Spl. S.C.No. 171 of 2021 1 to 16
IN THE COURT OF THE FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT FOR
EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL AND DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND POCSO ACT
CASES AT GADWAL
Present: Sri S. Ravi Kumar
I-Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, FAC: Special Sessions Judge, POCSO Court, Gadwal.
Dated on this 13 th day of November, 2025
SPL.S.C.No.171 OF 2021
Between:- The State, rep. by the Sub Divisional Police Officer, Gadwal. …Complainant AND
Chakali Harichandra, S/o. Ramudu, Age: 33 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o. R. Garlapadu village, Itikyala Mandal. …Accused
This case has come before me on 04.11.2025 for final hearing in presence of the learned Spl. Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri.
V.Rajendra, Legal aid defence counsel for the accused and considering the arguments and material on record, having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:
:: J U D G M E N T ::
1. The Sub Divisional Police Officer, Gadwal has filed charge-sheet in Crime No. 61 of 2017 of Kodandapur P.S. under sections: 366, 376(2)(i)(n) of IPC and Sec. 5(l)) r/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012.
2. The brief averments of the charge sheet:-
(a) The victim girl/LW3 aged below 16 years, completed her 10th class in ZP High School, Santhinagar during the academic year 2016- 17 and the accused who is already married and having two children , both are residents of Kotha Garlapadu village of Itikyal Mandal.
(b) In the beginning of year 2017, the accused acquainted with the victim minor girl/LW3, gradually moved closely with her, trapped her,
Spl. S.C.No. 171 of 2021 2 to 16 developed love affair with her, later taking advantage of her immature mind, in the name of love and marriage had sexual inter course with her. On knowing the love affair of the accused and victim girl, her parents/LWs1 and 2 started to search marriage alliances to her.
(c) On 09-07-2017 around 04:00 hours the accused took the victim minor girl/LW3 to Srisailam, on name of marriage tied a knot to the victim girl in front of the Srisailam temple, and they stay in a choultry for a week. Thereafter, went to Sunnipeta where they lived for a period of three months, lead marital life, in the house of
LW11/Bonam Krishna, thereafter they shifted to another house, took a shop of LW12/Patan Niranjan Vali and run a small kirana shop. As their villager papanna identified them, assuming that he may inform to their parents, they shifted to Thirumala, joined as a workers in a
Sharvana hotel at Nakkalolla colony and stayed in a room provided by the hotel management.
(d) After earning some money, they came to Thirupathi stayed in the house belongs to LW7/Smt.Sarojamma, near vaishnavi hotel at
Tataiah Kunta for six months. The Accused continued to work in
Sharvana Hotel at Thirumala and the victim girl/LW3 worked at
Sharvana hotel Thirupathi and stopped to work due to her pregnancy.
Later, the accused also stopped to work in the hotel, started working in a Dolphin Bar nearby their rented house.
(e) On 06-09-2019 the victim girl/LW3 delivered a female baby in
Government Maternity Hospital, Thirupathi. Due to financial problems they shifted to another room in Indiramma Gruhalu in
Dhamiedu village near Thiruchanur. The accused used to attend
Mason work. During this period the accused started harassing the victim girl/LW3 physically and mentally, she suffered the same silently, as the accused did not change his attitude she insisted him to take her to her parents. Accordingly, on 27-11-2020 the accused brought the victim girl/LW3 along with their baby in a private vehicle to Yerravelly Chowrastha, while they were waiting there to send the victim girl/LW3 to their village, at around 06:00 hours, the police
Spl. S.C.No. 171 of 2021 3 to 16 caught both of them with one small baby, brought them to Kondapur
Police Station.
3. The I-Addl. District and Sessions Judge, took cognizance of the offences U/ss. 366, 376 (2)(i)(n) of IPC and Sec. 5(l) r/w 6 of the
POCSO Act. As per the orders of The Prl. District and Sessions Judge,
Mahabubnagar, vide orders dated 29.10.2020 in Dis.No.2819, the case is transferred to this court/ The Fast Track Special Court for
Expeditious Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act cases, at
Gadwal.
4. On appearance of accused, the copies of documents upon which the prosecution is relied upon are furnished to him as required under
Section 207 Cr.P.C. Upon hearing the Spl. Public Prosecutor, defence counsel and on considering the material on record, charges framed for the offences under Sections 366, 376(2)(n) of IPC and Sec. 5(j), (ii),
(l) r/w 6 of POCSO Act 2012, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu language, for which he pleaded not guilty, and claims to be tried.
5. During the trial, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to PW.12, marked Ex.P1 to P14 and M.O.1. (subsequent to examination of PW5,
NBW was issued against the accused, and the same was executed on 26-05-2005 and remanded to judicial custody. Thereafter, the trial continued). On production of the accused from the jail, he was examined U/s. 313 Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating evidence for which he denied as false and reported no defense.
6. Heard the learned Special Public Prosecutor and defense counsel.
7. Upon hearing the prosecution and defence and perusal of the record the case of prosecution is that the accused having wife and children, knowingly the victim girl/PW3 is a minor, on the night of 07- 07-2017 eloped her, took her to Srisailam, on the name of marriage tied knot in front of the temple at Srisailam, thereafter they lived as a
Spl. S.C.No. 171 of 2021 4 to 16 wife and husband/lead marital life for some time in Sunnipenta village, Thirumala and Thirupathi, the victim became a pregnant and delivered a female baby on 06-09-2019 in Government Maternity
Hospital, Thirupathi, thereafter as the accused harassing her physically and mentally and he did not change his attitude on her insistence he brought her along with the child to Erravally Chowrasta on 27-11-2020 at 06:00AM. and the same is proved by the evidence of parents of the victim/PWs 1 and 2 coupled with Ex.P1 and victim/PW3 herself corroborated by the medical evidence by PW8 and
PW11 coupled with Ex.P5 and P10., and there is no defense from the accused that he did not come at the offence. Prays to punish the accused.
8. The case of defence is that, the prosecution is failed to prove that the accused with the victim girl/PW3, lived and lead marital life by staying in Sunnipenda village, Thirumala and Thirupathi. The confession of accused is hit by Sections: 25 and 26 of Indian Evidence
Act, The accused is nothing to do with the victim girl/PW3 but he was falsely implicated in this case, made him to confess the offence, and by creating the DNA report and the prosecution is failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and the accused is entitled for an acquittal under benefit of doubt.
9. Now the point for consideration, whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt i.e., whether the victim/PW3 was a child/minor ?, the accused eloped the victim on the night of 09-07-2017, and had committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on her,? and whether the accused and the victim/PW3 are the biological parents of the female baby C.Yasasvini?
(a) Who is a child? as per Section 2(1)(d) of the POCSO Act, child means any person below the age of “eighteen years”.
(b) The evidence of PW1/father of the victim girl/PW3 coupled with Ex.P1/complaint dated 22.7.2017 is that in the year 2016 his daughter aged about 15 years has completed 10th class in ZP high school Shanthinagar. On 9.7.2017 he along with his wife and the
Spl. S.C.No. 171 of 2021 5 to 16 victim, had supper and retired to bed and early morning when he woke-up found missing of his daughter/victim. Then, himself and his wife searched for their daughter here and there but did not found, some of their nearers and dearers informed then that the accused used to follow his daughter and had some contact with her.
(c) The Pw2/wife of PW1 and mother of the victim/PW3 also state about 7 years back as usual they had dinner and retired to bed, early morning they found missing of their daughter, they searched here and there for her but did not found. Later, they came to know through nearers and dearers that the accused has eloped her daughter, then they went to police station and the PW1 lodged complaint.
(d) The PW9/A. Vasram Naik, the then SI of police
Kodandapur P.S., state that on 22-07-2017 the PW1 came to P.S., lodged written complaint, he registered the same as case in
Cr.No.61/2019 under girl missing and submitted FIR/Ex.P6 to all concerned. Then he examined and recorded the statements of PWs1 and 2, visited the scene of offence i.e., the house of PW1 at
R.Kothagarlapadu village, observed the same in the presence of mediators/PW5 and LW14, drawn rough sketch incorporated in the
CDF. He secured bonafide certificate of the victim girl from the
PW4/HM of ZP High school, Shanthinagar, examined and recorded his statement. As per the bonafide certificate, the Date of Birth of victim girl is 18-02-2002 i.e. below 16 years.
(e) Though the PW9 in his cross examination admitted that, column No.14 of FIR is not bearing the signature of complainant, he state that without putting the signature the complainant left the police station. However, the endorsement of PW9 on the complaint/Ex.P1 clearly reveals he received the complaint from the
PW1 at 12:00hours on 22-07-2017 and registered the FIR/Ex.P6 which is also reveals it was registered at 12:00hours on 22-07-2017.
Merely because the FIR doesn’t bear the signature of complaint, doesn’t mean the PW1 did not lodged complaint in the police station on 22-07-2017. The PW5 who is one of the panchayathdar for the
Spl. S.C.No. 171 of 2021 6 to 16 observation of scene of offence i.e. the house of PWs 1 and 2 in R.
Garlapadu village., by the PW9, drawing rough sketch etc., corroborated the PW9. Though it is not useful for the prosecution to fix responsibility on the accused but it corroborates that the victim girl was found missing from the said house and the police observed the said house and proceeded with the investigation.
(f) The PW3/the victim girl in her evidence testifies that her date of birth is 18-02-2002. In the year 2017 she completed 10th class at
Shantinagar Z.P.High Schol.
(g) The evidence of PW4/B.Narasimha, Head Master ZP High
School, Ramapuram, coupled with Ex.P2/Bonafide certificate, is that the date of birth of Victim is 18-02-2002.
(h) The testimony of victim girl/PW3 as to her age and corroborated by the PW4 coupled with Ex.P2/bonafied certificate of the victim, which clearly establishes that the victim girl/PW3 was aged of 15 years 4 months 21 days as on 09-07-2017 i.e. the day on which the PWs1 and 2 suspected the accused could have been taken away the victim girl and on the date of their complaint/Ex.P1 and registering the FIR on 22-07-2017, the victim girl/Pw3 is aged below 16 years and she was a child and minor.
(i) The evidence of PWs1 to 4 and 9 coupled with
Ex.P1/complaint FIR/Ex.P6 and Ex.P2/bonafide certificate proves that the daughter of PWs1 and 2 i.e., Victim girl/PW3 found missing and they came to know that the accused had contacts with the victim girl and he is also not appearing in the village, suspecting him that he could have been took away the victim girl who is aged below 16 years, conclusively proves that the victim girl/PW3 was a child/minor as on 9/10-07-2017 on which the accused said to be took away the victim girl/PW3 and also as on the date of registering the FIR on the complaint of Pw1 i.e.22.7.2017.
(j) The PW10/M.Krishnaiah the then SI of Police, Kodandapur
Police Station stated that on 28-11-2020, on information of PWs1 and 2 as to the presence of victim girl at Erravalli Chowrasta he along with
Spl. S.C.No. 171 of 2021 7 to 16
WPC and other staff rushed to there, found and took the victim, with a female baby and accused into their custody brought to
Kondandapur Police Station, secured the PW7/WSI from Gadwal
Police Station, got examined and recorded the statement of Victim girl/PW3 under the video graph. Basing on the statement of victim he altered the section of law from missing girl to Sections. 366, 376 (2)(n) of IPC and Section 5 (l) R/w 6 of POCSO Act, and submitted the section alteration memo /Ex.P7 to all concerned and produced them
before the SDPO/LW25/PW13.
(k) The PW7/N.Ramadevi the then SI of police Gadwal town
Police station corroborated the PW10 as to on his request, she visited the Kodandapur police station and recorded the statement of victim and handed over the same to the SI/PW10.
(l) The PWs 1 and 2 /parents of the victim girl further states after 3 years of their compliant in the police station the victim/PW3 called the PW1/father over phone informed that she is in Thirupathi, living with the victim with a bad condition and coming to their village/R. Garlapadu. Then, the PW1, informed the same to the
Kodandapur police about the same. Accordingly, the police apprehended/caught the accused along with the victim girl/PW3 and one kid at Yerravally chowrastha on 28.11.2020.
(m) The PW3/Victim in her evidence clearly testified what was happened from the night of 09-07-2017 to till the day of they were caught by the police at Yerravalli Chowrasta, thereafter producing them for DNA profile/paternity test at Hyderabad, before Magistrate for her statement and the acts of accused i.e., on 10-07-2017 early morning the accused came to their house and she came out, they went to Srisailam in a RTC Bus, on the next day they exchanged garlands in front of the main entrance temple at Arch, accused tide nuptial knot, they became husband and wife, stayed there for five days, went to sunnipenta village, stayed there about seven months in a room belongs to Krishna, in the month of March, 2018 as their villager seen them they have shifted to Thirupathi stayed about three months in Thirumala, then came to Thirupathi stayed there about
Spl. S.C.No. 171 of 2021 8 to 16 four months, later she conceived, accused worked in dolphin bar and restaurant in Thirupathi for their livelihood, she blessed with female baby in the month of September, 2019, they shifted to Thiruchanur village where they stayed about six months, later the accused addicting to bad vices, developed some intimacy with one woman, she questioned him, then he used to illiterate her without changing his attitude, then she informed to her father that she is living with the accused in a bad situation, then they came to Yerravalli Chowrasta, where the police caught them and took to the Police station, producing her for medical examination, for DNA/paternity test at
Hyderabad and before Magistrate for her statement i.e. she corroborated her earlier statement in the PW7/WSI and the JMFC,
Gadwal/LW21 as to how she went along with the accused, lived with him in various places of Sunnipenta, Thirumala and Thirupathi, conceiving and giving birth to the female baby, later informing to her father and their arrival to Yerravally chowrastha, police caught holding them etc. However, in her cross examination clearly admitted that the accused never forced her while taking to different places, out of romantic relationship with the accused she went along with him and got married though she was minor but she knew about that they are going to marry.
(n) The un questionable evidence of Pw3/victim clearly proves that knowingly that the victim girl is a minor/below the age of 16 years, the accused took her away from her house without the consent of her parents. It is settled law that the consent of minor is no consent. Therefore, the consent/willingness of the victim girl/PW3 to go along with the accused is be considered to be valid but only on the enticement/with the deceitful words/acts of the accused she came out from her parents/lawful guardianship which amounts to the accused kidnapped her from her lawful guardianship, took her away, had married (of course it is not valid one as already the accused was married and having two children to the knowledge of victim girl/PW3), made her pregnant which implies he had sexual inter course with her repeatedly and caused her to become pregnant and give birth to a female child in the month of September, 2019, who named after
Spl. S.C.No. 171 of 2021 9 to 16
C.Yesasvini as per Ex.P13/birth certificate. i.e., the accused knowingly that the victim/PW3 was a child/minor, he took her away from her lawful guardianship/parents PWs1 and 2, committed repeated sexual assault on her/had sexual inter course with her, made her pregnant and caused to gave birth to a female child as if they were wife and husband i.e., the accused has committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault/rape on the victim/PW3 as per section: 5 (l) r/w 6 of the POCSO Act, Sec. 366, 375 (6) R/w 376 (2)(n) of IPC.
(o) Sec. 375 (6) of IPC deals with what acts amount to rape relevant to our case. i.e. with or without her consent when she is under the 16 years of age. Explanation penetration is sufficient to constitute the sexual intercourse necessary to the offence of rape.
(p) The PW13/A. Yadagiri, the then SDPO, Gadwal state that on 28.11.2020 he received CD file from PW10, Verified the investigation by PW10 found it on correct lines, collected the video graph which was converted into CD/Ex.P11 with certificate under sec. 65-B of Indian
Evidence Act from PW7 and examined her, apart from recording confession of accused etc., he state that on 24.12.2020 as per the orders of the erstwhile this Court, he produced the victim minor girl, her female baby and accused before the FSL, Hyderabad, the experts collected their blood samples, analyzed and extracted DNA, on comparison they gave report opining that the accused and victim are the biological parents of the female baby.
(q) The evidence of Pw12/Dr.G.Pandu, Assistant director of FSL,
Hyderabad and expert in DNA test, coupled with exhibit P10/DNA report with Electro Pherogram, is that on 24-12-2025 on the requisition of this court and produced three persons namely Ediga
Madhavi/ the victim girl, her female child and chakali
Harichandra/accused for collection of blood sample for DNA finger printing escorted D.Srinu, PC.2266 of Kodandapur P.S, he collected blood sample those three persons marked as item no.1, 2 and 3 respectively. He extracted the DNA from item No. 1 and 2 are subjected to autosomal STR analysis by using global filer kit. The DNA
Spl. S.C.No. 171 of 2021 10 to 16 profile obtained from item No.2 is compared with DNA profiles obtained from 1 and 3. The allelic pattern of item No2 matches with the allelic pattern of item no. 1 and 3. In said analysis conclusively proofs that Chakali Harichandra (Source of Item No.3)/Accused is the biological father of the female child (source of item No.2). The biological mother of his child is Eediga Madhavi (source of item No.1)
(r) The evidence of Pw13 as to producing the accused, victim and their female child before the Pw12 as per the order of this court, the testemony of Pw3/victim girl that they were produced at
Hyderabad for DNA/Paternity test, the evidence of Pw12 coupled with
Exhibit P10/ DNA report with Electro Pherogram, conclusively proves that accused and victim girl/Pw3 are biological father and mother of the female child respectively. It also implies that the accused had sexual intercourse with the victim girl/Pw3 several times i.e., committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on victim girl/Pw3., which resulted the victim girl conceived and gave birth to said female child.
(s) The Pw13 that on 28-11-2020 the Pw10 produced the accused along with the victim and their child before him at his office in Gadwal. On interrogation, the accused admitted is guilt then he is secured the mediators/Pw6 and Lw16, in their presence he recorded the confession of the accused and seized two medical prescription folders of victim minor girl and her child issued by Orange Hospital,
Thirupathi, note book (OP of Government Hospital)/ Ex.P12 to P14 and MO.1/Cell Phone under exhibit P4/confession cum seizure panchanama, affected the arrest and send to judicial custody, on got conducting potency test by Pw8/Medical Officer, got recorded the statement of victim girl by the JMFC, Gadwal U/S 164 CrPC.
(t) The Pw8/Dr.Parusharam corroborated the Pw13 as to conducting potency test to the accused and issuing certificate to that effect/Ex.P5.
(u) The Pw6 is one of the mediator confession of accused and seized of Ex.P12 to P14 and MO.1/Cell Phone, though corroborated the Pw13 as to confession of accused and seizure of Ex.P12 to P14
Spl. S.C.No. 171 of 2021 11 to 16 and MO.1, It is in presence of the Pw13 and other Police which is evident from the video graph in the CD, therefore, it is hit by sections 25 and 26 of the Indian evidence Act, however the Ex.P12 to
P14/Prescription folders, Note book (OP Government Hospital), Birth
Certificate can be received in evidence and proved as per U/s 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.
(v) The prescriptions/Ex.P12 reveals that the while the victim girl/Pw3 was pregnant, took treatment in the Orange Hospital and also got treatment to her child/ C.Yasasvini in Orange Hospital,
Thirupathi. The Ex.P14/Note book of OP by Government Hospital reveals that the victim girl /Pw3 as if she was wife of
Harihchandra/Accused took treatment during her pregnancy from 18- 02-2019 to in Government Hospital maternity medical division,
Thirupathi and also in Municipal MCH Center, Thirupathi. The
Ex.P13 birth certificate reveals E.Madhavi/victim girl/Pw3 is mother and Chakali Harihchandra/Accused his father of C.Yasasvini who was born to them on 06-09-2019 in GM Hospital. Which proves that the victim as if the wife of accused, took treatment in the Orange Hospital and Government Hospital in Thirupathi during her pregnancy and also gave birth to a female child named as C.Yasasvini in GM
Hospital.
(w) The evidence of Pw13 as to potency test to the accused is corroborated by the Pw8/Doctor who conducted potency test to the accused coupled with Ex.P5/ potency test. Which proves that the accused is capable to have sexual intercourse/he is a potent.
Therefore, it proves that the accused had sexual intercourse with the victim girl during their stay from 10-07-2017 to 21-07-2017 at various places and caused for the birth of a female child.
(x) On further analysis of the evidence of Pws13 and 10, it is found that on the instruction of Pw10 along with accused after his confession, visited the house at Damineedu village area of Thirupathi where the accused along with the victim, conducted scene panchanama in presence of Lw17 and 18 drawn rough sketch in
CDF/Ex.P8 and also seized Two photographs from the said house etc.,
Spl. S.C.No. 171 of 2021 12 to 16
Though the Lws.17 and 18 were not examined, the photographs produced by the Pw10 Under Ex.P8 cannot be thrown out. Therefore, the two Photographs under Ex.P9 can be received in evidence and relied up on. Those two photographs reveals the accused along with the victim girl and also they were with their female child. Which is also corroborating the case of prosecution.
(y) (i). In (2005) 13 SCC 766, State of Himachal Pradesh Vs
Ashram, the Supreme Court held in a case of rare the testimony of the prosecutrex alone from the basis of conviction if it inspires confidence and found to be reliable.
(ii) In (2020) 10 SCC 573, Ganesan Vs State, the Supreme Court observed that the totality of circumstances appearing on the record of the case discloses that the prosecutrix does’t have a strong motive to false involve the person charged/Accused the court should ordinarly have no hesitation in accepting her evidence.
(iii) In (2019) 5 SCC 667, Manoj Kumar Vs the state of
Uttarkhand, the Supreme Court held in absence of any existing enimity between the accused and witnesses that there is no ground to the question the veracity of the witness or to raise a ground of false implication.
(iv) In the case on hand the victim /Pw3 who is a child/minor and lived with the accused till 28-11-2020 and also gave birth to the female child, clearly stated in her cross examination that she voluntarly went along with the accused, since she was a minor it is no way concerned and exonerate the criminal liability of the accused and it appears she has know any motive to implicate the accused in this case. Further, the Pws 1 and 2 who are parents of the accused and also other official witnesses had no motive to implicate the accused falsely in this case. Therefore, their evidence can be reliable and relied up on. Further, all this circumstances and material on record clearly proves that the accused eloped the victim on the night of 09-07-2019, they stayed and lived in different places as wife and husband, gave birth to a female child and came back to here on 28-11-2020.
Therefore, the ratios laid down in the referred case law are applicable
Spl. S.C.No. 171 of 2021 13 to 16 to this case and there by the prosecution proved its case in reasonable doubt.
(v) In view of the section 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act, the presumptions are drawn by this court that the accused had committed alleged offences and also he had such a culpable mental state. There is no defence evidence that accused did not commit the alleged offences and also he had no such a culpable mental state.
Even in the cross examination of the witnesses of the prosecution nothing for his defence.
10. For the foregoing analysis it is found that the prosecution is to proved the guilt of the accused for the offences U/s 366, 376 (2) (n) of
IPC and sec.5 (l) R/w sec.6 of the POCSO Act beyond all reasonable doubt.
11. In the result, the accused is found guilty and thereby convicted under section 235(2) Cr.P.C for the offences under Sections 366, 376 (2) (n) of IPC and Sec. 5(1) r/w 6 of POCSO Act 2012.
12. In view of sec.42 of the POCSO Act, the offence under sec.376of
IPC is punishable with rigorous imprisonment not less than 07 years and up to life imprisonment and the offence under sec.5 (l) is punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than 20 years, may extend to imprisonment for life which is greater and the accused is liable for it. Therefore, the accused is liable to be sentenced for the offences under sec.366 of IPC and sec.6 of
POCSO Act.
13. As per sec.33 (8) of the POCSO Act, this court is duty bound to direct payment of such compensation as may be prescribed to the child for any physical or mental trauma caused to him or for immediate rehabilitation of such child in addition to the punishment.
Therefore, in view of the facts of the case and specifically as the
Pw3/victim girl in her cross examination admitted that she was already married another and leading happy life and the child is with her parents, the real victim is the child born to the victim and accused i.e., C.Yasasvini. In Gaya Prasad Pal @ Mukesh Vs State, 2017 (1)
Spl. S.C.No. 171 of 2021 14 to 16
RCR (Criminal 233), the Delhi High Court held the child born out of rape is entitled to compensation of independently of his mother. In the case on hand as the mother/Pw3 is leading happily life with her husband the child became orphan. Therefore, this court recommends to the district Legal Services Authority, Jogulamba Gadwal to award compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to the child of victim/Pw3 accused by name C.Yasasvini from and out of the victim compensation fund within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment and the District Child Protection Officer is directed to see the said compensation shall be utilized for the benefit of the said child only.
Typed to dictation to Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 13th day ofNovember, 2025.
I-Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge Gadwal. FAC: Special Sessions Judge, POCSO Court, Jogulamba Gadwal District at Gadwal
Spl. S.C.No. 171 of 2021 15 to 16
For hearing of the accused on sentence and passing sentence:-
The accused submits that he is carrying wife and childrens, he did not mistake, prays to acquit him.
Up on Considering the submissions of the accused, gravity of the offence and its effects on the society and the circumstances of the case, specifically the victim girl/Pw3 admittedly married another person and leading happily life, leaving her child/C.Yasasvini with her parents and the age of accused at present may be 38 years, sentencing e, the accused sentenced to undergo a rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years for the offence under sec.366 of
IPC and shall pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 06 months
and
The accused is sentenced to a rigorous imprisonment for a period of 35 years for the offense under sec.5 (l) R/w 6 of the POCSO
Act and shall pay a fine Rs.40,000/-. In default of payment of fine he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 06 months.
All the sentences shall run concurrently and the accused is entitled for set off under sec.428 CrPC, the imprisonment already undergone during judicial custody.
The total amount of fine amount of Rs. 50,000/- shall be paid to the victim girl/PW2 as a compensation towards her pain and suffering.
The MO.1/Cell phone shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.
The accused is informed his right of appeal before the High
Court against this judgment and legal aid if he is required. The copy of judgment supplied to him on free of cost.
I-Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge Gadwal. FAC: Special Sessions Judge, POCSO Court, Jogulamba Gadwal District at Gadwal.
Spl. S.C.No. 171 of 2021 16 to 16
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined for
Prosecution: PW.1: Father of the victim PW.2: Mother of Victim PW.3:Victim PW.4: B.Narsimha. PW.5: Telugu Mahesh Babu. PW.6: Boya Mahesh. PW.7:N.Ramadevi. PW.8: Parusharam. PW.9: A.Vasrim Naik. PW.10:M.Krishnaiah. PW.11:Dr.G.Pandu. PW.12: A.Yadagiri.
Defence:---nil---
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR
Prosecution:
Ex.P1 : complaint Ex.P2 : Bonafide certificate. Ex.P3 : Crime Detail Form. Ex.P4 : Confession cum seizure panchanama. Ex.P5: Potency certificate. Ex.P6: FIR Ex.P7 : Section Alteration Memo. Ex.P8 : Crime Detail Form Ex.P9: Two photographs. Ex.P10: DNA report with electropherogram Ex.P11: CD Ex.P12: Prescription folders (2) Organge Hospital. Ex.P13: Birth Certificate of C Yasasvini Ex.P14: Note book (OP)
Defence:- ---nil---
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:-
M.O.1: Cell Phone.
I-Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge
Gadwal FAC: Special Sessions Judge, POCSO Court, Jogulamba Gadwal District at Gadwal