Smt.S.Sreevani

Page 1 of 14 Judgment in SC (POCSO) No.05 of 2023

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE, FAST TRACK SPECIAL

COURT FOR EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL AND DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND

POCSO ACT CASES :: AT NIRMAL

Present:

Smt. S. SREEVANI

Principal District & Sessions Judge, Nirmal

FAC: Special Judge, Fast Track Special Court For Expeditious Trial And Disposal Of Rape And POCSO Act Cases, Nirmal

Thursday, this the 02nd day of April, 2026

SC (POCSO) No.05 of 2023

Name of the Complainant:: State of Telangana through Circle Inspector of Police, Soan, (P.S. Mamada).

Name of the Accused:: Gayakwad Sunil, S/o. Gangadhar, Age: 31 years, Caste: Mahar, Occ: Private Job, R/o. H.No.3-19/3, Bhosra Village, Bazarhathnoor Mandal of Adilabad District.

Offence under Section:: 363, 376 of IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act, 2012.

Plea of the accused:: Pleaded Not guilty

Finding:: Not guilty

Sentence or Order:: In the result, theaccused is found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Sec.363, 376 of IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act, 2012. Accordingly, he is acquitted U/Sec.235 (1) of Cr.P.C for the said offences. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time.

The MO1/Motorcycle and MO2/Mobile phone shall be returned to their respective owners after expiry of appeal time. The MO3 to MO11 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Page 2 of 14 Judgment in SC (POCSO) No.05 of 2023

Name of the counsel for :: Sri. A. Sudershan Reddy, prosecutionSpecial Public Prosecutor

Name of the counsel for :: Sri. D. Rajashekhar, defenceAdvocate for accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 18.03.2026 in the presence of Sri. A. Sudershan Reddy, Special Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri. D. Rajashekhar, Advocate for accused; and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

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

The Circle Inspector of Police, Soan had laid charge sheet against the accused in Cr. No.10 of 2023 of Police Station, Mamada for the offences punishable U/Sec.363, 376 of IPC and Section 3 r/w.4 of

POCSO Act, 2012.

02.The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 24.01.2023 at 1100 hours, the defacto-complainant/Rajuladevi Jyothi,

School/Hostel Speical Officer in Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalaya (KGBV) at New Sangi/PW1 came to Police Station and lodged a report stating that after the completion of Pongal holidays, on 18.01.2023, the victim minor girl/LW4 returned to the KGBV School and she was present there until 24.01.2023 at 07:30 hours during study hours. Later, while conducting the 09:00 hours morning roll call, the victim minor girl was found absent. Accordingly, the PW1 enquired about the whereabouts of the victim girl with her classmates, but in vain. On further enquiry, the

PW1 came to know that on 23.01.2023, during the evening hours, the victim minor girl had made a phone call to mobile number 7815823354

Page 3 of 14 Judgment in SC (POCSO) No.05 of 2023 from her parent’s mobile number 891972354. On 24.01.2023 at 09:30 hours, the PW1 sent the PET teacher and the Accountant to the victim minor girl’s village situated at Patha Tarlapad village, but they could not find her. Later, they searched around the Nirmal bus stand area and surrounding places, but her whereabouts could not be traced.

Therefore, she requested for taking necessary action.

03.Basing on the report given by PW1, PW6/J. Swamy, Assistant

Sub Inspector of Police, P.S. Mamada registered a case in Cr. No.10 of 2023, U/Sec.363 of IPC, issued FIR and took up the investigation. Later, he examined and recorded the statement of PW1. Later, on the same day, he handed over CD file to PW5/G. Ashok, Sub Inspector of Police,

P.S. Mamada, accordingly he took up the investigation from PW6 and on the same day, he visited the scene of offence situated at KGBV school at New Sangvi, where he examined PW1, then he examined and recorded the statements of PW2 and PW3. Subsequently, PW6 secured two mediators i.e. LW19/Shivarathri Peddulu and LW20/Mandadi Lingu and drawn the rough sketch of scene of offence in CDF-1 in their presence. He also collected photos and descriptive particulars of the victim minor girl. On 26.01.2023, at 23.00 hours, the victim minor girl along with accused/Gayakwad Sunil were came to PS Mamada. On his requisition, LW33/B. Sumalath, WSI, PS Nirmal Town recorded the

Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of victim minor girl and the same has been videographed by the LW5/P. Srilatha, WPC, PS Mamada. After completion of the statement of the victim minor girl, the LW33 handed

Page 4 of 14 Judgment in SC (POCSO) No.05 of 2023 over the statement to the PW5. Basing on the above statement, the

PW5 added the section of law i.e., Section 376 of IPC & Sec.3 r/w.4 of

POCSO Act with the existing Section 363 of IPC and on 27.01.2023, he produced the accused before the PW7/A. Ramnarshimha Reddy, Circle

Inspector of Police, Soan, as well as handed over the CD file to PW7 for further investigation, as the offence is grave in nature. Later, PW7 examined and recorded the statements of LW5 and LW33.

04.On 27.01.2023, on his requisition, PW1 issued original bonafide certificate of the victim and on verification the date of birth of the victim minor girl is 10.04.2007 and her age is 15 years 9 months and 14 days and she is minor. Then, the victim minor girl sent to the

Govt. Area Hospital, Nirmal for conducting medical examination to know whether the sexual intercourse occurred or not. The LW31/Dr. G.

Sumalath, CAS, Govt. Meternity Hospital, Nirmal conducted medical examination of the victim minor girl and preserved the material objects i.e vaginal swabs and vaginal smear and also seized the wearing apparel of the victim minor girl as well as seized cloths of victim which wore on the day of offence. Later, he interrogated the accused thoroughly and during the course of interrogation, the accused voluntarily confessed his guilt about the commission of offence.

Further, he also confessed that motor cycle and his mobile phone which were used by him at the time of commission of offence are with him, then he secured the presence of two mediators i.e., LW23/Deshaveni

Mahender and PW4 and recorded the confession cum-seizure

Page 5 of 14 Judgment in SC (POCSO) No.05 of 2023 panchanama of the accused and also seized material objects which he wore during last time while having sexual intercourse with the victim minor girl and the same were seized under the cover of seizure panchanama and effected the arrest of accused by issuing arrest memo. Later, he sent the accused to the Govt. Hospital, Nirmal for conducting medical examination and report. Later, PW7 produced the accused before the Court and sent him to judicial remand. On his requisition, LW30/R. Ajay Kumar, Prl. JFCM, Nirmal recorded Section 164 of Cr.P.C. statement of victim minor girl.

05.Later, on 01.02.2023, PW7 visited Jam village where he examined and recorded the statement of LW9/Gannaji Naveen.

Subsequently, he proceeded to Gudihatnoor, examined and recorded the statement of LW10/Gaikwad Vidya Sagar. Later, he proceeded to

Bazarhatnoor mandal, where he examined and recorded the statements of LW11/Gaikwad Naveen and LW12/MD. Salman Khan.

Later, he proceeded to Adilabad where he examined and recorded the statements of LW13/Dandge Sandeep, LW14/Veer Seema and

LW15/Chinthapalli Latha. Then, he secured two mediators i.e.

LW21/Vanjare Sagar and LW22/Shaik Dawood and drawn the rough sketch of scene of offence and CDF-2 before the same mediators. On 06.02.2023, he collected FSL report from LW29/Dr. Shaik Haseena

Parvin, Assistant Director, FSL, Hyderabad. On his requisition, LW28/G.

Hariprasad, Nodal Officer of Reliance Jio Infocomm Limited-AP and TS

Circle issued CAF, CDR along with Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act.

Page 6 of 14 Judgment in SC (POCSO) No.05 of 2023

On 06.03.2023, he collected MVI report from LW26/Ajay Reddy, MVI,

Nirmal. On 16.03.2023, he collected the ownership particulars of scene of offence house from the LW25/Admulla Shailaja, Municipal

Commissioner, Adilabad and on the same day, he proceeded to

Adilabad, examined and recorded the statements of LW18/Muneshwar

Laxmibai and LW25. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused. Hence, the charge.

06.The case was taken on file by the District and Sessions

Judge, Nirmal U/Sec.363, 376 of IPC and Section 3 r/w.4 of POCSO Act,

2012 against the accused. Later, the case was made over to this Court from District and Sessions Judge, Nirmal.

07.On appearance of accused, furnished him with the copies of prosecution documents as required U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. Later, on appearance of accused and on hearing both sides the accused was examined U/Sec.228 of Cr.P.C and charges U/Sec.363, 376 of IPC and

Section 4 of POCSO Act, 2012 were framed, read over and explained the same to him, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

08.In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW7 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P17 and MO1 to MO11. The evidence of LW4/Victim girl, LW5/P. Srilatha, WPC, PS Mamada,

LW6/Palli Srilatha, LW7/Adepu Jyothi, LW8/Dasari Srilatha, LW9/Gannaji

Naveen, LW10/Gaikwad Vidya Sagar, LW11/Gaikwad Naveen, LW12/MD

Page 7 of 14 Judgment in SC (POCSO) No.05 of 2023

Salman Khan, LW13/Dandge Sandeep, LW14/Veer Seema,

LW15/Chinthapalli Latha, LW16/Kadam Indu Bai, LW17/Bansodi Rekha

Bai,LW18/MuneshwarLaxmibai,LW19/ShivarathriPeddulu,

LW20/Mandadi Lingu, LW21/Vanjare Sagar, LW22/Shaik Dawood,

LW23/Deshaveni Mahender, LW25/Admulla Shailaja, Municipal

Commissioner, Adilabad, LW26/Ajay Reddy, MVI, Nirmal, LW27/V. Vekat

Narayana, Nodal Officer of Bharti Airtel Limited AP & TS Circle, LW28/G.

Hariprasad, Nodal Officer of Reliance Jio Infocomm Limited AP & TS

Circle, LW29/Dr. Shaik Haseena Parvin, Assistant Director, FSL,

Hyderabad, LW30/R. Ajay Kumar, Prl. JFCM, Nirmal, LW31/Dr. G.

Sumalatha, CAS, Govt. Meternity Hospital, Nirmal, LW32/Dr. C. Venu

Gopala Krishna, CAS, Govt. Area Hospital, Nirmal and LW33/B.

Sumalatha, WSI, PS Nirmal Town closed by this Court.

09.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. by putting the incriminating material available against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

10.Heard arguments of both sides.

11.Now the points for consideration is:

“Whether the prosecution able to prove the

guilt of the accused for the offence punishable

U/Sec.363, 376 of IPC and Section 4 of POCSO

Act, 2012 beyond all reasonable doubt”?

Page 8 of 14 Judgment in SC (POCSO) No.05 of 2023

POINT:

12.As the prosecution filed charge sheet against the accused for the above said offences, it is duty of the prosecution to establish that the accused has kidnapped the victim girl and also committed rape on her.

13.In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined PW1 and she deposed before Court that the victim studied 10th class in their school for the year 2023-24. On 24.01.2023, at about 7:00 a.m., victim attended the study hours and the duty teacher found her missing at 8:00 a.m. They have searched for the victim, but could not trace her out. Then they have informed the same to the house of the victim and at about 11:00 a.m., the parents of the victim came to school and after discussion, they have lodged a complaint before police.

14.PW2 and PW3 are the parents of the victim deposed before

Court that they do not know anything about this case.

15.PW4 is the panch witness for the confession of the accused deposed before Court that police called her to police station on 27.01.2023 wherein she has found the accused and the accused voluntarily confessed that he has taken the victim girl along with him and committed rape on her and on coming to know about the complaint lodged for missing of victim, he has dropped the victim at PS Mamada.

Page 9 of 14 Judgment in SC (POCSO) No.05 of 2023

Basing on the confession of the accused, Police has seized one motorcycle, one mobile and one dress from the possession of the accused.

16.PW5, PW6 and PW7 are the Investigating Officers who reiterated the contents of the charge sheet.

17.Now, in the light of above evidence, it is duty of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

18.On perusing evidence of PW6, on a report received from

PW1, he has registered the case. However, PW6 has not conducted any further investigation and handed over the CD file to the other

Investigating Officer i.e. PW5. Therefore, the evidence of PW6 is not helpful for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

19.On perusing the evidence of PW5, he deposed before Court that victim herself has voluntarily came to the police station and then

Woman S.I recorded her statement.

20.PW7 is another Investigating Officer and according to him, he has arrested the accused and also seized one motorcycle and cell phone. On perusing the evidence of PW5 and PW7, they are the main

Investigating Officers who conducted further investigation after registering the case by PW6.

Page 10 of 14 Judgment in SC (POCSO) No.05 of 2023

21.The counsel for the accused has cross-examined PW5 and

PW7 in lengthy and tried to elicit that the accused has not committed any offence. However, PW5 and PW7 denied all the suggestions put to them. In fact, PW5 and PW7 are the Investigating Officers and their evidence at best will help the prosecution to prove that they have conducted investigation and as a part of investigation, they have also seized the material objects from the possession of the accused.

However, the evidence of these witnesses itself is not sufficient for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt as they are not eye witnesses for the offence. There is every need of independent corroborating evidence with the evidence of PW5 and PW7 to prove the guilt of the accused.

22.PW1 is the complainant who came to know about missing of victim and then after searching for the victim, she has lodged complaint

before police in consultation with the parents of the victim. However,

the evidence of PW1 no where reveals that she is having knowledge that the accused has kidnapped the victim girl. Therefore, the evidence of PW1 is not helpful for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused.

23.PW2 and PW3 are the parents of the victim, but they simply deposed before Court that they do not know anything about this case.

As PW2 and PW3 turned hostile, Special Public Prosecutor declared them hostile and cross-examined them. Even at the time of cross-

Page 11 of 14 Judgment in SC (POCSO) No.05 of 2023 examination, they have not deposed that the accused has kidnapped the victim girl and committed rape on her. Therefore, the evidence of

PW2 and PW3 is also not helpful for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

24.Now, the remaining evidence before me is the evidence of

PW4 who deposed before Court that the accused has voluntarily confessed his guilt. However, the evidence of PW4 at best will help the prosecution to prove that one motorcycle, cellphone and dress of the accused was seized from the possession of accused on his confession and there is need some independent corroborating evidence which supports the evidence of PW4 to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

25.In fact, the victim is the best witness for the incident who can narrate the entire incident and can depose the acts of the accused

before Court, but unfortunately, the victim has not turned up to the

Court and not gave any statement to prove the guilt of the accused.

The evidence which was produced by the prosecution is only a circumstantial evidence which will not help the prosecution to prove the allegation which was levelled against the accused. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable U/Sec.363, 376 of IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act, 2012 beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal. Point is accordingly answered.

Page 12 of 14 Judgment in SC (POCSO) No.05 of 2023

26. In the result, theaccused is found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Sec.363, 376 of IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act, 2012. Accordingly, he is acquitted U/Sec.235 (1) of Cr.P.C for the said offences. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time.

The MO1/Motorcycle and MO2/Mobile phone shall be returned to their respective owners after expiry of appeal time. The

MO3 to MO11 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him and after correction

pronounced by me in open Court this the 02nd of April, 2026.

Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Nirmal FAC: Special Judge, Fast Track Special Court For Expeditious Trial And Disposal Of Rape And POCSO Act Cases, Nirmal

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW1:R. Jyothi – NONE –

PW2:Father of Victim Girl

PW3:Mother of Victim Girl

PW4:T. Swarupa

PW5:G. Ashok

PW6:J. Swamy

PW7:A. Ram Narsimha Reddy

Page 13 of 14 Judgment in SC (POCSO) No.05 of 2023

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.P1:Complaint/Report. – NIL –

Ex.P2:Bonafide of Victim Girl.

Ex.P3:Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2.

Ex.P4:Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW3.

Ex.P5:Relevant portion of confession cum seizure panchanama.

Ex.P6:Scene of offence panchanama/ CDF.

Ex.P7:Section Adding Memo.

Ex.P8:Report of PW1.

Ex.P9:FIR.

Ex.P10: Medical Report of Victim.

Ex.P11: FSL Report.

Ex.P12: Final Opinion.

Ex.P13: Potency Certificate.

Ex.P14: CDR along with certificate of Section 65 of Indian Evidence Act.

Ex.P15: 2nd Scene of offence panchanama/ 2nd CDF.

Ex.P16: Ownership particulars of vehicle No.TS-01-EA-5787.

Ex.P17: Ownership particulars of House B.No.4-5-24/327.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MO1:One Motorcycle.

MO2:One Mobile Phone.

Page 14 of 14 Judgment in SC (POCSO) No.05 of 2023

MO3:One Dress.

MO4:Maroon Colour T-Shirt.

MO5:Black Colour Jeans Pant.

MO6:White Colour Petticoat.

MO7:Chocolate Colour Inner-wear.

MO8:Multi Colour Top.

MO9:Orange Colour Leggin.

MO10:Brown Colour Petticoat.

MO11:Violate Colour Underwear.

Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Nirmal FAC: Special Judge, Fast Track Special Court For Expeditious Trial And Disposal Of Rape And POCSO Act Cases, Nirmal

Page 1 of 12 Order in MVOP No.13 of 2024

IN THE COURT OF THE CHAIRMAN, MACT–CUM–PRINCIPAL

DISTRICT JUDGE, NIRMAL

Present: -

Smt. S. SREEVANI

Chairman, MACT-cum-Principal District Judge, Nirmal

Friday, this the 15th day of May, 2026

M.V.O.P. No.13 of 2024

Between:

Pallepu Laxmi, W/o. P. Ramesh, Age: 26 years, Caste: Waddera, Occ: Coolie, R/o. Yallapelli village, R/m. Nirmal, Dist: Nirmal.

...Petitioner.

// AND //

1.Sayyed Sabir, S/o. Sayyed Tajuddin, Age: 33 years, Caste: Muslim, Occ: Lorry Driver bearing No.TS-13-4693, R/o. ADD A/P Bill Nagar, Near Syed Kirana Gokunda, Tq: Kinwat, Dist: Nanded (MS).

2. Syed Asad Ali, S/o. Wahed Ali, Age: Major, Occ: owner of crime vehicle bearing No.TS-18-T-4693, R/o. H.No.2-3-41/1, Islampur, Nirmal Town, Dist: Nirmal.

3. United India Insuance Company Limited, represented by its Branch Manager, Branch Office, H.No.1-2-28/161/1, 1st Floor, Shivaji Chowk, Mancheriyal X Road, Bhainsa Road, Nirmal Town, Dist: Nirmal. …Respondents

This Original Petition is coming before me for final hearing on 06.05.2026 in the presence of Sri. D. Rajashekhar, Advocate for Petitioner and of Sri. M. Suresh, Advocate for Respondent No.3 and Respondents No.1 and 2 having been set exparte; and on hearing both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

:: O R D E R ::

This is a petition filed under Section 166(1)(a) of Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 to grant compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One

Page 2 of 12 Order in MVOP No.13 of 2024

Lakh Only) to the petitioner for the injuries sustained by her in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 20.06.2021 at about 17:40 hours, at

Sangvi X Road of Mamada Village and Mandal.

02.The brief averments of the petition are that on 20.06.2021, the petitioner travelling as a pillion rider on Motor Vehicle bearing

No.TS-18-F-4691 along with her husband, who was riding the said vehicle, while returning from Khanapur to Yellapelli village. When they reached near New Sangvi X Road of Mamada village at about 05:40 PM, one Lorry bearing No.TS-18-T-4693 came from backside and crime vehicle driven in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed against the said vehicle, as a result, the petitioner and her husband fell on the road and sustained injuries. Thereafter, the petitioner and her husband were shifted from the scene of offence to

Government Area Hospital, Nirmal through 108 Ambulance, where the duty doctor provided first aid treatment. The petitioner sustained head injury and injuries on other parts of the body. As advised by the duty doctor, the petitioner underwent X-ray and CT-Scan at Janapriya CT

Scan Center and the petitioner sustained injuries i.e. 1) Head Injury, i.e., extracalvarial soft tissue swelling in the right fronto-parietal region,

2) No bony injury was seen and 3) No obvious cerebral parenchymal focal lesion or intracranial hemorrhage was found at present.

Page 3 of 12 Order in MVOP No.13 of 2024

03.Basing on the complaint, the Police Mamada registered a case in Crime No.58 of 2021 for the offence punishable U/Sec.337 of IPC r/w.187 of M.V. Act against the respondent No.1.

04.The petitioner was hale and healthy at the time of accident, aged about 26 years at the time of accident. The petitioner was working as a labourer/coolie and earning her livelihood through manual labour. Due to the injuries sustained in the said accident, the petitioner was unable to attend her work for more than six months. The petitioner further submitted that on account of the injuries sustained in the accident, the petitioner could not attend her work for about 3 months and thereby suffered loss of earnings to the tune of Rs.25,000/-. The entire income of the petitioner was being contributed towards the maintenance of her family. Due to the sudden accident, the petitioner became incapable of attending her regular work and daily activities, as she sustained head injury, abrasion on the right hand and abrasion on the right knee. The duty doctor also advised the petitioner not to undertake any hard work. The petitioner is unable to perform her day- to-day activities without the assistance of others and is facing difficulty even in attending her personal needs. The petitioner has undergone severe mental agony, physical pain and suffering. Though considerable time has elapsed, the petitioner has not fully recovered from the grievous injuries and is still suffering from uneasiness, tiredness, fatigue, loss of energy and depression, resulting in partial disability.

Thus, the petitioner has suffered immense physical pain, mental agony

Page 4 of 12 Order in MVOP No.13 of 2024 and financial loss, which cannot be compensated in terms of money.

Hence, the petitioner is entitled for compensation under the heads of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages. The respondent No.1 being the driver, respondent No.2 being the owner and respondent No.3 being the insurance company are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.

05.On the other hand, the respondents No.1 and 2 having been set exparte.

06.The respondent No.3 insurance company filed counter by denying all the allegations of the petition regarding the occurrence of accident and denying the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent. The respondent No.3 further submitted that the accident was occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by the driver of offending vehicle. The respondent No.3 denied age, income and occupation of the petitioner. The respondent No.3 is not aware of registration of the case by the Police. The respondent

No.3 submitted that respondent No.1 has no license to drive the crime vehicle as on the date of accident, as such insurance company is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. The respondent No.3 further submitted that unless the policy is detected and found correct it is deemed that the policy in respect of this crime vehicle is not issued.

The compensation claimed by the petitioner is excessive, exorbitant

Page 5 of 12 Order in MVOP No.13 of 2024 and the petitioner is not entitled for the said compensation and the petition is liable to be dismissed.

07.Basing on the above rival contentions, the following issues were settled for trial:

1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash

and negligent driving of driver of offending

vehicle bearing No.TS-18-T-4693, causing

injuries to the petitioner?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation as prayed for?

3. Whether R1 to R3 are liable to pay compensation to the petitioner?

4. To what relief?

08.In order to prove the case of the petitioner, PW1 examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A8 were marked. On behalf of respondent No.3, none examined and no documents have been marked.

09.Heard arguments of both sides.

ISSUE No.1:

10.This issue has been framed as the petitioner has pleaded that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of crime vehicle by respondent No.1, whereas the respondent No.3 has denied the same.

11.In order to substantiate the contention of the petitioner, she herself examined as PW1 and reiterated the contents of the petition. On

Page 6 of 12 Order in MVOP No.13 of 2024 perusing the chief examination of PW1, she deposed that the accident was occurred when she along with her husband are going on motorcycle and at that time, the crime vehicle came from backside and dashed against their motorcycle and at the time of accident her husband is driving the motorcycle, due to which the accident was occurred. According to the petitioner, she has also sustained injuries in the accident.

12.In order to disprove the evidence of PW1, the counsel for respondent No.3 has cross examined PW1 and tried to elicit that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of motorcycle by husband of the petitioner, but not due to negligence of driver of the crime vehicle. However, witness denied the same. Therefore, though the counsel for respondent No.3 has cross examined PW1, no fruitful purpose was served in favour of respondent No.3. Furthermore, the petitioner has also submitted the documents i.e. copy of FIR and charge sheet and also the crime detail form which prima facie shows that after registering the crime, the Investigating Officer has conducted investigation and filed charge sheet against respondent No.1 alleging that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of crime vehicle by respondent No.1. Therefore, the evidence of PW1 is corroborating with the documents filed by PW1. Therefore, prima facie, it is clear that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of crime vehicle by the respondent No.1.

Page 7 of 12 Order in MVOP No.13 of 2024

13.At this juncture, I am relying on the following citation:

Anitha Sharma Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Civil Appeal

No.4010/2020, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows:- "The standard of proof in such life matters is one of the proponderence of probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt. One needs to be mindful that the approach and role of Courts while examining evidence in accident claim cases, ought to not to be fault with non examination of some best eye witnesses, as may happen in a criminal trial but instead should be only to analyze the material placed on record by the parties to ascertain whether the claimants version is more likely than not true." From the above observation it is clear that direct proof of occurrence of accident beyond all reasonable doubt is not necessary and the Court has to ascertain the occurrence of accident basing on the records submitted by the claimants

before the Court. PW.1 has filed charge sheet before

the Court which shows prima facie that R1 has driven the crime vehicle in a rash and negligent manner”.

14.From the above observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court, it is clear that direct proof of occurrence of accident beyond all reasonable doubt is not necessary and the Court has to ascertain the occurrence of accident basing on the records submitted by the claimants before the Court. Hence, from the evidence of PW1 and the documents filed by the petitioner, it is clear that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of crime vehicle by respondent No.1. Accordingly, I answer this issue in favour of the petitioner against the respondents.

Page 8 of 12 Order in MVOP No.13 of 2024

ISSUES No.2 and 3:

15.This issue has been framed as the petitioner has prayed this

Court to grant compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- as she has sustained injuries in the accident.

16.In order to prove her injuries, the petitioner has submitted

Ex.A3, A6, A7 and A8. On perusing Ex.A3 i.e. injury certificate, the petitioner has sustained injury to her right side temporal region and also suffered bleeding from her nose. The petitioner has also underwent CT scanning. However, no injury was found in the CT scanning. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner has sustained simple injuries in the accident which includes the bleeding from her nose. The injuries sustained to the petitioner will definitely cause inconvenience to her and she will suffer with pain. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for Rs.25,000/- towards pain and suffering.

17.The petitioner has submitted the medical bills worth of

Rs.2,500/-. The counsel for the respondent No.3 has tried to elicit that the petitioner has not incurred any medical expenses for the injuries.

However, the petitioner has denied the same. On perusing medical bills, it is clear that the petitioner has incurred medical expenses of

Rs.2,500/-. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for Rs.2,500/- towards medical expenses.

Page 9 of 12 Order in MVOP No.13 of 2024

18.According to the petitioner, she used to work as coolie at the time of the accident. Due to the accident, she could not attend her coolie work at least for a period of 3 months and she has incurred loss of income. On perusing the documents submitted by the petitioner, the petitioner has sustained only simple injuries and she was admitted in the hospital, but she left the hospital against advice. However, as per the medical reports submitted by the petitioner, she has sustained injury to her temporal region and also bleeding from the nose.

Therefore, the petitioner cannot attend her regular work at least for a period of 15 days to 1 month due to said trauma which resulting to loss of income to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for

Rs.10,000/- towards loss of income.

19.The petitioner has claimed compensation under the head of transport charges to go to hospital. Admittedly, the petitioner did not file any transport bill, but the petitioner was shifted to hospital after the accident. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for Rs.5,000/- towards transport charges.

20.The petitioner also claimed compensation under the head of extra nourishment. Admittedly, the petitioner was hospitalized after the accident. During hospitalization, the petitioner had incurred expenditure towards extra nourishment. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for Rs.5,000/- towards extra nourishment.

Page 10 of 12 Order in MVOP No.13 of 2024

21.According to the petitioner, she has sustained injuries. If that is the case, the petitioner herself cannot attend her regular necessities without the help of any attendant. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for Rs.5,000/- towards attendant charges.

22.Thus, the petitioner is entitled for compensation under the following heads:

Amount Sl. No.Nature of head (in Rupees)

1.Pain and suffering 25,000-00

2.Medical Expenses2,500-00

3.Loss of Income10,000-00

4.Transport Charges5,000-00

5.Extra Nourishment5,000-00

6.Attendant Charges 5,000-00

TOTAL 52,500-00 (Rupees Fifty Two Thousand and Five Hundred Only).

23.Now, it has to be decided, who has to pay the compensation to the petitioner. The petitioner established that respondent No.1 is the driver of offending vehicle who caused accident in a rash and negligent driving of crime vehicle, respondent No.2 is admittedly owner of the offending vehicle and respondent No.3 is the insurance company. The insurance of the offending vehicle was inforce at the time of accident.

Thus, the respondents No.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation awarded in this case to the petitioner. Accordingly, I

Page 11 of 12 Order in MVOP No.13 of 2024 answer these issues in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.

ISSUE No.4:

24. In the result, the petition is allowed in part. The petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.52,500/- (Rupees Fifty Two Thousand

Five Hundred Only) with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization against the respondents No.1 to 3.

The respondents No.1 to 3 are directed to deposit the awarded amount within (30) days from the date of this order.

On such deposit, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw entire amount with costs and interest.

The rest of the claim of the petitioner is dismissed without costs.

The Advocate’s fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five

Thousand Only).

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him and after correction

pronounced by me in open Court on this the 15th day of May, 2026.

CHAIRMAN

MACT-CUM-PRL. DISTRICT JUDGE

NIRMAL

Page 12 of 12 Order in MVOP No.13 of 2024

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONER: FOR RESPONDENTS:

PW1:Pallapu Laxmi – NONE –

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PETITIONER

Ex.A1:Certified copy of FIR in Cr.No.58/2021 of PS Mamada.

Ex.A2:Certified copy of charge sheet.

Ex.A3:Certified copy of Injury certificate.

Ex.A4:Certified copy of Crime Detail Form.

Ex.A5:Certified copy of Form No.54.

Ex.A6:CT-Scan report.

Ex.A7:Medical bill for Rs.2,500/-.

Ex.A8:Medical prescriptions (2).

FOR RESPONDENTS

– NIL –

CHAIRMAN

MACT-CUM-PRL. DISTRICT JUDGE

NIRMAL

Page 1 of 10 Judgment in SC (POCSO) No.35 of 2025

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE, FAST TRACK SPECIAL

COURT FOR EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL AND DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND

POCSO ACT CASES :: AT NIRMAL

Present:

Smt. S. SREEVANI

Principal District & Sessions Judge, Nirmal

FAC: Special Judge, Fast Track Special Court For Expeditious Trial And Disposal Of Rape And POCSO Act Cases, Nirmal

Wednesday, this the 29th day of April, 2026

SC (POCSO) No.35 of 2025

Name of the Complainant:: State of Telangana through Assistant Superintendent of Police Officer, Nirmal Sub Division, (P.S. Nirmal Town).

Name of the Accused:: Peechara Madhav @ Pitcher Madhav, S/o. Peechara Sayanna @ Sayanna, Age: 23 years, Caste: Mudhiraj, Occ: Coolie, R/o. H.No.1-96, Mallapur Village of Laxmanachanda Mandal,

Offence under Section:: 64(2)(m), 69 of BNS and Section 3 r/w.4 of POCSO Act, 2012.

Plea of the accused:: Pleaded Not guilty

Finding:: Not guilty

Sentence or Order:: In the result, theaccused is found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Sec.64(2)(m), 69 of BNS and Section 3 r/w.4 of POCSO Act, 2012 and accordingly, he is acquitted U/Sec.258 (1) of BNSS for the said offences. The bail bonds of accused shall stands cancel after expiry of appeal time. The unmarked case property i.e., Redmi company Mobile 5G (Black Colour) deposited vide CP No.60 of 2025 shall be returned to accused after expiry of appeal time.

Name of the counsel for :: Sri. A. Sudershan Reddy, prosecutionSpecial Public Prosecutor

Page 2 of 10 Judgment in SC (POCSO) No.35 of 2025

Name of the counsel for :: Sri. D. Rajashekar, defenceAdvocate for accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 21.04.2026 in the presence of Sri. A. Sudershan Reddy, Special Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri. D. Rajashekar, Advocate for accused; and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

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

The Assistant Superintendent of Police Officer, Nirmal Sub

Division had laid charge sheet against the accused in Cr. No.159 of 2025 of Police Station, Nirmal Town for the offences punishable

U/Sec.64(2)(m) of BNS and Section 5(i) r/w.6 of POCSO Act, 2012.

02.The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 01.03.2025 at 1400 hours, the defacto-complainant/Minor Girl/PW1 came to Police Station and lodged a report stating that she is aged about 17 years and is a resident of Bodhan village of Nizamabad

District. She is presently working as a beautician at Nizampet,

Hyderabad. She further stated that in the month of November-2023, one Pitcher Madhav/accused contacted her through mobile phone (No.6302854670) by sending a message stating that he is her schoolmate. After a few days, she came to know that he was not her schoolmate and questioned him about the same. Thereupon, he disclosed his true identity and informed her that he was working in

Dubai. Since then, they continued to communicate with each other and their acquaintance gradually developed into a love affair. In the month

Page 3 of 10 Judgment in SC (POCSO) No.35 of 2025 of February-2024, the accused returned to India from Dubai and thereafter they met in person. Subsequently, at her request, he came to Nirmal on 01.03.2024 and took her to Mayuri Hotel, Nirmal. He expressed his love towards her stating that he can not live without her and that he would marry her. Believing his words, she accompanied him to a room in the said hotel, where he established physical relation with her on several occasions on the promise of marriage. Thereafter, on 09.03.2024, he returned to Dubai for livelihood, assuring her that he would marry her after his return. Believing his promise, she continued the relationship. Again, on 07.11.2024, he returned to India from

Dubai. On 03.02.2025, he took her to Krishna Hotel, Nirmal and once again had physical relation with her. On 28.02.2025, she went to his residence at Mallapur village and questioned him about the marriage.

However, he refused to marry her and stated that he would not marry her and cqan do whatever she can. Therefore, she requested for taking necessary action.

03.Basing on the report given by PW1, PW3/Bitla Persis,

Woman Sub Inspector of Police, P.S. Nirmal Town registered a case in

Cr. No.159 of 2025, U/Sec.64(2)(m) of BNS and Section 5(i) r/w.6 of

POCSO Act, 2012, issued FIR and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, she examined and recorded the statement of

PW1 and the same has been videographed by the LW7/Shaik Nihal.

Later, LW18/Rajesh Meena, Asst. Superintendent of Police, Nirmal took up investigation into this case. Later, he sent the victim minor girl to

Page 4 of 10 Judgment in SC (POCSO) No.35 of 2025

Government Maternity Hospital, Nirmal through WPC with a requisition for medical examination and for preservation of material objects.

LW13/Dr. G. Shailaja, Medical Officer conducted medical examination of the victim and preserved material objects for FSL examination. During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statements of LW2/ Mother of victim and PW2. Later, he visited the first scene of offence at Mayuri Hotel, Nirmal, secured the presence of mediators i.e.

LW9/Abraz Khan and LW10/Syed Mehraj Ali, conducted scene of offence panchanama and prepared rough sketch. LW18 examined LW4/Adapa

Ravinder Reddy and collected receipts showing stay of accused and victim from 01.03.2024 to 06.03.2024. Later, LW18 visited second scene of offence at Krishna Hotel, Nirmal, conducted panchanama in the presence of above said mediators i.e. LW9 and LW10, examined

LW5/Surya Shyam Sunder Rao and collected lodge register extracts and receipts showing stay on 03.02.2025. On his requisition, LW6/Vadnala

Narender issued bonafide certificate of victim girl/PW1 and he examined and recorded the statement of LW6.

04.On 03.03.2025, PW3 apprehended the accused at about 13:00 hours from his residence and produced him before LW18. During interrogation, the accused voluntarily confessed to the commission of the offence in the presence of mediators i.e. LW11/Ladi Anvesh Kumar and LW12/Kunta Raj Mohan, then LW18 conducted confession and seizure panchanama and seized one Redmi mobile phone from the possession of the accused under cover of panch witnesses. The entire

Page 5 of 10 Judgment in SC (POCSO) No.35 of 2025 proceedings were videographed by LW7/Shaik Nihal. The LW18 examined and recorded the statement of LW7 and he examined and recorded the statement of LW8/G. Pratibha, WPC of PS Nirmal Town.

After completion of confession panchanama, he effected the arrest of accused and thereafter, the accused was sent to Government General

Hospital, Nirmal for medical examination and the accused was produced before the Court for judicial remand. The LW14/Dr. B. Ravi,

Duty Medical Officer, Government General Hospital, Nirmal conducted potency test of the accused and opined that there is nothing to suggest that the accused is not capable of performing sexual act. On his requisition, LW16/Joginipally Bhavishya, Addl. JFCM, Nirmal recorded the statement of the victim U/Sec.183 of BNSS. LW15/G. Swarna Rani,

Assistant Director, FSL, Red Hills, Hyderabad examined the material objects and issued report. Basing on the FSL report, LW13/Dr. G.

Shailaja, Medical Officer issued final opinion. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused. Hence, the charge.

05.The case was taken on file by the District and Sessions

Judge, Nirmal U/Sec.64(2)(m) of BNS and Section 5(i) r/w.6 of POCSO

Act, 2012 against the accused. Later, the case was made over to this

Court from District and Sessions Judge, Nirmal.

06.On appearance of accused, furnished him with the copies of prosecution documents as required U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. Later, on

Page 6 of 10 Judgment in SC (POCSO) No.35 of 2025 appearance of accused and on hearing both sides the accused was examined U/Sec.251 of BNSS and charges U/Sec.64(2)(m), 69 of BNS and Section 3 r/w.4 of POCSO Act, 2012 were framed, read over and explained the same to him, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

07.In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW3 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P4. The evidence of LW2/Mother of victim, LW4/Adapa Ravinder Reddy, LW5/Surya Shyam Sunder Rao,

LW6/Vadnala Narende, LW7/Shaik Nihal, LW8/G. Pratibha, WPC, PS

Nirmal Town, LW9/Abraz Khan, LW10/Syed Mehraj Ali, LW11/Ladi

Anvesh Kumar, LW12/Kunta Raj Mohan, LW13/Dr. G. Shailaja, CAS, Lady

Medical Officer, Govt. Maternity Hospital, Nirmal, LW14/Dr. B. Ravi,

Assistant Professor, Govt. Medical College, Nirmal, LW15/G. Swarna

Rani, Assistant Director, TGFSL, Hyderabad, LW16/Joginipally

Bhavishya, Addl. JFCM, Nirmal and LW18/Rajesh Meena, Assistant

Superintendent of Police, Nirmal closed by this Court.

08.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. by putting the incriminating material available against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

09.Heard arguments of both sides.

Page 7 of 10 Judgment in SC (POCSO) No.35 of 2025

10.Now the points for consideration is:

“Whether the prosecution able to prove the

guilt of the accused for the offences

punishable U/Sec.64(2)(m), 69 of BNS and

Section 3 r/w.4 of POCSO Act, 2012 beyond all

reasonable doubt”?

POINT:

11.As the prosecution filed charge sheet against the accused for the above said offences, it is duty of the prosecution to establish that the accused committed rape on victim girl on the pretext of love and promise that he will marry her.

12.In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined PW1 who is the victim and she deposed before the Court that she do not know anything about this case. As PW1 turned hostile,

Special Public Prosecutor declared her hostile and cross-examined her.

Even at the time of cross-examination, PW1 has not deposed that the accused has assured her that he will marry her and also had sexual intercourse with her and when she asked the accused to marry her, the accused has refused for the same.

13.PW2 is the brother of victim deposed before Court that he do not know anything about this case.

Page 8 of 10 Judgment in SC (POCSO) No.35 of 2025

14.PW3 is the first Investigating Officer who registered the case, issued FIR and also recorded the statement of PW1.

15.Now, in the light of above evidence, it is duty of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

16.Though, the prosecution has examined PW3 in order to prove the guilt of the accused, but on perusing the evidence of PW3, she is only the Investigating Officer who registered the case on a report submitted by PW1 and recorded the statement of the victim. No other material evidence was found against the accused throughout the evidence of PW3. Furthermore, the evidence of PW3 at best will help the prosecution to prove that the investigation conducted by her and without independent corroborating evidence with the evidence of PW3, the sole evidence of PW3 itself is not sufficient for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

17.Now, coming to the evidence of PW2 who is the brother of the victim, he simply deposed before Court that he do not know anything about this case. As PW2 turned hostile, Special Public

Prosecutor declared him hostile, cross-examined him. Even at the time of cross-examination, he has not deposed anything against the accused and simply denied the suggestion put to him by the learned Special

Public Prosecutor. The evidence of PW2 is also not helpful for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable

Page 9 of 10 Judgment in SC (POCSO) No.35 of 2025 doubt as no incriminating material was found against the accused throughout the evidence of PW2.

18.According to the prosecution, PW1 is the victim in the hands of the accused. However, on perusing the evidence of PW1, she has simply deposed before Court that she do not know anything about this case and when she went to Police Station for her personal problem, police obtained her thumb impression on some paper. Even at the time of cross-examination by Special Public Prosecutor after declaring her hostile, she has not deposed anything against the accused and she denied all the suggestions put to her. Therefore, though Special Public

Prosecutor cross-examined PW1, no incriminating material was found against the accused throughout the evidence of PW1. Therefore, the prosecution cannot rely upon the evidence of PW1 to prove the guilt of the accused. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable U/Sec.64(2)(m), 69 of BNS and

Section 3 r/w.4 of POCSO Act, 2012 beyond all reasonable doubt.

Hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal. Point is accordingly answered.

19. In the result, theaccused is found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Sec.64(2)(m), 69 of BNS and Section 3 r/w.4 of

POCSO Act, 2012 and accordingly, he is acquitted U/Sec.258 (1) of

BNSS for the said offences. The bail bonds of accused shall stands cancel after expiry of appeal time. The unmarked case property i.e.,

Page 10 of 10 Judgment in SC (POCSO) No.35 of 2025

Redmi company Mobile 5G (Black Colour) deposited vide CP No.60 of 2025 shall be returned to accused after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by him and after correction

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

Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Nirmal FAC: Special Judge, Fast Track Special Court For Expeditious Trial And Disposal Of Rape And POCSO Act Cases, Nirmal

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW1:Victim Girl – NONE –

PW2:Brother of Victim Girl

PW3:B. Persis

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.P1:Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1. – NIL –

Ex.P2:Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2.

Ex.P3:Complaint/Report of PW1.

Ex.P4:FIR.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

– NIL –

Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Nirmal FAC: Special Judge, Fast Track Special Court For Expeditious Trial And Disposal Of Rape And POCSO Act Cases, Nirmal

1 of 10 SC (POCSO) No.23 of 2024 On the file of Special Judge, Fast Track Special Court For expeditious Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases, Nirmal

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE, FAST TRACK SPECIAL

COURT FOR EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL AND DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND

POCSO ACT CASES :: AT NIRMAL

Present:

Smt. S. Sreevani

Principal Sessions Judge, Nirmal

FAC: Special Judge, Fast Track Special Court For Expeditious Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases, Nirmal

Monday, this the 30th day of March, 2026

S.C (POCSO) NO. 23 of 2024

Cr. No. and Police Station :: Cr. No. 45 of 2024 of PS Kadams

Name of the Complainant :: State of Telangana through Sub Divisional Police Officer, Nirmal

Name of the Accused:: Golla Rajashekar, S/o. Golla Srinivas, Age: 30 years, Caste: Perika, Occ: Tractor Driver, R/o. H.No. 1-87, Kalleda village of Kadam Mandal of Nirmal District

Offence under section:: U/Secs. 366, 376(2)(n), 341 IPC, Sec. 3 r/w 4 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Sec. 9 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act

Plea of the accused:: Pleaded Not guilty

Finding:: Found Not guilty

Sentence or Order:: IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Secs. 366, 376(2)

(n), 341 IPC, Sec. 3 r/w 4 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Sec. 9 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act and he is acquitted U/Sec. 235 (1) of Cr.P.C for the said offences. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancel after expiry of appeal time. MO.1 i.e., Cell phone shall be returned back to accused after expiry of appeal time.

Name of the counsel for :: Sri A. Sudharshan Reddy, prosecutionSpecial Public Prosecutor 2 of 10 SC (POCSO) No.23 of 2024 On the file of Special Judge, Fast Track Special Court For expeditious Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases, Nirmal

Name of the counsel for :: Sri P. Raghuveer Reddy, defenceCounsel for Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 17.03.2026 in the presence of Sri A. Sudarshan Reddy, Special Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri P. Raghuveer Reddy, Counsel for Accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

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

The Sub Divisional Police Officer, Nirmal filed charge sheet against accused for the offence punishable U/Secs. 363, 376(2)(n), 201 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter called as IPC) and Sec. 6 and 9 of

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

02.The brief facts of the Charge sheet are that:

(i)On 16.04.2024 at 0800 hrs, the de facto complainant/Mother of victim minor girl lodged a telugu written complaint stating that, on 12.04.2024 at about 1100 hrs, she went to

Masaipet village to attend function of their relatives by leaving her daughter who was aged about 17 years and her son at house. On the same day, at about 1300 hrs, her son called her over phone and informed her that her daughter is found missing from the house.

Immediately, she reached the house and started searching for her daughter at her relatives house and surrounding villages, but in vain.

3 of 10 SC (POCSO) No.23 of 2024 On the file of Special Judge, Fast Track Special Court For expeditious Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases, Nirmal

(ii)Basing on the contents of the complaint, LW20/M.

Krushnasagar Reddy, Sub Inspector of Police, PS Kadam registered a case in Cr. No. 45 of 2024 for the offence U/Sec. 363 IPC, issued FIR and took up the investigation.

(iii)During the course of investigation, LW20 visited 1st scene of offence situated at Kalleda village and there examined and recorded the statements of LWs. 1 and 2 (Mother of victim and Father of victim), conducted scene of offence panchanama and drew rough sketch of scene of offence in the presence of LWs. 8 and 9 (Kodimela

Narsaiah and Pasupula Ramulu). Later, LW20 collected SSC memo of victim minor girl and then, prepared lookout notice about kidnapping of victim minor girl. On 09.05.2024, LW4/victim minor girl was traced out, then on the instructions of LW20, LW18/WSIP, PS Nirmal town examined and recorded statement of victim while the same was videographed with the help of LW19/K. Lavanya, WPC 1263 of PS

Kadam. Basing on the statement of LW4, LW20 added section of law i.e., 376(2)(n), 201 IPC and Sec. 6 of POCSO Act, 2012. Later, LW20 handed over the CD file to LW21/A. Ganga Reddy, SDPO Nirmal.

(iv)Subsequently, LW21 took up the investigation and verified the investigation done by LW20 on correct and proper lines.

Later, LW21 sent LW4 to Government Hospital, Nirmal for medial 4 of 10 SC (POCSO) No.23 of 2024 On the file of Special Judge, Fast Track Special Court For expeditious Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases, Nirmal examination and report, collected Bonafide certificate of victim minor girl from LW5 and collected report from LW14/LMO opining that, as per clinical examination and ultrasound examination, the victim minor girl is pregnant with 7 weeks, 6 days gestational age with viable fetus.

During the course of investigation, LW21 has secured re-examined and re-recorded the statements of LWs. 1 and 2 and also examined and recorded the statement of LW3/Brother of victim, apprehended accused on 09.05.2024 and on interrogation, accused voluntarily confessed his guilt in commission of offence and then conduced confession panchanama of accused in the presence of LWs. 10 and 11 (U. Kishore and Gadipappula Nagesh) and also seized one mobile phone of GIVA company with SIM card No. 6304779274 from the possession of accused in the presence of same mediators and later, after completion of all legal formalities, produced accused for Judicial remand. LW21 examined and recorded the statements of LWs. 5, 18 and 19 and proceeded to 2nd scene of offence situated at Mahalaxmiwada street,

Adilabad district and there conducted scene of offence panchanama and drew rough sketch of scene of offence in the presence of LWs. 12 and 13 (Ganta Narsaiah and Ganta Madhukar) and then proceeded to 3rd scene of offence situated at Sadanandulahari Temple at Kannepalli village of Dandepalli Mandal of Mancherial district and there after examining and recording the statement of LW7/Temple priest, 5 of 10 SC (POCSO) No.23 of 2024 On the file of Special Judge, Fast Track Special Court For expeditious Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases, Nirmal conducted scene of offence panchanama and also drew rough sketch of scene of offence in the presence of LWs. 12 and 13. After collection of all relevant documents and after completion of investigation, LW21 filed charge sheet against accused for the offence U/Secs. 363, 376(2)(n), 201 IPC and Secs. 6 and 9 of POCSO Act.

03.The case was taken on file by this Court for the offence

U/Secs. 363, 376(2)(n), 201 IPC and Secs. 6 and 9 of POCSO Act and on appearance of accused, furnished him with the copies of prosecution documents as required U/Sec. 207 Cr.P.C. and the charges U/Secs.

366, 376(2)(n), 341 IPC, Sec. 3 r/w 4 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Sec. 9 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act were framed, read over and explained the same to him, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

04.In order to prove its case, the prosecution got examined

PWs. 1 to 5 and also got marked Exs.P1 to P16 and MO.1 while the evidences of all other witnesses were closed by this Court.

05.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C by putting the incriminating material available against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which he denied all the allegations and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

6 of 10 SC (POCSO) No.23 of 2024 On the file of Special Judge, Fast Track Special Court For expeditious Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases, Nirmal

06.Heard arguments of both sides.

07.Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the prosecution able to prove guilt of

accused for the offences punishable U/Secs. 366, 376(2)

(n), 341 IPC, Sec. 3 r/w 4 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Sec. 9 of

Prohibition of Child Marriage Act beyond all reasonable

doubt”?

POINT:

08.As the prosecution filed charge sheet against the accused for the above said offences, it is duty of the prosecution to establish that the accused has kidnapped the victim who is minor and committed rape on her by wrongfully restraining her. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined PW1 and PW1 deposed

before Court that, she do not know anything about this case and about

one year back, when she went to police station on her personal work, police obtained her signatures on some papers.

09.PW2 is son of PW1 deposed before Court that, he do not know anything about this case.

10.PW3 is the victim simply deposed before Court that, she do not know anything about this case.

11.PWs. 4 and 5 are the Investigating Officers who reiterated the contents of Charge sheet.

7 of 10 SC (POCSO) No.23 of 2024 On the file of Special Judge, Fast Track Special Court For expeditious Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases, Nirmal

12.Now in the light of above evidence, it is duty of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. On perusing the evidence of PWs. 4 and 5 they are only the

Investigating Officers, who have started conducting investigation on a report submitted by PW1. No doubt, the evidence of PWs. 4 and 5 prima facie shows that after receiving report from PW1, they have started conducting investigation and as a part of investigation, they have also recorded the statement of witnesses, visited the scene of offence and lastly, traced out victim and subsequently, they have also arrested the accused and filed charge sheet against the accused, but the evidence of these witnesses itself is not sufficient for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt as they are not the eye witnesses for the incident. Therefore, there is dire need of independent corroborating evidence with the evidence of these witnesses.

13.For the corroboration, the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2, who are the mother and brother of the victim. On perusing the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2, they have simply deposed before Court that, they do not know anything about this case.

As PWs. 1 and 2 turned hostile, Spl. PP declared them hostile and cross examined them. Even at the time of cross examination, they have not 8 of 10 SC (POCSO) No.23 of 2024 On the file of Special Judge, Fast Track Special Court For expeditious Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases, Nirmal deposed before Court that, when they have found missing of the victim i.e., PW3 they have approached police and lodged complaint and later, police has traced out the victim and they came to know that the accused has committed rape on the victim. Though, the prosecution has examined PWs. 1 and 2, nothing could elicit from PWs. 1 and 2 to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

14.Now, coming to the evidence of PW3, who is the victim, she has simply deposed before Court that, she do not know anything about this case. As PW3 has also turned hostile, Spl. PP declared her hostile and cross examined her. Even at the time of cross examination, she has not deposed anything against the accused and she simply deposed

before Court that, she do not know anything about this case.

15.Though, the prosecution has alleged that, the accused has kidnapped PW3, committed rape on her and also married her, but PW3 who is the victim herself has not deposed anything against the accused. Therefore, no incriminating material was found against accused throughout the evidence of PWs. 1 to 3 to prove the allegations or charges levelled against the accused. Therefore, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused.

Hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, the point is answered.

9 of 10 SC (POCSO) No.23 of 2024 On the file of Special Judge, Fast Track Special Court For expeditious Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases, Nirmal

16.IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Secs. 366, 376(2)(n), 341 IPC, Sec. 3 r/w 4 of

POCSO Act, 2012 and Sec. 9 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act and he is acquitted U/Sec. 235 (1) of Cr.P.C for the said offences. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancel after expiry of appeal time.

MO.1 i.e., Cell phone shall be returned back to accused after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed and typed by her and after

corrections, pronounced by me in the open court on this, the 30 th day of March, 2026.

Prl. Sessions Judge, Nirmal FAC: Special Judge, Fast Track Special Court For Expeditious Trial And Disposal Of Rape And POCSO Act Cases, Nirmal

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

`

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW1:Mother of victim -None- PW2:Brother of victim PW3:Victim PW4:A. Ganga Reddy PW5:M. Krishna Sagar Reddy

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.P1:Signature of PW1 on report - Nil- Ex.P2:Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1 Ex.P3:Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2 Ex.P4:Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3 Ex.P5:Medical Examination report Ex.P6:FSL report Ex.P7:Final opinion 10 of 10 SC (POCSO) No.23 of 2024 On the file of Special Judge, Fast Track Special Court For expeditious Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases, Nirmal

Ex.P8: Date of Birth particulars of victim Ex.P9:Relevant portion of panchanama Ex.P10: Potency test Ex.P11: II Scene of offence panchanama Ex.P12: III Scene of offence panchanama Ex.P13: Report Ex.P14: FIR Ex.P15: I Scene of offence panchanama Ex.P16: Section adding Memo

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MO.1:Cell phone

Prl. Sessions Judge, Nirmal FAC: Special Judge, Fast Track Special Court For Expeditious Trial And Disposal Of Rape And POCSO Act Cases, Nirmal

Page 1 of 10 Judgment in SC (POCSO) No.20 of 2024

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE, FAST TRACK SPECIAL

COURT FOR EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL AND DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND

POCSO ACT CASES :: AT NIRMAL

Present:

Smt. S. SREEVANI

Principal District & Sessions Judge, Nirmal

FAC: Special Judge, Fast Track Special Court For Expeditious Trial And Disposal Of Rape And POCSO Act Cases, Nirmal

Monday, this the 06th day of April, 2026

SC (POCSO) No.20 of 2024

Name of the Complainant:: State of Telangana through Sub Inspector of Police, Basar, (P.S. Basar).

Name of the Accused:: Telga Ratnaiah, S/o. Ratna, Age: 38 years, Caste: SC Mala, Occ: Govt. Teacher, R/o. Talveda village of Nandipet Mandal, Dist: Nizamabad.

Offence under Section:: 354-D, 419, 363 r/w.511 of IPC and Section 11(iv) r/w.12 of POCSO Act, 2012.

Plea of the accused:: Pleaded Not guilty

Finding:: Not guilty

Sentence or Order:: In the result, theaccused is found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Sec.354-D, 419, 363 r/w.511 of IPC and Section 11(iv) r/w.12 of POCSO Act, 2012. Accordingly, he is acquitted U/Sec.235 (1) of Cr.P.C for the said offences. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time.

The MO1/Car bearing No.AP-28-CG-8980 was already given to the interim custody to the owner of MO1 vide Crl.M.P. No.116 of 2024, dated 24.04.2024 and said interim order is made absolute after expiry of appeal time.

Page 2 of 10 Judgment in SC (POCSO) No.20 of 2024

Name of the counsel for :: Sri. A. Sudershan Reddy, prosecutionSpecial Public Prosecutor

Name of the counsel for :: Sri. Md. Khaja, defenceAdvocate for accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 26.03.2026 in the presence of Sri. A. Sudershan Reddy, Special Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri. Md. Khaja, Advocate for accused; and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

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

The Sub Inspector of Police, Basar had laid charge sheet against the accused in Cr. No.15 of 2024 of Police Station, Basar for the offences punishable U/Sec.354-D, 419, 363 of IPC and Section 12 of

POCSO Act, 2012.

02.The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 16.02.2024 at 0005 hours, the defacto-complainant/Father of Minor

Girl/PW1 came to Police Station and lodged a report stating that his daughter is studying at IIIT Basar. On 13.02.2024, at about 18:00 hours, the Security personnel of IIIT Basar telephonically informed him that an unknown person had come to the campus and was falsely representing himself as the father of his daughter. Upon receiving the information, the PW1 immediately rushed to IIIT Basar and enquired with his daughter. His daughter informed him that her former teacher by name Telaga Ratnaiah/accused, had been calling her repeatedly and as she did not respond to his calls, he came to IIIT Basar and falsely

Page 3 of 10 Judgment in SC (POCSO) No.20 of 2024 introduced himself to the Security as her father. Believing the same, the Security personnel informed the girl that her father had come.

Accordingly, she went to the main gate of IIIT Basar, where she identified that the person was her former teacher and not her father.

The accused told her to come and sit in the car to talk. Believing him, she initially sat in the Car, but when he attempted to take her outside the campus, she immediately got down from the Car and informed the

Security personnel that he was not her father. Thereafter, the Security staff safely sent her back to the hostel and informed the PW1.

Subsequently, the PW1 took his daughter back home. After consulting with his family members, he approached the Police Station at Basar and lodged this complaint. Therefore, he requested for taking necessary action.

03.Basing on the report given by PW1, PW4/K. Ganesh, Sub

Inspector of Police, P.S. Basar registered a case in Cr. No.15 of 2024,

U/Sec.354-D, 419, 363 of IPC and Section 12 of POCSO Act, 2012, issued FIR and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statement of PW1. Later, on his instruction LW10/Pushpawathi, WSI, PS Basar examined and recorded the statements of PW2 who is victim. Later, he visited the scene of offence located at IIIT Basar premises, where he examined and recorded statements of PW3 and LW4/Golla Bhaskar. Then he secured the presence of two mediators i.e. LW6/Gentila Limbadri and

LW7/Nanam Anand Kumar, in their presence drawn rough sketch and

Page 4 of 10 Judgment in SC (POCSO) No.20 of 2024 conducted the scene of offence panchanam in CDF and seized the Ritz

Car bearing No.AP-28-CG-8980, which was used in the commission of offence. Later, on 17.02.2024, on his requisition, LW11/Dr.

Padmawathi, CAS, Govt. Area Hospital, Bhainsa examined the victim and issued medical report. On 27.02.2024, he sent medical objects to

RFSL, Karimnagar. On 02.03.2024, on his requisition, LW13/R. Ajay

Kumar, Prl. JFCM, Nirmal recorded Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement of victim girl. On his requisition, LW12/Srujana, Professor, Special Officer,

RJUKT (IIIT), Basar issued study cum conduct certificate of victim girl.

04.On 14.03.2024, at 1230 hours, he arrested the accused, interrogated him and during the course of interrogation, the accused voluntarily confessed his guilt about the commission of offence. Then he secured two mediators i.e. LW8/Anthagiri Srinivas and

LW9/Paathiganti Satheeshwar Rao and in their presence he recorded confession statement of accused in the presence of same mediators.

Later, PW4 produced the accused before the Court and sent him to judicial remand. Later, he also examined and recorded the statement of LW5/Ankampally Ganga Reddy who is the owner of crime vehicle.

After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused. Hence, the charge.

05.The case was taken on file by the District and Sessions

Judge, Nirmal U/Sec.354-D, 419, 363 of IPC and Section 12 of POCSO

Page 5 of 10 Judgment in SC (POCSO) No.20 of 2024

Act, 2012 against the accused. Later, the case was made over to this

Court from District and Sessions Judge, Nirmal.

06.On appearance of accused, furnished him with the copies of prosecution documents as required U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. Later, on appearance of accused and on hearing both sides the accused was examined U/Sec.228 of Cr.P.C and charges U/Sec.354-D, 419, 363 r/w.511 of IPC and Section 11(iv) r/w.12 of POCSO Act, 2012 were framed, read over and explained the same to him, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

07.In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW4 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P9 and MO1. The evidence of

LW4/Golla Bhaskar, LW5/Ankampally Gangareddy, LW6/Gentila

Limbadri, LW7/Nanam Anand Kumar, LW8/Anthagiri Srinivas,

LW9/Paathiganti Satheeshwar Rao, LW10/Pushpawathi, WSI of PS Basar,

LW11/Dr. Padmawathi, CAS, Govt. Area Hospital, Bhainsa,

LW12/Srujana, Professor, Special Officer, RGUKT (IIIT), Basar, LW13/R.

Ajay Kumar, Prl. JFCM, Nirmal and LW14/K. Narsimha, Asst. Director,

RFSL, Karimnagar closed by this Court.

08.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. by putting the incriminating material available against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

Page 6 of 10 Judgment in SC (POCSO) No.20 of 2024

09.Heard arguments of both sides.

10.Now the points for consideration is:

“Whether the prosecution able to prove the

guilt of the accused for the offence punishable

U/Sec.354-D, 419, 363 r/w.511 of IPC and

Section 11(iv) r/w.12 of POCSO Act, 2012

beyond all reasonable doubt”?

POINT:

11.As the prosecution filed charge sheet against the accused for the above said offences, it is duty of the prosecution to establish that the accused has pretender himself as father of the victim, visited the college, taken the victim from the college, tried to taken victim from the college and also misbehaved with her.

12.In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined PW1 and he deposed before Court that he do not know anything about this case and police not examined him.

13.PW2 is the victim deposed before Court that she do not know anything about this case.

14.PW3 is the Security Supervisor, IIIT, Basar deposed before

Court that he do not know anything about this case.

15.PW4 is the Investigating Officer who reiterated the contents of the charge sheet.

Page 7 of 10 Judgment in SC (POCSO) No.20 of 2024

16.Now, in the light of above evidence, it is duty of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

17.In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined PW4 who is the Investigating Officer, but his evidence at best will help the prosecution to prove that basing on a report submitted by PW1, the Investigating Officer has started conducting investigation. The evidence of PW4 itself is not sufficient for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt as PW4 is not an eye witness for the incident. There is need of independent corroborating evidence with the evidence of PW4.

18.For the corroboration, the prosecution has examined PW3 and tried to elicit that the accused came to IIIT College, Basar and pretended himself as the father of the victim and tried to take the victim from the college. However, PW3 simply deposed before Court that he do not know anything about this case. As PW3 turned hostile,

Special Public Prosecutor declared him hostile and cross-examined him.

Even at the time of cross-examination, he has not deposed anything against the accused. Therefore, the evidence of PW3 is also not helpful for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

19.The prosecution further examined PW1 and PW2 to prove the guilt of the accused. According to the prosecution, PW1 is father of

Page 8 of 10 Judgment in SC (POCSO) No.20 of 2024 the victim and PW2 is the victim herself. However, on perusing the evidence of PW1 and PW2, they nowhere deposed anything against the accused and they simply deposed before Court that they do not know anything about this case. As PW1 and PW2 turned hostile, Special

Public Prosecutor declared them hostile and cross-examined them.

Even at the time of cross-examination, they have not deposed before the Court that the accused came to IIIT College, Basar and called the victim outside the college by pretending himself as father of the victim and misbehaved with the victim. Therefore, absolutely there is no incriminating material found against the accused throughout the evidence of PW1 and PW2. Though, the prosecution has claimed that the accused has misbehaved with the victim and even tried to take away her from the college, but could not establish the same.

Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable U/Sec.354-D, 419, 363 r/w.511 of IPC and

Section 11(iv) r/w.12 of POCSO Act, 2012 beyond all reasonable doubt.

Hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal. Point is accordingly answered.

20. In the result, theaccused is found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Sec.354-D, 419, 363 r/w.511 of IPC and Section 11(iv) r/w.12 of POCSO Act, 2012. Accordingly, he is acquitted

U/Sec.235 (1) of Cr.P.C for the said offences. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time.

Page 9 of 10 Judgment in SC (POCSO) No.20 of 2024

The MO1/Car bearing No.AP-28-CG-8980 was already given to the interim custody to the owner of MO1 vide Crl.M.P. No.116 of 2024, dated 24.04.2024 and said interim order is made absolute after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him and after correction

pronounced by me in open Court this the 06th of April, 2026.

Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Nirmal FAC: Special Judge, Fast Track Special Court For Expeditious Trial And Disposal Of Rape And POCSO Act Cases, Nirmal

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW1:Father of Victim Girl – NONE –

PW2:Victim Girl

PW3:Srinivas

PW4:K. Ganesh

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.P1:Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of – NIL – PW1.

Ex.P2:Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2.

Ex.P3:Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW3.

Ex.P4:Complaint/Report of PW1.

Ex.P5:FIR.

Page 10 of 10 Judgment in SC (POCSO) No.20 of 2024

Ex.P6:Scene of offence panchanama/ CDF.

Ex.P7:Date of Birth particulars/Bonafide of Victim Girl.

Ex.P8:Medical Examination Report of Victim.

Ex.P9:FSL Report.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MO1:Car bearing No.AP-28-CG-8980.

Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Nirmal FAC: Special Judge, Fast Track Special Court For Expeditious Trial And Disposal Of Rape And POCSO Act Cases, Nirmal