S.sasidhar Reddy

1I ADSJ Court, VSP

SC No. 161/2015

IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE

- cum - I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE - cum - SPECIAL JUDGE TO TRY THE OFFENCES UNDER PROTECTION OF

CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT.2012 : VISAKHAPATNAM

Present: Sri S. Sasidhar Reddy

Special Judge to Try the Offences under POCSO ACT

-cum- Metropolitan Sessions Judge -cum-I Addl. District & Sessions Judge

Thursday, the 23 rd day of February, 2017.

SESSIONS CASE No.161/2015.

a)The serial number of the case:S.C.No.161/2015.

b) Date of commission of offence:14.06.2013.

c)Name of the Complainant, if any:State represented by the Inspector of Police, Paderu Police station, Visakhapatnam District.

d)Name of the accused person, his KilloRambabu@Dasu, parentage and residence, if anyS/o.Satyanarayana, aged 24 years, Kodu ST PTG, resident of Vugamgoyyi village, H/o. Lagisapalli panchayat,PaderuMandal, Visakhapatnam District.

e)Offence complained of or proved :U/ss.376(2)(f), 506 of IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act, 2012.

f)Plea of the accused and his Accused pleaded not guilty examination, if any

This case has come up on 15.02.2016 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri K.Prudvi Raj, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri P.Gangopadhyaya, Advocate for the accused and having this matter stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Inspector of Police, Paderu Circle, Visakhapatnam District filed charge sheet against the above named accused in Crime No.59/2013 on the file of Paderu Police station, for the offences U/s.376(2)(f), 506 of Indian Penal

Code and Section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred as ‘POCSO ACT’).

2.The case of the prosecution is that the accused and the victim PW-2 are related and the family of the victim and the accused are residing in nearby the 2I ADSJ Court, VSP

SC No. 161/2015

houses in the same village. On 14.06.2013 at about 10.00 p.m., the accused went to the house of PW-1 and requested her to sent PW-2 with him to purchase some goods. Though PW-1 objected, the accused took away PW-2 from the house. He took her to nearby turmeric garden and gagged her mouth and forcibly raped her. Due to the force used by the accused in penetration PW-2 suffered injuries which resulted in continuous bleeding and severe pain. The accused after committing rape, threatened PW-2 with dire consequences if she discloses the incident to anyone. Thereafter he took her to her house and he also slept in the same house during that night. As PW-2 was weeping PW-1 questioned her and also observed the bleeding, PW-2 informed about rape. On the next day i.e., on 15.06.2013 PW-2 informed the same to K.Jhansi Rani,PW-15, J.Madhavi PW-5 who had visited the village for distribution of medicines and they examined PW-2 and immediately summoned an ambulance and shifted PW-2 to Government Hospital, Paderu.

PWs-1 and 2 also informed the incident to their neighbours about the incident and upon their advise, lodged a report at Paderu Police station on 15.06.2013 at 9.00 a.m., PW-12 P.Kondala Rao, Asst. Sub Inspector-475 PW-12 registered FIR and took up investigation.

Shaik Gafoor, Inspector of police, Paderu PW-13 took up investigation and visited the scene of offence and seized broken bangle pieces under the cover of observation report and examined the witnesses LWs-1 to 11 and recorded their statements and sent the victim to Andhra Medical College,

Visakhapatnam for examination and preserved the material objects and seized the blood stained clothes and sent them to RFSL. The age determination test was also conducted and certificate was issued that PW-2 was aged about 12 years. The successor of PW-13, N.Sai PW-14 Inspector of police, Paderu

Circle, took up further investigation, arrested the accused and produced him

before the Court. After received the medical certificates and after completion

of the investigation, filed charge sheet.

3I ADSJ Court, VSP

SC No. 161/2015

3.The charge sheet was taken on file as PRC No.15/2014 by the Judicial

First Class Magistrate, Paderu. The learned Magistrate after examining the

material on record had committed the case for trial before the Special

Sessions Court. The same was taken on file by this Court as SC

No.161/2015 and the accused was summoned. The accused appeared for some time, and later he did not appear and therefore, Non-bailable warrant was issued against him. Later the accused was produced before the Court on execution of NBW and the accused was remanded to custody. As the accused did not have means to engage counsel to defend his case, legal aid counsel was appointed. Accused was produced from custody and copies of documents were furnished to him under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

4.After hearing the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned legal aid counsel for the accused, charges U/ss.376(2)(f) and 506 of Indian

Penal Code and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences

Act, 2012 were framed, read over and explained to the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, the trial schedule was fixed and trial was conducted.

5.During the course of trial, the prosecution examined PWs-1 to 16 and marked Exs.P1 to P13 and MOs-1 and 2 in support of their case.

6.After closure of the prosecution’s evidence, the evidence recorded was put to the accused U/s. 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and he denied the entire evidence and reported no witnesses on his behalf. The case was posted for arguments and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused were heard.

7.After hearing the case was posted for judgment where upon it was noticed in the evidence of witnesses that the accused is related to the victim, therefore, the offence U/s.5 of POCSO Act, aggravated penetrative assault is 4I ADSJ Court, VSP

SC No. 161/2015

attracted. Therefore, the case was reopened and after hearing the learned

Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused were heard and charge U/s.5(n) and 5(p) punishable u/s.6 of POCSO Act, 2012. Accused pleaded not guilty and the learned counsel for the accused reported that there is no need to further examination of the witnesses. Arguments were heard and case was posted for judgment.

8.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that all the witnesses have categorically deposed that the accused had raped PW-2 and PW-2 supported the prosecution and deposed that the accused forced himself upon her and committed rape. This is also corroborated by the witnesses PWs-15 and 3 and medical evidence. Therefore, the prosecution has established that the accused had committed offence of penetrative assault and since the accused is related to the victim, the accused had committed aggravated penetrative assault.

9.Per contra the learned legal aid counsel for the accused contended that there is political enmity between the victims’ family and the accused and therefore, the accused was falsely implicated. The evidence is not sufficient to prove the case. Further the place where the offence took place is surrounded by houses and the cries of the victim would have been heard by the neighbours, however late in the night the offence took place. The learned counsel further contended that the Investigating Officer had violated the norms and guidelines issued by the Union government for medical examination and investigation under POCSO Act. Further the age determination test cannot be used for the reason that only where there is discrepancy in the school certificates, age determination could be done. In the present case, the victim had gone to the school and therefore age determination could not have been done.

5I ADSJ Court, VSP

SC No. 161/2015

10.After hearing the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused and upon examining the material on record, the following points emerge for consideration:

1.Whether the victim PW-2 was aged less than 18 years as on the date of offence?

2.Whether the prosecution has established that the accused

had committed sexual intercourse with the victim girl?

3. Whether the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed rape on the victim-girl?

4. Whether the prosecution has established that the accused committed aggravated penetrative assault against the victim?

5. Whether the prosecution has established that the accused had intimidated the victim?

11. POINT NO.1 :

The prosecution in support of its case that the victim was aged less than 18 years relied upon the evidence of Dr.V.Chandra Sekhar, PW-9 and Ex.P5 age determination certificate. PW-9 deposed that as per his examination, the victim was aged 12 years as on the date of examination. In the light of this evidence it has sto be held that the victim was aged 18 years as on the date of offence. The learned counsel for the accused had contended that the age determination could only be resorted to in the absence of school certificate.

This cannot be considered as the only manner of determination of age.

Further the age determination test shows the age of the victim as 12 years.

Whatever may be margin of the error, the victim was less than 18 years as on the date of offence. Therefore, the prosecution has established that the victim was aged less than 18 years as on the date of offence.

12. POINT No.2:

Section 29 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 reads as follows:

6I ADSJ Court, VSP

SC No. 161/2015

“Presumption as to certain offences”: Where a person is prosecuted for committing or abetting or attempting to commit any offence under Sections, 3,5,7 and Section 9 of this Act, the Special Court shall presume, that such person has committed or abetted or attempted to commit the offence, as the case may be unless the contrary is proved”.

From the above, this Court is mandated in a prosecution for the offence U/s.5 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, to presume that the accused had committed offence until contrary is proved. The presumption is that the accused had committed the offence. The offence is defined as particular act committed against a child. The question would be whether the presumption extends only to the extent that the person being prosecuted had committed the offence or does the presumption extends to the occurrence of the offence also. The presumption was incorporated reversing the burden that is traditionally placed on the prosecution on to the accused taking into consideration the grave nature of the offence. This does not completely exonerate the prosecution from leading the evidence. But it lessens the burden of proof on the prosecution. If the presumption is extended to the occurrence of the offence also then the presumption extends even to the age of the victim as well as other ingredients of the offence. This Court is of the opinion that confining the presumption to the accused above is contrary to the language of the statute. Unlike Section 304-B of Indian Penal Code or Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1882 where the presumption is extended as to the commission of the offence only after establishment of certain foundational facts, the statutory language U/s.29 of POCSO Act, 2012 is categorical that the Court shall presume that the accused had committed the offence without requirement of establishing any foundational facts. There is no requirement of any foundational fact being established. Therefore, this

Court shall presume that not only that the accused committed acts alleged but also the offence had taken place until contrary is proved. However, the burden on the accused is not the same as that on the prosecution. The 7I ADSJ Court, VSP

SC No. 161/2015

accused only has to show that the preponderance of the probability is that the offence had not occurred and that he had not committed the offence. This he can establish by either adducing evidence or by pointing the lacuna in the prosecution’s own evidence as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

Rangappa Vs. Mohan reported in (2010) 11 SCC 441.

13.The prosecution in support of its case that the accused had had sexual intercourse with the victim, relied upon the evidence of PWs-1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 15 as well as medical evidence of PW-10, the doctor who examined the victim and Ex.P6 preliminary report and Ex.P7 RFSL report, Ex.P8 final opinion. PW-2 the victim deposed that the accused had taken her from her house on the pretext that buying her chips and he had taken her to a turmeric garden and had forced himself upon her and raped her. That she suffered severe pain and had bled profusely and so weakened that PWs-5 and 15 who were ANMs who came to the village to distribute medicines, upon observing her condition, admitted her to hospital. PW-1 the mother of the victim observed the victim bleeding profusely and her clothes were blood stained and she was in severe pain. This evidence is further corroborated by the evidence of PW-10 the doctor who examined the victim. PW-10 issued Ex.P8 final opinion observing that there was posterior hymenal tear present. Congestion of vagina present.

Hymen not intact and that there were no external injuries. In the light of the evidence of PW-10 with the opinion of RFSL report, the blood stains on the cloths of the victim, it has to be held that the accused had sexual intercourse with the victim.

14. In the course of cross-examination, PW-10 stated that same injuries would be seen after first sexual intercourse. But she cannot say whether the intercourse was consensual or non-consensual. But the evidence is sufficient to show that sexual intercourse had occurred. In the light of the above evidence of PWs-1 and 2 and the medical evidence taken along with 8I ADSJ Court, VSP

SC No. 161/2015

presumption U/s.29 of POCSO Act, it has to be held that the prosecution has established that the accused had sexually intercourse with the victim.

15. POINT No.3:

In the light of the above discussion the victim was aged less than 18 years and that the accused had had sexual intercourse with the victim. It has to be held that the accused had committed rape. The victim was aged less than 18 years, therefore, her consent to the intercourse is irrelevant. Further the victim had deposed that she had not consented and the accused forced himself upon her, therefore, it has to be held that the prosecution has established that the accused had committed rape upon the victim PW-2.

16. POINT No.4:

In the light of the above discussion, it has to be he held that the prosecution has established that the accused had committed penetrative assault upon the victim. Further the evidence of prosecution witnesses is that the accused was closely related to the victim. In these circumstances, the burden laid upon the prosecution is only to establish the facts of sexual intercourse and that the offence alleged had taken place and the burden is on the accused to show and he had not committed the offence. The prosecution by its evidence was able to establish the eventual facts of the case relating to the age of the victim and the incidents of sexual intercourse. The burden is entirely on the accused, to show that he had not committed the offence. The accused did not adduce any evidence nor was he able to show anything from the evidence of the prosecution that the offence had not taken place or that he had not committed the offence. Therefore, it has to be held that the prosecution has proved its case. In those circumstances, the accused is to be held to have committed aggravated penetrative assault U/s.5(n) and 5(p) of

POCSO Act, 2012.

9I ADSJ Court, VSP

SC No. 161/2015

17. POINT No.5:

PW-2 did not depose that the accused had threatened her. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to establish that the accused had criminally intimidated the victim.

18.In the result, the accused is found not guilty and he is acquitted of the charge U/s.506 of IPC. The accused is found guilty and he is convicted of the offences punishable U/ss.376(2)(f) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 5(n)&(p) punishable U/s.6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences

Act, 2012.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr-I, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by

me in open Court on this the 23 rd day of February, 2017.

Sd/-Sri S.Sasidhar Reddy

SPECIAL JUDGE TO TRY OFFENCES UNDER POCSO ACT

-cum– METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUGE -cum- I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

VISAKHAPATNAM

Hearing of accused:

Accused was heard as to the quantum of sentence. The Accused stated that he was innocent and he did not commit the offence and that he is poor and has a wife and two children dependent upon him.

The offence established against the accused is that of aggravated penetrative assault as the victim is a relative and the accused was in a position of trust. The young age of the victim and the harm inflicted upon her as shown in the medical evidence is the aggravating factor in this case. The mitigating factors is only that the accused is the sole bread winner of his family.

Having regard to the nature of the offences, the offence falls within

Section 376(2)(f) of IPC, 1860 as well as Section 5(n) & (p) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 punishable U/s.6. The punishment prescribed U/s.6 of POCSO Act, is a minimum term of 10 (ten) years which may extend to imprisonment for life. Similar punishment is provided U/s.376(2)(f) of IPC also. Since the punishment is similar under 10I ADSJ Court, VSP

SC No. 161/2015

both the Acts, the accused is punished U/s.6 of POCSO Act, 2012. In view of the circumstances of the case, the accused is sentenced to the minimum term of 10 (ten) years of rigorous imprisonment. In view of the financial condition of the accused, no fine is imposed. The case is directed to be placed

before the District Legal Services Authority, Visakhapatnam, to determine the

compensation that can be paid to the victim under the State Victim

Compensation Scheme. The period of custody undergone by the accused

from 02.10.2014 to 22.12.2014 and from 25.08.2016 to 23.02.2017

shall be given set-off under section 428 of Criminal Procedure Code.

The accused is informed of his right to file appeal against this Judgment before the Hon'ble High Court and also of his right to seek free legal aid in the event he does not have sufficient means to file such appeal. MOs-1 and 2 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr-I, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by

me in open Court on this the 23 rd day of February, 2017.

Sd/-Sri S.Sasidhar Reddy

SPECIAL JUDGE TO TRY OFFENCES UNDER

PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES

-cum– I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

VISAKHAPATNAM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witness Examined For Prosecution:

PW-1: Killo Chilakamma, material witness, PW-2: victim girl; PW-3: Killo Suribabu, brother of victim; PW-4: Seedari Appalamma,neighbour’ PW-5: J.Madhavi, ANM Nurse; PW-6: Killo Seethamma, neighbor; hostile; PW-7: Lakey Kondamma, VRO, material witness; PW-8: Palasi Padmavathi, VRO, material witness; PW-9: Dr.V.chandra Sekhar, Associate professor, FSM, AMC, PW-10: Dr.P.Vijaya Sheela, Asst.Professor, KGH, Vsp. PW-11: Dr.G.Anil Babu, Civil Asst. Surgeon, Area Hospital, Paderu; PW-12: P.Kondala Rao, ASI, Paderu; PW-13: Shaik Gafoor, Inspector of police, Paderu; PW-14: N.Sai, Inspector of police, Paderu; IO PW-15: K.Jhansi Rani, ANM nurse, Kindangi Sub-center; PW-16: Kurupa Mahesh, Photographer; For Defence: - NIL- 11I ADSJ Court, VSP

SC No. 161/2015

Exhibits marked

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1 : the report given to the police; Ex.P2 : 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW-6; Ex.P3 : scene observation report; Ex.P4 : concessional statement of accused; Ex.P5 : is the age determination certificate of victim; Ex.P6 : the preliminary report dt.19.06.2013; Ex.P7 : RFSL report; Ex.P8 : Final opinion dt.29.11.2014; Ex.P9 : potency certificate; Ex.P10: FIR in Cr.No.59/2013 of Paderu PS; Ex.P11: rough sketch; Ex.P12: letter of advise along with covering letter; Ex.P13: Alteration memo;

For defence: -NIL- Material Objects : MO-1: Gold coloured fancy dress upper with buttons and beads embroidery; MO-2: Pieces of green and black coloured glass bangles;

Sd/-Sri S.Sasidhar Reddy

SPECIAL JUDGE TO TRY OFFENCES UNDER POCSO ACT

-cum– I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

VISAKHAPATNAM

Copies to:

1.The Hon'ble Registrar (Judicial), Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh;

2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, I ADSJ Court, Vsp.

3.The Accused (free copy); ---- 12I ADSJ Court, VSP

SC No. 161/2015

CALENDER & JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE

- cum - I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

-cum - SPECIAL JUDGE TO TRY THE OFFENCES UNDER PROTECTION

OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCE: VISAKHAPATNAM

S.C.No.161/2015

(PRC No.15/2014 of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Paderu in Cr.No.59/2013 of Paderu Police Station, Visakhapatnam District)

Name of the complainantState represented by the Inspector of Police,PaderuPolicestation, Visakhapatnam District.

Name of the accused:Killo Rambabu @ Dasu, S/o. Satyanarayana, aged 24 years, KOdu ST PTG, resident of Vugamgoyyi village, H/o. Lagisapalli panchayat, Paderu Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

Date of complaint:15.06.2013.

Date of apprehension:02.10.2014

Date of commencement of Trial:29.11.2016

Date of closure of trial:19.12.2016.

Date of Judgment:23.02.2017

Whether the accused is in jail or on In Jail from 02.10.2014 to 22.12.2014 and bailfrom 25.08.2016 to 23.02.2017.

Explanation for the delay in : Separate docket extract of PRC No.15/2014 committal courtof JFCM, Paderu is appended.

Explanation for the delay in the Sessions Court:

This case has been committed by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Paderu vide its committal Orders in PRC.No.15/2014 dt.19.12.2014. The same was received on 06.04.2015 and this Court had taken on file on 22.06.2015 and registered as SC.No.161/2015 and summons were ordered to the accused but could not be served on him and fresh summons were ordered from time to time. Finally on 28.4.2016 NBW was issued and on 25.08.2016 the accused was produced in execution of NBW and on 20.09.2016 charges U/ss.376(2)(f), 506 IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act,2012 were framed and trial schedule was fixed and trial was conducted from 29.11.2016 to 19.12.2016 PWs-1 to 16 were examined and Exs.P1 to P13 and

MOs-1 and 2 were marked.

On completion of prosecution evidence, matter was posted for 313 Cr.P.C., examination of the accused on 22.12.2016 and accused was examined U/s.313 13I ADSJ Court, VSP

SC No. 161/2015

Cr.P.C., and reported he has witnesses on his behalf and for defence evidence posted to 29.12.2016 and on 5.1.2017 and the accused reported no defence evidence and posted for arguments to 19.1.2017. The matter underwent several adjournments for arguments and finally on 10.02.2017 it was observed that the victim is related to the accused and therefore, charge U/s.5 and 6 of POCSO Act was framed and explained the same to the accused and he pleaded not guilty and posted the matter to 15.02.2017 for further evidence if any. Counsel for accused reported no witness are required to be examined and posted for judgment to 23.02.2017

On 23.2.2017 accused produced from Central Prison. Judgment was

pronounced. In the result, the accused is found not guilty and he is acquitted of

the offence U/s.506 of IPC. The accused is found guilty and he is convicted of the offences punishable U/ss.376(2)(f) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 5(n)&(p) punishable U/s.6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and is the accused is sentenced to the minimum term of 10 (ten)

years of rigorous imprisonment U/s.6 of POCSO Act, 2012. The period of

custody undergone by the accused from 02.10.2014 to 22.12.2014 and

from 25.08.2016 to 23.02.2017 shall be given set-off under section 428

of Criminal Procedure Code.The accused is informed of his right to file appeal against this Judgment before the Hon'ble High Court and also of his right to seek free legal aid in the event he does not have sufficient means to file such appeal. No witness is retained beyond three days and there is no delay. MOs-1 and 2 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Sd/-Sri S.Sasidhar Reddy

METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE

-cum- I Addl. District & Sessions Judge -cum-Special Judge to try the offences Under POCSO Act: Visakhapatnam 14I ADSJ Court, VSP

SC No. 161/2015

FORM No.30

FORM OF WARRANT ON A SENTENCE OF IMPRISONMENT

(U/s. 418(1) Code of Criminal Procedure)

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE TO TRY OFFENCES UNDER PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM

SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT –cum – I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE – cum -METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE: VISAKHAPATNAM

SC No. 161/2015

To The Superintendent, Central Prison at Adavivaram, Visakhapatnam.

Whereas at the Sessions held before me on this the 23rd day of February, 2017 : Killo Rambabu accused in SC.No.161/2015 of the said sessions (Crime No.59/2013 of Paderu Police station, Visakhapatnam District) was duly convicted for the offence U/s. 376(2)(f) of IPC and Section 5(n) and (p) of POCSO Act, 2012 the accused is sentenced as follows: The accused is found not guilty and he is acquitted of the charge U/s.506 of IPC. The accused is found guilty and he is convicted of the offences punishable U/ss.376(2)(f) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 5(n)&(p) punishable U/s.6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and the accused is

sentenced to the minimum term of 10 (ten) years of rigorous imprisonment

U/s.6 of POCSO Act, 2012. The period of custody undergone by the accused from 02.10.2014 to 22.12.2014

and from 25.08.2016 to 23.02.2017 shall be given set-off under section 428 of

Criminal Procedure Code.

This is to authorize and require you, the Superintendent, to receive the said accused i.e., Killo Rambabu @ Dasu, S/o.Satyanarayana, aged 24 years, Kodu ST PTG, resident of Vugamgoyyi village, H/o. Lagisapalli panchayat, Paderu Mandal, Visakhapatnam District into your custody in the jail together with this warrant and thereby safely to keep him until he shall be delivered over by you to proper authority and custody for the purpose of the undergoing the punishment as stated above under the aforesaid sentence. IThe prisoner received (Diet):

a)the diet to which the prisoner was accustomed according to his own statement:-Rice

b)the diet recommended by the sessions judge.

c)Brief reasons if rice or wheat is recommended: IIThe distance from the prisoner’s residence to the Nearest Railway/bus Station is: Km., IIIDetails of the prisoner’s properties on the person: - IV.I hereby certify that fine of Rs. /- has not been recovered:

V.Descriptive Roll:

1.Name : Killo Rambabu @ Dasu,5.Age : 24 years,

2.Father's Name :, Satyanarayana6.Sex : Male

3.Village : Vugamgoyyi, Paderu7.Marital Status:

4.Occupation : 8.Religion: Hindu

VI.Descriptive Marks:

1. A black mole on the left side of the neck;

2. A black mole on the left side of the chest; Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 23 rd day of February, 2017.

SPECIAL JUDGE TO TRY OFFENCES UNDER

PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT

–cum – I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

VISAKHAPATNAM

15I ADSJ Court, VSP

SC No. 161/2015

Hearing of Accused

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE TO TRY OFFENCES UNDER

PROTECTON OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT

–cum – I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE – cum-METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE: VISAKHAPATNAM

S.C.No. 161/2015.

Name of the Accused No:

Killo Rambabu @ Dasu, S/o.Satyanarayana, aged 24 years, Kodu ST PTG, resident of Vugamgoyyi village, H/o. Lagisapalli panchayat, Paderu Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

Charges U/ss.376(2)(f) of IPC and Section 5(n)& (p) of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 are proved against you. Do you have anything to say with regard to quantum of sentence to be imposed on you?

Hearing of the Accused with regard to the charge U/s.376(2)(f) IPC?

Hearing of the Accused:with regard to the charge U/s.5(n)(p) of POCSO Act?

Dated 23 rd Day of February, 2017.

Spl.Judge to try Offences under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences -cum- Metropolitan Sessions Judge Visakhapatnam 16I ADSJ Court, VSP

SC No. 161/2015

Visakhapatnam,

Dated: 23.2.2017

ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THE ACCUSED

I, Killo Rambabu @ Dasu, S/o.Satyanarayana, aged 24 years, Kodu ST PTG, resident of Vugamgoyyi village, H/o. Lagisapalli panchayat, Paderu Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. acknowledge the receipt of free copy of the Judgment in SC No.161/2015 on the file of the Hon'ble I Addl. District and

Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, on this day i.e.23.2.2017.

(Killo Rambabu) Accused

Visakhapatnam,

Dated: 23.2.2017

ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THE ACCUSED

I, Killo Rambabu @ Dasu, S/o.Satyanarayana, aged 24 years, Kodu ST PTG, resident of Vugamgoyyi village, H/o. Lagisapalli panchayat, Paderu Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. acknowledge the receipt of free copy of the Judgment in SC No.161/2015 on the file of the Hon'ble I Addl. District and

Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, on this day i.e.23.2.2017.

(Killo Rambabu) Accused 17I ADSJ Court, VSP

SC No. 161/2015

1I ADSJ Court, VSP

SC No. 194/2015

CALENDER & JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE

VISAKHAPATNAM

Present: Sri S. Sasidhar Reddy Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum- I Addl. District & Sessions Judge

Tuesday, the 21 st day of February, 2017.

SESSIONS CASE.No.194/2015

(P.R.C.11/2014 on the file of Additional Metropolitan Magistrate's Court, Anakapalli, Visakhapatnam District in Crime No.18/2014 of Sabbavaram Police Station, Visakhapatnam District)

Name of the Complainant:State represented by the Inspector of Police, Anakapalli circle, Sabbavaram Police station, Visakhapatnam District.

Name of the Accused:Narapinni Ganesh, S/o. Tatarao, aged 23 years, Kapu by caste, Photographer, Ganesh Digital Phot studio, Lankalapalem junction, resident of Nakkavaipalem village, Parawada Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

Offence U/Sec.:U/ss.36, 376 of IPC and Section 3 and 5 of POCSO Act,2012.

Finding of the court:Accused pleaded not guilty

DATE of:

Date of offence :31-01-2014 Date of Report/Complaint:01-02-2014 Date of Apprehension:01-03-2014 Date of Commencement of Trial:13-12-2016 Date of closure of Trial:30-01-2017 Date of Sentence or order: 21-02-2017 Whether the accused are on bail/in : Accused is on bail. Jail

Explanation for the delay in the Sessions Court: The Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate's Court, Anakapalli, Visakhapatnam District committed the case vide P.R.C.11/2014 in Crime No.18/2014 of Sabbavaram Police Station, Visakhapatnam District and this Court registered the same as SC No.194/2015 on 14.07.2015 and summon was issued to the accused. On 17.08.2016 on appearance of the accused, Charges U/ss.363, 376(2)(i) of IPC and Section 3 and 5 of POCSO Act, 2012 were framed and the accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, the trial schedule was fixed from 13.12.2016 to 16.12.2016. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined PWs-1 to 15 and Exs.P1 to P17 are marked. Thereafter the prosecution’s evidence was closed and the case was posted for examination 2I ADSJ Court, VSP

SC No. 194/2015

of the accused U/s.313 of Cr.P.C. On 06.02.2017, the accused was examined U/sec.313 of Cr.P.C and reported no defence evidence and posted for arguments. On 13.02.2017 heard the arguments of prosecution and defence counsel and posted for judgment. On 21.02.2017 accused present. Judgment pronounced in open court, In the result, the accused is found not guilty and is acquitted of all charges. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for further period of six months as security for his appearance before in any appeal or revision filed against the

Judgment of this Court before any Higher Court as and when such Higher Court issues summons to the accused for his appearance as contemplated U/s.437-A of Cr.P.C.

The delay due to non service of accused summons and non production of the prosecution witnesses and no witness is retained beyond three days.

Sd/- S.Sasidhar Reddy

METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE

VISAKHAPATNAM

3I ADSJ Court, VSP

SC No. 194/2015

IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE

- cum - I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

-cum - SPECIAL JUDGE TO TRY THE OFFENCES UNDER PROTECTION

OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCE: VISAKHAPATNAM

Present: Sri S. Sasidhar Reddy

Special Judge to Try the Offences under POCSO Act

-cum- Metropolitan Sessions Judge -cum-I Addl. District & Sessions Judge

Tuesday, the 21 st day of February, 2017.

SESSIONS CASE No.194/2015.

a)The serial number of the case:S.C.No.194/2015.

b) Date of commission of offence:21.1.2014.

c)Name of the Complainant, if any:State represented by the Inspector of Police, Anakapalli circle, SabbavaramPolicestation, Visakhapatnam District.

d)Name of the accused person, his :Narapinni Ganesh, S/o. Tatarao, parentage and residence, if anyaged 23 years, Kapu by caste, Photographer, Ganesh Digital Phot studio, Lankalapalem junction, resident of Nakkavaipalem village, Parawada Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

e)Offence complained of or proved :U/ss.36, 376 of IPC and Section 3 and 5 of POCSO Act,2012.

f)Plea of the accused and his Accused pleaded not guilty examination, if any

This case has come up on 13.02.2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri K.Prudvi Raj, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State and of K.Chandra Sekhar, P.Ch.SS Babu, learned counsel for the accused and having this matter stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Inspector of Police, Anakapalli circle, Visakhapatnam District filed a charge sheet against the above named accused in Crime No.18/2014 on the file of Sabbavaram Police station, for the offences U/ss. 363, 376 of Indian Penal

Code and Sections 3 and 5 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences

Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred as POCSO ACT).

2.The case of the prosecution is that PW-1 is the daughter of PW-7 and that she was residing with her aunt PW-2. That the accused met her at village- 4I ADSJ Court, VSP

SC No. 194/2015

fair at Sabbavaram village and became intimate with her and professed love towards her. Believing his words PW-1 reciprocated on 21.01.2014 when the accused called her over phone and asked her to elope with him to get married.

Accepting the words of the accused PW-1 packed her cloths in a bag and when her elders were not there in the house she eloped with the accused. Accused took her to Lankelapalem junction, Visakhapatnam and took a room No.105 in

Mounika Lodge. After dinner he forced himself upon her and had sexual intercourse. In the meanwhile PW-5 K.Eswara Rao, Circle Inspector of police,

Gajuwaka Police station, Duvvada Zone, in the course of his duties checked the lodge and found accused and PW-1. He took them to the station and handed over PW-1 to her relatives. When the family members of PW-1 asked the accused to marry her, he refused to do so.

On 01.02.2014 basing on the statement of PW-1 B.Srinivasa Reddy,

ASI-774, Sabbavaram PS, PW-11, registered a case in Cr.NO.18/2014

U/ss.363, 376 IPC and Section 3 and 5 of POCSO Act, 2012 and sent the victim for medical examination and age determination. G.Srinivasarao, Inspector of police, Anakapalli Circle, PW-15, took up investigation and examined PWs-1 and 2 and recorded their statements. His successor Sk.Hussain, Inspector of police,

PW-12 took up further investigation and recorded the statements of witnesses and seized the arrival register of Mounika Lodge and examined the scene of offence and he arrested the accused on 28.02.2014 and produced him before the Court and sent the material object for analysis. After completion of investigation and S.Bhusana Naidu, Inspector of police, Anakapali Circle, PW-14 filed the charge sheet.

3.The charge sheet was taken on file by the learned Additional Metropolitan

Magistrate, Anakapalli and registered as PRC.No.11/2014 and the learned

Magistrate committed the case for trial before the Special Court after examining

the material. On receipt of the same, this Court registered the same as SC

No.194/2015 and the accused was summoned and upon appearance of the accused copies of documents were furnished to him under Section 207 Cr. P.C.

5I ADSJ Court, VSP

SC No. 194/2015

4.After hearing the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused, charges U/ss.363, 376(2)(i) of IPC and Sections 3 and 5 of POCSO Act, 2012 were framed against the accused, read over and explained to him. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

Accordingly, trial schedule was fixed and trial was conducted.

5.During the course of trial, the prosecution examined PWs-1 to 15 and

Exs.P1 to P17 are marked in support of their case.

6.After closure of prosecution’s evidence, the case was posted for examination of the accused U/s.313 Cr.P.C. The evidence recorded was put to the accused U/s. 313 of Criminal Procedure Code and he denied the entire evidence and reported no witnesses on his behalf. The case was posted for arguments. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel were heard.

7. After hearing the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused and upon examining all the material on record, the following points emerge for consideration are:

1. Whether the prosecution has established that the victim PW-1

was aged less than 18 years as on the date of offence?

2. Whether the prosecution has established that the accused had

had sexual intercourse with the victim/PW-1?

3. Whether the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had taken PW-1 out of the custody of her lawful guardian?

8.POINT No.1:

The prosecution in support of its case that the victim was less than 18 years relied upon the evidence of Dr.V.Chandra Sekhar, Asst. Professor,

Forensic medicine & Toxicology, Andhra Medical college, PW-10, who conducted the age determination test and Ex.P10 is the age determination certificate marked through PW-10. Ex.P10 show that as on the date of examination, the victim was aged 18 years. The offence is alleged to have been taken place on 6I ADSJ Court, VSP

SC No. 194/2015

21.01.2014 and the examination was conducted on 10.02.2014 and the certificate was issued on 25.02.2014 apart from this there is no material to show the exact date of birth of the victim. Therefore, it has to be held that the victim was not aged less than 18 years on the date of offence.

9. POINT No.2:

It is the prosecution’s case that the accused had sexual intercourse with

PW-1. But PW-1 turned hostile and did not support the prosecution’s case. The only other evidence is that of PW-5 and PW-6 who found PW-1 and the accused in the room at Mounika Lodge. This fact is further corroborated by Ex.P5,the entry at page-715 of Lodge arrival register which shows the name of the accused as the person who took Room No.105 on that day. However, the evidence of PWs-5 and 6 is only that victim and the accused were present in one room. He did not catch them in flag ranted. PW-1 did not support the prosecution’s case entirely. The medical evidence relied upon by the prosecution by PW-9, the doctor, who examined the victim is not sufficient to show that the accused had had sexual intercourse with the victim. In the circumstances, it has to be held that the prosecution has failed to establish that the accused had sexual intercourse with the victim.

10.POINT No.3:

It is the prosecution’s case that the accused had taken away the victim from her lawful guardianship. But as seen from the above, the age of the victim was not established as less than 18 years by the prosecution. In such circumstances, when the victim is to be major it cannot be held that the accused had taken her away as it appears that she had consensually accompanied him. Therefore, it has to be held that the prosecution has failed to establish its case.

11. In the result, the accused is found not guilty and is acquitted of all charges. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for further period of six months as security for his appearance before in any appeal or revision filed against the Judgment of this Court before any Higher Court as and when 7I ADSJ Court, VSP

SC No. 194/2015

such Higher Court issues summons to the accused for his appearance as contemplated U/s.437-A of Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr-I, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by

me in open Court on this the 21 st day of February, 2017.

Sd/-Sri S.Sashidhar Reddy

SPECIAL JUDGE TO TRY OFFENCES UNDER

PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES

-cum– I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

VISAKHAPATNAM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witness Examined For Prosecution: PW-1 : victim girl; hostile; PW-2 : Surampudi Venkata Lakshmi, hostile; PW-3 : Adari Sathibabu, material witness; PW-4 : Vegi Harikrishna Sagar, driver, PW-5 : E.Eswara Rao, Inspector of police, Duvvada Zone, IO., PW-6 : Ch.Chinna Rao, Home Guard, PW-7 : Smt.B.Pentamma, material witness; hostile; PW-8 : K.Venkatapathi Raju, driver, hostile; PW-9 : Dr.P.Vijaya Sheela, Asst.Professor, KGH, Vizag; PW-10: Dr.V.Chandra Sekhar, Associate Professor, FSL, AMC, PW-11: D.Srinivasa Reddy; Asst.SI of police, Sabbavaram PS;. PW-12: Shaik Hussain, Inspector of police, Anakapalli Circle; PW-13: Dr.K.Krishna Rao, Civil Asst.Surgeon, Area Hospital, Anakapalli, PW-14: S.Bhushana Niadu, Inspector of police, Anakapalli Rural circle; PW-15: G.Srinivas, Circle Inspector, Anakapalli PS.,

For Defence: - NIL-

Exhibits marked

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1 : signature of PW-1 on report dt.01.02.2014; Ex.P2 : Section 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW-1; Ex.P3 : Section 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW-2; Ex.P4 : original arrival register; Ex.P5 : Page No.715 of Ex.P4; Ex.P6 : Section 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW-7; Ex.P7 : signature of PW-8 on report; Ex.P8 : Preliminary opinion given by PW-9; Ex.P9 : RFSL report issued by PW-9; Ex.P10: age determination certificate; Ex.P11: Two x-ray films; Ex.P12: final opinion issued by PW-9; Ex.P13: report issued by PW-11; Ex.P14: FIR in Cr.NO.18/14 of Sabbavaram PS; Ex.P15: rough sketch; Ex.P16: scene observation report; Ex.P17: Potency test certificate of accused;

For defence: -NIL- Material Objects :- NIL -

Sd/- S.Sasidhar Reddy

SPECIAL JUDGE TO TRY OFFENCES UNDER

PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES

-cum– I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

VISAKHAPATNAM

1 I ADJ COURT, VSP NSC No.46 /2012

CALENDER & JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE TO TRY OFFENCES UNDER

NARCOTIC DRUGS & PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT

–cum – I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

– cum-METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE: VISAKHAPATNAM

Present: Sri S. Sasidhar Reddy Spl. Judge to try the Offences under NDPS Act -cum-Metropolitan Sessions Judge

Wednesday, the 22 nd day of February, 2017.

N.S.C.No.46/2012

(Crime No.7/2012 of Pedabayalu Police Station, Visakhapatnam District) COMPLAINANT : State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Rolugunta Police Station, Visakhapatnam District. ACCUSED : A1. Gali Durga Prasad, S/o. Phalguna, aged 25 years, Valmiki, Driver of Eicher Van No.AP31 Y 7424,Chotamiukhiputvillage,Enugurai Panchayath,MunchingputMandal, Visakhapatnam District.

A2. Bonda Prasad, S/o. Buttanna, aged 21 years, Bagatal, Cleaner of Eicher Van AP31 Y 7424, resident of Rolugunta village, Sithagunta panchayat,PedagantyadaMandal, Visakhapatnam District.

A3. Gabudu Narayana Murthy, S/o. Balaram, aged 21 years, Bagata, Second Driver of Ichar Van AP 31 Y7424, resident of Rolugunta village, Sithagunta Panchayat, Pedabayalu Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

A4. Gamparai Venkata Rao, S/o. Sathibabu, aged 22 years, Valimiki, Cultivation, Gomangi village, Pedabayalu Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

A5.Kuda Koteswararao @ Koti, S/o. Bhimanna, aged 25 years, Valmiki, Cultivation, Karugonda village,GomangiPedabayaluMandal, Visakhapatnam.

Offences complained U/s.8(c) r/w. 20(b) (ii) (C) of of or proved N.D.P.S.Act,1985.

DATE OF: Offence : 05.03.2012 Complaint: 05.03.2012 Apprehension: 06.03.2012 Commencement of Trial: 09.02.2017 Closure of Trial: 10.02.2017 Judgment : 22.02.2017 Whether the accused are on bail/in Jail : Accused 1 to 5 are on bail.

2 I ADJ COURT, VSP NSC No.46 /2012

EXPLANATION FOR DELAY IN SESSIONS COURT: The Sub-Inspector of Police, Pedabayalu Police Station,

Visakhapatnam District filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence U/sec.20(b) (i) of NDPS Act,1985(hereinafter referred to as NDPS Act). The charge sheet was taken on file and numbered as NSC.No.46/2012 on 16.07.2012 and summons were issued to the accused.

On 12.11.2013, charge U/s.8© r/w. 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act was framed and the accused denied the charge and claimed to be tried. Accordingly the trial schedule was fixed from different intervals due to non appearance of the accused and non appearance of the prosecution witnesses.

On 10.02.2017 to 22.02.2017, P.W1 to 5 were examined and Ex.P1 to P13 and Mos.1 are marked. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/sec.313 Cr.P.C examination on 15.02.2017. On 20.02.2017 heard the arguments of prosecution and defence counsel and posted for judgment.

On 22.02.2017 accused 1 to 5 present. Judgment pronounced in the open court, In the result, A1 to A5 are found not guilty and they are acquitted of the charge. The bail bonds of A1 to A5 shall remain in force for a further period six months as security for their appearance before any higher Court as and when such higher Court issue summons in respect of any appeal or revision filed against the judgment of this Court, as contemplated under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. MO-1 Eicher Van, interim custody of which has already been given to PW-3 and the same is made absolute after appeal time is over. The delay due to non-appearance of the accused and non-production of prosecution witnesses and no witnesses is retained beyond three days.

Sd/- S.Sasidhar Reddy

SPECIAL JUDGE TO TRY OFFENCES UNDER

NARCOTIC DRUGS & PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT

–cum – I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

VISAKHAPATNAM

3 I ADJ COURT, VSP NSC No.46 /2012

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE TO TRY OFFENCES UNDER N.D.P.S ACT

–cum – I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE – cum-

METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE, VISAKHAPATNAM

Present: Sri S. Sasidhar Reddy Spl. Judge to try Offences under NDPS Act -cum-Metropolitan Sessions Judge

Wednesday, the 22 nd day of February, 2017.

N.S.C.No.46/2012.

a)The serial number of the case:NSC.No.46/2012.

b) Date of commission of offence:05.03.2012.

c)Name of the Complainant, if any :State represented by the Sub- Inspector of police, Pedabayalu Police station, Visakhapatnam District.

d)Name of the accused person, his A1Gali Durga Prasad, S/o. Phalguna, parentage and residence, if anyaged 25 years, Valmiki, Driver of Eicher Van No.AP31 Y 7424, Chotamiukhiput village, Enugurai Panchayath, Munchingput Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

A2Bonda Prasad, S/o. Buttanna, aged 21 years, Bagatal, Cleaner of Eicher Van AP31 Y 7424, resident of Rolugunta village, Sithagunta panchayat, Pedagantyada Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

A3Gabudu Narayana Murthy, S/o. Balaram, aged 21 years, Bagata, Second Driver of Ichar Van AP 31 Y7424, resident of Rolugunta village, Sithagunta Panchayat, PedabayaluMandal, Visakhapatnam District.

A4Gamparai Venkata Rao, S/o. Sathibabu, aged 22 years, Valimiki, Cultivation,Gomangivillage, PedabayaluMandal, Visakhapatnam District.

A5Kuda Koteswararao @ Koti, S/o. Bhimanna, aged 25 years, Valmiki, Cultivation, Karugonda village, Gomangi Pedabayalu Mandal, Visakhapatnam.

e)Offences complained of or proved :U/s.8(c)r/w.20(b)(ii)(C)of NDPS Act,1985.

f)Plea of the accused and his :A1 to A5 pleaded not guilty. examination, if any

This case has come up on 20.02.2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri K.Prudvi Raj, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State/Complainant 4 I ADJ COURT, VSP NSC No.46 /2012 and of Sri B.Tamminaidu, Advocate for accused and this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police,Pedabayalu Police Station, Visakhapatnam

District filed charge sheet against the above named accused in Crime

No.7/2012 for the offence punishable U/s.20(b)(i) of the Narcotic Drugs &

Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as NDPS Act).

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 05.03.2012 at about 6.00 p.m.,

M.Ramarao, Sub Inspector of police, Pedabayalu Police station PW-4, received information about possession of ganja near Electrical substation,

Pedabayalu. He issued requisition letters to SV Ambedkar, Tahsildar PW-1,

Chenda Ramesh,VRO, Pedabayaluvillage PW-2 to act as mediators. Then he took them to the electrical substation, Pedabayalu and found one Eicher Van bearing No.AP31 Y 7424 coming from Gomangi to Paderu via Pedabayalu side. Upon seeing the police, the driver of the van and other persons in the van tried to escape. PW-4 caught A1 to A3 with the assistance of his staff.

On suspicion he checked the vehicle and found five gunny bags concealed under the rice bags load. On interrogation A1 who was the driver of the van confessed that A4 and A5 had loaded the bags and paid them additional amount to transport the same. The search was conducted in the presence of PWs-1 and 2 and ganja was found and total weight was 160 kgs.

Identification slips were prepared and affixed and two samples were drawn from each bag and packed in polythene bags and they are tied with threads and sealed and arrested the accused and seized the material objects under the cover of mediators report. Then the ganja along with van and accused were taken to the police station and he registered a case in

Cr.No.7/2012U/s.20(b)(i) of NDPS Act.

The accused were produced before the Court and on 30.04.2012 the successor of PW-4, M.Srinivasa Rao, SI of police PW-5 arrested A5 and recovered 2 kgs., of ganja and prepared slips and on preparing samples and packed them in a polythene cover and sealed them in the presence of 5 I ADJ COURT, VSP NSC No.46 /2012

PWs-1 and 2 and the samples were sent to Regional Excise Laboratory,

Visakhapatnam and after receiving the REL Report, PW-5 filed the charge sheet.

3.The charge sheet was taken on file as NSC.No.46/2012 against the accused and upon appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to them under section 207 Cr. P.C.

4.After hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused 1 to 5, charge U/s. 8(c) r/w. 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act was framed, read over and explained to the accused in their language. A1 to A5 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, trial scheduled was fixed and trial was conducted.

5.During the course of trial, the prosecution examined PWs-1 to 5 and

Exs.P1 to Ex.P13 and MO-1 are marked in support of their case.

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, the case was posted for examination of the accused U/s.313 Cr.P.C.A1 to A5 were examined

U/s. 313 Cr.P.C., and the evidence was explained to them in their language.

A1 to A5 denied the entire evidence and reported that they have no witnesses on their behalf. The case was posted for arguments and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused were heard.

7.After hearing the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused and after examining the entire material available on record, the following points emerge for consideration:

1. Whether the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that MO-1 and contraband shown in Ex.P2 to P5 were seized from the possession of Accused 1 to 5?

2. Whether the mandatory provisions governing the search and seizure under Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 have been complied with in this case?

8.POINT Nos.1 and 2 :

6 I ADJ COURT, VSP NSC No.46 /2012

It is the case of the prosecution that A1 to A3 were apprehended while transporting ganja at the behest of A4 and A5. PW-3 the owner of the van deposed that he had no knowledge of transporting of ganja and that he had discharged A1 and A2 with a load of sand. In the circumstances, A1 and A2 could have transported the ganja. In so far as search and seizure is concerned, the prosecution examined PW-1 and 2 who were the witnesses to the search. PW-1 is the Tahsildar who deposed that he was taken for vehicle checking along with police in the course of his duties when the van was stopped. Upon verification there were five bags. But the prosecution’s case is that PW-4 had issued requisition to PW-1 to act as witnesses moreover, PW-1 deposed that he cannot identify the accused because of efflux of time. But he identified the van. PW-2 turned hostile and did not support the prosecution’s case. PW-4 the Investigating officer, deposed that he had conducted vehicle checking and stopped the van and seized the property and had drawn samples. But PW-4 deposed to the drawing of the samples but the samples were not shown in the property form. This would throw a great doubt on the prosecution’s case for the reason that in his evidence the witness did not depose as to the drawal of the samples and forwarding the same to the laboratory. That it is further compounded by the samples not being referred to in the property form filed before the

Magistrate in the first instance In the circumstances, it has to be held that

the prosecution has failed to establish that the contraband was seized from the possession of the accused and that what was seized was ganja beyond reasonable doubt.

9.In the result, A1 to A5 are found not guilty and they are acquitted of the charge. The bail bonds of A1 to A5 shall remain in force for a further period six months as security for their appearance before any higher Court as and when such higher Court issue summons in respect of any appeal or revision filed against the judgment of this Court, as contemplated under

Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. MO-1 Eicher Van, interim custody of which has 7 I ADJ COURT, VSP NSC No.46 /2012 already been given to PW-3 and the same is made absolute after appeal time is over.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr-I, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced

by me in open Court on this the 22 nd day of February, 2017.

Sd/- S.Sasidhar Reddy

SPECIAL JUDGE TO TRY OFFENCES UNDER

N.D.P.S ACT-cum- METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE

VISAKHAPATNAM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witness Examined

For Prosecution: For Defense:

PW-1 : S.V. Ambedkar, Gazetted officer; - None – PW-2: Chanda Ramesh Kumar, VRO, mediator, hostile; PW-3: Chenda Neelaya, owner of van, PW-4: M.Ramarao, SI of police, IO., PW-5: M.Srinivasa Rao, SI of police, Pedabayalu PS;.

Exhibits marked

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1 : the mediator’s report dt.05.03.2012 at 6.00 p.m., Exs.P2 to P5 : are the photographs annexed to inventory u/s.52-A NDPS Act; Ex.P6 : signature of PW-2 on Ex.P1; Ex.P7 : signature of PW-2 on mediator’s report dt.30.04.2012; Ex.P8 : FIR in Cr.No.7/2012 of Pedabayalu PS., Ex.P9 : rough sketch; Ex.P10: letter of advise(marked subject to objection) Ex.P11: REL report; Ex.P12: mediator’s report dt.30.04.2012; Ex.P13: REFL report dt.22.05.2012;

For defense: - NIL Material Objects marked:

MO-1: Eicher Van bearing regn.No.AP31 Y 7424;

Sd/- S.Sasidhar Reddy

SPECIAL JUDGE TO TRY OFFENCES UNDER

N.D.P.S.ACT -cum- METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE

VISAKHAPATNAM

1 I ADJ COURT, VSP NSC No.108 /2009

CALENDER & JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE TO TRY OFFENCES UNDER

NARCOTIC DRUGS & PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT

–cum – I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

– cum-METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE: VISAKHAPATNAM

Present: Sri S. Sasidhar Reddy Spl. Judge to try the Offences under NDPS Act -cum-Metropolitan Sessions Judge

Wednesday, the 22 nd day of February, 2017.

N.S.C.No.108/2009

(Crime No.155/2007-08 of Prohibition & Excise Police Station, Anakapalli Proh. & Excise Police Station, Visakhapatnam District)

COMPLAINANT : State represented by the Prohibition & Excise Inspector, Anakapalli Proh. & Excise station, Visakhapatnam District.

ACCUSED : A1. Eswarab

A2.Jagan (The case against A1 and A2 was separated and registered as NSC.140/2016 since NBWs are pending against them)

A3. Bure Srinu, S/o. Somunaidu, aged 19 years, C/o. Kapu, resident of Khandivaram village, Cheedikada Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, Andhra Pradesh.

A4. Pinapala Ramu, S/o. Ramunaidu, aged 32 years, resident of P.Bimavaram village, Butchiyyapeta Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. AP.

A5.Smt.K.Snyasamma,W/o.Chandrarao, resident of Bailapudi Village, Cheedikada mandal, Visakhapatnam District, (owner of Auto).

Offences complained U/s.8(c) r/w. 20(b) (ii) © of N.D.P.S. Act, of or proved 1985.

Plea of the accused and his A3 to A5 pleaded not guilty. examination, if any DATE OF: Offence : 25.02.2008 Complaint: 25.02.2008 Apprehension: 25.02.2008 Commencement of Trial: 02.01.2017 Closure of Trial: 18.01.2017 Judgment : 22.02.2017 Whether the accused are on bail/in Jail : Accused 3 to 5 are on bail.

2 I ADJ COURT, VSP NSC No.108 /2009

EXPLANATION FOR DELAY IN SESSIONS COURT: The Prohibition & Excise Inspector, Prohibition & Excise Station, Anakapalli, Visakhapatnam District filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence U/sec.8(c) r/w.20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act, 1985(hereinafter referred to as NDPS Act).

The charge sheet was taken on file as NSC.No.108/2009 against the accused. As A1 and A2 did not appear and warrants were issued against them and were pending since long time, the case against A1 and A2 was separated on 03.06.2016 and registered as NSC.No.140/2016 and trial was produced to against A3 to A5.

On 15.07.2016 charge U/s.8(c) r/w. 20(b) of NDPS Act was framed and the accused were denied the charge and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, trial scheduled was fixed and trial was conducted from 02.01.2017 to 18.01.2017 and the prosecution examined P.Ws-1 to 3 and Exs.P1 to Ex.P7 and Mos-1 to 13 are marked and prosecution evidence was closed. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined U/sec.313 Cr.P.C examination to 27.01.2017. On 16.02.2017 heard the arguments of prosecution and defence counsel and posted for judgment.

On 22.02.2017 Accused 3 to 5 called present. Judgment pronounced in the open court, In the result, A3 to A5 are found not guilty and they are acquitted of the charge. The bail bonds of A3 to A5 shall remain in force for a further period six months as security for their appearance before any higher Court as and when such higher Court issue summons in respect of any appeal or revision filed against the judgment of this Court, as contemplated under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The material objects shall be preserved until disposal of the case against A1 and A2 in NSC.No.140/2016 on the file of this Court.

The delay due to non execution of NBW and non-production of prosecution witnesses and non-appearance of the accused and no witness is retained beyond three days.

Sd/- S.Sasidhar Reddy

SPECIAL JUDGE TO TRY OFFENCES UNDER

NARCOTIC DRUGS & PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT

–cum – I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

VISAKHAPATNAM

3 I ADJ COURT, VSP NSC No.108 /2009

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE TO TRY OFFENCES UNDER N.D.P.S ACT

–cum – I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE – cum-

METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE, VISAKHAPATNAM

Present: Sri S. Sasidhar Reddy Spl. Judge to try Offences under NDPS Act -cum-Metropolitan Sessions Judge

Wednesday, the 22 nd day of February, 2017.

N.S.C.No.108/2009.

a)The serial number of the case:NSC.No.108/2009.

b) Date of commission of offence:25.02.2008.

c)Name of the Complainant, if any :State represented by the Prohibition & Excise Inspector, Anakapalli Proh. & Excise station, Visakhapatnam District.

d)Name of the accused person, his A1Eswaran, A2Jagan parentage and residence, if any (The case against A1 and A2 was separated and registered as NSC.No.140/2016 since NBWs are pending against them)

A3Bure Srinu, S/o. Somunaidu, aged 19 years, C/o. Kapu, resident of Khandivaram village, Cheedikada Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, Andhra Pradesh.

A4Pinapala Ramu, S/o. Ramunaidu, aged 32 years, resident of P.Bimavaramvillage, ButchiyyapetaMandal, Visakhapatnam District. AP.

A5Smt.K.Snyasamma,W/o. Chandrarao, resident of Bailapudi Village,Cheedikadamandal, Visakhapatnam District, (owner of Auto).

e)Offences complained of or proved :U/s.8(c)r/w.20(b)(ii)(C)of NDPS Act,1985.

f)Plea of the accused and his :A3 to A5 pleaded not guilty. examination, if any

This case has come up on 20.02.2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri K.Prudvi Raj, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State/Complainant and of Sri K.Siva, Advocate for accused and this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

4 I ADJ COURT, VSP NSC No.108 /2009

J U D G M E N T

1.The Prohibition & Excise Inspector, Prohibition & Excise Station,

Anakapalli, Visakhapatnam District filed charge sheet against the above named accused and other accused in Crime No.155/2007-08 for the offence punishable U/s.8(c) r/w. 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic

Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as NDPS Act).

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 25.02.2008 at about 2.00 p.m.,

J.Ravikumar, Proh. & Excise Inspector, Anakapalli PW-1 along with his staff and excise Taskforce reached Ganga Thalli temple beside the quarry at a distance of about two furlongs towards the western side of Thallapalaem village of Kasimkota Mandal and conducted route watch. At about 2.30 p.m., one auto rickshaw bearing registration No.AP31Y-5607 coming from

Atcharla village towards Thallapalem village and was stopped on suspicion and found two passengers and driver with six luggage bags in the van.

When questioned they confessed that the bags contained ganja. Then PW-1 deputed M.JaganMohan Rao, Proh. & Excise SI, Anakapalli PW-3 to secure mediators but no one come-forwarded to act as mediators. Therefore, PW-1 questioned the accused and issued notice U/s.50 of NDPS Act and after taking their consent checked their bags and found ganja in it. The balance was brought and bags were weighed. The total weight of six bags was 53 kgs. Then the samples were drawn and identification slips were affixed and packets were sealed and accused were arrested. A occurrence report was drafted and property and auto was seized. After returning to the station,

PW-1 registered a case in Cr.NO.155/2007-08 U/s.8(c) r/w.20(b)(ii)(C) of

NDPS Act, and sent his report to his superior officials and sent the samples for chemical analysis along with letter of advise and after receiving the analysis report, filed the charge sheet.

5 I ADJ COURT, VSP NSC No.108 /2009

3.The charge sheet was taken on file as NSC.No.108/2009 against the accused. As A1 and A2 did not appear and warrants were issued against them and were pending since long time, the case against A1 and A2 was separated and registered as NSC.No.140/2016 and trial was proceeded to against A3 to A5. Upon appearance of the accused 3 to 5, copies of documents were furnished to them under section 207 Cr. P.C.

4.After hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused 3 to 5, charge U/s. 8(c) r/w. 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act was framed, read over and explained to the accused in their language. A3 to A5 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, trial scheduled was fixed and trial was conducted.

5.During the course of trial, the prosecution examined PWs-1 to 3 and

Exs.P1 to Ex.P7 and MOs-1 and 13 are marked in support of their case.

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, the case was posted for examination of the accused U/s.313 Cr.P.C.A3 to A5 were examined

U/s. 313 Cr.P.C., and the evidence was explained to them in their language.

A3 to A5 denied the entire evidence and reported that they have no witnesses on their behalf. The case was posted for arguments and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused were heard.

7.After hearing the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused and after examining the entire material available on record, the following points emerge for consideration:

1. Whether the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that the bags shown in Ex.P7 were seized from the possession of Accused 3 to 5?

2. Whether the mandatory provisions governing the search and seizure under Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 have been complied with in this case?

8.POINT Nos.1 and 2 :

6 I ADJ COURT, VSP NSC No.108 /2009

It is the case of the prosecution that PW-1 intercepted accused on route watch and seized ganja from them. In his cross-examination PW-1 admitted that ganja that was seized was in loose form whereas the ganja that was shown in Ex.P7 is in packets. This throws grave doubt on the prosecution’s case that whether the property that is shown in Ex.P7 is the property that is alleged to have been seized by PW-1. Further there are no independent witnesses to the search and seizure though PW-2 deposed that he had made an attempt to secure witnesses no one was willing to come- forward to act as mediators. There is no record of the persons approached by PW-2. In these circumstances, there is a grave doubt on the prosecution’s case. PW-3 deposed that five bags were seized whereas

PW-1 deposed that six bags were seized. All these circumstances throw a grave doubt on the prosecution’s case. Moreover, there are no identification slips on the bags to show that they are related to this case. in these circumstances, the prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the bags shown in Ex.P7 were seized from the possession of A3 to A5.

9.In the result, A3 to A5 are found not guilty and they are acquitted of the charge. The bail bonds of A3 to A5 shall remain in force for a further period six months as security for their appearance before any higher Court as and when such higher Court issue summons in respect of any appeal or revision filed against the judgment of this Court, as contemplated under

Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The material objects shall be preserved until disposal of the case against A1 and A2 in NSC.No.140/2016 on the file of this Court.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr-I, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced

by me in open Court on this the 22 nd day of February, 2017.

Sd/- S.Sasidhar Reddy

SPECIAL JUDGE TO TRY OFFENCES UNDER

N.D.P.S ACT-cum- METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE

VISAKHAPATNAM

7 I ADJ COURT, VSP NSC No.108 /2009

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witness Examined

For Prosecution: For Defense:

PW-1 : J.Ravi Kumar, Inspector of P&E, Anakapalli Station, IO.,- None – PW-2: M.Ravindra Prasad, Inspector P&E, Anakapalli Station, PW-3: M.Jaganmohana Rao, SI of Proh. & Excise, Anakapalli PS.,

Exhibits marked

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1 : Notice U/s.50 of NDPS Act; Ex.P2 : search notice; Ex.P3 : occurrence report; Ex.P4 : FIR in Cr.No.155/2007-08 of P& E Station, Anakapalli. Ex.P5 : letter of advise; Ex.P6 : analysis report; Ex.P7 : photograph annexed to the inventory;

For defense: - NIL Material Objects marked:

MO-1: Auto bearing No.AP 31Y 5607; MOs-2 to 13: are sample packets containing ganja;

Sd/- S.Sasidhar Reddy

SPECIAL JUDGE TO TRY OFFENCES UNDER

N.D.P.S.ACT -cum- METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE

VISAKHAPATNAM

1 I ADJ COURT, VSP NSC No.69 /2010

CALENDER & JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE

- cum - I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

-cum - SPECIAL JUDGE TO TRY THE OFFENCES UNDER NDPS ACT:

VISAKHAPATNAM

S.C.No.69/2010.

(in Cr.No.98/2009-10 of Proh. & Excise Station, V.Madugula Visakhapatnam District)

Name of the complainant:State represented by the Prohibition & Excise Inspector, V.Madugula Proh. & Excise station, Visakhapatnam District.

Name of the accusedA1Gollavilli Demudu, S/o. late Kondababu, aged about 47 years, caste by Kapu, resident of Bailapudi, Chidikada Mandal, Visakhapatnam district.

A2Jajimoggala Nagarajamma, W/o. Demudu, aged about 40 years, caste by Kapu, resident of Bailapudi, Chidikada Mandal, Visakhapatnam district.

Date of complaint:30.08.2009

Date of apprehension:19.01.2016.

Date of commencement of Trial:24.01.2017.

Date of closure of trial:27.01.2017.

Date of Judgment:23.02.2017

Whether the accused is in jail or on On bail. bail Explanation for the delay in : ----- committal court

Explanation for the delay in the Sessions Court:

The Inspector of Prohibition & Excise, V.Madugula Proh. & Excise Station,

Visakhapatnam District, filed charge sheet on 12.03.2010 and this Court had taken on file as NSC.No.69/2010 and since A1 and A2 were not apprehended by the time of filing of the charge sheet, NBW was issued but it was not executed inspite of granting enough time. Subsequently, the matter was adjourned from time to time due to Judicial employees strike for Samaikyandhra and the accused 1 and 2 were enlarged on bail vide orders in Crl.MP.NO.2602/2015 and sureties were accepted on 19.01.216. On 20.06.2016 accused 1 and 2 present and Charge U/s.8(c) r/w.20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act, was framed and trial schedule was fixed from 25.11.2017. But due to non-production of case property, the trail schedule was cancelled and refixed from 24.01.2017 to 27.01.2017 and Prosecution examined

PWs-1 to 4 and Exs.P1 to P6 and MOs-1 and 2 on their behalf and Exs.D1 and D2 2 I ADJ COURT, VSP NSC No.69 /2010 on behalf of defence and matter was posted for 313 Cr.P.C.Examination. on 03.2.2017 A1 and A2 were present and examined U/s.313 Cr.PC and reported no witnesses on their behalf. The matter was posted for arguments and on 20.02.2017 arguments were heard on both sides and posted for judgment to 23.02.2017. On 23.2.2017 A1 and A2 were present. Judgment pronounced. A1 and A2 are found not guilty and they are acquitted of the charge. The bail bonds of A1 and A2 shall remain in force for a further period six months as security for their appearance before any higher Court as and when such higher Court issue summons in respect of any appeal or revision filed against the judgment of this Court, as contemplated under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. MOs-1 and 2 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over. The ganja shown in Exs.P2 and P3 shall also be destroyed if not already destroyed after appeal time is over. There is no delay in disposing off the case and no witness is retained beyond three days.

Sd/- S.Sasidhar Reddy

METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE

-cum- I Addl. District & Sessions Judge -cum-Special Judge to try the offences Under POCSO Act: Visakhapatnam 3 I ADJ COURT, VSP NSC No.69 /2010

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE TO TRY OFFENCES UNDER N.D.P.S ACT

–cum – I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE – cum-

METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE, VISAKHAPATNAM

Present: Sri S. Sasidhar Reddy Spl. Judge to try Offences under NDPS Act -cum-Metropolitan Sessions Judge

Thursday, the 23 rd day of February, 2017.

N.S.C.No.69/2010.

a)The serial number of the case:NSC.No.69/2010.

b) Date of commission of offence:30.08.2009.

c)Name of the Complainant, if any :State represented by the Prohibition & Excise Inspector, V.Madugula Proh. & Excise station, Visakhapatnam District.

d)Name of the accused person, his A1Gollavilli Demudu, S/o. late parentage and residence, if anyKondababu, aged about 47 years, caste by Kapu, resident of Bailapudi,ChidikadaMandal, Visakhapatnam district.

A2Jajimoggala Nagarajamma, W/o. Demudu, aged about 40 years, caste by Kapu, resident of Bailapudi,ChidikadaMandal, Visakhapatnam district.

e)Offences complained of or proved :U/s.8(c)r/w.20(b)(ii)(C)of NDPS Act,1985.

f)Plea of the accused and his :A1 and A2 pleaded not guilty. examination, if any

This case has come up on 23.02.2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri K.Prudvi Raj, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State/Complainant and of Sri K.Siva, Advocate for accused and this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Prohibition & Excise Inspector, Prohibition & Excise Station,

V.Madugula, Visakhapatnam District filed charge sheet against the above named accused and other accused in Crime No.98/2009-10 for the offence punishable U/s.8(c) r/w. 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic

Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as NDPS Act).

4 I ADJ COURT, VSP NSC No.69 /2010 2.The case of the prosecution is that on 30.08.2009 at about 5.30 p.m., on prior information N.Prasada Rao, Proh. & Excise Inspector, PW-4 along with Patnala Eswara Rao, PW-1 and ES Task Force staff, Anakapalli, went on patrolling for detection of prohibition and excise offences. He found the accused 1 and 2 in possession of one gunny bag at the outskirts of Bailapudi village. Accused 1 and 2 running away upon seeing the excise staff. PW-4 was able to seize the bag and found it contained ganja. It weighed 30 kgs. Two samples were drawn and packed and occurrence report was drafted and after sealing the gunny bags and identification slips were affixed and after returning to the station PW-4 registered the occurrence report as case in Cr.No.98/2009-10 U/s.8(c) r/w.20(b)(ii)(C) of

NDPS Act. The samples were sent for chemical analysis and report was received that samples contained ganja. After completion of the investigation, he filed the charge sheet.

3.The charge sheet was taken on file as NSC.No.69/2010 against the accused. As A1 and A2 did not appear, Non-bailable warrants were issued against them and subsequently they were appeared and warrants were recalled and copies of documents were furnished to them under section 207

Cr. P.C.

4.After hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused 1 and 2, charge U/s. 8(c) r/w. 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act was framed, read over and explained to the accused in their language. A1 and

A2 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, trial scheduled was fixed and trial was conducted.

5.During the course of trial, the prosecution examined PWs-1 to 4 and

Exs.P1 to Ex.P6 and MOs-1 and 2 are marked in support of their case. The defence marked Exs.D1 and D2 in support of their case.

5 I ADJ COURT, VSP NSC No.69 /2010

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, the case was posted for examination of the accused U/s.313 Cr.P.C.A1 and A2 were examined

U/s. 313 Cr.P.C., and the evidence was explained to them in their language.

A1 and A2 denied the entire evidence and reported that they have no witnesses on their behalf. The case was posted for arguments and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused were heard.

7.After hearing the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused and after examining the entire material available on record, the following points emerge for consideration:

1.Whether the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that the contraband was seized from the possession of Accused 1 and 2?

2.Whether the mandatory provisions governing the search and seizure under Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 have been complied with in this case?

8.POINT Nos.1 and 2 :

It is the case of the prosecution that A1 and A2 were found with bags at the outskirts of Bailapudu village. All the prosecution witnesses are excise staff except for PW-1. The evidence of all the witnesses is that the accused were not arrested at the scene of offence. Further they were seen at a distance. Further the evidence of the official witnesses is that PW-1 who was the Village Talayari informed that he knew the identity of the said persons and would give their details. But PW-1 turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. He further deposed that the circle Inspector had called him to come to Madum saying that ganja was caught. That he had gone there and no persons or ganja was shown to him and he was asked to sing. In the light of this evidence, the evidence of other witnesses with regard to the identity is doubtful. Further PW-4 is the only witness who had identified the accused as the persons he saw. The other witnesses 6 I ADJ COURT, VSP NSC No.69 /2010

PWs-2 and 3 did not identify the accused. In the circumstances, the prosecution has failed to establish that the contraband was seized from the possession of the accused 1 and 2.

10.In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty and they are acquitted of the charge. The bail bonds of A1 and A2 shall remain in force for a further period six months as security for their appearance before any higher

Court as and when such higher Court issue summons in respect of any appeal or revision filed against the judgment of this Court, as contemplated under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. MOs-1 and 2 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over. The ganja shown in Exs.P2 and P3 shall also be destroyed if not already destroyed after appeal time is over.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr-I, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced

by me in open Court on this the 23 rd day of February, 2017.

Sd/- S.Sasidhar Reddy

SPECIAL JUDGE TO TRY OFFENCES UNDER

N.D.P.S ACT-cum- METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE

VISAKHAPATNAM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witness Examined

For Prosecution: For Defense:

PW-1 : Patnala Eswara Rao, Village Talayari, Hostile; - None – PW-2: M.Kousalya Kumar, SI of police,P&E Station, ESTF , AKP, PW-3: BH Kiran Maheswari, SI of police, P&E Station, V.Madugula , PW-4: N.Prasada Rao, Inspector P&E station, V.Madugula; IO.,

Exhibits marked

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1 : signature of PW-1 on mediators report dt.30.08.2009 at 5.30 p.m., Exs.P2 and P3: are photographs annexed to inventory; Ex.P4 : mediators report dt.30.08.2009 at 5.30 p.m., Ex.P5 : FIR in Cr.No.98/2009-10 of P&E Station, V.Madugula; Ex.P6 : REL report;

For defense: Exs.D1 & D2 : are property forms; Material Objects marked:

MO-1: Auto bearing No.AP 31Y 5607; MOs-2 to 13: are sample packets containing ganja;

Sd/- S.Sasidhar Reddy

SPECIAL JUDGE TO TRY OFFENCES UNDER

N.D.P.S.ACT -cum- METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE

VISAKHAPATNAM