P4 wound certificates. The evidence of PW3, who is medical officer purely inconsistent with the oral evidence of PWs1 and 2. The evidence of

Pws 1 and 2 reveals that there was a brutal attack by the accused, the accused sprinkled chili powder on Pws 1 and 2 and the accused also beat them with sticks with hands and legs. The PW1 did not receive any visible injuries and PW2 received only one contusion. The Police not seized any material objects from the scene of offence to connect the accused with the crime. The evidence of PW1 further reveals with regarding to the incident happened in the morning on 18-03-2025, she gave report to the Police but the investigating officer denied the issuance of report by PW2. He denied that due to the civil disputes PW1 gave false report against the accused.

15.As per the prosecution case, PWs4 and 5 are eye witnesses to the incident. Now, coming into the evidence of PW4, his evidence reveals that there are boundary wall disputes between the accused and PW1. In that connection, one day, when the PW1 returning to the home with milk cans, the accused attacked the PW1 by pouring chilli powder. By that time the

PW2 is returning to house from Chintalapudi, the accused also attacked her with sticks. Somebody informed about the dispute. Then he came to the house of PW1, by the time the dispute was over. Then himself and others took the PW1 and PW2 to PHC Yerraguntapalli and from there to

Chintalapudi hospital.

12

16.As could be seen from the evidence of PW4, he is not eye witness to the incident, he came to know about alleged altercation and he came to the house of PW1, by the time the dispute had already over. Then himself and others took the PWs1 and 2 to the hospital. His evidence further reveals that he came to know that when the accused are attacking the PW1, PW2 is returning to her house from Chintalapudi. The evidence of PW2 reveals that at the time of incident, she was in the house and her father came from the house, to rescue her father she came out side then the accused attacked her. But the evidence of PW4 reveals a different version. The PW4 did not depose who informed about the alleged dispute. He has not seen the altercation. So also the PW5 deposed that his house is two houses away from PW1’s house. At about one year ago, evening, at about 6.00 PM, when he was returning from coolie work, the PW2 and A4 are altercating with each other. The A4 beat the PW2 with stick on her legs. Then he stopped the altercation. In the cross examination he deposed that he has not observed the PW1 at the place of altercation. He not seen the A1 to A3 at the altercation. The PW1 is his son by courtesy. So also the A1 to A3 also his son by courtesy. He denied that the A4 not beat PW2. Though the evidence of PW5 reveals that A4 beat the PW2. His evidence is contrary to the prosecution case. The PW2 not stated any specific overtacts, she generally deposed that all the accused attacked her. Moreover, the PW5 deposed that he has not seen the other accused as well as Pw1 at the scene of offence. Therefore his evidence is not inspires any confidence.

17.The evidence of PW6 reveals that basing on the hospital intimation, he proceeded to the Government Hospital, Chintalapudi and recorded the statement of PW1 and handed it over to the PW7. The evidence of PW7 reveals that basing on the statement given by the PW1, he registered the case in Cr.No.78/2025 U/Sec.75 (2), 329 (4), 118 (1), 115 (2), 351 (2) r/w 3 (5) of BNS under Ex.P6. On the next day at about 9.00 a.m he visited the 13 Government Hospital, Chintalpudi and examined Pws 1 and 2 and recorded their statements. He noticed the swelling injury on the right side of head of

PW1. He has not seen any injuries on PW2. Basing on the statement, he visited the scene of offence, not prepared any scene observation report and he prepared the rough sketch and examined Lws 3 to 6 and recorded their statements. In the cross examination he deposed that he has not seized any material objects. The Pws 1 and 2 not sated when the A1 to A3 shown their private parts to Pws 1 and PW2. He examined PW5 as caste elder but nobody deposed that he is a caste elders. So also he himself not stated that he is a caste elder. The PW2 not stated that she take photos and videos and

PW2 not gave any written complaint on 18-03-2025 alleging that the A1 to

A3 showed their private parts to PW2. As per the rough sketch, the scene of offence is out side of the house.

18.As could be seen from the charge sheet, the accused trespassed into the house of PW1 and attacked Pws 1 and 2. But the evidence of PW7 as well as rough sketch Ex.P 7 clearly reveals that the scene of offence is outside of the house of Pw1. Therefore, the question of trespassed into the house of Pws 1 and 2 does not arise. The prosecution failed to prove the charge against the accused for the offence punishable under section 329(4) r/w 34 of B.N.S. The evidence of Pws 1 and 2 did not reveals when the accused showed their private parts to the Pws 1 and 2. The evidence of

PW1 reveals that on 18-03-2025 morning the A1 to A3 showed their privates parts, then she informed the same to her father PW1, the PW1 questioned the accused. But the evidence of Pws 1 and 2 did not reveals the date and time when the accused showed their private parts to Pws 1 and 2. Though the PW2 deposed that on 18-03-2025 morning she gave report to the Police for the acts committed by the accused i.e they showed their private parts to

Pw2. The PW7 who is the SI of Police categorically deposed that PW2 not gave any report alleging that the A1 to A3 showed their private parts to Pw2.

14 The evidence of Pws 1 and 2 is not supported by any other independent evidence.

19.On close examination of the evidence of Pws 1 and 2, the A1 to A3 showed their private parts to PW2, the PW2 informed the same to PW1. On that PW1 questioned the A1 to A3, then the present incident happened at about 7 p.m on 18-03-2025, the accused attacked the Pws 1 and 2 by sprinkling chili powder and beat them with hands and sticks indiscriminately.

The Pw1 received multiple injuries and he was in hospital for 15 days, the

PW2 also lost her consciousness at PHC, Yerraguntapalli and regained the consciousness at Chintalapudi hospital. But the investigating officer not collected any chili powder at the scene of offence or not seized any material objects to connect the accused with the crime. So also the injuries said to have been sustained by the Pws1 and 2 and the fact that the PW1 remained in the hospital for 15 days was not corroborated with the evidence of PW3 and Exs.P3 and P4 wound certificates. The oral evidence of Pws1 and 2 was not corroborated with the evidence of PW5 that at the time of incident the Pw2 is coming from inside the house. So also the evidence of PW5 is contrary to the prosecution case. Therefore, in view of the inimical terms between the accused and prosecution witnesses and in the absence of any material objects and in view of the evidence of medical officer, the evidence of prosecution witnesses Pws 1, 2, 4 and 6 which is suffers with infirmities is not inspires any confidence to arrive just decision in this case. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt against the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec. 75(ii), 329(4), 118(1), 115(2), 351(2) r/w 3(5) of B.N.S beyond all reasonable doubt.

This point is answered accordingly.

20.In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 75(2), 329(4), 118 (1) and 115(2) of B.N.S.

15 Accordingly, they are acquitted under section 258 (1) of B.N.S.S. A3 to A6 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 118 (1) and 115 (2) r/w 3(5) of B.N.S. Accordingly, they are acquitted under section 258(1) of

B.N.S.S.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him and corrected and pronounced

by me in open Court, on this the 11th day of May, 2026.

Sd/-R.V.V.S.Murali Krishna

V Addl. District & Sessions Judge-cum- Special Court for trial of offences against women West Godavari, Eluru.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

PW1- Galanki Venkateswara Rao

PW2- Galanki Vanitha

Pw3- Dr.K.V.V. Swamy, CAS, CHC chintalapudi

PW4- Galanki Narayana.

PW5- Kommu Venkateswara Rao

PW6- B. Parasuramudu, HC, Chintalapudi PS

PW7- M. Kutumba Rao, SI of Police, Jangareddigudem Traffic PS

For Defence ::

None

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution::

Ex.P1/ Statement given by PW1

Ex.P2/ Compact disc 16 Ex.P3/ Wound certificate

Ex.P4/ Wound certificate certificate

Ex.P5/ Hospital intimation

Ex.P6/ Original FIR

Ex.P7/ Rough sketch

For Defence::

Nill

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

Nil

Sd/-R.V.V.S.Murali Krishna

V AD & SJ, Eluru

Copies to:

1. The Registrar (Judl.) High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Nelapdu, Guntur District (through C.D).

2. The District Collector, W.G., Eluru.

3. The Director of prosecution, Vijayawada.

4. The Superintendent of Police, W.G., Eluru.

5. The DLSA, West Godavari, Eluru.

6. Additional Public Prosecutor, V Addl.District and Sessions Court –cum-Special Court for trial of offences against women, W.G., Eluru.

17 //T.C.F.B.O.//

Chief Administrative Officer,

V Additional District & Sessions Court,

West Godavari, Eluru.

18

1

THE COURT OF V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE –CUM

SPECIAL COURT FOR TRIAL OF OFFENCES AGAINST WOMEN,

WEST GODAVARI AT ELURU.

Present: Sri.R.V.V.S.Murali Krishna

V Addl. District Judge-cum – Spl. Court for trial of offences against women, Eluru.

Friday, this the 8th day of May, 2026

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.164 of 2025

From what Court the appeal :Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum- isJudicial Magistrate of First Class, Eluru. No. of the case in that CourtC.C.No.684/2025 :

No. of the Criminal Appeal :Criminal Appeal No.164/2025

Name and Description of the :Dulla Sai Babu S/o Apparao, Indian, Male, aged Appellant60 yrs, R/o D.No.3-4c-5/3, C/o Chinna Janardhan, 2ndroad, Vinayaka Nagar, Chataparru Bridge, Eastreen street, Eluru. Name and description of the :

1. Gandem Raju S/o Apparao, male, aged 44 Complainant / respondent. yrs, R/o D.No.7-146, Venkatapuram Panchayt, Eluru, Eluru mandal.

….. 1st respondent/complainant

1. The State rep. By its P.P., Eluru.

….2nd respondent

The Sentence and Law and : In the result, accused is found guilty for the which it was imposed in the offence punishable u/s. 138 of Negotiable Lower Court Instruments Act, and he is convicted under Section 255 (2) of Cr.P.C. and he is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year (1) for the offence punishable under section 138 of N.I.Act. Further, the accused shall pay an 2 amount of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees six lakhs only), being the cheque amount to the complainant towards compensation under section 357(3) of Cr.P.C within two months from today, in default of payment of compensation to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.

Whether confirmed, modified: - modified- or reversed and if modified the modification Date of filing: 15-09-2025

Date of presentation: 15-09-2025

Date of notice issued by 25-09-2025 Court to appear Date of appearance: --

Date of hearing: 12-01-2026

Date of Judgment: 08.05.2026

This appeal coming on 30.04.2026 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri K.Jagadeesh Naga Kumar, the learned Advocate for the appellant/Accused and Sri K.S.Krishna Dutt, the learned counsel for

Respondent/Complainant, having perused the material on record, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-:

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

This Criminal Appeal filed by the accused in CCNo.684/2025 on the file of

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Eluru. The Respondent/complainant filed the complaint before the trial court 3 u/section 200 of Cr.P.C with a prayer to take cognizance of the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.

2. THE AVERMENTS OF THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF ARE:-

On 14-02-2021 the accused borrowed a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- from the complainant to meet his family expenses and to discharge sundry debts and executed a promissory note agreeing to repay the same with subsequent interest at the rate of 24% per annum. Thereafter, inspite of repeated demands towards discharge of part satisfaction of the promissory note debt, the accused issued a cheque bearing No.022231 dated 17-09-2023 for Rs.6,00,000/- in favour of the complainant. The complainant presented the same in his bank account at

District Co-operative Central Bank, Eluru and the same was returned due to insufficient funds in the accused account. The banker informed the same through the return memo dated 27-09-2023. Then the complainant issued a statutory registered legal notice on 12-10-2023 demanding repayment, the accused received the same and kept quiet. Then, the complainant filed the complaint within the stipulated period.

3.After enquiry, this complaint is taken on file u/s. Section 138 of the

Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881.

4.On receipt of summons, the accused appeared before the trial Court, and the copies of the complainant were furnished to him under section 207 of Cr.P.C.

The accused was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C, the accused denied the complaint averments and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In support of the complainant’s case, the complainant himself examined as

PW.1 and got marked Ex. P1 to Ex.P6 and closed his evidence.

4

6.After closure of the complainant’s evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C, he denied the incriminating evidence and reported the defence but not adduced the defence evidence. Hence, defence evidence is closed.

7.Heard the learned counsels for the complainant and the accused. Both counsels filed written arguments before the trial court.

8. Based on the material, the trial Court framed the following points for determination :

1. Whether the accused issued Ex.P2 cheque in favour of complainant

for discharging a legally enforceable debt or other liability?

2. Whether the complainant has complied with all the legal formalities

as per the provisions of Section 138 r/w 142 of Negotiable

Instruments Act?

3. Whether the complainant proved the case against the accused for the

offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act,

1981 beyond reasonable doubt?

9. After appreciating evidence on record, on hearing the arguments, the trail court found the accused guilty for the offence punishable u/s. 138 of Negotiable

Instruments Act, and he is convicted under Sec. 255 (2) of Cr.P.C. and he is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year (1) for the offence punishable under section 138 of N.I.Act. Further, the accused shall pay an amount of Rs.6,00,000/-, being the cheque amount to the complainant towards compensation under section 357(3) of Cr.P.C within two months from today, in default of payment of compensation to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.

10. Aggrieved with the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court, the accused preferred the present appeal, contending inter-alia that the conviction 5 and sentence passed by the trial court are contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. The trial court not appreciated the oral and documentary evidence in proper lines and came to an erroneous conclusion. The trial court not observed that the complaint is lack of necessary ingredients under section 138 of N.I.Act. The trial court not considered that there is no legal evidence to prove the case and erroneously convicted the accused and the complainant failed to prove his case. The trial court not seen that the complainant has no capacity to lend the amount. The trial court is wrong in believing the evidence of PW1. The trial court not appreciated the case laws in proper lines and came to erroneous conclusion. The alleged cheque was fabricated one and prays to set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court.

11.Both parties not adduced any oral or documentary evidence at the stage of appeal.

12. Heard arguments on both sides.

13.The appellant argued that the trial court has no jurisdiction to take cognizance. As could be seen from the complaint averments, the complainant presented the cheque in District Cooperative Bank, I Town Eluru, but the evidence reveals that the said bank is situated in different locality which comes under the other court jurisdiction. The trial court has no territorial jurisdiction to conduct the trial. Though the appellant raised such issue before the trial court, the trial court not considered on that aspect. There is no legally enforceable debt and the complainant not issued statutory legal notice in respect of cheque amount and the complainant issued statutory notice demanding alleged promissory note amount. Since there is no demand in respect of the cheque amount, the complaint under section 138 of N.I.Act is not maintainable and prays to set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court.

6

14.Whereas the respondent argued that the trial court considered all the aspects and convicted the accused. The complainant successfully proved his capacity to lend the amount and prays to confirm the Judgment of the trial Court.

15.In view of the submissions made by both the parties, in view of the grounds of appeal, the following points arose for consideration.

1. Whether the complainant was able to prove that he was duly

presented the Cheque issued by the accused and the Cheque was

dishonored due to insufficient funds, and the complainant issued a

statutory legal notice to the accused, that the accused not complied

the statutory notice and the complainant filed a complaint within the

statutory time as contemplated u/s.138 and 142 of NI Act?

2. Whether the accused proved that he has not issued Ex.P2 Cheque

towards the discharge of a legally enforceable debt or not ?

3. Whether there are any grounds to interfere with the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court or not?

4. To What Relief?

16.P O I N T Nos.1 and 2: -

1. Whether the complainant was able to prove that he was duly presented the Cheque issued by the accused and the Cheque was dishonored due to insufficient funds, and the complainant issued a statutory legal notice to the accused, that the accused not complied the statutory notice and the complainant filed a complaint within the statutory time as contemplated u/s.138 and 142 of NI Act?

2. Whether the accused proved that he has not issued Ex.P2 Cheque

towards the discharge of a legally enforceable debt or not ?

It is the case of the complainant that on 14-02-2021 the accused borrowed a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- from the complainant to meet his family expenses and to 7 discharge sundry debts and executed a promissory note agreeing to repay the same with subsequent interest at the rate of 24% per annum. Thereafter, inspite of repeated demands towards discharge of part satisfaction of the promissory note debt, the accused issued a cheque bearing No.022231 dated 17-09-2023 for Rs.6,00,000/- in favour of the complainant. The complainant presented the same in his bank account at District Co-operative Central Bank, Eluru and the same was returned due to insufficient funds in the accused account. The banker informed the same through the return memo dated 27-09-2023. Then the complainant issued a statutory registered legal notice on 12-10-2023 demanding repayment, the accused received the same and kept quiet. Then, the complainant filed the complaint within the stipulated period.

17.The case of the accused is total denial of the complainant’s case. The appellant contended that the trial court has no territorial jurisdiction to conduct the trial. There is no prompt service of legal notice and legal notice was served.

The complainant failed to prove the alleged promissory note and trial court not appreciated the evidence in proper in lines and came to erroneous conclusion.

18.Since the complaint is filed by the complainant alleging that the accused issued cheque towards discharge of the legal enforceable debt and the same was dishonoured due to funds insufficient in the accused’s bank account and the accused failed to comply the statutory legal notice, thereby the accused committed the offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments

Act. The initial burden on the complainant to prove that the accused issued cheque to the complainant and complainant duly presented the cheque in his bank account and the same was dishonoured due to funds insufficient in the accused’s bank account. The complainant followed the mandatory provisions under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

8

19.In order to discharge the initial burden, the complainant himself testified as

PW.1. He reiterated the complaint averments in his chief examination affidavit which goes to show that on 14-02-2021 the accused borrowed a sum of Rs.4 lakhs from the complainant and executed a demand promissory note on the even date. Thereafter, inspite of repeated demands, towards discharge of part satisfaction of promissory note debt the accused issued disputed cheque for Rs.6 lakhs on 17-10-2023. The complainant presented the said cheque in District

Cooperative Central Bank, Eluru and the same was returned on 27-09-2023 stating that funds insufficient in the accused’s account. Accordingly, the complainant issued Ex.P4 legal notice, the accused received the same under

Ex.P5 but not complied. In the cross examination it was elicited that the monthly income of the complainant is Rs.40,000/- per month and the complainant doing sweet business. The complainant has acquaintance with the accused since 10 years and the complainant not doing any money lending business. The complainant save his earnings in every month. The complainant used to kept his savings in the house. He has no document to show that he possessed Rs.4 lakhs in his house. Six months prior to the Ex.P1 transaction the accused asked the amount to the complainant, by the time amount is not available and after securing the money, he lend the amount. The complainant not obtained any security from the accused. It was suggested that one Adi Jyothi is accused own sister and at the instance of Adi Jyothi the complainant filed the complaint against the accused by obtaining the empty signed promissory note and empty signed cheque from the said Adi Jyohti. In view of the said suggestion the accused admitted his signature on Ex.P1 promissory note as well as Ex.P2 cheque. It is not the case of the accused that the signature on Ex.P2 cheque was forged. So also it is not the case of the accused that he lost the cheque from his hands. The only case of the accused is that at the instance of accused’s sister Adi Jyohti, the complainant filed the false case by obtaining empty signed cheque and empty promissory note. His suggestion is also vague, I.e who 9 received the said blank instruments whether it is the accused or his sister Adi

Jyohti. However, by way of said suggestion the accused admitted his signature on Ex.P1 promissory note and Ex.P2 cheque. In view of the said admission, the court can raise presumption under section 118.a of Negotiable Instruments Act.

which reads as follows;-

(a) of consideration —that every negotiable instrument was

made or drawn for consideration, and that every such

instrument, when it has been accepted, indorsed,

negotiated.

20.In view of the presumption engrafted under section 118.a of Negotiable

Instruments Act, the burden lies on the accused to prove that he has not received any consideration under Ex.P1 and Ex.P2, but he signed on Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 in other circumstances. But in the case on hand, the accused not raised any probable defence from the cross examination of PW1 or not adduced any positive evidence to prove that he has not received any consideration under

Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 and under which circumstances he signed on Ex.P1 and Ex.P2.

Thereby the accused failed to rebut the presumption engrafted under section 118.a of Negotiable Instruments Act. It was held in

21.Rangappa Versus Sri Mohan reported in 2010 (11) SCC 441

Wherein it was held that once the signature on the cheque

is admitted, the court presumes liability and the court shall

raise presumption under section 139 of Negotiable

Instruments Act.

22.Sec. 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act Reads:-

139. Presumption in favour of holder.— It shall be

presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder

of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to

10

in section 138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any

debt or other liability

23.In the case on hand, it is evident that the accused borrowed a sum of Rs.4 lakhs from the complainant and executed Ex.P1 promissory note and towards discharge of the part satisfaction of the promissroy note debt, the accused issued

Ex.P2 cheque. As discussed in earlier paragraphs, the accused also admitted his signature on Ex.P1 and Ex.P2. Though the accused denied issuance of

Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 and contended that the complainant obtained the Ex.P1 and

Ex.P2 through the accused’s sister and at the instance of accused’s sister, the complainant filed the false complainat. But except the suggestion the accused not placed any positive evidence or not elicited any material from the evidence of

PW1 to disprove the complainant’s case. Therefore, the accused failed to rebut the presumption engfrated under section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

Therefore, it can be safely concluded that towards discharge of the part satisfaction of the promissory note debt, the accused issued Ex.P2 cheque. The complainant presented the same in his bank DCCB, Eluru and the same was returned due to funds insufficient in the accused’s bank account. The complainant issued Ex.P4 statutory legal notice, the accused received the same but not complied. Therefore, the complainant filed the complaint.

24.The accused further contended that the complainant has no capacity to lend the amount and the complainant has white ration card holder. Therefore, the case of the accused cannot be accepted. Initially, it is evident from the evidence of PW1 that he is running sweet shop and getting considerable income. Out of his savings, he lent Rs.4 lakhs to the accused. As discussed in earlier paragraphs, the accused also admitted his signature on promissory note and failed to rebut the presumption engrafted under section 118.a of Negotiable

Instruments Act. In view of the presumption engrafted under section 118.a of

Negotiable Instruments Act, the court shall presume on receipt of consideration 11 the accused executed Ex.P1 promissory note. As discussed in earlier paragraphs, the accused not leads any positive evidence to prove that the complainant has no capacity to lend the amount.

25.The accused further argued that the trial court has no jurisdiction. As per the evidence of PW1 that he presented the Ex.P2 cheque in DCCB, R.R.Peta,

Eluru which comes under the jurisdiction of II Additional Civil Judge (Junior

Division)-cum-II Addl.Judicial Magistrate of I Class Court, Eluru, but the complainant wrongly mentioned the bank address as I Town Eluru and presented the complaint before the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)-Judicial

Magistrate of First Class Court, Eluru. Except the suggestion of PW1, he has

not choose to examine any competent person to prove the jurisdiction of the

Court. He did not choose to examine any person to establish the territorial limits of Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Eluru. In the absence of any such evidence, it cannot be said that the trial court has no jurisdiction to conduct the trial.

26.On overall consideration of evidence placed before me anlayzed and discussed in earlier paragraphs, the complainant successfully proved that the accused issued Ex.P2 cheque towards discharge of the legally enforceable debt

I.e promissory note debt. He duly presented the same in DCCB, Eluru and the same was dishonoured due to funds insufficient in the accused’s bank account.

Then the complainant issued Ex.P3 statutory legal notice within stipulated time and the accused received the same but not responded. Therefore,it can be safely concluded that the complainant proved the fact that the accused committed offence punishable u/s.138 of N.I.Act beyond all reasonable doubt. These points are answered accordingly.

12

P O I N T NO.3:-

27.A perusal of the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court, the trail court rightly appreciated the evidence and recorded the conviction. With regarding to the quantum of sentence, the appellant represented that he previously maintained from Noodles cart. Now, he is not doing any work and no financial capacity to pay Rs. 6 lakhs. The complainant also admitted when he lent the amount to the accused and accused have a business of Noodles and he paid some interest on the loan amount. Considering the said circumstances, I take lenient view in favour of the appleant, the sentence of compensation is hereby modified to the extent of Rs.1,50,000/-, I.D.SI for one month. The rest of the sentence ie imprisonment for a period of one year is holds good. This point is answered accordingly.

28. In the result, this appeal is dismissed by confirming the conviction in

C.C.684/2025 dt.20-08-2025 on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)- cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Eluru by modifying the sentence as the accused shall undergo imprisonment for a period of one year (1) and shall pay compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- (one lakh fifty thousand rupees only), I.D.S.I for one month.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by

me in open Court, on this the 8 th day of May, 2026.

SD/-R.V.V.Murali Krishna

V Addl. District & Sessions Judge-cum-

Special Court for trial of offences against Women

West Godavari, Eluru.

Copy to:

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Eluru.

13 14 //T.C.F.B.O.//

Chief Administrative Officer,

V Additional District & Sessions Court

West Godavari, Eluru.