Sri S China Babu

APAN190000272024

Presented on : 30-07-2024 Registered on : 31-07-2024 Decided on : 30-04-2026 Duration : 1 years, 9 months, 0 days

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF

OFFENCES UNDER THE PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM

SEXUAL OFFENCES [POCSO] ACT, 2012, ANANTHAPURAMU.

Present: Sri S.China Babu, Special Sessions Judge for trial of Offences under the POCSO Act, Ananthapuramu.

Wednesday, this the 29 th day of April, 2026

[POCSO] Sessions Case No.48 of 2024

[Crime No.47 of 2024 of Puttaparthi Police Station]

Name of complainant :The State Rep. by Sub Divisional Police Officer, Puttaparthi. : Crime No. and P.S.Crime No.47 of 2024 of Puttaparthi Rural PS.

: Gopennagari Sudhappa S/o Chandrayudu @ Name of accused Gangulappa, aged 38 years, D.No.2-14, Ragennagaripalli village, Amagondapalyam Panchayathi, Puttaprthi Mandal.

ChargesCharges U/Sec. 376(2)(f), 376(2)(n), 376(3) : and 506 IPC and 5(l) r/w 6 and 5(n) r/w 6 of POCSO Act.

Plea of accused:Not guilty.

Finding of Judge:Not guilty.

: In the result, accused is found not guilty for Order or sentence

//2//

POCSO Court SC.No.48 of 2024

the offences U/Sec. 376(2)(f), 376(2)(n), 376(3) and 506 IPC and 5(l) r/w 6 and 5(n) r/w 6 of POCSO Act. and accordingly, he is acquitted for the said charges under

Sec.235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds executed by the accused and their sureties shall be in force for a period of six months, as contemplated U/sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. M.O.1 to M.O.5 i.e., clothes, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Case conducted by :Mr. R. Veeranjaneyulu, I/c Special Public Prosecutor.

Accused is defended :Mr. A. Fayaz, advocate for accused. by

This case coming on 27.4.2026 for hearing before me and after hearing the counsel of both parties and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub Divisional Police Officer, Puttaparthi, filed charge sheet against accused in Crime No.47 of 2024 for the offences punishable U/Sec. 376, 506 of Indian Penal Code (IPC), Sec.5 r/w 6 of

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012.

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

(i) The victim girl, aged about 13 years, studying 8th class at

Z.P. High School, Chinnapalli, Puttaparthi by staying in Government

Scoial Welfare(SC) Hostel, Sainagar, Puttaparthi. On 20.3.2024 at about 12.30 pm the accused who is father of the victim girl went to the hostel of the victim girl and asked the warden that 10th class examinations are

//3//

POCSO Court SC.No.48 of 2024

going on and so the classes are not going well and requested her to send the victim girl to take home and then the warden entered the same into movement register and obtained the signatures of accused in it and sent the victim along with the accused. While so, on 31.3.2024 at about 9.00 pm while the mother and sister of victim slept in front of their house and the victim was sleeping inside the old house, the accused went into the house and closed the doors and locked it and removed the dress of victim and laid on her and had forcible sexual intercourse by putting his penis inside the vagina, due to which the victim felt excruciating pain and tried to scream loudly, but the accused closed her mouth and threatened her with dire consequences that if she reveal to anyone about this matter, he will kill her and then he opened the doors and went away. Due to fear the victim did not reveal the same to her mother and grand parents, but she suffered severe pain and bleeding in her vagina and the accused did same thing 9 years back while the victim was sleeping in her house and threatened not to reveal to anyone. On 1.4.2024 morning the grand father of the victim dropped the victim at hostel. On 2.4.2024 morning while all the girls were going to their schools, the victim was moody and suffering with loneliness and on that the hostel warden took her to room and asked about the reason and then the victim narrated the entire incident by crying. Later, the hostel warden informed the same to her higher officials and as per their instructions, she presented written report against the accused in Puttaparthi Rural P.S.

(ii) Basing on the complaint of Mrs. K. Kavithamma, Hostel

Warden, Mr. P. Krishna Murthy, S.I of police, Puttaparthi P.S, registered case in Cr.No.47 of 2024 for the offence U/s 376, 506 IPC and Sec.5 r/w 6 of POCSO Act. Later, Mr. A. Srinivasa Rao, i/c SDPO, Puttaparthi took up investigation forwarded the victim to medical examination, got recorded the statement of victim by WSI, visited the scene of offence, drawn rough sketch, examined the material witnesses and recorded their

//4//

POCSO Court SC.No.48 of 2024

statements, and also Sec.164 Cr.P.C statement of victim, arrested the accused on 8.4.2024, seized the apparels of victim and accused and after completing his investigation filed charge sheet.

3.This case was taken cognizance for the offences U/Sec. 376 and 506 IPC, Sec.5 r/w 6 of POCSO Act and registered it as S.C.No.48 of 2024.

4.On appearance of accused, copies of documents are supplied to him as required U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

5.Upon considering the material on record and hearing the learned Special Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for accused, charges under Sec.376(2)(f), 376(2)(n), 376(3) and 506 IPC and 5(l) r/w 6 and 5(n) r/w 6 of POCSO Act., have been framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu, to which, he abjured guilt and claimed to be tried.

6.During trial, the prosecution examined as many as 4 witnesses, out of them the victim was examined as PW.2 and got marked her signature on statement as Ex.P2 and her statement under Sec.161

Cr.P.C as Ex.P3. The Hostel Welfare Officer of Social Welfare Girls hostel, Puttaparthi was examined as PW.1 and got marked her report as

Ex.P1. The mother of the victim was examined as PW.3 and got marked her statement under Sec.161 Cr.P.C as Ex.P4. Lastly, the then S.I, of police, Puttaparthi, was examined as PW.4 and got marked Ex.P5 original

FIR; Ex.P6 rough sketch of the scene of offence; Ex.P7 scene observation report; Ex.P8 attested copy of study certificate of the victim girl; Ex.P9 arrest and seizure mahazar, excluding the confession portion therein; Ex.P10 age certificate; Ex.P11 potency certificate; Ex.P12 RFSL report; Ex.P13 164 Cr.P.C statement of the mother of victim girl; Ex.P14 164 Cr.P.C statement of victim girl; Ex.P15 final opinion; M.O.1 light green color top; M.O.2 legging pant of green color; M.O.3 dark blue color

//5//

POCSO Court SC.No.48 of 2024

full shirt shaded one; M.O.4 black stripped lungi; M.O.5 light brown color underwear.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, accused was examined U/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C with reference to the incriminating material in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Accused denied it and reported no evidence on his behalf.

8.Heard the learned I/c Special Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for accused.

9.Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution is able to establish its case against accused for the offences U/Sec. 376(2)(f), 376(2)

(n), 376(3) and 506 IPC and 5(l) r/w 6 and 5(n) r/w 6 of POCSO Act., with which, he is charged, beyond all reasonable doubt?

10.POINT:-

As per prosecution, the victim girl as 13 years at the time of commission of alleged offence upon her and filed Ex.P10/attested copy of study certificate issued by Head Master, ZPH School, Puttaparthi, mentioning the date of birth of victim as 15.6.2011. Accused did not dispute the age of victim girls. So, victim girl is below the age of 18 years and within the meaning of Sec.2(1)(d) of POCSO Act as on the date of commission of alleged offences upon her.

11.PW.1, being the Hostel Welfare Officer of Social Welfare

Girls hostel, Puttaparthi, deposed before the Court that the victim girl joined in their hostel for 8th class and on 20-3-2024, at about 12-30 P.M, the accused i.e, the father of the victim girl came to their hostel and taken away the victim with him, again on 01-4-2024, the grandfather of the victim/Gangulappa brought back the victim to their hostel, on the said date, the victim went to her school along with other students. Pw.1 further

//6//

POCSO Court SC.No.48 of 2024

deposed that on 2-4-2024, at about 07-30 A.M, when the victim girl was dull and moody, she called her to her room and talked to her and on enquiry, she told her that on 31-3-2024, her father/accused, while the she was sleeping (padukoni unte), in the house, went to her, removed her clothes, laid on her and kept his penis (marmangani) in her vagina (marmangamlo) and committed the act. Immediately, she informed the said matter to her higher authorities and on their instructions, she presented Ex.P1 complaint to Puttaparthi Rural PS on 02-4-2024.

12.In cross examination PW.1 deposed that she handed over to police the photo copy of the movement register/attendance register to show that the victim present in the hostel at morning time on 20-3-2024 and also photo copy of leave letter and copy of movement register entry relating to return of victim to the hostel. PW.1 admitted that she did not mention about the time i.e., 12-30 P.M, of 20-3-2024 relating to the accused taken away the victim and about copies of said movement register or leave letter were given to police, in Ex.P1. She further deposed that she did not enquire as to whether the victim attended to the school after she was allegedly taken away by her father till she returned on 01-4-2024. She further deposed that any written correspondence was not made by her informing about the incident to her authorities and that they also did not instruct her in writing to lodge complaint.

13.PW.1 further deposed that the victim girl stated to her that the accused used to harass her mother, herself and thereby her mother taken herself and her younger sister to Vanukodlapalli around 9 years ago and stayed there and in view of the disputes, her grandfather held a panchayathi and brought her mother to matrimonial home. She further admitted that the above said two facts were not mentioned in Ex.P1.She further admitted that she did not handover to police the attendance proof that she was on duty on 01-4-2024 and also 02-04-2024, she did not refer

//7//

POCSO Court SC.No.48 of 2024

the victim girl to hospital for treatment from her hostel, she did not observe or witness any injury or bleeding from the private part of the victim girl. PW.1 died that due to disputes between the accused and his wife, the false case was filed by influencing the victim girl and the accused never taken away the victim girl from the hostel and later her grandfather did not take her back to the hostel. She further deposed that she did nothave personal knowledge of the incident stated by the victim against her father.

14. In the background that the direct witness i.e., the victim herself deposed contradicting the prosecution case, the testimony of

PW.1 regarding Ex.P1 report confirming that the accused committed rape on victim girl, is of no weightage and it cannot be a basis for proving the prosecution version. Further, PW.1 is a hearsay witness and the evidence of hear-say witness cannot be relied upon in view of the afore discussed evidence on record.

15.PW.2, is the victim, who deposed before the Court that she does not know her date of birth, she celebrate her birthday on 31st

December. She further deposed that previously she stayed in her maternal grandmother house, she studied 8th class in Z.P.H.School,

Mittapalli, by attending from her maternal grandmother’s house in

Vanukuvaripalli and studied 9th class by staying in BC hostel, Kadiri. In 8th class she stayed in Puttaparthi BC hostel and by staying there she used to attend the school. PW.2 further deposed that nothing was happened against her, her father did not commit anything against her, she did not sate anything to PW.1 about her father she did not state anything

before judge madam also and so also to the police, she signed on the

statement without knowing its contents and hence, her signature alone marked as Ex.P2 on the statement recorded by police. Despite cross- examination of PW.2, no incriminating material was elicited against the

//8//

POCSO Court SC.No.48 of 2024

accused, except marking her Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement as Ex.P3.

16.The mother of victim girl was examined as PW.3. As per her testimony, PW.2 did not state anything against accused, she did not state anything against the accused to police, nothing was happened in this case. Despite cross-examination of PW.3, no incriminating material was elicited against the accused, except marking her Sec.161 Cr.P.C.

statement as Ex.P4.

17.Mr. R. Vasudevan, the then S.I of police, Puttaparthi Rural

P.S., was examined as PW.4, who deposed about S.I of police,

Puttaparthi RPS registering case in Cr.No.47 of 2024 U/s 376, 506 IPC and Sec.6 of POCSO Act, on the instructions of S.P., i/c DSP, Disha PS took up investigation, visiting the hostel, recording the statement of PW.1, visiting the scene of offence and drawing rough sketch, got recording the statements of material witnesses in SC hostel, seizing the apparel of the victim, obtaining study certificate of victim, subsequently, his taking up investigation, examined above siad witnesses, visiting the scene of offence, also recording Sec.164 Cr.P.C statement of PW.2, and other facts of arresting accused, seizing by apparels, receiving medical record and filing charge sheet after completion of investigation.

18.As seen from the afore mentioned evidence on record, it is shown apparently that PW.1 who is the official witness, is hear-say witness and his evidence cannot be believed as the victim herself did not state anything against the accused. Further, the evidence of Investigating

Officer is purely based on the contended statements of the victim girl and her persons and also the subsequent records secured from other officials.

The material witnesses including the victim girl, who are said to have stated before him against the accused, did not support their version and

//9//

POCSO Court SC.No.48 of 2024

the prosecution case and deposed no iota of evidence against the accused. On the other hand, their evidence goes to show that no piece of material is brought on record to say that the accused have committed any of the charged offences.

19.Undisputedly, the Investigating Officer is not the eyewitness, but solely depended upon the contended statements of the victim girls and their persons. Further, even though the victim girl was examined by the medical officer, it is opined that exact opinion about sexual intercourse cannot be given. In the absence of any corroborative evidence, the sole testimony of Investigating Officer is found too weak, which cannot be relied upon to hold that the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In these circumstances, the

Court found no reliable evidence against accused and thereby the accused are entitled for acquittal as the prosecution failed to prove their guilty. Accordingly, the point is answered against prosecution.

20. So far as entitlement for compensation is concerned, the evi- dence of PW.3, who is the victim girl, not discloses anything incriminating against accused and she never said anything against him. Further, there is no material on record to establish the entitlement of the PW.3/Victim girl for compensation. Hence, it is not a fit case for awarding compensation as laid down under Sec.357-A Cr.P.C.

21.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offences

U/Sec. 376(2)(f), 376(2)(n), 376(3) and 506 IPC and 5(l) r/w 6 and 5(n) r/w 6 of POCSO Act. and accordingly, he is acquitted for the said charges under Sec.235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds executed by the accused and their sureties shall be in force for a period of six months, as contemplated U/sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. M.O.1 to M.O.5 i.e., clothes, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Directly dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I, typed by her, corrected

//10//

POCSO Court SC.No.48 of 2024

and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 29th day of April, 2026.

Special Judge

for trial of Offences under the POCSO Act, Ananthapuramu.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined for

Prosecution: Defence:

PW.1: Mrs. K. Kavithamma/Hostel Welfare Officer- None - PW.2: Victim girl PW.3:Mother of Victim girl

PW.4: Mr. R. Vasudevan, the then SDPO, Puttaparthi.

Exhibits marked for Prosecution

Ex.P1: Report of PW.1/Hostel Welfare Officer

Ex.P2: Signature of PW.2/victim on statement

Ex.P3: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.2/victim

Ex.P4: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.3/mother of victim

Ex.P5: Original FIR

Ex.P6: Rough sketch of the scene of offence

Ex.P7: Scene observation report

Ex.P8: Attested copy of study certificate of the victim girl

Ex.P9: Arrest and seizure mahazar, excluding the confession portion therein

Ex.P10: Age certificate

Ex.P11: Potency certificate

Ex.P12: RFSL report

//11//

POCSO Court SC.No.48 of 2024

Ex.P13: 164 Cr.P.C statement of the mother of victim girl

Ex.P14: 164 Cr.P.C statement of victim girl

Ex.P15: Final opinion

Exhibits marked for Defence

-Nil-

MOs. marked for Prosecution

M.O.1: Light green color top

M.O.2: Legging pant of green color

M.O.3: Dark blue color full shirt shaded one

M.O.4: Black stripped lungi

M.O.5: Light brown color underwear

Spl. Judge.

//12//

POCSO Court SC.No.48 of 2024

TABULAR FORM TO BE ANNEXED TO A JUDGMENT AS PER RULE

98 OF THE CRIMINAL RULES OF PRACTICE

(Before the Special Judge for trial of offences under the Protection

of Children from Sexual Offences Act, (POCSO) 2012

Ananthapuramu)

[POCSO] Sessions Case No.48 of 2024

1.Name of Complainant The State Rep. by SDPO, Cr. No.Puttaparthi. Cr.No.47 of 2024 GopennagariSudhappaS/o

2.Name of the accused Chandrayudu @ Gangulappa, aged 38years,D.No.2-14, Ragennagaripallivillage, AmagondapalyamPanchayathi, Puttaprthi Mandal.

3.Date of offence31.3.2024

4.Date of complaint2.4.2024

5.Date of apprehension of 8.4.2024 Accused

6.Date of release of Accused24.7.2024

7.Date of Commencement of 9.3.2026 trial

8.Date of close of trial24.4.2026

9.Date of sentence or order29.4.2026

EXPLANATION OF THE DURATION OF THE CASE IN SESSIONS

COURT:-

This case was taken cognizance by this court on 31.7.2024 and charges were framed on 19.12.2025, trial schedule was fixed and was commenced on 9.3.2026 and closed on 24.4.2026, and on

//13//

POCSO Court SC.No.48 of 2024

27.4.2026, the accused were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C and heard arguments and judgment was pronounced on 29.4.2026.

In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offences

U/Sec. 376(2)(f), 376(2)(n), 376(3) and 506 IPC and 5(l) r/w 6 and 5(n) r/w 6 of POCSO Act. and accordingly, he is acquitted for the said charges under Sec.235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds executed by the accused and their sureties shall be in force for a period of six months, as contemplated U/sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. M.O.1 to M.O.5 i.e., clothes, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Special Sessions Judge, for trial of Offences under the POCSO Act, Ananthapuramu.

APAN190000592023

Presented on : 10-11-2023 Registered on : 18-01-2024 Decided on : 08-05-2026 Duration : 2 years, 5 months, 28 days

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF

OFFENCES UNDER THE PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM

SEXUAL OFFENCES [POCSO] ACT, 2012, ANANTHAPURAMU .

Present: Sri S.China Babu, Special Sessions Judge for trial of Offences under the POCSO Act, Ananthapuramu

Friday, this the 8 th day of May, 2026

[POCSO] Sessions Case No.6 of 2024

[Crime No.100 of 2023 of Pamidi Police Station]

Name of complainant :The State Rep. by Sub Divisional Police Officer, Guntakal. : Crime No. and P.S.Crime No.100 of 2023 of Pamidi P.S.

: Kuruba Ramanjaneyulu @ Ramanji @ Name of accused Basha, 26 years, S/o Shaik Gafoor Sab, D.No.28-2-284, Navodaya Colony, Ananthapuramu.

ChargesCharges U/Sec.354-D, 366 and 376(2)(n) : IPC, 9 PCM Act and Sec. 5(l) r/w 6 of POCSO Act.

Plea of accused:Not guilty.

Finding of Judge:Not guilty.

: In the result, accused is found not guilty for Order or sentence

//2//

POCSO Court SC.No.6 of 2024

the offences U/Sec. 354-D, 366 and 376(2)(n)

IPC, 9 PCM Act and Sec. 5(l) r/w 6 of

POCSO Act, and accordingly, he is acquitted for the said charges under235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds executed by the accused and his sureties shall be in force for a period of six months, as contemplated U/sec.437-A of

Cr.P.C.M.O.1 i.e., Honda Unicorn motorcycle bearingNo.TS-03-EX-5879 in

CPR.No.4/2024 shall be returned to accused after expiry of appeal time. M.O.2 to M.O.6 i.e., clothes shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. Accused is ordered to be released forthwith, if he is not required in any other case.

Case conducted by :Mr. R. Veeranjaneyulu, I/c Special Public Prosecutor.

Accused is defended :Mr. Y. Manthesh, advocate for accused. by

This case coming on 6.5.2026 for hearing before me and after hearing the counsel of both parties and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub Divisional Police Officer, Guntakal, filed charge sheet against accused in Crime No.100 of 2023 for the offences punishable

U/Sec. 366, 376 of Indian PenalCode (IPC) and Sec.5 and 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012.

//3//

POCSO Court SC.No.6 of 2024

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

(i) The victim girl, aged about 16 years, resident of Pamidi, studied up to 9th class and discontinued her studies and remained in the house by tailoring work and got acquainted with the accused who used to visit Junior College, situated beside their house and since then he used to follow her with deceitful words in the name of love and marriage and she believed his words, both loved each other and now and then he used to visit the house of the victim in the absence of her parents and induced her to go some where and get married for which the victim refused to go as she was minor, but he stated her that if she refused to come, he will die. While so, on 30.6.2023 at about 1.00 pm while the father of victim went to mason works, her mother was sleeping, the accused went to her house and took the victim forcibly on his motor cycle and went towards

Guntakal side and on the way after passing Venkatampalli village, at

Sunkulamma temple at about 5.00 pm, as none were present there, he married the victim girl forcibly and took her to Guntakal to a rented sheet shed and stayed there for one month and had sexual intercourse with her for several times. Later, the accused induced the victim that they will go to Kurnool as if they stay there, her parents will come there. Later, parents of the victim went to Guntakal in search of the victim and found the victim and the accused at Kasapuram road, and then he escaped from there in motor cycle and they brought the victim to Pamidi and the victim narrated the facts and then they went to Pamidi P.S and lodged complaint against the accused.

(ii) Initially, basing on the complaint of the mother of victim girl Mr. T. Mohammad Vali, A.S.I of Police, Pamidi P.S., registered girl missing case in Cr.No.100 of 2023 and later, basing on the statement of victim girl, Mr. S.K. chand Basha, S.I of police, altered the FIR for the offences U/s 366, 376 IPC and Sec.5 r/w 6 of POCSO Act. Subsequently,

Mr. U. Narasingappa, SDPO, Guntakal, took up further investigation,

//4//

POCSO Court SC.No.6 of 2024

forwarded the victim for medical examination, examined and recorded the statements of material witnesses, visited the scene of offence and drawn rough sketch, got recorded the 164 Cr.P.C statement of victim, and arrested the accused on 6.8.2023, obtained study certificate, medical records, and after completion of the investigation filed charge sheet.

3.This case was taken cognizance for the offence U/Sec. 366, 376 IPC and Sec.5(l) r/w 6 of POCSO Act against accused and registered it as S.C.No.6 of 2024.

4.On appearance of accused, copies of documents are supplied to him as required U/sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

5.Upon considering the material on record and hearing the learned Special Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for accused, charges under Sec. 354-D, 366 and 376(2)(n) IPC, 9 PCM Act and Sec.

5(l) r/w 6 of POCSO Act, have been framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, to which, he abjured guilt and claimed to be tried.

7.During trial, the prosecution examined as many as 3 witnesses, out of them the victim girl was examined as PW.2 and got marked her signature on statement as Ex.P3 and her statement under

Sec.161 Cr.P.C., marked as Ex.P4. The mother of victim girl was examined as PW.1 and her signature on report marked as Ex.P1 and her statement under Sec.161 Cr.P.C., marked as Ex.P2. Lastly, the then

SDPO, Guntakal, was examined as PW.3 and got marked Ex.P5 original

FIR; Ex.P6 rough sketch of first scene of offence; Ex.P7 altered FIR;

Ex.P8 study certificate of the victim girl; Ex.P9 arrest and seizure mahazar; Ex.P10 rough sketch of second scene of offence; Ex.P11 mahazarnama; Ex.P12 164 Cr.P.C statement of victim; Ex.P13 potency certificate; Ex.P14 police proceedings; Ex.P15 RFSL report; Ex.P16 final opinion; M.O.1 Honda Unicorn motorcycle bearing No.TS-03-EX- 5879; M.O.2 biscuit color ready made full shirt; M.O.3 sky blue color

//5//

POCSO Court SC.No.6 of 2024

jeans pant; M.O.4 Punjabi dress top of green color; M.O.5 white color chunni and M.O.6 black color pant.

8.After closure of prosecution evidence, accused was examined U/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C with reference to the incriminating material in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Accused denied it and reported no evidence on his behalf.

9.Heard the learned I/c Special Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for accused.

10.Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution is able to establish its case against accused for the Offences U/Sec. 354-D, 366 and 376(2)(n) IPC, 9 PCM Act and Sec. 5(l) r/w 6 of POCSO Act, with which, they are charged, beyond all reasonable doubt?

11.POINT:-

As per prosecution, the victim girl was 16 years at the time of commission of alleged offence upon her and filed Ex.P8/study certificate issued by Head Master, Government High School, Pamidi, mentioning the date of birth of the victim girl as 15.4.2008. Accused did not dispute the age of victim girl. So, victim girl was below the age of 18 years and child within the meaning of Sec.2 (1)(d) of POCSO Act as on the date of commission of alleged offences upon her.

12.Here, PW.2 is the victim girl, who deposed before the Court that accused did not commit anything against her, she does not know facts of the case, she did not see the accused previously, she signed on white paper at the instance of elders and hence her signature alone marked as Ex.P3 on statement. Despite cross-examination of PW.2, no incriminating material was elicited against the accused, except marking

//6//

POCSO Court SC.No.6 of 2024

her Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement as Ex.P4.

13.The mother of victim girl was examined as PW.1, but she also not testified anything against the accused. As per her testimony, the victim girl was 16 years old by the time of lodging the complaint by her and around three years ago on one day the victim girl went to their relatives house and by not knowing the same, she lodged complaint

before police, but on same day she returned to home, she does not know

contents of the complaint, but she signed therein, accused did not commit anything against her daughter/victim, she does not know facts of the case, hence her signature alone marked as Ex.P1 on report. Though the learned I/c Spl. Public Prosecutor cross-examined PW.1, no incriminating material was elicited against the accused, except marking her Sec.161

Cr.P.C. statement as Ex.P2.

14.Mr. U. Narasingappa, the then SDPO, Guntakal, was examined as PW.3, who deposed about ASI registering girl missing case in Crime No.100 of 2023 under girl missing, recording of statements of material witnesses, visiting the scene of offence and drawing rough sketch, later, the S.I of police got recorded the statement of victim by

WSI, altering FIR, forwarding the victim for medical examination, obtaining study certificate. Further, his taking up further investigation, got recording the 164 Cr.P.C statement of victim and other facts of arresting the accused, seizing motor cycle and clothes of accused and victim, receiving other medical record and filing charge sheet by completion of investigation.

16.As seen from the afore mentioned evidence on record, it is shown apparently that the evidence of the Investigating Officer is purely based on the contended statement of the victim girl and her persons and also the subsequent records secured from other officials. The material witnesses including the victim girl, who are said to have stated before

//7//

POCSO Court SC.No.6 of 2024

them against the accused, did not support their version and the prosecution case and deposed no iota of evidence against the accused.

On the other hand, their evidence goes to show that no piece of material is brought on record to say that the accused has committed any of the charged offences.

17.Undisputedly, the Investigating Officer is not the eyewitness, but solely depended upon the contended statements of the victim girl and her persons. In the absence of any corroborative evidence, the sole testimony of Investigating Officers is found too weak, which cannot be relied upon to hold that the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Further, even though the victim girl was examined by the medical officer, it is opined that semen and spermatozoa are not detected. In these circumstances, the Court found no reliable evidence against accused and thereby the accused is entitled for acquittal as the prosecution failed to prove his guilty. Accordingly, the point is answered against prosecution.

18. So far as entitlement for compensation is concerned, the evi- dence of PWs.1 and 2, who are the mother of victim girl and victim, not discloses anything incriminating against the accused and they never said anything against the accused. Further, there is no material on record to establish the entitlement of the PW.2/Victim girl for compensation. Hence, it is not a fit case for awarding compensation as laid down under

Sec.357-A Cr.P.C.

19.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offences

U/Sec. 354-D, 366 and 376(2)(n) IPC, 9 PCM Act and Sec. 5(l) r/w 6 of

POCSO Act, and accordingly, he is acquitted for the said charges under235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds executed by the accused and his sureties shall be in force for a period of six months, as contemplated

U/sec.437-A of Cr.P.C.M.O.1 i.e., Honda Unicorn motorcycle bearing

//8//

POCSO Court SC.No.6 of 2024

No.TS-03-EX-5879 in CPR.No.4/2024 shall be returned to accused after expiry of appeal time. M.O.2 to M.O.6 i.e., clothes shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. Accused is ordered to be released forthwith, if he is not required in any other case.

Directly dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I, typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 8th day of May, 2026.

Special Judge

for trial of Offences under the POCSO Act, Ananthapuramu.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined for

Prosecution: Defence:

PW.1: Mother of Victim girl - None -

PW.2: Victim girl.

PW.3: Mr. U. Narasimgappa, the then SDPO, Guntakal

Exhibits marked for Prosecution

Ex.P1: Signature of PW.1/mother of victim on report

Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.1/mother of victim

Ex.P3: Signature of PW.2/victim on statement

Ex.P4: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.2/victim

Ex.P5: Original FIR

Ex.P6: Rough sketch of forst scene of offence

Ex.P7: Altered FIR

Ex.P8: Study certificate of the victim girl

Ex.P9: Arrest and seizure mahazar

Ex.P10: Rough sketch of second scene of offence

//9//

POCSO Court SC.No.6 of 2024

Ex.P11: Mahazarnama

Ex.P12: 164 Cr.P.C statement of victim

Ex.P13: Potency certificate

Ex.P14: Police proceedings

Ex.P15: RFSL report

Ex.P16: Final opinion

Exhibits marked for Defence

-Nil-

MOs. marked for Prosecution

M.O.1: Honda Unicorn motorcycle bearing No.TS-03-EX-5879

M.O.2: Biscuit color ready made full shirt

M.O.3: Sky blue color jeans pant

M.O.4: Punjabi dress top of green color

M.O.5: White color chunni

M.O.6: Black color pant.

Spl. Judge.

//10//

POCSO Court SC.No.6 of 2024

TABULAR FORM TO BE ANNEXED TO A JUDGMENT AS PER RULE

67 OF THE CRIMINAL RULES OF PRACTICE

(Before the Special Judge for trial of offences under the Protection

of Children from Sexual Offences Act, (POCSO) 2012

Ananthapuramu )

[POCSO] Sessions Case No.6 of 2024

1.Name of Complainant The State Rep. by Sub Divisional Cr. No.Police Officer, Guntakal Cr.No.100 of 2023 Kuruba Ramanjaneyulu @ Ramanji

2.Name of the accused @ Basha, 26 years, S/o Shaik GafoorSab,D.No.28-2-284, Navodaya Colony, Ananthapuramu.

3.Date of offence3.10.2021

4.Date of complaint5.10.2021 6.8.2023

5.Date of apprehension of Accused

6.Date of release of Accused16.2.2024

7.Date of Commencement of 27.4.2026 trial

8.Date of close of trial5.5.2026

9.Date of sentence or order8.5.2026

EXPLANATION OF THE DURATION OF THE CASE IN SESSIONS

COURT:-

This case was taken cognizance on 18.1.2024 and charges were framed on 15.4.2026, trial schedule was fixed and was commenced on 27.4.2026 and closed on 5.5.2026, and on 6.5.2026, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C and heard arguments and judgment was pronounced on 8.5.2026.

//11//

POCSO Court SC.No.6 of 2024

In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offences

U/Sec. 354-D, 366 and 376(2)(n) IPC, 9 PCM Act and Sec. 5(l) r/w 6 of

POCSO Act, and accordingly, he is acquitted for the said charges under235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds executed by the accused and his sureties shall be in force for a period of six months, as contemplated

U/sec.437-A of Cr.P.C.M.O.1 i.e., Honda Unicorn motorcycle bearing

No.TS-03-EX-5879 in CPR.No.4/2024 shall be returned to accused after expiry of appeal time. M.O.2 to M.O.6 i.e., clothes shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. Accused is ordered to be released forthwith, if he is not required in any other case.

Special Sessions Judge, for trial of Offences under the POCSO Act, Ananthapuramu.

APAN190000142024

Presented on : 21-01-2025 Registered on : 22-02-2025 Decided on : 30-04-2026 Duration : 1 years, 3 months, 9 days

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF

OFFENCES UNDER THE PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM

SEXUAL OFFENCES [POCSO] ACT, 2012, ANANTHAPURAMU.

Present: Sri S.China Babu, Special Sessions Judge for trial of Offences under the POCSO Act, Ananthapuramu.

Thursday, this the 30 th day of April, 2026

[POCSO] Sessions Case No.18 of 2025

[Crime No.48 of 2024 of Gooty PS]

Name of complainant :The State Rep. by Sub Divisional Police, Officer, Guntakal. : Crime No. and P.S.Crime No.48 of 2024 of Gooty PS.

: 1. Syed Jiyavulla S/o Late Mahaboob Basha, Name of accused 27 years,D.No.1-466, B.C.Colony, Basinepalli village, Gooty Mandal.

2. Syed Ruhila W/o Late Mahaboob Basha, 45 years,D.No.1-466, B.C.Colony, Basinepalli village, Gooty Mandal.

3. Baba Fakruddin S/o Basha, 61 years, D.No.419, near Kateramma temple, Patalamma Layout, Kadugodi Pantation, Kadugodi, Banglore.

4. Fathima Begum w/o Basha, 47 years, D.No.419, near Kateramma temple,

//2//

POCSO Court SC.No.18 of 2025

Patalamma Layout, Kadugodi Pantation, Kadugodi, Banglore.

5. Safivulla S/o Nabi Sab, D.No.1/94-A, Brahmanapalli village, Somandepalli Mandal, Satya Sai District.

6. Syed Jeelan Basha S/o S. Safi Sab, 43 years, D.No.1/393, B.C.Colony, Basinepalli village, Gooty Mandal.

7. Shaik Mohammed Sharif S/o Shaik Mohammed Usman, D.No.707, 7th Floor, The blue tower, Shivprerana, CHS Limited, Co- operative Housing Society, Bharani Naka, Wadala, Mumbai

8. Khatheeb Syed Abdul Hai S/o K.S. Mainuddin, 61 years, D.No.5/168, Asar Mazid Street, Gooty town, Ananthapuramu District.

ChargesCharges U/s 376(1) IPC, Sec.9 PCM Act, : Sec.5(j)(ii) r/w 6 of POCSO Act against A1, Sec.10 PCM Act against A2 to A8

Plea of accused:Not guilty.

Finding of Judge:Not guilty.

: In the result, A1 to A8 are found not guilty for Order or sentence the offences U/Sec. 376(1) IPC, Sec.9 PCM

Act, Sec.5(j)(ii) r/w 6 of POCSO Act against

A1, Sec.10 PCM Act against A2 to A8 and accordingly, he is acquitted for the said charges under Sec.235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds executed by the accused and his sureties shall be in force for a period of six months, as contemplated U/sec.437-A of

Cr.P.C.

Case conducted by :Mr. R. Veeranjaneyulu, I/c Special Public Prosecutor.

//3//

POCSO Court SC.No.18 of 2025

Accused is defended :Mr. N. Murali Krishna, advocate for accused. by

This case coming on 27.7.2026 for hearing before me and after hearing the counsel of both parties and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub Divisional Police, Officer, Guntakal, filed charge sheet against accused in Crime No.48 of 2024 for the offences punishable U/Sec. 376 of Indian Penal Code (IPC), Sec.4 and 6 of

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 and

Sec.9 and 10 of Prohibition of Child Marriage(PCM) Act.

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

(i) The victim girl, aged about 16 years, is daughter of A3 and A4. The victim girl studied up to 9th class and remained in the house.

About 1 ½ years back, the victim along with her parents A3 and A4 went to Gooty to attend the function at her junior maternal mother and got introduction with A1, son of her aunt/ A2 and later they fell in love. It was learnt by A2 to A4 and hence the victim and A1 decided to elope and get married, but A2 to A4 after coming to know about their love, discussed with their relatives and decided to solemnize their marriage. While so, on 13.10.2022 A2 to A4 solemnized the marriage of the victim with A1 at the house of A1 and A2 as per Muslim tradition with two witnesses A6 and A7 and A5 as Vakeel at Basineopalli village, Gooty and Nikah/marriage was recorded by A8.Muslim elder/Government Khaji, Gooty town and issued

Nikah certificate. Later, the victim joined A1 and stayed along with A1 and A2 and continued marital life and later became pregnant and so went to her parents at Kadugodi town, Banglore. While so, on 27.7.2023 the

//4//

POCSO Court SC.No.18 of 2025

victim was taken to Government HSIS Gosha hospital, Banglore by A3 and A4 as she was suffering with stomach ache and the doctors treated her and when enquired about her details of age as per Aadhar, she revealed her age as 16years and it was noted by Dr. Sapna and entered the same in the prescription and then Dr. N. Madhushree recorded the statement of the victim by attesting her signature along with the victim and A4 and forwarded the same to Kadugodi police for taking further action as the victim is minor and a case was registered in Cr.No.299/2023

U/s 376 IPC, Sec.4 and 5 of POCSO Act and Sec.9 and 10 of PCM Act of

Kadugodi PS and it was transferred to Gooty P.S on point of jurisdiction.

(ii) Basing on the complaint of the victim girl Ms. Lakshmi,

W.S.I of police, Kadugodi PS, Banglore city, registered case in Cr.No.299 of 2023 U/s 376 IPC and Sec.9 and 10 PCM Act, Sec.4 and 6 of POCSO

Act, and transferred the case on point of jurisdiction to SDPO, Guntakal and later, Mr. M. Venkatarami Reddy, Inspector of Police, Gooty PS., re- registered the case in Cr.No.48 of 2024, got recorded the statement of victimthrough WSI. Subsequently, Mr. G. Siva Bhaskar Reddy, SDPO,

Guntakal took up further investigation, visited the scene of offence and drawn rough sketch, examined and recorded the statements of material witnesses, arrested A1 on 13.3.2024 at his house, and based on the confession of A1, A2 to A8 were added and then he served notice U/s 41-

A Cr.P.C to A2 to A7, got recorded the Sec.164 Cr.P.C statement of the victim and by completing his investigation filed charge sheet.

3.This case was taken cognizance for the offences U/Sec. 376

IPC, U/s 4 and 6 of POCSO Act and U/s 9 and 10 of PCM Act and registered it as S.C.No.18 of 2025.

4.On appearance of accused, copies of documents are supplied to them as required U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

5.Upon considering the material on record and hearing the

//5//

POCSO Court SC.No.18 of 2025

learned Special Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for accused, charges under Sec.376(1) IPC, Sec.9 PCM Act, Sec.5(j)(ii) r/w 6 of

POCSO Act against A1, Sec.10 PCM Act against A2 to A8, have been framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu, to which, they abjured guilt and claimed to be tried.

6.During trial, the prosecution examined as many as 3 witnesses, out of them the victim girl was examined as PW.1 and got marked her statement under Sec.161 Cr.P.C as Ex.P1. The neighbour of victim girl/Ranganayakulu was examined as PW.2 and got marked his statement under Sec.161 Cr.P.C as Ex.P2. Lastly, the then Inspector of police, Gooty PS., was examined as PW.3 and got marked Ex.P3 re- registered FIR, Ex.P4 rough sketch of the scene of offence; Ex.P5 marriage certificate; Ex.P6 164 Cr.P.C statement of PW.1;

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, accused were examined U/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C with reference to the incriminating material in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Accused denied it and reported no evidence on their behalf.

8.Heard the learned I/c Special Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for accused.

9.Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution is able to establish its case against accused for the offences U/Sec. 376(1) IPC, Sec.9 PCM Act, Sec.5(j)(ii) r/w 6 of POCSO Act against A1, Sec.10 PCM Act against A2 to A8, with which, they are charged, beyond all reasonable doubt?

10.POINT:-

As per prosecution, the victim girl was 16 years at the time of commission of alleged offence upon her and the accused did not dispute

//6//

POCSO Court SC.No.18 of 2025

the age of victim girl. So, victim girl was below the age of 18 years and child within the meaning of Sec.2(1)(d) of POCSO Act as on the date of commission of alleged offences upon her.

11.Here, PW.1 is the victim girl, who deposed before the Court that accused is her husband, he did not commit anything against her, they never had any love affair, he never followed her, she did not marry A1

before she attained 18 years of age, other accused also did not commit

anything against her, she did not present any complaint against any accused. She did not state anything before woman judge, she does not know facts of the case. Despite cross-examination of PW.1, no incriminating material was elicited against the accused, except marking her Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement as Ex.P1.

12.One Ranganayakulu was examined as PW.2, also not testified anything against the accused. As per his testimony, he does not know facts of the case muchless about marriage of PW.1 Though the learned I/c Spl. Public Prosecutor cross-examined PW.2, no incriminating material was elicited against the accused, except marking his Sec.161

Cr.P.C. statement as Ex.P2.

13.Mr. M. Venkatarami Reddy, the then Inspector of Police,

Gooty P.S, was examined as PW.3, who deposed about re-registering a case in Cr.No.48 of 2024, subsequently, the SDPO, Guntakal P.S., investigating the case by recording of statements of material witnesses, visiting the scene of offence and drawing rough sketch, also recording

Sec.164 Cr.P.C statement of PW.1, and other facts of arresting A1 and issuing notice to the A2 to A8, and filing charge sheet after completion of investigation.

14.As seen from the afore mentioned evidence on record, it is shown apparently that the evidence of the Investigating Officer is purely

//7//

POCSO Court SC.No.18 of 2025

based on the contended statement of the victim girl and her persons and also the subsequent records secured from other officials. The material witnesses including the victim girl, who are said to have stated before him against the accused, did not support their version and the prosecution case and deposed no iota of evidence against the accused. On the other hand, their evidence goes to show that no piece of material is brought on record to say that the accused has committed any of the charged offences.

15.Undisputedly, the Investigating Officer is not the eyewitness, but solely depended upon the contended statements of the victim girl and her persons. In the absence of any corroborative evidence, the sole testimony of Investigating Officer is found too weak, which cannot be relied upon to hold that the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In these circumstances, the Court found no reliable evidence against accused and thereby the accused are entitled for acquittal as the prosecution failed to prove their guilty. Accordingly, the point is answered against prosecution.

16. So far as entitlement for compensation is concerned, the evi- dence of PWs.1 and 2, who are the victim and her neighbour, not dis- closes anything incriminating against the accused and they never said anything against the accused. Further, there is no material on record to establish the entitlement of the PW.1/Victim girl for compensation. Hence, it is not a fit case for awarding compensation as laid down under

Sec.357-A Cr.P.C.

17.In the result, A1 to A8 are found not guilty for the offences

U/Sec. 376(1) IPC, Sec.9 PCM Act, Sec.5(j)(ii) r/w 6 of POCSO Act against A1, Sec.10 PCM Act against A2 to A8 and accordingly, he is acquitted for the said charges under Sec.235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds executed by the accused and his sureties shall be in force for a period of

//8//

POCSO Court SC.No.18 of 2025

six months, as contemplated U/sec.437-A of Cr.P.C.

Directly dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I, typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 30th day of April, 2026.

Special Judge

for trial of Offences under the POCSO Act, Ananthapuramu.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined for

Prosecution: Defence:

PW.1: Victim girl - None -

PW.2: Ranganayakulu.

PW.3: Mr. M. Venkatarami Reddy, the then Inspector of Police, Gooty PS.

Exhibits marked for Prosecution

Ex.P1: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.1/ victim

Ex.P2: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.2

Ex.P3: Re-registered FIR

Ex.P4: Rough sketch of the scene of offence

Ex.P5: Arrest and seizure mahazar excluding confession portion therein.

Ex.P6: 164 Cr.P.C statement of PW.1

Exhibits marked for Defence

-Nil-

MOs. marked for Prosecution

-Nil-

Spl. Judge.

//9//

POCSO Court SC.No.18 of 2025

TABULAR FORM TO BE ANNEXED TO A JUDGMENT AS PER RULE

67 OF THE CRIMINAL RULES OF PRACTICE

(Before the Special Judge for trial of offences under the Protection

of Children from Sexual Offences Act, (POCSO) 2012

Ananthapuramu)

[POCSO] Sessions Case No.18 of 2025

1.Name of Complainant The State Rep. by Sub Divisional Cr. No.Police, Officer, Guntakal. Cr.No.48 of 2024

1. Syed Jiyavulla S/o Late Mahaboob

2.Name of the accused Basha,27years,D.No.1-466, B.C.Colony, Basinepalli village, Gooty Mandal.

2. Syed Ruhila W/o Late Mahaboob Basha,45years,D.No.1-466, B.C.Colony, Basinepalli village, Gooty Mandal.

3. Baba Fakruddin S/o Basha, 61 years, D.No.419, near Kateramma temple,PatalammaLayout, Kadugodi Pantation, Kadugodi, Banglore.

4. Fathima Begum w/o Basha, 47 years, D.No.419, near Kateramma temple,PatalammaLayout, Kadugodi Pantation, Kadugodi, Banglore.

5. Safivulla S/o Nabi Sab, D.No.1/94- A, Brahmanapalli village, Somandepalli Mandal, Satya Sai District.

6. Syed Jeelan Basha S/o S. Safi Sab, 43 years, D.No.1/393, B.C.Colony, Basinepalli village, Gooty Mandal.

7. Shaik Mohammed Sharif S/o

//10//

POCSO Court SC.No.18 of 2025

Shaik Mohammed Usman, D.No.707, 7thFloor, The blue tower, Shivprerana, CHS Limited, Co- operative Housing Society, Bharani Naka, Wadala, Mumbai

8. Khatheeb Syed Abdul Hai S/o K.S. Mainuddin, 61 years, D.No.5/168, Asar Mazid Street, Gooty town, Ananthapuramu District.

3.Date of offenceBetween 1.2.2022 to 28.7.2023

4.Date of complaint26.2.2024

5.Date of apprehension of A1: 13.3.2024 Accused A2 to A8: 41-A Cr.P.C notice

6.Date of release of AccusedA1: 29.4.2024

7.Date of Commencement of 7.4.2026 trial

8.Date of close of trial24.4.2026

9.Date of sentence or order30.4.2026

EXPLANATION OF THE DURATION OF THE CASE IN SESSIONS

COURT:-

This case was taken cognizance by this court on 22.2.2025 and charges were framed on 27.11.2025, trial schedule was fixed and was commenced on 7.4.2026 and closed on 24.4.2026, and on 27.4.2026, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C and heard arguments and judgment was pronounced on 30.4.2026.

In the result, A1 to A8 are found not guilty for the offences U/Sec.

376(1) IPC, Sec.9 PCM Act, Sec.5(j)(ii) r/w 6 of POCSO Act against A1,

Sec.10 PCM Act against A2 to A8 and accordingly, he is acquitted for the said charges under Sec.235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds executed by the

//11//

POCSO Court SC.No.18 of 2025

accused and his sureties shall be in force for a period of six months, as contemplated U/sec.437-A of Cr.P.C.

Special Sessions Judge, for trial of Offences under the POCSO Act, Ananthapuramu.

APAN190001022025

Presented on : 20-08-2025 Registered on : 04-09-2025 Decided on : 11-05-2026 Duration : 0 years, 8 months, 22 days

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF

OFFENCES UNDER THE PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM

SEXUAL OFFENCES [POCSO] ACT, 2012, ANANTHAPURAMU.

Present: Sri S.China Babu, Special Sessions Judge for trial of Offences under the POCSO Act, Ananthapuramu.

Monday, this the 11 th day of May, 2026

[POCSO] Sessions Case No.142 of 2025

[Crime No.38 of 2025 of Yellanur Police Station]

Name of complainant :The State Rep. by Sub Divisional Police, Ananthapuramu Rural PS : Crime No. and P.S.Crime No.38 of 2025 of Yellanur PS.

: Vadde Thirupalu S/o Late Aswarthappa Rao, Name of accused 60 years, Kodavandlapalli village, Yellanuru Mandal.

ChargesCharges U/Sec. 75(2) BNS, 7 r/w 8 of : POCSO Act and Sec.3(1)(w)(i) and 3(1)(s) of SC/ST(POA) Act

Plea of accused:Not guilty.

Finding of Judge:Not guilty.

//2//

POCSO Court SC.No.142 of 2025

: In the result, accused is found not guilty for Order or sentence the offences U/Sec. 75(2) BNS, 7 r/w 8 of

POCSO Act and Sec.3(1)(w)(i) and 3(1)(s) of

SC/ST(POA) Act, and accordingly, he is acquitted for the said charges under

Sec.258(1) BNSS. The bail bonds executed by the accused and his sureties shall be in force for a period of six months, as contemplated U/sec.481 of BNSS.

Case conducted by :Mr. R. Veeranjaneyulu, I/c Special Public Prosecutor.

Accused is defended :Mr. C. Adinarayana, advocate for accused. by

This case coming on 8.5.2026 for hearing before me and after hearing the counsel of both parties and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub Divisional Police, Ananthapuramu Rural PS, filed charge sheet against accused in Crime No.38 of 2025 for the offences punishable U/Sec.74 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sahita (BNS), Sec. 8 of

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 and

Sec.3(1)(r)(s) of SC/ST(POA) Act.

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

(i) The victim girl, aged 14 years, belongs SC-Madiga by caste, residing with her grand grand mother at Thimmampalli as her parents reside in Banglore doing Municipal cooly works. The victim girl is studying 8th class in ZPH School, Thimmampalli which is 2 Kms away from her village and used to go by walk along with other students and if

//3//

POCSO Court SC.No.142 of 2025

any villagers going to the village, they would take and drop her at school.

While so, on 9.4.2025 at about 12.30 pm due to half day school, the victim girl stood infront of the main gate of the school to come to the village waiting for conveyance and the accused who is running hotel in the same village of victim, saw the victim and stopped his bike and boarded her in his motor cycle and asked the victim to love him and marry him and committed sexual assault by pressing her chest and thigh with hands and after returning home, the victim informed the same to her grand grand mother and then she went to the house of the accused and when questioned about his behaviour, he stated her that “madigalanja, nannevachi aduguthava, neeku dikkunna chota cheppuko, nenu nee manumaralitho asabhyamuga pravarthinchinanu, yemi chesukuntavo chesuko”. Due to fear the grand grand mother of the victim did not inform the same to the parents of the victim, but later she informed them and they came from Banglore and gave report in Yellanur P.S.

(ii) Basing on the complaint of the grand mother of victim girl,

Mr. N. Ramanjaneya Reddy, Sub Inspector of Police, Yellanur PS, registered a case in Cr.No.38 of 2025 for the offences U/s 74 BNS, Sec. 8 of POCSO Act and Sec.3(1)(r)(s) of SC/ST(POA) Act. Subsequently, Mr.

T. Venkatesulu, SDPO, Ananthapuramu Rural PS, examined and recorded the statements of material witnesses, got recorded the statement of victim by WSI, issued notice U/s 35 BNSS to the accused and after completing his investigation filed charge sheet.

3.This case was taken cognizance for the offences U/Sec.

75(2) of BNS, 7 r/w 8 of POCSO Act and Sec.3(1)(s) of SC/ST(POA) Act and registered it as S.C.No.142 of 2025.

4.On appearance of accused, copies of documents are supplied to him as required U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

5.Upon considering the material on record and hearing the

//4//

POCSO Court SC.No.142 of 2025

learned Special Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for accused, charges under Sec. 75(2) BNS, 7 r/w 8 of POCSO Act and Sec.3(1)(w)(i) and 3(1)(s) of SC/ST(POA) Act, have been framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu, to which, he abjured guilt and claimed to be tried.

6.During trial, the prosecution examined as many as 3 witnesses, out of them the victim girl was examined as PW.2 and got marked her statement under Sec.161 Cr.P.C as Ex.P3. The grand mother of victim girl was examined as PW.1 and got marked her thumb impression on report as Ex.P1 and her statement under Sec.161 Cr.P.C as Ex.P2. Lastly, the then SDPO, Ananthapuramu Rural PS., was examined as PW.3 and got marked Ex.P4 report of PW.1, Ex.P5 original

FIR; Ex.P6 rough sketch of the scene of offence; Ex.P7 caste certificate of victim; Ex.P8 age certificate of victim; Ex.P9 183 BNSS statement of

PW.2; Ex.P10 caste certificate of the accused.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, accused was examined U/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C with reference to the incriminating material in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Accused denied it and reported no evidence on his behalf.

8.Heard the learned I/c Special Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for accused.

9.Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution is able to establish its case against accused for the offences U/Sec. 75(2) BNS, 7 r/w 8 of POCSO Act and Sec.3(1)(w)(i) and 3(1)(s) of SC/ST(POA) Act, with which, he is charged, beyond all reasonable doubt?

//5//

POCSO Court SC.No.142 of 2025

10.POINT:-

As per prosecution, the victim girl was 14 years at the time of commission of alleged offence upon her filed Ex.P8/age certificate mentioning the age of the victim between 13 to 14 years. Accused did not dispute the age of victim girl. So, victim girl was below the age of 18 years and child within the meaning of Sec.2(1)(d) of POCSO Act as on the date of commission of alleged offences upon her.

11.Here, PW.2 is the victim girl, who deposed before the Court that accused did not commit anything against her, she does not know facts of the case. Despite cross-examination of PW.2, no incriminating material was elicited against the accused, except marking her Sec.161

Cr.P.C. statement as Ex.P3.

12.The grand grand mother of victim girl was examined as

PW.1. As per her testimony, accused did not commit anything against her grand daughter/victim, she does not know facts of the case, she affixed her thumb impression on report without knowing its contents, hence her thumb impression alone marked as Ex.P1 on report. Despite cross- examination of PW.1, no incriminating material was elicited against the accused, except marking her Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement as Ex.P2.

13.Mr. T. Venkatesulu, the then DSP, Ananthapuramu Rural, was examined as PW.3, who deposed about the S.I of police registering a case in Cr.No.38 of 2025 U/s 78 of POCSO Act, Sec.8 of POCSO Act and

Sec.3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of SC/ST (POA) Act, his taking up investigation by recording of statements of material witnesses, got recording the statement of the victim girl by WSI, visiting the scene of offence and drawing rough sketch, got recording Sec.183 BNSS statement of PW.2, and other facts of issuing notice to the accused, and filing charge sheet after completion of investigation.

//6//

POCSO Court SC.No.142 of 2025

14.As seen from the afore mentioned evidence on record, it is shown apparently that the evidence of the Investigating Officer is purely based on the contended statement of the victim girl and her persons and also the subsequent records secured from other officials. The material witnesses including the victim girl, who are said to have stated before him against the accused, did not support their version and the prosecution case and deposed no iota of evidence against the accused. On the other hand, their evidence goes to show that no piece of material is brought on record to say that the accused has committed any of the charged offences.

15.Undisputedly, the Investigating Officer is not the eyewitness, but solely depended upon the contended statements of the victim girl and her persons. In the absence of any corroborative evidence, the sole testimony of Investigating Officer is found too weak, which cannot be relied upon to hold that the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In these circumstances, the Court found no reliable evidence against accused and thereby the accused is entitled for acquittal as the prosecution failed to prove his guilty. Accordingly, the point is answered against prosecution.

16. So far as entitlement for compensation is concerned, the evi- dence of PWs.1 and 2, who are the grand mother of victim girl and victim, not discloses anything incriminating against the accused and they never said anything against the accused. Further, there is no material on record to establish the entitlement of the PW.2/Victim girl for compensation.

Hence, it is not a fit case for awarding compensation as laid down under

Sec.357-A Cr.P.C.

17.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offences

U/Sec. 75(2) BNS, 7 r/w 8 of POCSO Act and Sec.3(1)(w)(i) and 3(1)(s) of SC/ST(POA) Act, and accordingly, he is acquitted for the said charges

//7//

POCSO Court SC.No.142 of 2025

under Sec.258(1) BNSS. The bail bonds executed by the accused and his sureties shall be in force for a period of six months, as contemplated

U/sec.481 of BNSS.

Directly dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I, typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 11th day of May, 2026.

Special Judge

for trial of Offences under the POCSO Act, Ananthapuramu.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined for

Prosecution: Defence:

PW.1: Grand mother of victim girl - None -

PW.2: Victim girl.

PW.3: Mr. T. Venkatesulu, the then DSP, Ananthapuramu Rural PS.

Exhibits marked for Prosecution

Ex.P1 : Thumb impression of PW.1/grand mother of victim on report

Ex.P2: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.1/grand mother of victim

Ex.P3 : Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.2/victim

Ex.P4: Report of PW.1

Ex.P5 :Original FIR

Ex.P6: Rough sketch of the scene of offence

Ex.P7: Caste certificate of victim

Ex.P8: Age certificate of victim

Ex.P9: 183 BNSS statement of PW.2

Ex.P10: Caste certificate of accused.

//8//

POCSO Court SC.No.142 of 2025

Exhibits marked for Defence

-Nil-

MOs. marked for Prosecution

-Nil-

Spl. Judge.

//9//

POCSO Court SC.No.142 of 2025

TABULAR FORM TO BE ANNEXED TO A JUDGMENT AS PER RULE

67 OF THE CRIMINAL RULES OF PRACTICE

(Before the Special Judge for trial of offences under the Protection

of Children from Sexual Offences Act, (POCSO) 2012

Ananthapuramu)

[POCSO] Sessions Case No.142 of 2025

1.Name of Complainant The State Rep. by Sub Divisional Cr. No.Police, Ananthapuramu Rural PS. Cr.No.38 of 2025 VaddeThirupaluS/oLate

2.Name of the accused Aswarthappa Rao, 60 years, Kodavandlapalli village, Yellanuru Mandal.

3.Date of offence9.4.2025

4.Date of complaint24.4.2025

5.Date of apprehension of Notice Accused

6.Date of release of Accused--

7.Date of Commencement of 21.4.2026 trial

8.Date of close of trial4.5.2026

9.Date of sentence or order11.5.2026

EXPLANATION OF THE DURATION OF THE CASE IN SESSIONS

COURT:-

This case was taken cognizance by this court on 4.9.2025 and charges were framed on 13.2.2026, trial schedule was fixed and was commenced on 21.4.2026 and closed on 4.5.2026, and on 6.5.2026, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C and heard arguments and judgment was pronounced on 11.5.2026.

//10//

POCSO Court SC.No.142 of 2025

In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offences

U/Sec. 75(2) BNS, 7 r/w 8 of POCSO Act and Sec.3(1)(w)(i) and 3(1)(s) of SC/ST(POA) Act, and accordingly, he is acquitted for the said charges under Sec.258(1) BNSS. The bail bonds executed by the accused and his sureties shall be in force for a period of six months, as contemplated

U/sec.481 of BNSS.

Special Sessions Judge, for trial of Offences under the POCSO Act, Ananthapuramu.

APAN190000192023

Presented on : 19-03-2024 Registered on : 04-04-2024 Decided on : 04-05-2026 Duration : 2 years, 1 months, 16 days

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF

OFFENCES UNDER THE PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM

SEXUAL OFFENCES [POCSO] ACT, 2012, ANANTHAPURAMU.

Present: Sri S.China Babu, Special Sessions Judge for trial of Offences under the POCSO Act, Ananthapuramu.

Monday, this the 4 th day of May, 2026

[POCSO] Sessions Case No.27 of 2024

[Crime No.182 of 2023 of Hindupur Rural U/G PS]

Name of complainant :The State Rep. by Sub Inspector of Police, Hindupur Rural U/G P.S. : Crime No. and P.S.Crime No.182 of 2023of Hindupur Rural U/G PS.

: Vepuralla Hari Krishna S/o Venkataramana, Name of accused 26 years, D.No.10-59, Burugupalli village, Kadiri Mandal.

ChargesCharges U/Sec. 366 and 420 IPC and Sec.11 : r/w 12 of POCSO Act.

Plea of accused:Not guilty.

Finding of Judge:Not guilty.

//2//

: In the result, accused is found not guilty for Order or sentence the offences U/Sec. 366 and 420 IPC and

Sec.11 r/w 12 of POCSO Act and accordingly, he is acquitted for the said charges under

Sec.235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds executed by the accused and his sureties shall be in force for a period of six months, as contemplated U/sec.437-A of Cr.P.C.

Case conducted by :Mr. R. Veeranjaneyulu, I/c Special Public Prosecutor.

Accused is defended :Mrs. C. Bhagya, advocate for accused. by

This case coming on 30.4.2026 for hearing before me and after hearing the counsel of both parties and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Inspector of Police, Hindupur Rural U/G P.S., filed charge sheet against accused in Crime No.182 of 2023 for the offences punishable U/Sec. 366, 342 and 420 of Indian Penal Code (IPC), Sec.11 and 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012.

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

(i) The victim girl, aged about 17 years, resident of M.

Beerepalli village, Hindupur Mandal, completed intermediate 1st year in

Junior Girls College, Hindupur and staying in the house after examinations. After the death of her mother staying in the house of her grand mother along with her sister at M. Beerepalli. Since one year the victim girl and the accused who is already married, are in love with each

//3//

other and the victim girl revealed the same to her parents and they bluntly refused and started to see the matches to perform her marriage, and the victim informed the same to the accused. Later, the accused induced the victim deceitful words and told her to come to Kadiri for getting marriage by leaving his first wife and believing the same the victim followed him.

While so, on 17.8.2023 at 8.00 pm the victim girl left the house without informing to anyone and went to Kadiri by boarding a lorry and then the accused went and took the victim and kept her in his sister Sravani’s house at Kadiri and went away by saying that he will return back and marry her, but he did not respond to the phone calls of the victim and turn up even after 15 days. On suspicion, the victim on 2.9.2023 came out from the house of Sravani saying that she was going on her personal work and returned to Beerepalli and narrated the facts to her grand mother and then the victim girl lodged a complaint against you on 3.9.2023 in Hindupur Rural P.S.

(ii) Initially, basing on the complaint of the father of the victim girl Mr. K. Thippeswamy, Head Constable, Hindupur Rural U/G PS, registered case in Cr.No.182 of 2023 under girl missing and later, basing on the statement of victim, Mr. S. Abdul Kalam Azad, S.I of police, altered section of law to Sec.366, 341 and 420 IPC and Sec.11 and 12 of

POCSO Act, examined and recorded the statements of material witnesses, visited the scene of offence and drawn rough sketch.

Subsequently, Mr. Y. Sreenivasulu, Inspector of police, got recorded the statement of victimthrough WSI, and arrested the accused on 11.10.2023, received study certificate of the victim and by completing his investigation filed charge sheet.

3.This case was taken cognizance for the offences U/Sec. 366, 342 and 417 IPC and U/sec.11 and 12 of POCSO Act and registered it as

S.C.No.27 of 2024.

4.On appearance of accused, copies of documents are

//4//

supplied to him as required U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

5.Upon considering the material on record and hearing the learned Special Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for accused, charges under Sec.366 and 420 IPC and Sec.11 r/w 12 of POCSO Act, have been framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu, to which, he abjured guilt and claimed to be tried.

6.During trial, the prosecution examined as many as 3 witnesses, out of them the victim girl was examined as PW.1 and got marked her statement under Sec.161 Cr.P.C as Ex.P1. The father of victim girl was examined as PW.2 and got marked his statement under

Sec.161 Cr.P.C as Ex.P2. Lastly, the then S.I of police, Hindupur Rural

PS., was examined as PW.3 and got marked Ex.P3 report of PW.2;

Ex.P4 original FIR; Ex.P5 altered FIR; Ex.P6 rough sketch of the scene of offence; Ex.P7 study certificate; Ex.P8 164 Cr.P.C statement of PW.1;

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, accused was examined U/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C with reference to the incriminating material in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Accused denied it and reported no evidence on his behalf.

8.Heard the learned I/c Special Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for accused.

9.Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution is able to establish its case against accused for the offences U/Sec. 366 and 420 IPC and Sec.11 r/w 12 of POCSO Act, with which, he is charged, beyond all reasonable doubt?

10.POINT:-

As per prosecution, the victim girl was 17 years at the time of

//5//

commission of alleged offence upon her and filed Ex.P7/study certificate issued by Head Master, MPUP School, M. Beerepalli, Hindupur, mentioning the date of birth of victim as 16.4.2007. Accused did not dispute the age of victim girl. So, victim girl was below the age of 18 years and child within the meaning of Sec.2(1)(d) of POCSO Act as on the date of commission of alleged offences upon her.

11.Here, PW.1 is the victim girl, who deposed before the Court that accused did not commit anything against her, never taken her away to any place and not committed any sexual harassment against her, she does not know facts of the case, she does nto know what she stated

before woman judge. Despite cross-examination of PW.1, no

incriminating material was elicited against the accused, except marking her Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement as Ex.P1.

12.The father of victim girl was examined as PW.2, but he also not testified anything against the accused. As per his testimony, accused is his neighbour, he did not commit anything against his daughter/victim, he does not know facts of the case, PW.1 never stated anything against him. Though the learned I/c Spl. Public Prosecutor cross-examined

PW.2, no incriminating material was elicited against the accused, except marking his Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement as Ex.P2.

13.Mr. Abdul Kalam Azad, the then Sub Inspector of Police,

Hindupur Rural P.S, was examined as PW.3, who deposed about Head constable registering a case in Cr.No.136 of 22, later, basing on the statement of victim girl, his altering section of law, recording of statements of material witnesses, visiting the scene of offence and drawing rough sketch, also recording Sec.164 Cr.P.C statement of PW.1, obtaining study certificate, and other facts of arresting the accused, and after verifying his investigation, the Inspector of police filing charge sheet.

//6//

14.As seen from the afore mentioned evidence on record, it is shown apparently that the evidence of the Investigating Officer is purely based on the contended statement of the victim girl and her persons and also the subsequent records secured from other officials. The material witnesses including the victim girl, who are said to have stated before him against the accused, did not support their version and the prosecution case and deposed no iota of evidence against the accused. On the other hand, their evidence goes to show that no piece of material is brought on record to say that the accused has committed any of the charged offences.

15.Undisputedly, the Investigating Officer is not the eyewitness, but solely depended upon the contended statements of the victim girl and her persons. In the absence of any corroborative evidence, the sole testimony of Investigating Officer is found too weak, which cannot be relied upon to hold that the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In these circumstances, the Court found no reliable evidence against accused and thereby the accused are entitled for acquittal as the prosecution failed to prove their guilty. Accordingly, the point is answered against prosecution.

16. So far as entitlement for compensation is concerned, the evi- dence of PWs.1 and 2, who are the victim and her father, not discloses anything incriminating against the accused and they never said anything against the accused. Further, there is no material on record to establish the entitlement of the PW.1/Victim girl for compensation. Hence, it is not a fit case for awarding compensation as laid down under Sec.357-A Cr.P.C.

17.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offences

U/Sec. 366 and 420 IPC and Sec.11 r/w 12 of POCSO Act and accordingly, he is acquitted for the said charges under Sec.235(1) Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds executed by the accused and his sureties shall be in force

//7//

for a period of six months, as contemplated U/sec.437-A of Cr.P.C.

Directly dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I, typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 4th day of May, 2026.

Special Judge

for trial of Offences under the POCSO Act, Ananthapuramu.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined for

Prosecution: Defence:

PW.1: Victim girl - None -

PW.2: Father of Victim girl.

PW.3: Mr. Abdul Kalam Azad, the then S.I of Police, Hindupur Rural PS.

Exhibits marked for Prosecution

Ex.P1: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.1/ victim

Ex.P2: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.2/ father of victim

Ex.P3: Report of PW.2/father of victim

Ex.P4: Original FIR

Ex.P5: Altered FIR

Ex.P6: Rough sketch of the scene of offence

Ex.P7: Study certificate

Ex.P8: 164 Cr.P.C statement of PW.1

Exhibits marked for Defence

-Nil-

MOs. marked for Prosecution

-Nil-

Spl. Judge.

//8//

TABULAR FORM TO BE ANNEXED TO A JUDGMENT AS PER RULE

67 OF THE CRIMINAL RULES OF PRACTICE

(Before the Special Judge for trial of offences under the Protection

of Children from Sexual Offences Act, (POCSO) 2012

Ananthapuramu)

[POCSO] Sessions Case No.27 of 2024

1.Name of Complainant The State Rep. by Sub Inspector of Cr. No.Police, Hindupur Rural U/G P.S. Cr.No.182 of 23 VepurallaHariKrishnaS/o

2.Name of the accused Venkataramana, 26 years, D.No.10- 59, Burugupalli village, Kadiri Mandal.

3.Date of offence17.8.2023

4.Date of complaint24.8.2023

5.Date of apprehension of 11.10.2023 Accused

6.Date of release of Accused15.12.2023

7.Date of Commencement of 1.4.2026 trial

8.Date of close of trial24.4.2026

9.Date of sentence or order4.5.2026

EXPLANATION OF THE DURATION OF THE CASE IN SESSIONS

COURT:-

This case was taken cognizance by this court on 4.4.2024 and charges were framed on 8.12.2025, trial schedule was fixed and was commenced on 1.4.2026 and closed on 24.4.2026, and on 28.4.2026, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C and heard arguments and judgment was pronounced on 4.5.2026.

//9//

In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offences U/Sec.

366 and 420 IPC and Sec.11 r/w 12 of POCSO Act and accordingly, he is acquitted for the said charges under Sec.235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds executed by the accused and his sureties shall be in force for a period of six months, as contemplated U/sec.437-A of Cr.P.C.

Special Sessions Judge, for trial of Offences under the POCSO Act, Ananthapuramu.