1 C.C.No.23/2022
IN THE COURT OF THE II JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST
CLASS (FOR RAILWAYS) SECUNDERABAD
Present: Smt. S. Sree Devi, FAC II Judicial Magistrate of First Class (for Railways) Secunderabad
Dated the 19th day of December, 2025
C.C. No. 23 of 20 22
BETWEEN:
The state through Inspector, Government Railway Police, Hyderabad. … Complainant
AND Smt. Sasanam Rushivani @ Rani, W/o. Srinivasa Rao, Age: 36 years, R/o.H.No.12-14-100, Janatha Nagar, Moosapet, Rangareddy District. … Accused.
This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri. G. Ramesh Advocate Ld. counsel for the accused and the matter having heard and stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
1.The Inspector of police, Government police station, Hyderabad filed a charge sheet in Cr.No.18/2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 379, 403 IPC against the accused.
2 C.C.No.23/2022
2.The brief averments of the prosecution case are as follows :
On 17-02-2021 at 16:30 hours received a complaint from Smt.
Sudha Upadyayula in which she stated that they at his choice foundation organization have been working to keep woman operation, they have set for up a child help Desk at Nampally station and have been running the same for the past 1.8 years. Sasanam Rusiveni (Rani) is a volunteer and is on call whenever there is a need for women volunteers at the desk to handle the case. She has been employed with them since the past year and half, recommedned by the railway staff in the station, having previously worked in the
Railway waiting room a contract staff for 8 years. This is to inform that on 19-11-2020 Afiya Hameem D/o. Mohammed Fazil Ali, aged 16 year, was identified by the on duty Home Guard Jangaiah Rao,
While purchasing a ticket at Nampally station, to board train to
Bareilly. At 19.30 hrs the home guard handed over the girl at Child line Help Desk to the on duty staff member, Sasanam Rushiveni (Rani). Parents of the girl were informed by home guard and in accordance with due case procedure, bagged was checked in presence of on duty RPF SI and the said amount (3bundles of Rs.
500/- each handed over to girl’s father Mr. Fazil Ali.
3 C.C.No.23/2022
3.The RPF Staff insisted and pressurized Rani and Ramakrishna (Child line staff) who came in once he was informed about the case, to send the girl home with parents even though the child line coordinator, Mr. Nazeem Mohammed, instructed that the process be on hold until he arrived in the station. Later Nazeem arrived at the station and the child was handed over to her parents per the verbal instructions taken from CWC Chair person, Ms. Shyamala Devi.
Restoration was completed by 22.30 hrs dt 19-11-2020. Later the same night Rani who was off duty came to the help desk to take a blanket. She took a blanket from inside the help desk booth and also picked the new banner that was used for the program earlier that afternoon and kept in the rack. The on duty staff, Imtiaz, objected to the use of a new banner and pulled it away, when cash in Rs. 500/- denomination fell from the banner. It was then counted as can be seen in CCTV footage and found to amount to Rs. 20,000/-. The same was informed to the higher official at CHD and the father of the child was called again believing the money belonged to them. At this time the father said that the child hade admitted to having taken an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- from their house, out of which they were in receipt of Rs. 1,48,000/- and said that amount belongs to them. The 4 C.C.No.23/2022 said staff Rani was also found in possession of Rs. 9,370/- which she stated to have withdrawn from state bank the previous day and it was verified through the bank statement which reflected the withdrawal. On further enquiry, the child informed that Rani allegedly opened the bag in the presence of the Home Guard and later when the home guard left, she told the girl that she would keep 2 bundles away in safe custody and asked the girl to put the bundles in the banner. She later mentioned to the girl that she is keeping the cash safe in the tiffin box and promised to have over the same to her afterwards, saying the police would otherwise take away all the money when questioned about the cash, Rani vehemently denied that she asked the girl to keep the money aside. She also said she saw the money in the banner only later and it must have been kept by the girl herself and that she also admitted that Rs. 300/- has been received from the girl’s brother as a token for rescuing the girl.
Her services have been terminated forthwith for Potentially involving corrupt practices and misconduct. Given the course of events as mentioned above, it is requested that appropriate investigation carried out and action initiated against the concerned individuals involved, in particular Sasanam Rushiveni, according to due process 5 C.C.No.23/2022 of law as may be deemed fit, under the circumstances. Hence requested to take necessary action in to the matter.
4.Basing on the contents of the complaint, the Lw10/M
Komaraiah Sub-Inspector of RPS Hyderabad has registered a case in crime No. 18/2021 for the offences u/s.379 of IPC and took up investigation.
5. During the course of Investigation Lw10/M Komaraiah examined the Lws1 to 3 and recorded their statements u/s. 161
Cr.P.C., Later on transfer of Lw10/M Komaraiah handed over the CD file to Lw11/ Srinvias for further investigation. During the further investigation the Lw11/ examined the Lw4 to 7 and recorded their detail statements. On 26-10-2021 the Lw11 summoned to the
Accused Sasanam Rushivani @ Rani to RPS Hyderabad, as such the accused appeared before the Investigating officer. On interrogation she admitted her guilty of the offence in this case. In which the confessed confessed that the amount of Rs. 20,000/- belonged to
Victim girl kept under her possession dishonetly with intended to the use the same for personal needs. Hence added the section of law u/s.
403 IPC. Effected the arrted of accused on 26-10-2021 at 12.15 6 C.C.No.23/2022 hours. On 11-11-2021 seized such net cash of Rs. 20,000/- under cover of seizure panchanama in presence of two mediators i.e., Lw8 and Lw9. After completion of entire investigation the Lw11/A
Srinvias have filed the charge sheet.
6.This case was taken on file for the offences u/s.379 of IPC against the accused.
7.After appearance of the accused, copies of documents was furnished to him, as required u/s.207 Cr.P.C.
8.The Accused was examined U/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried for the offences U/sec.379 of IPC. Hence the charges U/s.379 IPC are framed, read over and explained to the him in vernacular language.
9. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined the PWs.1 to 8 and the Exs.P-1 to P-8 and
Mo1 were marked. On behalf of the accused no witnesses and no documents were marked.
7 C.C.No.23/2022
10.After completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the prosecution evidence appeared against him, for which the accused denied the incriminating evidence of the prosecution and reported no defense evidence.
11.Heard, the arguments from both sides and perused the case record.
12.Now the point for determination is:-
Whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubts for the offences U/sec.379 of IPC against the accused?
13. Pw1 stated that he came to know that on 19-10-2020 at 07:30 PM one girl by name Afiya who is aged about 16 years was brought before their Help desk at Nampally railway station by home guard by name Jangaiah. Accused was sitting at the desk as a volunteer and the girl was handed over to her. Afiya who is
PW6 herein. The baggage of PW6 was checked and there were 3 8 C.C.No.23/2022 bundles of 500 rupees notes in the baggage. The father of PW6,
Lw2, Pw5 were called to railway station and the child welfare committee handed over PW6 to her father. On the same day accused took the banner of child help line to use it as bed sheet. Pw4 pulled the said banner and suddenly one bundle of 500 rupees note fell down from the banner. Immediately he reported the same to Md. Nazeem and by counting the same it was shown that they are 20,000/-. Pw1 also stated that he came to know from Mohd. Nazeem that Pw5 informed him that he was possessing 5 bundles of 500 rupees notes along with her among them 3 bundles of 500 rupees notes were handed over to them and remaining 2 bundles were missing. After getting the information Pw1 instructed Md. Nazeem to report the entire matter to Child Line India foundation. Then they instructed them to report the matter GRP Secunderabad. On that he lodged a complaint.
14. Accused did not choose to cross examine his witness hence the chief examination of Pw1 remained on record intact.
9 C.C.No.23/2022
15. PW2 stated that on 19-11-2020 while he was on duty his colleague Janga Rao informed him that PW6 was roaming under suspicious circumstances. In turn he informed same to Lw2/ANRG
Raju. Raju informed asked him to call to child help line. Accused was also present near circulating area and she is working for child help line. Head constable of RPF took the girl child to the child help line desk. PW6 was carrying a bag and when opening the bag they were 3 bundles of 500 rupees notes they thought that Pw6 might have committed theft of that amount. PW6 informed that she was carrying 1,50,000 rupees and then counting it was found that the cash was comprising of 1,48,000/-. Pw6 informed that she was taking the amount and going to Uttar Pradesh to a boy with whom she got acquaintance while play “Pub-g game”.
16. In the cross examination he admitted that he did not stated in his statement that the accused called the parents of the girl and informed about the entire incident and they took back Pw6 along with them.
10 C.C.No.23/2022
17. Pw3 stated that on 19-11-2020 at 07:50 PM accused called him and informed that RPF persons rescued one girl and gave the details of that girl. He opened his whatsapp and saw the details of that girl who is Pw6 herein. Accused informed that she counted the money which was in possession of the accused. He asked accused to pass on the phone to Pw6 and Pw6 informed that she intended to go to Uttar Pradesh to meet a boy with whom she came into contact while playing “pub-g game”. Later accused disconnected the call and again called him and Pw6 was handed over to her parents. The team co-coordinator asked him to come to child help line desk immediately. Accordingly he reached Hyderabad Railway station and found RPF personnel, parents of Pw6 and accused along with
PW6. Even though Lw2/Raju asked him to hand over the PW6 to police he intended to hand over the Pw6 as per the process. Later the team co-ordinator by name Nazeem arrived to the spot and PW6 was handed over to her parents along with cash. Accused informed that she will sleep at help desk itself. Even though they asked to go to her house but she did not agree. Later he came to know that accused took one banner but Pw4 refused to give that banner and 11 C.C.No.23/2022 when the banner was pulled Rs. 20,000/- fell down from the banner.
18. In the cross examination of Pw3 he admitted that he did not stated in his statement that accused refused to go to her house and informed that she will sleep at AC waiting hall and intended to took one banner and when Pw3 pulled that banner Rs. 20,000/- fell from that banner. It is to suggest that he is deposing false-hood for which he denied.
19. Pw4 stated that on 18-11-2020 he noticed Pw6 along with her parents at Nampally railway station and he came to know that the said girl was rescue and handed over to her parents. He asked accused to go to her home but she stated that there are no buses and asked for mattress and when he refused to give mattress she came back and informed that she obtained permission from
Nazeem she took a flex along with her and when he pulled the flex and currency bundles fell down from the flex amount are about
Rs. 20,000/-. He video graphed the same through his mobile phone.
12 C.C.No.23/2022
20. In the Cross examination of Pw4 it was suggested to him that he do not work in child help line desk and he do not possess any identity card for which he denied. He admitted that he cannot speak, write and read Telugu language. It was suggested to him that he do not know the contents of his statement for which he denied. It was also elicited that he did not handed over his mobile phone to police and did not gave the complaint directly but informed about incident to his coordinator. It was suggested to him that as accused demanded to increase her salary his coordinator did not accepted the same and hatched a plan to remove her in the service and filed a false case by colluded with each other for which he denied. It was suggested to him that he cannot identify the accused for which he denied.
21. Pw5 stated that on 19-11-2020 he received a phone call from
RPF that her daughter was in Namaplly railway station and she was possessing money immediately he went and found his daughter and
Pw6 was possessing 1,48,000/- and she was handed over to him along with the cash. On the next day Pw6 informed to his son that accused took 1,00,000/- from her by informing that police will take 13 C.C.No.23/2022 the cash from his possession but later she did not return the same.
He informed the same to the incharge of Child help line deskand he informed him that Rs. 20,000 were found at Child help line desk.
HeIdentified the accused as the person responsible for the offence.
22. In the cross examination of Pw5 it was elicited that after lodging the complaint he did not get the free copy of the FIR. It was suggested to him that he did not stated to police that in his presence only police enquired with the accused with regard to the missing of cash for which he denied. It was suggested to him that he did not stated before the police that accused took Rs.1,00,000/- from PW6 for which he denied. It was suggested to him that as he belongs to the same community to which Nasim belongs he is deposing falsehood for which he denied.
23. PW6 stated that in the month of November 2020 she went to
Nampally railway station in order to purchase ticket to go to Uttar
Pradesh. The person at ticket counter asked her to produce her
Aadhaar card and called two lady constables. They checked her bag and asked her as how much amount her possessing on that she informed that she was possessing 2,50,000/-. Accused asked her 14 C.C.No.23/2022 to put 1,00,000/- under the banner of the flex and threatened her that police will take that cash. Later accused asked her to keep 1,00,000 in her Tiffin box and will return the same while she was going to her house. But she ignored the words of the Pw6.
Meanwhile her father and brothers came. She asked the accused to hand over the cash of Rs. 1,00,000/- but accused ignored the request of PW6 and did not return back Rs.1,00,000/- to her. She went back to her house and did not revealed about the acts of the accused immediately as she become panic. Later she informed to her brother.
24. In the cross examination of Pw6 she admitted that she do not know Telugu language but the contents were explained to her in
Telugu language. It was suggested to her that she did not counted the amount before reaching to her house for which she denied. It was suggested to her that she did not stated in her statement that she took away Rs. 2,50,000/- with her to the Nampally railway station and accused asked her to keep Rs. 1,00,000/- with her in the tiffin box and promised to return the same to her while she was going back to her house and She asked the accused to hand over 15 C.C.No.23/2022 the cash of Rs.1,00,000/- but accused ignored the request of PW6 and did not returned back Rs. 1,00,000/- to her. She went back to her house and did not revealed that the bag of the accused immediately as she become panic, later she informed to her brother. for which she denied.
25. PW7 stated that about two years back he was called by GRP
Nampally to come to railway station and in his presence accused handed over the cash of Rs. 20,000/- to police and they seized the same. Police prepared the panchanama and he attested the same.
26. In the Cross examination of Pw7 it was elicited that he acted as a panch witness only in this case. He stated that he cannot read the contents of Ex.P2. It was suggested to him that in Ex.P2 there is no mentioned about accused possessing Rs. 20,000/- for which he denied.
27. PW8 stated that in this case LW10/Komaraiah the then Sub- inspector of police RPS Hyderabad received Ex.P1 from PW1 and from
Pw1 and registered a case in crime No. 18/2021 u/sec. 379 IPC and issued FIR to all concerned. He can identifying his signature. Ex.P3 16 C.C.No.23/2022 is the FIR issued by him. He examined and recorded the statements of Pw1, Pw2 and LW3/Raju. Later the case file was transferred to him on his transferred. He examined and recorded the statements of
PW3 to PW6. He effected the arrest of the accused on 26-10-2021.
He fetched the presence of PW7 and LW8/Yakub in their presence he seized Rs. 20,000/- from the possession of the accused under the cover of Ex.P2. He served notice to accused under the provisions of 41-A Cr.P.C. and laid charge-sheet on completion of investigation by adding section 403 IPC. Accused is the same person from whom he seized the Rs. 20,000/-.
28. In the cross examination of Pw8 he stated that Ex.P1 was received by Lw2/Kumaraiah and it was en-routed to them through
SP office. He admitted that offence took place on 19-11-2020 but the complaint was lodged on 17-02-2021 and the date Ex.P1 was mentioned as 29-11-2020. He admitted that the delay of 3 months in lodging the complaint and no reason was mentioned for the same. He also admitted that Ex.P1 there is no mentioned about the quantum of the money which was lost. He also admitted that he did not collected any proof to show that Pw6 took Rs. 2,50,000 was 17 C.C.No.23/2022 in possession of Pw1 before the offence. He also admitted that he did not collected any proof to show that as how Pw5 got Rs.
2,50,000/- by keeping the same in the bag. He did not collected any proof to show that how Pw5 got Rs. 2,50,000/-. He showed that Pw5 did not collected the details but recorded the statement.
It was suggested to him that amount was not recovered from the possession of the accused for which he denied. He also admitted that there is no mention in Ex.P2 that Pw7, LW8/Yakub questioned the accused and accused confessed about the offence.
It was suggested to him that he prepared Ex.P2 after 7 months at his office and obtained the signature of PW7, Lw8/Yakub and filed a false charge sheet for which he denied. He also admitted that he did not collected the CCTV footage obtained from the scene of offence and did not filed before the court. He admitted that Pw3,
Pw4, Pw5 works at child line. It was suggested to him that he neither examined PW4 to Pw6 nor recorded their statements for which he denied. He admitted that PW6 handed over cash on 11- 11-2021 in the presence of Pw7, LW8/yakub and he received the same under the cover of Ex.P2. It was suggested to him that as the accused sought increase in her salary Child line officer bore grudge 18 C.C.No.23/2022 about the accused and foisted a false case in order to remove her service and subsequently she was force to resign for her job for which denied. As alleged and the accused no way responsible for the offence but a false case foisted against her for which he denied.
29. It is the contention of the prosecution that Pw6 came to
Nampally railway station with a bag in order to go to Uttar Pradesh and when she went to ticket counter she was asked to show aadhaar card and she was handed over to child help line desk.
Accused was volunteered at the desk. Pw6 was handed over to her and latter the said girl was handed over to her. The co-ordinator of child line help desk Md. Nazeem instructed until he arrives Pw6 should not be handed over to her parents. The entire process was completed and Pw6 was handed over to her parents. Later accused informed that she will sleep at railway station itself and asked for a blanket and picked a new banner. The duty staff objected for using the banner and bundle of cash containing 500 rupees notes fell down and it was Rs.20,000. The father of Pw6 informed that Pw6 took away Rs. 2,50,000 from his house and they received only Rs.
1,48,000/-. Pw6 informed on enquiry that accused asked her to 19 C.C.No.23/2022 keep two bundles in the banner and informed that she is keeping the amount in Tiffin box and promised to return the same but she failed to hand over the same.
30. To substantiate the above said contentions prosecution examined Pw1 to Pw8. Admittedly Pw1, Pw2, Pw3, PW4 are official witnesses and they will not have any enmity with the accused. Pw5 is the father of Pw6 who has spoken about the offence. Pw6 is the crucial witness because she is the eye witness and victim in the case. She categorically stated that accused asked her to put Rs.
1,00,000/- by threatening her police will take that amount.
Accused assured that she will return back that amount but did not give back. The evidence of Pw7 is also material to the prosecution because in his presence only the accused handed over the Rs.
20,000/- to the police. Even though she was cross examined nothing was elicited in his cross examination. No suggestion was put to Pw7 as why he is speaking against the Accused. Pw8 is the investigating officer who has spoken about the investigation done by him. Moreover the evidence of PW1 is on record without any deviation.
20 C.C.No.23/2022
31. It is the contention of the accused when she asked for a hike her salary her higher officials both grudge against her and falsely implicated her in this case. The same was suggested to the witnesses and categorically denied the same. Even for arguments sake it was considered that accused was falsely implicated in this case the reason for falsely implicating her is appearing to be very vague. It is highly impossible to create the entire incident for the sake of removal of the accused from her service. Accused is supposed to help the children who were in distress and should come to their rescue. The duty of the accused is a pious duty and she should work for the benefit of the children who were in vulnerable condition. But in this case accused exploited the situation and threatened PW6 and took amount from her. The acts of the accused are un-ethical and against the morals. As a responsible employee accused is not supposed to take advantage of the vulnerability of Pw6 and it is not excepted to take advantage of situation for her illegal gain. The evidence lead by prosecution clearly established the u/se.c 379 IPC.
21 C.C.No.23/2022
32. Hence by considering the oral and documentary evidence
before this court it was felt that the prosecution succeeded in proving
the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubts.
33. In the result, Accused was found guilty for the offence under section 379 IPC and the accused pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten
Thousand Only). In default of payment of fine she has to suffer Simple
Imprisonment for a period of 01 year. The default sentence should run alternatively. The remand period undergone by the Accused shall be given set-off against the sentence imposed to her. Mo1 i.e., Net
Cash (INR) 20,000/- (500 rupee notes x 40) deposited vide P.I. No.
13/2022 dt. 27-01-2022 which was seized in this case may be returned to its original owner on proper acknowledgment and it will become absolute after the lapse of appeal time.
34. The bond and bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for the period of six months as per Section 437-A Cr.P.C. for a period of six months enabling her to appear before the appellate court.
Typed to my dictation by Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 19th Day of December, 2025.
Sd/-
FAC II JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS
(FOR RAILWAYS) SECUNDERABAD
22 C.C.No.23/2022
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR
PROSECUTION: DEFENCE:
PW.1 : Smt. Sudha Upadhyayula None PW.2 : Sri. P. Subi Reddy, Pw.3 : Sri. P. Ramakrishna, Pw.4 : Sri. Imtiyaz Khan, Pw.5 : Sri. Mohd. Fazil, Pw.6 : Kum. Hafiya Ameem Pw.7 : Sri. Abdul Rasheed Pw.8 : Sri. A. Srinivas
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR
PROSECUTION: DEFENCE:
Ex.P1: is the Police report,Nil Ex.P2: is the Seizure Panchanama, Ex.P3: is the FIR.
MO`s. Marked for:
Mo1: is Net Cash of Rs. 20,000/-.Nil
Sd/-
FAC II JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS
(FOR RAILWAYS) SECUNDERABAD
//True Copy//