Smt. S V P Surya Chandrakala

Spl.SC 165 of 2022

IN THE COURT OF THE FAST TRACK SESSIONS JUDGE FOR EXPEDITIOUS

DISPOSAL OF CASES OF RAPE AND PROTECTION OF CHILD AGAINST SEXUAL

OFFENCES (POCSO) ACT :: AT MULUGU

Present: Smt. S.V.P. Surya Chandrakala,

Principal District and Sessions Judge, Mulugu,

FAC Fast Track Sessions Judge for Expeditious disposal of cases of Rape and Protection of child against sexual offences (POCSO) Act, Mulugu.

Saturday the day 28 th of February, 2026

SPL. SESSIONS CASE No. 165 OF 202 2

(Cr.No.14 /2022, PS., Kannaigudem)

Crime Number and Police Station:Cr.No.14 of 2022 of Police Station: P.S. Kannaigudem.

Name and description of the Accused:Vasampalli Chanti, S/o. Ellari, Aged 27 years, Occ: Coolie R/o. Gurrevula village, Kannaigudem Mandal of Mulugu District.

The State of Telangana, represented Name and description of the : by Assistant Superintendent of Police, Complainant Eturnagaram. Sri D. Ram Singh, Prosecution conducted by :

Additional Public Prosecutor.

Kum. M. Manasa, learned Accused defended by:

U/secs. 452, 354-D, 366-A, 376 (3), 376 Offence charged: (2) (n) and 506 of IPC and Section 3 r/w 4 (2), 5 (j) (ii), 5 (l) r/w Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

Pleaded not guilty and claimed to be Plea of the Accused: tried. Found guilty. Finding of the Court:

Result: In the result, the accused is found guilty for the charged offences punishable U/secs. 452, 1/112Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 165 of 2022 354-D, 366-A, 376 (3), 376 (2) (n) and 506 of IPC and Section 3 r/w 4, 5 (j) (ii), 5 (l) r/w Section 6 of

Protection of Children from

Sexual Offences Act, and accused is convicted of the said offences

Under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C.

The accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of (2) Years and he shall also pay fine of Rs 1000/- (Rupees one thousand only)for the charged offence punishable under Section 45 2 of IPC, and in default to make payment of fine of

Rs1000/-,the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of (2) two months.

Further the accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of (1) year and also shall a l s o pay fine of Rs 500./- (Rupees five hundred only) for the charged 2/112Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 165 of 2022 offence punishable under Section 354-D IPC, and in default to make payment of fine of Rs 500/-, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of (1) one month.

Further the accused is sentenced toundergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of (3) years and also shall a l s o pay fine of Rs 1500/- (Rupees one thousand five hundred only) for the charged offence punishable under Section 366-A,IPC, and in default to make payment of fine of

Rs1500/-, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of (3) three months.

Further the accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of (20) years and also shall a l s o 3/112Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 165 of 2022 pay fine of Rs 2000/- (Rupees two thousand only)for the charged offence punishable under

Section 376 (3)IPC, and in default to make payment of fine of Rs 2000/-, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of (4) four months.

Further the accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of (10) years and also shall a l s o pay fine of Rs 2000/- (Rupees two thousand only)for the charged offence punishable under

Section 376 (2) (n) IPC, and in default to make payment of fine of

Rs 2000/-, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of (4) four months.

Further the accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous 4/112Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 165 of 2022 imprisonment for a period of (2) years and also shall a l s o pay fine of Rs 500/- (Rupees five hundred only) for the charged offence punishable under Section 506IPC, and in default to make payment of fine of Rs 500/-, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of (1) one month.

Further the accused is sentenced toundergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of (20) years and also shall a l s o pay fine of Rs 2000/- (Rupees two thousand only)for the charged offence punishable under

Section 3 r/w 4 of Protection of

Children from Sexual Offences

Act, and in default to make payment of fine of Rs 2000/-, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of (4) 5/112Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 165 of 2022 four months.

Further the accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of (20) years and also shall a l s o pay fine of Rs 3000/- (Rupees three thousand only) for the charged offence punishable under

Section 5 (j) (ii), 5 (l) r/w Section 6 of Protection of Children from

Sexual Offences Act, and in default to make payment of fine of

Rs 3000/-, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of (5) five months.

The sentences shall run concur- rently in respect of offences under

Sections 452, 354-D, 366-A, 376 (3), 376 (2) (n) and 506 of IPC and

Section 3 r/w 4, 5 (j) (ii), 5 (l) r/w

Section 6 of Protection of

Children from Sexual Offences 6/112Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 165 of 2022

Act.

The period of remand undergone by the accused from 24.05.2022 to 26.07.2022 to till date, shall be given set off Under

Section 428 of Cr.P.C. in respect of the offences punishable 452, 354-D, 366-A, 376 (3), 376 (2) (n) and 506 of IPC and Section 3 r/w 4, 5 (j) (ii), 5 (l) r/w Section 6 of

Protection of Children from

Sexual Offences Act.

The accused is informed about his right to prefer an appeal against this Judgment and also appraised to obtain free legal aid if he required. The accused is furnished with copy of Judgment.

Before parting with the

Judgment, in the light of nature and circumstance of the case this 7/112Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 165 of 2022

Court is satisfied and is of considered view that it is a fit case to award compensation to the victim of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs only) as provided under Section 357-A of

Cr.P.C r/w. Telangana Victim’s

Compensation Scheme, 2015,

Amended vide G.O.Ms.No.9 dt.28-2-2019 r/w Rule7, of

Protection of Child from Sexual

Offences Rules, 2012 to the victim as defined for her rehabilitation for loss of injury causing severe mental agony to child victim.

Hence recommended to

District Legal Services Authority,

Mulugu todisburse the compensation amountof

Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs only) to the victim namely 8/112Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 165 of 2022 xxxxx, under Section 357-A (2) of

Cr.P.C r/w Rule 7 of POCSO Act andTelanganavictim compensation scheme, 2015 – amended vide G.O.Ms. Dated 28.02.2019, R/w Section 33 (8) of

POCSO Act.

The office is directed to forward the copy of Judgment as well as copy of charge sheet containing the address of victim by name xxxx to the District Legal Services

Authority, Mulugu to disburse the quantum of compensation to the victim xxxx.

This case coming before me on 12.02.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri D. Ram Singh, Special Public Prosecutor for the Complainant/State and Kum. M. Manasa, learned counsel for the accused; upon perusing the material papers on record, having been heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

:: JUDGMENT ::

1.The Assistant Superintendent of Police, Eturnagarm filed charge sheet against the accused in crime number 14/2022 of PS Kannaikudam for the offences punishable under sections 452, 354-D, 366-A, 376 (3), 376 (2) (n), 506 IPC and 9/112Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 165 of 2022 section 4 (2) 5(j)(ii), 5 (l) read with section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual

Offenses Act, 2012.

2.The case of the prosecution in brief were that the criminal law was set into motion basing upon the report of the defacto complainant on 18.05.2022 at 18.00 hours regarding alleged occurrence said to have happened to alleged elder daughter of the defacto complainant who said to have been studying 9th class in their village. When she was suffering from thyroid for a period of 03- years for which she was under medication as per alleged advice of doctors and she was also said to have taken to the doctor as she said to have gained weight but the doctor said to have reported that alleged victim was pregnant. On being questioning by the defacto complainant to alleged victim girl, she said to have revealed that she got pregnancy due to her cousin namely Vasampalli Chanti. During the absence of family members of alleged victim girl in the house said person said to have come to their house and said to have stated that he was interested in alleged victim girl, for which alleged victim girl said to have refused his alleged proposal but he said to have threatened that he would die but alleged victim girl said to have replied that the relationship was as brother and sister.

3.On that said Chanti said to have kept the clothes of alleged victim girl in her mouth and said to have tied her hand with chunni and said to have had sexual intercourse forcibly on her and also said to have threatened alleged victim girl to kill her if she disclosed the incident to any of the family members and also said to have threatened that he would burn their house. After 10 days again when 10/112Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 165 of 2022 alleged victim girl came out of the house, the accused said to have committed rape on alleged victim girl forcibly even after refusal by her and he said to have committed rape on alleged victim girl subsequently also repeatedly by alleged threatening her. Hence, the criminal law was set into motion to initiate action against the accused.

4.Basing on the report of the defacto complainant, the SHO of Kannaigudam police registered the same as a case in crime number 14/2022 under ssections 452, 354-D, 366-A, 376 (3), 376 (2)(n) and 506 IPC and section 4(2), 5(j)(ii), 5 (l) read with 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses Act 2012 and he said to have submitted the FIR to the court and copies to the concerned.

5.On receipt of express FIR LW.25 the ASP Eturnagaram said to have rushed to the PS Kannaigudam and said to have taken up a CD file from LW24, the SI of police Kannaigudam for investigation and also said to have secured the Aadhar card of alleged victim and said to have found her date of birth as 26.04.2007. Thus, alleged victim was aged about 15 years old and she was said to be minor.

6.During course of investigation LW25 said to have examined LW1 alleged mother of alleged victim girl and the defacto complainant and said to have recorded her statement and said to have referred alleged victim girl LW2 to the lady medical officer, Government Area Hospital Mulugu for a medical examination and to ascertain whether she was subjected to penetrative sexual assault and for marks of injury with a request to preserve material objects for chemical analysis and report and also the medical examination report was said to have received from Dr. Mayuri (Lw.17), Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Area Hospital in 11/112Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 165 of 2022 which it was said to have mentioned that consistent with the recent sexual intercourse or assault. Later, the Investigation officer (I.O) LW 25 ASP

Eturnagaram said to have addressed a letter to the Duty medical officer,

Government Area Hospital Mulugu with alleged request to take immediate steps for checking the exact length of pregnancy and possibility of termination of pregnancy under MTP Act by taking the opinion of not less than two registered medical practitioners.

7.On such requisition, the Duty medical officers LW 17 &18 Dr. Mayuri and Dr.

Ayesha Bhutul said to have terminated alleged pregnancy of the victim with the written consent of her parents and said to have preserved fetus for forwarding to

FSL for investigation.

8.Later, the S.I of police LW 24 said to have addressed a letter to the Child

Welfare Committee, Warangal for counselling and rehabilitation of alleged victim and also he was said to have visited alleged scene of offence and said to have secured alleged presence of LW 13 and 14 alleged punch witness for crime detail form 1 namely Kuncharla Muthaiya and Vasampalli Swaraiya and said to have examined alleged scene in their presence and also said to have prepared a crime detail form along with rough sketch and as per which alleged scene of offence was situated at a distance of 9 km from PS Kannaikudam. Later, the I.O. was said to have visited alleged second scene of offence in alleged presence of alleged mediators LW 15 and 16 namely Vasampalli Lakshamaya and Poojari Kishore said to have examined alleged scene in their presence and said to have prepared crime detail form along with rough sketch and it was said to have situated 8 km away 12/112Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 165 of 2022 from the police station.

9.On 20.05.2022, LW 25 said to have addressed a letter to the headmaster ZP

High School, Kannaikudam with alleged request to issue date of birth certificate of alleged victim girl. Accordingly, the same was said to have issued, as per which the date of birth of the victim was as 26.04.2007 and she was aged about 15 years old and was minor. On 21.05.2022 as per the provisions of POCSO Act, her statement was said to have recorded by Women S.I K.Swetha LW 3 as per summons of LW 25 and she said to have recorded the statement of alleged victim girl under videography with the aid of LW 4 the women PC, 4624, K Sukanya and also the women SI said to have counselled the alleged victim girl and she was said to have admitted for medical termination and also said to have medically terminated her aleged pregnancy.

10.Later, the Investigating Officer said to have examined LW's 3 and 4, the women SI and women PC and said to have recorded their statements, and also he said to have addressd letter to the Director, FSL Hyderabad, on 21.05.2022 for forwarding items, material objects, i.e. Item No.1 Victim (mother blood sample,),

Item No.2 Baby thigh sample for DNA testing, Item No.3 Vulval smear, Item No.4

Vaginal smear, Item No. 5 Nail Scrapings, Item No.6 Pubic Hair, Item No.7 Scalp

Hair for chemical examiantion and report and also he said to have secured LW's 5 & 12 alleged father of alleged victim girl and PC 3049 who said to have videographed while recording the statements of witness and he said to have examined them and recorded their statements and also the accused was said to 13/112Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 165 of 2022 have apprehended on 24.05.2022 at his house at Gurrevilla Village and he said to have confessed regarding alleged commission of offence on his alleged interrogation and his arrest was affected and on alleged due intimation of the grounds of arrest, on completion of formalties of arrest, he was said to have sent to government hospital for medical examination and and said to have addressed a letter by the Investigating Officer to the Kakatiya Medical College Warangal with a request to conduct potency test of the accused. As per said request LW21 Dr.

Surender said to have a opined that there was nothing to suggest that the examined individual was incapable of doing sexual act.

11.On 26.05.2022, LW 25 ASP said to have addresed a letter to the Judicial

magistrate of first class, Mulugu for recording 164 CRP statement of alleged

victim and also he said to have addressed a letter to the POCSO Court, Ist ADJ

Court dealing with POCSO cases at Warangal to accord permission to collect blood samples from the accused. On 27.05.2022, the Investigating Officer said to have received termination of pregnancy report from Duty medical officer and informed that abortion and delivered male foetus of 800 grams and also the

Investigating Officer said to have received 164 CrPC statement of alleged victim on 27.05.2022 and also the Principal Sessions Court Mulugu on 10.06.2022, issued orders to hand over the accused for DNA examination and hand over him at

District jail, Khammam on completion of examination.

12.Accordingly, the Accused was produced before FSL Hyderabad for DNA examination and on 05.07.2022, the Investigating Officer said to have received 14/112Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 165 of 2022

FSL report vide DNA/219/2022, DNA/ 256/2022 dated 28.06.2022 as per which

DNA extracted from item nos.1, 2 & 3 were subjected to Autosomal STR analysis by using global filler kit. A male DNA profile was obtained from item number the

DNA profile obtained from item no.2 was compared with the DNA profile obtained from items 1 & 3. The allelic pattern of item 2 matched with the allelic pattern of item nos.1 &3 conclusion was that the autosomal STR analysis conclusively proved that Vasampalli Chanti (source of item no.3) was the biological father of the source of item no.2, i.e., the small bone of the foetus and whose biological mother was alleged victim girl i.e., source of item no.1.

13.On 06.07.2022 the Investigating Officer said to have received final opinion from LW17/ Dr. Mayuri in which she said to have opined that as per forensic lab examinations, after autosomal STR analysis, the specimen of the DNA feotus received matched with the victim and accused on whom the complaint was filed, hence the accused was biological father of the foetus of alleged victim. As case was said to have established against the accused on completion of investigation, on receipt of material documents, charge sheet was filed against the accused for aforementioned offences.

14.The case was taken on file by taking cognizance against the accused U/secs.

452, 354-D, 366-A, 376 (3), 376 (2) (n) and 506 of IPC and Section 3 r/w 4, 5 (j) (ii), 5

(l) r/w Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 by the special court. On appearance of the accused copies of documents were furnished to him, as required under 15/112Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 165 of 2022 section 207 IPC.

15.The accused was examined under section 228 Cr.PC and charges for the offences U/secs. 452, 354-D, 366-A, 376 (3), 376 (2) (n) and 506 of IPC and Section 3 r/w 4, 5 (j) (ii), 5 (l) r/w Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 were framed against the accused, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu for which he denied the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

16.In support of the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined alleged victim as PW1, alleged mother of the alleged victim and the defecto complainant as PW2. The women SI who said to have recorded alleged statement of alleged victim as PW 14, the woman PC who said to have taken videography of alleged victim as PW3, alleged sister-in-law and alleged aunt of alleged victim girl as Pw's 4 & 5, alleged uncle of alleged victim girl as PW 6, alleged punch witness for the 1st crime detail form as PW 7, alleged panch witness for the 2nd crime detail form as PW 8, alleged police constable who said to have taken videography of recording statements of witness as PW 9, alleged Medical Officers who said have terminated pregnancy of alleged victim as PW's 10 & 12, alleged mediator for the panch witness for crime detail form 2 as PW 11, alleged headmaster of the school in which alleged victim said to have studied as PW 13, the SHO who said to have registered the crime and issued FIR as PW 15, the Assistant Professor who said to have conducted potency test of accused as PW 16 and the investigating officer

ASP as PW17 and got marked Ex. P1 to P21.

16/112Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 165 of 2022

17.Ex.P1 is the original FIR in crime no. 14/2022 of Kannaigudem, Ex.P2 is the 161 statement of PW4, Ex. P3 is the first crime detail form, Ex.P4 is the signature of PW 8 on the crime detail form 1, Ex.P5 is the opinion said to have given by the medical officer PW10, Ex.P6 is the signature of the mediator PW11 on the crime detail form. Ex. P7 is the medical examination report, Ex.P8 is FSL report, Ex.P9 is the final opinion, Ex.P10 is the TFSL report dated 28.06.2022, Ex. P11 is the study conduct and date of birth certificate of alleged victim PW1, Ex.P12 is CD along with the certificate under sec.65B of Indian Evidence Act, Ex.P13 is the original FIR in crime no. 14/2022 PS Kannaigudam, Ex.P14 is the potency test certificate of accused dated 24.05.2022, Ex.P15 is the second crime detail form, Ex.P16 is the letter of advice, Ex.P17 Letter of advise, dated 21-05-2022 forwarded by PW17 along with Ex.P16, Ex. P18 is the certificate under section 65B of Indian evidence

Act, Ex.P19 is CD dated 24-05-2022, Ex.P20 is the 164 Cr.P.C statement of alleged victim girl, Ex. P21 is the letter said to have addressed by the Medical Officer.

18.Prosecution has given up the testimony of LW5 alleged father of the alleged victim girl, LW8 Vasampalli Saraiah said to be the uncle of alleged victim girl and LW10 Vasampalli Venkatalakshmi said to be the aunt of alleged victim girl,

LW11 Vasampalli Jagan said to be the neighbour of alleged victim girl, LW14

Vasampalli Saraiah alleged punch witness for Crime Detail Form 1, LW20 the learned Magistrate and LW22 Swarna Rani, Assistant Director of FSL Hyderabad and the prosecution evidence reported closed.

17/112Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 165 of 2022

19.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 C.R.P.C. and he was explained about all incriminating evidence against himself on record for which he denied the evidence on record, pleaded not guilty and stated he had no witness to be examined on his behalf.

20.Heard arguments of both sides.

21.The learned special public prosecutor submitted that the evidence of prosecution is quite sufficient to convict the accused as the prosecution was able to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and sought for conviction of the accused. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused submitted that the evidence on record was not trustworthy and no reliance can be placed upon the evidence of prosecution witness and sought for acquittal of the accused.

22.Now the points for determination are, “Whether the prosecution proved it’s case against the accused for the charged offences punishable U/secs. 452, 354-D, 366-A, 376 (3), 376 (2) (n) and 506 of IPC and Section 3 r/w 4, 5 (j) (ii), 5(l) r/w Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012.beyond all reasonable doubt ?”

23.To bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has to establish that the accused, prior to 16-05-2022, at Gurevilla village, during the absence of family members of alleged victim, illegally trespassed into the house of alleged 18/112Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 165 of 2022 victim LW2 minor girl, having made preparation for assaulting her or put her in fear of hurt or of assault by saying that he was interested in her and threatened that he would die on her refusal and forcibly committed rape on her and threatened to kill her and her family members and burn their house if she informed the same said incident to anyone, thereby, the accused committed an offence punishable under section 452 of IPC.

24.Further, the prosecution has to establish that the accused on given date, time and place used to follow alleged minor victim girl LW2, while she was studying 9th class to contact her to foster personal interaction with minor and repeatedly despite a clear indication of disinterest by alleged victim in the name of love and harassed her mentally and thereby the accused committed an offence punishable under section 354D of IPC.

25.Further, it has to be established by the prosecution that the accused on given date, time and place induced the victim minor girl LW2 who was under the age of 18 years old with intent that she might be forced or seduced to have illicit intercourse with another person and thereby the accused committed an offence punishable under section 366A IPC.

26.It has to be established by the prosecution that the accused on given date, time and place committed rape on alleged victim minor girl LW2 who was under 16 years of age and thereby he committed an offence punishable under section 376(3) IPC. It has to be established by the prosecution that the accused on given 19/112Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 165 of 2022 date, time and place committed rape on minor victim girl LW2 repeatedly on the same victim minor girl and thereby he committed an offence punishable under section 376 (2) n of IPC.

27.It has to be proved by the prosecution that the accused on given date, time and place committed criminal intimidation by threatening the victim minor girl

LW2 with dire consequences to kill her and thereby he committed an offence punishable under section 506 IPC.

28.Further, it has to be established by the prosecution that the accused on given date, time and place committed penetrative sexual assault against the minor victim girl LW2 thereby committed an offence punishable under section 3 read with 4 of POCSO Act.

29.It has to be established by the prosecution that the accused committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the minor victim girl and made her pregnant as a consequence of sexual assault and committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the victim girl more than once or repeatedly and thereby the accused committed an offence punishable under section 5(j)(ii), 5(l) read with 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.

30.In order to establish the same, now the evidence on record is the evidence of PW’s 1 to 17 coupled with Exs. P1 to P21.

20/112Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 165 of 2022

31.PW1 is alleged victim she categorically deposed of studying intermediate at Government Junior College, Eturnagaram by claiming she was resident of

Gurevilla village of Karnagudam and also deposed LWS 1 and 5 as her parents and claimed that she knew LWS 6 to 11 Ellamma, Rajitha, Saraiah, Ramesh,

Venkatalakshmi and Jagan and also deposed that she knew the accused by claiming that he was her elder brother by relation.

32.According to further testimony of PW1, her date of birth was 26th April 2007 and deposed when she was studying 10th class in the last year, at that time she suffered from thyroid, hence her mother LWS 1 said to have taken her to hospital at Hanmakonda for medical checkup and on examination by the doctors of her they said to have stated that PW1 was suffering from thyroid and said to have prescribed medicine and later they said to have returned to their house.

After one month, as she said to have missed periods, her mother said to have taken her to the hospital at Hanmakonda. On examination by the doctors, they said to have informed that PW1 was pregnant.

33.On being questioning by her mother how she got pregnancy, then she said to have informed to her mother that the accused who was residing near their house used to come to their house and said to have told that he loved her and he could not live without her. Then she said to have stated to the accused that he was her brother by relation and how could love her, but he did not hear PW1 and he 21/112Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 165 of 2022 said to have participated in sexual intercourse with PW1 forcibly and also he said to have repeated the same for some period and she said to have not informed the same to her parents as the accused said to have threatened her to not to reveal the same to anyone as he said to have threatened to kill her and her parents.

34.On knowing about the same, her mother PW1 said to have taken her to police station Eturnagaram and her mother said to have given report to the police and also PW1 deposed the police examined her and recorded her statement and also they said to have referred her to area hospital Mulugu for medical examination and also the police said to have taken her to learned Magistrate at

Mulugu and also her statement was said to have recorded by the Learned

Magistrate.

35.She deposed the accused was responsible for her pregnancy and even deposed regarding alleged termination of her pregnancy in the area hospital

Mulugu with the help of police on giving alleged consent by her mother and herself for termination of pregnancy.

36.During cross-examination of PW1 on behalf of the accused she categorically deposed that her mother and herself went to the police station

Eturnagaram in the afternoon of 21st May, 2022 and deposed her mother gave a report. She further deposed they remained in the police station for about three hours and deposed the S.I of police enquired her as to what what was happened 22/112Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 165 of 2022 she deposed one lady police also examined her and the police said to have obtained prescription from her to show that she was suffering from thyroid. She denied of not stating to the police that she was studying 10th class at the time of alleged incident.

37.She further deposed LW6 Yellamma as her sister-in-law and LW7 Rajitha as the wife of her junior paternal uncle and LW8 and 9 Saraiah and Ramesh as her junior paternal uncles and LW10 Venkatalakshmi as the wife of LW9 Ramesh and

LW11/ Jagan as her cousin.

38.She deposed the doctor examined her and gave report to show that she was pregnant and she denied of not stating to the police that, the accused by closing her mouth with clothes tied her hands with chunni and participated in sexual intercourse with her and threatened her to not to reveal the same to anybody otherwise he would set fire to her house and to kill them.

39.Though it was suggested regarding alleged improvement, but PW1 did not state in her chief examination that the accused closed her mouth with clothes, tied her hands with chunni. She denied that no such incident occurred as alleged and for that she did not state same in her chief examination. At one point of time, it was suggested to PW1 as if she did not state regarding alleged acts of accused in closing her mouth with clothes and tying her hands with chunni and PW1 denied the same, but in fact she did not depose about the same and admitted again in 23/112Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 165 of 2022 view of suggestion put forth to her that she did not state the same in her chief examination.

40.She denied as no incident took place, hence she did not state in her chief examination. She also admitted of not stating in her chief examination, specifically that 10 days after alleged incident, the accused repeated his sexual participation with her repeatedly. She did not depose in her chief examination, after how many days the accused started repeating having sexual intercourse with her forcibly. PW1 denied that alleged incident of repeated sexual participation was not happened as such she did not state in her chief examination that after how many days he was said to have repeated the same. She denied that the accused never threatened her to kill her or parents and also the police did not ask her date of birth, hence she did not state her date of birth before the police and she denied that she was not examined and police not referred her to the hospital for medical examination and police instructed her to depose before the learned

Magistrate as stated by them.

41.PW1 deposed the boundaries of her house as tthe house of the accused in front of their house i.e., on the eastern side, house of LW11 Jagan was on the western side, house of one Lakshmaiah on the southern side and also deposed there was bamboo stick fencing between their house and the house of the accused and also deposed that the family of accused had two ox. She denied that there were disputes between their family and the accused family as their ox used 24/112Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 165 of 2022 to come to the house of PW1 frequently.

42.PW1 further denied that there was boundary land disputes between their family and accused family, hence, foisted false case against accused by boring grudge against their family as the family of accused was economically in better position than PW1 family. PW1 denied that the police created false pregnancy certificate of her and false case was foisted. It cannot be considered just for the sake of supporting the case of PW1, the doctors and the police created any certificate being in official capacity by misusing their authority and also in order to take revenge by bringing name of a girl child in a criminal case of sexual exploitation.

43. PW1 pleaded ignorance whether her parents borrowed an amount of 1,50,000/- from the accused parents. If at all the family of PW1 and the accused family were on enimical terms, it could not be expected them to lend alleged amount of 1,50,000/- to the parents of PW1. PW1 pleaded ignorance her parents entered into compromise with the accused family by entering into a settlement in writing to withdraw the present case.

44.She denied police threatened her to depose. She denied her mother and herself did not give any consent for termination of pregnancy. In one way or other from the said suggestion, it would show the termination of pregnancy of PW1.

25/112Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 165 of 2022

45.She denied when they went to police station in connection with land disputes, the police concerned obtained their signatures, signatures of her mother on some papers.

46.When PW1 deposed the relationship with the accused as their brother and also his house was situated beside their house or he was neighbor, the same was not at all disputed or denied on behalf of the defense by way of specific suggestions.

47.So, having acquaintance with PW1 by the accused was not in dispute. So, the identity of the accused was not at all denied or disputed by the defense when

PW1 deposed about the same. PW1 categorically deposed about alleged acts of accused in participating sexual intercourse with her forcibly and repeatedly, on account of same carrying pregnancy by her and also deposed that it was terminated and from the suggestions put forth on behalf of PW1, it was not disputed and in fact, it was pertinent to note that termination of pregnancy of

PW1 was done as it was suggested, that for which no consent was given by her mother and herself.So, one way or other it would show having pregnancy by

PW1 and the same was terminated which was undisputed by defense.

48.PW2 is said to be alleged mother of PW1 alleged victim girl as well as the defecto complainant and she also corroborated the testimony of PW1 on all aspects and also she deposed on the same lines as deposed by PW1 regarding 26/112Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 165 of 2022 having acquaintance with the witness LW5 to 11 and deposed they were her relatives while deposing PW1 alleged victim girl as her daughter and also deposed she knew the accused and he was her son by relation and also she corroborated the testimony of PW1 regarding date of birth of PW1 as 26-04-2007 and also as per the testimony of PW2 about 01- year ago PW1 completed 9th class and was residing in their house and also deposed the house of the accused was near to their house and deposed further that the accused used to come to their house in their absence and on one day she said to have taken her daughter PW1 to hospital at Hanumakonda for medical checkup and the doctors on examination of PW1 stated that she was suffering from thyroid and also prescribed medicine.

49.On returning to their house after 3 months again she said to have taken

PW1 to the hospital at Pasara and the doctors on examining PW1 said to have informed that PW1 was pregnant, then she said to have questioned PW1 as to how she got pregnancy, then PW1 said to have informed to her that the accused who was residing near their house used to come to their house in the absence of

PW2 and under the guise of loving PW1 and he could not live without PW1, when

PW1 stated to the accused that he was her brother by relation how could he love her but he without hearing PW1 he said to have participated in sexual intercourse with PW1 forcibly by putting clothes in her mouth and by tying her hands with chunni and he said to have repeated the same for some time and PW1 said to have not informed about the same to them as the accused said to have threatened

PW1 to not to reveal the same to anybody, otherwise he would kill PW1 and 27/112Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 165 of 2022 themselves and said to have threatened PW1 that he would set fire to their house.

50.According to further testimony of PW2 again on one day, when alleged victim PW1 went to open fields at the outskirts of their village to attend nature calls the accused said to have followed her and said to have participated in sexual intercourse with PW1 on knowing the same PW2 said to have taken PW1 to Police

Kannaigudem and said to have presented report by her under Ex.P1 dated 18.5.2022 she deposed she was examined by police and her statement was recorded and also deposed referring PW1 to the area hospital Mulugu for medical examination and also corroborated regarding taking PW1 to the Learned

Magistrate Mulugu and recording her statement and according to PW1 to

testimony also the accused was responsible for the pregnancy of PW1 and also she supported and corroborated the testimony of PW1 that it was terminated in the Area Hospital Mulugu with the help of police on giving consent by PW1 and herself for the termination of pregnancy.

51.During cross-examination of PW2 she also reiterated that the accused as her son by relation and deposed having two daughters by her and PW1 as her elder daughter and also deposed the house of accused was near to their house and deposed a person from Nagaram drafted Ex.P1 report and again deposed one male person and two women drafted Ex.P1 by claiming herself as an illiterate, hence deposed she did not know what was written in exhibit P1 report but deposed she alone gave exhibit P1 report.

28/112Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 165 of 2022

52.According to further testimony of PW2, PW1 was suffering from ill health and she was studying in their village and deposed PW2 was examined by police on the next day of report and admitted at the time of Ex.P1 report PW1 was residing in their house and was not studying. She pleaded ignorance of not stating before the police about the name of the doctor who examined PW1. She deposed one year prior to alleged to giving Ex.P1 report alleged incident occurred and deposed the doctor who examined the victim girl PW1 stated to them that PW1 was carrying 5th month pregnancy and deposed PW1 was not lunatic and PW1 did not inform to her about incident before she questioned the same.

53.PW2 furhter deposed she did not remember whether it was not mentioned in Ex.P1 report or not stated before the police specifically on what date alleged rape lastly took place on victim girl and also she pleaded ignorance by deposing she did not remember whether it was not mentioned in Ex.P1 report or not stated

before the police by her, how many times alleged rape on victim girl took place

and deposed she did not know the place of alleged rape repeatedly on alleged victim girl and deposed of not stating before the police about the presence of any eyewitness at the place or alleged places of rape on victim. She deposed PW1 was aborted subsequent to Ex.P1 report and on advice of Kannaigudem police and deposed it was terminated at Mulugu hospital but pleaded ignorance of the name of the hospital and pleaded ignorance whether aborted pregnancy particles were sent to expert for opinion. She deposed that there were no injuries on the 29/112Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 165 of 2022 body of alleged victim girl PW1 and deposed subsequently the police not referred

PW1 again for medical examination. She deposes till she was providing treatment to PW1 for her thyroid problem and deposed of not obtaining any medical report to show that she was pregnant at the time of giving Ex.P1 report, she pleaded ignorance whether ulcers would develop in stomach in case of persons suffering from thyroid. She deposed that termination of pregnancy was an offence and deposed she herself signed at the time of termination of pregnancy of PW1 and denied accused was no may responsible for the pregnancy of the victim and he did not commit any rape, from the said suggestion, in one way or other, it would show that PW1 was pregnant she denied there was no chance of committing rape by the accused on PW1 as he was brother in relation to victim. She deposed there were property disputes between their family and the accused family.

54. In view of testimony of PW2 also and from the suggestions put forth on behalf of the accused it was established having relationship between the family of accused and PW1 and also it was pertinent to note that the accused was brother by relation to PW1 and he was residing in the same locality and also having acquaintance between the family of accused and PW1 family and having property disputes between their family, though PW1 denied and pleaded ignorance of the same but PW2 alleged mother of the victim admitted of having disputes property disputes between both of their families.

55.Under such circumstances, the testimonies of witness have to be 30/112Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 165 of 2022 scrutinized more carefully, from perusal of Ex. PW1 report dated 18.05.2022 it was mentioned regarding studying of 9th standard by PW1 in ZPSS school and having thyroid to PW1 was also mentioned and also revealing about pregnancy when they went for medical checkup was also mentioned and the contents of Ex.

P1 report were deposed and corroborated by PW1 and 2, that the accused under the guise of threatening her, under the guise of love and loving PW1 threatened

PW1 and by threatening to commit suicide by tying her hands with chunni by keeping clothes in her mouth, had sexual intercourse forcibly and also said to have threatened her and her parents. It was also mentioned about carrying pregnancy by PW1. As per Ex.P1 report and Ex.P13 FIR alleged occurrence of incident was prior to 16.05.2022 and alleged report was given on a 18.5.2022 at 18.00 hours, but PW1 deposed as if after one year the report was given.

56.The dates of alleged occurrence was not specifically deposed by PWs 1 & 2 and there was a discrepancy with regard to date of report in the testimony of

PW1. As she deposed on 21. May, 2022, her mother and herself went to police station Eturnagaram and her mother gave report to the police, whereas Ex.P1 report was dated 18th May 2022 and also PW1 deposed the date of report as

dated 18th May, 2022.

57.It has to be appreciated whether such discrepancy go to the root of the case of PW1. PW3 is the woman police constable who said to have taken videograph while recording the statement of alleged victim girl by PW3/K.

31/112Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 165 of 2022

Swetha. According to testimony of PW 3, as per the instructions of ASP

Eturnagaram on 21 May 2022, she went to ASP Office Eturnagaram and said to have videographed the recording of the statement of victim PW 1 by PW 3 K.

Swetha with the help of mobile phone of PW 3 K. Swetha. Later, she handed over the mobile phone to LW3 K. Swetha and they converted the same into CD and also claimed that she saw the CD and further deposed. She was examined by the police.

58.During cross-examination of PW3, she deposed of not having any specific certificate in videography but deposed She was given training in videography, during training period and deposed that she was in civil dress at the time of videography. She pleaded ignorance that she should not be present at the time of videographing the recording of the statement of PW1. She deposed that she was informed that she must be present at the time of recording the statement of PW1 while videographing.

59.PW3 denied of not having I.D proof while deposing, not filed the same. She deposed the mobile phone of PW3/ K. Swetha as Redmi note 10 make and deposed she checked the CD after videographing the recording of the statement of PW1 and deposed she did not know that she should not see the video taken by her of any victim. When she was the person said to have taken videography of the recording of the statement, there was no such thing to not to verify the same by her to verify regarding recording property. PW3 denied of not examining by ASP 32/112Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 165 of 2022 as he did not know Telugu.

60.As procedure is contemplated under the special enactment that is the

POCSO Act, to record the statement of alleged victim, as far as practicable by a woman, as far as practicable by a woman police officer not below the rank of S.I of police, it should be covered under videography as contemplated under section 22 (1) and 5 of POCSO Act. Hence the services of PW3 the woman PC were utilized to take videography or recording a video, it did not require any skills as nowadays most of the people are familiar with recording the video and PW 3 claimed that as part of training she was given training in taking videography, hence the services of woman PC were utilized in that regard.

61.PW4 is said to be the sister-in-law of alleged victim, according to her testimony PW1 and 2 were her relatives and also claimed that she knew PW7 to 11 named Supra by claiming they were her distant relatives and she also knew the accused as hes was her villager. According to further testimony of PW 4 about more than one year ago PW2 came to their house for asking money stating that her daughter was suffering from fever.

62.Then PW3 said to have stated to PW2 that she had no money then PW 2 said to have requested her to come to the hospital along with her and PW1 and accordingly PW4 said to have proceeded along with PW1 and 2 to the hospital at

Pasara. She deposed the doctors examined PW1 and gave some medicine, then 33/112Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 165 of 2022

PW4 said to have asked PW2 as to what the doctor told and on that PW2 said to have informed to PW4 that alleged victim PW1 was suffering from thyroid. She deposed later PW1 and 2 went to Mulugu hospital and from there PW4 said to have proceeded to the hostel of her daughter.

63.PW4 furhter deposed PW2 did not tell anything. As she did not completely support the case of prosecution. As PW4 turned hostile when she was cross examined by learned additional P.P she denied of stating to the police as in Ex.P2 that when she proceeded along with PW1 and 2 to the hospital at Mulugu, then the doctors on examining PW1 told that she was pregnant and on questioning

PW1 by PW2 and PW4 as to what was happened, then PW 1 said to have revealed that the accused used to come to their house in the absence of inmates and participated in sexual intercourse with her many times forcibly by threatening to not to reveal the same to anyone and by further threatening to kill her and her mother and also he would die.

64.During cross examination of PW4 on behalf of the accused she deposed the house of PW2 was near to the house of accused and the accused and his family members had ox and cows, but pleaded ignorance whether there were disputes between the accused family and PW 2 family. With regard to moving of the animals/cattle from their premises to the to their respective houses. Her evidence was only aid in establishing proceeding along with PW1 and 2 to the hospital and having thyroid problem by PW 1.

34/112Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 165 of 2022

65.Pw5 is said to be alleged aunt of alleged victim Pw1. She categorically deposed that Pw1 as the daughter of Pw2 by claiming Pw2 as her co-sister and also deposed Lw5 as the husband of Pw2 and Pw4, Lw8 to 10 Saraiah, Ramesh and

Venkatalakshmi as her relatives and also she claimed that she knew the accused by claiming that he was her relative. She also deposed on the same lines as deposed by Pw’s 1, 2 and 4 regarding medical checkup of Pw1, diagnosing her as pregnant and on enquiry coming to know from Pw1 that the accused was responsible for her pregnancy, as he said to have participated in sexual intercourse with PW1 under the guise of love and marriage despite her resistance, by tying her hands with chunni and by putting clothes in her mouth and by threatening to do away lives of Pw1 and her parents and not revealing about the same by her due to alleged threatening. She also deposed that the accused was responsible for the pregnancy of Pw1.

66.During cross examination of Pw5, Pw5 deposed that alleged victim Pw1 belonged to Kannaigudam and also claimed that she belonged to same village.

According to her testimony Pw1 did not inform to her that she was suffering from thyroid. She deposed of not stating to the police that she went along with Pw1 to the hospital. Infact, in chief examination also she did not depose that she accompanied Pw1 & 2 to the hospital. She further deposed that she did not see personally when the victim girl Pw1 moved closely with the accused, but she also deposed the accused as the elder brother by relation to victim Pw1.

35/112Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 165 of 2022

67.According to further testimony of Pw5, there was no custom in their community to love any person who was brother by relation to a girl and also deposed of not witnessing personally when the accused was talking with Pw1 in close relation and taking away alleged victim in spite of her protest. She deposed of not stating to the police about the month of her pregnancy and also she deposed that the pregnancy of Pw1 was got terminated by her parents and deposed not personally seen the medical reports of victim Pw1 to show that she was pregnant and accused was responsible for her pregnancy.

68.As Pw5 deposed she was co-sister of Pw2, there was an occasion for them to reveal about the things happened in the life of Pw1, hence Pw5 came to know about the things in the life of Pw1, but from her testimony it was not established that she witnessed any material aspects.

69.Pw6 is said to be the uncle of alleged victim Pw1. He categorically deposed

Pw2 as the wife of Lw5 by claiming Lw5 as his elder brother and also deposed the relationship of Pw1 with Pw2 and Lw5 and also deposed he knew Pw’s 4 and 5,

Lw8 Saraiah, Lw10 Venkatalakshmi as his wife and deposed that he knew Lw1

Jagan, his villager and deposed accused as his relative. He also deposed on the same lines as deposed by previous witness. Though he deposed that Pw1 suffered from thyroid problem and Pw2 and father of Pw1 had taken her to hospital at

Pasara and examining Pw1 by the doctors and informed that she was pregnant 36/112Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 165 of 2022 but pleaded ignorance by deposing he did not know who was responsible for the pregnancy of Pw1 and deposed he did not know what was happened subsequently.

70. Even he deposed he did not enquire Pw1 what was happened and who was responsible for her pregnancy. As he did not support the case and turned hostile when Pw6 was cross-examined by learned additional PP he denied of stating to the police as in Ex.P3 that he along with parents of Pw1 Lw10 Venkatalakshmi and others enquired Pw1 as to what was happened on that Pw1 said to have informed them that the accused used to come to their house in the absence of inmates and participated in sexual intercourse with her many times forcibly by saying deceitful words that he loved her and he would marry her and threatened her to not reveal to anyone by further threatening to kill her parents and herself and set the house at fire and deposed false as accused was his relative. He was not crossexamined on behalf of the accused.

71.The testimony of Pw6 alleged uncle of Pw1 was also no way aid in establishing that the accused was responsible for pregnancy of Pw1 and also not deposed regarding developing in relationship with Pw1 by the accused except corroborating with regard to carrying pregnancy by Pw1.

72.Pw7 is said to be alleged mediator for crime detail form 1. He deposed that he knew the accused Pw2 Lw5 Lalaya and Lw14 Saraiah. According to his 37/112Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 165 of 2022 testimony about 1 year ago at about 5 pm when he was on the road in their village, at that time ASP Eturnagaram came there and took him to the house of

Lw5 Lalaiah along with Lw14 Saraiah and in their presence police observed the scene of offence and drawn rough sketch of the scene and prepared a crime detail form. After read over the contents the police obtained the signatures of Lw14

Saraiah and himself on crime detail form. He deposed about proceedings under

Ex.P13 crime detail form dated 19-05-2022 and deposed it contained his signature as witness 1.

73.During cross examination of Pw7, he deposed he studied up to 10th class and deposed he could not read and write in English but he was able to put signature in English. Though he deposed about observing the scene of offence i.e., the house of Pw2 in their presence but he deposed he did not know what was written in English in Ex.P3. He also deposed he could not say what was written in

Ex.P3 parawise and deposed at the time of Ex.P3 Crime Detail form several persons were present on the road along with him and deposed that he used to go to police station Kannaigudam and put his signatures as punch witness. He admitted he signed on Ex.P3 in the police station. So, in view of his testimony that he used to visit police station and sign as punch witness. It would show that he was stock witness and also in view of his admission that he signed on Ex. P3 in the police station, no evidentiaryvalue could be attached to his testimony.

74.Pw8 is said to be the punch witness for second scene of offence or crime 38/112Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 165 of 2022 detail form 2. He categorically deposed he knew Pw’s 1 to 3 and the accused as well as Lw15 Lakshmaih. According to his testimony, about one year ago, at about 4 or 5 p.m. when he was at his shop in their village, at that time the police

Kannaigudam said to have come there and said to have taken him near current office in their village and said to have obtained their signatures on some white papers but deposed no punchnama was conducted and no rough sketch was drawn at alleged scene in their presence.

75.But, he identified the signature on the crime detail form as second witness

dated 19-05-2022 and his signature under Ex.P4 on the crime detail form dated

19-05-2022 was marked. As he turned hostile when he was cross-examined by learned additional PP, he denied that on 19-05-2022, at about 5-20 p.m. the police

Kannaigudam called him along with Lw15 Lakshmaiha to the second scene of offence situated near current office in their village and also police observed the scene in their presence and drawn rough sketch of the scene and prepared crime detail form and police obtained signatures of Lw15 Lakshmaiha and himself on the said crime detail form and deposed false to help the accused as he was his villager. So, from the testimony of Pw8, it was not established particular place as scene of offence in view of not supporting testimony by PW 8 and supporting case of prosecution by Pw8.

76.PW9 is the police constable who said to have videographed when the

Investigating Officer said to have examined the witness. According to his 39/112Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 165 of 2022 testimony, on 22-05-2022, he videographed the recording the statements of PW’s 2 to 6, LW3 Swetha, LW5 Lalaiya, LW8 Saraiya, LW10 Venkatalakshmi and LW11

Jagan when examined by LW25 ASP, and taking videography with their official camera and also deposed he himself scribed their statements. He deposed police examined him and recorded his statement.

77.During cross-examination on behalf of the accused, he denied of not videographing the recording of the statements of witness by ASP when a certain procedure is contemplated as far as practicable to cover the recording the statements of witness hence, as per the prosecution, PW9 was acted as videographer while recording statements of other witness.

78. PW10 is said to be the medical officer who said to have terminated alleged pregnancy of alleged victim PW1 and who said to have issued medical report.

According to her testimony on 20-05-2022, alleged victim PW1 was brought by

Women PC 300 of police Kannaigudam with a request for medical termination of pregnancy of PW1. She deposed about taking consent from the victim girl PW1 and her mother for termination of her pregnancy and also one doctor Mayuri

LW17 had said to have had preliminary examined PW1 and said to have given preliminary examination report.

79.According to further testimony of PW10, alleged victim PW1 was admitted in their hospital for termination of pregnancy and on physical examination they 40/112Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 165 of 2022 said to have found that she was conscious and cooperative, vital was stable. She deposed on examination of abdomen, PW1 was carrying 22 to 24 weeks pregnancy and feotus heart rate was present. Under all aseptic precautions, termination of pregnancy was said to have done by two registered medical practitioners i.e., LW17 Doctor Mayuri and herself and deposed alleged victim

PW1 delivered a male feotus of birth weighing 800 grams on 20-05-2022 at about 4 a.m. and deposed feotus died immediately after birth and she said to have taken specimen of feotus and blood of mother for DNA testing and sent the same for

RFSL for analysis and reports. She deposed about Ex.P5 as the provisional opinions said to have given by her on 20-05-2022.

80.During cross-examination of PW10, she categorically deposed that except delivery time, she did not mention the commencement and conclusion time with regard to termination of pregnancy of PW1. She denied of not taking the consent of PW1 and not obtained her signature on Ex.P5. She deposed along with LW17

Dr. Mayuri, two registered medical practitioners conducted the termination of pregnancy of victim girl PW1 and deposed in Ex.P5 the date of admission and discharge of PW1 was not mentioned.

81.PW10 further denied that the termination of pregnancy of PW1 was against statute. She deposed that as victim was unmarried and victim of rape. She denied that she issued Ex.P5 on request of police and denied of not given any treatment to PW1.

41/112Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 165 of 2022

82.PW10 further deposed of not addressing Ex.P5 to ASP. She denied that

PW1 was not pregnant and no termination of pregnancy was done to victim as alleged. She further denied it was not mentioned in Ex.P5 that she took assistance of Mayuri for termination of pregnancy of PW1. She also denied PW1 did not give delivery of a male feotus and not mentioned in Ex.P5 report that on what basis they mentioned as male feotus and it’s identity particulars. She further deposed she forwarded the DNA samples of victim and her baby male feotus to the FSL through police. She denied Ex.P5 was false and not signed by her on each and every page.

83.According to further testimony of PW10, there was no mention in Ex.P5 that she sent DNA samples of victim and her baby male feotus to the FSL through police. She denied of not collecting blood samples of victim PW1 and femur bone of fetus of victim PW1 as such she did not mention specifically in Ex.P1. She admitted that Ex.P5 was not given on their hospital letter pad. She deposed there was no letter pad and the hospital seal was affixed below her signature. She denied she issued Ex.P5 as per instructions of police by affixing their hospital seal.

As per the testimony of PW10 as PW1 was carrying 20 to 24 weeks pregnancy when PW1 was said to be victim of rape and also said to be minor and unmarried, hence it was permissible under law to terminate the pregnancy. Hence, by virtue of the testimony of PW10 coupled with Ex.P5 opinion it was established PW1 was carrying and also delivered male fetus and her pregnancy was terminated as per law.

42/112Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 165 of 2022

84.Pw.11 said to be panch witness for crime details form. He deposed that abut one year ago, at about 10.00 a.m, when he was present at his house the police Kannaigudem came there and said to have taken him near road in their village and deposed they said to have obtained their signatures on some written papers and deposed that no panchanama was conducted and no rough sketch was drawn at alleged scene of offence in their presence. He identified his signature on crime details form dated 19.05.2022 as the first witness. As he turned hostile and did not supported the case of prosecution when he was cross examination by the learned Additional P.P. he denied that on 19.05.2022 at about 05.20 P.M., the Police Kannaigudem called him along with PW8 to the second scene of offence situated near current office in their village and in their presence, police observed the scene of offence and drawn rough sketch of scene of offence and prepared crime detail form and after read over the contents, police obtained signatures of himself and PW8 on the said crime detail form and he deposed false to help the accused, as he knew the accused as his villager.

85.From the testimony of Pw.11, it was not established particular place as the second scene of offence and observing the same in the presence of Pw.8 and himself and preparing of crime details form along with rough sketch of the second scene offence.

86.Pw.12 is the Medical Officer, who said to have been working as Civil 43/112Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 165 of 2022

Assistant Surgeon in Area Hospital, Mulugu. Her evidence was corroborated with the testimony of medical evidence that the victim girl/Pw.1 was carrying 22 to 24 weeks of pregnancy and providing of treatment to Pw.1 and she deposed Pw.1 was brought to Area Hospital, Mulugu by Woman Poice Constable of

Kannaiaigudem on 19.5.2022 at about 03.30 P.M, for examination and report.

She deposed that on the same day, she said to have examined alleged victim girl/PW1 with her consent and and Pw.11 deposed that they found the victim girl was carrying pregnancy of 22 to 24 weeks. She deposed conducting of Ultra sound examination and found the baby whether alive or not and further deposed the baby was alive and corresponding to 22 to 24 weeks gestational age.

87. She further deposed conducting of vaginal examination and found the internal OS was closed and then, she said to have taken specimens and collected the samples of vaginal smear, Vulval smear, scalp hair, pubic hair and nail of the victim girl/PW1 and deposed the same were said to have sealed and handed over to the police.

88. According to further testimony of Pw.12 as PW1 was minor, she said to have admitted her for termination of pregnancy and she did treatment for termination of pregnancy on the same day. She deposed the victim girl/PW1 delivered alive male baby on 20.5.2022 at 04.00 A.M of birth weight 800 grams.

She also corroborated the testimony of Pw.10 and deposed the baby died soon after the delivery and they said to have taken blood samples from alleged victim 44/112Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 165 of 2022 girl for D.N.A. examination and she said to have separated thigh bone of alleged victim male baby and placed in a jar and sealed it and handed over to the concerned police for DNA examination.

89. Pw.12 said to have handed over the blood samples collected by her to the police duly sealed for DNA examination. She further deposed in the month of

June, after obtaining R.F.S.L report, she said to have given final opinion and she opined as per Forensic Lab examination after autosomal STR analysis, the specimen of the DNA foetus received matched with the victim and accused on whom the complaint was filed. Hence deposed the accused was the biological father of the foetus of the victim girl and Ex.P7 the Medical examination report for sexual assault of the victim girl issued by her dated 19.5.2022 was marked

Ex.P8 was the T.S.F.S.L, Hyderabad report dated 10.6.2022. Ex.P9 was the final opinion given by PW 12 was marked. Ex.P10 is the T.S.F.S.L, Hyderabad report

dated 28.6.2022 was marked. Further Ex.P10 was marked subject to objection but

she deposed that she gave final opinion basing on T.S.F.S.L Report. The Court observed the witness gave the final opinion basing on the TSFSL report hence, it was marked.

90.During the cross examiantion of Pw.12 on behalf of the accused, she categorically deposed the victim who was brought to their hospital at about 03.30

P.M through mother and one woman police constable. She deposed she said to have received requisition from A.S.P, Eturunagaram to examine said victim girl.

45/112Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 165 of 2022

She deposed except M.L.C number, the crime number and the requisition letter number were not mentioned in Ex.P7 and not obtained the signature of the person accompanied victim girl/PW1 to their hospital in Ex.P7 but, she deposed she said to have taken consent from the mother of the victim girl. She deposed in column No.7 of Ex.P7, she obtained signature of mother of PW1/alleged victim , she also deposed she obtained the signature of the mother of the victim girl/PW1 and deposed name of mother of victim.

91.PW12deposed she did not take any consent letter from mother of victim girl apart from Ex.P7. She deposed the clothes of the victim were changed as per her examination. She denied she did not examine the genital parts of the victim girl and as such she had not filled the respective columns in Ex.P7. She deposed there was no injury on the genital parts of the victim girl and there was no specific abbreviation for os and it was either external os or internal os. She deposed she said to have conducted two finger test and penetrated into the vagina of the victim girl/PW1 and came to know that os was closed. She pleaded ignorance that as per law, being a doctor she could not conduct two finger test or she should not inflict fingers into the vagina of the victim girl and also any other article like swabs for testing the victim girl/PW1.

92.Pw.12 denied Urine Test also would gave information about the pregnancy of gestation age of the victim and deposed of not mentioning in Ex.P7 that she collected pubic hair of the victim. She deposed the number of vaginal swabs or 46/112Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 165 of 2022 valval swabs taken was not mentioned in Ex.P7.

93. Pw.12 denied that she did not collected vaginal swabs and for that reason only, she did not mention the number of swabs taken under Ex.P7. Pw.12 admitted of not conducting Microscope test of the victim girl/PW1 and deposed she examined the victim girl/PW1 and found consistent with recent sexual intercourse on the ground of congested introitus and congested vaginal walls.

Pw.12 lady medical officer denied he did not mention in Ex.P7 about vagina and deposed congested vagina would not allow two fingers or any finger test. She deposed the congested vagina would mean reddish appearance of the vagina. She deposed of not addressing any letter to the police while handing over the samples to them. But, she deposed she labelled the samples collected by her.

She further deposed there was no proof to show the type of preservatives used by her while preserving the said samples. She deposed 22 weeks gestation period was 6- months pregnancy.

94. Pw.12 denied that 6 months pregnancy could not be terminated as per

Rules of Medical Termination of Pregnancy (M.T.P). She deposed previously, they allowed to terminate M.T.P for 20 weeks. She further deposed they said to have taken consent letter from the mother of the victim girl/PW1 for termination of the pregnancy on the case sheet itself but, they did not take the separate consent letter from the mother of the victim girl/PW1. She deposed they would not give case sheets to the outsiders. She deposed she did not mention the date of 47/112Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 165 of 2022 issuance of Ex.P9/Final opinion and not taken the blood sample of the accused.

She deposed PW10 and herself conducted the abortion process of the victim girl/PW1. She separated the thigh bone of the foetus of the victim girl/PW1. She deposed she did not know that being a doctor, she could not cut the thigh bone of the victim foetus. Pw.12 denied that F.S.L report/Ex.P10 did not disclose that the accused was the genetical father of the foetus of the victim girl/PW1 and

Ex.P10/F.S.L report not disclosing that the bone of the foetus was tested to ascertain the biological father of the foetus. Pw.12 deposed the blood sample of the accused was collected in T.S.F.S.L, Hyderabad as mentioned in Ex.P10.

95.Pw.12 deposed there was no mention in Exs.P7 or P9 about the steps taken by them for disposal of the foetus of the victim girl/PW1.

96.Pw.12 admitted F.S.L was an expert opinion but denied that she could not give her opinion basing on the F.S.L report. Pw.12 deposed she was not on duty on 28.6.2022 and he resigned her job in Area hospital, Mulugu. Pw.12 denied that as she resigned the job, she couldnot give final opinion under Ex.P9. She further deposed that she examined the victim girl/PW1 and as such she gave

Ex.P9/opinion. She did not know that it was a crime to give opinion even after resigning the job even though she examined the victim girl/PW1. Pw.12 denied that she did not examine the victim girl/PW1 as per law and her opinion under

Exs.P7 and P9 was not valid. Pw.12 denied she issued Exs.P7 and P9 at the instance of police and deposed false.

48/112Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 165 of 2022

97.By virtue of testimony of Pw.12 coupled with Ex.P7 to P10, basing on the medical findings as she deposed multiple tears at Multiple positions regarding hymen condition and also it was diagonized, Pw.1 with precausiton and also material objectives were subject to examination and under Ex.P9 final opinion,specimen of DNA fetous was matched with victim and accused and also gave opinion that the accused was biological father of fetous of victim. It was established Pw.1 was the mother of the foetus and PW12 gave her opinion scientifically and it was established by virtue of testimony of medical witness that

PW1 was carrying 22 to 24 weeks and she gave opinion also and her pregnancy was terminated and also gave opinion regarding maternity of foetus and about taking blood sample of Pw.1 and collection of material from fetous. Subsequent to the extracting DNA of foetus, basing upon the FSL report, she gave opinion regarding maternity and paternity of the child of Pw.1. From the testimony of

Pw.12 it was established having sexual intercourse of Pw.1 resulted into carrying pregnancy and it was of 22 to24 weeks gestation of age and also from the testimony of Pw.12, It was established accused was biological father of foetus which would show access to PW1 as DNA profile was matched with DNA profile of foetus and Pw.1, as further matched with DNA sample of Pw.1 and accused.

98.PW13 is said to be Head Master of Z.P.H.School, Guddelugula village of

Eturunagaram mandal from July 2019 to till date. PW13 further deposed that alleged victim studied 6th to 10th class in their school from 2018 to 2023. She 49/112Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 165 of 2022 deposed on 20.05.2022 she received a requisition letter from A.S.P, Eturunagaram through one police constable with a request to issue date of birth certificate of alleged victim girl/PW1. She deposed accordingly, on verification of their school records, she issued Study, conduct and date of birth certificate of alleged victim girl/PW1 to the police. Ex.P11 the Study, conduct and date of birth certificate of alleged victim girl/PW1 issued by PW13 was marked.

99.During the cross-Examination of Pw.13 by learned Counsel for the Accused,

Pw.13 deposed that the victim girl/PW1 was studying in their school at the time of alleged incident. She further deposed at the time of alleged incident, the victim girl/PW1 had completed 9th class in their school. She deposed PW1 also studied 10th class in their school. As per further testimony of PW1 the schools would be reopened in June. She deposed their school was maintaining attendance register for the students and they would reveal attendance of any student. She deposed

Ex.P11 did not contain the date of issue beneath her signature. She deposed she was In-charge Head master and Ex.P11 did not reveal that she was the In-charge

Head master at that time. She deposed she did not know that if any certificate issued by their school, it should contain the date of issue of certificate.

100.Pw.13 admitted that she did not struck off the d/o, s/o in Ex.P11.She deposed she did not issue any extract of the admission register to the police along with Ex.P11. She deposed she did not issue any covering letter along with

Ex.P11. Pw.13 deposed she was not issued any proof to the police to show that 50/112Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 165 of 2022 she was the Head master of their school at the time of issuance of Ex.P11. She deposed she did not struck off the bottom columns of Ex.P11. Pw.13 admitted that schools would be generally reopened on June 12th of every year and it was not working day for the students on 01.06.2018.

101.Pw.13 deposed that enrollment / admission of students would start from 1st June of every year. Pw.13 admitted that Badi Bata would start from 2nd June of every year. Pw.13 denied she was not the Head master of their school at the time of alleged incident and Ex.P11 was not issued by her. She deposed Ex.P11 did not contain her name beneath her signature. Pw.13 denied that Ex.P11 certificate was not true and valid and that it was issued by her at the instance of police and that she deposed false. By virtue of testimony of PW13 coupled with

Ex.P11 certified copy it was established that PW1 studied 6th to 10th class in their school and her age.

102.PW14/Sub-Inspector of police deposed that she was resident of Chennur.

She was working as S.I of Police, Chennur Town Police Station, she deposed previously she worked as S.I of Police, “She team” from 08.01.2022 to 25.06.2022.

PW14 further deposed that she received requisition from ASP., Eturnagaram (LW25) on 21.05.2022 to record the statement of alleged victim pertaining to

Cr.No.14/2022 of PS Kannaigudem, accordingly, she proceeded to ASP Office,

Eturnagaram on the same day there she recorded the statement of alleged victim girl, on ascertaining her name and particulars. She deposed she recorded the 51/112Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 165 of 2022 statement of alleged victim girl from her mobile phone and the same was recorded by women PC Sukanya (PW3). PW14 further deposed that later she handed over the statement recorded by her of alleged victim girl to the ASP,

Eturnagaram. She deposed she handed over the statement of alleged victim girl in the form of CD which was video graphed, when she recorded. She deposed she was examined by her higher officials and her statement was recorded. She deposed she issued certificate U/Sec.65B of Indian Evidence Act. Ex.P12 the CD along with the certificate U/Sec 65B of Indian Evidence Act was marked.

103.When the matter stood for the cross examination of PW14 on behalf of the accused the learned counsel for the accused was absent. When accused was present an opportunity was given to the accused to cross examine PW14, but the accused did not chooseto cross examine PW14, hence cross examination of PW14 was closed.

104. PW14 will corroborated testimony of PW3 regarding taking videography while recording statement of PW1 by PW14. In view of not cross examining PW14 on behalf of accused the things deposed by PW14 were remained on how he could unchallenged. PW15/M S.I of Police deposed that he was residing at Mangapet.

He deposed was working as S.I of police Mangpaet. Previously, he worked as S.I of

Police from 28.12.2021 to 28.06.2024. PW15 further deposed on 18.05.2022 the mother of alleged victim girl came to Police Station and presented a report under

Ex.P1 regarding the occurrence then he registered the same as a case in Cr. No.

52/112Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 165 of 2022 14/2022, U/Secs. 452, 354-D,366-A, 376(3), 376(2)(n) and 506 of IPC., Sec. 4(II), 5(j)

(ii) 5(l) r/w Sec. 6 of POCSO Act. He deposed then he submitted the original FIR to the Court and copies to the concerned. Ex.P13 the Original FIR in Cr. No. 14/2022 was marked. He deposed as it was grievous offence he informed to their ASP

Eturnagaram (LW-25) and he handed over the CD file to their ASP (LW-25).

105.During the cross examination of PW-15 by learned counsel for the accused,

Pw.15 deposed at the time of presenting the report the defacto complainant and the victim came to Police Station, along with the report no document was given to him, Pw.15 deposed that Aadhar card was submitted to the Investigating

Officer and further deposed he verified the original Aadhar card of the victim girl (PW-1).

106.Pw.15 admitted as per the Ex.P1 report the victim girl was studying 9th class and the first date of offence was not mentioned in Ex. P1 report when there were series of offences. Pw.15 admitted that it was not mentioned in Ex. P1 report the number of times for which the offences took place but denied that it was not mentioned in Ex.P1 report about the places of offence.

107.Pw.15 admitted it was not specifically not mentioned in Ex. P1 report whether the accused gained entry into the house when the doors were kept opened or when the doors were closed. Pw.15 admitted in case of locking the doors of the house from inside there was no chance for any person to gain entry 53/112Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 165 of 2022 into the house and it was not specifically mentioned the specific places of commission of offences.

108.Pw.15 admitted that the last date and place of offence was not mentioned in Ex. P1 report and it was also not mentioned in Ex.P1 report regarding the name of the doctor who confirmed the pregnancy of the victim (PW-1) and the name of the hospital in which pregnancy of PW-1 was confirmed.

109. Pw.15 deposed that it was not mentioned in Ex. P1 report about procuration of victim girl/PW-1 to seduce to have illicit intercourse with another person.

110.Pw.15 denied that even though the ingredients of Sec.366-A of IPC., would not attract to the present case on hand but the crime was registered U/Sec.366-A

IPC. Pw.15 further denied that in view of registering the crime U/Sec.366-A of IPC another person was involved in the case. Pw.15 further denied that in view of not mentioning specifically the number of commission of offence, hence registering the crime U/Sec. 376(2)(n) IPC was unwarranted.

111.Pw.15 deposed that as the places of occurrence of offences was mentioned as at the house and also at outside hence crime was registered U/Sec. 376(2)(n)

IPC. Pw.15 admitted that it was not mentioned in the Ex.P1 report the specific places of injuries on the person of PW-1. Pw.15 admitted unless the ingredients of Sec. 4(2), 5(j)(2), 5(l) attracted to the particular place, Pw.15 deposed they were not supposed to register the crime under above mentioned provisions. He 54/112Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 165 of 2022 deposed as there was mention in Ex.P1 report regarding the pregnancy of PW1 which denoted penetrative sexual assault and also repeatedly, hence, the crime was registered under the provisions of POCSO Act. Pw.15 admitted that without any basis regarding the pregnancy of the victim he registered the crime and as per investigation PW-1 was suffering from Thyroid.

112. Pw.15 deposed that he did not know whether a woman suffering from thyroidcould not be conceived. He deposed he did not know whether there were similarities in symptoms of thyroid and pregnancy such as fatigue, gaining weight and abnormal mensuration. Pw.15 deposed he did not examine anyone on the date of Ex.P1 report, subsequently also he not examined anyone. Pw.15 denied the person who registered the crime ought to examine the defacto complainant and he did not hand over the CD file when he handed over the case file to

ASP/LW-25. Pw.15 deposed it took 5 to 10 minutes to fill up the columns on computer in FIR, to get the print out of the FIR. Pw.15 admitted that the report was given at 06.00 P.M. dated 18.05.2022 and the crime was registered at 18.00 hours.

113.Pw.15 denied the crime was registered at 19.05 hours only, and deposed it was the time of dispatch of FIR to the Court. Pw.15 denied as per column 13.(1) under Ex.P13 he was not the officer who registered the crime, and in the name of

Ashok Kumar was mentioned. Pw.15 deposed the conjunction “or” was mentioned at column number 13 of Ex.P13 and the particulars regarding the 55/112Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 165 of 2022 persons directed to take up the investigation was mentioned. Pw.15 admitted that his name could be mentioned as the person who registered the case at column number 13. (1) of Ex. P13 FIR and the name of the Investigating Officer be mentioned at column number 13 (2) of FIR, Under Ex.P13. Pw.15 admitted it was not mentioned in Ex.P1 that the report was given with delay.

114.Pw.15 admitted even though it was not mentioned about the delay in Ex.P1 report but it was mentioned at column number 8 of Ex.P13 FIR the reasons for delay. Pw.15 deposed it was mentioned in Ex.P1 report that the accused threatened the victim to kill her if she informed to anyone. He deposed he could not say the period of delay as per Ex.P1 report in reporting the matter. He deposed witness adds it was continuing offence and also the last date of offence was not mentioned in Ex.P1 report. Pw.15 denied that without any basis crime was registered by him. So, from the testimony of PW15 it was established regarding prosecution report by the mother of alleged victim under Ex. P1, and registered same under Ex.P13 FIR by him and taking up investigation by their the then ASP.

115.PW16 is said to be Medical Officer. He deposed that he was residing at

Hanamkonda. He had been working as Asst. Professor in the department of forensic medicine and toxicology of Kakatiya Medical College, Hanamkonda. PW16 further deposed that on 24-05-2022 he received requisition from ACP.,

Eturnagaram to conduct potency test of Vasampally Chanti the accused. He 56/112Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 165 of 2022 deposed accordingly, he examined the accused gave his opinion. He deposed he did physical, general and local examination of the accused, according to which the

1) general built, appearance Normal, 2) Nutritional and Endocrinological state

Normal, 3) Behaviour and Mental faculties Normal, 4) Secondary sexual characters

Normal and 5) Spine Normal. He deposed on physical examination the height of the accused was noted and his height as 162 Cms and Weight as 57 Kgs. PW16 further deposed that basing on that he gave his opinion that there was nothing to suggest the examined individual was incapable of doing sexual act. To that effect he issued potency certificate of the accused, dated 24-05-2022. He deposed the potency certificate shown to him was issued by him which contained his signature.

Ex.P14 the potency test certificate of the accused, dt. 24-05-2022 was marked.

116.During the cross examination of PW-16 by learned counsel for the accused,

Pw.16 deposed he conducted potency test to the accused at Kakatiya Medical college in the department of forensic. Pw.16 deposed his duty timings as from 9.00 am to 4.00 pm and to his knowledge KMC Hospital was situated at

Hanamkonda. Pw.16 admitted that MGM Hospital was situated at Warangal.

Pw.16 admitted that nowhere the requisition number issued by police was mentioned in Ex.P14 potency test certificate of the accused. Pw.16 deposed he did not issue any covering letter at the time of handing over of Ex.P14 potency test certificate. Pw.16 deposed there was no such practice. Pw.16 admitted that no lab tests were conducted to the accused before giving his opinion regarding having no venereal decease to the accused. Pw.16 deposed no equipment was 57/112Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 165 of 2022 used for making observations regarding behavior and mental faculties, secondary sexual characters and for examination of spine.

117.Pw.16 deposed general examination used to be done basing upon the observation of the patient. Pw.16 denied that unless technical examination of spine and mental faculties was done finding could not be given. Pw.16 admitted mode of examination was not mentioned in Ex.P14 potency test certificate whether it was done by him or got conducted by other. Pw.16 deposed no implement used to be utilized for conducting potency test. Pw.16 denied that reflexes would have its own percentage or standards . He deposed a male person would not get reflexes in the presence of an other male person. Pw.16 denied that straight away opinion could be given in words that “a person was capable of doing sexual intercourse”. Pw.16 denied that as per forensic science there was nothing prescribed to give opinion in negative manner regarding potency. Pw.16 admitted that his name was not mentioned against the signature in Ex.P14 potency test certificate. Pw.16 denied that there was no supporting document to show that the signature on Ex.P14 was that of his signature.

118.Pw.16 admitted that potency test was not conducted during his office hours. Pw.16 deposed some times the police used to request to conduct examination of the persons even subsequent to the office hours by stating they were coming from remote area. Pw.16 admitted the potency test could be conducted even on the next day of the requisition of the police. Pw.16 denied 58/112Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 165 of 2022 they were not supposed to straight away conduct potency test in the absence of requisition to their HOD or unless they were deputed by Principal or HOD. Pw.16 deposed they used to maintain roster i.e. by the head of the department. Pw.,16 deposed he did not handover any copy of roster to the police concerned to show that he was on duty on 24.05.2022.

119.PW16 deposed Police personnel was present during the examination of the accused. Pw.16 deposed he was not aware of any particular rule to not to permit police personnel at the time of examination of any person. He deposed after taking measurement and weight of the accused only the height and weight of the accused was mentioned in Ex.P14. Pw.16 admitted that it was not mentioned specifically the number of times for which the organ was measured. Pw.16 admitted tht implement used for measuring the organ was also not mentioned in

Ex.P14. Pw.16 deposed he gave potency test certificate in dispatch section of

KMC. He deposed he did not remember whether he straight away handed over

Ex.P14 to the police. Pw.16 admitted Ex.P14 did not carry dispatch number.

Pw.16 deposed he did not know whether he ought to hand over the potency test certificate to the police themselves. Pw.16 denied that without examining the accused he issued Ex.P14 at the request of the police. By virtue of testimony of

PW16 coupled with Ex.P14, it was established the accused was potent.

120.PW17 investigation officer deposed that he was residing in Jagityal. He was working as S.P., Jagityal. Previously he worked as ASP., Eturnagaram from 05-12- 59/112Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 165 of 2022 2021 to 28-01-2023. PW17 further deposed that on 18-05-2022 he received information regarding registering the crime in Cr.No. 14/2022 of PS.,

Kannaigudem by PW15 registered U/Secs. 452, 354-D, 366-A, 376(3), 375(2)(n) and 506 IPC and also U/Secs. 4(2), 5(j)(ii), 5(l) r/w 6 of POCSO Act-2012. Then he verified the CD file and found it on correct lines. He deposed he also verified the xerox copy of Aadhar card of alleged victim girl (PW1) and found her date of birth

as 26-04-2007 and she was minor at that time.

121.PW17 further deposed that later he examined PW2 the mother of alleged victim girl and recorded her statement. On 19-05-2022 he referred PW1 alleged victim girl to the lady medical officer (PW12) of Area Hospital Mulugu to examine alleged victim girl and also requested her to preserve the material objects to send the same to the FSL. He deposed on 19-05-2022 a letter was addressed by him to the Duty Medical Officer, Area Hospital, Mulugu to take blood samples from alleged victim girl and to seize material objects of the fetus as the pregnancy of alleged victim girl was terminated. He deposed they also addressed a letter to the Child Welfare Committee, Warangal to visit alleged victim girl (PW1) and to conduct counseling to PW1.

122.PW17 further deposed that on 19-05-2022 he secured the presence of Pw.7 and Vasampally Saraiah(LW14) in their presence he examined the scene and prepared rough sketch in the crime detail form under Ex.P3 crime detail form. He further deposed the first scene of offence as the house of alleged victim girl PW1.

60/112Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 165 of 2022

He deposed later he visited the second scene of offence which was situated in the bushes near the road lead from Thupakulagudem to Kannaigudem along with

PW8 and 11 and in their presence he examined the second scene of offence prepared crime detail form along with rough sketch. When the second crime detail form was confronted to the witness. Witness identified his signature.

Ex.P15 the second crime detail form along with rough sketch was marked.

123.PW17 further deposed that on 21-05-2022 he addressed a letter to the

Head Master, ZP high school (PW13) with a request to issue date of birth certificate of PW1. He deposed accordingly PW13 issued study, conducted and the date of birth certificate of alleged victim girl PW1, as per which her date of birth was 26-04-2007 under Ex.P11. He deposed on 21-05-2022 he deputed PW14 the women SI to record the statement of alleged victim girl under videography, accordingly PW14 recorded the statement of PW1 alleged victim girl, when taken video-graphy by PW3. PW14 recorded the statement of alleged victim girl at Area

Hospital, Mulugu.

124.PW17 further deposed that on the same day i.e. on 21-05-2022 he secured the presence of Pws.3 and 14 and he recorded their statements under video coverage. He deposed on the same day i.e. on 21-05-2022 along with letter of advise and a covering letter he forwarded material objects to FSL, Hyderabad.

When the covering letter and letter of advise were confronted to the witness, witness identified those documents as addressed by him. Ex.P16 the covering 61/112Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 165 of 2022 letter addressed by him dated 21.05.2022 to the Director FSL was marked. Ex.P17 the the letter of advise, dated 21.05.2022 forwarded by him along with Ex.P16 was marked.

125.PW17 further deposed that on 22-05-2022 he secured the presence of the father of alleged victim girl (LW5), PWs3 to 6, V. Saraiah (LW8), V. Venkatalaxmi (LW10), Vasampally Jagan (LW11), he deposed he examined them and recorded their statements under videography and also he secured the presence of PW9 and recorded his statement. He deposed their statements were videographed with his official camera and CD was written and also he issued certificate under 65-B of Indian Evidence Act. He deposed CD was prepared with respect to the statement recorded of PW1 by PW14 under videography with her personal camera. He deposed PW14 also issued the certificate under 65-B of Indian

Evidence Act under Ex.P12. Ex.P18 the certificate under 65-B issued by him was marked. Ex.P19 the CD was marked.

126.PW17 further deposed that on 24-05-2022 at 6.30 hours on reliable information he apprehended the accused at his house and brought the accused to their office at 7.30 hours. He deposed later he interrogated the accused and the accused voluntarily stated about commission of offence. He deposed later he effected his arrest by duly following the procedure. He deposed on 24-05-2022 he addressed a letter to Kakatiya Medical Hospital, Warangal to conduct potency test of the accused. He deposed accordingly PW16 conducted the potency test of 62/112Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 165 of 2022 the accused and issued Ex.P14 as per which there was nothing to suggest the accused was incapable of doing sexual acts.

127.PW17 further deposed that on 26-05-2022 he addressed a letter to learned

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Mulugu to record 164 Cr.P.C. statement of alleged victim girl. He deposed on 26-05-2022 he also addressed a letter to learned I-

Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Warangal for trial of offences under POCSO Act to accord permission to take blood samples of the accused for comparison with

DNA profile of alleged victim girl and fetus. He deposed accordingly on 10-06- 2022 the Court, accorded permission to forward the accused for taking blood samples. He deposed the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mulugu also recorded 164 Cr.P.C. statement of alleged victim girl and he collected the certified copy of the same. Ex.P20 the 164 Cr.P.C. statement of alleged victim girl was marked.

128.PW17 further deposed that on 13-06-2022 as per the orders of the I-ADJ

Court, Warangal he deputed PC 4351 to handover the accused from learned

District Judge, Khammam and to produce before Director, FSL, Hyderabad to

conduct DNA examination and for comparison and on completion of said examination the accused was handed over to the jail authorities concerned on the same day.

129.PW17 further deposed that On 05-07-2022 he received FSL report under 63/112Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 165 of 2022

Ex.P10. He deposed as per the FSL report, “as per forensic lab examination after autosomal STR analysis, the specimen of the DNA foetus received matched with the victim and accused on whom the complaint was filed. He deposed hence the accused was biological father of the foetus of victim” Ex.P10 the FSL report was marked.

130.PW17 further deposed that on 06-07-2022 he received final opinion from

PW12 the Civil Assistant Surgeon, Area Hospital, Mulugu who opined that, “as per forensic lab examinations after autosomal STR analysis, the specimen of the DNA foetus received matched with the victim and accused on whom the complaint was filed. Hence the accused was biological father of the foetus of victim” he deposed basing upon the material collected by him, he filed charge sheet on 27-07-2022

U/Secs. 452, 354-D, 366-A, 376(3), 375(2)(n) and 506 IPC and also U/Secs. 4(2), 5(j)

(ii), 5(l) r/w 6 of POCSO Act-2012. He deposed PWs.4 and 6 stated before him as in

Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 respectively.

131.During the cross-Examination of PW-17 on behalf of the Accused, Pw.17 denied that there was no report prior to medical termination of pregnancy of

PW1 and the report was given subsequent to termination of pregnancy only. He deposed small bone of the foetus along with tissue which was Item No.2 was sent to FSL for conducting DNA test.

132.Pw.17 denied that it was not legally permissible to remove bone of dead 64/112Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 165 of 2022 foetus for conducting DNA test and the medical termination of pregnancy could not be done either with or without consent of a minor child or her guardian and deposed the same was not mentioned in the charge sheet.

133. Pw.17 denied that there was delay in reporting the matter under Ex.P1 as termination of pregnancy was done on prior day of Ex.P1 report. He deposed during night at 1.00 am and report was given on 18.00 hours. Pw.17 denied that there was a distance of 2 Kms. between Area Hospital, Eturnagaram and Police

Station, Eturnagaram.

134.Pw.17 admitted that there was gap of two to four days in examining PW2 and other witness. Pw.17 denied that the particulars regarding scene of offence at column No.5 of Ex.P15 crime detail form were not mentioned. Pw.17 deposed father’s name of victim and their residential particulars were mentioned in Ex.P15 crime detail form.

135.Pw.17 admitted that it was not mentioned in Ex.P1 report and also in

Ex.P20 Sec.164 Cr.P.c. statement of PW1 whether the doors of the house of PW1 were closed or opened at the time of alleged incident. Pw.17 denied that a person could not gain entry in to a house when doors of a house were kept closed.

Pw.17 admitted names of eye witness were not mentioned in Ex.P1 report or

Ex.P20 Sec. 164 Cr.P.C. statement. He deposed the DNA test was conducted of the accused. Pw.17 deposed that with the consent of the Hon’ble court, the same was 65/112Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 165 of 2022 done and as per the report the accused was biological father of the foetus.

136.Pw.17 denied that he did not examine the Asst. Director of FSL,

Hyderabad namely Dr. Pandu who gave final opinion under Ex.P10. Pw.17 deposed Asst. Director of FSL, Hyderabad was shown as LW23 in the charge sheet. Pw.17 admitted that the column No.13 of Ex.P7 medical examination report of PW1 was kept blank regarding the samples collected. Pw.17 deposed column pertained to the samples to be collected by hospital lab or chemical lab where as at column No.14 of Ex.P7 medical report, there was mention regarding collection of Swabs and smears. Pw.17 deposed the accused was not the own brother of PW1, but he was the cousin of PW1. Pw.17 deposed accused was the son of paternal uncle of PW1.

137.Pw.17 admitted that there were no injuries on PW1. Pw.17 denied that the victim was not the school going child. Pw.17 admitted the date of issuing of

Ex.P11 date of birth, study and conduct certificate of PW1 was not mentioned in

Ex.P11. I Pw.17 denied that he did table investigation and the accused not committed any offences and the medical report under Ex.P7 and Ex.P10 were prepared on his advise but not clinically.

138.During the re-examination in chief of PW-17 by learned APP, Pw.17 deposed Ex.P21 was the letter addressed by the medical officer, Government

Area Hospital, Mulugu to the Director, RFSL, Kazipet regarding collection and 66/112Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 165 of 2022 seizure of the material objects such as 1) Vulval swab, 2) Vaginal swab, 3) Pubic hair, 4) Scalp hair and 5) Nail scrapings.

139. During re-cross examination by PW17 by the counsel for the accused.

Pw.17 deposed Ex.P21 letter was sent from their office. Pw.17 deposed it was sent with letter of advise. Pw.17 denied that without mentioning in Ex.P7 about collection of material objects as mentioned in Ex.P21, Ex.P21 was sent from their office subsequently.

140. PW 14 is the woman SI of police who said to have recorded alleged statement of alleged victim, as per alleged requisition of ASP Eturnagaram on 21- 5-2022. Accordingly, she said to have recorded alleged statement of alleged victim from her mobile and the same was recorded by woman PC Sukanya/ PW3 and deposed regarding handing over said statement to ASP Eturnagaram in the form of CD and the same was said to have videographed when she said to have recorded and also deposed she said to have issued EX.P-12 certificate under section 65B of Indian Evidence Act and EX.P-12 along with CD and said certificate was marked.

141.It was not chosen to cross-examine/PW 14 as the learned counsel was absent and in spite of opportunities the accused he did not choose to cross- examine/PW14 so the things deposed by PW 14 were remained on record. So there was no dispute regarding recording the statement of alleged victim by PW 67/112Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 165 of 2022 14 and issuing of EX.P-12 certificate under section 65B of Evidence Act. As the procedure is contemplated under POCSO Act to record the statement of alleged victim, as far as practicable by women S.I. hence services of women S.I police were utilised.

142.POCSO Act provides the persons competent under POCSO Act to record the statement of victim girl. As per the provisions of Protection of Children from

Sexual Offences Act, it was prescribed to record the statement of victim woman as far as practicable by woman police officer.

143.The statement of a victim, especially a woman victim of sexual offences, must be recorded as per legal procedures laid out under Indian law, particularly the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) and special enactments like Protection of

Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, Juvenile Justice Act, and IPC provisions (Sections 354 and 376 ).

Under Section 161 CrPC (During Investigation):

The Investigating Officer (IO), who is a police officer, must record the statement.

As far as practicable, it must be recorded by a woman police officer or woman officer.

A Section Police constable are not police officers and not authorized under

CrPC.

2. Under Section 164 CrPC (Before Magistrate):

1. A Judicial Magistrate records the statement voluntarily made by the victim.

68/112Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 165 of 2022

2. In cases of sexual offences, the Magistrate recording the statement should be a woman Magistrate as far as practicable.

Again, Women Police/CDPO/Supervisor has no authority under Section 164 CrPC.

Under the POCSO Act:

For child victims (under 18), Section 24 POCSO allows the statement to be recorded by a woman police officer not below rank of S.I.

It must be done in a child-friendly manner.

NGOs, social workers, or child welfare officers can assist, but not authorised to record the statement themselves for legal purposes.

Hence Police constable/CDPO/Supervisor in ICDS, cannot Record the Statement, they do not have authority under CrPC. They are not designated as police officers.

They can be present to provide emotional support or act as a liaison in welfare roles. Their notes or reports cannot replace an official victim statement under Sections 161 or 164 CrPC.

144.

They can Assist the victim during medical examination or recording of statement .

Be part of a multidisciplinary team to support the victim.

Can Provide rehabilitation and follow-up support.

145. Victim Statements Must Be Recorded by Police or a Magistrate

Hon’ble in Delhi High Court in (2018), the Hon’ble court firmly disapproved

of statements being recorded by NGOs or counsellors. It is held that such reports are confidential and cannot substitute official statements under Section 173 CrPC, which must come from police or a magistrate .

Furthermore, the Honble Court emphasized the distinction: “Counselling report/notes of the counsellor … are confidential in nature and … cannot be made a part of the chargesheet.” Only police officers or magistrates can record such statements 69/112Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 165 of 2022

146.Hence Women police constable i.e. same authority can be extended to polie constable are not Authorized to record statements

122. Under the POCSO Act :

For child victims (under 18), Section 24 POCSO allows the statement to be recorded by a woman police officer not below rank of S.I. It must be done in a child-friendly manner. NGOs, social workers, or child welfare officers can assist, but not authorised to record the statement themselves for legal purposes.

147. Hence, PW14 was chosen to record the statement who was the women S.I.

148.PW 15 is the then SHO of Kannaigudem who said to have registered the case in crime No. 14 of 2022 under section 452 sections 452, 354D, 366A, 376 (3) and 376 (2) (n) and section 506 IPC section 4 (2) 5 (J) (2) 5 (l) read with section 6 of

POCSO Act. Basing upon EX.P-1 reports of alleged mother of alleged victim defacto complainant PW-1 and he deposed regarding submitting EXP-13 FIR original FIR to the court and copies to the concerned. He deposed taking up investigation by their ASP/LW-25 and being informed by him. During the cross examination of PW15, he categorically deposed that at the time of presenting the report the Defacto complainant and alleged victim came to police station and along with report no document was given to them except the Aadhar card said to have submitted to Investigating Officer and he claimed that he verified the same said to have belonged to PW-1 and he admitted that as per EXP.1 report alleged 70/112Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 165 of 2022 victim was studying 9th class and he admitted at first the date of offence was not mentioned in EXP-1 report the first date of offence, when there were series of offences and also admitted of not mentioned in EXP-1 report, the number of times the offence took place but EXP-1 report was not an encyclopedia or to contain all the minute details, basing on which the criminal law will be set into motion.

149. PW15 the investigating officer admitted of not mentioning in EX P-1 report whether the accused gained entry into the house when the doors were kept opened or when the doors were closed. He admitted in case of locking the doors of the house from inside there was no chance for any person to gain entry into the house and admitted by him that it was not specifically mentioned in Ex.P1 specific places of commission of offences while further admitting the last date and place of offence was not mentioned in EXP-1 report.

150. PW 15 also admitted that it was not mentioned in EXP-1 report regarding name of the doctor who confirmed the pregnancy of PW1 and the name of the hospital in which pregnancy of PW 1 was confirmed and also deposed of not mentioning in EXP-1 report about procuration of PW1 procuration of PW1 to seduce to have illicit intercourse with any other person, he denied the provisions of section 366A of IPC would not attract to the present case.

151.PW15 also denied in view of registering crime under 366-A IPC, 71/112Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 165 of 2022 another person was involved in the case and denied in view of not mentioning specifically the number of times of commission of offence, registering crime under section 376 (2( (n) IPC was unwarranted. As observed earlier, in the report, it would not contain all the things and on investigation certain things will seen the limelight, the substantial evidence is the evidence placed before the court and the testimony of PW1 regarding commission of offences of having sexual intercourse with her forcibly many times could be taken into consideration and also she categorically deposed the acts of accused towards her and repetition of similar acts towards PW1 during the absence of her inmates and also by taking advantage of having neighbouring hood as well as relationship with PW1 family, he knew better about the movements of family members of PW1 and by taking advantage of absence of parents of PW1, the accused committed acts towards PW1 as per the testimony of PW 1.

152. PW15 also admitted of not mentioning in Ex. P1 report the specific places of injuries on the person of PW 1 and admitted places of injuries on PW1 and admitted unless the ingredients of section 4 to 5 (j)(ii) 5(l) attracted to the particular case, they were not supposed to register the crime under above mentioned provisions. He deposed as it was mentioned in Ex.P1 report regarding pregnancy of PW.1 which denoted penetrative sexual assault and also repeatedly, hence the crime was registered under the provisions of POCSO Act.

153.He denied without any basis regarding pregnancy of victim, he registered 72/112Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 165 of 2022 the crime. When anything was mentioned inviting attention of the SHO or the investigating officer regarding alleged occurrence basing upon the prima facie information given by the Defacto complainant, the law will take its own recourse.

During course of investigation, certain things will come into limelight.

154. PW 15 further deposed that as per the investigation, PW 1 was suffering from thyroid and he pleaded ignorance whether any woman suffering from thyroid could not be conceived. There was no medical evidence in that regard. He pleaded ignorance further that whether there were similarities in symptoms of thyroid and pregnancy such as fatigue, gaining weight and abnormal menstruation, PW15 further deposed he did not examine anyone on the date of

Ex. P1 report and also denied the person who registered the crime had to examine the Defacto complainant as the Investigating Officer PW14 deposed that as the offences were grave in nature, hence he handed over the statement of victim girl to the ASP Eturnagaram and handed over the CD file to their ASP LW 25, in view of gravity and enormity of the accusation, hence, PW 15 took up investigation in the present offence. PW15 admitted the report was given at 6.00p.m. on 18.05.2022 and a crime was registered at 18.00 hours. He denied crime was registered at 19.05 hours only. He deposed it was the time of dispatch of FIR to the court. He denied as per the column No. 13.1 under Ex.P13. It was not the officer who registered the crime and one Ashok Kumar name was mentioned. He deposed as the conjunction “OR” was mentioned at column No. 13 of Ex.13. The particulars regarding the persons directed to take up the investigation was 73/112Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 165 of 2022 mentioned. He admitted his name could be mentioned at the column as the person who registered the case and the name of Investigating Officer be mentioned at column 13.2 of FIR under Ex.P13. He admitted it was not mentioned in P1 report. It was given with delay. He admitted even though it was not mentioned about the delay in Ex.P1 report but it was mentioned at column number 8 of Ex.P13 FIR the reasons for delay. He deposed it was mentioned in

Ex.P1 report that the accused threatened the victim to kill her if she informed to anyone. He could not say the period of delay as per Ex.P1 report in reporting the matter and deposed, it was continuing offense and also the last date of offense was not mentioned in Ex.P1 report. From perusal of the record it appeared it was mentioned at column number 8 that the accused threatened and even it was also mentioned in Ex.P1 report that the accused threatened Pw1 alleged victim to do away her life. Hence under such circumstances it cannot be considered that there was delay in FIR or it would go to the root of the case.

155.Pw 16 is the medical officer who said to have issued potency test report of the accused. According to his testimony on receipt of requisition from ACP

Eturnagaram on 24-05-2022 to conduct potency test of the accused, accordingly, he examined the accused and gave opinion on physical, general and local examination and deposed that as per the report 1) general built, appearance

Normal, 2) Nutritional and Endocrinological state Normal, 3) Behaviour and

Mental faculties Normal, 4) Secondary sexual characters Normal and 5) Spine

Normal, he deposed on physical examination the height of the accused of you 74/112Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 165 of 2022 was noted and your height as 162 Cms and Weight as 57 Kgs. He opined that there was nothing to suggest that the examined individual was incapable of doing sexual act. He deposed to that effect he issued potency test certificate of the accused on 24-05-2022 and it was marked under Ex. P14.

156.During cross-examination, Pw16 categorically deposed of conducting potency test of accused at Kakatiya Medical College. Even though he admitted nowhere the requisition number issued by police was mentioned in Ex.P14 potency test certificate and though he deposed of not issuing any covering letter at the time of handing over Ex.P14, Pw 16 being official witness just for the sake of police as he is under no obligation to obey their command or order to issue certificate without actually examining any person.

157.He deposed there was no practice to issue potency test certificate under covering letter. He admitted of not conducting any lab test to the accused before giving his opinion regarding having no venerial disease to the accused. He also admitted regarding not using any equipment for making observations regarding behavior and mental faculties, secondary sexual characters and and for examination of spine. He deposed general examination used to be done basing upon observation of the patient. He denied that unless technical examination of spine and mental faculties were done, finding could not be given. He admitted mode of examination was not mentioned in Ex.P14 potency test certificate whether it was done by him or got conducted by other. He deposed no implement 75/112Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 165 of 2022 used to be utilized for conducting potency test. He denied reflexes would have its own percentage or standards and deposed that a male person would not get reflexes in the presence of another male person. Though Pw16 admitted his name was not mentioned against the signature in Ex.P14 potency test certificate as it is usual course of practice to sign the certificates. Few persons sign in full name and few persons may not. Once a particular person is shown or acted in particular official capacity the document by which he is appointed need not be proved as per the provisions of Indian Evidence Act which speaks that when a public officer under exception 1 to Section 91 is required by law to be appointed in writing and when it is shown that any particular person has acted, as such officer, the writing by which he is appointed need not be proved.

158. Pw16, the medical officer further admitted that Potency test was not conducted during his office hours but deposed sometimes, the police used to request to conduct examination of persons even subsequent to the office hours by stating they were coming from remote area. So, under such circumstances not examining the individual during office hours was of no consequence being in the medical field and in emergent cases they have to render their services round the clock. He admitted the potency test could be conducted even on the next day of requisition and denied they were not supposed to conduct potency test right away in the absence of requisition to HOD, unless they were deputed by Principal or head of the department.

76/112Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 165 of 2022

159.He deposed they used to maintain roster by the head that is by the head of the department though he deposed of not handing over any copy of roster to show he was on duty on 24th May 2022. Unless PW16 actually medically examined the accused he has no personal interest to issue simply Ex.P14 potency test without actually examining the accused. He admitted of not mentioning specifically the number of times the organ was measured or the implement used for the same under Ex.P14. Even though P14 did not carry dispatch number as he deposed there was no practice to issue the same under covering letter hence it was of no consequence. So, by virtue of testimony of PW16 it was established conducting potency test by the accused and as per the findings under Ex. P14 there was nothing to suggest that the accused was not capable to do such acts.

So,thecontrary was not shown by the accused in that regard by producing any kind of medical record or any certificate to show that he was not potent in view of presumption.

160.Pw.17 is the investigating officer and the then ASP Eturnagaram. He deposed that on receipt of information on 18.05.2022 regarding registering the crime in Crime No. 14/2022 of PS Kannaigudam by PW15, registering the crime under aforementioned offenses, then he said to have verified the CD file and found it on correct lines and also he posed that he verified the xerox copy of other card of PW1 and found her date of birth as 26.04.2007 and deposed she was minor at that time.

77/112Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 165 of 2022

161.PW17 further deposed that later he examined PW2 the mother of alleged victim girl and recorded her statement and also deposed about investigating part regarding referring PW1 alleged victim to the lady medical officer PW12 of Area Hospital Mulugu, on 19.05.2022 to examine alleged victim and said to have requested her to preserve material objects to send the same to

FSL. He also deposed that on the same day he said to have addressed a letter to the Duty Medical Officer of Area Hospital Mulugu to take blood samples from the victim and to seize material objects of fetus as the pregnancy of victim was terminated. He also deposed further regarding addressing letter to Child Welfare

Committee, Warangal to visit PW1 to conduct counseling to her and also deposed regarding securing the presence of PW7, LW 14 Vasampalli Saraiah on 19.05.2022 and he deposed in their presence he said to have examined alleged scene and prepared rough sketch in the crime detail form. The first scene of offence was said to be the house of victim girl, he deposed later he said to have visited second scene of offence said to have situated in the bushes near the road leading from

Tupakulagudem to Kannaigudem along with PW 8 and 11 and deposed in their presence, he examined the scene and prepared Ex.P15 second crime detail form along with rough sketch.

162.According to further testimony of Pw.17 investigation officer, he said to have addressed a letter to the Head Master of Z.P. High School on 21st May, 2022 with a request to issue Date of birth certificate of Pw.1. Accoridingly, Pw.13 said to have issued study, conduct and date of birth certificate and deposed as per 78/112Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 165 of 2022 which, the date of birth of the alleged victim was 26.4.2007 and issued under

Ex.P11. He also deposed the woman S.I of Police recorded the statement of Pw.1 on 21.05.2022, Accordingly, Pw.14 recorded the statement of Pw.1 at Area

Hospital, Mulugu and also deposed on the same day i.e. on 21st May, 2022 he said to have secured the presene of witness and they said to have recorded the statement under videography and also on the same day, he said to have forwarded material objexts to FSL, Hyderabad along with letter of advise i.e.

under Ex.P6 and P7.

163.According to further testimony of Pw.17 on 22.05.2022, he said to have secured the alleged presence of alleged father Lw.5 victim, Pws. 3 to 6, Lw.8,

Lw.11. He depsoed he said to have examined them and recorded their statement under videography and also he said to have secured Pw.9 and said to have recorded their statement and he depsoed their statement were recorded under videography from his official Camera and also deposed isuance of under Ex.P18 under Section 65- B of Indian Evidence Act.

164.Pw.16 also corroborated the testimony of Pw.14 with regard to recording the statement of victim from personal mobile of Pw.14 and about issuing 65-B certificate and depsoed about Ex.P19 CD. He deposed about alleged arrest of the accused on 24.05.2022 at 6.30 hours at his house and also he said to have addressed letter to the Kakatiya Medical Hospital at Warangal on 24.05.2022 to conduct potency test of the accused and the medical officer said to have issued 79/112Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 165 of 2022

Ex.P14 potency certificate and depsoed as per said certificate there were nothing to suggest the accused was uncable of doing sexual act.

165.As per further testmony of Pw.16 he also addressed a letter to the learned

Magistrate to record 164 Cr.P.C statement by learned I-Addl. Sessions Judge,

Warangal to accord permission to take blood sample of accused for comparison with DNA profile of victim and fetous. He deposed of according permission, forwarded the accused for collecting blood samples of the accused and also deposed regarding Ex.P20 164 Cr.P.C statement of victim and also he deposed about producing the accused before the Director of FSL to condcut DNA examination and comparison, as per the oders of the court concerned on 13.06.2022 and deposed on completion of said examiantion, he handed over the accused to jail authorities. He deposed about receipt of FSL report under Ex.P10 on 05.07.2022 as per FSL report, "as per forensic lab examination, after autosomal

STR analysis, the specimen of the DNA foetus received matched with the victim and accused on whom the complaint was filed. Hence the accused was biological father of the foetus of victim"/Ex.P10 is the FSL report.

166.He deposed regarding receipt of final opinion from Pw.12 Civil Assistant

Surgeon on On 06-07-2022 and he received final opinion from PW12 the Civil

Assistant Surgeon, Area Hospital, Mulugu who opined that, as per forensic lab examinations after autosomal STR analysis, the specimen of the DNA foetus received matched with the victim and accused on whom the complaint was filed.

80/112Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 165 of 2022

Hence the accused was biological father of the foetus of victim.

167.He deposed about filing of charge sheet under aforementioned provisions against the accused and also deposed Pw.4 and Pw.6 and deposed before him as in Ex.P2 and P3 respectively.

168.During the course examination of Pw.17/investigation officer, he denied that there was no report prior to medical termination of pregnancy of Pw.1 and report was given subsequent to terminiation of pregnancy only. From the perusal of record, under Ex.P1 report, it was only mentioned that alleged victim was carrying. As per the medical witness, Pw.12 by the time she examined the victim with the consent of her mother. She found that the victim /Pw.1 was carrying pregnancy of 21 to 24 weeks. Hence, under such circumstances, when as per the testimony of medical witness /Pw.12, Pw.1 delivered live baby on 20.05.2022 at 4..0AM, it could not be considered that pregnancy of Pw.1 was terminated even by the date of report under Ex.P1.

169.He also deposed small bone of fetous along with tissue, which was Item No.

2 was send to FSL for conducting DNA test and denied it was not legally permissible to remove the dead fetous for conducting of DNA test. He denied the medical termiantion of pregnancy could not be done either with consent of minor of child or her guardian and also denied there was delay in reporting the matter under Ex.P1 and termiantion of pregnancy was done prior giving to Ex.P1 report 81/112Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 165 of 2022 at 18.00 hours and denied there was distance of 2-km between Area Hospital and

Police Station Eturnagaram and admitted that there was gap of 2 to 4 days in examining Pws.2 and other witness.He deposed the particulars of parents of Pw.1 was mentioned in Ex.A15.

170.As Pw.1 deposed that the accused who was residing near her house, used to come to their house, though he was her brother by relationship, he without hearing her words under the guise of loving her, he participated in sexual intercourse with her and repeated the same. As one of the places of offence being the house of Pw.1, hence, the investigation officer deposed regarding one of the scene of offences as the house of Pw.1.

171.Admittedly by investigation officer, it was not mentioned in Ex.P1 report and also in Ex.P20 164 Cr.P.C statement of Pw.1, whether, the doors of house of

Pw.1 were closed or opened at the time of alleged incident. Even it was not elecited from the testimony of alleged victim. Even if the doors of the house of

Pw.1 were closed or opened at the time of alleged incident, in view of denying of

Pw.1 in the testimony of Pw.1 that the accused by closing her mouth withclothes and tied with hands and had sexual intercourse with her forceble, there was no scope for her to raise alarm to invite the attention of the public. In fact the omission and contradition, if any of the witness were not at all proved by way of suggestions and admissions by the investigation officers.

82/112Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 165 of 2022

172.Even under Ex.P1 report, it was mentioned about the same. In view of nature of offennce which usually would not be occurred by inviting the attension of the public or neighbors, it could not be expected to have eye witness for alleged occurrence. So, under such circumstances and also when Ex.P1 report was silent regarding eye witness, admission of investigation officer/Pw.17 that the names of eye witness were not mentioned was of no consequence. He deposed with the consent of the court DNA test was conducted of the accused and also deposed as per report the accused was the Biological father of the fetous. The

Direcitor of FSL was shown as witness as Lw.22,it was not the case of not examining the said person by the police. The investigation officer admitted the column No.13 ofEx.P7 medical report of Pw.1 was kept blank regarding the samples collected, by deposing the said column pertained to the sample to be collected by the hospital/Chemical lab. Whereas at column No. 14 of Ex.P7 medical report there was mention regarding of collection of swabs and smears.

173. Investigation officer/PW17 deposed that the accused was not own brother but he was cousin of Pw.1, by deposing the accused was the son of paternal uncle of Pw.1, when alleged incident said to have taken place prior to conceiving, when the incident came into lime light, after carrying of 21 to 24 pregnancy by Pw.1.

174.Under such circumstances, it cannot be expected any injuries on Pw.1 as the incident took place prior to preseting report. He admitted that date of issuing of

Ex.P11 date of birth, study and conduct certificate of Pw.1 was not mentioned in 83/112Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 165 of 2022

Ex.P11. ExP21 was the letter addressed by the medical officer to the FSL regarding the collection and issuing of materialobjects such as Vulval swab,

Vaginal Swab, Pubic hair, Scalhair and Nail scrapings and it was deposed by Pw.17 that Ex.P21 letter was sent from their office with a letter of advise and he denied that without mentioning in Ex.P7 about the collection of material objects as mentioned in Ex.P21, Ex.P21 was sent fromtheir office subsequently. The printed form under Ex.P7 medical examiantion and report of alleged report, it was mentioned collection of samples, such as Vulval swab, Vaginal Swab etc., and in

Ex.P17 letter of advise the sampel said to have collected were mentioned.

175.When Ex.P21 was letter addressed by the Civil Assistant Surgeon of the

Government Hospital, Mulugu. She was the person who said to have collected the material objectives addressed a letter to the Director RFSL by mentioning, she conducted the examination of the victim and claimed on 19.05.2022 and also mentioned the material objectives of Pw.12. So, the testimony of Pw.17 is corroborated with the testimony of official witness and other witnesses regarding condcuting the investigation by the investigation officer and it was not established from his testimony, the evidence of any witnesses as improved versions.

176. It was argued on behalf of the defense that PW1 deposed that her mother took her to hospital at Hanmakonda, whereas PW2 deposed as if she took her to

Pasra. As seen from the testimony of PW1 and also as observed earlier, according 84/112Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 165 of 2022 to PW1 her mother took her to the hospital at Hanmakonda when she did not get periods and also PW2 deposed about the same that she took her to Surya Hospital at Hanmakonda for medical checkup and also subsequently PW2 deposed that she took PW1 to Hospital at Pasra and where doctors examined her and told that she was pregnant, whereas as per PW1 the doctors at Hanmakonda examined her and told that she was pregnant.

177.The material aspect that PW1 was carrying pregnancy was undisputed. There was no specific denial in that regard. Merely because it was suggested about boundary disputes, it could not be considered that PW1 and

PW2 implicated the accused. When the relationship of accused as per PW2 was son and as per PW1 he was her brother.

178.When the medical record would goes to show carrying pregnancy by PW1 and it was also terminated and further the medical reports allowed go to show the accused was responsible for the pregnancy of PW1 and also the paternity of fetus was established medically, under such circumstances for any minor discrepancies the entire case of the prosecution which inspired confidence of the court need not be brushed aside and it could not be considered in view of boundary disputes PW1 and her parents implicated the accused. As the paternity of fetus was established as that of the accused. As observed earlier PW1 deposed, she was studying 10th class she was suffering from Thyroid whereas in the report it was mentioned PW1 was studying 9th standard. When the evidence of the 85/112Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 165 of 2022

School Headmaster goes to show, she studied in that school from particular class.

179. As per ExP11, Study Conduct and Date of birth Certificate of PW1, she was studying 6th to 9th standard between 2018 to 2022 and also when the report was given on 18-5-2022, hence it was mentioned that she was studying 9th standard. Merely because PW1 deposed she was suffering from thyroid when she was studying 10th class, it need not be viewed with suspicion as it was mentioned regarding suffering from thyroid by PW1 for about 03-years by the time the report was presented, mainly because PW1 deposed she was taken to

Eturnagaram and her mother gave report at police station Pasrawhereas Ex.P11 report was given to Kannaigudem police, it need not be viewed with suspicion as the incident took place about 3 years ago, whereas the evidence was given after lapse of 01- year from the date of alleged occurrence,the material aspect of having acquaintance with the accused, not disputing identity or relationship of accused with PW1 and confirming the pregnancy of PW1, terminating the same, confirming the maternity of PW1 with the foetus and paternity of accused are established by the prosecution which would go to show having access by the accused to PW1 and it established commission of offences by the accused towards PW1 and also there was nothing to suggest and nothing was established that the accused was not potent at relevant point of time.

180. By virtue of study conduct and date of birth certificate of PW1, it was established the date of birth of PW1 as 26-04-2007 and as per ExP11 report, as 86/112Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 165 of 2022 well as Ex P13 FIR, alleged incident took place prior to 16-05-2022 and the criminal law was set into motion on 18-05-2022 and merely because PW1 deposed on 21-05-2002, her mother took her to PS Etrunagaram and she gave report, it would not take away the entire testimony of PW1, PW2 and medical witness regarding carrying pregnancy by PW1 or terminating the same and medical findings that the accused was responsible for the pregnancy of PW1 as it was established, he was the biological father of the fetus, hence under such circumstances the evidence adduced by the prosecution on material aspects inspired the confidence of the court and it was established by the prosecution that as on the date of alleged commission of offence, PW1 was child as she was aged about 15 years,22days old and she was below 18 years old and she was child.

There was no hard and fast rule that a person suffering from thyroid need not conceive, it depends upon the severity and the health condition and the medical record was placed to show the accused was biological father of the fetus of the child to whom PW1 was mother.

181.So, it was established by the prosecution that the accused prior to 16-05- 2022 during the absence of the family members of PW1, illegally trespassed into the house of LW2, alleged victim minor girl and having made preparation for assaulting her or put her in fear of hurt or assault by saying that he was interested in PW1 and if she refused he threatened that he would die and forcibly committed rape on her and threatened to kill her and her family members and also burn their house if she disclosed the incident to anyone. Thereby the accused committed an 87/112Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 165 of 2022 offence punishable under section 452 of IPC.

182. It was also established by the prosecution that the accused on given date, time and place used to follow PW1 alleged victim while she was studying 9th standard to contact her to foster personal interaction with her with the accused and repeatedly despite clear indication of disinterest of PW1 and the accused did so in the name of love and harassed her mentally and thereby he committed an offence punishable under section 354-D of IPC.

183. It was also established by the prosecution that the accused induced PW1 the victim girl under the age of 18 years with intent that she might be forced or seduced to have illicit intercourse with the accused and thereby he committed an offence punishable under section 366-A IPC.

184.It was established by the prosecution that the accused on given date, time and place mentioned Supra committed rape on the victim girl PW1 who was under the age of 16 years and thereby he committed an offence punishable under section 376(3) of IPC.

185.It was also established by the prosecution that the accused on given date, time and place committed rape on the minor victim girl repeatedly on her and thereby he committed an offence punishable under section 376 (2) (n) IPC.

186.It was also proved by the prosecution that the accused committed criminal 88/112Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 165 of 2022 intimidation of PW1 by threatening the victim minor girl with dire consequences to kill her and thereby he committed an offence punishable under section 506 IPC.

It was also established by the prosecution that the accused committed penetrative sexual assault against the minor victim girl PW1 and thereby he committed an offence punishable under section 3 r/w sec 4 of Protection of

Children from Sexual Offences Act.

187.It was also established by the prosecution that the accused committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the minor victim girl PW1 and made her pregnant as a consequence of sexual assault and committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the minor victim girl more than once or repeatedly and thereby he committed an offence punishable under sections 5 (j) (ii) (l) r/w sec 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.

188.So, it was established that PW1 was aged about 15 years, 22 days old and she was below 16 years old. When the prosecution was able to establish its case, the accused did not rebut the presumption as contemplated under Section 29 and 30 of POCSO Act.

189.Sec. 29 and 30 of POCSO Act which speaks of presumption as to certain offences. As per said provision—Where a person is prosecuted for committing or abetting or attempting to commit any offence under sections 3, 5, 7 and section 9 of this Act, the Special Court shall presume, that such person has committed or abetted 89/112Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 165 of 2022 or attempted to commit the offence, as case may be unless the contrary is proved.

190. By virtue of Sec. 30 of POCSO Act presumption of culpable mental state can be presumed.

191.As per said provision —(1) In any prosecution for any offence under this Act which requires a culpable mental state on the part of the accused, the Special Court shall presume the existence of such mental state but it shall be a defence for the accused to prove the fact that he had no such mental state with respect to the act charged as an offence in that prosecution. (2) For the purposes of this section, a fact is said to be proved only when the Special Court believes it to exist beyond reasonable doubt and not merely when its existence is established by a preponderance of probability under Explanation in this section, “culpable mental state” includes intention, motive, knowledge of a fact and the belief in, or reason to believe, a fact.

192. In view of her tender age and by taking advantage of loneliness, the accused repeatedly committed offenses against PW1 by putting her under fear, by threatening with dire consequences and he made PW1 pregnant and also it was terminated medically as she was minor and the medical evidence coupled with the ocular testimony of PW1 and her relatives established PW1 was pregnant and it was terminated medically with the consent and also it was established the accused as the biological father of the fetus, thereby he committed 90/112Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 165 of 2022 aforementioned charged offenses.

193. Section 452 of IPC speaks House-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint.

As per said provisionWhoever commits house-trespass, having made preparation for causing hurt to any person or for assaulting any person, or for wrongfully restraining any person, or for putting and person in fear of hurt, or of assault, or of wrongful restraint, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

194.Section 354-D IPC speaks of Stalking As per said provision, (1) Any man who follows a woman and contacts, or attempts to contact such woman to foster personal interaction repeatedly despite a clear indication of disinterest by such woman; or monitors the use by a woman of the internet, email or any other form of electronic communication, commits the offence of stalking

Provided that such conduct shall not amount to stalking if the man who pursued it proves that—

1. it was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime and the man accused of stalking had been entrusted with the responsibility of prevention and detection of crime by the State; or

2. it was pursued under any law or to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by any person under any law; or

3. in the particular circumstances such conduct was reasonable and justified.

(2) Whoever commits the offence of stalking shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may 91/112Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 165 of 2022 extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine; and be punished on a second or subsequent conviction, with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine.

195.Section 366-A IPC speaksof Procuration of minor girl

Whoever, by any means whatsoever, induces any minor girl under the age of eighteen years to go from any place or to do any act with intent that such girl may be, or knowing that it is likely that she will be, forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

196. Section 376 (2), (3) (n) IPC speaks

Section 376 IPC, prescribes punishment for rape,which reads as follows:(1)

Whoever, except in the cases provided for in sub-section (2), commits rape, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment of either description for a term which 1 [shall not be less than ten years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine].(2) Whoever,—(a) being a police officer, commits rape—(i) within the limits of the police station to which such police officer is appointed; or

(ii) in the premises of any station house; or

(iii) on a woman in such police officer's custody or in the custody of a police officer subordinate to such police officer; or

(b) being a public servant, commits rape on a woman in such public servant's custody or in the custody of a public servant subordinate to such public servant; or

(c) being a member of the armed forces deployed in an area by the Central or a State Government commits rape in such area; or

(d) being on the management or on the staff of a jail, remand home or other place of custody established by or under any law for the time being in force or of a women's or children's institution, commits rape on any inmate of such jail, remand home, place or institution; or 92/112Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 165 of 2022

(e) being on the management or on the staff of a hospital, commits rape on a woman in that hospital; or

(f) being a relative, guardian or teacher of, or a person in a position of trust or authority towards the woman, commits rape on such woman; or

(g) commits rape during communal or sectarian violence; or

(h) commits rape on a woman knowing her to be pregnant; or 2 * * * * *

(j) commits rape, on a woman incapable of giving consent; or

(k) being in a position of control or dominance over a woman, commits rape on such woman; or

(l) commits rape on a woman suffering from mental or physical disability; or

(m) while committing rape causes grievous bodily harm or maims or disfigures or endangers the life of a woman; or

(n) commits rape repeatedly on the same woman, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of that person's natural life, and shall also be liable to fine. Under Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub-section,—

(a) "armed forces" means the naval, military and air forces and includes any member of the Armed Forces constituted under any law for the time being in force, including the paramilitary forces and any auxiliary forces that are under the control of the Central Government or the State Government;

(b) "hospital" means the precincts of the hospital and includes the precincts of any institution for the reception and treatment of persons during convalescence or of persons requiring medical attention or rehabilitation;

(c) "police officer" shall have the same meaning as assigned to the expression "police" under the Police Act, 1861 (5 of 1861);

(d) "women's or children's institution" means an institution, whether called an orphanage or a home for neglected women or children or a widow's home or an institution called by any other name, which is established and maintained for the reception and care of women or children. 3 [(3) Whoever, commits rape on a woman under sixteen years of age shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than twenty years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of that person's natural life, and shall also be liable to fine: Provided that such fine shall be just and reasonable to meet the medical expenses and rehabilitation of the victim:

93/112Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 165 of 2022

Provided further that any fine imposed under this sub-section shall be paid to the victim.]

197. Section 506 of IPC speaks Punishment for criminal intimidation

Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both;

If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc — and if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, of with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.

Section 3 of POCSO Penetrative sexual assault. As per the said provision—A person is said to commit “penetrative sexual assault” if—

(a) he penetrates his penis, to any extent, into the vagina, mouth, urethra or anus of a child or makes the child to do so with him or any other person; or

(b) he inserts, to any extent, any object or a part of the body, not being the penis, into the vagina, the urethra or anus of the child or makes the child to do so with him or any other person; or

(c) he manipulates any part of the body of the child so as to cause penetration into the vagina, urethra, anus or any part of body of the child or makes the child to do so with him or any other person; or

(d) he applies his mouth to the penis, vagina, anus, urethra of the child or makes the child to do so to such person or any other person.

Section 4 of POCSO Act provides Punishment for penetrative sexual assault.— As per said provision[(1)] Whoever commits penetrative sexual assault shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than 4 [ten years] but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.

[(2) Whoever commits penetrative sexual assault on a child below sixteen years 94/112Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 165 of 2022 of age shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than twenty years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of natural life of that person and shall also be liable to fine.

(3) The fine imposed under sub-section (1) shall be just and reasonable and paid to the victim to meet the medical expenses and rehabilitation of such victim.]

Section 5 of IPC speaks of Aggravated penetrative sexual assault.— As per said provision (a) Whoever, being a police officer, commits penetrative sexual assault on a child —

(i) within the limits of the police station or premises at which he is appointed; or

(ii) in the premises of any station house, whether or not situated in the police station, to which he is appointed; or

(iii) in the course of his duties or otherwise; or

(iv) where he is known as, or identified as, a police officer; or

(b) whoever being a member of the armed forces or security forces commits penetrative sexual assault on a child—

(i) within the limits of the area to which the person is deployed; or

(ii) in any areas under the command of the forces or armed forces; or

(iii) in the course of his duties or otherwise; or

(iv) where the said person is known or identified as a member of the security or armed forces; or

(c) whoever being a public servant commits penetrative sexual assault on a child; or 95/112Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 165 of 2022

(d) whoever being on the management or on the staff of a jail, remand home, protection home, observation home, or other place of custody or care and protection established by or under any law for the time being in force, commits penetrative sexual assault on a child, being inmate of such jail, remand home, protection home, observation home, or other place of custody or care and protection; or

(e) whoever being on the management or staff of a hospital, whether Government or private, commits penetrative sexual assault on a child in that hospital; or

(f) whoever being on the management or staff of an educational institution or religious institution, commits penetrative sexual assault on a child in that institution; or

(g) whoever commits gang penetrative sexual assault on a child.

Explanation.—When a child is subjected to sexual assault by one or more persons of a group in furtherance of their common intention, each of such persons shall be deemed to have committed gang penetrative sexual assault within the meaning of this clause and each of such person shall be liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone; or

(h) whoever commits penetrative sexual assault on a child using deadly weapons, fire, heated substance or corrosive substance; or

(i) whoever commits penetrative sexual assault causing grievous hurt or causing bodily harm and injury or injury to the sexual organs of the child; or

(j) whoever commits penetrative sexual assault on a child, which—

(i) physically incapacitates the child or causes the child to become mentally ill as defined under clause (l) of section 2 of the Mental Health Act, 1987 (14 of 1987) or causes impairment of any kind so as to render the child unable to perform regular tasks, temporarily or permanently; 1 ***

(ii) in the case of female child, makes the child pregnant as a consequence of sexual assault;

(iii) inflicts the child with Human Immunodeficiency Virus or any other life threatening disease or Infection which may either temporarily or permanently 96/112Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 165 of 2022 impair the child by rendering him physically incapacitated, or mentally ill to perform regular tasks; 1 *** [(iv) causes death of the child; or]

(k) whoever, taking advantage of a child's mental or physical disability, commits penetrative sexual assault on the child; or

(l) whoever commits penetrative sexual assault on the child more than once or repeatedly; or

(m) whoever commits penetrative sexual assault on a child below twelve years; or

(n) whoever being a relative of the child through blood or adoption or marriage or guardianship or in foster care or having a domestic relationship with a parent of the child or who is living in the same or shared household with the child, commits penetrative sexual assault on such child; or

(o) whoever being, in the ownership, or management, or staff, of any institution providing services to the child, commits penetrative sexual assault on the child; or

(p) whoever being in a position of trust or authority of a child commits penetrative sexual assault on the child in an institution or home of the child or anywhere else; or

(q) whoever commits penetrative sexual assault on a child knowing the child is pregnant; or

(r) whoever commits penetrative sexual assault on a child and attempts to murder the child; or

(s) whoever commits penetrative sexual assault on a child in the course of 1 [communal or sectarian violence or during any natural calamity or in similar situations]; or

(t) whoever commits penetrative sexual assault on a child and who has been previously convicted of having committed any offence under this Act or any sexual offence punishable under any other law for the time being in force; or

(u) whoever commits penetrative sexual assault on a child and makes the child to strip or parade naked in public, is said to commit aggravated penetrative sexual assault.

97/112Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 165 of 2022 [6. Punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault.—(1) Whoever commits aggravated penetrative sexual assault shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than twenty years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of natural life of that person and shall also be liable to fine, or with death.

(2) The fine imposed under sub-section (1) shall be just and reasonable and paid to the victim to meet the medical expenses and rehabilitation of such victim.] 198. So by virtue of said definition of offence of rape & penetrative Sexual

Assault the evidence on record is quite sufficient in establishing committing sexual intercourse or rape by the accused, PW1 being minor consent is irrelevant and also it was established having penetrative sexual assault by the accused on

PW1.

199. By virtue of Section 42-A, the POCSO Act is not in derogation of any other law such as, it has over riding effect and shall prevails overany other law. In case of any inconsistency the provisions of POCSO Act prevails.

200. Power is vested with Special (POCSO) Court to Award Compensation.

The POCSO Court can directly decide the quantum of compensation, including high amounts like ₹10 lakhs, under the following provisions:

1. Section 33(8) of POCSO Act it Enables the Special Court to recommend compensation.

98/112Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 165 of 2022

2. Rule 7 of POCSO Rules, 2012 (as amended) – Allows the Special

Court to order interim or final compensation to the child victim regardless of conviction, if it feels the child has suffered harm.

3. Section 357A CrPC, Provides for compensation to be awarded by the Legal Services Authority on the recommendation of the Court.

Therefore the POCSO Court can recommend a specific quantum to the District

Legal Services Authorities (DLSA).

However, disbursement lies with the DLSA, which must process the recommendation and sanction the amount in accordance with the scheme.

201. The DLSA shall also ensure that the compensation is utilized in the best interests of the child, including medical treatment, education, psychological counseling, and rehabilitation.

202. Rule 7, Section 33(8)of POCSO Act, reads as follows:

Rule 7 of the POCSO Rules, read with Section 33(8) of the POCSO Act, mandates the Special Court to consider awarding compensation to child victims for the physical or mental trauma they have suffered, or for their immediate rehabilitation. The Special Court has the power to direct payment of compensation in addition to any punishment imposed. This ensures that victim receive support for her recovery and well-being.

99/112Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 165 of 2022

203. Section 357A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) deals with the Victim Compensation Scheme, providing a framework for compensating victims of crime. This section mandates that State

Governments, in coordination with the Central Government, prepare a scheme to provide funds for compensating victims or their dependents who have suffered loss or injury due to a crime and require rehabilitation.

Section 357-A of Cr.P.C speaks of victim compensation. Who suffered loss or injury as a result of crime and who require rehabilitation.

By virtue of Section 33(8) of the POCSO Act, 2012, (read with Section 357(1)(A) of the CrPC),

204. “The Special Court may, in appropriate cases, in addition to the punishment, direct payment of such compensation as may be prescribed to the child for any physical or mental trauma caused to the child or for immediate rehabilitation of such child.”

205. On a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offences committed against the minor victim, the psychological trauma, physical and emotional harm suffered by the child, and the financial condition of the family, this Court is of the opinion that the child victim is entitled to compensation under the Telangana Victim

Compensation Scheme, 2015.

100/112Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 165 of 2022

The offence falls under the category of Penetrative Sexual Assault], which warrants the maximum compensation under the Scheme.

The Court, therefore, recommends compensation of ₹10,00,000 (Rupees

Ten Lakhs only) to be paid to the minor victim, under:

Section 357A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Rule 7 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Rules, 2012

Section 33(8) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012

Telangana Victim Compensation Scheme, 2015 (as amended) vide G O Ms 9

dated 28/02/2019.

206. By virtue of circular of Hon’ble High Court vide ROC.No.

2539/SO/2025, dated 02.12.2025, by virtue of direction of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India, while passing Orders in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 989 of 2025, issued certain directions and the relevant paras are extracted hereunder:

“We find that one of the impediments in disbursement of victim compensation to the victims is the absence of a direction being issued by the Special Courts/Session Courts to pay compensation to the victims of a crime. Consequently, the victims have to seek such compensation on their own, either by making an application to the State Legal Services Authority or by any other means known to law. There is also an absence of awareness 101/112Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 165 of 2022 in this regard.

207. In the circumstances, we direct that the concerned Special

Court/Session Courts ought to pass appropriate directions with regard to payment of victim compensation in appropriate cases, so that the implementation of the said directions of the concerned Special

Court/Session Courts could be easily made by the State Legal Services

Authority through the District Legal Services Authority or the Taluk Legal

Services Authority, as the case may be.

So, it is appropriate to direct the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) to make payment of victim compensation to the victim.

208. As the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and state failed to take care of minor victim girl, hence the victim is entitled for compensation under Section 33(8) of the POCSO

Act r/w Rule 9 of the POCSO Rules, 2020 r/w sec. 357A of Cr.P.C and

Telangana victim compensation scheme.

208. Accordingly, the District Legal Services Authority, Mulugu District is directed to:

Process the recommendation expeditiously, and Sanction and disburse the amount of ₹10,00,000 to the child victim through the victim’s lawful guardian, preferably by direct bank transfer to an account opened in 102/112Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 165 of 2022 the name of the minor, with proper safeguards.

209. It is needless to emphasize more on the aspects which are subsidiary in nature.

2 1 0 . As the evidence on record of Pw.1/victim is quite ample and sufficient which is reliable, worth convincing, trustworthy and free from doubt, hence, the evidence of prosecution witnesses Pw.1/victim, her parents Pw.2. PW.13 Headmaster who issued study, conduct and date of birth certificated of PW1, the testimony of Pw.10 and 12/Medical Officers and medical witnesses, who corroborated on material particulars coupled with exhibits, can be pressed into service to base conviction. So, the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the charged offences punishable U/secs. 452, 354-D, 366-A, 376 (3), 376 (2) (n) and 506 of IPC and Section 3 r/w 4, 5 (j) (ii), 5 (l) r/w Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and accused failed to rebut the presumption under Section 29 and 30 of POCSO Act. Hence, the accused can be found guilty for the aforementioned offences. Accordingly, this

Point is determined in favour of the prosecution.

103/112Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 165 of 2022

211. Point No.2:

In the result, the accused is found guilty for the charged offences punishable U/secs. 452, 354-D, 366-A, 376 (3), 376 (2) (n) and 506 of IPC and Section 3 r/w 4, 5 (j) (ii), 5 (l) r/w Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Actand he is convicted of the same Under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the stenographer/voice and after correction, pronounced by me

in the open Court on this the 28 th day of February, 2026.

Sd/-

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

MULUGU,

FAC - FAST TRACK SESSIONS JUDGE FOR

EXPEDITIOUS DISPOSAL OF CASES OF RAPE AND

PROTECTION OF CHILD AGAINST SEXUAL

OFFENCES (POCSO) ACT, MULUGU

104/112Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 165 of 2022

211. Accused is heard with regard to quantum of sentence to be imposed upon him.

Accused submitted that, he had wife and two children aged about five years and six years respectively. His family is depending upon him. Her mother is aged person. His father is no more. He used to do coolie works.

212. On hearing the accused on quantum of sentence, in view of the nature, facts and circumstances of the case, it appears sentencing him to imprisonment and also to impose fine will meet the ends of justice for the offences punishable under Section 452 IPC,354 D, 366-A IPC, 376 3(i) Section 376(2)(n) Section 506 of IPC and Section 3 read with 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences and Section 5(j)(ii) , 5(l) read with 6 of POCSO Act.

213. Having regard to the relevant facts and circumstances of the case, on balancing mitigating circumstances and aggravating punishment, in the light of circumstances, sentencing the accused to imprisonment and imposing fine for causing acts referred supra, appears to be quite- appropriate and adequate punishment in the light of given facts.

214. After exercising discretion judiciously, in the light of circumstances and considering the submission of the accused, having regard to the enormity and gravity of offences and on considering the submissions of the accused, it is just, reasonable and appropriate to impose sentence of (2) years imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/- for the offence punishable under Section 452 IPC, under Section 354-D IPC imprisonment of (1) year and fine of Rs.500/- under Section 366-A IPC imprisonment of (3) years 105/112Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 165 of 2022 and fine Rs.1500/- under Section 376 (3) IPC imprisonment of (20) years and fine of Rs.2000/- under Section 376 (2) (n) IPC imprisonment of (10) years fine of Rs.2000/- under Section 506 IPC imprisonment of (2) years and fine of Rs.500/- under Sections 3 r/w 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, imprisonment of 20 years and the fine of

Rs.2000/- and imprisonment of 20 years and fine of Rs. 3000/- under

Sections 5 (j) (ii), 5 (l) r/w Section 6 of Protection of Children from

Sexual Offences Act.

215. In the result, the accused is found guilty for the charged offences punishable U/secs. 452, 354-D, 366-A, 376 (3), 376 (2) (n) and 506 of IPC

and Section 3 r/w 4, 5 (j) (ii), 5 (l) r/w Section 6 of Protection of Children

from Sexual Offences Act, and accused is convicted of the said offences Under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C.

21 6. The accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of (2) Years and he shall also pay fine of Rs 1000/- (Rupees one thousand only)for the charged offence punishable under Section 45 2 of IPC, and in default to make payment of fine of Rs 1000/-, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of (2) two months.

2 1 7 . Further the accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of (1) year and also shall a l s o pay fine of

Rs 500./- (Rupees five hundred only) for the charged offence punishable 106/112Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 165 of 2022 under Section 354-D IPC, and in default to make payment of fine of Rs 500/-, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of (1) one month.

218. Further the accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of (3) years and also shall a l s o pay fine of Rs 1500/- (Rupees one thousand five hundred only) for the charged offence punishable under Section 366-A,IPC, and in default to make payment of fine of Rs 1500/-, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of (3) three months.

219.Further the accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of (20) years and also shall a l s o pay fine of Rs 2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) for the charged offence punishable under Section 376 (3)IPC, and in default to make payment of fine of Rs 2000/-, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of (4) four months.

220.Further the accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of (10) years and also shall a l s o pay fine of Rs 2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) for the charged offence punishable under Section 376 (2) (n) IPC, and in default to make payment of fine of Rs 2000/-, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of (4) four months.

107/112Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 165 of 2022

221.Further the accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of (2) years and also shall a l s o pay fine of Rs 500/- (Rupees five hundred only) for the charged offence punishable under Section 506IPC, and in default to make payment of fine of Rs 500/-, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of (1) one month.

222. Further the accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of (20) years and also shall a l s o pay fine of Rs 2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) for the charged offence punishable under Section 3 r/w 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual

Offences Act, and in default to make payment of fine of Rs 2000/-, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of (4) four months.

223.Further the accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of (20) years and also shall a l s o pay fine of Rs 3000/- (Rupees three thousand only) for the charged offence punishable under Section 5 (j) (ii), 5 (l) r/w Section 6 of Protection of

Children from Sexual Offences Act, and in default to make payment of fine of Rs 3000/-, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of (5) five months.

2 2 4 . The sentences shall run concurrently in respect of offences

under Sections 452, 354-D, 366-A, 376 (3), 376 (2) (n) and 506 of IPC and

108/112Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 165 of 2022

Section 3 r/w 4, 5 (j) (ii), 5 (l) r/w Section 6 of Protection of Children

from Sexual Offences Act.

225. The period of remand undergone by the accused from 24.05.2022 to 26.07.2022 to till date, shall be given set off Under

Section 428 of Cr.P.C. in respect of the offences punishable 452, 354-D,

366-A, 376 (3), 376 (2) (n) and 506 of IPC and Section 3 r/w 4, 5 (j) (ii), 5

(l) r/w Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.

226. The accused is informed about his right to prefer an appeal against this Judgment and also appraised to obtain free legal aid if he required.

The accused is furnished with copy of Judgment.

227. Before parting with the Judgment, in the light of nature and circumstance of the case this Court is satisfied and is of considered view that it is a fit case to award compensation to the victim of

Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs only) as provided under Section 357-

A of Cr.P.C r/w. Telangana Victim’s Compensation Scheme, 2015,

Amended vide G.O.Ms.No.9 dt.28-2-2019 r/w Rule7, of Protection of

Child from Sexual Offences Rules, 2012 to the victim as defined for her rehabilitation for loss of injury causing severe mental agony to child victim.

109/112Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 165 of 2022

228. Hence recommended to District Legal Services Authority,

Mulugu to disburse the compensation amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs only) to the victim namely xxxxx, under Section 357-A (2) of Cr.P.C r/w Rule 7 of POCSO Act and Telangana victim compensation scheme, 2015 – amended vide G.O.Ms. Dated 28.02.2019,

R/w Section 33 (8) of POCSO Act.

229. The office is directed to forward the copy of Judgment as well as copy of charge sheet containing the address of victim by name xxxx to the

District Legal Services Authority, Mulugu to disburse the quantum of compensation to the victim xxxx.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 28th day of February, 2026.

Sd/-

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

MULUGU,

FAC - FAST TRACK SESSIONS JUDGE FOR

EXPEDITIOUS DISPOSAL OF CASES OF RAPE AND

PROTECTION OF CHILD AGAINST SEXUAL

OFFENCES (POCSO) ACT, MULUGU

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: PW1Victim girl PW2Mother of the victim girl PW3M.Sukanya, WPC 4624 of Mulugu PW4Sister in law of victim girl 110/112Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 165 of 2022

PW5Aunt of the victim girlNone. PW6Uncle of victim PW7K.Muthaiah, panch witness for crime detail form I dated 19.02.2022 PW8P.Kishore, panch witness CDF-II Ch.Sarveshwar Rao, Police PW9 constable PW10Dr.Ayesha Butool, Medical officer PW11V.Laxmaiah, panch witness for CDF-II PW12Dr.M.Mayuri, Medical officer PW13T.Swarupa. Head mistress of AzpHS Gurrevula. PW14K.Swetha, WSI, She team, Mulugu PW15M.Suresh,S.IofPolice, Kannaigudem PW16Dr.J.Surender, Asst. Professor, FM and Toxicology, KMC, Warangal. PW17AshokKumarIPS,ASP Eturnagaram

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1 Report given by PW2 dated 18-05-2022 in Cr.No. 14/22 of Police

Station Kannaigudem

Ex.P2 161 Cr.PC statement of PW4

Ex.P3Crime detail form by PW7 dated 19-05-2022

Ex.P4 Signature of PW8 on the crime detail form as second witness. Dated 19-05-2022 Ex.P5Provisional Opinion given by PW10 dated 20-05-2022

Ex.P6Signature of PW11 on the crime detail form as the first witness dated 111/112Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 165 of 2022 19-05-2022 Ex.P7Medical examination report for sexual assault of the victim girl/PW1 issued by PW12 dated 19-05-2022 Ex.P8TFSL report dated 10-06-2022

Ex.P9Final Opinion given by PW12

Ex.P10TSFSL report dated 28-06-2022

Ex.P11 The study, conduct and date of birth certificate of the victim girl/PW1 issue by PW13 Ex.P12 CD along with the certificate under sec.65B of Indian Evidence Act.

Ex.P13Original FIR in Cr.No.14/2022 of Kannaigudem Police Station

Ex.P14The Potency test certificate of the accused dt:24-05-2022.

Ex.P15Second Crime detail form along with rough sketch in crime no.14 of 2022 of Police station Kannaigudem Ex.P16Covering letter addressed by PW17 to the director FSL.

Ex.P17Letter of advise, dt:21-05-2022 forwarded by PW17 along with Ex.P16

Ex.P18Certified under 65-B issued by PW17

Ex.P19 CD dated 24-05-2022

Ex.P20164 Cr.P.C statement of the victim girl

Ex.P21Letter addressed by the Medical Officer,

FOR DEFENCE: Nil.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED: Nil.Sd/-

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

MULUGU,

FAC - FAST TRACK SESSIONS JUDGE FOR

EXPEDITIOUS DISPOSAL OF CASES OF RAPE

AND PROTECTION OF CHILD AGAINST SEXUAL

OFFENCES (POCSO) ACT, MULUGU

112/112Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 06 of 2023

IN THE COURT OF THE FAST TRACK SESSIONS JUDGE FOR EXPEDITIOUS

DISPOSAL OF CASES OF RAPE AND PROTECTION OF CHILD AGAINST SEXUAL

OFFENCES (POCSO) ACT :: AT MULUGU

Present: Smt. S.V.P. Surya Chandrakala,

Principal District and Sessions Judge, Mulugu,

FAC Fast Track Sessions Judge for Expeditious disposal of cases of Rape and Protection of child against sexual offences (POCSO) Act, Mulugu.

Tuesday, the day 04 th of November, 2025

SPL. SESSIONS CASE No. 06 OF 2023

(Cr.No. 45/2022, PS., Wazeedu)

Crime Number and Police Station:Cr.No. 45 of 2022 of Police Station: Wazeedu.

Name and description of the Accused:A-1 Sodi Sandeep, S/o. Ranga Rao, Aged 21 years, Caste: ST Koya, Occ: Coolie, R/o. Bommanapally village, Wazeedu Mandal.

A-2 Jejala Venkateshwarlu, S/o. Papaiah, aged 26 years, caste: Vadabalija, Occ: Coolie, R/o. Bommanapally village, Wazeedu Mandal.

(The case against A2 was abated as died on 05.05.2023)

The State of Telangana, represented Name and description of the : by Assistant Superintendent of Police, Complainant Eturnagaram. Sri D. Ram Singh, Prosecution conducted by :

Additional Public Prosecutor.

Sri K. Kumara Swamy, Accused defended by: Advocate, Mulugu. U/secs. 376, 376 (3) of IPC, Sec. 5(j) (ii), Offence charged: 5 (l) r/w Sec. 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,2012 against Accused.

1/94Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 06 of 2023

Pleaded not guilty and claimed to be Plea of the Accused: tried. Found guilty. Finding of the Court:

In the result, the accused Result: No.1 is found guilty for the charged offences punishable under Sections 376, 376 (3) of IPC, U/secs. 5 (j)(l) r/w sec. 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, and accused No.1 is convicted of the said offences Under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C.

The accused No.1 is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of (10) Ten Years and he shall also pay fine of Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) for the charged offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC, and in default to make payment of fine of Rs.2000/-, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of (03) three months.

Further the accused No.1 is sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of (20) Twenty years and also shall pay fine of Rs.3000/- (Rupees three thousand only) for the charged offences punishable under Section 376 (3) of I.P.C, and in default to make payment of fine of Rs.3000/-, the accused No.1 shall undergo 2/94Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 06 of 2023 simple imprisonment for a period of ( 04 ) four months.

Further the accused No.1 is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of (20) Twenty Years and also shall pay fine of Rs.4000/- (Rupees four thousand only) for the charged offencepunishableunder Section5(j) (l) r/w 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and in default to make payment of fine of Rs.4000/-, the accused shallundergosimple imprisonment for a period of ( 06) six months.

The sentences shall run concurrently in respect of offences under Sections 376, 376 (3) of IPC, U/secs. 5 (j)(l) r/w sec. 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,2012.

The period of remand undergone by the accused from 26.10.2022 to 17.01.2023 shall be given set off Under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 376, 376 (3) of IPC, U/secs. 5 (j)(l) r/w sec. 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,2012.

Further the 1st Accused is found not guilty for the charged offencepunishableunder 3/94Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 06 of 2023

Section 5 (j) (ii) of POCSO Act, 2012 and the 1st accused is acquitted of said offence under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. Case aainst the 2nd accused was abated on 05.05.2023, due to his death.

The accused is informed about his right to prefer an appeal against this Judgment and also appraised to obtain free legal aid if he required. The accused is furnished with copy of Judgment.

Before parting with the

Judgment, in the light of nature and circumstances of the case this Court is satisfied and is of considered view that it is a fit case to award compensation to the victim of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten lakhs only) as provided under Section 357-A of Cr.P.C r/w. Telangana Victim’s Compensation Scheme, 2015, Amended vide G.O.Ms.No.9 dt.28-2-2019 r/w Rule 7, of Protection of Child from Sexual Offences Rules, 2012 to the victim for her rehabilitation for loss of injury causing severe mental agony to child victim.

Hence recommended to DistrictLegalServices Authority, Mulugu to award and disburse the compensation amountofRs.10,00,000/- 4/94Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 06 of 2023 (Rupees Ten lakhs only) to the victim namely xxxxx, under Section 357-A (2) of Cr.P.C r/w Rule 7 of POCSO Act and Telangana victim compensation scheme, 2015 – amended vide G.O.Ms. Dated 28.02.2019, R/w Section 33 (8) of POCSO Act.

The office is directed to forward the copy of Judgment as well as copy of charge sheet containing the address of victim by name xxxx to the District Legal Services Authority, Mulugu to disburse the quantum of compensation to the victim xxxx.

This case coming before me on 23.10.2025 for final hearing in the presence of Sri D. Ram Singh, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the Complainant/State and Sri M. Vinay Kumar, learned counsel for the accused; upon perusing the material papers on record, having been heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

:: JUDGMENT ::

1)The Assistant Superintendent of Police, Eturnagaram filed charge sheet against the accused No. 1 and 2 in Cr.No. 45 of 2022 of P.S. Wazeedu, under

Sections 376, 376(3) IPC section 5(l) r/w section 6 of Protection of Children from

Sexual Offences Act, 2012 against A1 and under Section 376, 376(3) IPC section 5(i)(ii), 5(l) r/w section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 against A2.

5/94Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 06 of 2023

2)The averments of the charge sheet in brief were that the criminal law was set into motion on 23.09.2022 at 16.0 hours, based upon the report of mother of the alleged victim girl regarding alleged occurrence. As the first accused said to have followed alleged victim girl when she said to have been studying 10th class for a period of one year under the guise of alleged loving her and wanted to marry her, on alleged coming to know about the same, the de facto complainant alleged mother of alleged victim girl said to have informed to the parents of the first accused about alleged behaviour of the first accused but he said to have not changed his behaviour.

3)Due to alleged financial difficulties, alleged victim girl said to have not attended the school and said to have been staying at her house in Bomanapalli, during the absence of the other family members. The first accused said to have repeatedly come to their house and said to have had sexual intercourse with alleged victim girl, on knowing about the same by the second accused, he said to have threatened alleged victim girl and he said to have had sexual relationship with alleged victim girl multiple times and also said to have threatened her to not to disclose to anyone. Due to alleged ill-health of the victim girl when she was said to have taken to the hospital at Bhadrachalam, on examination, the doctor said to have informed about carrying 6-months pregnancy by alleged victim. On alleged questioning the same by the complainant, alleged victim girl said to have disclosed about alleged acts of the first accused and the second accused having alleged sexual relationship with her multiple times in many occasions. Hence the 6/94Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 06 of 2023 defacto complainant sought to take action against the accused.

4) On receipt of the report, Lw.20/R. Hareesh, the then S.I of Police, Wazeedu registered the same as a case in Cr.No. 45/2022 under Sections 376, 376 (3) IPC and Section 5 (j) (ii), 5 (l) r/w section 6 of Protection of Children from sexual offence Act, 2012 and said to have issued FIR to the court and copies to the concerned and also LW21/Sri Ashok Kumar, IPS, ASP Eturnagaram said to have rushed to the police Wazeedu on receipt of express FIR and said to have taken up case file from LW20/Sri R. Hareesh, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Wazeedu for investigation and also said to have verified the date of birth of alleged victim

as 16-06-2008.

5)During course of investigation LW21/Sri Ashok Kumar, IPS, ASP

Eturnagaram said to have examined the defacto complainant LW1/alleged mother of victim girl and said to have recorded her alleged statement. Due to dearth of woman police officer, LW21/Sri Ashok Kumar, IPS, ASP Eturnagaram said to have requested Lw.3/woman S.I/ K. Mounika of CCSPS Mulugu to examine alleged victim girl/Lw.2. Accordingly she said to have examined and said to have recorded

Part-II statement of alleged victim and the same was said to have recorded under alleged videography with alleged help of woman Home Guard 882 of PS

Venkatapuram.Alleged first scene of offence was said to have situated at

Bommanapalli village of Wazeedu Mandal and alleged second scene of offence was said to have situated at outskirts of Bommanapalli village of Wajidu Mandal.

7/94Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 06 of 2023

6)On 24.09.2022, LW21/Sri Ashok Kumar, IPS, ASP Eturnagaram said to have referred alleged victim girl/LW2 to the lady medical officer, Government Area

Hospital Mulugu for medical examination and to ascertain whether she was subjected to penetrative sexual assault or not and for marks of injury if any and also he said to have requested the medical officer to preserve the material objects necessary for chemical analysis and report, on alleged receipt of medical examination report of alleged victim from LW14, LW14/Dr. K. Sunitha, Civil

Assistant Surgeon, Area Hospital, Mulugu, issued the medical report on alleged examining alleged victim girl as per which it was mentioned that the minor girl had 34 weeks pregnancy. LW21/ASP Eturnagaram said to have addressed a letter to Child Welfare Committee Warangal with a request to take custody of alleged minor victim girl for counselling and rehabilitation and to record her statement with the help of child counsellors and also he said to have addressed a letter to the headmaster KGBV school Wazeedu to issue date of birth certificate of alleged victim. The Special Officer of the school said to have issued the date of birth certificate of alleged victim by mentioning her date of birth as 16.06.2008.

7) On 26.10.2022 at 07:00 hours on reliable information. LW21/ASP

Eturnagaram said to have apprehended both the accused at Jagannathapuram junction. Later, they were said to have brought to his office at 09.00 hours.

8)LW21/ ASP Eturnagaram said to have interrogated both the accused and on completion of formalities of arrest. LW21/ ASP Eturnagaram said to have 8/94Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 06 of 2023 addressed a letter to the duty medical officer area hospital Mulugu to conduct potency test examination of both the accused. Accordingly LW16/Dr. Niveditha

Reddy, Civil Assitant Surgeon, Area Hospital, Mulugu, medical officer said to have conducted potency test examination of both the accused and said to have issued a report opining that there was nothing to suggest that the male examined was not capable of performing sexual acts, no reports of the accused. There was nothing to suggest that the male examined were not capable of performing sexual acts.

9)On 27.10.2022, the Investigation officer/Lw.21 said to have addressed a letter to the learned Magistrate Mulugu to record 164 Cr.P.C statement of alleged victim, and later the Investigation officer (I.O) said to have examined

Lws.5/alleged father of victim girl and Lw.6/ alleged uncle of alleged victim girl and said to have recorded their statements and he also said to have addressed a letter to the special court Mulugu dealing with POCSO cases on 28-10-2022 to accord permission to collect blood samples of both the accused.

10) On 30.10.2022 the investigation officer (I.O.)/Lw.21 said to have addressed a letter to the duty medical officer area hospital Mulugu to examine and and to take blood samples of alleged victim and send to FSL Hyderabad for paternity test. Accordingly, the duty medical officer preserved the blood samples of alleged victim for DNA analysis. Later, the investigation officer (I.O.), said to have examined and recorded the statement of Lw.7/Pujari Ramadevi and

Lw.8/Pujari Pakeeru alleged the circumstantial witnesses.

9/94Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 06 of 2023

11)On 01.11.2022 investigation officer (I.O.)/Lw.21, said to have addressed a letter to the Director FSL, Hyderabad to examine blood samples of alleged victim for DNA comparison of the bioligical father and also he said to have received Part -

II statements of alleged victim on 19.11.2022.

12)As per the orders of the court, both the accused were forwarded to FSL

Hyderabad to collect blood samples and on 26.11.2022 Lw.21investigation officer (I.O.) said to have recieved FSL report, vide File No. DNA/496/2022, dated 23.11.2022 of TSFSL as per which DNA extracted from item Nos.1 (Lw.2/victim girl blood) and Item No.2 (blood sample of baby) were subjected to Autosomal STR analysis by using Global filer kit. The DNA profiles had been generated and recorded from Items no. 1 and 2.

13) On 30th December, 2022, LW21 the investigation officer (I.O) said to have received FSL report, vide file No.DNA/496/2022, DNA/542/2022, dated 21st

December,2022 of TSFSL, Red Hills, Hyderabad from LW19, Dr. G. Pandu, in which it was mentioned that DNA extracted from items 1 and 2 i.e. blood samples of A1 and A2 respectively of DNA/542/22 were subjected to autosomal STR analysis by using Global filer kit, and the DNA profile obtained from item No.2 of DNA/496/22 was compared with DNA profiles obtained from item Nos. 1 to DNA/496/22 and item Nos. 1 and 2 of DNA/ 542/22.

14)The allelic pattern of item No.2 of DNA/496/22 matched with allelic pattern 10/94Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 06 of 2023 of item No. 1 of DNA/496/22 and item No. 2 of DNA/542/22 but did not match with allelic pattern of item No.1 of DNA/542/22. So, by virtue of autosomal STR analysis, it was said to have conclusively proved that Jejala Venkateswarlu (2nd

Accused) was the biological father of the child and whose biological mother was alleged victim.

15)Later, LW21/ Investigation officer (I.O) said to have received final opinion from the medical officer, Civil Assistant Surgeon Eturnagaram, who said to have opined that Jejala Venkateswarlu was the biological father of the baby whose mother was alleged victim. On alleged transfer of LW22 to Eturnagaram, he said to have taken up the CD file from LW21 for further investigation. Basing upon the investigation A1 said to have committed the offences punishable U/sec. 376, 376 (3) IPC, Section 5 (l) r/w Section 6 of POCSO Act, and Second accused said to have committed the offences under Sections 376, 376 (3) IPC, Section 5 (j) (ii), 5 (l) r/w section 6 of POCSO Act. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against both the accused.

16) The case was taken on file by taking cognizance against the accused

No.1 and 2 on 29.03.2023 by the Special Judge for POCSO Act Cases, Mulugu, for the offences punishable U/sec. 376, 376 (3) IPC, Section 5 (l) r/w Section 6 of

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 against A1 and under

Section 376, 376 (3) IPC, Section 5 (j) (ii), 5 (l) r/w section 6 of POCSO Act against

A2 and dealt with by the Court of Special Sessions Court for POCSO Act Cases, 11/94Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 06 of 2023

Mulugu and registered the case as Spl.SC.No. 06/2023.

17) On appearance of the accused before the court, all the copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated under Section 207 CrPC by the court.

18) During the pendency of proceedings, the 2nd accused died. Hence, the case against the 2nd accused was abated on 05.05.2023. On appearance of the accused before the Court, on hearing the accused No.1, learned counsel for the accused and learned Special Public Prosecutor under Section 226 Cr.P.C as the court was of the opinion that there were grounds for presuming that the accused committed alleged offences, and on considering the material on record and as per

Section 228 (1) (b) CrPC, the charges U/secs. 376, 376 (3) IPC, Section 5 (j) (ii) r/w section 6 of POCSO Act, and Section 5 (i) (l) r/w Section 6 of Protection of

Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 were framed against accused No.1 and same were read over and explained to the accused no.1 under Section 228 (2)

Cr.P.C in his vernacular language, for which the accused No.1 denied the charges and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the matter was proceeded further.

19) During the course of trial, the prosecution examined Pws. 1 to Pw11 and got marked Ex.P1 to P19.

12/94Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 06 of 2023

20) Pw1 is said to be alleged victim said to be minor girl, Pw2 is said to be the mother of alleged victim girl, Pw3 is the Woman WHG 882 of

P.S. Venkatapuram, who said to have taken videography when Lw.3 W.S.I recorded alleged statement of Lw2 alleged minor victim girl, Pw4 is said to be the panch witness for crime details form-II, Pw.5 is said to be the panch witness for crime details form-I, Pw.6 is said to be the Civil Assistant

Surgeon, Area Hospital, Mulugu, who said to have examined the accused A1 and A2 and issued potency certificates, Pw.7 is said to be the Civil Assistant

Surgeon, Area Hospital, Mulugu who said to have examined alleged victim girl and issued report, Pw.8 is said to be the Civil Assistant Surgeon, CHC

Eturnagaram, who said to have examined alleged victim girl and taken blood sample of alleged victim and baby blood for DNA analysis, Pw.9 is said to be the special officer of KGBV School of the victim girl who said to have issued the date of birth certificate of alleged victim girl, Pw.10 is said to be the then ASP of Eturnagaram, who said to have arrested the accused and

Pw.11 is said to be ASP of Eturnagaram, who investigated the case and filed the charge sheet.

21)Ex.P1 is the original report dated 23-09-2022 said to have presented by the defacto complainant/PW2. ExP2 is the 164 CRPC statement of PW1 alleged victim girl. ExP3 is the signature of PW4 alleged panch witness on crime detail form

dated 23.09.2022,. ExP4 is alleged signature of PW5 alleged panch witness on the

crime detail form, dated 23.09.2022. ExP5 is the potency test report of the first 13/94Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 06 of 2023 accused Sodi Sandeep. Ex P6 is the potency test report of the second accused.

Ex.P7 is the medical examination report of alleged victim. ExP8 is the RFSL report

dated 23-11-2022. ExP9 is the FSL report along with DNA profile chart dated 21-

12-2022. ExP10 is the final opinion, ExP11 is the study conduct and date of birth certificate of alleged victim girl, ExP12 is the FIR in Cr.No. 45/2022 under sections 376, 376(3) IPC section 5 (j), (ii), sec. 5 (i) (l) r/w sec. 6 of POCSO Act. Ex P13 is the second crime detail form dated 23.09.2022, Ex.P14 is the letter said to have addressed by the I.O./Pw.10 to the duty medical officer, Government Hospital,

Eturnagaram, dated 30.11.2022, Ex.P15 is the letter said to have addressed by the

Civil Assistant surgeon, Community Health Centre, Eturnagaram said to have addressed to Director FSL under which material objects such as blood samples of victim and baby were said to have sent for DNA analysis. Ex.P16 is the correspondence said to have made by Pw.10, the then investigating officer to the

Director FSL dated 21.05.2022 along with letter of advise dated 01.11.2022,

Ex.P17 is the letter said to have addressed by Pw.10, investigating officer to the

Head master KGBV School, Wazeedu dated 24.09.2022, Ex.P18 is the certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act said to have issued by K. Mounika/Lw.3,

Ex.P19 is the first crime details form along with rough sketch of the first scene of offence.

22)The prosecution given up the evidence of Lws.3 K. Mounika, Women Sub-

Inspector of Police, CCS Police Station, Mulugu, Lw.6 alleged uncle of alleged victim girl and circumstantial witness, Lw.7 Pujari Ramadevi, circumstantial 14/94Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 06 of 2023 witness to alleged incident, Lw.8 P. Pakeeru another circumstantial witness, Lw.9

CH Sarveswara Rao, PC 3049 of ASP Office, Eturnagaram, who said to have videographed the recording of statements of witnesses, Lw.11 V. Naveen, alleged panch witness for crime details form-I, Lw.13 M. RamKumar alleged panch witness for crime details form-II, Lw.18 learned Magistrate, Mulugu, Lw.19

Assistant Director of FSL, who said to have issued FSL report and Lw.20 Sub-

Inspector of Police, P.S. Wazeedu and prosecution evidence reported closed.

23) After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused No.1 was examined U/sec. 313 Cr.P.C on the incriminating evidence available against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and he denied the same and reported no witness to be examined on his behalf.

24) Heard the arguments of learned Special Public Prosecutor, representing the State and the learned counsel for the accused.

25) The point that arises for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution proved it’s case against the accused no.1 for the charged offences punishable U/secs. 376, 376 (3) IPC, Section 5 (j) (ii), 5 (j) (l) r/w

Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 beyond all reasonable doubt ?”

26)POINT :Perused the record. To bring home the guilt of the accused 15/94Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 06 of 2023

No.1, the prosecution has to establish that the first accused along with the 2nd accused prior to 23.09.2022 at Bummanapalli village of Wazeedu Mandal committed rape on alleged victim minor girl LW2 against her will and along with

A2, thereby the first accused committed an offence punishable under section 376

IPC.

27)Further it has to be proved by the prosecution that the first accused on given date, time and place mentioned Supra committed rape forcibly on alleged victim girl LW2 who was under 16 years of age along with second accused, thereby the first accused committed an offence punishable under section 376 (3) of IPC.

28)It has to be proved by the prosecution that the first accused along with A2 on given date, time and place committed penetrative sexual assault on alleged victim minor girl LW2 and made her pregnant consequence of sexual assault and thereby the first accused along with A2 committed an offence punishable under sections 5 (j) (ii) r/w Sec. 6 of POCSO Act.

29)Further it has to be proved by the prosecution that the first accused along with A2 on given date, time and place committed a penetrative sexual assault on alleged victim minor girl LW2 more than once or repeatedly and thereby the first accused along with A2 committed an offence punishable under section 5 (j) (l) r/w sec. 6 of the POCSO Act.

16/94Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 06 of 2023

30) To establish the charges U/secs. 376, 376 (3) IPC, Section 5 (j) (ii), 5 (j) (l) r/w Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, now the evidence available on record is the evidence of Pws. 1 to Pw11 coupled with

Ex.P1 to P19.

31) The learned Special Public Prosecutor, submitted that the prosecution established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt by virtue of the testimonies of Pws 1 to Pw.11 coupled with Exs. P1 to P19 and the prosecution proved its case against accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the aforementioned charged offences.

32) Whereas on the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused submitted that the evidence on record was not trustworthy no reliance can be placed upon the evidence of prosecution witnesses and alleged victim and parents of alleged victim did not support the case of the prosecution and the evidence on record was quite insufficient to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and sought for acquittal of the accused.

33) As seen from the record, the prosecution relied on the evidence of Pws.

1 to Pw.11 coupled with Ex.P1 to P19 referred supra.

34) As per the evidence of PW1/alleged victim girl was that she was 17/94Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 06 of 2023 resident of Bommanapally Village, Wazeedu Mandal of Mulugu District. She was doing coolie work. LW1/Malleshwari as her mother. LW5/Rambabu as her father.

LW6/Sadali as her junior paternal uncle. She deposed she knew LW7/Ramadevi and LW8/Pakheer. She deposed she knew A1 and A2 and they were residents of their village. She deposed A2 died about 6 months back. PW1 further deposed her date of birth as 16.06.2008. She deposed when she was studying 9th class in

K.G.B.V hostel at Wazeedu, she discontinued her studies as her family financial background was not good and since then, she had been staying in her parents house. She deposed she got acquaintance with A1, as the 1st accused was resident of their village. PW1 further deposed that A1 used to come to their house in the absence of her parents. He used to take her out side by saying to come along with him and the accused liked her and the accused took her to the forest area and participated in sexual intercourse with her forcibly. She deposed by knowing the relationship with A1 and herself, A2 used to threaten her that he would inform her relationship with A1 in her house to her family members and forced her to participate in sexual intercourse with him also in their house in the absence of inmates of the house and A2 participated in sexual intercourse with her in their house.

35)PW1 further deposed that later, she went to school in the hostel for studying 10th class. She deposed she in the school, she was suffering from severe vomitings, her school authorities sent her to their house. She deposed after coming to the house, the vomiting continued to her and as such, her father took 18/94Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 06 of 2023 her to the hospital at Bhadrachalam. She deposed in the hospital, the doctor advised to take scanning and scanning was done to her and in the scanning report, it was revealed that she was carrying 06- months pregnancy. She deposed her parents questioned her as to what was happened and who was responsible for her pregnancy and she informed to her parents the above said facts. PW1 further deposed that then, her parents informed the same to their village elders, but they did not take any action. She deposed then, her parents went to Police station,

Wazeedu and gave report to the police against A1 and A2. She deposed the accused Nos. 1 and 2 were responsible for her pregnancy. She deposed she delivered a girl child about one year back and she was with her. She deposed police examined her and recorded her statement. She deposed police referred her to Area hospital, Mulugu for medical examination. She deposed police also took her before the learned Magistrate, Mulugu and the learned Magistrate, Mulugu recorded her statement. She deposed after delivery of her girl child, samples were collected from her and her girl baby for D.N.A test.

36) At first instance, itwas not choosen by defence to cross examine

Pw.1.

37) Thereafter, PW1 was recalled by virtue of order s in Crl. Mp. No.

184/2024, dated 03.07.2024, for cross examination.

38)During the Cross-Examination of PW1 on behalf of the accused, Pw.1 19/94Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 06 of 2023 admitted that there was no relation ship between Sandeep (Accused No. 1) and herself and accused No.1 never run after her on the pretext of loving her. Pw.1 further admitted that A1 never taken her to outside of their village to the fields and accused never exploited her physically. Pw.1 further admitted that the police never examined her in respect of present case and A1 was no way concerned with the present case and she stated before Hon’ble Judge, (Learned

Magistrate)Mulugu as per instructions of police.

39) During the Re-examination of Pw.1 by Learned P.P, Pw.1 denied the suggestion that what she deposed previously before the Court in her chief examination was deposed by her of the things happened and now she deposed false in view of compromise the matter with the accused by her. Pw.1 also denied the suggestion that she gave statement before learned Addl. Judl. First

Class, Magistrate Mulugu as in Ex. P2 voluntarily but not as per instructions of police and now she deposed false due to compromise with the accused.

40)During course of cross examination of Pw.1, she did not support her own case and completely deviated from her earlier version when she was examined by the learned Special P.P., she denied what she deposed in her chief examination was deposed by her of the things happened and deposed false in view of compromise the matter. She denied further that the learned Magistrate Mulugu recorded her statement under Ex.P2 not voluntarily and she deposed as per the instructions of the police.

20/94Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 06 of 2023

41)As seen from the testimony of Pw.1 alleged victim at the first instance she narrated/deposed regarding things happened with the first and second accused.

42)The testimony of PW1 cannot be ignored A1 cannot take advantage of the same, when the testimony of PW1 would go to show clearly at first instance A1 developed his intimacy with alleged victim PW1 and frequently went to her house in the absence of her parents, taken her outside by saying to come along with him on the pretext that he liked her and he used to take her to the forest area and also participated in sexual intercourse with PW1 forcibly, on coming to know about acts of A1 towards PW1 in having sexual intercourse, A2 by threatening PW1 that he would disclose to her parents, A2 participated in sexual intercourse with her. PW1 deposed the accused 1 and 2 were responsible for her pregnancy.

43)For the reasons best known to Pw.1 she did not support her own case during cross examination of Pw.1. In the instant case Accused No.2 died during the pendency of the proceedings. At first instance, the learned defence counsel did not cross examine Pw.1, hence, the cross examination of Pw.1 was treated as nil and by virtue of order Crl. MP. No. 184/2024, dated 03.07.2024, the learned defence counsel was permitted for cross examination of Pw.1, but Pw.1 deviated from her earlier version in cross examination. It has to be evaluated the 21/94Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 06 of 2023 evidentiary value of Pw.1 when she supported her case in chief examiantion and deviated from her earlier version in her cross examination.

44) As per the testimony of PW2, said to be mother of alleged victim girl, she was resident of Bommanapally Village, Wazeedu Mandal of Mulugu District. She was doing coolie work. She deposed PW1 as her daughter. LW5/Rambabu as her husband. LW6/Sadali as her brother-in-law. She deposed she knew LW7/Ramadevi and LW8/Pakheer. She deposed she knew A1 and A2 and they were residents of their village. A2 died about 5 or 6 months back. PW2 further deposed that PW1 was aged about 14 years old at present. She deposed but, she did not know the exact date of birth of PW1. Pw.12 further deposed during Corona period, PW1 was studying 9th class in Wazeedu school and she was in their house during Corona holidays. She deposed after some days, PW1 again went to the school at Wazeedu.

She deposed about more than one year back, PW1 was sent to their house from the school by stating that she was not feeling well and she was suffering from vomitings. She deposed after coming to their house also, PW1 was suffering from vomitings as such, her husband/ LW5 took PW1 to the hospital at Bhadrachalam.

45) PW2 further deposed that the doctors in the hospital after examination of

PW1 informed that she was carrying six months pregnancy and they returned to their house. She deposed then, her husband and herself asked PW1 as to who was responsible for her pregnancy. PW1 said to have informed that A1 was responsible for her pregnancy and the accused committed Rape on her forcibly 22/94Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 06 of 2023 and participated in sexual intercourse with her. She deposed PW1 further informed her that A1 threatened her to not to reveal the same to them or otherwise, the 1st accused would kill her. She deposed PW1 further informed her that A2 also participated in sexual intercourse with Pw.1 (her) forcibly and committed Rape on Pw.1 her. PW2 further deposed that then, they informed the same to their village elders, but they did not take any action against A1 and

A2. She deposed then, LW5/her husband, LW6/Sadali PW1 and herself went to P.S.

Wazeedu and gave report against A1 and A2. She deposed she herself gave report against A1, A2. Ex.P1 the report said to have given by her dated 23.9.2022 was marked and Pw.2 deposed and it was scribed by one Police constable. She deposed she herself gave instructions to the police for drafting Ex.P1 report and contents of Ex.P1 complaint were read over to her. She deposed she was examined by the police. She deposed Police referred PW1 to the Area hospital,

Mulugu for medical examination. Pw.2 deposed further that PW1 gave birth to a girl child and the said girl child was with them.

46) The learned Junior counsel did not choose to cross examine the witness and the accused No.1 also not choosen to cross examine the witness. Hence, cross examination was treated as nil.

47) Thereafter, PW 2 was recalled by virtue of order s in Crl. Mp. No.

184/2024, dated 03.07.2024, for cross examination, to give an opportunity to test veracity of witness.

23/94Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 06 of 2023

48)During the Cross-Examination of PW-2 on behalf of the accused No. 1, Pw.2 admitted that accused No. 1 never run after PW-1 to marry her and A1 never came to their house during their absence at their house and the police did not examine her in respect of present case. Pw.2 further admitted that A1 was no way concerned with present case and A1 was no way related to her daughter and he never had any sexual relationship with her daughter(PW-1) and A1 never stated that he would marry PW1. Pw.2 further deposed that she did not know the contents of Ex.P1 report.

49) During the re-examination of PW-2 by Learned P.P, Pw.2 deposed that what was deposed on that day as correct and what she deposed previously in her chief examination was incorrect. PW.2 admitted that they compromised the matter with the accused. Pw.2 denied the suggestion that in view of compromise with the accused she deposed false. Pw.2 further denied that she herself got drafted Ex.P1 report and the contents of Ex.P1 were read over to her and she deposed false as if she did not know anything about Ex. P1 and present case, and due to compromise with the accused she deposed false.

50)So, Pw.2 also not support the case subsequently and deviated from her earlier version in her cross examination, it appeared in view of compromise the matter with the first accused, Pws. 1 and Pw.2 did not support their own case/ version. At first instance, the learned defence counsel did not cross examine Pws.

1 and Pw.2, hence, the cross examination of Pws. 1 and 2 was treated as nil. By 24/94Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 06 of 2023 virtue of orders in Crl. Mp. No. 184/2024, Dt. 03-07-2024. It was permitted the learned defence counsel to cross examination of Pws. 1 and 2, then both of them deviated from their earlier version in cross examination.

51) It has to be appreciated when the witness in the chief-examination supports the case of the prosecution and deviated from earlier version gave in chief examiantion can be pressed into service.

52)At this juncture, it is worth mentioning the rulings of Honourable

Apex Courts and Honourable various high court when a witness supports her own case in chief examination and deviates from earlier version pleased to held that the subsequent version need not be taken into consideration.

53) At this juncture it is worth mentioning the rulings of Honourable Apex

Court when a witness supported her version in chief examination and deviated from earlier version in cross-examination whether her testimony can be taken into consideration.

54)The victim who is prosecution witnesses, supported the prosecution during chief examination, but deviated from the earlier statement (e.g., Sec. 161 CrPC) during cross-examination ). such evidence be appreciated in the light of given circumstances and on the strength of established legal principles It has to 25/94Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 06 of 2023 be evaluated carefully to see whether the court still rely on their chief- examination statements ?

55)It has to be evaluated where the witness in the chief examination supports the prosecution version (), but later turns hostile in cross- examination and contradicts the earlier version. whether the statement can be relied upon or not and what rulings govern such a scenario.

56) Under Indian Evidence Act and criminal jurisprudence, hostile testimony does not become completely inadmissible. The entire testimony is not automatically discarded. Rather, the court examines which part is credible and consistent with other evidence.

57)Following Legal Principles and Rulings are worth mentioning for better appreciation of matter in controversy.

58)1. Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act:, It allows the prosecution to cross-examine its own witness when declared hostile, but the testimony still forms part of the record.

59) In 2. Rameshbhai Mohanbhai Koli v. State of Gujarat, (2011) 11

SCC 111: it is pleased to held.

26/94Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 06 of 2023

60) “It is settled law that the evidence of a hostile witness is not to be rejected in toto. It can be relied upon to the extent it supports the case of the prosecution.”

61)3)In the ruling in State of U.P. v. Ramesh Prasad Misra, (1996) 10 SCC 360: it was pleased to held that,

62) “Even if the witness is hostile, his evidence need not be rejected as a whole; the court can accept such part of his testimony which inspires confidence.”

63)4) in Radha Mohan Singh @ Lal Saheb v. State of U.P., (2006) 2

SCC 450:it was kind enough to held and Honble Supreme Court is pleased to emphasize that the deposition of a hostile witness must be read as a whole, and truthful portions can be acted upon.

64) 5. In the ruling in State of Rajasthan v. Bhawani, AIR 2003 SC 4230:it was pleased to held that,

65) “The testimony of a hostile witness can be relied upon, at least in part, as far as it is corroborated by other evidence on record, In POCSO cases, child/victim witnesses are treated with extra care. If a witness turns hostile, but earlier supported the case and the medical evidence, forensic, or circumstantial evidence supports the prosecution, then courts are empowered to rely on corroborated portions of their chief-examination testimony.

66) In such sensitive cases, motive for hostility (e.g., pressure from family or 27/94Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 06 of 2023 community) is also considered. If it appears that the witness is retracting due to external influence, their earlier credible statement may still carry weight.

67)So, testimonies of hostile witnesses are not entirely discredited. The court can accept parts of their testimony that are credible and corroborated and to discard portions which seem motivated or false. Their version cannot be ignored altogether, especially in cases like POCSO where influence or pressure can cause a witness to turn hostile.

68)When there’s no formal declaration of hostility, but deviation occurs When conflict occurs reliability of chief examination vs. contradiction in cross-examination.

Even if a witness is not declared hostile, and supports the prosecution in chief, but deviates during cross examination the court is not bound to reject the entire testimony. The court is duty-bound to evaluate the evidence holistically and can rely on Credible portions of the chief examination, especially if corroborated by other evidence medical,forensic, conduct of the accused, etc., can be taken into consideration. The deviation in cross examination can be treated as retraction or influence, especially when the prosecution can show pressure, compromise, or external influence.

69) At this juncture it’s worth mentioning the rulings of Honble courts which are kind enough to lay emphasis on the subject touching the issue.

In Bhagwan Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 1976 SC 202: it was pleased to held that, “Even if a witness is not declared hostile, but contradicts themselves, 28/94Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 06 of 2023 the court can compare both versions and rely on the more credible one.”

In the ruling in Gubbala Venugopalaswamy v. State of A.P., 1996 Cri LJ 2827 (Honble AP HC), pleased to held that In a POCSO-like case, it was pleased to held that evidence of the victim should be appreciated independently and minor contradictions or later deviations should not nullify otherwise trustworthy testimony.

70)In the ruling in State of U.P. v. M.K. Anthony, (1985) 1 SCC 505: it was pleased to held by Honble apex court that, “discrepancies are bound to occur, and not every deviation is fatal to prosecution’s case. Courts must consider the substance of the witness’s version, not just technical variances.”

71. In the ruling in Ramesh Harijan v. State of U.P., (2012) 5 SCC 777 it was pleased to held that, particularly in sexual offence cases, “the testimony of the victim, if trustworthy and cogent, can form the sole basis of conviction even if there is inconsistency .” in chief examination, if the witness/victim supported the prosecution and gave a consistent, credible, and corroborated version, the court can rely on it. When a witness is deviated in Cross-Examination:from his/ her earlier testimony, the court needs to assess why the deviation occurred. Is it due to influence, fear, settlement, or poor memory ?

If the version during cross examination appears vague, untrustworthy, or prompted, the court may discard that part.

29/94Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 06 of 2023

When No formal hostility Declaration, as the witness was deviated in cross examination that doesn’t affect appreciation. Courts can still rely on prior consistent versions under Section 157 of the Evidence Act. Section 145 of the Evidence Act also permits contradictions with prior statements to be used to test credibility.

After completion of chief-examination, occasion/scope for prosecution agency to seek permission to declare a witness hostile, who supported case in chief - examination.

The court can accept the chief-examination version as reliable if it is:

Natural, coherent, and free from major contradictions,

Supported by medical/forensic/post-offence conduct evidence.

Deviations in cross are not fatal unless they shake the core of the prosecution.

72.“The evidence of PW1 (and other material witnesses), Pw.2 though containing certain deviations in cross-examination, remains largely trustworthy and consistent in the chief examination. The subsequent variance appears to be the result of external pressure or post-facto change of mind. Courts are not bound to discard truthful testimony merely because the witness did not maintain consistency under cross-examination.”

73. In chief examination, when clearly deposed that the incident was occurred by properly narrating occurrence or series of incidents in seritam, but in cross- examination, later denied that any such incident occurred, no occation to declare

Pws. 1 and 2 as hostile, hence, Pw.1 was not declared hostile, yet contradict 30/94Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 06 of 2023 themselves on the most crucial point as no occasion for prosecution to declare hostile, during cross examination. In such cases, courts must follow a well- settled principle of “appreciation of contradictory testimony.” The court is not bound to accept the version given in cross-examination merely because it came later. Instead, the court must:,

74.Compare the two versions and to assess which is more natural, reliable and corroborated can ignore the contradiction if it appears induced or unreliable.

75.In the light of Guiding Principles from Case Law: In Koli Lakhmanbhai

Chanabhai v. State of Gujarat, (1999) 8 SCC 624: it was pleased to held,that, “If the witness gives two contradictory versions in chief and cross examination, the court has to examine the credibility of both and decide which version to rely on, and not discard the entire testimony.”

In Gubbala Venugopalaswamy v. State of A.P., 1996 Cri LJ 2827 (AP HC):

it was pleased to held that, “If a witness retracts their statement in cross- examination without justification, the version in chief can be relied upon if supported by other evidence.”

76.In S.P.S. Rathore v. CBI, (2017) 5 SCC 817: it was kind enough to held “courts can accept the earlier deposition (in chief) as truthful and reject the cross- examination version if there are indications of tutoring, pressure, or compromise.

In instant case the evidence given by alleged victim and Pw.2 alleged mother of Pw.1 inspires confidence of the court by virtue of testifying in the chief- examination as clearly deposed that the incident was occurred in the manner as 31/94Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 06 of 2023 referred supra, but In cross-examination later denied and deposed that no such incident was occurred, they were not declared hostile, yet contradict themselves on the most. In such cases, courts must follow a well-settled principle of “appreciation of contradictory testimony.” The court is not bound to accept the version given in cross-examination merely because it came later. Instead, the court must:,

On Comparison of the two versions.

If the chief-examination is: Spontaneous, detailed corroborated by medical, circumstantial, or forensic evidence and the cross-examination is:Unnatural, Vague appears to be retracted due to pressure or compromise. Then the court can accept the version given in chief- examiantion as truthful and ignore the cross-examination denial.

This Court notes that PW1 and Pw.2 initially deposed clearly and confidently about the occurrence of the incident in their chief-examination. However, in cross- examination, they retracted the same without offering a convincing explanation.

The possibility of pressure or influence cannot be ruled out, especially in cases involving sexual offences and family pressure. Their testimony in chief if consistent with the medical report and other circumstances then can be reliable. The subsequent denial can be disbelieved.

Contradiction between chief and cross examination does not mean total rejection. The court must scrutinize both versions and decide which part inspires confidence. Earlier version (in chief) may be accepted if found credible and 32/94Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 06 of 2023 supported. No need for formal declaration of hostility to rely on credible part of testimony.

Spontaneous, Detailed Corroborated by medical, circumstantial, or forensic evidence and the cross-examination is: Unnatural Vague, appears to be retracted due to pressure or compromise. Then the court can accept the chief version as truthful and ignore the cross examination.

77.It is evident from the record that the victim (PW1) has, during her examination-in-chief, deposed in a clear, consistent, and cogent manner, stating that the incident had indeed occurred. If her version finds to be in harmony with the medical record and other corroborative material on record, it can be pressed into service. However, during her cross-examination, she deviated from her earlier deposition and denied the occurrence of the incident. Even Pw.2 her mother corroborated version of Pw.1 on material aspects. Importantly, they were not declared hostile as there was no role for prosecution during cross examination of witness to declare hostile.

78.The Hon’ble Supreme Court pleased to consistently held that a statement made in chief examination does not lose its evidentiary value merely due to subsequent retraction in cross-examination, particularly when such retraction appears to be unnatural or induced. The Court must assess the overall reliability and circumstances under which such retraction occurs.

79.In the present case, the deposition of PW1/ alleged victim and Pw.2 alleged mother of Pw.1 in their chief-examination is found to be natural and trustworthy.

33/94Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 06 of 2023

The denial in cross-examination, lacking in credibility and unexplained by cogent reasons, is thus discarded. The evidence of the witness, read as a whole, inspires confidence and is accepted to the extent it supports the case of the prosecution.

Minor contradictions or later deviations are not sufficient to discard otherwise reliable testimony, especially in offences of sensitive nature where witnesses are often susceptible to pressure or social influence.”

Above finding is based on rulings referred supra such as, •Rameshbhai Mohanbhai Koli v. State of Gujarat, (2011) 11 SCC 111 •State of U.P. v. M.K. Anthony, (1985) 1 SCC 505 •Radha Mohan Singh v. State of U.P., (2006) 2 SCC 450

80.In the present case, the prosecution examined the victim (PW1) and her mother toestablish the occurrence of the offence under the IPC and POCSO Act.

A perusal of the chief examination of PW1 and Pw.2 shows that they have categorically deposed about the incident and disposed against the accused, narrating the occurrence in a natural and detailed manner. Their version in the chief examination is consistent with the medical findings, FIR, and the surrounding circumstances can be relied upon.

81.However, during her cross-examination, PW1 and Pw.2 deviated from their earlier version and deposed that no such incident had occurred and again during re- cross examination by the learned A.P.P., Pw.1 & 2 admitted that they compromised the matter with the accused. It is pertinent to note that 34/94Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 06 of 2023

Pw.1/alleged victim and Pw.2 were not declared hostile under Section 154 of the

Indian Evidence Act, as such deviation was not during chief examination of Pw.1 & 2 but after considerable period, when they were cross examined on behalf of the accused.

82.The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently pleased to held that evidence of a witness cannot be rejected in its entirety merely because of some inconsistencies. [Rameshbhai Mohanbhai Koli v. State of Gujarat, (2011) 11 SCC 111]. The court is duty-bound to examine the testimony as a whole and determine which version appears to be credible. In sexual offence cases, especially those involving minors, retractions in cross-examination are often caused by external pressure, societal influence, or compromise, and such changes in testimony must be approached with caution.

83.In the present facts, the deposition of Pw.1/ alleged victim and Pw.2 in the chief examination is found to be spontaneous, coherent. If it supported by medical record and circumstantial evidence can be pressed into service. The subsequent denial in cross-examination appears unnatural and possibly influenced by familial or societal pressure. Therefore, the Court finds it safe to rely on the version of the victim as deposed in her chief examination. Her testimony is found reliable, and the later contradiction is held to be without any merit.

84. In the present case, the prosecution examined the victim (PW1) and her mother Pw.2 to establish the occurrence of the alleged offence under the 35/94Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 06 of 2023 relevant provisions of the POCSO Act and IPC. During their examination-in-chief,

PW1 and Pw.2 deposed in a clear, consistent, and cogent manner, stating that the accused committed the offences. Their testimony was in consonance with the contents of the FIR, if it was also corroborated by the medical evidence and surrounding circumstances can be pressed into service. The demeanor of the witness during chief examination reflected spontaneity and natural flow, free from exaggeration.

85.However, in her cross-examination, PW1 and Pw.2 were resiled from their earlier versions and stated that no such incident had taken place. It is relevant to note that witnesses Pw.1 and Pw.2 were not declared hostile by the prosecution as it was not the case of not supporting her case by Pw.1 during her chief examination.

86.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rameshbhai Mohanbhai Koli v. State of

Gujarat, (2011) 11 SCC 111, and Radha Mohan Singh v. State of U.P., (2006) 2

SCC 450, pleased to held that when a witness gives two versions, the court is duty-bound to weigh both and decide which one inspires confidence. A later contradictory statement in cross-examination does not automatically render the entire testimony unreliable, particularly when no reason is offered for such a deviation.

In offences of sexual nature, especially those involving minors, retraction or contradiction by the victim or their relatives is not uncommon and may occur due to familial or societal pressure. The court must, therefore, examine whether the 36/94Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 06 of 2023 initial version appears voluntary, credible, and corroborated by other material evidence.

87.Upon appreciation, this Court finds the testimony of PW1/alleged victim &

Pw.2 in the chief examination to be credible and trustworthy. When the medical evidence and FIR lend further assurance to their version can rely upon evidence of

Pws.1 and 2 The retraction in cross-examination appears to be an afterthought or the result of external influence. As such, the court places reliance on the evidence as deposed in the examination-in-chief and disregards the contradictory statement made later in cross examination Similar appreciation can be extended to the depositions of other witnesses, whose versions i.e. consistent and reliable.

If medical evidence is not brought on record (i.e., medical witness not examined), but the victim supported the case in chief and then turned in cross, examination the court can still rely on the chief version, but with greater caution.

Because Medical evidence is corroborative, not essential in all cases.

It is not mandatory in every case of sexual offence to have medical evidence especially if the oral testimony of the victim is otherwise cogent and believable.

In State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, (1996) 2 SCC 384: It was pleased to held “Absence of medical evidence cannot cast doubt on the prosecution case if the victim’s version is otherwise credible.”

In Raja v. State of Karnataka, (2016) 10 SCC 506: it was pleased to held.

37/94Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 06 of 2023 “Testimony of the prosecutrix, if found to be natural and trustworthy, can be the sole basis of conviction.”

Burden is on court to assess victim’s testimony with more scrutiny.

medical evidence is present, the reliability of the victim’s chief testimony becomes central. As the chief examination of Pw.1 & Pw.2 shows a natural, voluntary, and consistent narration of the incident, and the cross-examination version appears influenced, the court can still rely on the chief examination.

88.Alleged victim (PW1), during her examination-in-chief, deposed that the accused committed the offence and narrated the incident in detail. Her version is consistent with the FIR and reflects spontaneity and natural conduct. Even medical evidence was brought on record suports version of Pw.1 & Pw.2 it is well- settled that even the absence of medical evidence is not fatal to the prosecution if the oral testimony is found credible. However, during cross-examination, PW1 retracted from their earlier versions and stated that no such incident had occurred. Importantly, she was not declared hostile.

89.Hon’ble Supreme Court has pleased to held that the sole testimony of the victim can form the basis for conviction if it is reliable and trustworthy, even in the absence of medical corroboration (Raja v. State of Karnataka, 2016). In cases under the POCSO Act, retractions in cross-examination are often the result of family pressure or social stigma.

90.In the present case, the testimony of PW1 & 2 in the chief examination is found to be voluntary, consistent, and inspiring of confidence. The retraction 38/94Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 06 of 2023 during cross-examination appears unnatural and unsupported by explanation. The

Court, therefore, accepts the version of PW1 & Pw.2 in her chief examination and finds it sufficient to sustain the charge.

A witness’s later denial in cross-examination does not erase the credible testimony given in chief examination Courts need not rely on or consider the retracted portion.

When a prosecution witness (especially a victim or relative) supports the prosecution during examination-in-chief, but denies the incident during cross- examination without formal hostility, the court must evaluate:

Which version appears credible and reliable?

Whether no reasonable explanation is offered for the retraction.

If the original testimony in chief is supported by FIR, circumstances, or demeanor. If the court finds the chief version credible, it may disregard the contradictory part in cross and rely solely on the earlier version.

“It is further observed that even the medical witness were also examined supporting testimony of PW1, in her examination-in-chief, described the incident in a natural, spontaneous, and detailed manner implicating the accused. She then retracted the same in cross-examination by stating that no such incident occurred.

No formal declaration of hostility could be made, as such deviation took place during cross examination. Inspired by the ruling by Hon’ble Justice Gogineyni

Radha Krishna Garu (APHC), in which it was pleased to held that when a witness 39/94Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 06 of 2023 supports the case in chief but deviates in cross without explanation, the court need not take the later denial into consideration, this Court examines the evidence in its entirety. The earlier testimony, unmarred by hesitation or prompting, aligns with the FIR and circumstances. The subsequent statement in cross examination appears to be an afterthought or influenced by external pressure. Hence, the Court places reliance on the version given in chief examination and disregards the contradictory part in cross.” “When a witness supports the prosecution during examination-in-chief but deviates and denies the incident in cross-examination without being formally declared hostile the Court need not consider the subsequent denial and may rely on the earlier statement.” in conflict in Credibility of Chief-Examination vs. Cross-

Examination denial

The initial testimony in chief is often more spontaneous and truthful. As it is consistent, detailed, and plausible, the later deviation in cross can be disregarded.

No Hostility Declaration required even without a formal declaration of hostility under Section 154 CrPC, courts may ignore the contradictory part of a witness’s testimony when the later version appears to be an afterthought or the result of external influence said Principle is Consistent with Honble courts’Jurisprudence

91. In judgments echo this principle particularly in sensitive cases (sexual offences, POCSO). Under the guidance of other Hon’ble benches), the focus is on which statement reflects the essential truth.

“It is relevant to note that the victim (PW1), & Pw.2 during the examination- 40/94Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 06 of 2023 in-chief, deposed clearly about the incident. However, both resiled from the initial versions in cross-examination, without any explanation. They were not declared hostile. In line with the principles upheld by the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High

Court particularly in ruling of Hon’ble by Justice Gogineyni R. Radha Krishna garu when witnesses support the prosecution in their chief-examination but deviate in cross, the Court is not bound to consider the later contradictory portions. Instead, the court must assess which version deserves confidence.

92. Inthe instant case, the chief–examination/ testimony of Pws. 1 and 2 was spontaneous, detailed, and consistent. The cross-examination denial likely resulted from external pressure or reconsideration. Accordingly, this Court prefers the truthful initial account and disregards the later denial.”

93.PW3 is said to be the Woman Home Guard who said to have videographed when the statement of PW1 was said to have recorded by Woman Sub-Inspector.

According to her testimony, she had been working as WHG in PS., Venkatapuram since 2006 to till date. She deposed on 24.09.2022 in the morning hours, ASP.,

Eturnagaram made a phone call to their Inspector of Police and requested him to send women home guard to videograph the recording of the statement of

PW1/alleged victim girl. PW3 further deposed that accordingly, on the instructions of their Inspector of Police, she proceeded to the office of ASP.,

Eturnagaram and there, she videographed the recording of the statement of alleged victim girl/PW1 when recorded by LW3/Women SI of Police with the help of her mobile phone and later, she handedover the same to LW3/WSI of police.

41/94Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 06 of 2023

She deposed Police examined her and recorded her statement.

94. During the Cross-Examination of Pw.3 on behalf the Accused, Pw.3 deposed that LW3/WSI of police herself and victim girl/PW1 were present at the time of her videographing the recording of the statement of PW1/victim girl. There were no written instructions for videograph the recording of the statement of alleged victim girl/PW1. Pw.3 admitted that she did not state before the police about the maker of the mobile of the LW3/WSI of police with which she videographed the recording of the statement of victim girl/PW1. Pw.3 denied the suggestion that she did not videograph the recording of the statement of alleged victim girl/PW1 as alleged and she deposed falsehood at the instance of police.Merely because

PW3 deposed or admitted of not stating to the police the company of the mobile of PW3 from which she videographed, while recording the statement of PW1, it would not lesser the evidentiary value of PW3 when procedure is contemplated under the provisions of POCSO Act to record the statement of alleged victim by a woman police officer not below the rank of S.I of police under videography when as per the testimony of PW3, LW3 woman S.I when recorded the statement of victim, PW3 said to have covered the same under videography and also in view of submitting the videography the things deposed by PW3 can be taken into consideration regarding recording statement of PW1 by woman S.I/LW3 under videography taken by PW3.

42/94Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 06 of 2023

95.PW4 and 5 are alleged mediators for alleged crime detail from (first) and second but for the reasons best known to them they did not support the case of prosecution and turned hostile by categorically deposing that they did not know anything about the case and deposed about more than one year ago when they were present in front of the house of PW4 and on road respectively at

Bomanapalli village their signatures were said to have obtained on blank papers by police but PW5 deposed nothing was happened in his presence. Both deposed they could identify their signatures and they identified the signatures on the crime detail form 23.09.2022 that is second and first crime detail forms and their signatures on under Ex.P3 and P4 were marked respectively on the second and the first crime detail form dated 23.09,2022 as PW4 and Pw.5 turned hostile and did not support the case hence when they were cross-examined by learned Addl.

Public Prosecutor, they both denied that they proceeded alleged scene PW4 denied that Muppidi Ramkumar and himself went near to the forest situated on the way leads from Bomanapalli to Pragapalli village and also alleged scene of offence was observed in their presence and alleged scene of offence observation report or crime detail form was prepared in their presence on which his signature

Ex.P3 contained and he deposed false due to compromise with the accused.

96.Likewise, PW5 also denied that Vasam Naveen LW9 and himself proceeded to the house of alleged victim on 23.09.2022 and alleged scene of offence was said to have observed in their presence and also crime detail form and rough sketch were prepared in their presence on which his signature Ex.P4 contained 43/94Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 06 of 2023 and deposed false to help the accused as won over by the accused.

96.1. So, the testimonies of PW4 and 5 was no way aid in establishing particular places as alleged scene of offences or preparing crime detail form or rough sketch in their presence but as seen from the testimony of PW1 and PW2 they categorically deposed alleged taking place of alleged incident at forest area when

A1 said to have taken her and said to have participated with her in sexual intercourse and also the house of PW1 and Pw.2 as the second scene of offence when A2 said to have come to their house during the absence of inmates of PW1 and said to have participated in sexual intercourse at their house with alleged victim. So, it was established alleged forest area as the first scene of offence as well as the house of PW1 and 2 as the second scene of offence, even from the testimonies of PW1 and Pw.2.

96.2. Merely because PW1 and 2 deviated from their earlier version their testimony need not be discarded. The court can rely upon the testimony which is corroborated on material particulars, it is not the case of PWs 1 and 2 that they turned hostile during their chief examination. In fact PWs 1 and 2 supported their earlier version in their chief examination and deviated during course of cross examination hence there was no occasion for the prosecution to declare them hostile as it was not the case of turning hostile by Pws.1 and 2 during chief examination hence, in the light of aforementioned rulings of honorable courts the testimonies of PWs 1 and 2 who supported their earlier version in their chief 44/94Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 06 of 2023 examination and deviated from earlier version can be pressed into service and taken into consideration which is corroborated on material particulars

97. Even though PW 4 and 5 turned hostile, but the evidence of PW1 with regard to establishing scene of offense can be taken into consideration coupled with the testimony of PW2 and pw.10.

Pw.10/investigating officer categorically deposed that he was residing in

Jagtiyal. He was working as Superintendent of Police, Jagtiyal. Previously he worked as ASP., Eturnagaram from 05.12.2021 to 28.01.2023. PW10 further deposed that on 23.09.2022 he received information regarding registering crime vide Cr.No.45/2022 of PS., Wazeedu by LW20/R. Hareesh. He deposed then he rushed to the police station and received CD file from LW20 the then Sub-

Inspector of police, Wazeedu, R. Hareesh. He deposed as per the record LW20 the SI of police submitted the original FIR to the Court and copies to the concerned.

98. PW10 further deposed that he verified the CD file and found it on correct lines. LW20/ R. Hareesh the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Wazeedu was no more.

he could identify the signatures of the then SI of police R. Hareesh. When the report under Ex.P.1 and also the FIR in Cr.No. 45/2022 were shown to the witness, witness identified the signatures on the endorsement on Ex.P1 as that of the signature of LW20 R. Hareesh and also identified the signature on the FIR in

Cr.No.45/2022.Ex.P12the FIR in Cr.No.45/2022 U/Secs. 376, 376(3) IPC, 5(J)(H)(L) 45/94Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 06 of 2023 r/w 6 POCSO Act 2012 was marked.

99.PW10 further deposed that then he verified the Aadhar card of alleged victim girl/PW1 according to which the date of birth of alleged victim girl was 16- 06-2008. Hence deposed alleged victim girl was minor. He deposed on the same day i.e. on 23-09-2022, he examined PW2 the defacto report i.e. the mother of alleged victim girl in his office and recorded the statement in Wazeedu Police

Station. He deposed then he instructed LW3/K. Mounika Women SI of police, CCS

Police, Mulugu to record Part-II statement of alleged victim girl. He deposed accordingly LW3/K. Mounika Women SI of police recorded 161 Cr.P.C. statement of the victim girl/PW1 under videography with the assistance of PW3 Women

Homeguard.

100.PW10 further deposed that later he visited the scene of offence I.e. alleged victim’s house at Bommanapally village, then he secured the presence of PW5 and

LW11/Vasam Naveen and in their presence he examined the scene and prepared crime detail form under Ex.P3 crime detail form. He deposed the same when

Ex.P3 was confronted to him. He deposed he also secured the presence of PW4 and LW13/Muppidi Ramkumar the mediators or the panch witness and he visited the 2nd scene of offence situated at outskirts of Bommanapally village and in their presence he examined scene and prepared rough sketch and crime detail form.

101.PW10 further he identified the 2nd crime detail form along with rough 46/94Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 06 of 2023 sketch as prepared by him when the same was confronted to the witness. Ex.P13 the 2nd crime detail form-II along with rough sketch was marked. He deposed on 24-09-2022 he referred alleged victim girl/PW1 to the lady medical officer, government area hospital for medical examination of alleged victim girl/PW1 and also requested the hospital authorities to preserve the material objects for chemical analysis.

102.PW10 further deposed that he received the medical report of alleged victim girl from PW7 the Civil Asst. Surgeon, Area Hospital, Mulugu under Ex.P7 examination report of PW1, according to which alleged victim girl/PW1 was minor girl and she had 34 weeks pregnancy. He deposed later he addressed a letter to

Child Welfare Committee, Warangal for taking custody of the minor girl, for counseling and for her re-habilitation. He deposed later he addressed a letter to the Head Master, KGBV School, Wazeedu to issue date of birth certificate of alleged victim girl/PW1.

103. PW10 further deposed that accordingly she issued Ex.P11 study-conduct and date of birth certificate of alleged victim girl/PW1, as per which the date of birth of alleged victim girl/PW1 was 16-06-2008. He deposed on 26-10-2022 on reliable information he apprehended A1 and A2 at 0700 hours at

Jagannadhapuram junction of Wazeedu Mandal, both the accused were brought to ASP Office, Eturnagaram and he interrogated both the accused. PW10 further deposed that later he effected the arrest of A1 and A2, then he addressed a letter 47/94Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 06 of 2023 to the duty medical officer, Area Hospital, Mulugu to conduct potency test of A1 and A2. He deposed accordingly PW6 conducted potency test of both the accused and issued Ex.P5 and Ex.P6 potency tests reports of A1 and A2 respectively. He deposed as per Ex.P5 and Ex.P6 there was nothing to suggest A1 and A2 incapable of doing sexual acts. He deposed on 27-10-2022 he addressed a letter to the Addl, Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mulugu / LW19 to record 164 Cr.P.C.

Statement of alleged victim girl/PW1.

104. PW10 further deposed that accordingly learned Magistrate recorded 164

Cr.P.C. statement of PW1/alleged victim girl. Ex.P2 the 164 Cr.P.C. statement of alleged victim girl/PW1 was marked. He deposed later he secured the presence of

LWs. 5 and 6 the father of alleged victim girl and Poojari Sadali the uncle of alleged victim girl, he examined them and recorded their part-II statements. He deposed on 28-10-2022 he addressed a letter to the learned Principal District

Judge, Mulugu to accord permission to collect blood samples of the accused No.1

and 2 for comparison of DNA profile to ascertain regarding biological father of

Fetus.

105. PW10 further deposed that on 30.10.2022 he addressed a letter to the medical officer, area hospital, Eturnagaram to take blood samples of alleged victim girl and the child of alleged victim girl. He deposed that said correspondence was not filed earlier and same was filed on that day as reported no objection on behalf of the accused. Hence the same was received. He identified 48/94Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 06 of 2023 signatures on the correspondence said to have made by him to the medical officer, Govt. Hospital, Eturnagaram, the Director, FSL on letter of advise and on the letter said to have addressed to the head master, KGBV School, Wazeedu as his signatures. Ex.P14 the letter addressed by him to the Duty Medical officer,

Government Hospital, Eturnagaram, dated 30.11.2022 was marked. Ex.P15 the letter addressed by the Civil Asst. Surgeon, CHC, Eturnagaram addressed to the

Director, FSL was marked. under which material objects such as blood samples of alleged victim and baby were said to have sent for DNA analysis. Ex.P16 the correspondence made by him to the Director, FSL, dated 21.05.2022 along with letter of advise, dated 01.11.2022 was marked. He deposed that C.No. and the date were mistakenly mentioned as 657, dated 21.05.2022 instead of 663 dated 01.11.2022 in Ex.P16 in C.No.657 by FSL/ASP/ENR-2022. He shown the xerox copy of the correspondence said to have made by him to the Director FSL, Hyderabad with C.No.663/FSL/ASP-ENR/2022 dt.01-11-2022.

106. Ex.P17 the letter addressed by him to the Head Master, KGBV School,

Wazeedu, dt.24-09-2022 was marked. Pw.10 deposed on 30-10-2022 he secured the presence of LW7 and LW8 Poojari Ramadevi and Poojari Pakeeru and examined them and recorded their statements. He deposed as per the orders of the POCSO Court, Mulugu vide Crl.MP. 144/2022, dt.23-11-2022, he deputed PC- 541 and 684 to visit District Jail, Khammam and to receive A1 and A2 and to produce before Director, FSL to collect the blood samples of A1 and A2. He deposed after collection of blood samples of A1 and A2, they were produced 49/94Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 06 of 2023

before Dist. Jail, Khammam.

107. PW10 further deposed that on 26-11-2022 he received FSL report vide File

No. DNA/496/2022, dt.23-11-2022 of FSL, Hyderabad under Ex.P8 as per which the

DNA extract from alleged victim girl’s blood and blood sample of the baby were subjected to Autosomal STR analysis by using global filer kit. He deposed on 30- 12-2022 he received FSL report vide File No.DNA/496/2022, dt.23-11-2022,

DNA/542/2022, dt.21-12-2022 from LW19/Asst. Director of FSL, Hyderabad.

108. PW10 further deposed that as per which the second accused was the biological father of the child and alleged victim girl was biological mother of the child and also he received the final opinion from the medical officer/PW8 who opined that Jejala Venkateshwarlu (2nd accused) was the biological father of the baby whose mother was alleged victim girl. He deposed on 28-01-2023 on his transfer he handed over CD file to his successor/LW22/Sirisetti Sankeerth, the then ASP., Eturnagaram. He deposed when the statement of PW1 alleged victim was recorded by LW3/K. Mounika she prepared the CD and sent the same to his official computer later same was submitted to Court along with the certificate

U/Sec. 65-B of Indian Evidence Act issued by LW3/K. Mounika women SI. PW10 further deposed that he could identify the signature of LW3/K. Mounika, when certificate under Sec. 65-B of Indian Evidence Act. was shown to the witness, he identified the signature on the said certificate as that of the signature of K.

Mounika/LW3. Ex.P18 the certificate of U/Sec. 65-B of Indian Evidence Act issued 50/94Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 06 of 2023 by K. Mounika/LW3 was marked. He deposed he also examined LW3 and PW3 and recorded their part-II statements Ex.P19 the 1st crime detail form along with rough sketch of the 1st scene of offence was marked.

109. During the cross examination of PW-10 by the learned Counsel for the accused, Pw.10 deposed that he did not collect any other document either from revenue authorities or from municipality authorities or grampanchayath, regarding date of birth of PW1/alleged victim girl except collecting Ex.P11 study, conduct and date of birth certificate or Aadhar card.

110. Pw.10 admitted that no where it was mentioned the time, date and alleged place of giving alleged warning by the parents of the victim girl to the accused and the persons from Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 scene of offence were not shown as witness. Pw.10 denied the suggestion that 164 Cr.P.C. statement of the victim girl was forcibly got recorded at their instance. Pw.10 admitted that as per the medical record under Ex.P7 to Ex.P10 it was not specifically mentioned regarding having alleged relationship between the 1st accused and PW1/alleged victim.

Pw.10 admitted that as per the medical record the 2nd accused was the biological father of the child. Pw.10 further deposed that as per DNA report the 2nd accused was the biological father.

111. Pw.10 admitted that nothing was seized or recovered from alleged scene of offences. Pw.10 denied the suggestion that he did table investigation and not 51/94Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 06 of 2023 proceeded to alleged scene of offences and foisted false case against the 1st accused.

112. So, by virtue of testimony of PW 10 also coupled with Ex.P19, it was established the forest area as the first crime detail form and by virtue of the testimony of PW 1, 2, 10, coupled with Ex.P13, it was established the house of

PWs 1 and 2 as the second scene of offense.

113. By virtue of Ex.P19, crime detail form, it was established as it supported the version of PW 1, 2, 10 as the house of PWs 1 and 2 as the second scene of offence and by virtue of Ex. P13, it was established Bomanapalli village, shivar near forest as the scene of offense, forest as the scene of offence,

114. PW6 is alleged Civil Assistant Surgeon, who said to have conducted potency test of both the accused. According to testimony of PW6 she was resident of

Hanamkonda. She had been working as Civil Assistant Surgeon, Area Hospital,

Mulugu 15.06.2022. PW6 further deposed that on 26.10.2022 she received requisition from Police, Wazedu to conduct potency test of the individuals namely

Sodi Sandeep and Jejana Venkateshwarlu brought by P.C 4342 and 2733. She deposed accordingly she conducted potency test of Sodi Sandeep (A1) and Jejela

Venkateshwarlu (A2) on the same day i.e. on 26.10.2022 at about 04:15PM and 04:20PM respectively. She deposed she conducted physical examination of both persons and examined secondary sexual characters of both the persons. PW6 52/94Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 06 of 2023 further deposed that on physical examination of both the individuals he found their genital organs were of normal development. No evidence of any disease of tests. Well marked secondary sexual characters according to their age. She deposed on clinical examination of Sodi Sandeep and Jejana Venkateshwarlu there was no evidence of any organic disease of nervo system.

115. PW6 further deposed that she found both the individuals were capable of performing sexual acts and they were potent. She deposed to that extent she issued potency test examination report of Sodi Sandeep and Jejana

Venkateshwarlu on the same day. Ex.P5 the potency test/examination report of

Sodi Sandeep, dt.26.10.2022 was marked. Ex.P6 the potency test report/examination report of Jajena Venkateshwarlu, dt.26.10.2022 was marked.

116. During the cross examination of Pw.6 by the learned counsel for the accused, Pw.6 deposed that the police gave her requisition at 04.10.PM. Pw.6 deposed that at mere request of the police without examining the individuals she simply issued Ex.P5 and P6 potency test reports of Sodi Sandeep (A1) and Jejena

Venkateshwarlu (deceased).

117. So, by virtue of testimony of PW6 coupled with Ex. P5 and P6 potency test examination reports of both the accused, it was established there was nothing to suggest that both the accused were incapable of doing sexual acts. So, it was established by the prosecution by virtue of testimony of PW 6 coupled with Ex. P5 53/94Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 06 of 2023 and P6, the accused as potent.

118.Pw.7/was Medial officer, who said to have examined alleged victim girl, on 24.09.2022, who said to have issued Ex.P7 medical examination report of

PW1 and who said to have confirmed the pregnancy of PW1 as 34 weeks.

She categorically deposed that she was resident of Narsampeta. She was working as Civil Assistant Surgeon, Community Health Center, Guduru. Previously she worked as Civil Assistant Surgeon from July 2018 to July 2023.

119.PW7 further deposed that on 24.09.2022 a minor girl aged about 15 years old from Wazeedu was brought by WPC:11 of Wazeedu, police station accompanied by her mother along with requisition from the concerned police vide

MLC No.259/2022 in Cr.No.45/2022 U/Sec.376 and 376(3) of IPC, with history of pregnancy and said to have had sexual relationship with Sodi Sandeep and Jajena

Venkatesh for the past 2 years. PW7 further deposed that after obtaining consent from the mother of the minor and also the minor girl she proceeded with general physical examination and noticed identification marks of alleged victim girl such as a mole on the left cheek. She deposed the minor girl was conscious and well oriented and her vitals were stable and no external injuries were found on alleged victim/minor girl. She deposed on local examination of the minor, on per abdominal examination her uterus was with 34 weeks. Cephalic fetal heart sound was present. She deposed on laboratory test her urinary pregnancy test(UPT) was positive.

54/94Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 06 of 2023

120.PW7 further deposed that on examination of alleged victim/minor girl her clinical opinion was that minor girl had 34 weeks pregnancy. She deposed she further advised alleged victim/minor for USG i.e., scanning for dating of pregnancy and fetal well being. She deposed she concluded the examination of the minor girl at 05:30 PM on 24.09.2022. She deposed to that extent she issued medical examination report of alleged victim girl. She deposed she could identify her hand writings and signatures. She identified the hand writings and signatures on the medical examination report, dated 24.09.2022 as that of her hand writing and her signature. Ex.P7 medical examination report of alleged victim/minor girl was marked.

121. During the cross examination of PW-07 by the learned Counsel for the accused, Pw.7 denied the suggestion that the time of commencement of examination of alleged victim girl was not mentioned in Ex.P7 medical examination report. Pw.7 admitted that it was not possible to say clinically whether alleged victim girl had sexual relationship for a period of two years. Pw.7 denied the suggestion that the particulars at column No.12B I and II were left blank i.e., observations regarding external genitalia such as labia majora, labia minora. Pw. 7 deposed that the findings were mentioned commonly for 12B I to

III such as no injuries seen. Pw.7 denied the suggestion that as per the mere request of the police she simply filled up the proforma and issued the same without actually examining alleged victim. Her evidence was not shaken on material aspects.

55/94Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 06 of 2023

122. By virtue of testimony of PW7 she diogonized Pw.1, with pregnancy of 34 weeks, so it was established by the prosecution, by virtue of testimony of Pw.7, which corroborated the testimony of PW1 regarding conceiving by PW1 with 34 weeks pregnancy.

123. PW8/ was another medical officer who said to have collected blood samples of victim and newly born live child. He categorically deposed that he was resident of Warangal. He was working as Civil Assistant Surgeon, Primary Health

Center, Peruru. He deposed previously he worked as Civil Assistant Surgeon at

Community Health Center, Eturunagaram from January 2020 to December 2022.

PW8 further deposed that on the 1st November, 2022, he received requisition from Wazeedu, Police station to collect blood samples of alleged victim girl and her baby for conducting DNA analysis. He deposed accordingly he collected blood samples of alleged victim and her newly born live child and the same was sealed and handed over to the police concerned along with a letter signed by him addressed to the Director Forensic Science Laboratories(FSL), Hyderabad.

124.PW8 further deposed that he could identify his hand writing and signatures. He deposed accordingly he received FSL report dated 23.11.2022. He further deposed the result of the examination and report was that DNA extracted from item nos.1 and 2 were subjected to Autosomal STR analysis by using Global filter kit. He deposed the DNA profiles were generated and recorded from item

No.1 and 2. He deposed subsequently he received the report from FSL Hyderabad, 56/94Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 06 of 2023

dated 21.12.2022 vide File No.DNA496/2022 and DNA542/2022.

125.PW8 further deposed that as per the result of the examination DNA extracted from Item nos.1 and 2 of DNA/542/22 were subjected to Autosomal

STR analysis by using Global fileer kit.P. The DNA profile obtained from item No.2 of DNA/496/22 was compared with the DNA profiles obtained from item no.1 to

DNA/496/22 and item nos.1 and 2 of DNA/542/22. He deposed the allelic pattern of item No.2 of DNA/496/22 matched with the allelic pattern of item no.1 of

DNA/496/22 and item No.2 of DNA/542/22 but did not match with the allelic pattern of itme no.1 of DNA/542/22.

126. PW8 further deposed that as per FSL., Hyderabad report, dated 21.12.2022 the Autosomal STR analysis conclusively proved that Jejala Venkateshwarlu (source of item No.2 of DNA/542/22) was the biological father of source of item no.2 of DNA/496/22 (B/o P. Chandana) and whose biological mother was Pujari

Chandana(source of item no.1 of DNA/496/22). Basing on FSL, Hyderabad reports

dated 23.11.2022 and 21.12.2022 he issued his final opinion by addressing the

letter to the ASP., Eturunagaram Sub-Division. PW8 further deposed that basing on the FSL reports, dated 23.11.2022 and 21.12.2022 he was of final opinion that

Jajela Venkateshwarlu was the biological father of the baby whose mother was alleged victim girl. He deposed he could identify his hand writing and signatures.

He identified the handwriting and signature on the letter addressed to ASP.,

Eturunagaram as that of his hand writings and signature. Ex.P8 the FSL., 57/94Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 06 of 2023

Hyderabad report dated 23.11.2022 vide File No.DNA/496/2022 was marked.

Ex.P9 the F.S.L, Hyderabad report dated 21.12.2022 vide File No.DNA/496/2022 and DNA/542/2022 along with DNA profile comparison chart, dated 19.12.2022 was marked. Ex.P10 the letter addressed by him to the ASP, Eturunagaram giving his final opinion basing on Ex.P8 and P9 FSL., Hyderabad reports was marked.

127. During cross examination of PW-08 by the learned Counsel for the accused,

Pw.8 admitted that as per Ex.P9 FSL report, dt.21.12.2022 the DNA profile of Sodi

Sandeep(the first accused) was not matched with the DNA profile of newly born child.

128. Pw.8 admitted that he issued his final opinion under Ex.P10 that Jajera

Venkateshwarlu(A2/deceased) was the biological father of the newly born child and as per the report under Ex.P9 and final opinion under Ex.P10 Sodi

Sandeep(A1) was no way related to the newly born child.

129.As seen from the testimony of PW8, admittedly as per Ex.P9 FSL report,

DNA profile of the first accused was not matched with DNA profile of newly born child and admittedly by PW8 he issued Ex.P10 final opinion that the second accused was the biological father of newly born child and as per the reports underEx. P9 and P10, the first accused was no way related to the newly born child.

130. In view of findings given by PW8, it was established the second accused as 58/94Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 06 of 2023 the biological father of the newly born child and also it was established giving birth to a girl child by PW1 and it was established victim/PW1 as the mother of the baby of the girl child. He gave opinion basing upon FSL reports under Ex. P8, and

P9.

131. He categorically deposed as per the result of examination, as DNA was extracted on collecting samples, A2 as biological father of the girl child was established. So, the testimony of PW8 supported the earlier version of PW 1 and 2 regarding conceiving by Pw.1 and also it was in support of testimony of PW7 who categorically deposed having 34 weeks pregnancy by PW1 and also the paternity of the child as the second accused was established from the testimony of PW8 and PW1 as the biological mother of the live child was established.

131.1. Merely because as per the medical reports, it was found only the second accused as the father of the newly born child, the testimony of PW1 and 2 could not be ignored, A1 cannot take advantage of the same. When the occular testimony of PW1 and 2 would goes to show, at first instance A1 developed his intimacy with alleged victim PW1 and he frequently by coming to their house in the absence of her parents, taken her outside by saying to come along with him on the pretext that he liked her and he used to take her to the forest area and also participated in sexual intercourse with PW1 forcibly, on coming to know about acts of A1 towards PW1 in having sexual intercourse, A2 by threatening PW1 that he would disclose to her parents participated in sexual intercourse with her. PW1 59/94Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 06 of 2023 deposed the accused 1 and 2 were responsible for her pregnancy. Merely because the scientific results under DNA disclosed the second accused as the biological father of the girl child born to PW1. The testimonies of PW 1 and 2 cannot be brushed aside regarding secual acts of the 1st accused towards Pw.1. As per the testimony of PW1, the first accused at first participated with her in sexual intercourse. On coming to know about the same only by A2, he further participated in sexual intercourse with her. So having physical relationship with

PW1 by the first accused was categorically deposed by PW1. Merely because the medical reports goes to show the second accused as the biological father, It will not take away the testimony of PW1 that A1 participated with her in sexual intercourse Because of the sexual acts of A1 only, A2 had an occasion to threaten

PW 1 and participated in sexual intercourse with PW1. So, committing sexual acts towards PW1 by the accused No.1 was established from the testimonies of PW 1 and 2.

132. As seen from the testimony of PW10, it appeared the then S.I/R Harish when registered the crime, the crime under Ex. P12 FIR. PW10 taken up further investigation and verified regarding the date of birth of victim as 16-06-2008 and deposed alleged victim as minor. He deposed about examining PW2 alleged mother of alleged victim and deposed about visiting alleged first and second scene of offences as discussed supra and also he said to have referred the alleged victim for medical examination and PW10 corroborated the testimony of medical witness who categorically deposed having 34 weeks pregnancy by PW1 and he 60/94Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 06 of 2023 deposed about investigating part regarding addressing letters to the FSL when he said to have requested the medical officer to take blood samples of the victim as well as the baby for DNA analysis and also by obtaining permission from the court, he said to have obtained orders to forward both the accused to produce

before FSL on collecting samples. He also deposed regarding addressing letter to

the headmaster KGBV and recording the statements of other witnesses LW7 and

Lw.8 referred supra and deposed about arrest of the accused and prior to that taking blood samples of both accused and sending them to FSL and conducting potency test by the medical officer and recording 164 CRPC statement and he corroborated the testimony of medical witness that A2 as the biological father and recording the statement of alleged victim by Mounika and issuing certificate by her under 65-B-Evidence Act.

133. During cross-examination of PW10, the investigating officer, it appeared of not collecting any other documents from the revenue authorities or Municipal authorities or Gram panchayat regarding date of birth of PW1 except Ex. P11.

When PW1 deposed, her date of birth was 16-06-2008 and also investigation officer deposed about the same, no where it was disputed or denied by way of specific suggestions on behalf of the first accused.

134. Hence, Ex.P11, the study conduct and date of birth certificate of PW1 can be pressed into service and also when PW1 deposed, her age was 16 years old, when she gave evidence and also nowhere by way of specific suggestions it was 61/94Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 06 of 2023 disputed the age or date of birth of PW1 and also there was no specific suggestion on behalf of the accused that PW1 was not minor at the time of alleged incident. Even though investigation officer (I.O) admitted that the persons shown as witness in Ex.P3 and P4 scene of offence were not examined as witness, the prosecution is expected to examine those persons who have knowledge or acquaintance with facts and circumstances of the case but not all the witness whose houses are situated near to alleged scene when they have no knowledge regarding alleged occurrence. Merely because in the medical report under Ex.P7 to P10, it was not mentioned regarding not having alleged relationship between the first accused and PW1, the ocular testimony of PW1 regarding alleged having sexual intercourse with her by the accused cannot be thrown away. As observed earlier, the paternity of the child was established such as A2 who was no more but

A1 cannot take advantage of the same when the ocular testimony of PW1 and 2 goes to having sexual relationship with PW1 by the first accused.

135.Pw9 is said to be the special officer KGBV Wazeedu of the school in which Pw1 said to have studied. According to his testimony, she was resident of

Wazeedu. She deposed that she had been working as Special Officer, KGBV residential school for girls at Jangalapally near Wazeedu since 2016. PW9 further deposed that about 02- years ago when she was present at KGBV School,

Wazeedu one police constable came to their school along with a requisition and requested her to issue Study, conduct and date of birth certificate of alleged victim girl(PW1). She deposed on verifying the records she issued Study, conduct 62/94Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 06 of 2023 and date of birth certificate of alleged victim girl(PW1), as per which date birth of alleged victim girl (PW1) was 16-06-2008. She deposed she could identify her signature. She identified the signature on the study, conduct and date of birth certificate as that of her signature and also identified the said certificate when confronted to her. Ex.P11 the Study, conduct and date of birth certificate of alleged victim girl(PW1) was marked.

136. During the cross examination of PW-9 by the learned Counsel for the accused, Pw.9 admitted that a teacher used to be deputed for every year to issue study, conduct and date of birth certificates from their school. Pw.9 deposed that said teacher also could issue Transfer Certificate. Pw.9 admitted that the particulars in study, conduct and date of birth certificate would be filled up by the teacher who was entrusted with the said work. But denied that she used to sign on the study, conduct and date of birth certificates fill up by the teacher deputed for the said work without verifying the record. Pw.9 deposed that she used to verify the particulars regarding the joining of the students and date of birth in admission register of their school before she put her signatures. Pw.9 further deposed that she did not verify the date of birth certificate or Aadhar card of

PW1 before she issued Ex.P11 certificate. Pw.9 deposed that she verified the admission register and also the record sheet from the other schools in which the students study upto 5th standard.

137. Pw.9 deposed that in the present case also she verified the record sheet of 63/94Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 06 of 2023

PW1 of the school in which PW1 studied up to 5th standard. When questioned by the Court, the witness deposed in their KGBV School it stated from 6th standard

Pw.9 deposed in the present case at the time of admission of PW1 in the 6th standard in their school, they did not obtain date of birth certificate of PW1.

Pw.9 deposed that they obtained case sheet of previous school of PW1 and also verified the Aadhar card of PW1. Pw.9 further deposed that in KGBV school orphans, semi-orphans and school drop out students would also be joined who could be admitted in the school even in the absence of their date of birth certificates. Pw.9 further deposed that she also did not verify any certificate from Anganwadi School of PW1. When questioned by the court, witness deposed that she did not know whether PW1 studied in Anganwadi school. Pw.9 admitted that at the request of the police as they gave requisition to issue date of birth certificate, hence she issued Ex.P11. She knew about the date of birth of the

PW1 as per the case sheet and their school record only, but she had no personal knowledge.

138. He deposed about issuing Ex.P11 study conduct and date of birth certificate of Pw1. When there was no suggestion specifically that Pw9 never worked as special officer KGBV residential school and also contrary was not shown that Pw1 was minor, hence the testimony of Pw9 coupled with Ex. P11 and the ocular testimony of Pw1 could be pressed into service. Even Pw2 mother of Pw1 deposed the age of Pw1 as 14 years when she gave evidence. She pleaded ignorance regarding exact date of birth of Pw1, but there was no specific 64/94Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 06 of 2023 suggestion to Pw1 and Pw2 or to Pw.9 or Pw.10 investigating officer or anyone that Pw1 was not minor or she attained majority.

139. As seen from the testimony of Pw9 as well as Ex. P11 study conduct and date of birth certificate of Pw1. Pw1 was admitted in the school from 6th standard and she was studying 10th class and between 2018 to 2022, Pw1 studied 6th to 10th standard and her date of birth was mentioned as 16-06-2008 which was corroborated by the ocular testimony of Pw1 and also the investigating officer and it appeared from the testimony of Pw9. She verified the record sheet from other schools in which the Pw1 studied. To Pw.1 to Pw9 also there was no suggestion that the date of birth of Pw1 was wrong or Pw.1 had attained majority.

When alleged incident took place on 23.09.2022 by which time Pw1 said to have been studying 10th class as per Ex.P11 certificate and Pw1 deposed she was studying in 9th class by staying in KGB school hostel at Wazeedu and deposed she discontinued her studies due to financial background and later she went to school and joined in the hostel for a study in 10th class, in such a way the things mentioned in her study certificate could be taken into consideration as at the time of joining the parents who were competent persons to furnish the particulars of date of birth of the respective children they used to furnish the date of birth particulars when the same used to be mentioned in the school records. Hence the particulars mentioned under exhibit P11 can be taken into consideration as the same are corroborated by the testimony of Pw1 and also her alleged mother Pw2 supported the version of prosecution that Pw1 as child as she deposed the age of 65/94Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 06 of 2023

Pw1 as 14 years old even when she gave evidence in the year 2024.

140. In the absence of any specific suggestions put forth to any witness or not at all disputed by putting specific suggestions that Pw1 was major, hence, the things deposed by Pw1,2 and 9, the headmaster as well as the investigation officer (I.O) coupled with exhibit P11 can be taken into consideration regarding date of birth of Pw1 which was deposed as 16-06-2008. By virtue of taking place of alleged incident on 23-09-2022 by which time Pw1 was minor and as she was studying 10th standard it could be considered she was below 15 years old. It is not unreasonable to held that Pw1 was aged about 14 years 03 months 07 days old as on the date of alleged commission of offence which as per prosecution is 23.09.2022 and her date of birth is 16.06.2008. So, it was established by the prosecution that Pw1 was child as on the date of alleged offence.

141.PW11 is the then ASP Eturnagaram who filed charge sheet in the present case, he deposed in his evidence that that he was residing at Rajbhavan,

Hyderabad. Presently he was working as Aid.D.Camp at Raj Bhavan, Hyderabad to the Governor in the rank of SP. Previously he worked as ASP., Eturnagaram from

January, 2023 to March, 2024. PW11 further deposed that on transfer of his predecessor PW10 he received CD file as he assumed charge as ASP., Eturnagaram and he verified the investigation done by PW10 and also CD file and found it on correct lines. He deposed as the investigation was completed in the present case, hence he filed charge sheet in the present case when the charge sheet was 66/94Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 06 of 2023 confronted to him, he identified the signature on the charge sheet as that of his signature.

142. During the cross examination of Pw.11 by the learned counsel for the accused, PW.11 denied the suggestion that as he did not proceed with investigation, hence, not known anything about the present case. Pw.11 further deposed that he verified the investigation in the present case.

143. The testimony of PW11 was not impeached on material aspects. In the instant case, PW1 alleged victim was the best person to speak about the things happened in her life and she categorically deposed about alleged acts of both the accused and alleged committing rape on her by A1, when it was established by prosecution, PW1 was child, consent was irrelevant and she categorically deposed the accused one by taking advantage of absence of her parents when she stayed during corona and covid time and also when she was alone at her house, he developed intimacy with her and used to take her to outside, under the disguise of liking her and he took her to forest area and participated in sexual intercourse with her forcibly which attracted commission of offence of rape on PW1. Thereby the prosecution is able to establish that the accused on given date, time and place committed rape on PW1. Thereby, committed an offense punishable under section 376 of IPC and also it was established by the prosecution that the accused committed rape forcibly on PW1 who was child under 16 years of age as it was 67/94Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 06 of 2023 established her age as 14 years 3 months 7 years old. Thereby, the accused committed an offense punishable under section 376 (3) of IPC.

144. Further, it was also established by prosecution that the accused committed penetrative sexual assault on the victim minor girl and made her pregnant the victim minor girl more than once or repeatedly. Thereby, committed an offences punishable under section 5 (j) (l) r/w 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual

Offenses Act. But as per the evidence placed by the prosecution, it was not established that he was the biological father of the child. It was nowhere suggested to any of the witness that no child was born.

145. The paternity of A2 was established against whom the proceedings were abated due to his death. The prosecution could not establish A1 was responsible for the pregnancy of PW1 and paternity of the child was established of A2 but not of A1. But the ocular testimony of PW1 could be taken into consideration regarding committing penetrative sexual assault on PW1 by the first accused.

Hence, he can be found guilty for the offense punishable under section 5 (j) (l) r/w sec 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses Act butevidence is shortcoming in establishing that A1 made PW1 pregnant to attract the ingredients of the offense punishable under section 5 (j) (ii) r/w sec. 6 of POCSO

Act.

68/94Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 06 of 2023

Section 376 Prescribes Punishment for rape .

As per said provision: (1) Whoever, except in the cases provided for in sub-section (2), commits rape, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment of either description for a term which 1 [shall not be less than ten years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine]. (2) Whoever,—

(a) being a police officer, commits rape—

(i) within the limits of the police station to which such police officer is appointed; or

(ii) in the premises of any station house; or

(iii) on a woman in such police officer's custody or in the custody of a police officer subordinate to such police officer; or

(b) being a public servant, commits rape on a woman in such public servant's custody or in the custody of a public servant subordinate to such public servant; or

(c) being a member of the armed forces deployed in an area by the Central or a State Government commits rape in such area; or

(d) being on the management or on the staff of a jail, remand home or other place of custody established by or under any law for the time being in force or of a women's or children's institution, commits rape on any inmate of such jail, remand home, place or institution; or

(e) being on the management or on the staff of a hospital, commits rape on a woman in that hospital; or

(f) being a relative, guardian or teacher of, or a person in a position of trust or authority towards the woman, commits rape on such woman; or

(g) commits rape during communal or sectarian violence; or

(h) commits rape on a woman knowing her to be pregnant; or 2 * * * * *

(j) commits rape, on a woman incapable of giving consent; or

(k) being in a position of control or dominance over a woman, commits rape on such woman; or

(l) commits rape on a woman suffering from mental or physical disability; or

(m) while committing rape causes grievous bodily harm or maims or disfigures or endangers the life of a woman; or

(n) commits rape repeatedly on the same woman, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of that person's natural life, and shall also be liable to fine.

69/94Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 06 of 2023

Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub-section,—

(a) "armed forces" means the naval, military and air forces and includes any member of the Armed Forces constituted under any law for the time being in force, including the paramilitary forces and any auxiliary forces that are under the control of the Central Government or the State Government;

(b) "hospital" means the precincts of the hospital and includes the precincts of any institution for the reception and treatment of persons during convalescence or of persons requiring medical attention or rehabilitation;

(c) "police officer" shall have the same meaning as assigned to the expression "police" under the Police Act, 1861 (5 of 1861);

(d) "women's or children's institution" means an institution, whether called an orphanage or a home for neglected women or children or a widow's home or an institution called by any other name, which is established and maintained for the reception and care of women or children. 3 [(3) Whoever, commits rape on a woman under sixteen years of age shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than twenty years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of that person's natural life, and shall also be liable to fine: Provided that such fine shall be just and reasonable to meet the medical expenses and rehabilitation of the victim:

Provided further that any fine imposed under this sub-section shall be paid to the victim.]

146.Section 5 of POCSO Act speaks of Aggravated penetrative sexual assault.— As per said provision, (a) Whoever, being a police officer, commits penetrative sexual assault on a child —

(i) within the limits of the police station or premises at which he is appointed; or

(ii) in the premises of any station house, whether or not situated in the police station, to which he is appointed; or

(iii) in the course of his duties or otherwise; or

(iv) where he is known as, or identified as, a police officer; or

(b) whoever being a member of the armed forces or security forces commits penetrative sexual assault on a child— 70/94Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 06 of 2023

(i) within the limits of the area to which the person is deployed; or

(ii) in any areas under the command of the forces or armed forces; or

(iii) in the course of his duties or otherwise; or

(iv) where the said person is known or identified as a member of the security or armed forces; or

(c) whoever being a public servant commits penetrative sexual assault on a child; or

(d) whoever being on the management or on the staff of a jail, remand home, protection home, observation home, or other place of custody or care and protection established by or under any law for the time being in force, commits penetrative sexual assault on a child, being inmate of such jail, remand home, protection home, observation home, or other place of custody or care and protection; or

(e) whoever being on the management or staff of a hospital, whether

Government or private, commits penetrative sexual assault on a child in that hospital; or

(f) whoever being on the management or staff of an educational institution or religious institution, commits penetrative sexual assault on a child in that institution; or

(g) whoever commits gang penetrative sexual assault on a child.

Explanation.—When a child is subjected to sexual assault by one or more persons of a group in furtherance of their common intention, each of such persons shall be deemed to have committed gang penetrative sexual assault within the meaning of this clause and each of such person shall be liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone; or 71/94Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 06 of 2023

(h) whoever commits penetrative sexual assault on a child using deadly weapons, fire, heated substance or corrosive substance; or

(i) whoever commits penetrative sexual assault causing grievous hurt or causing bodily harm and injury or injury to the sexual organs of the child; or

(j) whoever commits penetrative sexual assault on a child, which—

(i) physically incapacitates the child or causes the child to become mentally ill as defined under clause (l) of section 2 of the Mental Health Act, 1987 (14 of 1987) or causes impairment of any kind so as to render the child unable to perform regular tasks, temporarily or permanently; 1***

(ii) in the case of female child, makes the child pregnant as a consequence of sexual assault;

(iii) inflicts the child with Human Immunodeficiency Virus or any other life threatening disease or Infection which may either temporarily or permanently impair the child by rendering him physically incapacitated, or mentally ill to perform regular tasks; 1*** [(iv) causes death of the child; or]

k) whoever, taking advantage of a child's mental or physical disability, commits penetrative sexual assault on the child; or

(l) whoever commits penetrative sexual assault on the child more than once or repeatedly; or (m) whoever commits penetrative sexual assault on a child below twelve years; or

(n) whoever being a relative of the child through blood or adoption or marriage or guardianship or in foster care or having a domestic relationship with a parent of the child or who is living in the same or shared household with the child, commits penetrative 72/94Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 06 of 2023 sexual assault on such child; or

(o) whoever being, in the ownership, or management, or staff, of any institution providing services to the child, commits penetrative sexual assault on the child; or

(p) whoever being in a position of trust or authority of a child commits penetrative sexual assault on the child in an institution or home of the child or anywhere else; or

(q) whoever commits penetrative sexual assault on a child knowing the child is pregnant; or

(r) whoever commits penetrative sexual assault on a child and attempts to murder the child; or

(s) whoever commits penetrative sexual assault on a child in the course of 1[communal or sectarian violence or during any natural calamity or in similar situations]; or

(t) whoever commits penetrative sexual assault on a child and who has been previously convicted of having committed any offence under this Act or any sexual offence punishable under any other law for the time being in force; or

(u) whoever commits penetrative sexual assault on a child and makes the child to strip or parade naked in public,

147. Section 6 of POCSO Act Prescribes Punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault :

As per said provision: (1) Whoever commits aggravated penetrative sexual assault shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than twenty years, but which may extend to imprisonment for 73/94Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 06 of 2023 life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of natural life of that person and shall also be liable to fine, or with death.

(2) The fine imposed under sub-section (1) shall be just and reasonable and paid to the victim to meet the medical expenses and rehabilitation of such victim.]

148. Under section 5 (j) (l) of POCSO Act whoever commits penetrative sexual assault on the child more than once are repeatedly, is said to have committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault.

Section 5 of POCSO Act speaks of aggravated penetrative sexual assault and under section 5 (j) (l), it speaks of committing penetrative sexual assault on the child more than once or repeatedly, is said to have committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault and punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault was provided under section 6 of the POCSO Act. As per said provision, whoever commits aggravated penetrative sexual assault shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than 20 years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of natural life of that person and shall also be liable to fine or with death.

And under sub-clause 2 of section 6 of POCSO Act, the fine imposed under sub-section 1 shall be just and reasonable and paid to the victim to meet the medical expenses and rehabilitation of such victim girl.

149. In the instant case, the evidence is shortcoming to attract commission of 74/94Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 06 of 2023 offence under section 5 (j) ii) of POCSO Act, which speaks of making the child pregnant as the medical evidence adduced by the prosecution goes to show the second accused was the biological father of the victim child, but at the same time, the repeated commission of penetrative sexual assault by A1 was taken into consideration as the same was deposed by PW1.

150. Hence, the evidence of PW1 which inspires confidence of the court can be taken into consideration and it can be the basis for conviction. By virtue of section 134 of Indian Evidence Act no particular number of witnesses are required to establish a fact and it is the quality of evidence is important but not the quantity.

151. In the instant case, the testimonies of PW1 and 2 coupled with the evidence placed by the prosecution is quite sufficient in establishing alleged commission of offences of committing rape on victim minor child repeatedly who was under 16 years of age by A1. It was established alleged commission of charged offences and also it was established commission of penetrative sexual assault on PW1 more than once or repeatedly by the first accused.

152. Hence, the 1st accused can be found guilty for the charged offences punishable under section 376, 376 (3) IPC and section 5 (j) (l) read with 6 of

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. However,the 1staccused cannot be found guilty for the charged offence punishable under section 5 (j) (ii) 75/94Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 06 of 2023 read with section 6 of POCSO Act, in view of establishing paternity of A2 against whom the proceedings were abated.

Section 29 and 30 of POCSO Act, speaks as follows:

153. The presumption under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act applies in such a case, conviction can be based on the victim’s sole testimony with corroborating evidence of medical evidence as the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The victim is entitled for compensation under Section 33(8) of the POCSO Act r/w Rule 9 of the POCSO

Rules, 2020r/357A Cr.P.C.

154. As the victim, in her chief examination, clearly narrated the commission of the offence by the accused. She gave a detailed account of how she was subjected to sexual assault. Pw.1/victim was aged about 14 years, 3 months and 07 days at the time of the incident as minor was undisputed by way of specific suggestions, hence, date of birth certificate relied upon by the prosecution could be pressed into Service, which was the certificate produced from the school authorities in which the victim girl studied. When there is no specific denial regarding the age or the date of birth of the victim girl or studying particular class in particular school, it can be considered. There was no protest against the certificate relied upon by the prosecution in establishing the age of the alleged victim as on the date of offence which took place on 23.09.2022. During cross-examination, the victim denied the allegations and is resiled from her earlier version, but during re- examination by the learned Special Public Prosector, Pw.2 admitted that they 76/94Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 06 of 2023 compromised the matter. Even under such circumstances Presumption under

Sections 29 & 30 of POCSO Act can be drawn.

155.As per Section 29, when a person is prosecuted for committing or abetting an offence under Section 5 of the POCSO Act, the Court shall presume that such person has committed the offence unless contrary is proved. Under Section 30, if the accused raises a defense of consent, the burden lies on him to prove that he had a reasonable belief that the victim was above 18 years.

156. Section 29 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, establishes a presumption of guilt for certain offenses. When a person is prosecuted for committing, abetting, or attempting to commit offenses under

Sections 3, 5, 7, or 9 of the Act, the Special Court shall presume that the accused has committed the offense unless contrary is proved.

In simpler terms, If someone is accused of a serious sexual offense against a child under the POCSO Act, the court will assume they are guilty unless they can prove their innocence.

157.Section 30 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, deals with the presumption of a culpable mental state on the part of the accused in cases under the Act. Essentially, the Special Court is required to presume that the accused possessed the necessary guilty mind (intention, motive, knowledge, etc.) to commit the offense. However, the accused can rebut this presumption by proving, beyond reasonable doubt, that he lacked the required mental state.

77/94Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 06 of 2023

158.In the present case, the prosecution has made out a prima facie case, and the presumption under Section 29 stands triggered. The defense has failed to rebut the presumption.

159. At this juncture, it is worth mentioning the ruling reported in the ruling in

Bijoy v. State of West Bengal, (2017) 10 SCC 406: the Hon’ble Supreme Court pleased to held that once the prosecution establishes foundational facts, the burden shifts to the accused under Section 29.

•In Ganesan v. State, 2020 SCC Online SC 1014: It was kind enough to held that even if the victim turns hostile in cross-examination, the statement in the chief examination and Section 164 CrPC can be relied upon.

Even if the medical report does not reveal physical injuries or conclusive proof of recent intercourse, it is settled law that medical evidence is corroborative and not conclusive. Absence of injuries or conclusive signs does not nullify the victim’s testimony if found credible.

160. At this structure, it is worth mentioning the ruling of honourable apex court in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Sanjay Kumar, (2017) 2 SCC 51: The

Hon’ble Court is pleased to observe that the sole testimony of a child victim, if

found reliable, is sufficient for conviction.

161. In the ruling in State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, (1996) 2 SCC 384: it was kind enough to Held that minor contradictions or lack of corroboration by medical 78/94Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 06 of 2023 evidence cannot override credible victim testimony. It has to be evaluated regarding admissibility of Medical Report through Investigating Officer.

162. In the instant case, the prosecution is able to establish the accused

No.1 committed aforementioned charged offences punishable under sections 376, 376 (3) of IPC, U/secs. 5 (j)(l) r/w sec. 6 of Protection of

Children from Sexual Offences Act, it is the quality of evidence is important,but not the quantity as prescribed under Section 134 of Indian

Evidence Act, which speaks that:

Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 speaks of Number of witnesses. As per said provision.

No particular number of witnesses shall in any case be required for the proof of any fact. It is the quality of evidence is important but not the quantity.

163.Despite turning hostile during cross-examination, statement of victim under Section 164 CrPC and chief examination are consistent and detailed.

Hostility during cross examination may be due to pressure or threat/compromise.

In sexual offence cases, especially involving minors, the court must adopt a sensitive approach, and technical lapses cannot defeat substantive justice.

164.As it was established from the testimony of PW1/victim regarding committing acts of committing rape by the accused.

165. Testimony or Evidence of PW1 i.e. the victim and Pw.2 her mother can be the basis for conviction which inspired confidence of the court as she is the best person to speak about the things happened to her,which is deposed by her 79/94Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 06 of 2023 during her course of chief examination, simply because she did not support the case. In cross-examination, it would not affect her earlier testimony, which was corroborative on material particulars as she deposed regarding the things happened to her, which constituted the offences under, aforementioned charged offences.

166. Moreover, by virtue of section 29 of P C S O Act, presumption can be drawn where a person is prosecuted for committing or attempting to commit any offence under section 3, 5, 7 and 9 of POCSO Act the Special Court, shall presume that such person has committed or attempted to commit the offence as the case may be unless contrary is proved.

By virtue of Section 30 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, presumption of culpable mental state of accused can also be drawn.

167. As per said provision in any prosecution for any offence under Act which requires a culpable mental state on the part of the accused, the special court shall presume the existence of such mental state, but it shall be a defence for the accused to prove the fact that he had no such mental state with respect to the act charged as an offence in that prosecution under Section 30 (2) for the purpose of that section, a fact is said to be proved only when the Special Court believes it to exist beyond reasonable doubt and not merely when its existence is established by preponderance of probability.

Under explanation to said section culpable mental state includes intention, 80/94Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 06 of 2023 motive, knowledge of fact and the belief in, or reason to believe a fact.

168. The testimony of PW1 and Pw.2 are quite sufficient in establishing mental status of the accused with motive, knowledge and intention, he came to the house of PW1 and committed sexual acts towards PW1. Presumption of culpable mental status of the accused can safely be drawn as the accused committed the acts with the knowledge, intention and motive. Hence, the court can presume that the accused committed the offences as alleged by the prosecution, by virtue of Section 29 and 30 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.

169. From the totality of evidence, this court is satisfied that the accused No.1 committed offences punishable under Sections 376, 376 (3) of IPC, U/secs. 5

(j)(l) r/w sec. 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. The presumption under Section 29 has not been rebutted. Hence, the accused is liable to be convicted.

170. In the light of aforementioned observations and discussion made Supra, on cumulative evaluation of evidence on record coupled with the exhibits marked, in the light of the ratio laid down in the Honourable courts Rulings referred Supra, it is not un reasonable to held that prosecution is able to establish or bring home the guilt of the accused No.1 beyond all reasonable doubt for the charged offences punishable under sections 376, 376 (3) of IPC, U/secs. 5 (j)(l) r/w sec. 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. Hence, accused can be convicted for afore mentioned charged offences.

81/94Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 06 of 2023

171. The victim in the present case is a minor girl aged (14 years, 13 months and 07 days) below 16 years old, which is undisputed and supported by medical and documentary evidence. The prosecution has established the case against accused No.1 beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed the offences punishable under Sections 376, 376

(3) of IPC, U/secs. 5 (j)(l) r/w sec. 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual

Offences Act.

172. By virtue of Section 42-A, the POCSO Act is not on derogation of any other law such as, it has over riding effect and shall prevails overany other law. In case of any inconsistency the provisions of POCSO Act prevails. Power is vested with Special (POCSO) Court to Award

Compensation. The POCSO Court can directly decide the quantum of compensation, including high amounts like ₹10 lakhs, under the following provisions:

1. Section 33(8) of POCSO Act it Enables the Special Court to recommend compensation.

2. Rule 7 of POCSO Rules, 2012 (as amended) – Allows the Special

Court to order interim or final compensation to the child victim regardless of conviction, if it feels the child has suffered harm.

3. Section 357A CrPC, Provides for compensation to be awarded by the Legal Services Authority on the recommendation of the Court.

Therefore the POCSO Court can recommend a specific quantum (e.g., ₹10 82/94Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 06 of 2023 lakhs) to the District Legal Services Authorities (DLSA).

However, disbursement lies with the DLSA, which must process the recommendation and sanction the amount in accordance with the scheme.

173. The DLSA shall also ensure that the compensation is utilized in the best interests of the child, including medical treatment, education, psychological counseling, and rehabilitation.

174. Rule 7, Section 33(8)of POCSO Act, reads as follows:

Rule 7 of the POCSO Rules, read with Section 33(8) of the POCSO Act, mandates the Special Court to consider awarding compensation to child victims for the physical or mental trauma they have suffered, or for their immediate rehabilitation. The Special Court has the power to direct payment of compensation in addition to any punishment imposed. This ensures that victim receive support for her recovery and well-being.

175. Section 357A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) deals with the Victim Compensation Scheme, providing a framework for compensating victims of crime. This section mandates that State

Governments, in coordination with the Central Government, prepare a scheme to provide funds for compensating victims or their dependents who have suffered loss or injury due to a crime and require rehabilitation.

Section 357-A of Cr.P.C speaks of victim compensation. Who suffered loss 83/94Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 06 of 2023 or injury as a result of crime and who require rehabilitation.

By virtue of Section 33(8) of the POCSO Act, 2012, (read with Section 357(1)(A) of the CrPC),

176. “The Special Court may, in appropriate cases, in addition to the punishment, direct payment of such compensation as may be prescribed to the child for any physical or mental trauma caused to the child or for immediate rehabilitation of such child.”

177. On a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offences committed against the minor victim, the psychological trauma, physical and emotional harm suffered by the child, and the financial condition of the family as Pw.1 gave birth to a girl child, this Court is of the opinion that the child victim is entitled to compensation under the Telangana Victim Compensation Scheme, 2015.

The offence falls under the category of Aggravated Penetrative Sexual

Assault], which warrants the maximum compensation under the Scheme.

The Court, therefore, recommends compensation of ₹10,00,000 (Rupees

Ten Lakhs only) to be paid to the minor victim, under:

Section 357A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Rule 7 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Rules, 2012

Section 33(8) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 84/94Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 06 of 2023

Telangana Victim Compensation Scheme, 2015 (as amended) vide G O Ms 9

dated 28/02/2019.

178. Accordingly, the District Legal Services Authority, Mulugu District is directed to:

Process the recommendation expeditiously, and Sanction and disburse the amount of ₹10,00,000 to the child victim through the victim’s lawful guardian, preferably by direct bank transfer to an account opened in the name of the minor, with proper safeguards.

179. It is needless to emphasize more on the aspects which are subsidiary in nature. As the evidence on record of Pw.1/victim is quite ample and sufficient which is reliable, worth convincing, trustworthy and free from doubt, hence, the evidence of prosecution witnesses Pw.1, Pw.2 and circumstantial witnesses, medical witnesses, who corroborated on material particulars coupled with exhibits, can be pressed into service to base conviction. So, the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of the accused No.1 beyond all reasonable doubt for the charged offences punishable under Sections 376, 376 (3) of IPC, U/secs. 5 (j)(l) r/w sec. 6 of

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. Hence, the 1st accused can be found guilty for the aforementioned offence. The accused No.1 is found not guilty for the charged offence punishable under Section 5 (j) (ii) r/w Section 6 of POCSO Act, as evidence is short coming in establishing 85/94Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 06 of 2023 1st accused was responsible for pregnancy of Pw.1. It is needless to exmphasize more on the aspects which are subsidiary in nature.

Accordingly, this Point is determined in favour of the prosecution.

180. Point No.2:

In the result, the accused No.1 is found guilty for the charged offences punishable under Sections 376, 376 (3) of IPC, U/secs. 5 (j)(l) r/w sec. 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and he is convicted of the same Under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C. The accused No.1 is found not guilty for the charged offence punishable under Section 5 (j) (ii) r/w Section 6 of POCSO Act, and he is acquitted of the same under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The case against Accused No.2 was abated on 05.05.2023 as died.

Typed to my dictation/voice record by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 04 th day of November, 2025.

Sd/-

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

MULUGU,

FAC - FAST TRACK SESSIONS JUDGE FOR

EXPEDITIOUS DISPOSAL OF CASES OF RAPE AND

PROTECTION OF CHILD AGAINST SEXUAL

OFFENCES (POCSO) ACT, MULUGU

86/94Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 06 of 2023

181. Accused is heard with regard to quantum of sentence to be imposed upon him.

Accused submitted that, “his mother is no more. His father is aged person and not in good health. He alone has to look after his father and look after his father by doing coolie work. He is bed-ridden.”

182. On hearing the accused on quantum of sentence, in view of the nature, facts and circumstances of the case, it appears sentencing him to imprisonment and also to impose fine will meet the ends of justice for the ofence punishable under Section 376 IPC as well as imprisonment and fine will meet the ends of justice, for the offence punishable under

Section 376 (3) I.P.C as well as imprisonment and fine will meet the ends of justice for the offence punishable under Section 5(j) (l) r/w 6 of

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

183. On hearing the accused on quantum of sentence, in view of aforementioned observations, in the light of the nature of accusation, it established commission of offence, the following sentence can be imposed upon the accused, imposing sentence of (10) Ten years and payment of fine of Rs.2000/- will meet ends of justice for the charged offence punishable under Senction 376 I.P.C, together with default sentence.

184. Further rigorous imprisonment of 20-years and fine of

Rs.3000/- will meet the ends of justice for the offence punishable 87/94Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 06 of 2023

U/sec. 376 (3) I.P.C,apart from default sentence. Further imprisonment of 20 years and fine of Rs.4000/- and sentence for defacult in making payment of fine will meet ends of justice for the charged offence punishable under Section 5(j) (l) r/w 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

185. Having regard to the relevant facts and circumstances of the case, on balancing mitigating circumstances and aggravating punishment, in the light of circumstances, sentencing the accused to imprisonment and imposing fine for causing acts referred supra, appears to be quite- appropriate and adequate punishment in the light of given facts.

186. After exercising discretion judiciously, in the light of circumstances and considering the submission of the accused, having regard to the enormity and gravity of offence and on considering the submissions of the accused, it is just reasonable and appropriate to impose imprisonment for 20-years under Section 5 (j) (l) r/w sec. 6 of

the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act,

2012, which deals with punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault. It specifies that whoever commits this offense shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term of not less than twenty years, which may extend to imprisonment for life (which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of the person's natural life), and shall also be liable to fine or death for the charged ofence punishable 88/94Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 06 of 2023

U/sec.376, 376 (3) of IPC, U/secs. 5 (j)(l) r/w sec. 6 of Protection of

Children from Sexual Offences Act and sentencing to Imprisonment for 20 years and fine respectively will meet ends of justice.

187. In the result, the accused No.1 is found guilty for the charged offences punishable under Sections 376, 376 (3) of IPC, U/secs. 5 (j)(l) r/w sec. 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, and accused No.1 is convicted of the said offences Under Section 235(2)

Cr.P.C.

1 8 9 . The accused No.1 is sentenced to undergo Rigorous

Imprisonment for a period of (10) Ten Years and he shall also pay fine of Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) for the charged offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC, and in default to make payment of fine of Rs.2000/-, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of (03) three months.

1 9 0 . Further the accused No.1 is sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of (20) Twenty years and also shall pay fine of Rs.3000/- (Rupees three thousand only) for the charged offences punishable under Section 376 (3) of I.P.C, and in default to make payment of fine of Rs.3000/-, the accused No.1 shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of ( 04 ) four months.

1 9 1 . Further the accused No.1 is sentenced to undergo rigorous 89/94Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 06 of 2023 imprisonment for a period of (20) Twenty Years and also shall pay fine of

Rs.4000/- (Rupees four thousand only) for the charged offence punishable under Section5(j) (l) r/w 6 of Protection of Children from

Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and in default to make payment of fine of

Rs.4000/-, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of ( 06) six months.

1 9 2 . The sentences shall run concurrently in respect of offences under Sections 376, 376 (3) of IPC, U/secs. 5 (j)(l) r/w sec. 6 of Protection of

Children from Sexual Offences Act,2012.

193. The period of remand undergone by the accused from 26.10.2022 to 17.01.2023 shall be given set off Under Section 428 of

Cr.P.C. in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 376, 376 (3) of IPC, U/secs. 5 (j)(l) r/w sec. 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual

Offences Act,2012.

194.Further the 1st Accused is found not guilty for the charged offence punishable under Section 5 (j) (ii) of POCSO Act, 2012 and the 1st accused is acquitted of said offence under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. Case against the 2nd accused was abated on 05.05.2023, due to his death.

90/94Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 06 of 2023

195. The accused is informed about his right to prefer an appeal against this Judgment and also appraised to obtain free legal aid if he required. The accused is furnished with copy of Judgment.

196. Before parting with the Judgment, in the light of nature and circumstances of the case this Court is satisfied and is of considered view that it is a fit case to award compensation to the victim of

Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten lakhs only) as provided under Section 357-

A of Cr.P.C r/w. Telangana Victim’s Compensation Scheme, 2015,

Amended vide G.O.Ms.No.9 dt.28-2-2019 r/w Rule 7, of Protection of

Child from Sexual Offences Rules, 2012 to the victim for her rehabilitation for loss of injury causing severe mental agony to child victim.

197. Hence recommended to District Legal Services Authority,

Mulugu to award and disburse the compensation amount of

Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten lakhs only) to the victim namely xxxxx, under Section 357-A (2) of Cr.P.C r/w Rule 7 of POCSO Act and

Telangana victim compensation scheme, 2015 – amended vide G.O.Ms.

Dated 28.02.2019, R/w Section 33 (8) of POCSO Act.

198. The office is directed to forward the copy of Judgment as well as copy of charge sheet containing the address of victim by name xxxx to 91/94Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 06 of 2023 the District Legal Services Authority, Mulugu to disburse the quantum of compensation to the victim xxxx.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 04 th day of November, 2025.

Sd/-

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

MULUGU,

FAC - FAST TRACK SESSIONS JUDGE FOR

EXPEDITIOUS DISPOSAL OF CASES OF RAPE AND

PROTECTION OF CHILD AGAINST SEXUAL

OFFENCES (POCSO) ACT, MULUGU

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: PW1Is victim girlNone. PW2Is mother of victim girl PW3P. Radhika WHG 882, P.S. Venkatapuram PW4M. Paramjyothi, panch witness for CDF PW5V. Adinarayana, panch witness for CDF PW6K. Niveditha Reddy,CAS, Area hospital, Mulugu PW7Dr. K. Sunitha, CAS, Area hospital, Mulugu PW8Dr. P. Rahil, Special Officer KGB, Wazeedu, PW9M.Sujatha, Special Officer KGBV, Wazeedu. Pw10Ashok Kumar, 1st investigation officer, Pw.11 Sirishetti Sankeerth, 2nd investigation officer 92/94Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 06 of 2023

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1is the original report dated 23.09.2022 by Pw.2

Ex.P2is the 164 CRPC statement of PW1.

Ex.P3is the signature of PW4 on second crime detail form, dated 23.09.2022

Ex.P4is alleged signature of PW5 on first crime detail form, dated 23.09.2022

Ex.P5is the potency test report of the first accused Sodhi Sandeep

Ex.P6 is the potency test report of the second accused

Ex.P7is the medical examination report of alleged victim

Ex.P8is the RFSL report dated 23.11.2022

Ex.P9is the FSL report along with DNA profile chart dated 21-12-2022

Ex.P10is the final opinion.

Ex.P11 is the study conduct and date of birth certificate of alleged victim girl

Ex.P12 is the FIR in Cr.No. 45/2022 under sections 376, 376(3) IPC section 5 (j),

(ii), sec. 5 (l) r/w sec. 6 of POCSO Act.

Ex.P13is the second crime detail form dated 24.09.2022,.

Ex.P14is the letter addressed by the I.O./Pw.10 to the duty medical officer, Government Hospital, Eturnagaram, dated 30.11.2022

Ex.P15 is the letter addressed by the Civil Assistant surgeon, Community Health Centre, Eturnagaram, addressed to Director FSL under which material objects such as blood samples of victim and baby were sent 93/94Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 06 of 2023 for DNA analysis.

Ex.P16is the correspondence made by Pw.10, then investigating officer to the Director FSL dated 21.05.2022 along with letter of advise dated 01.11.2022.

Ex.P17is the letter addressed by Pw.10, investigating officer to the Head master KGBV School, Wazeedu dated 24.09.2022

Ex.P18is the certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act issued by K. Mounika/Lw.3.

Ex.P19is the first crime details form along with rough sketch of the first scene of offence.

FOR DEFENCE: Nil.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED: Nil.

Sd/-

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

MULUGU,

FAC - FAST TRACK SESSIONS JUDGE FOR

EXPEDITIOUS DISPOSAL OF CASES OF RAPE

AND PROTECTION OF CHILD AGAINST SEXUAL

OFFENCES (POCSO) ACT, MULUGU

94/94Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 45 of 2022

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE-CUM-

SPECIAL COURT TO DEAL WITH THE CASES FILED UNDER NARCOTIC DRUGS

AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT, 1985 AT MULUGU.

Present: Smt. S.V.P. Suryachandra Kala,

Principal District and Sessions Judge-cum-Spl. Court

to deal with the cases filed under Narcotic Drugs and

Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Mulugu.

Tuesday, the day 07 th of April, 2026

SESSIONS CASE No. 45 OF 2022

Crime Number and Police Station:Cr.No. 128 of 2020 of Police Station:

SS Tadvai.

:

A-1 Palthiya Shanker, S/o. Anji,aged Name and description of the Accused 20 years, Occ: Student, R/o.

Palthiyathanda, H/o. Vengampet villageofGudurmandal,

Mahabubabad District.

1/91Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 45 of 2022

A-2 Budidha Srikanth, S/o. Venkanna, aged 23 years, Occ: Student, R/o.

Ashok nagar village of Khanapur mandal, Warangal Rural District.

:

Name and description of the ComplainantThe State of Telangana, represented by Circle-Inspector of Police, Pasra.

Prosecution conducted by :Sri D. Ram Singh,

Additional Public Prosecutor.

: Sri D. Ramulu, Advocate for A1 and Accused defended by A2.

:

2/91Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 45 of 2022

U/secs. 8 (c) r/w 20 (b) (ii) ( C) NDPS Offences charged Act, 1985 and Section 181 of M.V. Act against A1, U/secs. 8 (c) r/w 20 (b) (ii) ( C) NDPS Act, 1985 against A2.

:

Plea of the AccusedPleaded not guilty :

Found guilty. Finding of the Court :

In the result, accused no.1 and Result 2 are found guilty for the charged offence punishable

U/secs. 8 (c) r/w 20 (b) (ii) ( C) NDPS

Act, 1985 and A1 and A2 are convicted under section 235 (2)

Cr.P.C and further, the accused no.1 is found guilty for the charged offence punishable 3/91Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 45 of 2022

under section 3, 4 read with section 181 of M.V. Act and accused no.1 is convicted under section 235 (2) Cr.P.C.

This case coming before me on 06.04.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Addl. Public Prosecutor for the Complainant/State and Sri D. Ramulu, Advocate for A1 and A2; upon perusing the material papers on record, having been heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

:: JUDGMENT ::

1.The Circle Inspector of Police, Pasra Police Station filed a charge sheet against the accused 1 and 2 under section U/secs. 8 (c) r/w 20 (b) (ii) ( C) NDPS Act, 1985 and section 181 of Motor Vehicles Act.

4/91Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 45 of 2022

2. The case of the prosecution in brief was that, the criminal law was set into motion on 28th July 2020 at 19.00 hours by virtue of the report said to have given by LW1/G Ravindar, the then S.I of Police, Tadvai by alleging that as per alleged instructions of the superior officers, he along with his force, that is PC 1543, PC 1324, PC 1669, PC 1649 and D/39 BN CRPF force when they said to have proceeded on 28th July, 2020 to Katapur cross road to conduct vehicle checking, while alleged conducting vehicle checking at about 16.00 hours, they said to have stopped one white colour Toyota Etios Car bearing number TS 08 UB 8417 and also when they said to have checked the car, they said to have found two persons in the said car and also they said to have checked back side of the dickey of the car and said to have found some packets said to have wrapped with plasters in alleged suspicious manner.

3. On alleged opening the said covers, they said to have found dry ganja (dry cannabis). Immediately they said to have taken those two persons into custody and also said to have addressed and sent a requisition to the local Tasildar to provide two official mediators to conduct Panchanamma.

5/91Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 45 of 2022

4.On alleged requisition, the Tahsildar of Tadvai said to have provided two mediators that is Radarapu Narayana, resident of VRO Tadvai and also Chelukala

Palli Narasimha Swamy VRO of Kalvapalli resident of Chennarao pet and they said to have caused enquiry with those two persons in alleged presence of mediators and they said to have confessed regarding alleged commission of offences that they said to have purchased dry ganja at low cost from the farmers and used to sell the same at Warangal for higher rates to get money by alleged illegal means and also previously they said to have transported dry ganja and they said to have confessed that in the car of Shankar on 27.7.2020 they said to have proceeded to

Chitti village and said to have purchased dry ganja from local farmers and while proceeding to Warangal to sell the same, meanwhile police apprehended them.

Later 24 packets of dry ganja was said to have poured into a bag and also said to have secured one MD Riyaz to weigh alleged dry ganja and it was said to have found to be dry ganja about 72 kgs worth of Rs 50,000/-. The same was said to 6/91Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 45 of 2022

have siezed along the above bag along with the dry ganja and also said to have preserved samples in three plastic covers that is 100 grams of dry ganja each by keeping in cover by duly affixing panch chits signed by the punches under cover of alleged confession cum seizure panchanama in alleged presence of the Tahsildar,

Tadvai. After said panchanama, the Tahsildar, Tadvai said to have handed over the seized dry ganja along with accused persons to the Defacto complainant and the defecto complainant said to have brought the accused, seized dry ganja bag along with white color car bearing number TS 08 UB 8417 and sample covers at the police station, Tadvai and said to have lodged a report for taking necessary action to LW14/ Head constable constable, 904/E. Ramamurthy.

5. On receipt of alleged report from the defecto complainant LW 1, LW 14 the Head constable, said to have registered the same as a case in crime number

No. 128/2020 under section U/secs. 8 (c) r/w 20 (B) (ii) ( C) NDPS Act and he said to have submitted the original FIR to the court and copies to the concerned and said to have taken up investigation.

6. During the course of alleged investigation LW16/Circle Inspector of

Mulugu in charge of Pasra police station said to have examined and said to have recorded alleged statements of LW 1 to 6/ C. Ravinder S.I of police, P. Ramesh,

MD. Khalid, Y. Ugender, B. Sampath and M. Surender, the police constable of

Tadvai police station on 29.07.2020. Later on 29.07.2020, LW16 the C.I of Police in charge of Pasra police station said to have visited alleged scene of offence at

Sammakka Saralamma Arch S.S. Tadvai and also said to have secured LW 12 and 13

Thakur Surender Singh and Maloth Narasimha, alleged mediators and in their 7/91Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 45 of 2022

alleged presence said to have conducted scene of offence observation

Panchanamma by duly drafting physical features of the scene into crime detail form and also he said to have secured alleged presence of LW 7 and 8 MD. Riyaz and Dubbaka Rammurthy alleged appraiser as well as alleged photographer and said to have examined them and said to have recorded their statements and also he said to have verified alleged confession Panchanamma said to have conducted by LW9 Sarikommula Sammaiah, the Deputy Tahsildar, S.S. Tadvai in alleged presence of LW 10 and 11 Rudrarapu Narayana and CH. Narasimha Swamy.

7. On 29.07.2020 LW.16 the C.I of Police affected the arrest of both the accused by alleged completing the formalities of arrest and also said to have verified the driving license of the first accused who said to have driver the car and said to have found that alleged driving license of A1 was invalid. LW7/MD. Riyaz said to have weighed the dry ganja, and also Ram Murthy LW 8 said to have obtained photos and video over the seized dry ganja.

8.LW16 the Circle Inspector of police, Pasra said to have forwarded three samples by duly extracting 100 grams of dry ganja to the Director, F.S.L,

Hyderabad through A.S.P, Mulugu for Chemical Analysis and report and alleged seized dry ganja samples were said to have forwarded to F.S.L, Hyderabad for examination and report by the FSL No.FSL/NAR/345/2020, dated 13.10.2020 and the remaining 71 kgs and 700 grams was said to have kept with the police in the police custody of Tadvai police station at Tadvai.

9.It was further alleged that by virtue of the orders of the court to the SHO

Tadvai to release the crime vehicle that is white color Toyota Etios .bearing No. TS 8/91Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 45 of 2022

08 UB 8417 it was said to have released in favour of the accused by virtue of orders of the court in CRLMP No. 680/ 2020 as communicated by the Dis.No. 870,

dated 11.12.2020. Later, LW17 the Circle Inspector of Police, Pasra subsequent to

treatment for Corona virus said to have resumed to the duties and said to have taken up the investigation and said to have perused the CD file and said to have verified the investigation said to have done by LW16 and said to have found it on correct lines and according to FSL report LW15 said to have opined that after analyzing the items 1 to 3 they were found Ganja a Narcotic Drug. Hence, on completion of investigation charge sheet was filed against A1 for the offences punishable U/secs. 8 (c) r/w 20 (b) (ii) ( C) NDPS Act, 1985 and section 181 of

Motor Vehicles Act and against second accused under section 8 (c) 20 (b) (ii) ( c) of NDPS Act.

10. The case was taken on file by taking cognizance against the first accused

U/secs. 8 (c) r/w 20 (b) (ii) ( C) NDPS Act, 1985 and section 181 of Motor Vehicles

Act and under section 8 (c) r/w 20 (b) (ii) ( c) of NDPS Act against second accused by the Special Court concerned.

11. On appearance of accused No. 1 and 2 copies of documents were furnished to them as required under section 207 CRPC and the both accused were examined under section 228 CRPC when the charges under sections 8 (c) r/w 20 (b) (ii) ( C) NDPS Act, 1985 and section 181 of Motor Vehicles Act were framed against A1 and also under section 8 (c) r/w 20 (b) (ii) ( c) of NDPS Act was framed against A2 and read over and explained to both the accused in their vernacular language they denied the charges pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

9/91Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 45 of 2022

12. In support of the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined alleged defecto complainant/ LW1 G. Ravinder, S.I of Police, Tadavai, Police

Station as PW1 alleged appraiser, the person who said to have weighed alleged contraband LW7 MD. Riyaz as PW2, alleged photographer LW8, Dubbaka,

Rammurthy as PW3, alleged punch witness for the crime detail form LW12,

Thakur Surender Singh as PW4, alleged mediator for alleged confession cum seizure panchanama, LW9 Sari Kommula Sammaiya as PW5, another alleged panch witness for confession cum seizure panchanama LW11 CH Narasimha

Swamy as PW6, the first investigating officer, Head constable 904 (LW14) as PW7, the second investigating officer who said to have arrested A1 and A2 and said to have sent them for judicial custody that is LW16 K. R. Devendra Reddy, in charge

C.I of Pasra police station as PW8 and the subsequent investigating officer who said to have filed charge sheet that is LW17 A. Srinivas, the C.I of police Pasra as

PW9 and got marked Exs.P1 to P8.

13. ExP1 is the report of the defacto complaint/PW1 dated 28-07-2020, ExP2 is the admissible portion of alleged recovery Panchanama dated 28.07.2020, ExP3 are Ten photographs of alleged seized ganja, vehicle along with CD, ExP4 is the crime detail form dated 29.07.2020 marked through the mediator PW4, Ex P5 is the original FIR in crime number 128/ 2020 Section 20 (b) (ii) ( C) NDPS Act, 1985,

Ex P5 is the original FIR in crime number 128/2020 dated 28-07-2020 marked through PW7, ExP6 is the letter said have addressed by PW8 to the ASP Mulugu

dated 5-08-2020, Ex P7 is the letter of advice regarding forwarding of material

objects to FSL said have submitted by PW8, ExP8 is the FSL report dated 13-10- 10/91Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 45 of 2022

2020.

14.The prosecution has given up the evidence of LWs 2 to 6 P. Ramesh, MD

Khalid Y. Ugandhar, B. Sampath and M. Surendar, the police constables of 1324, 1403, 1543, 1649 and PC 1669, Radharapu Narayana LW10 alleged panch witness for alleged seizure panchanama and also Maloth Narasimha LW13 alleged panch witness, Lw.15 V.R Gunasheela Assistant Director, FSL Hyderabad and the prosecution evidence reported closed.

15.After closure of the prosecution evidence, both the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C to enable them to know personally, all the incriminating evidence against themselves on record, they denied the evidence on record stated they had no witness to be examined on their behalf.

16.Heard the arguments of prosecution and written arguments were submitted on behalf of both the accused.

17. Now the points for determination are:

Whether the prosecution established the case for the charged offenses

punishable under section 8 (c) r/w 20 (b) (ii) ( C) of NDPS Act, 1985 and section 181 of Motor Vehicles Act against A1 and under section 8 (c) r/w 20 (b) (ii) ( c) of NDPS Act against the second accused ?

18.To bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has to establish that both the accused on 28.07.2020 at 6.00 a.m. at Katapur cross road A1 and A2 purchased dry ganja of 72 kgs from the local farmers at lower rate and they were found in possession while transporting dry ganja of Commercial quantity and for selling the ganja at higher rates to the needy people and the police recovered the 11/91Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 45 of 2022

same from the possession of A1 and A2 in the presence of panch mediators under cover of panchanama, thereby, both the accused committed an offences punishable under sections 8 (c) r/w 20 (b) (ii) ( C) of NDPS Act, 1985.

19. Further, it has to be established by the prosecution that the first accused on the aforementioned given date, time and place drove the Toyota Etios Car bearing number TS 0H UBA 8417 belonged to his friend, to purchase dry ganja and transported the same and drove the said vehicle for transport purpose in public place in contravention of section 3 or section 4 of the M.V Act and thereby A1 committed an offense punishable under section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

20.To establish the same, now the evidence available on record is the evidence of PW 1 to 9 coupled with Exs. P1 to P8 referred supra.

21.The learned incharge Public Prosecutor submitted that by virtue of the testimonies of PWs 1 to 9 coupled with Exs. P1 to P8, the prosecution established the case against the accused No. 1 and 2 beyond all reasonable doubt and sought for conviction of both the accused for the aforementioned charged offences.

22.Whereas on the other hand, by virtue of written arguments, it was submitted on behalf of both the accused that the evidence on record was quite insufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and the prosecution said to have failed to prove the recovery in the manner as provided under the provisions of NDPS Act and also submitted that mandatory provisions were not complied with regarding drawing sample and section 50 of

NDPS Act was not complied with and also there was delay in sending the samples 12/91Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 45 of 2022

to the FSL and no detailed report was given to the superior officer as contemplated under section 57 of the NDPS Act and sought for acquittal of both the accused.

23.PW1/Inspector of Police and the defacto complainant categorically deposed that he had been working as Inspector of Police (C.C.S), Mulugu from 6.8.2021 to till date. Previously, he worked as Sub-Inspector of Police, Tadvai from 8.4.2018 to 4.9.2021. He deposed that on 28.7.2020 at about 15.00 hours on the instructions of their superior officers, along with his staff he proceeded for doing vehicle checking duty at Medaram arch, Tadvai and at about 15.30 hours one silver colour TAYOTA ETIAS car was stopped by them for checking and in the said car two persons were there including driver. He deposed that A1, A2 present in the court hall were the said two persons and identified A1 and A2. He further deposed A1, A2 tried to fled away and they chased accused and caught hold the accused and then they checked the said car and they found about 24 packets tied with a plaster and on suspicion, they opened one of the packets and ganja smell was coming. Immediately, he informed the same to M.R.O., S.S Tadvai and gave requisition to him, to bring two panchas for conducting panchanama and

M.R.O. S.S. Tadvai was not present at that time and one Deputy

Tahsildar/LW9/Sammaiah along with two panchas came there.

24.Said Deputy Tahsildar/LW9/Sammaiah in the presence of two panchas i.e.,

VROs / LWs 10 and 11 and in their presence enquired the accused on enquiry, A1,

A2 voluntarily confessed the offence separately and said 24 packets were mixed and he called LW7/Riaz for weighing the said dry ganja and accordingly, LW7 13/91Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 45 of 2022

weighed the dry ganja and it was 72 kgs. Then, they seized the said dry ganja from the possession of A1, A2 under cover of Confession cum Recovery panchanama in the presence of LWs10 and 11. He further deposed later, they have taken three samples of 100 grams each under cover of said panchanama by affixing the panch chits and proper chits and obtained the signatures of the panchas on the said panchanama and the samples. The remaining ganja was kept in a white colour plastic bag and affixed the panch chits and sealed the same. He deposed got photographed saidconducting of panchanama and seizure of dry ganja with the help of LW8/Rammurthy. He further deposed later, he produced the A1, A2 , case property along with samples, vehicle and confession cum recovery panchanama before LW14/S.H.O of Police, P.S. S.S.Tadvai and gave the report. Ex.P1 report given by him dated 28.7.2020. Ex.P2 the admissible portion of Confession cum Recovery panchanama dated 28.7.2020. Ex.P3 the (10)

Photographs of the seized ganja, vehicle along with C.D. were marked. He deposed he was examined by the police.

25.During the course of cross examination of Pw.1, Pw.1 denied he did not make G.D entry before going to vehicle checking duty in the present case. He deposed they went to the scene of offence by walk from their police station as it was only at a distance of 100 meters. He deposed but he did not mention the same in Ex.P1 report and not stated before the police. He did not mention specifically on which side of the Medaram arch, they conducted alleged vehicle checking duty.

14/91Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 45 of 2022

26.Pw.1 deposed that it was not mentioned in Ex.P1 report as to who was the driver of the alleged vehicle caught hold by them. PW1 deposed they have not seized the driving license and the vehicle papers of the Tayota car seized by them.

27.Pw.1 admitted he did not mention in Ex.P1 report about the colour of the packets found in the dicky of alleged vehicle. Pw.1 denied that it was not mentioned in Ex.P1 report that ganja smell was coming while checking the alleged 24 packets in the dicky of the car. Pw.1 denied it was not mentioned in Ex.P1 report about the requisition to the M.R.O. S.S. Tadvai. Pw.1 denied he did not ask

A1, A2 whether they could be enquired before the Gazetted officer. But, he deposed did not mention the same in Ex.P1 report.

28.Pw.1 denied he did not introduce A1, A2 to the panchas/LWs 10 and 11 or

Deputy Tahsildar/LW9. Pw.1 denied the Deputy Tahsildar/LW9 was not a Gazetted officer. He deposed he did not mention in Ex.P1 report the description of the cover alleged to be found in the car. He deposed he did not mention in Ex.P1 report about the empty 24 covers alleged to have found in the car. Pw.1 denied alleged 3 samples were not weighed, but it was not mentioned in Ex.P1 report.

PW1 deposed there was no mention in Ex.P1 report that he affixed lakka seal on the samples or contraband. He deposed he did not give any requisition to

LW8/photographer and LW7/Mohammed Riaz to come to scene of offence for taking photographs and weighing alleged ganja.

29.PW1 further deposed there were 3 ways at the scene of offence i.e., Arch of Medaram. PW1 deposed Ex.P3 photographs did not show that they were taken 15/91Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 45 of 2022

at Medaram arch. He deposed Ex.P2 panchanama did not show who scribed the same. As per testimony of PW1 the duration of confessional panchanama was not mentioned in Ex.P2. Pw.1 denied did not make any enquiry to show as to who was the owner of alleged Tayota car. PW1 deposed that one Pabba Pavan was the owner of alleged Tayota Etias car. But, he was not shown as witness in the case.

Pw.1 denied A1, A2 were no way concerned with alleged Tayota Etias car and alleged seized ganja and they did not commit any offence. He deposed he gave

Ex.P1 report at 07.00 P.M. in P.S. S.S.Tadvai. He deposed that he did not prepare separate list of seized articles at the time of Ex.P2 panchanama. He deposed the date of Exs.P1, P2 is Maoist varotsavalu. Pw.1 denied on the date of Exs.P1, P2 they kept all the persons going through the Arch of Medaram and they were kept in their station as suspects. Pw.1 denied they apprehended A1, A2 while going through the Arch of Medaram towards Medaram jathara and on that A1, A2 revolted against them and as such they foisted false case against A1, A2 and deposed falsehood. Pw.1 denied they falsely implicated A1, A2 in the case and they never confessed offence and no panchanama was conducted and they were no way concerned with the present case and he deposed false.

30.PW2said to be appraiser deposed that he was resident of Tadvai village and mandal of Mulugu District. He was running chicken centre in Tadvai. In July 2020 on one day, Sub-Inspector of Police, Tadvai called him with instructions to come along with weighing machine to Arch of Medaram near Tadvai and accordingly, he went there along with his weighing machine. At the request of 16/91Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 45 of 2022

police, Tadvai, he weighed the sample packets of 100 grams each. He deposed but, he did not remember how many samples he weighed. He further deposed the remaining contraband was also weighed by the police person present there and he could not say the weight of said remaining contraband. He deposed Police examined him and recorded his statement.

31.During the course of cross examination of Pw.2, Pw.2 admitted he did not receive any written requisition from the police to come to the scene of offence for the purpose of weighing alleged ganja. He deposed he did not know personally whether it was ganja or not which was weighed by him. He deposed was called by the police at about 03.30 P.M. to 06.00 P.M and subsequently, he was not called by the police. He deposed his statement was not written in his presence. PW2 denied that he did not weigh alleged ganjaand he deposed false at the instance of police.

32.PW3 said to be the photographer deposed that he was resident of Tadvai village and mandal of Mulugu District. He was running a Photo studio under name and style “Ayyappa Digital Studio” in Tadvai. He deposed on 28.7.2020 at about 03.00 P.M, Sub-Inspector of Police, Tadvai called him to their police station and requested him to come to Medaram Arch in Tadvai for taking photographs.

Accordingly, he went to the scene of offence i.e., Arch of Medaram and there the

Sub-Inspector of police along with staff,M.R.O and others were present. On the request of the police, he got photographed the seized ganja along with vehicle.

Ex.P3 photographs were shown to him were identified as the photographs of the 17/91Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 45 of 2022

vehicle, seized ganja taken by him. He deposed that later, he handed over Ex.P3 photographs along with C.D to the police and deposed he was examined by the police.

33.During the course of cross examination of PW3, PW3 admitted he did not receive any written requisition from the police for taking Ex.P3 photographs. He deposed the police paid the charges for taking Ex.P3 photographs and deposed but he did not give any receipt to them. He deposed Ex.P3 photographs shown to him did not reveal that they were taken on the road. He deposed Ex.P3 photographs shown to him were not taken by him. PW3 denied that he was not examined by the police. He further deposed subsequent to 28.7.2020, He was not called by the police. PW3 denied that he did not go to the Arch of Medaram and not taken any photographs as alleged and he deposed false at the instance of police.

34.During Cross-Examination by the learned Addl.PP, Pw.3 deposed he did not know that giving two types of evidence before a court of law was an offence. He deposed Ex.P3 photographs shown to him were not taken by him. Pw.3 denied that he did not take Ex.P3 photographs and what he deposed in his chief examination was true and that he deposed false by taking money from the accused.

35.PW4 said to be the mediator for alleged scene of offence observation proceedings deposed that he was resident of Tadvai village and mandal of Mulugu

District and he was running general stores in Tadvai. He knew LW13/Narsimha.

18/91Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 45 of 2022

PW4 further deposed on 29.07.2020 at about 08.30 A.M, Inspector of Police,

Pasra called him to come to Medaram Arch in Tadvai. Accordingly, he along with

LW13/Narsimha went to the scene of offence i.e., Arch of Medaram and there the

Police observed the scene of offence in their presence and also drawn rough sketch of the scene of offence and prepared crime detail form and after read over the contents, the police obtained the signatures of and LW13/Narsimha and himself on the crime detail form. Ex.P4 the Crime Detail Form dated 29.07.2020 was marked.

36.During the course of cross examination of PW4, PW4 admitted he did not receive any written requisition from the police to come to the scene of offence for conducting Ex.P4. He deposed the police called them to scene of offence i.e., to the Arch of Medaram to the road leading towards Pasra. PW4 denied that Ex.P4

Crime Detail Form was not conducted in their presence as alleged and he signed on Ex.P4 in the police station and he was deposing falsehood at the instance of police. PW4 denied that he was in the habit of going to the police station, S.S.

Tadvai and he was stock panch witness of S.S. Tadvai and he deposed false at the instance of police.

37.PW5/the then deputy Tahsildar deposed that he had been working as

Superintendent, Collectorate, Mulugu from 17.08.2023 to till date. Previously, he worked as Deputy Tahsildar, Tadvai from 01.01.2020 to 01.08.2021. PW5 further deposed on 28.7.2022 at about 03.00 P.M, the Sub-Inspector of Police gave requisition to him and called him to come along with two V.R.Os as they found 19/91Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 45 of 2022

ganja along with some persons and accordingly, he along with LW10/Narayana and LW11/Narsimhaswamy went to the scene of offence i.e., Arch of Sammakka,

Sarakka/Madaram and there, the Sub-Inspector of Police and constables were present. After some time, one car came there and the police stopped the said car and checked the said car and found ganja, packed in a paper and covered with the white cloth and police opened the said cover and found 72 Kgs of ganja in packets.

He further deposed that the police opened all the packets and again packed and obtained their signatures on the said packets. He deposed that two persons were found in the said car and they voluntarily confessed the offence in their presence and the police seized the said ganja from the possession of the said two persons under cover of panchanama.

38.He could not identify the said two persons whether they were present in the court hall or not. According to testimony of PW5 Police prepared confession cum recovery panchanama of the accused. Ex.P2 shown to him of said admissible portion of confession-cum-recovery panchanama dated 28.07.2020 which said to have contained his signature was marked. He deposed along with him

LW10/Narayana and LW11/ Narsimhaswamy, V.R.Os signed on Ex.P2 as panch witnesses.

39.During the course of cross examination of PW5, PW5 deposed that the requisition sent by the police was addressed to Tahsildar of S.S. Tadvai mandal, but not to him. He deposed the Tahsildar, S.S.Tadvai mandal was not there in their office at that time and deposed the Tahsildar did not give any written instructions 20/91Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 45 of 2022

to him to go to the scene of offence along with two panchas i.e., LW10 and LW11.

PW5 denied that he was not a gazetted officer. He deposed he did not know the particulars of the said car which was checked at the scene of offence. PW5 further deposed by the time they went to the scene of offence, the said vehicle/car and the offenders were not present.

40.PW5 denied that he did not see alleged ganja in the bag at the scene of offence. He deposed there were several packets and he did not remember the number of packets found in the said vehicle/car. He deposed said ganja was covered in a paper and then with a cloth. PW5 further deposed the police opened all the said packets and again packed. According to further testimony of PW5 one constable scribed Ex.P2/panchanama, but he did not know his name. He deposed the police read over the contents of Ex.P2/panchanama and later, obtained their signatures on Ex.P2/panchanama. PW5 denied that he along with LWs10 and 11 did not go to the scene of offence and no panchanama was conducted and no ganja was seized at the scene of offence from the possession of any person in their presence and he deposed falsehood. PW5 denied that he did not know the contents of Ex.P2 panchanama and he deposed falsehood at the instance of police. PW5 denied that LWs10 and 11 and himself signed on Ex.P2 in police station, but not at the scene of offence as alleged. PW5 denied that he did not know anything about the facts of this case and he simply signed on Ex.P2 in a police station and Ex.P2 was not conducted in his presence and no ganja was seized from the possession of any person in their presence and he deposed false.

21/91Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 45 of 2022

41.PW6 said to be the then VRO and alleged Mediator, deposed that he had been working as Junior Assistant in Irrigation Department, Mulugu from August 2022 to till date. Previously, he worked as V.R.O, Tadvai from 2014 to July, 2022.

He knew LW10/Narayana and he died about 1½ year back. He deposed he knew

PW5. According to further testimony of PW6 on 28.07.2020 at about 04.00 P.M, their Tahsildar, S.S.Tadvai instructed, PW5 LW10/Narayana and himself to go to

Arch of Sammakka, Sarakka/Madaram and accordingly, they went there and found one silver colour Car, Sub-Inspector of P.S. Tadvai and police people and two persons i.e., A1, A2 were present there (at that time ) He deposed A1 was present in the court hall and A2 was not present. He deposed he could identify the Accused No.2 also. The learned counsel for accused filed petition U/Sec. 317

Cr.P.C. for A2 and he reported no objection for identification of A2.

42.PW6 further deposed He deposed on the instructions of the police, they asked A1, A2 as to what was happened and on that A1, A2 voluntarily confessed the offence and showed the 24 packets of ganja in the dickey of car packed with brown colour plastic tape. Then, the Sub-Inspector of police opened the said 24 packets of ganja and mixed the same and drawn 03-samples from the contraband and sealed 03-samples in a plastic covers and affixed panch slips. He deposed the total ganja weighed as about 72 kgs and after drawing the 03-samples, the remaining ganja was packed and sealed. PW6 deposed police drafted the confession-cum-recovery panchanama of the accused and seized the ganja from the possession of the accused and drawn 03- samples under cover of confession- 22/91Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 45 of 2022

cum-recovery panchanama. Ex.P2 shown to him the said admissible portion of confession-cum-recovery panchanama which said to have contained his signature as second witness was marked.

43.During cross examination of PW6, PW6 admitted their M.R.O/Tahsildar gave only oral instructions and not given any written requisition. He deposed there would be no movement register for V.R.Os and deposed Ex.P2 did not contain the signature of the scribe. He deposed he gone through the entire Ex.P2

Panchanama and later, he signed on it. PW6 denied that it was not mentioned in

Ex.P2 about brown colour plastic tape. He deposed it was not mentioned specifically, whether the ganja seized was weighed after drawing samples or

before drawing samples and that said ganja was 72 Kgs before drawing samples or

after drawing samples. He deposed he did not know that it was mentioned in

Ex.P2 panchanama that 3 samples were drawn from one packet only.

44.PW6 further deposed it was not mentioned in Ex.P2 panchanama that all alleged ganja packets were opened and mixed and then the samples were drawn from the said contraband. PW6 denied that alleged samples were not sealed by the Investigation Officer. He deposed he acted as Panch witness in about 10 cases of S.S. Tadvai. PW6 denied that he was in the habit of putting signatures as panch witness, as and when called by the police, Tadvai. PW6 denied that the

Investigation officer did not introduce him and other panch witnesses to the accused as required. PW6 denied that he was not independent panch witness and a stock witness to the police. PW6 denied that A1, A2 did not confess any offence, 23/91Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 45 of 2022

no panchanama was conducted and alleged ganja was not seized from the possession of A1, A2 under cover of Ex.P2 panchanama and that he signed on

Ex.p2 panchanama in the police station and that he deposed false at the instance of police.

45.PW7/E. Ram Murthy deposed that he had been working as Assistant Sub-

Inspector of Police at Komuravelli P.S. from the last 02- years to till date.

Previously, he worked as Head Constable in P.S. S.S. Tadvai from 2018 to 2021.

Pw7 deposed that on 28.07.2020 at about 7.00 P.M, he received Ex.P1 report from

PW1/Sub-Inspector of Police and basing on the said report, he registered a case in

Cr.No.128 of 2020 U/Sec.20(B), (ii), (C) of N.D.P.S. Act and issued F.I.R and sent copies to all the concerned. Ex.P5 the F.I.R. dated 28.07.2020 was marked, along with Ex.P1 report. He deposed PW1/Sub-Inspector of police handed over the

Panchanama/Ex.P2, Case property i.e., ganja and Ertiga car and also produced A1,

A2 before him. He deposed as the offence was grave in nature, he handed over the C.D file to LW17/Circle Inspector of Police, Pasra.

46.During the course of cross examination of PW7, PW7 admitted that PW1/S.I of Police handed over Ex.P2 panchanama, seized ganja, Ertiga car along with report and also produced A1, A2 on 28.7.2020 at about 07.00 P.M. He deposed basing on Ex.P1 report only, Pw7 issued Ex.P5/F.I.R. PW7 denied that he did not go through Ex.P2 panchanama and the list of seized property at the time of issuing Ex.P5/F.I.R. PW7 denied that panch slips were not affixed to the seized property. He deposed alleged ganja was in packets in a plastic cover. PW7 denied 24/91Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 45 of 2022

that he did not see whether alleged ganja was in packet or in bag or in plastic cover. According to further testimony of PW7, no samples were drawn in his presence. PW7 denied that he did not know what was in sealed packets. PW7 denied that he did not know anything about the facts of the case and he only simply issued Ex.P5/F.I.R. PW7 denied that he did not make any G.D. entry about the issuing of Ex.P5/F.I.R, He deposed the full form of N.D.P.S. Act as Narcotic

Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. PW7 denied that he issued Ex.P5/F.I.R. on the instructions his higher officials and PW1 did not hand over anything to him along with Ex.P1/report and he deposed falsehood. PW7 denied that PW1 did not give Ex.P1/report and not handed over anything to him along with

Ex.P1/complaint and he foisted a false case against the accused on the instructions of higher officials and he deposed false.

47.PW8/Investigation officer deposed that he was resident of Hanamkonda.

He was working as ACP., Hanamkonda. Previously he worked as Circle Inspect of

Police, Mulugu from 22.08.2019 to 06.04.2021. He deposed he was also placed as incharge of Pasra Circle. According to further testimony of PW8 on 28.07.2020 he received information about registering the case under NDPS Act by Tadvai Police vide Cr.No.128/2020, immediately he went to Tadvai Police Station and took CD file from PW7 HC.904. He deposed he verified the investigation done by PW7 and found it on correct lines. Later he examined Pw.1, Lws.2 to 6/police constables i.e.

PC.1324, PC 1403, PC 1543, PC 1649 and PC 1669 and recorded their statements.

25/91Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 45 of 2022

He further deposed, immediately he arrested the accused No.1 and 2 in the police station, Tadvai.

48.PW8 further deposed on 29.07.2020 he visited the scene of offence situated at Sammakka-Saralamma Arch SS Tadvai and conducted scene of offence observation panchanama in the presence of PW4 and LW.13/M. Narsimha under

Ex.P4. Later he secured the presence of PW2 and PW3 examined them and recorded their statements. He deposed later, he returned to police station and prepared the remand report and produced both the accused before the Court for judicial custody. He further deposed that on 05.08.2020 he sent three samples to

FSL, Hyderabad through ASP., Mulugu. Ex.P6 the letter addressed by him to ASP.,

Mulugu, dated 05.08.2020. Ex.P7 the letter of advise regarding forwarding of material object to FSL submitted by him, dated 05.08.2020 were marked. He deposed that at the time of receipt CD file from PW7, he also received the Car, bearing No.TS08 UB 8417 i.e. Toyota Etios Car, the 07 photographs shown to him under Ex.P3 pertained to said car were marked.

49.During the course of cross examination of PW8, PW8 admitted that the time of taking of CD file by him from PW7 on 28-07-2020 was not mentioned in the charge sheet. PW8 admitted it was not specifically mentioned in the charge sheet regarding the material objects received by him from PW7. PW8 deposed along with the CD file he received all the seized articles. He deposed he had gone through Ex.P1 report of PW1 and panchanama Ex.P2. PW8 admitted that as per 26/91Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 45 of 2022

Ex.P1 report, the packets were opened, and the entire contraband was poured and kept in one cover.

50.PW8 admitted that as per Ex.P1 report three samples of 100 grm. each were draws from the said contraband. PW8 admitted that there was no mention either in Ex.P1 report or in Ex.P2 panchanama, how the empty packets were dealt with. PW8 admitted that it was not mentioned in Ex.P2 panchanama regarding weighing of the quantum of samples. He deposed he collected the contraband from PW7, when PW7 received the same from PW1. PW8 further deposed that he also collected the samples from PW7.

51.PW8 admitted that as per Ex.P2 panchanama the packets were intact, when as per Ex.P1 report all the packets were opened and poured in one cover. PW8 admitted that as per Ex.P2 panchanama the samples were drawn from one packet only, but not from all the packets. PW8 denied that he did not examine Pws.1 to 3 and Lws.2 to 6 the police constables. PW8 denied that he prepared everything in the police station by virtue of having different hand writings the statements of

Pws.1, LWs.2 to 6 on one hand and PWs. 2 and 3 on the other hand.

52.PW8 admitted that he examined Pws.2 and 3 on the next day of examining

PW1, LWs. 2 to 6 police constables. PW8 denied that he did not visit alleged scene of offence and not prepared crime detail form at alleged scene and he prepared

Ex.P4 in the police station. PW8 denied that PW4 and LW13 were not the inhabitants near the scene of offence.

27/91Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 45 of 2022

53.PW8 admitted that the name of scribe of Ex.P4 was not mentioned in Ex.P4 crime detail form. PW8 denied that he did not record, regarding deposit of the contraband in their police records and not deposited the contraband in the police station and not made entry in the relevant register. PW8 denied that he did not inform to his superior officer regarding the things done by him and failed to report about his investigation. PW8 admitted that he did not affix his seal on the seized contraband. He deposed as he was not the complainant who seized the contraband, hence he did not affix his seal on the seized contraband. PW8 admitted that as per the remand report he received samples of 50 grms. PW8 admitted that due to error it was mentioned in the remand report as 50 grams.

PW8 denied that without following mandatory requirements at the time of remand of the accused, he remanded the accused and suppressed the real facts

before the Court and practiced deception on the Court.

54.PW8 denied that with delay of 86 days he forwarded the samples to the

FSL. PW8 admitted that he forwarded samples on the same day of receipt of samples i.e. on 06-08-2020. PW8 denied that his predecessors and himself did not properly investigate the matter. PW8 denied that PW1 did not seize the driving license of the driver of the car and the documents pertaining to the car, hence not verified the same by him. PW8 denied that no case was made out against the accused, no contraband was found or seized, no samples were drawn and false case was foisted against the accused. PW8 denied that while the accused were proceedings to Sammakka-Saralakka temple then the accused were caught hold 28/91Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 45 of 2022

and brought to the police station, when they protested against the same., hence false case was foisted against the accused and his investigation was false and false charge sheet was filed. PW8 denied that Ex.P3 photographs were not taken at alleged place of seizure and they were taken subsequently. PW8 denied that they planted the said car.

55.PW9/2ndInvestigation Officer deposed that he was resident of

Eturnagaram. he had been working as Circle Inspector of Police, Eturnagaram since 17.06.2024. Previously he worked as Circle Inspector of Police, Pasra from 14.09.2018 to 11.09.2021. He deposed as he was undergoing treatment for Covid, hence Pw8 was placed as incharge of Pasra circle. PW9 further deposed on 11.08.2020 he resumed to his duties and took up investigation in the case. He deposed that he received FSL report of LW15, dated 13.10.2020 and as per the report the items No.1 to 3 were analyzed and they were found to be Ganja “Narcotic drug”. Ex.P8 the FSL report, dated 13.10.2020 was marked. He deposed later, he filed charge sheet against the Accused No.1 and 2 in the case.

56.During the course of cross examination of PW9, PW9 deposed he gone through the record and investigation done by PW8. PW9 admitted that as per

Ex.P2 panchanama, dt.28-07-2020 it was mentioned that three samples were drawn from only one packet. PW9 admitted that as per Ex.P1 report of PW1 it was mentioned that 24 packets were opened and poured in a cover and randomly three samples were drawn in three covers. PW9 denied that as per the records six samples were drawn. PW9 denied that he did not know which sample was sent to 29/91Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 45 of 2022

FSL. Pw9 deposed among three samples drawn, one sample was sent to FSL. He deposed he did not know whether no report was given by PW8 to their superior officers regarding investigation. Again PW9 deposed as per CD file PW8 informed about investigation to his superior authorities. PW9 denied that the investigation of PW8 was not informed by PW8 to their superior authorities. He deposed as he was not the officer forwarded the accused for judicial custody, hence he did not observe whether in the remand report it was mentioned that 50 grms of sample was drawn. PW9 denied that PW8 and himself did not properly investigate the matter and without proper investigation he filed charge sheet in the case. PW9 denied that the accused were no way concerned with alleged commission of offences and they were falsely implicated in this case.

57. As seen from the testimony of PW1, the defacto complainant, the 5.1 of

Police, Tadval, when he was on vehicle checking at Medaram Arch, Tadvai, on alleged noticing a Toyota Etios Car, said to be in silver color, on checking the said vehicle, two persons were present in the Car including the driver.

58. When they said to have tried to fled away, on alleged chasing them, and on alleged caught holding and on checking the car, they said to have found about 24 packets smelling ganja. On opening the said packet, they found it as ganja. On giving requisition to the Tasildar to bring two punches, due to non-availability of

Tadsildar, Tadvai, Deputy Tasildar Sammaiah LW9, was secured along with two panchas and they said to have inquired those two persons and on mixing 24 packets of ganja, when it was said to have weighed by PW2, it was found to be 72 30/91Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 45 of 2022

kgs, and the same was said to have seized from alleged possession of both the accused under cover of Ex.P2 Panchanama and also PW1 deposed about drawing three samples of 100 grams each under the cover of Panchanama by affixing panch chits and properly said to have obtained the signatures of the panch, on the said Panchanama, as well as on the samples, and also they said to have affixed panch chits by keeping remaining ganja in a white coloured plastic bag, and they said to have sealed and also PW1 deposed about taking photographs, of proceedings of Panchanama as well as recovery of dry ganja, with the aid of PW3, the photographer and PW1 said to have presented Ex. P1 report to the SHO/PW7 along with two accused, Panchanama, Ganja and also during cross examination of

PW1, it was suggested certain things said to have not mentioned in Ex.P1 report, but Ex. P1 report is not an encyclopedia to contain all the details, as it is meant to take action, basing on the information.

59.PW1 could identify both the accused and he deposed regarding not writing the name of scribe of Ex.P2 Panchanama and also deposed one Pavan as the owner of said Toyota Etios Car. However, he was not shown as a witness for seized

Ganja and said car was marked under Ex.P3 photograph, PW2 alleged appraiser also supported and corroborated the testimony of PW1, regarding weighing of

Ganja and he deposed about weighing sample packets of 100 grams each, but he did not depose how many samples were weighed by deposing not remembered about the same and also PW2 deposed about weighing of remaining contraband, but could not say the total weight of remaining contraband, but the material 31/91Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 45 of 2022

aspect of weighing the contraband by PW2 was the circumstance deposed by PW1 and corroborated by PW2. As per the testimony of PW1, 24 packets were mixed up and weighed, and 03-samples of 100 grams each was drawnas sample.

60. PW2 corroborated regarding proceeding to alleged place of occurrence, near Arch of Medaram near Tadval in the month of July, 2020. Likewise, PW3 said to be the photographer also corroborated the testimony of PW1, regarding taking photographs under ExP3 at the place of alleged occurrence and he deposed about taking photographs of the vehicle, seized Ganja, but deposed no receipt was issued to that effect. At first instance, he deposed about taking photographs under ExP3, whereas, in the cross examination of PW3 and behalf of the accused, he deviated from his earlier version and deposed as if Ex.P3 photographs were not taken by him, but when he was cross examined by the learned Additional P.P, in view of not supporting the case, he deposed ExP3 photographs were not taken by him. He frequently changed his version, but ExP3 photographs were appearing which was pertaining to the Etios Car of silver colour, bearing number TS-08-UB 8417 and also alleged contraband and the photos containing alleged contraband was also were marked under ExP3. So, from ExP3 photographs, it was apparent regarding presence of the Car, as well as the contraband.

61. PW4 is said to be the mediator to alleged scene of offence, which was said to have conducted on the next day of alleged occurrence, PW4 supported the case of prosecution, regarding conducting scene of offence observacion panchanama and preparing crime detail form along with rough sketch on 29-07-2020 at 8.30 32/91Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 45 of 2022

am. So the place of occurrence as Arch of Medaharam, on the road leading towards Pasra was established.

62. From perusal of ExP4 Crime Detall Form, the place of occurrence was mentioned as near Arch on the road leads to Medaram in Tadval and the proceedings were said to have conducted on 29-07-2020 at 8.30 hours. So, by virtue of the testimony of PW4 coupled with Ex.P4, it was established particular place as the scene of offence. So, it was the road leading to Medaram Arch,

Tadval. Nothing was suggested to impeach the testimony of ExP4. So, it was established Arch of Medaram on the road leading towards Pasra as the scene of offence.

63.Pw5 is said to be the Deputy Tassildar, who was said to be the Gazetted officer, who said to have secured by PW1 on being deputed by Tahsildar on 28-07- 2022 at 3:00 pm to conduct such proceedings in his presence. It appeared PW1 gave requisition to Tassildar Tadval, whereas due to his absence, PW5 was secured and acted for conducting such proceedings and PWs 1 and 4 deposed on the same lines. Though at first instance PW 5 deposed of receipt of requisition by him from

SI of police on the given date, but in the cross-examination he deposed the requisition sent by the police was addressed to the Tahsildar, S.S Tadval, but not to him and he also corroborated the testimony of PW1 regarding non-availability of Tahsildar, SS Tadval, he denied that he was not Gazetted Officer.

64. As per the testimony of PW1, the S.I of police while conducting vehicle checking on stopping a vehicle, on noticing two persons when they tried to fled 33/91Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 45 of 2022

away, they caught hold of those persons and checked the car and found 24 packets of ganja in the dickey, which was smelling as ganja. Then they informed to the Tahsildar SS Tadvai by virtue of requisition, seeking his presence for search proceedings, PW5 also deposed of receipt of requisition from S.I of police to visit to the place of alleged occurrence. He deposed regarding proceeding to alleged place of occurrence along with two VROs on the pretext, they found ganja along with some persons, but PW8 though he deposed at first instance regarding founding two persons with ganja, but subsequently he deposed on reaching near

Samakka Saralamma Medaram, after sometime one car came there and he deposed as if the police stopped the said car in their presence and said to have checked the car and found ganja packets in a paper and covered with a white cloth and deposed police opened the said cover and found 72 pages of ganja in packets and also PW5 deposed as if after his arrival or on reaching near alleged scene, car was stopped in their presence, whereas, PW1 deposed on noticing a car and finding ganja contraband in the car, they sent a requisition to the Tahsildar seeking his presence for such proceedings.

65. PW5 could not identify those two persons and the identity of the accused was not established from the testimony of PWS, but he corroborated regarding proceedings under Ex.P2 Panchanama and opening of all the packets and packing and obtaining the signatures on the said packets. He deposed about alleged confession of accused, but deposed the police prepared confession from recovery

Panchanama of the accused. He supported the testimony of PW1 regarding Ex.P2 34/91Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 45 of 2022

recovery Panchanama, he could not give the particulars of the car which was checked at alleged scene and deposed by the time they went to the scene of offence, the said vehicle/car and offenders were not present, which was inconsistent with the testimony of PW1, as he deposed after stopping the car and noticing the contraband only, they sent a requisition to the Tahsildar. Opening of all the packets and again packing the same was deposed by PW2.

66.In view of his testimony that ExP2 Panchanama was drafted by a constable, it would show the presence of a constable. By virtue of section 24 and 25 of Indian

Evidence Act, no confession made to a police officer is relevant in criminal proceedings and it cannot be used against the maker and by virtue of the testimony of PW5, it would show the presence of the police, when as PW5 deposed police prepared Panchanama and deposed one constable was the scribe of the Ex.P2 Panchanama said confession was hit by section 24 and 25 of Indian

Evidence Act.

67.Section 24 of Indian Evidence Act prescribes that:- Confession caused by inducement, threat or promise, when irrelevant in criminal proceeding.––As per the said provision, A confession made by an accused person is irrelevant in a criminal proceeding, if the making of the confession appears to the Court to have been caused by any inducement, threat or 2promise having reference to the charge against the accused person, proceeding from a person in authority and sufficient, in the opinion of the Court, to give the accused person grounds which would appear to him reasonable for supposing that by making it he would gain any advantage or avoid any evil of a temporal nature in reference to the proceedings against him.

68.By virtue of Section 25 of Indian Evidence Act prescribes that:-

Confession to police-officer not to be proved.–– As per the said provision No 35/91Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 45 of 2022

confession made to a police-officer3, shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence.

69. But the material aspect of seizure of ganja of 72 kgs from two persons under preparing of recovery Panchanama was deposed by PW5 though his evidence was silent regarding weighing contraband by PW2 or taking photographs by PW3, from the testimony of PW5, the identity of the accused and identity of the vehicle was not established, though the same was mentioned in Ex.

P2 Panchanama, but his substantial evidence is silent in that regard, having several packets was deposed by PW5, but he was not in a position and could not depose the number of the packets and moreover, the testimony of PW5 was silent regarding drawing samples. In view of his testimony that by the time when they reached to the scene of offence, the said vehicle or the car and the offenders were not present, it was in conflict with the testimony of PW1 and it entertained doubt whether the requisition was sent by PW1 subsequent to caught holding the accused or after arrival of Pw.5.

70. Pw.6 is the then VRO of Tadvai, he corroborated the testimony of PW1 and also identified A1 and deposed he could identify A2 but A2 was absent on the day when PW6 gave evidence and an application under section 317 CRPC was filed reporting no objection for identification of A2 and to proceed in his absence. PW6 also supported the testimony of PW1 regarding noticing 24 packets of ganja and also about drawing contraband, drawing three samples from the contraband and making seal of three samples in a plastic cover and affixing of panch slips and also deposed about opening of 24 packets and mixed and about drawing three 36/91Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 45 of 2022

samples and deposed about seizure of the ganja from the possession of the both accused under proceedings of recovery panchanama under Ex.P2. So, the manner of drawing samples was deposed by PW1 and corroborated by PW6 the VRO who accompanied PW5 the Deputy Thasildar who was deputed by Tahsildar to Act as panch witness. He corroborated regarding having noticed 24 packets of ganja and about its weight as 72 kgs and drawing three samples after mixing 24 packets of ganja it was deposed by him and corroborated by PW6 and affixing panch slips on the samples drawn and making seal after packing of remaining ganja was also deposed and corroborated by PW6 the mediator.

71.PW6 deposed Ex P2 recovery panchanama did not contain the signature of the scribe, but he deposed police drafted the confession cum recovery panchanama. As observed earlier said confession of accused was hit by section 24 and 25 of Indian Evidence Act,though it was held in the presence of the VRO who alleged making it in the immediate presence of the police. Though PW6 pleaded ignorance that whether it was mentioned in Ex.P2 panchanama that three samples were drawn from one packet only but the substantial evidence is the evidence placed before the court it was deposed by PW1 and Pw. 6 regarding opening of all the 24 packets and mix the same by the S.I and drawn three samples which would go to show drawing samples from all 24 packets. So, under such circumstances though it was mentioned in Ex. P2 panchanama regarding alleged drawing of the sample from one packet, drawing of samples three sample, though it was mentioned in Ex.P2 panchanama from one packet 100 grams each and from 37/91Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 45 of 2022

three packets samples were drawn was of no consequence as the substantial evidence is the evidence placed before the court as PW1 and 6 deposed regarding mixing of all the packets and drawing three samples of 100 grams each. Merely because, PW6 deposed he acted as punch witness in nearly 10 cases, he could not be termed as stock witness, as he being VRO is under obligation to assist the police whenever his services are required. So, he being VRO when he deposed he acted in 10 cases he could not be considered as stock witness.

72.PW7 is the Head Constable, who received Ex.P1 report from PW1 on 28.07.2020 at 7.00 p.m. and who said to have registered the case under Ex.PS FIR and when along with Ex. P1 report PW1 SI of police handed over panchanama under Ex P2 case property that is ganja and Etios Car when and when produced

A1 and A2, he deposed about handing over the CD to the C.l of Police,

Pasra/PW17, he denied panch slips were not affixed to the seized property which would show having panch slips to the seized property, deposed that the ganja was in packets in a plastic cover and no sample were drawn in his presence.

73.The testimony of PW7 was not impeached and it was not shaken on material aspects panch slips from perusal of Ex. P1 report it was mentioned regarding occurrence of incident the manner of drawing samples and noticing the contraband as 72 kgs and also it was mentioned 24 packets of dry ganja were opened and kept in a cover and randomly samples were drawn in three covers and drawn sample for sending the same for analysis and also mentioned the name of

PW2 as the appraiser and deposed he noticed the contraband as 72 kgs and also it 38/91Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 45 of 2022

was mentioned regarding affixing panch slips on the cover containing samples as well as on the remaining contraband as ExP1 report was given along with the contraband which was seized under panchanama together with panchanama and accused, noticed the report was given and handed over to PW7.

74.Pw.8 is said to be the first investigating officer who said to have taken up investigation from PW7 on registering the crime by PW7 Head constable 904, he deposed about investigating part regarding arrest of the both the accused in the police station itself and alleged visting scene of offence and proceedings under

Ex.P4 scene of offence otiservation report and also deposed about examining of witness PW1, LWs 2 to 6 that is the defecto complainant and the other police constables or police personnel as well as examining Pw.2 and 3 and he deposed about producing both the accused before the concerned court for judicial custody and deposed about forwarding three samples to the FSL Hyderabad under Ex.P6 letter addressed by him to the ASP and under ExP7 letter of advice regarding forwarding material objects to FSL on 05-08-2020, when alleged occurance was on 28.07.2020, within reasonable time alleged samples were said to have forwarded to the FSL by the first investigating officer. He deposed regarding receipt of all the seized articles and admitted that as per Ex.P1 report, packets were opened and entire contraband was poured and kept in one cover and also admitted as per

ExP1 report, 03 samples of 100 grams each were drawn from the said contraband.

He deposed that there was no mention in Ex.P1 report or Ex. P2 panchanama how the empty packets were dealt with. Though, it was suggested to PW8, not 39/91Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 45 of 2022

mentioning in ExP2 panchanama regarding weighing of the contraband or the quantum of samples, but from perusal of Ex.P2 panchadama, it was mentioned regarding quantum of the samples as three samples of 100 grams each which would show weighing of the quantum of the samples.

75. It appeared as Pw1 handed over the contra brand to Pw7 in turn Pw8 received the contra brand from Pw7. Though Pw8 admitted that as per Ex.P2 panchanama the packets were intart when as per Ex.P1 report, all the packets were opened and poured in one cover, but from perusal of the Ex. P2 panchanama, it was mentioned there were 24 packets containing the ganja and from one of those packets 100 grams each sample was drawn ,but as observed earlier the substantial evidence of Pw1 and the mediator Pw6 can be taken into consideration, it can be taken into consideration regarding drawing of the samples from all the parkets of 24 packets so the admission of Pw8 that as per Ex.P2 punch nama that the samples were drawn from one parket only was not of any consequence and he also admitted the scribe of Ex.P4 was not mentioned in

Ex.P4 crime detail form. He denied of not informing to the superior regarding things done by him and failed to report about investigation.

76.When Pw8 is not the officer who received the contraband straight away from the defacto complainant/Pw1 hence his admission that he did not affix his seal on the seizure contraband was of no consequence as he deposed he was not the complainant who seized the contraband. Hence he did not affix his seal on the 40/91Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 45 of 2022

said contraband. He admitted that as per the remand report he received samples of 50 grams but deposed that due to typographical error it was mentioned.

77.When the very First document under Ex.P2 as well as Ex.P1 report goes to show the collection of samples of 100 grams each hence no weight can be attached to the said typographical mistake regarding mentioning in the remand report as 50 grams. He denied that with delay of 86 days he forwarded the samples, but from the perusal of the record and as observed earlier and also as deposed by Pw.8, he forwarded the samples on the same day of receipt of the sample that is on 06.08.2020. As observed earlier when the offense was dated 28.07.2020 and was within 10 days the samples were sent for analysis. Though,

Pw.8 denied that Pw1 did not see the driving license of the driver of the car and documents pertaining to the car, but the same were not produced before the court for not producing the said driving license the charge was also framed against the first accused for contravention of the provisions of M.V.Act and the charge was framed under section 181 of MV Act.

78.According to the testimony of Pw.9 the then C.I of police Pasara, when he was obtaining treatment for COVID-19, PW-8 was placed as in- charge and deposed on 11-08-2020 on resuming his duties. He deposed about taking up further investigation by receiving Ex.P8 FSL report of LW- 15 dated 13.10.2020 and deposed about filing of charge sheet.

79. During cross examination, he admitted as per Ex.P2 Panchnama, it was mentioned that the three samples were drawn from only one packet 41/91Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 45 of 2022

on 28-07-2020 and admitted as per Ex.P1 report, it was mentioned 24 packets were opened and poured in a cover and randomly three samples were drawn in three covers. He deposed among three samples drawn, one sample was sent to FSL. He pleaded ignorance whether report was given by PW-8 to the superior officers but deposed as per CD PW.8 informed about the same to the superior officers.

80.As observed earlier, mere mentioning of 50 grams in the remand report will not go to the root when the initial document under Ex.P1 and

P-2 would go to show the contraband seized was 72 kgs.

81.As seen from the evidence on the court, there is inconsistency with regard to noticing the accused and contraband by the Deputy Tasildar in view of his subsequent testimony. However, at first instance he deposed regarding receipt of information regarding caught holding the accused with contraband.

82.Another inconsistency or discrepancy is with respect to the contents mentioned in Ex. P-1 and P-2, in Ex.P-2 recovery panchanama, it was mentioned of drawing three samples from one packet whereas in

Ex.P1 report it was mentioned of mixing of all the 24 packets on opening the same they were mixed up in a cover and randomly three samples were drawn.

83.In the instant case, from the photographs relied upon by the prosecution under Ex.P-3, it would go to show the articles seized such as 42/91Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 45 of 2022

the car as well as the contraband. In the instant case, the property was produced vide CPRNo. 9/2023 that is the dry ganja returned from FSL and it was not the case of not producing the case property and produced the case property vide CPR No. 9/23 that is dry ganja returned from the FSL was produced but due to oversight or the same was not marked through the investigating officers and for latches if any on the part of investigating officer or the prosecution, the case of the prosecution which inspire the confidence of the court need not be brushed aside as it is not the case of not at all seizing any property.

84.In the instant case, the Toyota Etios vehicle bearing registration number TS-08UB-8417 seized in the present crime number was ordered to be given to Pawan Pabba said to be alleged registered owner of the vehicle, vide CRL MP No. 680/2020 by virtue of the orders of the court

dated 9th December, 2020 with the direction to produce the vehicle as

and when directed by the court and the photographs were also filed to that extent. So, it was not the case of not producing the case properly

before the court.

85.In the instant case, though it was not expressly informed to the accused by PW1 to get themselves to be searched before the Gazetted officer or before the learned Magistrate, but by virtue of the testimony of

PW1, it would go to show, the requisition was sent to the Gazetted officer in his absence, Deputy Thasildar was secured, so it impliedly would show 43/91Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 45 of 2022

conducting search proceedings with the Gazetted officer, under such circumstances, it cannot be considered, there is violation regarding mandatory providence of NDPS Act, regarding search and seizure, as PW1 is empowered by virtue of provisions under section 49, which conferred power on the officers mentioned in section 42 of the NDPS Act to stop and search the conveyance. Hence, in the instant case, the aforementioned vehicle was utilized for transport of NDPS and from the

FSL report, it was apparent that the contraband seized was ganja being a

Narcotic Drug, hence in the instant case, including the driver, total two persons were noticed as per the testimony of PW1, as the first accused failed to produce the driving license, hence for contravention of the provision of MV Act under section 181, charge sheet was filed against the first accused under section 181 MV Act and also charge was framed to that effect. Even under section 50 of the NDPS Act, when any officer duly authorized under section 42 was about to search any person, under the provisions of section 41 and 42 or 43, which speaks of power of entry search, which speaks of power to issue warrant and authorization and is given power of entry, search seizure and arrest without warrant and authorization and power of seizure and arrest in public places, such officer shall, if such person so requires, take such person without any delay to nearest Gazetted officer or any of the departments mentioned in section 42 or to the nearest Magistrate. In the instant case, instead of 44/91Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 45 of 2022

taking the accused to the Tasildar on being sent a requisition to Tahsildar,

Deputy Tahsildar was secured for conducting search proceedings.

86.Even under section 50 (5) of NDPS Act, it provides that instead of taking such person to the nearest Gazetted Officer or Magistrate, the officer can proceed to search the person as provided under section 100 of

CRPC. Hence, in the instant case, the Deputy Tasildar was acted as the officer at the time of conducting search and immediately after the arrest, after taking into custody of the persons, as it is empowered under section 50 (2) of NDPS Act, it empowers to detain the person until he can bring

before the Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate. Hence, until arrival of the

Deputy Tasildar, the accused were in the custody of PW1 and on arrival of

Deputy Tahsildar along with two mediators, they proceeded with the search of the persons.

87.At this juncture it is worth mentioning relevant provisions which are mandatory to be complied with while dealing the NDPS case, as follows.

88.By virtue of section 20(b) of NDPS Act. It prescribes punishment for contravention of any provision of the Act. As per said provision, “whoever in contravention of any provisions of this act or any rule or order made or condition of license granted there under Section 20(b) produces, manufactures, possesses, sells, purchases, transports, imports, interstate, exports, interstate or uses cannabis shall be punishable.

45/91Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 45 of 2022

89.Section 20 of NDPS Act prescribes Punishment for contravention in relation to cannabis plant and cannabis.—As per said provision Whoever, in contravention of any provision of this Act or any rule or order made or condition of licence granted thereunder,—

(a) cultivates any cannabis plant; or

(b) produces, manufactures, possesses, sells, purchases, transports, imports inter-

State, exports inter-State or uses cannabis, shall be punishable,— [(i) where such contravention relates to clause (a) with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to one lakh rupees; and

(ii) where such contravention relates to sub-clause (b),— (A) and involves small quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 [one year], or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both; (B) and involves quantity lesser than commercial quantity but greater than small quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees; (C) and involves commercial quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to twenty years and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees but which may extend to two lakh rupees:

Provided that the court may, for reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a fine exceeding two lakh rupees.] 46/91Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 45 of 2022

and also under section 35 of the said Act, a presumption of culpable mental state can be drawn.

90.Section 35 of NDPS Act empowers the Court to draw Presumption of culpable mental state.— As per said provision(1) In any prosecution for an offence under this Act which requires a culpable mental state of the accused, the court shall presume the existence of such mental state but it shall be a defence for the accused to prove the fact that he had no such mental state with respect to the act charged as an offence in that prosecution.

Under Explanation.—In this section “culpable mental state” includes intention motive, knowledge of a fact and belief in, or reason to believe, a fact.

(2) For the purpose of this section , a fact is said to be proved only when the court believes it to exist beyond a reasonable doubt and not merely when its existence is established by a preponderance of probability.

91.By virtue of chapter 5 of the NDPS Act, it confers powers on certain authorities regarding entry, search, seizure and arrest without warrant or authorization.

92.By virtue of Section 42 of NDPS Act, it speaks of Power of entry, search, seizure and arrest without warrant or authorisation.—As per said provision (l)

Any such officer (being an officer superior in rank to a peon, sepoy or constable) of the departments of central excise, narcotics, customs, revenue intellegence or any other department of the Central Government including para-military forces or 47/91Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 45 of 2022

armed forces as is empowered in this behalf by general or special order by the

Central Government, or any such officer (being an officer superior in rank to a peon, sepoy or constable) of the revenue, drugs control, excise, police or any other department of a State Government as is empowered in this behalf by general or special order of the State Government, if he has reason to believe from personal knowledge or information given by any person and taken down in writing that any narcotic drug, or psychotropic substance, or controlled substance in respect of which an offence punishable under this Act has been committed or any document or other article which may furnish evidence of the commission of such offence or any illegally acquired property or any document or other article which may furnish evidence of holding any illegally acquired property which is liable for seizure or freezing or forfeiture under Chapter VA of this Act is kept or concealed in any building, conveyance or enclosed place, may between sunrise and sunset,—

(a) enter into and search any such building, conveyance or place;

(b) in case of resistance, break open any door and remove any obstacle to such entry;

(c) seize such drug or substance and all materials used in the manufacture thereof and any other article and any animal or conveyance which he has reason to believe to be liable to confiscation under this Act and any document or other article which he has reason to believe may furnish evidence of the commission of any offence punishable under this Act or furnish evidence of holding any illegally acquired property which is liable for seizure or freezing or forfeiture under Chapter

VA of this Act;

and

48/91Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 45 of 2022

(d) detain and search, and, if he thinks proper, arrest any person whom he has reason to believe to have committed any offence punishable under this Act:1 [Provided that in respect of holder of a licence for manufacture of manufactured drugs or psychotropic substances or controlled substances granted under this Act or any rule or order made thereunder, such power shall be exercised by an officer not below the rank of sub-inspector:

Provided further that] if such officer has reason to believe that a search warrant or authorisation cannot be obtained without affording opportunity for the concealment of evidence or facility for the escape of an offender, he may enter and search such building, conveyance or enclosed place at any time between sunset and sunrise after recording the grounds of his belief.

(2) Where an officer takes down any information in writing under sub-section (1) or records grounds for his belief under the proviso thereto, he shall within seventy-two hours send a copy thereof to his immediate official superior.

93. And also section 43 of the Act provides for power of seizure and arrest in public place.

As per provision under Section 43, it speaks of power of seizure and arrest in

public place.— As per said rpovision, Any officer of any of the departments mentioned in section 42 may—

(a) seize in any public place or in transit, any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or controlled substance in respect of which he has reason to believe an offence 49/91Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 45 of 2022

punishable under this Act has been committed, and, along with such drug or substance, any animal or conveyance or article liable to confiscation under this Act, any document or other article which he has reason to believe may furnish evidence of the commission of an offence punishable under this Act or any document or other article which may furnish evidence of holding any illegally acquired property which is liable for seizure or freezing or forfeiture under Chapter

VA of this Act;

(b) detain and search any person whom he has reason to believe to have committed an offence punishable under this Act, and if such person has any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or controlled substance in his possession and such possession appears to him to be unlawful, arrest him and any other person in his company.

Under Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, the expression “public place” includes any public conveyance, hotel, shop, or other place intended for use by, or accessible to, the public.]

And in conjoint reading of section 43 read with 49 of the Act, it prescribes and conferred power on the officers mentioned and who were authorised under

Section 42 of the Act to do certain things.

94. By virtue of section 49 such officers referred in Section 42 of the Act has

Power to stop and search conveyance.— As per said provision, “Any officer authorised under section 42, may, if he has reason to suspect that any animal or conveyance is, or is about to be, used for the transport of any narcotic drug or 50/91Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 45 of 2022

psychotropic substance 2 [or controlled substance], in respect of which he suspects that any provision of this Act has been, or is being, or is about to be, contravened at any time, stop such animal or conveyance, or, in the case of an aircraft, compel it to land and—

(a) rummage and search the conveyance or part thereof;

(b) examine and search any goods on the animal or in the conveyance;

(c) if it becomes necessary to stop the animal or the conveyance, he may use all lawful means for stopping it, and where such means fail, the animal or the conveyance may be fired upon.

By virtue of section 50 of the NDPS Act, it prescribes the conditions under which search of persons shall be conducted.

95. By virtue of section 50, it lays down Conditions under which search of persons shall be conducted.—

As per the said provision, (1) When any officer duly authorised under section 42 is about to search any person under the provisions of section 41, section 42 or section 43, he shall, if such person so requires, take such person without unnecessary delay to nearest Gazetted Officer of any of the departments mentioned in section 42 or to the nearest Magistrate.

(2) If such requisition is made, the officer may detain the person until he can bring him before the Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate referred to in sub-section (1).

(3) The Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate before whom any such person is brought shall, if he sees no reasonable ground for search, forthwith discharge the person but 51/91Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 45 of 2022

otherwise shall direct that search be made.

(4) No female shall be searched by anyone excepting a female. 3 [(5) When an officer duly authorised under section 42 has reason to believe that it is not possible to take the person to be searched to the nearest Gazetted Officer or

Magistrate without the possibility of the

person to be searched parting with possession of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance, or controlled substance or article or document, he may, instead of taking such person to the nearest Gazetted Officer or Magistrate, proceed to search the person as provided under section100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).

(6) After a search is conducted under sub-section (5), the officer shall record the reasons for such belief which necessitated such search and within seventy-two hours send a copy thereof to his immediate official superior.]

96. By virtue of section 55 of the NDPS Act, it speaks of the powers of police to take charge of articles seized and delivered.

Section 55 of the Act provides that police to take charge of articles seized and delivered.— As per said provison, An officer-in-charge of a police station shall take charge of and keep in safe custody, pending the orders of the Magistrate, all articles seized under this Act within the local area of that police station and which may be delivered to him, and shall allow any officer who may accompany such articles to the 52/91Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 45 of 2022

police station or who may be deputed for the purpose, to affix his seal to such articles or to take samples of and from them and all samples so taken shall also be sealed with a seal of the officer-in-charge of the police station.

97. And also, it was provided under section 56 of the NDPS Act, it conferred an obligation on the officers to assist each other and by virtue of said provision, it speaks of Obligation of officers to assist each other.— By virtue of said provision,

All officers of the several departments mentioned in section 42 shall, upon notice given or request made, be legally bound to assist each other in carrying out the provisions of this Act.

98.And it was provided under section 57 of the NDPS Act to Report of arrest and seizure.— As per said provision, whenever any person makes any arrest or seizure under this Act, he shall, within forty-eight hours next after such arrest or seizure, make a full report of all the particulars of such arrest or seizure to his immediate official superior.

By virtue of section 66 of the act NDPS Act,

99. Presumption as to documents in certain cases shall be drawn by the court. As per said provision—Where any document—

(i) is produced or furnished by any person or has been seized from the custody or control of any person, in either case, under this Act or under any other law, or

(ii) has been received from any place outside India (duly authenticated by such authority or person and in such manner as may be prescribed by the Central 53/91Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 45 of 2022

Government) in the course of investigation of any offence under this Act alleged to have been committed by a person, and such document is tendered in any prosecution under this Act in evidence against him, or against him and any other person who is tried jointly with him, the court shall—

(a) presume, unless the contrary is proved, that the signature and every other part of such document which purports to be in the handwriting of any particular person or which the court may reason ably assume to have been signed by, or to be in the handwriting of, any particular person, is in that person’s handwriting; and in the case of a document executed or attested, that it was executed or attested by the person by whom it purports to have been so executed or attested;

(b) admit the document in evidence, notwithstanding that it is not duly stamped, if such document is otherwise admissible in evidence;

(c) examine any person acquainted with the facts and circumcontrary is proved, the truth of the contents of such document.

100. By virtue of section 2 of the act, it defines the term “small quantity” under section (xxiiia) “small quantity”, in relation to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, means any quantity lesser than the quantity specified by the Central

Government by notification in the Official Gazette;]

101.By virtue of section2 [(viia) “commercial quantity”, in relation to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, means any quantity greater than the quantity specified by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette; and by 54/91Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 45 of 2022

virtue of section 2 (xiv) of Act“narcotic drug” means coca leaf, cannabis (hemp), opium, popy straw and includes all manufactured drugs; and psychotropic substance as defined under section 2(xxiii) of the Act means,

(xxiii) “Psychotropic substance” means any substance, natural or synthetic, or any natural material or any salt or preparation of such substance or material included in the list of psychotropic substances specified in the Schedule; and in respect the term “use” as defined under Section 2(xxviiia) “use”, in relation to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, means any kind of use except personal consumption;]

102. By virtue of section 52A of the NDPS Act, it provides for the disposal of seized narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, [52A provides for Disposal of seized narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.—As per the said provision [(1) The Central Government may, having regard to the hazardous nature, vulnerability to theft, substitution, constraint of proper storage space or any other relevant consideration, in respect of any narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyances, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify such narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyance or class of narcotic drugs, class of psychotropic substances, class of controlled substances or conveyances, which shall, as soon as may be after their seizure, be disposed of by such officer and in such manner as that Government may, from time to time, determine after following the procedure hereinafter specified.] 55/91Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 45 of 2022

(2) Where any 4 [narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyances] has been seized and forwarded to the officer-in-charge of the nearest police station or to the officer empowered under section 53, the officer referred to in sub-section (1) shall prepare an inventory of such 4 [narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyances] containing such details relating to their description, quality, quantity, mode of packing, marks, numbers or such other identifying particulars of the 4 [narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyances] or the packing in which they are packed, country of origin and other particulars as the officer referred to in sub-section (1) may consider relevant to the identity of the 4 [narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyances] in any proceedings under this Act and make an application, to any Magistrate for the purpose of—

(a) certifying the correctness of the inventory so prepared; or

(b) taking, in the presence of such magistrate, photographs of 5 [such drugs, substances or conveyances] and certifying such photographs as true; or

(c) allowing to draw representative samples of such drugs or substances, in the presence of such magistrate and certifying the correctness of any list of samples so drawn.

(3) Where an application is made under sub-section (2), the Magistrate shall, as soon as may be, allow the application.

(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1972)

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), every court trying an offence under this Act, shall treat the innventory, the photographs of 1 [narcotic drugs, psychotropic 56/91Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 45 of 2022

substances, controlled substance or conveyances] and any list of samples drawn under sub-section (2) and certified by the Magistirate, as primary evidence in respect of such offence.] 1 [narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled conveyances] and any list of samples drawn under sub-section (2) and certified by the primary evidence in respect of such offence.]

103. So, it has to be seen whether all the mandatory provisions prescribed under the NDPS Act referred supra were complied with while conducting such seizure or arrest of the persons said to have found in alleged possession or transportation or dealing with Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances.

104.In the light of the provisions prescribed under the NDPS Act referred supra it has to be seen whether the accused when said to have found in alleged possession of the contraband, whether they were found in possession, whether they were dealing with sale or purchase or transporting or using or consuming or producing or any other purposes as provided under section 8 of the Act, which prohibited certain operations in respect of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic

Substances Act.

105. In the instant case, the search was conducted in accordance with the provisions referred supra provided under the NDPS Act and also in view of thetime of proceedings, it appears the search proceedings were concluded even before sunset as time of proceedings were mentioned as 57/91Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 45 of 2022

at 15.30 hours and under Ex.P2 the recovery panchanama, the time and date of recovery panchanama was mentioned as 28.07.2020 at 14.00 hours and even once the prosecution established the case, the presumption can be drawn as contemplated under section 54 of the Act, which speaks of presumption from possession of illicit articles and by virtue of said provision, in trials under the Act, it may be presumed unless and until contrary is proved that the accused has committed an offence under the Act in respect of a Narcotic Drug or Psychotropic Substance or

Controlled Substance for the possession of which he fails to account satisfactorily and even under section as there was obligation casted on the officers referred in section 42 of several departments upon notice given or request made which denotes even oral request, they are legally bound to assist each other in carrying out the provisions of the Act.

106. Hence, even non-filing of requisition to the Deputy Tahsildar is of no consequence as by virtue of section 56 of the Act, it provides that mere on request also the officers mentioned under section 42 are legally bound to assist one another. As provided under the Act under section 55 of NDPS Act an officer in charge of the police station shall take charge of and keep in the safe custody pending the orders of the Magistrate all articles siezed under the Act and he shall allow any officer who may accompany such articles to the police station or who may be deputed for 58/91Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 45 of 2022

the purpose to affix his seal to such articles or to take samples of and from them and all samples, so taken shall also be sealed with the seal of the officer in charge of the police station.

107. In the instant case, PW-1 on conducting search proceedings with the Deputy Tahsildar and two VROs concerned along with the report contraband which was the seized as well as the vehicle referred supra and both the accused produced them before the SHO concerned, that is

before PW-7 and as the offence was grave in nature, he immediately

handed over the CD file to LW-17 that is PW-9. But during the absence of

PW-9, PW-8 took up investigation by proceeding with arrest of the persons and also sent the samples to the FSL.

108.In the instant case Section 52 of NDPS Act was not followed. It does not automatically result in acquittal, by virtue of established legal principles of Hon’ble Apex Court which pleased to clarify that non- compliance is a procedural irregularity, not an illegality, unless it causes significant prejudice or casts a doubt on the evidence’s integrity.

109.Mere procedural lapses in inventorying, photographing or sampling if not done before a Magistrate do not instantly invalidate the trial. If the prosecution can prove the seizure, chain of custody and contraband authority through other evidence, procedural irregularities, if any may not automatically result in acquittal as pleased to held in “Bharat Ambala

Vs. State of Chattisgarh, pleased to have delivered on 6th January 2025 59/91Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 45 of 2022

2025 INSC 78.

110.In the instant case non-compliance with Section 52-A is non-fatal procedural irregularity, as the integrity and identity of the seized samples were established by the consistent evidence and intact chain of custody said irregularity was not effecting the integrity of the seized substance.

111.The Hon’ble Apex Court, in case of Narcotic Control Bureau

Vs.Kashif (2024 INSC 1045) pleased to refer ruling in State of Punjab Vs.

Makhan Chand (2004) 3 SCC 453 and pleased to held non-compliance with Section 52-A is a procedural irregularity not an illegality. Such irregularity do not vitiate trial. In the ruling in State of Punjab Vs.

Makhan Chand(2004) 3 SCC 453, Hon’ble Court was kind enough to upheld the conviction despite non-compliance with Section 52-A of NDPS

Act, stating that such provisions are intended for disposal of seized substance and not mandatory for the validity of a trial.

112. In the written arguments submitted on behalf of the accused, it was argued that A1 and A2 were in the Car including the driver as per the testimony of PW1, but no driver was available and who was driver was not established and not collected any driving license. As seen from the testimony of PW1, he deposed when they stopped the Car and while checking the vehicle, two persons were there including driver. So, according to PW1, A1 and A2 were the two persons who were caught hold by them and one of the accused was the driver. As no driving license was 60/91Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 45 of 2022

filed by A1 hence Charge sheet was filed under section 181 of M.V.Act.

113.It was argued that there was no record to show that requisition was sent to MRO, but as observed earlier, as per the provisions of NDPS Act, even at the oral request also, any Gazetter Officer can be secured. As per testimony of PW1, they opened 24 packets,they were mixed and on seizure of the ganja, three samples of 100 grams each were drawn and as per Ex.P2 Panchanama, out of 24 Ganja packets, from one packet, 100 grams each were taken as sample. As observed earlier, as per the substantial evidence, coupled with Ex.P1 report, it goes to show drawing of the samples out of 24 packets by pouring in a cover and as randomly drawn three samples hence the same was sent to FSL and it supported with the testimony of PW6 who deposed, the S.I of police opened 24 packets of ganja and mixed the same and drawn three samples from the contra brand and sealed three samples in a plastic cover and affixed panch slips. The person who secured was Gazetted officer as well as the

VRO Tadvai who were relating to the place of occurrence, who were under obligation to assist the police. Even when confession was inadmissible by virtue of section 24 and 25 of Indian Evidence Act, but as per the testimony of independent witness, the contra brand was seized and samples were sent to FSL for analysis and it was found to be ganja, a

Narcotic Drug and even PW9 admitted that as per Ex.P1 report of PW1, it was mentioned that 24 packets were opened and poured in a cover 61/91Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 45 of 2022

randomly and three samples were drawn in three covers.

114.Even though, he admitted as per Ex.P2 Panchanama dated 28.07.2020, it was mentioned three samples were drawn from only one packet, but the substantial evidence of witness goes to show collecting three samples randomly from out of 24 packets. It was not the case of not producing the case property as observed earlier vide CPR No. 9/23 dry ganja returned from FSL was produced before the court. So, the evidence on record goes to show that both the accused were found in possession of 72 kgs of ganja and they were caught holdwhen they were transporting the ganja in contravention of provisions of NDPS Act.

115.From the suggestion put forth to PW1, it was established of apprehending of both accused while going through Arch of Medaram, it would show one way or other caught holding accused, at alleged place of offence.

116.Hon’ble Apex court is pleased to emphasize the object and purpose of NDPS Act emphaized that it is a special law enacted to combat the menace of drug trafficking interpreted section 52-A and it is non- compliance.

117.Non-Compliance with Section 52A NDPS Act Is a Procedural Irregularity: Hon’ble

Supreme Court Emphasizes Mandatory Conditions Under Section 37 for Grant of Bail

Introduction

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kashif (2024 INSC 1045), addressed a significant issue relating to the interpretation of Section 52A 62/91Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 45 of 2022

of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The Court delved into whether non-compliance or delayed compliance with Section 52A could entitle an accused to bail or vitiate the trial proceedings. This case assumes importance due to its potential impact on future NDPS cases and the stringent conditions stipulated under Section 37 of the Act for granting bail.

Background of the Case

On February 24, 2022, the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) received information about a parcel suspected to contain psychotropic substances at DHL Express, New Delhi. Upon investigation, the parcel was found to contain 13,200 strips of Tramadol tablets, a controlled substance under the NDPS Act. Subsequent inquiries led to the arrest of multiple accused persons, including the respondent, Kashif. Kashif was implicated based on disclosure statements made by co-accused, alleging his involvement in sending parcels containing narcotic drugs to the United States.

The NCB filed a complaint against Kashif and six others for offences under Sections 8, 22(c), 23(c), and 29 of the NDPS Act, which relate to the possession, sale, and export of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. Kashif applied for bail directly before the High Court of Delhi, which granted bail solely on the ground of belated compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act, without considering the mandatory requirements under Section 37 of the Act.

Summary of the Judgment

The Hon’ble Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order granting bail to Kashif, holding that non-compliance or delayed compliance with Section 52A is a procedural irregularity and does not entitle an accused to bail or vitiate the trial. The Court emphasized that the stringent conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act must be satisfied before granting bail in cases involving offences punishable under the Act. The matter was remanded to the High Court for fresh consideration of the bail application on merits, in accordance with the law and the mandatory provisions of Section 37.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Supreme Court extensively discussed previous judgments to clarify the legal position regarding non-compliance with procedural provisions and the conditions for granting bail under the NDPS Act.

•Hira Singh & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr. ( 2020) 20 SCC 272 : The Court 63/91Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 45 of 2022

underscored the need to interpret the NDPS Act in a manner that furthers its object of combating drug trafficking, emphasizing that the provisions are stringent due to the grave societal impact of narcotics offences. •State of M.P. v. Kajad ( 2001) 7 SCC 673 : It was held that bail should be granted sparingly in NDPS cases, adhering to the conditions under Section 37, as the Act aims to deter serious offences related to narcotics. •NCB v. Mohit Aggarwal ( 2022) 18 SCC 374 : Reinforcing the non-liberal approach to bail in NDPS matters, the Court stated that factors like the length of custody or filing of charge-sheet are not persuasive grounds for bail unless the conditions under Section 37 are met. •Pooran Mal v. Director of Inspection (Investigation) ( 1974) 1 SCC 345 : The Court held that evidence obtained through an illegal search is not inadmissible if it is relevant, indicating that procedural irregularities do not necessarily vitiate proceedings. •State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh ( 1999) 6 SCC 172 : The Constitution Bench clarified that violation of procedural safeguards in Section 50 of the NDPS Act affects the admissibility of evidence only if it results in prejudice to the accused. •State of Punjab v. Makhan Chand (2004) 3 SCC 453: The Court upheld the conviction despite non-compliance with Section 52A, stating that such provisions are intended for disposal of seized substances and not mandatory for the validity of a trial.

Legal Reasoning

The Hon’ble Supreme Court analyzed the object and purpose of the NDPS Act, emphasizing that it is a special law enacted to combat the menace of drug trafficking. The Court highlighted the following key points in its reasoning:

1. Interpretation of Section 52A: Section 52A was introduced to expedite the disposal of seized narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, considering factors like hazardous nature and vulnerability to theft. The provision is procedural, aiming to facilitate early disposal to prevent cluttering of evidence rooms and mitigate risks associated with storing such substances.

2. Procedural Irregularities vs. Illegalities: Non-compliance or delayed compliance with Section 52A is a procedural irregularity, not an illegality. Such irregularities do not vitiate the trial or entitle the accused to bail. The Court drew a distinction between irregularities that can be rectified and illegalities that fundamentally affect proceedings.

3. Mandatory Conditions under Section 37: Section 37 stipulates stringent conditions 64/91Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 45 of 2022

for granting bail in NDPS cases, requiring the Court to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit any offence while on bail. The High Court erred by not recording these mandatory findings.

4. Admissibility of Evidence: References to earlier judgments established that evidence obtained, even if there is procedural non-compliance, is admissible if it is relevant and collected without causing prejudice to the accused. The Court emphasized that the primary evidence of seizure, including Panchnama and seizure memos, remains valid.

5. Legislative Intent: The Court noted that accepting procedural lapses as grounds for bail would undermine the legislative intent of the NDPS Act, which aims to deter and punish serious offences related to narcotic drugs.

Impact on Future Cases and Relevant Area of Law

This judgment sets a significant precedent by clarifying that procedural delays or lapses in complying with Section 52A do not automatically confer the right to bail upon the accused in NDPS cases. It reinforces the mandatory nature of Section 37, ensuring that Courts adhere strictly to the conditions prescribed for granting bail. The decision impacts how bail applications are considered in NDPS cases, emphasizing the need for Courts to focus on substantive compliance with the Act's provisions and the gravity of offences, rather than procedural technicalities.

Moreover, it signals to investigative and prosecuting agencies the importance of following due procedures while also reassuring that procedural lapses, unless causing prejudice to the accused, do not necessarily jeopardize the prosecution's case.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Understanding Section 52A of the NDPS Act

Purpose: Section 52A provides a mechanism for the disposal of seized narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances before the conclusion of the trial. This is necessary because storing large quantities of such substances poses risks like theft, deterioration, and hazards to safety.

Procedure: It allows authorized officers to prepare an inventory, take photographs, and draw representative samples of the seized substances in the presence of a Magistrate. These certified documents and samples are then admissible as primary evidence, allowing the bulk substance to be disposed of safely.

65/91Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 45 of 2022

The Significance of Section 37

Stringent Conditions for Bail: Section 37 imposes strict conditions that must be satisfied

before an accused can be granted bail in NDPS cases involving significant quantities of

drugs. The Court must be satisfied that:

•There are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty of the offence. •The accused is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

Mandatory Nature: These conditions are not mere formalities; Courts are required to record specific findings based on material evidence before granting bail.

Procedural Irregularities vs. Illegalities

Procedural Irregularity: A minor deviation from prescribed procedures that does not fundamentally affect the legality of proceedings or cause prejudice to the accused. Such irregularities can be corrected or overlooked.

Illegality: A fundamental violation that affects the core of the legal process, potentially invalidating proceedings and causing significant prejudice to the accused.

Relevance: In this case, delayed compliance with Section 52A was deemed a procedural irregularity that did not prejudice the accused or undermine the validity of the evidence collected.

Conclusion

The Hon’ble Supreme Court's judgment in Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kashif reinforces the stringent framework of the NDPS Act concerning bail provisions and the handling of seized narcotics. The Court clarified that non-compliance or delayed compliance with Section 52A is a procedural matter that does not invalidate the trial or automatically entitle the accused to bail. Importantly, the Court emphasized the mandatory nature of Section 37, requiring Courts to be satisfied that the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to reoffend

before granting bail.

This decision serves as a guiding precedent for lower Courts to meticulously adhere to the statutory requirements of the NDPS Act, ensuring that procedural lapses do not overshadow substantive justice. It balances the rights of the accused with the societal imperative to curb drug trafficking and abuse, aligning with the Act's objective to protect public health and national security.

Key Takeaways •Non-compliance or delayed compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act is a 66/91Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 45 of 2022

procedural irregularity and does not entitle an accused to bail or vitiate the trial. •Courts must strictly adhere to the mandatory conditions under Section 37 when considering bail applications in NDPS cases, requiring recorded satisfaction that the accused is not guilty and unlikely to commit offences while on bail. •Procedural irregularities do not automatically render evidence inadmissible unless they cause prejudice to the accused or violate fundamental rights. •The judgment reinforces the legislative intent of the NDPS Act to combat the serious issue of drug trafficking by ensuring that stringent legal provisions are effectively implemented. •Investigative agencies and prosecutors are reminded of the importance of procedural compliance while being assured that minor lapses will not necessarily compromise their cases.

118. The learned counsel for the accused relied upon the ruling of

Honorable High Court of Himachal Pradesh in Criminal Appeal

No. 50 of 2007 between State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Simranjith

alias Sunny, S/o. Ranbir Singh, 2013 Crl. L.J 2689 and submitted that the case property was not even deposited in malkhana and the packets recovered from respective accused persons boreno identification mark and representative samples were not drawn from the contraband allegedly recovered from the accused, but in the instant case it was not the case of not depositing the case property in the police station and representative samples were drawn and also as per the testimony of the witness, identification panch slips were affixed, PW1 deposed that they affixed panch chits on the samples drawn and also obtained the signatures of the panch witness as well as on the samples and as per the testimony of PW5 but the police opened all the 67/91Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 45 of 2022

packets and again packed. As per the testimony of PW6 the VRO and the remaining total ganja weighed about 72 kgs after drawing three samples the remaining ganja was packed and sealed and even PW7 who registered the crime, he denied panch chits were not affixed to the seizure property and denied he did not know what was in sealed packets which would go to show after drawing samples the same were seized.

So, the said ruling was not applicable to the case on hand as it was not the case of not drawing and representative samples or not affixing case slips.

119. The learned counsel further relied upon the ruling of Honorable

High Court of Uttarakhand in Criminal Jail Appeal No. 25 of 2012

between Pooran Singh vs State of Uttarakhand 2014 Cri.L. J. 650, in which, it was mentioned that from the gist it was pertinent to note that in the absence of malkana register, it could not be said as to whether contraband and samples were deposited in malkana in intact condition and remained intact and untouched till sample was produced before the court and also it was argued that no paper on record to suggest information about arrest of accused and seizure of contraband from him, was ever sent to superior officers, but it was not the case of not depositing the contraband and the samples in the police station as Pw1 handed over the same to the SHO concerned, who in turn on handing over the case record to the Superior Officer, he sent the same to the FSL.

68/91Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 45 of 2022

It was not the case of not drawing representative samples and the contra band, under Ex.P6 letter addressed by Pw8 to the ASP and as per Ex.P7 letter of advise regarding forwarding material objects, it was submitted by Pw8 the investigating officer to the FSL and it was not the case of not having material or information about the arrest of the accused and the seizure of the contraband to the superior officers, he sent the samples of contraband to the FSL, there was no suggestion put forth to the witness on behalf of the defense that the seals found were not intact and in fact the same seals were put on the sample packet, immediately after seizure of the contraband.

120. The learned counsel for the accused further relied upon the ruling of Honorable High Court of Delhi in Criminal Appeal 22 of

1988 Wilson Dayal appellant vs. State Respondent, 1993

Cri.L.J.1188, in which. it was pleased to held that non-examination of shopkeeper at whose shop sample was weighed and no offer made to the accused for being searched before Magistrate or investigating officer, offered himself to be searched by accused and possibility of tampering of sample due to its deposit with lab after two months from its seizure.

121. In case of not having seal of the officer in charge of the police station affixed as provided by Section 55 would result into acquittal. But it is in the instant case, it was not the case of not examining the appraiser,

In fact Pw2 was examined who deposed about weighing of the 69/91Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 45 of 2022

contraband and he deposed about weighing of the sample and even in

Ex.P2 also same was mentioned regarding weighing the sample and it was weighed 72 kg, it was not the case of conducting search by Pw1, himself the services of Pw5 and 6 were secured for conducting the search procedure, under such circumstances, it could not be considered the facts enumerated in the aforementioned rulings were applicable to the case on hand, and also it was not the case of non availability of SHO. The officer in charge of the police station took the charge and kept in safe custody of all articles seized.

122. The learned counsel for the accused further relied upon the ruling of Honourable High Court of Chhattisgarh in Criminal

Appeal No. 550 of 2007 in Ganga Singha Singroule vs. State of

Chhattisgarh,2009 Cri.L.J. 3079, in which, it was pleased to held by the Hon’ble High Court that when prosecution failed to prove that samples sent to FSL were taken from the quantity of ganja said to have been found in possession and when prosecution failed to prove that the appellant was in conscious possession and the samples sent to FSL formed part of quantity of ganja allegedly seized from the appellant, under such circumstances, conviction was unwarranted but in the instant case, it was not the case of not sending the sample in sending samples with delay and the samples drawn were sent to the FSL and also the accused had knowledge that they had ganja and they were transporting 70/91Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 45 of 2022

that's why on seeing the police personnel they tried to escape and on chasing they were caught hold which would show their conscious possession of ganja and they were carrying ganja of 72 kgs and the samples drawn were sent to the FSL which was pertinent from the evidence adduced by the prosecution and also there was no delay in sending the samples as the same were immediately sent, when alleged incident took place on 28.07.2020. As per the letter of advise the samples were sent within 10 days, and there was no inordinate delay as it was sent on 05.08.2020 and even it is reflecting from FSL report under Ex.P8 that the letter dated 06.08.2020 was received and even it was mentioned in Ex.P8 and FSL authorities received three sealed brown color paper covers each sealed with five seals and they were intact tallying with the sample seal and it also contained a panch chit and all those three items were analyzed and found to be Ganja and Narcotic

Drug and the same were analysed and they were received on 07.08.2020, there was no delay in sending the samples in the incident case.

123. The learned counsel for the accused further relied upon the ruling of Honorable High Court of Patna in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 204

of 2001 between Ram Prakash Giri v. State of Bihar, 2013, Cri.L.J.

2724 and submitted that failure on part of I.O. to seal, seized articles properly in accordance with the provisions of the Act,55, though directive 71/91Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 45 of 2022

in nature, noncompliance with the same was fatal to the prosecution case, but as observed earlier, it was not the case of failure on the part of

I.O to seal and seized the articles properly. As the FSL report also indicated, the items were received intact. It was not the case of improper seizure or improper sealing of the contraband.

124. In the incident case, the prosecution was able to establish that the articles seized were properly sealed in accordance with the provisions of

NDPS Act and there was no failure on the part of prosecution in establishing proper sealing of the seized articles. Hence, it cannot be considered that it was fatal to the case of the prosecution.

125. The learned counsel further relied upon the ruling of Honorable

High Court of Calcutta between Honey Haniph Seikh vs. State of

West Bengal, Criminal Appeal No.236/2010 pleased to have delivered on 26.11.2014, reported in 2015 (01) Acquittal 698 (Cal.). From the gist, it was pertinent to note that alleged voluntary statement made under Section 67 of NDPS Act could not or should not be treated as voluntary or confessional statement as accused could not make such statement voluntarily or freely when he was in custody of police and any confession statement made by accused before police is inadmissible, it is wholly insufficient.

126. In the instant case, even in the absence of alleged confession of the accused made before theDeputy Tahsildar andVRO, 72/91Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 45 of 2022

independently having possession of contraband by the A1 and A2 while transporting the same goes to show their conscious possession when said confession was hit by Section 24 and 25 of Indian Evidence Act.

127. But both the accused failed to account for the possession of the contraband as they were caught hold while transporting the contraband which would show their conscious possession and presumption can be drawn regarding having knowledge to have possession of the contraband.

128. The learend counsel for accused further relied upon the ruling of

Honorable High Court of Punjab and Haryana 2014 (3) crimes

(HC) 386 between Harbans Singh @ Kala appellant vs State of

Punjab respondent, in which, there was unexplained delay of 02- months in sending the samples to FSL and no genuine offer was made to join any independent witness. But in the instant case, the samples were sent to the FSL within reasonable time of below 10 days and it was not the case of not examining independent witness. It was not the case of not producing the accused and the case property before the officer in charge of the police station.

129. The learned counsel for the accused further relied upon the ruling of Honourable Apex Court in Criminal Appeal 619/1997 between

Bekodan Abdul Rahiman, Appellant vs. State of Kerala

Respondent and submitted that while conducting search and seizure the safeguards provided in provisions of section 42 and 50 were to be 73/91Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 45 of 2022

complied with being mandatory provisions, in which Honourable Apex

Court is pleased to observe that, when the witness was not shown to have complied with mandate of subsection 2 of section 42 of the NDPS

Act and also when section 50 of NDPS Act have not been complied with as the accused was not given any option as to whether he wanted to be searched in presence of Gazetted Officer or Magistrate, then the compliance of section 50 cannot be to have been fulfilled an officer asking the accused. In the instant case impliedly the accused were searched before Deputy Tasildar being a Gazetted officer, hence,it can be considered in the present case the mandatory provision under 42(2) of the Act was complied with and also read with 50 of the Act was complied with as copy thereof was sent to immediate official superior. So the mandatory provisions which were ensured were complied with.

130. Further the learned counsel for the accused relied upon the ruling of Honorable Apex Court between Sunil kumar appellant vs. State of Delhi, respondent 1994 0 Supreme Delhi,760, in the said ruling also it was pleased to held that provisions of section 50 of the Act were mandatory. In the instant case it was not the case of accused not being told as to why they were detained why they have to be searched and it was not the case of not exercising his valuable right of being searched

before a Gazetted Officer. Hence, under such circumstances, it could not

be considered that prejudice was caused to the accused in alleged 74/91Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 45 of 2022

contradictory evidence regarding recovery. In the instant case, the accused were searched in the presence of the Deputy Tasildar as well as

VROs. Hence, under such circumstances, it cannot be considered that there is violation.

131. The learned counsel for the accused further relied upon the ruling of Honorable Apex Court between Bantapalli Durga Rao appellant vs. State of A.P., respondent, 2004 0 supreme, (AP) 1233. In the said ruling as there was delay in sending the sample for analysis, the

Honorable Court was pleased to observe that keeping ganja with officials

for a period of nine days lead to suspicion, whether same samples had been sent for analysis at all. In the instant case, there was no inordinate delay in sending the sample they were sent within reasonable time as observed earlier. These are all established principles of Honorable

Courts, Honorable Courts are kind enough to lay emphasis on those aspects, but the facts and circumstances are different from one case to another. In the instant case, as observed earlier, the substantial evidence can be taken into consideration which inspired confidence of the court by virtue of complying with the mandatory provisions.

132. The learned counsel for the accused relied upon the ruling of

Honourable Apex Court between Harbans Singh @ Kala

Appellant v. State of Punjab, Respondent in Criminal Appeal 409-SB of 2001 pleased to have decided on 26.09. 2014 three crimes HC 386.

75/91Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 45 of 2022

133. It was argued that unexplained delay of two months in sending samples to forensic laboratory in the absence of genuine offer to join any independent witness and when there was no link to connect the scooter with the appellant and when the investigating officer failed to produce the accused and case property before the officer in charge and directly deposited the case property with Malkana thereby mandatory provisions under section 55 of the Act were violated and also when the report under section 57 was not sent to immediate superior conviction was set aside. In the said ruling there was delay of two months in sending the sample and section 55 and 57 were not complied with but the facts are different from the facts of the case on hand, as there was no delay in the present case to go to the root of the case as the samples were sent within the reasonable time from the date of drawing and also it was not the case of not producing the accused and case property before the officer in charge. The evidence placed by prosecution goes to show producing the accused as well as the case property before the officer in charge and also reporting about the same.

134. The learned counsel further relied upon the ruling of honorable

Apex Court in Bekodan Abdul Rahman, Appellant vs. State of Kerala

Criminal Appeal No. 619/1997 pleased to have delivered 1997 AIR 2002

Supreme Court 18- 110, in the said ruling it was pleased to observe by the Honorable Apex Court that section 42 of the Act as well as section 50 76/91Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 45 of 2022

were not complied with and accused was not given any option as to whether he wanted to be searched in presence of Gazetted Officer or

Magistrate. Hence Honorable Apex Court was kind enough to held that

the compliance of section 50 could not be said to have been fulfilled and the accused was required to be appraised of his right conferred under section 50 giving him option to search being made in the presence of

Gazetted Officer or Magistrate. In the instant case impliedly the services of the Deputy Tahsildar were availed as secured him and it was not the case of conducting search by Pw1 himself. Hence, under such circumstances, it could not be considered there was violation of the mandatory provisions as section 42 and 50 were complied with in the instant case.

135. The learned counsel for the petitioner further relied upon the ruling of Honorable Apex Court in Sunil Kumar vs. State of Delhi 1994 0

Supreme (Delhi) 760 in which Honorable Apex Court is kind enough to deal with similar provisions under section 50 of the Act and pleased to held that it was mandatory and in the said ruling accused was not been told as to why he was detained and his person was to be searched then under such circumstances, accused could not be said to have exercised, his valuable right of being searched before Gazetted Officer or Magistrate but in the instant case, it could not be considered prejudice was caused to the accused as the grounds of arrest were informed to the accused and 77/91Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 45 of 2022

also the accused were arrested searched before the Gazetted Officer.

Hence, the facts and circumstances are different from that of the case on hand.

136. The learned counsel for the petitioner further relied upon the ruling of Honorable Apex Court in Bantapalli Durgara vs. State of A.P 2004 (0)

Supreme A.P 1233, in which Honorable Court is kind enough to held that when there was delay in sending samples for analysis and in view of keeping the ganja with officials for a period of nine days led to suspicion whether the samples had been sent for analysis at all. In the instant case, the evidence placed by the prosecution would go to show under

Ex. P6 the letter addressed by ASP Mulugu dated 05.08.2020 as well as by virtue of Ex.P7 letter of advice regarding forwarding material objects to FSL submitted by PW8, It would go to show the samples were sent to the analyst FSL and also when the contraband was seized and produced

before the station house officer, the same was received by SHO

concerned and in turn it was informed to PW8 the superior officer being

ACP and the samples were sent within reasonable time.

137. In said rulling, Pw.2 was declared hostile and other independent witnesses were not examined and there was total non-explanation for considerable delay on part of investigation in sending samples for analysis but in the instant case, when the contraband was seized on 28.07.2020, as per the record under Ex.P6, the letter of C.I of Police 78/91Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 45 of 2022

Mulugu in charge of Pasra to the ASP Mulugu dated 05-08-2020 requested to forward the seized samples to the chemical examiner, the same were sent for analysis and it was not the case of turning hostile or not supporting the case by the witness. Hence, it cannot be considered there is delay in sending samples for analysis.

138. IV. Mahesh Laxmanbhai Patel vs State of Gujarat reported in 2002 (4) GLR 3127 of Honourable High Court of Gujarat. It was pleased to held: From the documentary evidence of the FSL, it is proved beyond doubt that the muddamal seized from the accused had reached

FSL without any tampering and the same was analyzed to be a narcotic drug.

139. These are all established legal principles of Honourable Courts,

Honourable Courts were kind enough to lay emphasis on the aspects

touching the issue, but the facts and circumstances are different from one case to another. In theinstant case, when both the accused were found in possession of contraband of 72 kgs, they failed to account for possession, it goes to show they have knowledge regarding transporting ganja, having ganja in their car, in which they travelled and even the photographs of the car were also marked, and PW8 also deposed, he received the Car bearing No.TS-08-UB-8417 i.e. Toyota Etios Car and the 07 photographs under Ex P3 pertaining to said car were also marked, and both the accused failed to show they had no knowledge regarding having 79/91Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 45 of 2022

ganja in the car in which they proceeded. It shows their conscious possession, hence, presumption can be drawn against both the accused.

They failed to rebut the presumption.

140. By virtue of section 54 of NDPS Act, in trials under the Act, it may be presumed unless and until contrary is proved that the accused has committed an offence under this Act, in respect of NDPS, for the possession of which the accused failed to account satisfactorily, and even by virtue of section 66 of the Act, presumption as to documents in certain cases shall be drawn.

141. By virtue of section 66 of the Act, it speaks:-Section 66-

Presumption as to documents in certain cases.—Where any document—As per section 66 of the Act

(i) is produced or furnished by any person or has been seized from the custody or control of any person, in either case, under this Act or under any other law, or

(ii) has been received from any place outside India (duly authenticated by such authority or person and in such manner as may be prescribed by the Central Government) in the course of investigation of any offence under this Act alleged to have been committed by a person, and such document is tendered in any prosecution under this Act in evidence against him, or against him and any other person who is tried jointly with him, the court shall— 80/91Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 45 of 2022

(a) presume, unless the contrary is proved, that the signature and every other part of such document which purports to be in the handwriting of any particular person or which the court may reason ably assume to have been signed by, or to be in the handwriting of, any particular person, is in that person’s handwriting; and in the case of a document executed or attested, that it was executed or attested by the person by whom it purports to have been so executed or attested;

(b) admit the document in evidence, notwithstanding that it is not duly stamped, if such document is otherwise admissible in evidence;

(c) examine any person acquainted with the facts and circumcontrary is proved, the truth of the contents of such document.

142. In the instant case, the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the aforementioned charged offenses, and the accused were found in possession of contraband, which is proved to be ganja, Narcotic drug and they failed to account for the same. They were found in conscious possession.

Knowledge can be attributed to both accused as contrary is not proved and both accused failed to rebut presumption, they failed to establish contrary.

143.Section 3 of MV Act speaks of Necessity for driving licence.—

As per said provision (1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle in any

81/91Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 45 of 2022

public place unless he holds an effective driving licence issued to him

authorising him to drive the vehicle; and no person shall so drive a

transport vehicle [other than 3[a motor cab or motor cycle] hired for

his own use or rented under any scheme made under sub-section (2)

of section 75] unless his driving licence specifically entitles him so to

do.

(2) The conditions subject to which sub-section (1) shall not

apply to a person receiving instructions in driving a motor vehicle shall

be such as may be prescribed by the Central Government.

144. Section 4 of MV Act prescribes age limit in connection

with driving of motor vehicles.—(1) No person under the age of

eighteen years shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place:

Provided that 1[a motor cycle with engine capacity not

exceeding 50cc] out gear may be driven in apublic place by a person

after attaining the age of sixteen years.

(2) Subject to the provisions of section 18, no person under the

age of twenty years shall drive a transport vehicle in any public place.

(3) No learner’s licence or driving licence shall be issued to any

82/91Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 45 of 2022

person to drive a vehicle of the class to which he has made an

application unless he is eligible to drive that class of vehicle under this

section.

145. Section 181 of MV Act speaks of Driving vehicles in contravention of section 3 or section 4.—As per the said provision

Whoever, drives a motor vehicle in contravention of section 3 or section 4 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both.

146. In the instant case, A1 failed to show that he had effective driving license and drove the vehicle, contrary to the purpose to which it is meant for, and by virtue of Section 4(2) of MV Act, no person under age of 21 years shall drive a transport vehichle in any public place.

147.So, the evidence placed by the prosecution is quite sufficient in establishing both the accused on given date, time and place were found in possession and transporting of dry ganja of 72 kgs which was commercial quantity and the same was recovered from conscious possession of both the accused in the presence of mediators under the cover of Panchanama and therebyaccused 1 and 2 committed an offence punishable under section 8(C) r/w 20(b)(ii)Cof Narcotic Drugs 83/91Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 45 of 2022

and Psychotrophic Substances Act and It was also established by the prosecution that the first accused on given date, time and place drove the Toyota Etios Car bearing No. TS-08-UB-8417 to purchase and dry ganja and transported the same and driven the said vehicle for transport purpose of contraband in public place in contravention of section 3 and 4 of the MV Act and thereby the first accused committed an offence punishable under section 181 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988.

148.Section 8 (c) of the NDPS Act, it prohibits certain offences and as per the said provision under section 8 (c) no person shall produce, manufacture, possess, sell, purchase, transport, warehouse, use, consume, import, interstate, export interstate, import into India, export from India or transship any Narcotic Drug or Psychotropic Substance and it is made punishable U/secs. 8 (c) r/w 20 (b) (ii) ( C) NDPS Act, 1985, which prescribes punishment for contravention in relation to cannabis and as per said provisions under section 20b, if any person in contravention of the provisions of the act produce, possess or transport etc. of the contraband shall be punishable under section 20 (b) (ii) (c) of the NDPS

Act when it involves commercial quantity with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than 10 years but which may extend to 20 years and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than One lakh rupees but which may extend to Two lakh rupees and even under the provisio it empowers the court by recording the reasons in the 84/91Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 45 of 2022

judgment to impose fine exceeding Two lakh rupees.

149.By virtue of S.O 527 (E) dated 16.07.1996, the central government specified the quantity, in relation to the Narcotic drug as commercial quantity in respect of Ganga, if it is 20 Kgs.

150.In the instant case as contrary was not shown and failed to rebut the presumption by both the accused as they failed to account for the contraband found in their possession, hence, it is not unreasonable to held that the prosecution is able to establish or bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all doubt, for the charged offences referred supra, hence, both the accused can be convicted of the said offences as accused failed to rebut the presumption.

151.At this juncture, it is worth mentioning the ruling of Hon’ble Apex Court in

Rakesh Kumar Raghuvanshi vs The State of Madhya Pradesh in Criminal

Appeal No.1953 of 2014 of Honourable Supreme Court of India. It was pleased to held: Conscious possession refers to a scenario where an individual not only physically possesses a narcotic drug or psychotropic substance but is also aware of its presence and nature. In other words, it requires both physical control and mental awareness. This Court through various of its decisions has repeatedly underscored that possession under the NDPS Act should not only by physical but also conscious. Conscious possession implies that the person knew that he had the illicit drug or psychotropic substance in his control and had the intent or knowledge of its illegal nature.

85/91Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 45 of 2022

152.In view of aforementioned observations and discussion made supra, on cumulative evaluation of entire evidence and record coupled with the exhibits marked, the prosecution is able to establish the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

153. Hence, the both the accused can be convicted for the offences punishable under section 8 (c) r/w 20 (b) (ii) ( C) NDPS Act, and the first accused can be convicted for contravention of provisions of section 3 and 4 read with section 181 of M.V.Act. Accordingly these points are determined.

154.In the result, accused no.1 and 2 are found guilty for the charged offence punishable U/secs. 8 (c) r/w 20 (b) (ii) ( C) NDPS Act, 1985 and A1 and

A2 are convicted under section 235 (2) Cr.P.C and further, the accused no.1 is found guilty for the charged offence punishable under section 3, 4 read with section 181 of M.V. Act and accused no.1 is convicted under section 235 (2) Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the stenographer/voice, after correction pronounced by me in the open

Court on this the 07 th day of April, 2026.

Sd/-

Principal District and Sessions Judge-

cum-Spl. Court to deal with the cases filed under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Mulugu.

86/91Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 45 of 2022

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW1G. Ravinder, S.I of Police, SSNone. Tadvai /defacto complainant

PW2Md. Riaz/ circumstantial witness

PW3D. Rammurthy/Photographer

PW4T. Surender Singh/ panch witness for crime details form

PW5S. Sammaiah/ panch witness for confession and seizure panchanama 87/91Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 45 of 2022

PW6Ch.narsimhaswamy/panch witness for confession and seizure panchanama

PW7E.Rammurthy/1st investigation officer

PW8K. Devender Reddy, Circle Inspector of Police, Mulugu

Pw.9A. Srinivas/Circle inspector of Police, Pasra.

88/91Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 45 of 2022

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1: Is report of Pw.1 dated 28.07.2020

Ex.P2: Is admissible portion of confession cum recovery panchanama, dated 28.07.2020

Ex.P3:Are ten Photographs of the seized ganja and car along with CD

Ex.P4:Is crime details form, dated 29.07.2020 in crime number 128/2020 of PS Tadvai.

89/91Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 45 of 2022

Ex.P5:Is first information report dated28.07.2020

Ex.P6:Letter to ASP Mulugu by Pw.8 dated 5.08.2020

Ex.P7:Letter of advise by Pw.8 dated 05.08.2020

Ex.P8:FSL report dated 13.10.2020 by Pw.9.

90/91Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 45 of 2022

FOR DEFENCE:

Nil.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:

Nil.

Sd/-

Principal District and Sessions Judge-

cum-Spl. Court to deal with the cases filed under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Mulugu.

91/91Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 54 of 2022

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE-CUM-

SPECIAL COURT TO DEAL WITH THE CASES FILED UNDER NARCOTIC DRUGS

AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT, 1985 AT MULUGU.

Present: Smt. S.V.P. Suryachandra Kala,

Principal District and Sessions Judge-cum-Spl. Court

to deal with the cases filed under Narcotic Drugs and

Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Mulugu.

Thursday, the day 30 th of April, 2026

SESSIONS CASE No. 54 OF 2022

Crime Number and Police Station:Cr.No. 128 of 2021 of Police Station: Pasra.

Name and description of the Accused:A-1 Bobba Surya Prakash, S/o. Venkateshwar Rao, Aged 26 years, caste: Kamma, Occ; Agriculture, R/o. Brahmanapally village of Mangapet mandal.

A-2 Abboju Rohith, S/o. Sadananda Chary, Aged 21 years, Caste: Wadla, Occ:Student, R/o. Pasra.

A-3 Md. Ajeej, S/o. Samdan, Aged 21 years, Caste: Muslim, Occ: Student, R/o. Pasra.

Name and description of the :The State of Telangana, represented Complainantby Circle-Inspector of Police, Pasra.

Prosecution conducted by :Sri D. Ram Singh,

Additional Public Prosecutor.

Accused defended by:Sri Ch. Venugopala Chary, Advocate for A1. Sri Jagadesh Yadav, Advocate for A2, A3.

Offences charged:U/secs. 8 (c) r/w 20 (b) NDPS Act, 1985.

1/79Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 54 of 2022

Plea of the Accused:Pleaded not guilty

A1 found guilty. Finding of the Court:

In the result, the first accused is Result: found guilty for the charged offence punishable under section 8 (c) r/w 20 (b) of NDPS Act and accordingly, the accused no.1 is convicted as per the provisions of 235(2) CrPC. The accused No.2 and 3 are found not guilty for the offences under section 8 (c) r/w sec. 20 (b) of NDPS Act and accordingly, they are acquitted as per the provisions of 235(1) CrPC. The bail bonds of A2 and A3 shall stand cancel after expiry appeal period.

The accused no.1 is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years, and also sentenced to pay fine of Rs 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) for the offence punishable under 8 (c) r/w 20 (b) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act). In default of payment of fine amount of Rs.50,000/-, the accused No.1 shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of (06) six months. The remand period already undergone by the accused No.1 for the period from 14.11.2021 to 21.12.2021 shall be given set off under section 428 CRPC. The MO.1 sample packet shall be destroyed subsequent to confirmation regarding disposal of 2/79Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 54 of 2022

appeal if any. The unmarked case property that is Scooty bearing No. TS24 FTR 0405 given towards interm custody to Abboju Laxmi vide order in Crl.MP. 147/2022, dt.18-05-2022 holds good after confirmation regarding disposal of appeal if any, with a direction to the registered owner to keep the property intact and shall not transfer the property in the name of any person and not to alinate the same and to produce the property before the court as and when directed. The copy of the judgment is furnished for the 1st accused at free of cost and the accused no.1 is informed his right to file appeal against this judgment before the

Hon’ble High Court for the state of

Telangana and also the accused No.1 is appraised of his right to obtain free legal aid, if necessary, if he does not have means to file an appeal.

This case coming before me on 27.04.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Addl. Public Prosecutor for the Complainant/State and Sri Ch. Venugopala Chary, Advocate for A1 and Sri B. Jagadesh Yadav, advocate for A1 and A3; upon perusing the material papers on record, having been heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

:: JUDGMENT ::

1.The Circle- Inspector of Police, Pasra filed charge-sheet against the accused no. 1 to 3 in crime No. 128 of 2021 of P.S Pasra U/secs. 8 ( c ) r/w 20 (b) NDPS Act, 1985 .

3/79Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 54 of 2022

2.The averments of case of prosecution in brief were that:

3.On 13.11.2021 at 18.15 hours, the criminal law was set into motion by presenting alleged report by Lw.1 Ch. Karunakar Rao, the then Sub-Inspector of

Police, P.S Pasra, when he said to have came to the police Pasra along with A1 to

A3 and case property, alleging that on the same day, when along with his staff

Lws. 2 to Lw.4 the Police constables, when he said to have been conducting alleged patrolling, he said to have got alleged information regarding alleged transporting of Ganja, on that they said to have reached Gundlavagu at the outskirts of Pasra and said to have found the accused no. 1 to 3 under alleged suspicious circumstances and on alleged seeing the police, the accused no. 1 to 3 said to have tried to escape from the place, then Lw.1 Sub-Inspector of Police along with his staff said to have apprehended A1 to A3 and said to have interrogated, on which they said to have admitted the guilt, hence, Lw.1 said to have served notice under section 50 of NDPS Act, 1985 and said to have informed them their rights either to search before learned Magistrate or Gazetted officer and also said to have obtained their consent by giving notice under acknowledgment, the accused said to have opted to be search before a Gazette officer. Hence, a requisition was said to have sent by Lw.1/S.I of Police, Pasra to the MEO, Govindaraopet/Lw.8 V. Divakar with alleged request to visit alleged scene and be present along with two panch witnesses for conducting panchanama. Accordingly, he said to have present along with Lw.6 and Lw.7 mediators namely K. Someshwarao and K. Rajaram. A1 said to have confessed 4/79Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 54 of 2022

about alleged selling the Ganja to A2 and A3 and also A2 and A3 said to have confessed the guilt and the same was said to have confessed and was said to have reduced into writing and in alleged presence of Lw.5, T. Narsimha Chary, the said contraband was said to have weighed with alleged weighing machine of Lw.5 and entire dry Ganja was said to have weighed, which was said to have found in alleged possession of the first accused in a blue plastic cover, containing dry ganja weighing 2.25kgs and the same was said to have seized along with the vehicle bearing no. TS 24 FTR 0405 said to have belonged to the first accused, and the same was said to have seized in alleged presence of mediators Lw.6 and Lw.7, Lw.8

MEO under cover alleged seizure panchanama, and also same was got photographed that is entire seized contraband with the help of Lw.9 photographer/ P. Devender.

4.Later, A1 to A3 were brought to police station Pasra at 18.15 hours along with seized case property and Lw.1/S.I of Police Pasra, said to have lodged a report to Head Constable, who registered a case in Cr.No. 128/2021 U/secs. 8 ( c ) r/w 20

(b) NDPS Act, 1985 and he said to have issued original FIR to the Court and copies to the concerned, by alleged intimating the same to his higher officials Lw.14/ the

C.I of Police, who said to have collected the C.D from Lw.13 and said to have taken upfurther investigation.

5. Lw.14 said to have examined Lws. 2 to 5 Ch. Karunakar Rao, C.I of Police, and PCS 1218, 1251, 1415, i.e N. Rajkumar, Nageshwar Rao, N. Rajender i.e. Lws. 2 to Lw.4 and also Thirupathi Narsimha Chary Lw.5, and Lw.9 P. Devendar rao, and 5/79Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 54 of 2022

said to have recorded their statements and said to have affected the arrest of A1 to A3, and said to have visited alleged scene of offence on the next day, due to late hours, and in alleged presence of Lw.10 and Lw.11 i.e. M. Bhanuprakash and

Thirupathi Uday, he said to have observed alleged scene of offence and prepared crime details form. Later, A1 to A3 were remanded to judicial custody before the learned Magistrate, Mulugu on 14.11.2021 and also he said to have informed about registering the crime to ASP Mulugu.

6.In exercise of power under section 52 (A) (1) of NDPS Act, 1985 and also by virtue of notification said to have issued by the Central Government in S.O.No.38 (E), dated 16.01.2015 as it was mandatory all Narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances and conveyances shall be disposed off under

Section 52-A of the Act, of the NDPS Act, 1985 and subsequently Lw.14 filed an application for inventory under Section 52-A of NDPS Act, 1985 before the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge cum Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mulugu to allow the application of inventory of seized dry ganja. Accordingly, by virtue of said application was allowed on 16.11.2021, and the court said to have certified the correctness of investing and also said to havetaken two representative samples each 100 grams for chemical examination and sent to the concerned police. The seized case property i.e. collected two sample of dry ganja wg. 100 grams said to have received by the learned Magistrate Court, Mulugu and said to have sent to FSL Hyderabad with a letter of advise for chemical examination and the same was said to have forwarded to FSL Hyderabad through ASP Mulugu and 6/79Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 54 of 2022

Lw.12 Assistant Director of TSFSL said to have analyzed the samples of alleged seized dry ganja i.e. Item No. 1 and 2 said to have opined that the items no. 1 and 2 were analysed and they were found to be “Ganja” a Narcotic Drug vide File No.

NAR/970/2021, dated 18.01.2022. On completion investigation, charge sheet was filed against A1 to A3, U/secs. 8 ( c ) r/w 20 (b) NDPS Act, 1985 by showing the

Fourth accused Suren, Resident of Odisha State as absconding. Hence, the charge sheet.

7. The case was taken on file by taking cognizance against the accused no. 1 to 3 by the Special Court of NDPS Act for the offences punishable U/secs. 8 ( c ) r/w 20 (b) NDPS Act, 1985 and numbered as SC.No. 54/2022.

8. On appearance of accused No.1 to 3, all the copies of documents were furnished to them as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

9. On hearing the accused No.1 to 3, learned counsel for the accused and learned APP under Section 226 CrPC and on considering the material on record and as per Section 228 Cr.P.C, the charges for the offences punishable U/secs. 8 ( c ) r/w 20 (b) NDPS Act, 1985 against Accused were framed and the same were read over and explained to them in their vernacular language, for which they denied the charges and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

10. In support of the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined 08- witnesses and got marked Exs.P1 to P10 and Mo.1. Pw.1 is the defacto complainant and the the S.I of Police, P.S. Pasra, who said to have presented 7/79Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 54 of 2022

report under Ex.P1, Pw.2 is said to be owner of alleged jewallery shop who said to have weighed alleged seized contraband, Pw.3 is said to be the panch witness for alleged confession and seizure panchanama of accused no. 1 to 3, Pw.4 is the MEO in whose presence prosecution said to have conducted alleged confession and seizure panchanama of proceedings of A1 to A3, Pw.5 is the photographer who said to have taken the photographs of alleged seized contraband, Pw.6 is the panch witness for crime details form, Pw.7 is Head constable who said to have registered the crime basing on Ex.P1 report of Pw.1, and who said to have issued

FIR, Pw.8 is the investigating officer, who said to have filed charge sheet.

11. Ex.P1 is the report of Pw.1 in Cr.No. 128 of 2021 of P.S. Pasra, Ex.P2 is the requisition said to have given by Pw.1 to the MEO dated 13.11.2021, Ex.P3 is the seizure panchanama, Ex.P4 are two photographs without CD of alleged scene,

Ex.P5 is the receipt, said to have issued by alleged owner of the photo studio ,

Ex.P6 is the crime details form, dated 14.11.2021 in Cr.No. 128/2021 of P.S. Pasra,

Ex.P7 is the FIR in Cr.No. 128/2021 under Sections 8 ( c ) r/w 20 (b) NDPS Act,

Ex.P 8 is the requisition said to have filed by Pw.8/C.I of Police, Pasra, before the leaned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mulugu dated 14.11.2021, Ex.P9 is the certificate said to have issued by learned judicial Magistrate of First Class Mulugu,

dated 16.11.2021, Ex.P10 is the FSL report dated 18.01.2022, Mo.1 is the sample

packet received from FSL Hyderabad.

12. The prosecution given up the evidence of Lws.2 to Lw.4 i.e. M. Raj kumar,

PC 1218, M.Nageshwar Rao, PC 1251, M. Rajender PC 1415, and Lw.7 K. Rajaram, 8/79Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 54 of 2022

Lw.11 T. Uday, panch witness for CDF, and Lw.12 V.R. Gunasheela and investigation officer and prosecution evidence reported closed.

13. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused No. 1 to 3 were examined U/sec. 313 Cr.P.C on the incriminating evidence available against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and they denied the same and reported no evidence on their behalf. Heard Arguments of prosecution and

on behalf of Accused No.2 & 3, written arguments were submitted on behalf

of the 1 st accused.

14.The point that arises for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused No. 1 to 3 for the charged offences punishable U/secs. 8 ( c ) r/w 20 (b) NDPS Act, 1985 beyond all reasonable doubt ?”

POINT:

15.Perused the record. To establish the charges U/secs. 8 ( c ) r/w 20 (b)

NDPS Act, 1985 against Accused No. 1 to 3, the prosecution has to establish that the accused on 13.11.2021 at about 16.00 hours at Gundla Vagu at the outskirts of Pasra village were found in illegal possession of dry ganja weighing about kg 2.25 grams which was purchased from Accused No.4 for sale to earn more money easily by purchasing and selling the dry ganja at higher rate and police recovered the same from the possession accused Nos. 1 to 3 and also A4 in the presence of 9/79Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 54 of 2022

panchas under cover of panchanama and that Accused Nos. 1 to 3 and another thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b) of the

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 beyond all reasonable doubt.

16. To establish the charges U/secs. 8 ( c ) r/w 20 (b) NDPS Act, 1985 against

Accused, the prosecution altogether got examined 08-witnesses out of 14- listed witnesses and got marked Exs.P1 to P10 and Mo.1 referred supra. No evidence either oral or documentary was adduced on behalf of the accused.

17.The learned Special Public prosecutor submitted that the prosecution by virtue of the testimonies of PWs 1 to 8 coupled with Ex. P1 to P10 and Mo.1, the prosecution established the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the charged offences punishable under sections U/secs. 8 ( c ) r/w 20 (b) NDPS

Act and sought to punish the accused as per law.

18.Whereas, the learned counsel for the accused submitted that the evidence on record was not trustworthy, no reliance could be placed upon Pws. 1 to Pw.8 to base conviction and no evidence regarding finding alleged contraband from particular accused at particular place and contraband was said to have found on vehicle. Hence, A1 could not be convicted for alleged ganja, the learned counsel

for the accused no. 2 and 3 argued that no contraband was seized from alleged

possession of the A2 and A3 and no vehicle was seized and sought for acquittal accused No. 1 to 3.

10/79Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 54 of 2022

19. In order to establish the case against A1 to A3, now the evidence available on the record, Pws. 1 to Pw.8 coupled with Ex.P1 to P10 and Mo.1 referred supra.

20.Pw.1 is the Defacto complainant/S.I of Police, P.S. Pasra and who set the criminal law into motion by presenting Ex.P1 report. According to testimony of

Pw.1 that on 13.11.2021 while he along with his alleged staff i.e., LWs.2 to 4/

Police constables were conducting alleged patrolling duty, he said to have received credible information regarding ganja transportation. Immediately, he along with his staff i.e., LWs 2 to 4 Police constables said to have rushed to

Gundlavagu at the outskirts of Pasra and they said to have found A1 to A3 in alleged suspicious circumstances and on alleged seeing them, the accused said to have tried to escape from the spot and on that, he along with his staff said to have chased the accused and apprehended A1 to A3 and on interrogation, A1 to

A3 said to have admitted their guilt. Then, he said to have served notice U/Sec.

50 of N.D.P.S. Act and said to have informed his rights either to search before the learned Magistrate or Gazetted Officer and said to have obtained their consent by giving notice under acknowledgment. A1 to A3 said to have opted to be searched

before the Gazetted Officer.

21. Pw.1 further deposed that he said to have sent a requisition to

LW8/Mandal Education Officer (M.E.O.), Govindaraopet with alleged request to visit alleged scene of offence along with two panchas for alleged conducting panchanama. Accordingly, LW8/M.E.O. along with two panchas i.e.,

LWs6/Someshwar Rao, LW7/Rajaram come to alleged scene of offence and they 11/79Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 54 of 2022

said to have interrogated the accused Nos. 1 to 3 in alleged presence of LWs 6 and 7 and the accused said to have confessed alleged offence and they said to have conducted alleged confessional cum seizure panchanama of A1 to A3 and said to have seized 2.25 Kgs. of dry ganja and two wheeler bearing No. TS-24-

FTRO-405 said to have pertained to A1 at his alleged instance of A1 to A3 and from alleged possession of A1 under cover of alleged Confessional cum seizure panchanama.

22. Pw.1 further deposed in his evidence that the copies of said panchanama were said to have served to A1 to A3. The said dry ganja was said to have weighed by LW5/Narsimha Chary. He also said to have intimated LW9/Devender

Rao/Photographer for taking photos and accordingly, he said to have come and he said to have got photographed the alleged entire seized property along with A1 to A3. Then, he said to have apprehended A1 to A3 and he said to have brought the accused to P.S. Pasra along with alleged seized case property and said to have lodged report before S.H.O. Pasra and said to have handed over the case property for taking necessary action. He further deposed that Police examined him and recorded his statement. Ex.P1 the report said to have given by PW1, dated 13.11.2021. Ex.P2 alleged requisition said to have given by PW1 to Mandal

Education Officer dated 13.11.2021. Ex.P3 the admissible portion of Confessional cum Recovery panchanama dated 13.11.2021 were marked.

23.During Cross-Examination of PW1 on behalf of the Accused No. 1:- Pw.1 deposed that they conducted patrolling duty from 1500 hours at Pasra village 12/79Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 54 of 2022

and he did not mention in Ex.P1 report specifically the place of conducting patrolling duty. Pw.1 deposed that he did not mention specifically the purpose of patrolling duty. Pw.1 deposed that it was a routine patrolling duty in Pasra village. Pw.1 admitted that he gave Ex.P1 report after conducting Ex.P3 panchanama.

24.Pw.1 denied that he did not mention the vehicle number in Ex.P1. Said two wheeler vehicle was a registered vehicle. Pw.1 deposed that it was a temporary registration. Pw.1 deposed that he did not verify as to who was the original owner of the said vehicle. Pw.1 admitted that he did not mention in Ex.P1 report as to whether A1 to A3 tried to fled away from the scene of offence either on vehicle or on foot. Pw.1 denied that before calling M.E.O/LW8, he conducted the search of A1. Pw.1 deposed that he did not mention specifically whether the said black cover was carried by the A1 or kept on the road. Pw.1 denied that

Mandal Education Officer was not a gazetted officer. Pw.1 deposed he did not mention the name of M.E.O. in Ex.P1 report. Pw.1 deposed that he instructed the said M.E.O to bring the panchas along with him. Pw.1 deposed that it was not mentioned specifically that the said black colour cover was opened before

LW8/M.E.O. and that he verified the same and found it as ganja. Pw.1 deposed that it was not mentioned specifically whether he recovered alleged ganja from the possession of A1 or from the two wheeler after arrival of LW8/M.E.O. He deposed the said black cover contained ganja was found on the vehicle. After seeing them, A1 to A3 tried to fled away from scene of offence by keeping the 13/79Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 54 of 2022

said black cover on the vehicle. He further deposed there was only one black cover and inside that there was another cover containing ganja. Pw.1 deposed that he apprehended A1 to A3 at a short distance from the said vehicle. Pw.1 deposed that he did not mention in Ex.P1 report as to whether he brought A1 to

A3 from the place of apprehension to the two wheeler vehicle place. There was no mention as to who scribed Ex.P3. Pw.1 denied the that there were 3 panchas on Ex.P3. PW1 deposed that one was M.E.O. signature. Pw.1 deposed that there was no seal beneath the signature of M.E.O. in Ex.P3.

25.Pw.1 denied that he could not say whether the signature belonged to

M.E.O/LW8 and the name of M.E.O./LW8 was not mentioned in Ex.P1. Pw.1 deposed that he did not remember whether the date of Ex.P3 was a working day or public holiday. The place of working of LW6 was not mentioned in Ex.P3, but the place of working of LW7 was mentioned. PW1 deposed there was no village by name “Thapamancha” in Govindaraopet mandal. PW1 deposed that it was a typographical mistake.

26.Pw.1 admitted that Ex.P3 was a handwritten panchanama and there was no chance of typographical mistake. PW1 deposed due to their oversight, it was written by mistake as “Thapamancha” instead of “Tappamancha”. Pw.1 deposed that he had no idea whether LWs6 and 7 were on duty on the date of Ex.P3.

Pw.1 deposed that he did not mention in Ex.P1 report that he got weighed alleged ganja with the help of LW5/Narsimha chary.

14/79Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 54 of 2022

27.Pw.1 denied that LW5 had shop at Ghanpur, Warangal but not at Pasra village. PW1 deposed there was no specific authorization that the said ganja should be weighed by LW5. He deposed the said two wheeler was a scooty, but, he did not remember the make of the said two wheeler. PW1 deposed in Ex.P3 panchanama the said vehicle name was mentioned as Honda company. Pw.1 deposed that he did not verify the name and other particulars of A1 to A3 with their I.D proofs. Pw.1 deposed that he had not enclosed notice copy of Sec.50 of

NDPS along with report. Pw.1 deposed that he did not mention in Ex.P1 report that from whose possession, the said M.E.O/LW8 seized the alleged ganja.

28.Pw.1 denied that he gave a false report against A1 to A3 and foisted false case against them and A1 to A3 never confessed any offence, no panchanama was conducted and nothing was seized from their possession in the presence of panchas and that he deposed false.

29.Cross-Examination of PW1 on behalf of Accused No.1 was adopted by A2,

A3.

30.Pw.2 is said to be the Goldsmith, who said to have weighed alleged seized contraband. He categorically deposed that on 13.11.2021 at about 04.00 P.M., one constable of P.S.Pasra said to have come to their shop and said to have requested him to come along with him along with his weighing machine to near Gundlavagu of Pasra village. Accordingly, he said to have gone there along with his weighing machine and he said to have found police people and accused were present there 15/79Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 54 of 2022

and accused were in possession of one packet containing ganja. On the instructions of the police, he said to have weighed the said ganja packet and it was Kgs. 02.025 grams of dry ganja.

31.During the course of Cross-Examination of Pw.2 on behalf of the Accused

No.1, Pw.2 deposed that the Inspector of Police, Pasra examined him and recorded his statement at the place where he weighed the ganja. He deposed that he did not state before the police about his shop name.

32.Pw.2 denied that he did not state before the police that he was running a shop in Pasra village. He deposed he did not give any receipt to the police to show that he weighed the alleged packet and that it was weighed about

Kgs.02.025 grams. He was not having any certificate from the government institution that he was authorised to weigh any material. He deposed he did not state before the police that he weighed the said material whether with electronic weighing machine or manual machine. Pw.2 denied that he did not weighed any material as alleged and that he deposed false at the instance of police.

33. Cross-Examination of Pw.2 on behalf the Accused No.1 was adopted for

Accused Nos.2 and 3.

34.Pw.3 is said to be the mediator for alleged confession cum recovery panchanama, He categorically deposed that on 13.11.2021 at about 04.00PM

Lw.8/Diwakar said to have made a phone call to him and said to have informed that himself and Lw.7/Rajaram were necessary to act as panch witnesses as police 16/79Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 54 of 2022

said to have seized ganja at Gundlavagu of Pasra village and said to have requested them to come there. Accordingly, Lw.7/Rajaram and himself and

Lw.8/Diwakar said to have gone to Gundlavagu Area, Pasra village and there, they said to have found A1 to A3 and police people also said to have present there. On alleged instructions of Sub-Inspector of Police, Pasra they said to have enquired

A1 to A3 separately and on that, A1 to A3 voluntarily confessed the offence individually and A1 confessed that he sold the ganja to A2 and A3 and A2, A3 confessed that the accused said to have purchased the said ganja from A1 and showed one bag and A2, A3 on their request, opened the said bag and it contained dry ganja and the police said to have called Pw.2 for the purpose of weighing the said ganja and Pw.2 came and weighed the said dry ganja with the help of weighing machine and the said dry ganja was 2.25kgs in weight and police said to have recovered the same under cover of confession cum recovery panchanama and the same was photographed by Lw.9/Devender Rao.

35. Pw.3 further deposed that the police said to have prepared alleged confession cum seizure panchanama of A1 to A3 and after alleged read over the contents, they said to have obtained their alleged signatures on the said panchanama. A1 to A3 also said to have put their signatures on the said confession cum seizure panchanama. Police said to have sealed the said contraband and said to have obtained their signatures on the contraband also.

Ex.P3 the admissible portion of the said confession cum seizure panchanama

dated 13.11.2021 was marked. PW3 deposed the police also said to have seized

17/79Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 54 of 2022

one Scooty from the alleged possession of A2 under cover of Ex.P3 panchanama.

36.During the course of Cross-Examination of Pw.3 on behalf of the Accused

No.1, Pw.3 deposed that on 13.11.2021 was a working day their school timings were from 09.35 AM to 04 .45 PM.

37.Pw.3 denied that they could not leave the school before 04.45 PM. PW3 deposed that on the instructions of PW4 as being a M.E.O he went to Gundlavagu of Pasra Village i.e.. place of Ex.P3. By the time, they went to the place of Ex P3, one scooty, ganja packet, A1 to A3 and Sub-Inspector of Police were there. He deposed he had no idea about the registration number of the said scooty, but it was Honda company. He did not know personally about the owner of the said scooty. He knew the contents of Ex. P3 and it was drafted by police, but he did not know his name. In the first instance, he enquired the A1 to A3. A1 to A3 have not shown any I.D proof. Pw.3 deposed that he did not compare the identity particulars given by A1 to A3 with any ID proof. He did not know who gave instructions to the police for drafting Ex.P3 panchanama.

38.Pw.3 denied that it was not mentioned in Ex.P3 panchanama that the said ganja was in a packet and it was not mentioned in Ex.P3 panchanama from whose possession, alleged ganja was seized. Pw.3 deposed that ganja was seized from the possession of A1 and it was clearly mentioned in Ex.P3, Pw.3 deposed that it was not mentioned specifically whether the alleged ganja was in the hands of A1 or in his pant or at any place of his body. He was not having habit of consuming 18/79Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 54 of 2022

ganja.

39.Pw.3 denied that he could not identify the said ganja and he had not smell the alleged ganja and not taken in his hands. He deposed he was not in possession of any weighing machine to weigh the said ganja. Pw.3 deposed that one person of gold shop weighed the said ganja and it was not specifically mentioned in Ex.P3 panchanama about the quantity of the alleged ganja from the possession of A1 in the last two lines of 1st page and also in the first two lines of 2nd page of Ex.P3 panchanama.

40.Pw.3 denied that there was no mention in Ex.P3 panchanama that alleged weighed ganja was recovered from whose possession. He deposed he put 3 signatures on Ex.P3 apart from signature on the contra band. PW3 deposed Ex.P3 contained his signature at serial No.1, but his name was not written beneath his signature. Pw.3 denied that there was no proof to show that the signature at serial No.1 on Ex.P3 belonged to him. He deposed of not giving his I.D proof to the police and that leaving the school before school timings was an offence. Pw.3 denied that being a teacher, it was not his duty to act as panch witness. They remained at the place of Ex.P3 till 04.50 PM and deposed subsequently, he did not know what was happened. Pw.3 denied that he deposed falsehood at the instance of police and no panchanama was conducted and A1 never confessed offence and nothing was recovered from his possession under Ex.P3 panchanama and that he deposed falsehood at the instance of police.

19/79Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 54 of 2022

41. During the course of Cross-Examination of Pw.3 on behalf of the Accused

Nos. 2 and 3, Pw.3 denied that A2, A3 never confessed any offence and Ex. P3 panchanama was not conducted and nothing was recovered from the possession of A2, A3 and they were no way concerned with the present case and that he deposed false at the instance of police. PW3 deposed there were no written instructions from PW4 to him to act as panch witness to Ex.P3.

42.Pw.3 denied that there was no mention in Ex. P3 that alleged ganja was also seized from the possession of A2, A3 and on the date of Ex.P3, he was in their school and Ex.P3 was not conducted in his presence and that he was intentionally deposed false at the instance of police. Re-examination, reported

Nil.

43.Pw.4 is said to be MEO, in whose presence alleged recovery of contraband took place. He categorically deposed that on 13.11.2021 at about 04.00PM, the

Sub-Inspector of Police, Pasra said to have made a phone call to him and said to have requested him to bring two staff members along with him alleging that they wanted panch witnesses as they wanted to recover some ganja at

Gundlavagu of Pasra village from the persons whom they caught hold.

Accordingly, he said to have made a phone call to Pw.3 and Lw.7/Rajaram and said to have informed that they were necessary to act as panch witnesses as police said to have intend to seize ganja at Gundlavagu of Pasra village and requested them to come there. Accordingly Lw.7/Rajaram, Pw.3 and himself went to

Gundlavagu area, Pasra village and there, they said to have found A1 to A3 and 20/79Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 54 of 2022

police people were also present there.

44. Pw.4 further deposed that on alleged instructions of Sub-Inspector of

Police, Pasra they said to have enquired A1 to A3 separately and on that, A1 to A3 said to have voluntarily confessed alleged offence individually and A1 said to have confessed that A1 said to have sold the ganja to A2 and A3 and A2, A3 said to have confessed that the acused said to have purchased the said ganja from A1 and police said to have found one black colour packet said to have contained dry ganja in brown colour packet in a closed packet in alleged possession of A1, A2, A3 were also there along with A1. The said bag was said to have opened on their alleged request and it said to have contained dry ganja and the police said to have called Pw.2 for the purpose of weighing the said ganja and Pw.2 said to have come and weighed the said dry ganja with alleged help of weighing machine and the said dry ganja was 2.25kgs in weight and police said to have recovered the same under cover of confession cum recovery panchanama and the same was said to have photographed by Lw.9/Devender Rao.

45.Pw.4 further deposed that the police said to have prepared alleged confession cum seizure panchaama of A1 to A3 and they said to have obtained their alleged signatures on the said panchanama. He said to have read over the contents of Ex.P3 panchanama to all the persons. A1 to A3 also said to have put their signatures on said confession cum seizure panchanama. Police said to have sealed the said contraband and said to have obtained their signatures on the contraband also. He deposed Ex.P3 shown to him is the admissible portion of the 21/79Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 54 of 2022

said confession cum seizure panchanama dated 13.11.2021 and it contained his signatures. The police also said to have seized one scooty from the possession of

A2 under cover of Ex.P3 panchanama.

46. During Cross-Examination of PW4 on behalf of the Accused No.1, Pw.4 deposed that he was working as Mandal Education Officer at the time of Ex.P3.

There were guide lines for government teachers. As Mandal Education Officer, it was his duty to look after the activities of their teachers. His school timings were 09.30A.M. to 04.45 P.M. They reached the place of seizure at about 04.45 P.M.

Pw.4 denied that he had no right to insist the teachers beyond the working hours.

Pw.4 deposed that it depended on the situation. Pw.4 admitted that it was not part of his duty to act as panch witness and he being a gazetted officer and as the police requested that they required the panch witnesses of gazetted rank and as such, they acted as panch witnesses.

47.Pw.4 denied that being gazetted officer, he need not go any where and the persons having the requirement of gazetted officer, they had to come before him and he being Mandal Education Officer, he misleaded the PW3 and

LW7/Rajaram and acted as panch witnesses. He deposed he signed on Ex.P3 as panch witnesses. He deposed the green colour signature on Ex.P3 belonged to him. Pw.4 admitted that there was no seal beneath his signature on Ex P3. Pw.4 admitted that the signature on Ex.P3 did not belonged to him. He deposed he could identify the A1 if shown to him. He deposed he had not given instructions to PW3 and LW7/Rajaram in writing to act as panch witnesses to Ex.P3 22/79Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 54 of 2022

panchanama and not received any written requisition from Sub-Inspector of police, Pasra with a request to act as panch witnesses to Ex.P3. He deposed he signed on Ex.P3 as panch witness. He deposed he knew the meaning of panch witness.

48.Pw.4 denied that as per record, he was not the panch witness to Ex.P3. He deposed he did not not know that he should not sign with green ink as a panch witness on Ex.P3. Pw.4 deposed that he being a gazetted officer, he signed on

Ex.P3 with green ink. He deposed they stayed at the place of Ex.P3 panchanama from 04.20 P.M to 05.00 P.M. At about 15 to 20 minutes time was taken for drafting Ex.P3 panchanama. He deposed he did not know what was done subsequent to conducting of Ex.P3 panchanama. He deposed seen the alleged ganja and identified the same. He identified the alleged ganja by smell.

49.Pw.4 denied that smelling ganja was an offence and the alleged ganja was not weighed in their presence. He deposed he did not know as to what was done by the police with regard to seized ganja. He deposed he also signed on the contra band seized under Ex.P3 panchanama. He deposed A1 to A3 confessed the offence before him also. He deposed in the first instance PW3 enquired A1 to A3 about the facts of the case and he also enquired A1 to A3 about the facts of the case. Sub-Inspector of police of P.S. Pasra was also present at a distance of 1 or 2 meters from him.

50.Pw.4 denied the suggestion that A1 did not confess any offence before him 23/79Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 54 of 2022

and PW3 and no panchanama was conducted and nothing was seized under cover of Ex.P3 panchanama. The date of Ex.P3 panchanama i.e., 13.11.2021 is a holiday and on holidays, he has not supposed to give any instructions to his teachers. He can not say how many schools he inspected from 01.11.2021 to 12.11.2021. On 13.11.2021 from 06.00 A.M to 04.20 P.M, he attended some works at his house and at that time, he did not go any where. Himself, PW3 and LW7/Rajaram went to Gundlavagu on two motor bikes and it took about 10 minutes time to reach

Gundlavagu from his house. He had not taken any instructions from their D.E.O.

He had not applied for any permission in writing before D.E.O on the date of

Ex.P3. Pw.4 denied that he could not instruct their teachers to do any work without taking instructions from their D.E.O. He deposed he had right to instruct their teachers to do any office work and other works during holidays also when it was necessary he was not authorized to give any instructions to their teachers.

51.During the course of Cross-Examination of Pw.4 on behalf of the Accused

Nos.2 and 3, Pw.4 deposed that he did not give written instructions to PW3 and

LW7/Rajaram to act as panch witnesses for Ex.P3 panchanama. Pw.4 denied that

Ex.P3 panchanama was not conducted in their presence as alleged and as such, he did not give any written instructions to PW3 and LW7/Rajaram and he deposed false at the instance of police. Pw.4 denied that A2 and A3 never confessed any offence and no panchanama was conducted and nothing was seized from the possession under Ex.P3 panchanama and he deposed false at the instance of police.

24/79Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 54 of 2022

52.Pw.5 is said to be photographer who said to have taken the photographs of alleged seized material or articles such as Ganja and alleged two wheeler. He categorically deposed that on 13.11.2021, when he was in his photo studio, police

Pasra called him over phone and said to have requested him to come along with his camera to the Pasra, Gundlavagu for taking photographs. Accordingly, he went to

Gundlavagu and Sub-Inspector of Police, Staff and M.R.O were also present there and

Sub-Inspector of Police said to have instructed him to take photographs of the ganja and two wheeler vehicle which were seized by the police and accordingly, he said to have taken the photographs of the said ganja packets and the vehicle which were seized by the police and Ex.P4 were the two photographs without C.D. taken by him at the place of panchanama. Pw.5 further deposed that Police examined him and recorded his statement and deposed Police paid the charges for Ex.P4 photographs taken by him.

Ex.P5 is the receipt said to have issued by him was marked.

53.During Cross-Examination on behalf of the Accused No.1; PW5 deposed he had no certificate in photography. Pw.5 denied that he was not a member of photographers union in the year 2021. He deposed at present, he was taking photographs in digital mode. Pw.5 admitted that in digital photography, they could change the light and image. He deposed there was also possibility he would develop morphing photographs in digital mode. photographs of the photos were sent to him by whats app. He deposed his photo studio was at a distance of 4 kilo meters from P.S. Pasra and there were other photo studios near police station,

Pasra.

54.Pw.5 admitted that the police Pasra would send the whats app photos as 25/79Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 54 of 2022

and when necessary and he used to develop the same. He deposed he would charge Rs.100/- for one photo in out door. PW5 further deposed on the date of alleged incident, he had taken only two photographs i.e.. Ex.P4. He admitted the

S.I of police gave Rs.500/- under Ex.P5. PW5 deposed he developed the other photos sent by S.l of police and as such, he paid Rs.500/-.

55.Pw.5 denied that he had not taken Ex.P4 photographs at the place of panchanama and he simply developed the photos sent by police, Pasra and for that reason only, he had Ex. P5 receipt for Rs.500/ and that he deposed falsehood at the instance of police.

56.During Cross-Examination on behalf of the Accused No.2 and 3: Pw.5 deposed that he had been running the said photo studio since 2008. He deposed he did not state before the police that he was running the said Laxmi Photo studio since 2008. He deposed there was no license for running his photo studio.

PW5 further deposed Police did not give any requisition for taking Ex.P4 photographs. Pw.5 denied that he did not know for what purpose. Ex.P4 photographs were taken and Ex.P5 receipt not contained his signature. He deposed Ex.P4 photographs did not contain the date to show that they were taken at the time of conducting panchanama. Pw.5 denied that he did not take Ex.P4 photographs and he deposed false at the instance of police.

57. Pw.6 is the alleged panch witness for crime details form. He categorically deposed that on 14.11.2021 at about 09.00 A.M, when he was in the shop of 26/79Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 54 of 2022

LW11/Uday situated in Pasra centre, the police Pasra came there and requested them to act as Panchas stating that they caught hold the ganja while transporting near Gundlavagu. Accordingly, LW11/Uday and himself went to Gundlavagu and there, police people present there and the police said to have observed alleged scene of offence and drawn rough sketch of scene of offence and prepared Crime detail form and read over the contents of Crime detail form and later, LW11/Uday and himself attested the same. Ex.P6 the Crime detail form dated 14.11.2021 and it said to have contained his signatures as the first witness was marked.

58.During Cross-Examination of PW6 on behalf of the Accused No.1: Pw.6 deposed that he knew the contents of Ex.P6. The deposed the date of Ex.P6 as 14.11.2021. He deposed by the time, they went to scene of offence the accused persons, contraband (ganja) and scooty were not there. He deposed he could not say as to how many columns were there in Ex.P6/C.D.F and its particulars specifically. He deposed he was doing private road works on contract basis along with his father. Pw.6 denied that Ex.P6/C.D.F was not conducted in his presence and he simply signed on it at the request of police. He deposed he was called by one police constable, but not S.I of police. Cross-Examination of PW6 by Accused

No.1 was adopted for Accused Nos. 2 and 3 at request.

59.Pw.7 is Head constable who said to have registered the crime, who said to have issued Ex.P7 FIR. He categorically deposed in his evidence that on 13.11.2021 at about 06.15 P.M, he received Ex.P1report from PW1/Sub-Inspector of Police and basing on the said report, he registered the case in Cr.No. 128/2021 U/Sec.8(c) r/w 20(b) of 27/79Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 54 of 2022

N.D.P.S. Act and issued F.I.R and sent copies to all the concerned. Ex.P7 the F.I.R dated 13.11.2021 was marked. PW7 further deposed PW1 also handed over contraband, scooty, panchanama and Ex.P1 report along with accused persons. He deposed Ex.P3 shown to him was the said panchanama.

60.During Cross-Examination of PW7 on behalf of the Accused No.1 : Pw.7 deposed that the endorsement on Ex.P1/report was written by him and did not know the full form of N.D.P.S, but it was ganja. He deposed he did not know the

N.D.P.S Act in full. Pw.7 denied that it was not mentioned specifically from whose possession, alleged ganja was recovered and it was not mentioned in Ex.P1 report that Identity cards of the accused persons were enclosed to the said report. PW7 deposed it was not mentioned in Ex.P1 report specifically that Ex.P3/panchanama, recovered property along with accused persons were handed over to him at the time of giving Ex.P1 report. He deposed the documents of the alleged scooty were not handed over to him by PW1.

61.PW7 further deposed Accused persons were arrested by LW14/C.I of Police.

He deposed he made G.D. entry about the apprehension of the accused persons

No.1 to 3 and he issued F.I.R. and the same was mentioned in Ex.P7/F.I.R. He further deposed he handed over A1 to A3 along with F.I.R/Ex.P7 and covering letter to LW14/C.I of police and deposed LW14/C.I of Police dispatched express

F.I.R. to the court. PW7 further deposed PW1 was examined by LW14/C.I of Police and he did not examine him. He further deposed he knew that the complainant had to be examined at the time of issuing F.I.R. Pw.7 denied that he did not 28/79Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 54 of 2022

perform his duty perfectly and simply handover the accused persons to the

LW14/C.I of police and PW1 not handed over Ex.P3/panchanama or recovered property and as such, it was not mentioned in Ex.P1 / report. Pw.7 denied that on the instructions of his higher officials, he foisted a false case against the accused and deposed false. Cross-Examination of PW7 on behalf of the first Accused was adopted for Accused No.2 and 3 by the counsel for A2 and A3 .

62.Pw.8 is the Circle Inspector of Police and investigating officer, who deposed about investigating part. According to the testimony of Pw.8 on 13.11.2021 he said to have received CD file from PW7 and said to have verified the investigation done by PW7 and said to have found it on proper lines. On the same day, he said to have examined PW1, PW2, LWs 2 to 4 i.e. constables and recorded their statements. Later, he also examined and recorded the statement of PW5. On the same day, he arrested A1 to A3 as per procedure and produced the accused before the court on the next day, as it was late in the night. On 14.11.2021, he said to have visited alleged scene of offence and said to have secured PW6 and LW11/Uday and in their presence, he said to have observed alleged scene of offence and drawn rough sketch of scene of offence and prepared crime detail form and after read over the contents, he said to have obtained the signatures of PW6 and LW11/Uday on the said crime detail form. Ex.P6 crime detail form was marked. On the same day, he filed a requisition before the court for inventory. Accordingly, the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mulugu made the inventory. Ex.P8 the requisition filed by him before learned Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Mulugu, dated.14.11.2021 and Ex.P9 the certificate issued by learned Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Mulugu, dated.16.11.2021 were marked.

29/79Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 54 of 2022

63. Pw.8 further deposed that, he said to have forwarded the two samples of

Ganja weighing about 100 grams each to the FSL, Hyderabad. Ex.P10 the FSL report dated 18.01.2022 was marked subsequently, he said to have collected sample from the FSL, Hyderabad by deputing their police constable. MO.1 the said sample packet received from FSL, Hyderabad was marked. He deposed after completion of investigation and after collecting all the documents, he filed the charge sheet against A1 to A3 by showing A4 as absconding by stating that a separate charge sheet would be filed against A4 as and when he arrested.

64.During cross-Examination of Pw.8 on behalf of the Accused No.1: Pw.8 deposed, PW1 as the complainant and he was the Sub-Inspector of Police. He deposed PW1 was on patrolling duty at the time of Ex.P1/report and he had no prior information about the alleged incident. Pw.8 denied that the scene of offence was at a distance of 07-Kms. from the main road. Pw.8 further deposed that it was only at a distance of 100 meters from the main road. Pw.8 admitted that it was mentioned in Ex.P1/report at the top that patrolling duty was conducted in Pasra village and Gundlavagu was not within the Pasra village but it was at the outskirts of Pasra village. Pw.8 again depsoed that he did not know whether said Gundlavagu was within the limits of Pasra village or not. pw.8 deposed it was not mentioned in Ex.P1/reportthat PW1 obtained permission from him to enquire the present case. He deposed he did not know that taking prior permission from the Thasildar was mandatory in respect of the present case incident. Pw.8 admitted that there was no mention in Ex.P1/report that PW1 30/79Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 54 of 2022

obtained permission from MRO/Thasildar of Govindaraopet Mandal. He deposed it was no mentioned in Ex.P1/report whether they took videography of the proceedings. Pw.8 further deposed it was also not mentioned in Ex.P1/report, police who seen the accused persons. He deposed there were three police constables accompanied PW1 for doing patrolling duty on the date of alleged incident. He deposed there was no mention in Ex.P1/ report regarding police caught hold accused persons. He further deposed it was also not mentioned in

Ex.P1/report that PW1 verified the identity particulars of the accused persons.

He further deposed it was not mentioned in Ex.P1/report where the accused No.1 hold alleged brown colour packet and deposed it was also not mentioned that alleged brown colour packet was recovered from which part of the body of the accused No.1. According to further testimony of Pw.8 PW7/Head constable issued

FIR basing on the Ex.P1/report given by PW1. Pw.8 deposed that he did not know that PW7 issued FIR without knowing the NDPS Act. He deposed could not say the provision of law under NDPS Act, which defined the word “Ganja”. He deposed he did not know whether PW2 had any authorization to weigh the Ganja.

65.Pw.8 deposed that it was not mentioned in Ex.P1/report that the PW1 tested alleged material with any equipment to know whether it was Ganja or not.

Pw.8 deposed that it was not mentioned in Ex.P1/report whether alleged brown colour packet was opened by PW1. PW8 further deposed the vehicle i.e. Scooty mentioned in Ex.P1/report was seized by PW1. He deposed absconding accused person i.e. A4 as Suren. PW8 further deposed their investigation did not reveal 31/79Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 54 of 2022

who was the owner of the scooty mentioned in Ex.P1/report and his particulars.

He further deposed he did not deposit the said scooty before the court. According to further testimony of PW8, the person who gave the vehicle for transporting alleged ganja was also an accused person, if he had intention to transport alleged ganja. As per further testimony of PW8 their investigation did not reveal that the owner of the scooty mentioned in Ex.P1/report had no intention to transport alleged ganja. He deposed they did not open alleged contraband cover till it was produced before the learned Magistrate, Mulugu. Pw.8 admitted that he did not know what was there in alleged brown colour cover opened before the learned

Magistrate. Pw.8 denied that he did only table made investigation and filed

charge sheet against the first Accused and the Accused No.1 was no way concerned with the alleged ganja and he was never in possession of alleged ganja and that he deposed false.

66.During Cross-Examination of PW8 on behalf of the Accused No.2 and 3;

Pw.8 deposed that it was not mentioned who weighed 100 grams sample packets

before Learned Magistrate. Pw.8 deposed that in Ex.P10 FSL report, it was not

mentioned whether it was dry ganja or wet ganja. He deposed Ex.P4/photographs did not disclose on which date they were taken. Pw.8 denied that he did only table investigation and nothing was recovered from the possession of A2 and A3 and no panchanama was conducted and A2 and A3 were no way concerned with the present case and he deposed false.

67.Section 8 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 32/79Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 54 of 2022

prohibits certain operation. By virtue of section 8(c), “No person shall produce, manufacture, possess, sell, purchase, transport, warehouse, use, consume, import, interstate, export, interstate, import into India, export from India or tranship any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance and the same is made punishable under section 20 (b) of the NDPS Act.

68.By virtue of section 20(b) of NDPS Act. It prescribes punishment for contravention of any provision of the Act. As per said provision, “whoever in contravention of any provisions of this act or any rule or order made or condition of license granted there under Section 20(b) produces, manufactures, possesses, sells, purchases, transports, imports, interstate, exports, interstate or uses cannabis shall be punishable.

69.Section 20 of NDPS Act prescribes Punishment for contravention in relation to cannabis plant and cannabis.—As per said provision Whoever, in contravention of any provision of this Act or any rule or order made or condition of licence granted thereunder,—

(a) cultivates any cannabis plant; or

(b) produces, manufactures, possesses, sells, purchases, transports, imports inter-

State, exports inter-State or uses cannabis, shall be punishable,— [(i) where such contravention relates to clause (a) with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to one lakh rupees; and 33/79Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 54 of 2022

(ii) where such contravention relates to sub-clause (b),— (A) and involves small quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 [one year], or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both; (B) and involves quantity lesser than commercial quantity but greater than small quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees; (C) and involves commercial quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to twenty years and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees but which may extend to two lakh rupees:

Provided that the court may, for reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a fine exceeding two lakh rupees.] and also under section 35 of the said Act, a presumption of culpable mental state can be drawn.

70.Section 35 of NDPS Act empowers the Court to draw Presumption of culpable mental state.— As per said provision(1) In any prosecution for an offence under this Act which requires a culpable mental state of the accused, the court shall presume the existence of such mental state but it shall be a defence for the accused to prove the fact that he had no such mental state with respect to the act charged as an offence in that prosecution.

Under Explanation.—In this section “culpable mental state” includes intention 34/79Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 54 of 2022

motive, knowledge of a fact and belief in, or reason to believe, a fact.

(2) For the purpose of this section , a fact is said to be proved only when the court believes it to exist beyond a reasonable doubt and not merely when its existence is established by a preponderance of probability.

71.By virtue of chapter 5 of the NDPS Act, it confers powers on certain authorities regarding entry, search, seizure and arrest without warrant or authorization.

72. By virtue of Section 42 of NDPS Act, it speaks of Power of entry, search, seizure and arrest without warrant or authorisation.—As per said provision (l)

Any such officer (being an officer superior in rank to a peon, sepoy or constable) of the departments of central excise, narcotics, customs, revenue intellegence or any other department of the Central Government including para-military forces or armed forces as is empowered in this behalf by general or special order by the Central

Government, or any such officer (being an officer superior in rank to a peon, sepoy or constable) of the revenue, drugs control, excise, police or any other department of a

State Government as is empowered in this behalf by general or special order of the

State Government, if he has reason to believe from personal knowledge or information given by any person and taken down in writing that any narcotic drug, or psychotropic substance, or controlled substance in respect of which an offence punishable under this Act has been committed or any document or other article which may furnish evidence of the commission of such offence or any illegally acquired property or any document or other article which may furnish evidence of holding any illegally acquired property which is liable for seizure or freezing or 35/79Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 54 of 2022

forfeiture under Chapter VA of this Act is kept or concealed in any building, conveyance or enclosed place, may between sunrise and sunset,—

(a) enter into and search any such building, conveyance or place;

(b) in case of resistance, break open any door and remove any obstacle to such entry;

(c) seize such drug or substance and all materials used in the manufacture thereof and any other article and any animal or conveyance which he has reason to believe to be liable to confiscation under this Act and any document or other article which he has reason to believe may furnish evidence of the commission of any offence punishable under this Act or furnish evidence of holding any illegally acquired property which is liable for seizure or freezing or forfeiture under Chapter

VA of this Act; and

(d) detain and search, and, if he thinks proper, arrest any person whom he has reason to believe to have committed any offence punishable under this Act:1 [Provided that in respect of holder of a licence for manufacture of manufactured drugs or psychotropic substances or controlled substances granted under this Act or any rule or order made thereunder, such power shall be exercised by an officer not below the rank of sub-inspector:

Provided further that] if such officer has reason to believe that a search warrant or authorisation, cannot be obtained without affording opportunity for the concealment of evidence or facility for the escape of an offender, he may enter and search such building, conveyance or enclosed place at any time between sunset and sunrise after recording the grounds of his belief.

(2) Where an officer takes down any information in writing under sub-section (1) or 36/79Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 54 of 2022

records grounds for his belief under the proviso thereto, he shall within seventy-two hours send a copy thereof to his immediate official superior.

73. And also section 43 of the Act provides for power of seizure and arrest in public place.

As per provision under Section 43, it speaks of power of seizure and arrest in

public place.— As per said rpovision, Any officer of any of the departments mentioned in section 42 may—

(a) seize in any public place or in transit, any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or controlled substance in respect of which he has reason to believe an offence punishable under this Act has been committed, and, along with such drug or substance, any animal or conveyance or article liable to confiscation under this Act, any document or other article which he has reason to believe may furnish evidence of the commission of an offence punishable under this Act or any document or other article which may furnish evidence of holding any illegally acquired property which is liable for seizure or freezing or forfeiture under Chapter VA of this Act;

(b) detain and search any person whom he has reason to believe to have committed an offence punishable under this Act, and if such person has any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or controlled substance in his possession and such possession appears to him to be unlawful, arrest him and any other person in his company.

Under Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, the expression “public place” includes any public conveyance, hotel, shop, or other place intended for use by, or accessible to, the public.]

And conjoint reading of section 43 read with 49 of the Act, it prescribes and 37/79Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 54 of 2022

conferred powers on the officers mentioned and who were authorised under

Section 42 of the Act to do certain things.

74. By virtue of section 49 such officers referred in Section 42 of the Act has

Power to stop and search conveyance.— As per said provision, “Any officer authorised under section 42, may, if he has reason to suspect that any animal or conveyance is, or is about to be, used for the transport of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance 2 [or controlled substance], in respect of which he suspects that any provision of this Act has been, or is being, or is about to be, contravened at any time, stop such animal or conveyance, or, in the case of an aircraft, compel it to land and—

(a) rummage and search the conveyance or part thereof;

(b) examine and search any goods on the animal or in the conveyance;

(c) if it becomes necessary to stop the animal or the conveyance, he may use all lawful means for stopping it, and where such means fail, the animal or the conveyance may be fired upon.

By virtue of section 50 of the NDPS Act, it prescribes the conditions under which search of persons shall be conducted.

75. By virtue of section 50, it lays down Conditions under which search of persons shall be conducted.—

As per the said provision, (1) When any officer duly authorised under section 42 is about to search any person under the provisions of section 41, section 42 or section 43, he shall, if such person so requires, take such person without unnecessary delay to nearest Gazetted Officer of any of the departments mentioned in section 42 or to 38/79Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 54 of 2022

the nearest Magistrate.

(2) If such requisition is made, the officer may detain the person until he can bring him before the Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate referred to in sub-section (1).

(3) The Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate before whom any such person is brought shall, if he sees no reasonable ground for search, forthwith discharge the person but otherwise shall direct that search be made.

(4) No female shall be searched by anyone excepting a female. 3 [(5) When an officer duly authorised under section 42 has reason to believe that it is not possible to take the person to be searched to the nearest Gazetted Officer or

Magistrate without the possibility of the person to be searched parting with

possession of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance, or controlled substance or article or document, he may, instead of taking such person to the nearest Gazetted

Officer or Magistrate, proceed to search the person as provided under section100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).

(6) After a search is conducted under sub-section (5), the officer shall record the reasons for such belief which necessitated such search and within seventy-two hours send a copy thereof to his immediate official superior.]

76. By virtue of section 55 of the NDPS Act, it speaks of the powers of police to take charge of articles seized and delivered.

Section 55 of the Act provides that police to take charge of articles seized and delivered.— As per said provison, An officer-in-charge of a police station shall take charge of and keep in safe custody, pending the orders of the Magistrate, all articles seized under this Act within the local area of that police station and which may be 39/79Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 54 of 2022

delivered to him, and shall allow any officer who may accompany such articles to the police station or who may be deputed for the purpose, to affix his seal to such articles or to take samples of and from them and all samples so taken shall also be sealed with a seal of the officer-in-charge of the police station.

77. And also, it was provided under section 56 of the NDPS Act, it conferred an obligation on the officers to assist each other and by virtue of said provision, it speaks of Obligation of officers to assist each other.— By virtue of said provision,

All officers of the several departments mentioned in section 42 shall, upon notice given or request made, be legally bound to assist each other in carrying out the provisions of this Act.

78.And it was provided under section 57 of the NDPS Act to Report of arrest and seizure.— As per said provision, whenever any person makes any arrest or seizure under this Act, he shall, within forty-eight hours next after such arrest or seizure, make a full report of all the particulars of such arrest or seizure to his immediate official superior.

By virtue of section 66 of the act NDPS Act,

79. Presumption as to documents in certain cases shall be drawn by the court. As per said provision—Where any document—

(i) is produced or furnished by any person or has been seized from the custody or control of any person, in either case, under this Act or under any other law, or

(ii) has been received from any place outside India (duly authenticated by such authority or person and in such manner as may be prescribed by the Central

Government) in the course of investigation of any offence under this Act alleged to 40/79Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 54 of 2022

have been committed by a person, and such document is tendered in any prosecution under this Act in evidence against him, or against him and any other person who is tried jointly with him, the court shall—

(a) presume, unless the contrary is proved, that the signature and every other part of such document which purports to be in the handwriting of any particular person or which the court may reason ably assume to have been signed by, or to be in the handwriting of, any particular person, is in that person’s handwriting; and in the case of a document executed or attested, that it was executed or attested by the person by whom it purports to have been so executed or attested;

(b) admit the document in evidence, notwithstanding that it is not duly stamped, if such document is otherwise admissible in evidence;

(c) examine any person acquainted with the facts and circumcontrary is proved, the truth of the contents of such document.

80. By virtue of section 2 of the act, it defines the term “small quantity” under section (xxiiia) “small quantity”, in relation to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, means any quantity lesser than the quantity specified by the Central

Government by notification in the Official Gazette;]

81.By virtue of section2 [(viia) “commercial quantity”, in relation to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, means any quantity greater than the quantity specified by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette; and by virtue of section 2 (xiv) of Act“narcotic drug” means coca leaf, cannabis (hemp), opium, popy straw and includes all manufactured drugs; and psychotropic substance as defined under section 2(xxiii) of the Act means, (xxiii) “Psychotropic 41/79Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 54 of 2022

substance” means any substance, natural or synthetic, or any natural material or any salt or preparation of such substance or material included in the list of psychotropic substances specified in the Schedule; and in respect the term “use” as defined under Section 2(xxviiia) “use”, in relation to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, means any kind of use except personal consumption;]

81. By virtue of section 52A of the NDPS Act, it provides for the disposal of seized narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, [52A provides for Disposal of seized narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.—As per the said provision [(1) The Central Government may, having regard to the hazardous nature, vulnerability to theft, substitution, constraint of proper storage space or any other relevant consideration, in respect of any narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyances, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify such narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyance or class of narcotic drugs, class of psychotropic substances, class of controlled substances or conveyances, which shall, as soon as may be after their seizure, be disposed of by such officer and in such manner as that Government may, from time to time, determine after following the procedure hereinafter specified.] (2) Where any 4 [narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyances] has been seized and forwarded to the officer-in-charge of the nearest police station or to the officer empowered under section 53, the officer referred to in sub-section (1) shall prepare an inventory of such 4 [narcotic drugs, psychotropic 42/79Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 54 of 2022

substances, controlled substances or conveyances] containing such details relating to their description, quality, quantity, mode of packing, marks, numbers or such other identifying particulars of the 4 [narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyances] or the packing in which they are packed, country of origin and other particulars as the officer referred to in sub-section (1) may consider relevant to the identity of the 4 [narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyances] in any proceedings under this Act and make an application, to any Magistrate for the purpose of—

(a) certifying the correctness of the inventory so prepared; or

(b) taking, in the presence of such magistrate, photographs of 5 [such drugs, substances or conveyances] and certifying such photographs as true; or

(c) allowing to draw representative samples of such drugs or substances, in the presence of such magistrate and certifying the correctness of any list of samples so drawn.

(3) Where an application is made under sub-section (2), the Magistrate shall, as soon as may be, allow the application.

(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1972)

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), every court trying an offence under this Act, shall treat the innventory, the photographs of 1 [narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substance or conveyances] and any list of samples drawn under sub-section (2) and certified by the Magistirate, as primary evidence in respect of such offence.] 1 [narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled conveyances] and any list of samples drawn under sub-section (2) and certified by the 43/79Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 54 of 2022

primary evidence in respect of such offence.]

82. So, it has to be seen whether all the mandatory provisions prescribed under the NDPS Act referred supra were complied with while conducting such seizure or arrest of the persons said to have found in alleged possession or transportation or dealing with Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances.

83.In the light of the provisions prescribed under the NDPS Act referred supra it hasto be seen whether the accused when said to have found in alleged possession of the contraband, whether they were found in possession, whether they were dealing with sale or purchase or transporting or using or consuming or producing or any other purposes as provided under section 8 of the Act, which prohibited certain operations in respect of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic

Substances Act.

84. In the instant case, it was the case of the prosecution that LW1 CH

Karunakar, the then S.I of police Pasra, when along with his staff, while conducting alleged patrolling, on receipt of alleged information regarding alleged transporting of ganja, on alleged reaching to alleged scene of offence, that is,

Gundla Vagu, at the outskirts of Pasra, they said to have found A-1 to A-3 under alleged suspicious circumstances, and they were said to have apprehended, when they said to have tried to escape from the place, and also LW1 said to have issued notice under section 50 of the NDPS Act, and said to have informed their rights, either to search before learned Magistrate or any Gazetted officer, and as per their alleged option, to be searched by a Gazetted Officer, hence, on alleged sending requisition by him to the MEO of Govindra Pet LW8 V. Divakar, to visit 44/79Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 54 of 2022

alleged scene of offence, along with two panch witness, accordingly when he said to have present along with two mediators LW6 and LW7, namely K Someshwara rao and K Rajaram, before whom A-1 said to have confessed about alleged selling ganja to A-2 and A-3, and also A-2 and A-3 said to have confessed about their alleged guilt, and alleged entire ganja was said to have got weighed, which was said to have found in alleged possession of first accused, weighing about 2.25 kgs, and the same was said to have seized along with the vehicle wearing number TS 24 FTR 0405, said to have belonged to the first accused, under cover of seizure panchanama in alleged presence of MEO LW7 and 8 named Supra, and the same was said to have got photographed, hence, Pw1 deposed regarding issuing section 50 notice and deposed about the conditions under which search of the accused was conducted.

85.As he was empowered under section 42 of the Act, and he was entrusted with the power of entry, search, seizure and arrest without warrant or authorization, as he had reason to believe out of information given, hence, he proceeded with search of the persons as contemplated under section 50 of the

Act, and as contemplated under section 41 of the NDPS Act, it prescribes the power to issue warrant and authorization, if any officer authorized under the Act referred in section 41 has reason to believe either from personal knowledge or information given by any person regarding commission of offenses by any person punishable under the Act, or any act has been committed in respect of Narcotic

Drug or Psychotropic Substance or Controlled Substance, he was authorized under section 41(2) to arrest such person or search a building conveyance or 45/79Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 54 of 2022

place whether by day or by night or himself arrest such a person or search a building conveyance or place, and he shall have all the powers of an officer acting under section 42 of the Act to whom a warrant was addressed and the officer who was authorized for the arrest or search.

86.So as contemplated under section 49 of the Act, as PW1 being the police officer, as he had reason to suspect the conveyance was used for the transport of any Narcotic Drug or Psychotropic Substance, hence stopped the vehicle said to be of the first accused as contemplated under section 49 of the Act,which speaks of power of any officer authorised under Section 42 of the Act to stop and search conveyance and as contemplated under section 50 of the Act before conducting search of persons, the accused said to have opted to be searched before Gazetted

Officer, hence he said to have called for the MEO along with the two mediators and also as authorized under section 43 of the Act, as he was conferred with the power of arrest and seizure in public place, hence, he said to have seized the contraband said to have containing 2.25 kgs, which was said to have seized in a public place or in transit of Narcotic Drug, as he had reason to believe that an offence was said to have committed by virtue of alleged possessing and transporting alleged ganja, hence, along with the conveyance the accused were said to have apprehended and they were said to have brought to the nearest police station on completion of recovery Panchanama.

87.As seen from the testimony of PW1, the defecto complainant and the S.I of police, while he was on patrolling duty on reliable information, they said to have found A1 to A3 under suspicious circumstances, and said to have noticed Dry 46/79Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 54 of 2022

Ganja, then they secured MEO PW4 the Gazetted Officer to appear before him along with two panch witnesses, and also he said to have secured PW2, alleged appraiser, to weigh the ganja, and also PW3, alleged mediator, who said to have acted as per the directions of PW4 and accused were said to have examined and in their presence 2.25 kgs Dry Ganja was said to have recovered under Ex.P3

Panchnama.

88.As per the testimony of PW1, at first instance, he deposed the black cover containing ganja was found on the vehicle, and deposed the accused no. 1 to 3 tried to fled away from the scene by keeping the black cover on vehicle. PW1 deposed that he did not verify who was original owner of the said vehicle.

89. As seen from the testimony of PW1 and also as per report under Ex. P1 of PW1, A1 to A3 tried to escape. PW1 did not depose and also it was not mentioned in Ex.P1 report, whether A1 to A3 tried to fled away from the scene on vehicle or by foot. As per testimony of PW1, contraband was seized from the possession of A1 and deposed by PW1 that the vehicle belonged to A1, but deposed he did not verify original ownership of the vehicle, but even without verifying the same, he deposed as if the vehicle belonged to A1.

90.As seen from the testimony of PW1, A1 to A3 tried to fled away from the scene by keeping black cover on vehicle, but he did not depose physically who kept the black cover on the vehicle when deposed about three accused. He deposed that there was difference in the name of the place as well as model of two wheeler. As per report under Ex.P1 Bobba Suryaprakash the first Accused had black color cover.

47/79Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 54 of 2022

91.As per report, under Ex. P1 they chased the accused and black cover and scooty were seized, it was mentioned about the scooty bearing number TS-24FT-

RO-405. Whereas, as per the testimony of PW1, he deposed in Panchanama, it was mentioned as Honda company. From perusal of Ex.P3, Panchanama, it was mentioned as scooty Honda and the same number was mentioned. As per the report under Ex.P1, Bobba Suryaprakash the first acculsed had black cover that is

A1 and stated the cover had dry ganja. As per the testimony of PW1, it was not mentioned in Ex.P1 report from whose possession, ganja was seized. So, as per the testimony of PW1, the vehicle and ganja were seized from possession of A1.

92.Whereas, from perusal of Ex. P3 recovery Panchanama, it was not specifically mentioned from whose possession ganja was seized. When PW1 deposed, the vehicle belonged to A1. Whereas, in Ex.A3 Panchanama, it was mentioned that the scooty Honda number TS-24FT-RO-405 belonged to the second accused.

93. As seen from the testimony of PW2 alleged appraised, his ocular testimony was not supported with any kind of document regarding issuing receipt on weighing contraband on the request of PW1. He did not issue any receipt and he deposed about weighing of ganja on the request of PW1.

94.Except his oral testimony, it was not supported with any document regarding weighing ganja. He deposed accused were in possession of one packet, but he did not specifically depose which accused was in alleged possession of the packet. Though it was suggested to PW2 regarding not filing any document to show he was a goldsmith or having license to weigh, but in fact it was not denied 48/79Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 54 of 2022

or disputed by way of specific suggestions put forth to PW2 that PW2 was not goldsmith.

95.As per the testimony of PW1 and 2, 2.25 kgs ganja was seized and also under Ex.P3 recovery panchanamma, the weight of the contraband was mentioned as 2.25 kgs. PW1 evidence was silent regarding the time of alleged conducting patrolling, alleged recovery proceedings but in Ex.P1 report of PW1, it was mentioned the time of patrolling as 4.00 pm and PW2 alleged appraiser deposed the time as 4.00 pm and also PW3 the mediator in whose presence the contraband and vehicle was said to have seized, he also deposed the time of proceedings of recovery as 4.00 pm. He corroborated regarding securing PW2 the goldsmith for the purpose of weighing the ganja and also deposed the weight of ganja as 2.25 kgs and he corroborated about the quantity of contraband as 2.25 kgs.He corroborated the testimonies of PW1 to 3 in that regard, regarding drafting panchanamma and taking photos was deposed by PW3 and also it was corroborated with the testimony of PW1, and 4.

96.PW3 deposed about seizure of the contraband and putting seal on the contraband and seizure of scooty. As per the testimony of PW3, scooty was seized from the possession of A2 under ExP3 panchanamma and deposed the proceedings as 16.45 hours. From the perusal of panchanamma, it appeared the proceedings were conducted on 13.11.2021 at 16.45 hours. As per ExP3 recovery panchanamma, the aforementioned number of the scooty Honda was recovered and Abhoj Rohit that is A2 was the owner of the said vehicle as per ExP3 recovery panchanamma.

49/79Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 54 of 2022

97.As per the panchanamma under Ex.P3, all the accused came to the place of offense to purchase ganja. As per Ex.P3, A3 came to purchase ganja from A1, and

A2 came on scooty to purchase ganja. As per ExP3, A1 confessed he sold ganja to

A2 and A3 and A2 and A3 confessed that they purchased ganja from A1 and A2 and A3 showed one bag and A2 and A3 opened the same. As per ExA3, A1 came to sell to A2 and A3 to the place of occurrence and A2 and A3 came to purchase the same.

98.But as per the testimony of PW3, A1 confessed he sold ganja to A2 and A3 and A2 and A3 confessed that they purchased ganja from A1, and A2 and A3 showed one bag and A2 and A3 opened but as per Ex.A3, A1 came to sell ganja to

A2 and A3 to the place of occurrence and A2 and A3 came to purchase the same.

99.As per the testimony of PW1, from possession of A1, two wheeler was seized and also contraband was seized from A1. PW3 could not depose registration number of the vehicle.

100. As per the testimony of PW3, police seized one scooter from possession of

A2 under Ex.P3 whereas it was inconsistent with the testimony of PW1 as he deposed about seizure of the vehicle from the possession of A1 alone. Though

PW3 deposed about recovery of ganja but it was not specifically deposed at first instance from whose possession it was seized. PWs 1, 3 and 4 all deposed about taking photographs. Only in cross-examination, it was deposed by PW3 that ganja was seized from A1. So, at first instance, the testimony of PW3 was silent regarding seizure of ganja from particular accused but subsequently deposed by

PW3, the mediator, regarding recovery of ganja from the possession of A1. So, the 50/79Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 54 of 2022

testimonies of PW1 and PW3 were corroborated regarding seizure of contraband from the possession of A1.

101.As per Ex.P3, recovery panchanama, A1 came to sell the contraband and

PW3 deposed it was not mentioned specifically whether said ganja was in hands of A1 or in his pant or at any place. PW3 deposed that panchanama was drafted by the police which would show the presence of the police personnel at the time of alleged confession of the accused, so it was hit by section 24 and 25 of Indian

Evidence Act, which speaks that

102.By virtue of Section 24 of Indian Evidence Act, it provides that confession

caused by inducement, threat or promise, when irrelevant in criminal

proceeding. As per said provision –A confession made by an accused person is irrelevant in a criminal proceeding, if the making of the confession appears to the

Court to have been caused by any inducement, threat or 2promise having reference to the charge against the accused person, proceeding from a person in authority and sufficient, in the opinion of the Court, to give the accused person grounds which would appear to him reasonable for supposing that by making it he would gain any advantage or avoid any evil of a temporal nature in reference to the proceedings against him.

103.25. Confession to police-officer not to be proved.––No confession made to a police-officer3, shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence.

104. As no confession made to any police officer is irrelevant and not admissible in criminal proceedings and it cannot be proved against the person made it. However, under section 27 of Indian Evidence Act, how much of 51/79Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 54 of 2022

information received from the accused may be proved and taken into consideration and anything is proved to have recovered from the possession of the accused, the same can be admissible under section 27 of Indian Evidence Act.

105.Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act – By virtue of Section 27 of the Indian

Evidence Act, how much of information received from Accused may be proved, provided that when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information recieved from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered may be proved.

106.It was mentioned in Ex.P3 panchanama that ganja was in the packet.

Though, it was suggested to PW3 that it was not mentioned in Ex.P3, ganja was in packet, but from perusal of the report in Ex. P3 recovery panchanama, it was mentioned that the ganja was in packet.

107.Though PW3 denied that it was not mentioned in Ex.P3 panchanama, alleged weight or ganja was recovered from whose possession, but from perusal of Ex. P3 recovery panchanama, it was not specifically mentioned from whose possession ganja was seized and it was deposed by PW1 and 3 that it was recovered from the possession of A1. There was inconsistency regarding recovery of vehicle from particular accused in the testimonies of PW1 and 3. PW1 deposed it was recovered from the possession of A1, whereas PW3 deposed the police seized the scooty from the possession of A2.As per Ex. P3, A1 came to sell.

108.Pw.4 is said to be MEO, though it was suggested that he was not Gazetted officer, but subsequently it was suggested he being Gazetted officer was not 52/79Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 54 of 2022

supposed to depute the mediators beyond the office hours. PW4 also deposed regarding securing his presence by PW1 to act, as panch witness being the

Gazetted officer and to conduct the proceedings of panchanama under Ex.P3.

109. As per the testimony of PW1, police found one black colour packet containing dry ganja in brown colour packet from possession of A1 and weighing of contraband by PW2 was corroborated by PW1 to 3 and weight of the contraband was mentioned and deposed by PW4, it was corroborated with the testimonies of PW1 to 3.

110.PW3 and 4, both deposed regarding seizure of one scooty from the possession of A2 under Ex.P3 recovery panchanama and as per the testimony of

PW4 also the packet containing drying ganja in brown color packet was seized from the possession of A1. When it was provided under the special enactment under NDPS to conduct the search and seizure as provided under the Act, hence and also as per section 42 of NDPS Act, the power is vested with the police officers or other State or Central Government Officials, the power of entry search and seizure and to may proceed with arrest without even warrant or authorization, hence, PW1 while conducting patrolling duties on noticing the accused under suspicious circumstances, he secured the presence of PW4 and

PW4 in turn brought PW3 and another panch witness, while exercising the powers conferred on PW1 regarding seizure arrest and in public place, he acted as per the provisions of section 43 as referred supra and by virtue of section 42 of NDPS Act, it conferred power on the departments or Central and State under Central and

State Government or Excise Revenue etc., to search and by virtue of section 49 of 53/79Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 54 of 2022

NDPS Act, there was power vested with the officer to stop and to search any conveyance and under section 50 of the NDPS Act it provided the conditions under which search of persons shall be conducted and by virtue of section 56 of the Act, there was an obligation on the officers referred in section 42 to Assist each other and all the officers of several departments mentioned in section 42 shall upon notice given or any request made which denotes oral request also, they are legally bound to assist each other in carrying out the provisions of the NDPS

Act.

111.Accordingly the services of the MEO, the Gazetted Officer was utilized as well as the panch witness PW3, who was said to be the Government Teacher and by virtue of section 50 of NDPS Act, as the accused said to have opted to be searched in the presence of Gazetted officer, hence PW4 was secured by PW1 and

PW4 deposed about proceedings under Ex.P3 as well as staying by them at the place of panchadama from 4.20 p.m. onwards till 5.00 p.m.

112.Though PW4 deposed that on the date of Ex.P3 panchadama that is 13.11.2021 was a holiday, but there was no hard and fast rule to not to assist the police, when there was obligation casted upon the officers to assist one another as contemplated under section 56 of NDPS Act. So acting on the day said to be a holiday is of no consequence, he being the MEO has right to instruct their teachers to do any office work and other official work during holidays, whenever it is necessary. Same was deposed by PW4 and also as per his oral instructions, it appeared PW3 acted upon to act as panch witness and deposed no written instructions were given to PW3 and LW7 Rajaram to Act as panch witness.

54/79Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 54 of 2022

113. So, from the testimony of PW4 the MEO as well as PW3 the Teacher, the

Government Official, the search proceedings were conducted on alleged noticing accused under suspicious circumstances and the proceedings under Ex.P3 said to have taken place, on given date, and seizure of contraband as well as seizure of the scooty was taken place which according to PW1 was from the possession of

A1 and PW3 also corroborated the testimony of PW1 regarding seizure of ganja from possession of A1 and PW3 and 4 deposed regarding recovery of the scooty from the possession of A2 and as per Ex.P3 Panchanama A2 and A3 came to purchase ganja from A1 and as per Ex.P1 PW4 deposed as if, they confessed that he sold ganja to A2 and A3, and A2 and A3 confessed that they purchased said ganja from A1, but even though PW3 and 4 were independent witness but in view of the testimony of PW3 that he recovery Panchanama was drafted by the police personnel, it would show presence of the police personnel at the time of confession, hence, it became irrelevant. Substantial evidence placed before the court can be taken into consideration regarding recovery of alleged contraband from the possession of A1 and seizure of the scooty from the possession of A2 as deposed by PWs 2 and 3.

114.PW5 is said to be the photographer who said to have taken photographs, as per the request of the police at Gundlavangu that is at a place of occurrence who claimed about presence of S.I of Police, Tahsildar and deposed about taking photographs of Ganja as well as the two wheeler and deposed about seizure of the same and Ex.P4 photographs pertaining to the scene of offence or place of occurrence was filed before the court to show the presence of three police 55/79Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 54 of 2022

persons, presence of the accused as well as others. PW1, 3 and 4 also deposed about taking photographs at alleged scene and also PW5 issued Ex. P4 receipt to show he took photographs. He deposed about taking two photographs under exhibit P4 and under Ex.P5 it appeared to have paid 500/-. PW5 deposed he developed the other photos sent by S.I, as such, he charged rupees 500/-. Though he deposed he used to charge hundred rupees for one photo for outdoor.

115.So, even though PW5 deposed of having no license for running photo studio but the photographs under Ex.P4 were marked to show the presence of people at particular place along with the vehicle two wheeler, however, as deposed by PW5 the photographs under Ex.P4 did not contain the date to show that they were taken at the time of conducting panchanama, but the photographs contained the seal of the photostudio when PW3 and 4 the independent witness being the official witness were examined, it cannot be expected them to depose about acting as mediators, wihtout actually happening of the thing to show at mere request of the police they gave evidence. They being independent witness and PW4 being Gazetted officer under no obligation to give false evidence. In the absence of showing contrary and in the absence of showing having any disputes with the accused, it cannot be expected PW3 and 4 to depose false against the accused, when they have no enmity towards the accused. So, the testimonies of

PWs 1, 3 and 4 were corroborated with the testimony of PW4 regarding taking photograph by PW5 and on the photos studio, it was printed on the photographs as Lakshmi digital studio and videographers Govindraopet. So, it could be considered Ex.P4 photograph was taken when PW3 and 4 were acted as punch 56/79Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 54 of 2022

witness which according to PW1 and prosecution was on the date of alleged recovery of panchanama. As substantial evidence of Pws 1,3 and 4 would show taking photographs at alleged scene. Even though Ex.P4 photographs were marked without CD.

116.PW6 is said to be the Mediator for crime detail form who supported case of prosecution regarding conducting scene of offence observation proceedings under Ex. P6. His evidence was not taken on material aspect As proceedings under Ex.P6 were said to be conducted on next date of alleged caught holding accused, hence it could not be expected the accused to be still present at alleged scene on the date of proceedings under Ex.P6 crime detail form.

117. PW7 is the SHO, who said to have registered the case vide Crime

No.128/2021 basing upon the report of PW1 under Ex. P1 and he registered Ex. P7

FIR. He registered the crime under provisions of NDPS Act, but pleaded ignorance that he did not know full form of NDPS. It appeared identity cards of accused were not enclosed along with the report and also from perusal of Ex.P1 report, it appeared the contraband which was seized as well as the Scooty, and accused were brought to the police station. Though it was not specifically mentioned that the contraband, the vehicle, and the accused were handed over to PW7, but impliedly as they were brought to the police station hence, according to the testimony of PW7, PW1 handed over the contraband, Scooty, Panchanama and

Ex.P1 report along with accused persons. When alleged offence was taken place on 13.11.2021, at 16.00 hours at about 16.15 hours, the criminal law was set into motion within short span of completion of proceedings under Ex.P3 which were 57/79Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 54 of 2022

concluded by 16.45 hours near Gundla wagu of Pasra Village, hence under such circumstances, it could not be considered there was delay in presenting report. It appeared from the testimony of PW7, the documents pertaining to the vehicle were not handed over and further he handed over the record along with the accused to the C.I of police LW14 for further investigation, after registering the crime on dispatching the express FIR to the court and copies to the concerned.

118.PW7 was not the person who examined PW1 and it appeared he even proceeded to scene of offence to conduct proceedings under observation under

Ex.P6. As the scene of offence observation proceedings were taken place on the next day of alleged occurrence as it was said to have taken place on 14.11.2021.

hence, by virtue of handing over the accused contraband scooty to PW7, it could not be expected the accused persons at alleged scene of offence. Hence, he deposed when they went to the scene, the accused contraband Scooty was not there. So, from the testimony of PW7 it was established regarding handing over the accused along with the contraband and seized articles to PW7 and taking place of proceedings under Ex.P6 crime detail form.

119. As per the testimony of PW8 the investigating officer, he took up investigation from PW7 and proceeded with investigation of examining the witness and deposed about arrest of the accused on the same day i.e., on 13.11.2021 when he took up investigation by receiving C.D. He also corroborated the testimony of PW 7 regarding visiting the scene of offence along with PW6 and

PW11 Uday and deposed about proceedings under Ex.P6 and also by virtue of the requisition under Ex.P8 filed by him before the learned Magistrate concerned on 58/79Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 54 of 2022

4.11.2021. The learned Magistrate of Mulugu issued certificate regarding correctness of the things or the articles seized or produced and also representative sample was collected and the same was forwarded to the FSL

Hyderabad, 2-samples weighing about 100 grams each and also No. 1 said sample packet received from FSL was marked and Ex.P10 FSL report dated 18.01.2022 was marked.

120. It was suggested to the investigation officer on behalf of the accused regarding not mentionined certain things refered supra, in the cross examination of PW8 Ex.P1 report is not an encyclopedia to contain all the things as it is aimed to set the criminal law in to motion and to initiate action. So basing upon the

Ex.P1 and the FSL report, for the things taken place prior to presenting the report it was given by PW1 and FSL report relied upon by the prosecution goes to show the items analyzed are Ganja a narcotic drug.

121.In Ex.P10 FSL report though it was not mentioned as dry ganja or wet ganja but it was mentioned as per the report the items one and two were analyzed and they were found to be ganja, a narcotic drug. So, even though witness were examined contradictions or omissions were not marked or established. The cross- examination of the PW8 would not go to the root of the case as the material aspects were deposed by Pws 1, 3 and 4 and supported and corroborated by the other witness. So from the perusal of the record and as per the testimony of Pws 1, 3 and 4 the accused no.1 was found in possession of contraband weighing 2.25 kgs. Admittedly no documents pertaining to the vehicle were produced before the court to establish its ownership and infact the said vehicle was not marked as 59/79Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 54 of 2022

material object. Even though the same was said to have seized under Ex.P3 and said to have handed over by PW1 alogn wi;th report under Ex.P1 by PW1 to PW7.

So, in the obsence of establishing the identity of the vehicle it is not unreasonable to held that prosecution failed to establish the ownership of the vehicle said to have seized and infact in view of not producing the vehicle and not marking as material object it can not be considered prosecution is able to establish alleged recovery of vehicle. As seen from Ex.P10 FSL report the representative samples of ganja contraband were sent on 19.11.2021 and on analysis it was found that the contraband as Ganja and a Narcotic Drug.

122. So, by virtue of requisition under Ex.P8 sent by the investigating officer

PW8 to the learned Magistrate, Mulugu, he issued certificate under exhibit P9 on 16-11-2021 by virtue of section 52-A Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances

Act and the learned Magistrate certified the correctness of the enclosed inventory and also it appeared photographs were taken and the same was mentioned in exhibit P9 and also the list of the samples drawn in the presence of learned Magistrate were certified and the remaining contraband was handed over to the concerned police for disposal as per the rules and also it was certified that the total dry ganja as per the inventory was weighed in the presence of learned

Magistrate, the total weight was also concluded as 2.25 kg and after drawing two

samples about 100 grams each from the packet wrapped with brown plaster was 2.68 grams. So, the weight before collection of two samples about 100 grams each was mentioned as 2.885 grams, after collection of two samples about 100 grams each, the weight was mentioned as 2.680 grams. Hence, it was certified 60/79Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 54 of 2022

that two samples of 100 grams of dry ganja each from packet was drawn and sealed and certified the same as true and correct by the learned Magistrate and by virtue of the provisions of Indian Evidence Act, it can be presumed all the official acts have been regularly performed and also Ex.P10 FSL report would go to show the contraband was ganja, hence, it was a Narcotic Drug.

123.So, as contemplated under the provisions of section 52-A of NDPS Act. It was identified as Narcotic Drug Ganja, a Narcotic Drug as per FSL report and certified the correctness of the inventory by the learned Magistrate and it was permitted to take in the presence of learned Magistrate the photographs of the

Drugs and Substances and the inventory and also certified the photographs as true and also it was permitted and allowed by the learned Magistrate drawing of representatives samples to collect samples in the presence of the learned

Magistrate and certified the correctness of the list of samples so drawn, hence by

virtue of section 52-A the mandatory proceedings were complied with and it was established, the the thing said to have recovered from the position of first

Accused was Dry Ganja and also the total quantity seized was also certified by virtue of the report certificate of the learned Magistrate under Ex.P9 and also the contraband seized was established as Dry Ganja a Narcotic Drug.

124.PW-1 was recalled on behalf of Accused No. 1 pursuant to the orders passed in CRLP No. 179 of 2026, dated 26-03-2026, for the purpose of further cross-examination.

125.During the further cross-examination on behalf of Accused No. 1, PW-1 categorically deposed that he did not obtain the signatures of Accused Nos. 1 to 3 61/79Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 54 of 2022

on the notices issued under Section 50 of the NDPS Act for conducting the search

before a Gazetted Officer. He further admitted that, without obtaining the

consent of the accused, he was not supposed to call for a Gazetted Officer to conduct the search.

126.PW-1 also admitted that he did not produce the seized vehicle before the

Court and deposed that he handed over the same to the Station House Officer concerned, through PW-7, namely G. Lakshmipathi, Head Constable.

127.PW-1 is the defacto complainant in respect of the incident, he deposed that he secured a Gazetted Officer and caused the search to be conducted through the said officer, during which the statements of the accused were recorded. However, no such notice forming part of the record bears the signatures of Accused Nos. 1 to 3.

128.As per the prosecution version, it is not a case of prior search of Accused

Nos. 1 to 3. Rather, they were found under suspicious circumstances, and on noticing the police, they attempted to flee from the spot. Upon apprehension, they were interrogated, during which they allegedly admitted their guilt.

129.Thereafter, a notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act was served, informing them of their right to be searched in the presence of a Magistrate or a

Gazetted Officer, and alleged their consent was purportedly obtained under acknowledgment.

130.Subsequently, a requisition was sent to the Mandal Executive Officer,

Govindaraopet, to visit the scene of offence for conducting a panchanama and for arranging two panch witnesses. Accordingly, the Mandal Executive Officer, along 62/79Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 54 of 2022

with two panch witnesses, reached the scene of offence, where the accused were interrogated, their confessional statements were recorded, and the contraband was seized.

131.It is to be noted that the incident occurred a considerable time ago, and certain inconsistencies arise in the testimony of PW-1, including lack of clarity regarding the exact place and manner in which the contraband was found.

132.In the instant case, as per the testimony of PW-1, a black-coloured cover containing contraband was found on the vehicle and Accused Nos. 1 to 3 attempted to flee from the scene, leaving the said cover on the vehicle. It was further evident that there was only one black cover and inside it another cover containing ganja was found. Thus, it is not a case of personal search of Accused

Nos. 1 to 3. The contraband was recovered from the vehicle at the instance of

Accused No. 1, as he had kept the same on the two-wheeler. Therefore, the recovery was from the possession of Accused No. 1 and not from his person.

133.It is also not a case of non-issuance of notices under Section 50 of the NDPS

Act. Notices dated 13-11-2021 were issued to Accused Nos. 1 to 3; however, their signatures are not found on the said notices.

134.In the written arguments filed on behalf of Accused No. 1, it was contended that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and that the entire case was based on suspicious recovery, procedural violations, and unreliable evidence. It was further contended that the accused was presumed to be innocent unless proven guilty, and though a statutory presumption existed under the NDPS Act, the initial burden would be 63/79Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 54 of 2022

heavily on the prosecution to strictly comply with the mandatory provisions.

135.It was argued that there was a violation of Section 42 of the NDPS Act, as alleged receipt of information and subsequent seizure were conducted without proper recording of prior information. It was further contended that there wasno evidence of compliance with Section 42(2) regarding sending the information to superior officers, thereby vitiating the prosecution case.

136.It was also argued that there was a violation of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, as the accused were not properly informed of their right to be searched before a

Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. In that regard, PW-1, during his further cross-

examination on 22-04-2026, admitted that he did not obtain the signatures of

Accused Nos. 1 to 3 on the notices. However, it is not a case of non-filing of such notices. The notices under Section 50 of NDPS Act were filed before the Court, dt.13/11/2021. Since the contraband was found on the vehicle and not through personal search, non-obtaining of signatures does not vitiate the proceedings.

137.It was further contended that there was a violation of Sections 52 and 57 of the NDPS Act, and that the arrest and seizure procedures were not properly conducted. It was also argued that mandatory reporting to superior officers was not proved and that no independent panch witnesses were examined.

138.Further, it was contended that the panch witnesses were teachers by profession, and there was no necessity for them to be present at the scene during working hours, as alleged confession and seizure were said to have taken place during their duty hours, thereby creating doubt regarding their presence at the scene of offence.

64/79Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 54 of 2022

139.In the present case, the Gazetted Officer secured was the Mandal Executive

Officer (MEO), who was accompanied by two assistants of his department. Since they acted under the directions of the MEO, their presence need not be viewed with suspicion, and it could notbe held that there was any violation of the mandatory provisions under Sections 52 and 57 of the NDPS Act. The contentions reiterated in the written arguments have already been dealt with in the preceding paragraphs.

140.It is also not a case of delay in dispatching the samples, and proper identification of the contraband has been established. Though PW-1 deposed that he opened the covers at the scene of offence, PW-8 deposed that the covers were not opened in his presence and that they were produced before the learned

Magistrate, where they wereopend. When PW8 was not present at the time of

seizer of contraband, when he being subsequent investigating officer taken up investigation from PW7. In view of that the testimony of PW-8 connot be considered as not corrobrated on that aspect with the testimonyh of PW1 regarding opening of the covers at the scene and need not be brushed aside.

141.However, such discrepancy does not amount to a material contradiction affecting the core of the prosecution case regarding recovery of contraband. On noticing the police, Accused Nos. 1 to 3 attempted to flee from the scene leaving the contraband on the two-wheeler which had been kept there by Accused No. 1.

Therefore, due to the act of Accused No. 1 the contraband would not have been found on the said vehicle. It is not a case where the contraband was recovered from an abandoned vehicle.

65/79Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 54 of 2022

142.The circumstances clearly show that the accused arrived on the two- wheeler and, upon seeing the police, left the contraband on the vehicle and attempted to escape. This conduct establishes the conscious possession of

Accused No. 1 with regard to the contents of the cover containing the contraband.

143.Merely because PW-1 admitted that the Mandal Executive Officer (MEO) was not a Gazetted Officer would not, by itself, disqualify or negate the role performed by the MEO. In fact, the MEO being a Gazetted Officer, he proceeded to conduct the panchanama and related proceedings. Therefore, it cannot be said that the proceedings were not conducted in the presence of a Gazetted Officer, as contended on behalf of Accused No. 1. As observed earlier, option was given to accused by virtue of issuing notices U/Sec. 50 of NDPS Act to be searched before gazetted officer or before learned Magistrate, which is pertinant from the notices which became part of the record.

144.Further, the incident in question occurred in the year 2021, and the witnesses were examined after a considerable lapse of time. Hence, minor discrepancies in their testimonies are bound to occur and such discrepancies do not go to the root of the case. For instance, PW-1 deposed that the cover was black in colour, whereas PW-8 deposed that it was brown in colour. Such minor inconsistencies do not diminish the evidentiary value of the prosecution case, as human memory is not a tape recorder capable of reproducing events with exact precision after a lapse of time. Therefore, such trivial discrepancies cannot be a ground to discard the otherwise cogent and reliable evidence of the prosecution witness, which inspires the confidence of this Court.

66/79Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 54 of 2022

145.It is not a case of non-seizure of the Honda motor cycle/schooty bearing number TS24 FTR 0405 same was returned to its registered owner by virtue of orders in Crl.MP 147/2022, dt.18-05-2022 i.e. to Abboju Lakshmi towards interim custody and also photographs to that extent were filed before court and became part of record. Even if there are certain lapses on the part of the prosecution, the entire case of the prosecution need not be brushed aside on that ground alone.

146.Merely because the contraband was found on a two-wheeler, it cannot be said that no accusation can be attributed to Accused No. 1. On the contrary, it was at the instance of Accused No. 1 that the contraband was kept on the two-wheeler and upon noticing the police the accused attempted to flee from the scene. Such conduct clearly establishes the conscious possession and knowledge regarding the contraband.

147.It is also not a case of failure to draw samples. The contraband was opened, and samples were duly drawn. Therefore, it cannot be said that the cover was not opened in the presence of panch witnesses. Subsequently, the entire contraband was produced before the learned Magistrate, where representative samples were taken.Who prepared inventory and also issued Ex.P9 certificate to that extent by learned Magistrate on 16-11-2021.

148.Merely because PW-7, who registered the crime, did not know the full form of the NDPS Act, the same would not go to the root of the case. The accused never challenged the registration of the crime under the provisions of the NDPS

Act by taking recourse to appropriate legal remedies. Hence, such a contention is insignificant and does not affect the prosecution case.

67/79Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 54 of 2022

149.As per the evidence on record, the samples were drawn after opening the contraband at the scene by the Mandal Executive Officer (MEO). Thereafter, when the same was produced before the Investigating Officer, i.e., the Station House

Officer (SHO) inturn he handed over to the Investigating Officer who deposed that the contraband was not opened again until it was produced before the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate, in turn, certified the quantity of the contraband under Ex.P9.

150.The prosecution has thus established the conscious possession of the accused No.1. the conduct of the accused No.1. In attempting to flee upon seeing the police further strengthens the inference that he had knowledge of possession and transporting contraband.

151.The contentions raised in the written arguments have already been addressed in the preceding paragraphs and do not require further elaboration.

152.In light of the above discussion and the circumstances of the case, this

Court finds that the evidence placed on record by the prosecution is sufficient to bring home the guilt of Accused No. 1 beyond all reasonable doubt.

153.By virtue of section 42 of the Act as it authorized and empowered the MEO to be the witness for the seizure of any property under the NDPS Act, hence MEO

PW4 and his officials, Government Teachers were secured and they corroborated the testimonies of one another and on depositing the property before the learned Magistrate’s court after registering the crime the learned Magistrate conducted the proceedings under section 52-A (3)of NDPS Act and the proceedings clearly shown the learned Magistrate collected the samples of 100 68/79Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 54 of 2022

grams each towards representative sample and also the official report under

Ex.P10 would goes to show the sample received were analyzed and found to be a ganja and it was Narcotic Drug.

154.The evidence of PW1, 3 and 4 is corroborated regarding noticing the accused no.1 in possession of the contraband and the seizure of ganja was also established and police recovered the contraband in the manner as mentioned supra, and it was corroborated by PW3 and 4 that the contraband was seized from the possession of A1 and it was established that contraband of 2.25 kilograms was recovered from the possession of A1. Though PW1 deposed the bag was kept in the black cover contained ganja was found on the vehicle but from the evidence it was elicited that A1 was found in possession of ganja and PW3 and 4 also deposed and corroborated the testimony of PW1 regarding seizure of contraband from possession of A1 only, though independent witness PW3 and 4 were examined who deposed about a confession of accused 1 to 3 but in view of the testimony of witness that a police personnel drafted the recovery panchanama, hence, as it was hit by section 24 and 25 of Evidence Act, hence substantial evidence of PW1, 3 and 4 when taken into consideration it was established regarding the recovery of contraband from the possession of A1 and no weight can be attached to the testimonies on record by virtue of recording confession as it was a hit by section 24 and 25. So alleged confession of A2 and A3 regarding their alleged arrival to purchase the same from A1 cannot be taken into consideration.

155.In the instant case, immediately after seizure of the contraband, when report was given to the SHO, it was informed by the SHO to his higher officials, 69/79Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 54 of 2022

and as contemplated under section 57 of the NDPS Act, when report of arrest and seizure was made under the Act, it shall within 48 hours, after such arrest or seizure, has to make a full report of all particulars of such arrest or seizure to his immediate official superior. In the instant case, two independent panch witness, who were associated in recovery proceedings were examined, and also the proceedings under 52-A were undertaken by the I.O for preparing inventory and obtained samples in the presence of learned Magistrate, and immediately after collecting the samples, they were sent to the FSL, and also the procedure contemplated under section 57 of the NDPS Act was also complied with full report of all particulars of arrest and seizure to his immediate superior officer, was made by the SHO, and the samples were also sent immediately and there was no delay, and the samples when collected, they were sent by the learned

Magistrate to FSL within two days and the MEO and the Government Teacher

were secured from the local area, and it was not the case of conducting the search after sunset, and the mandatory provisions contemplated under NDPS Act were complied with.

156.Factum of conscious possession of first accused was established, hence presumption of culpable mental state can be drawn against the first accused it was established the possession of contraband by the accused or transporting same hence, first accused is presumed to be in conscious possession of the contraband. Once the contraband was proved to be recovered from the possession of A1, it would show his conscious possession.

157. By virtue of the ruling of the Honourable Apex Court in (2015) (6) Supreme 70/79Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 54 of 2022

Court cases, 674, in Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another, it was pleased to held that once possession of contraband was established, accused was presumed to be in conscious possession.

158.Further, it was also pleased to held in the ruling reported in 2016(13)

Supreme Court cases, 119, it was pleased to held that when recovery of contraband in public places, when the recovery was made in presence of the

Gezetted Officer, the secret information received by officials concerned for making the search of the accused properly recorded, then it could be considered prosecution proved the case beyond all reasonable doubt. Conviction under section 8 and 20 of NDPS Act can be confirmed.

159.At this juncture, it is worth mentioning the ruling of the Honourable Apex

Court in Narvir chand vs. State, reported in 1982 Criminal Law Journal 246, wherein it was pleased to held that if the person possessing the drugs or substance does not carry himself, but enters the same to some other person for carriage in a car, then that person, driver of the car would be the person who transports the said drugs, and the person who directs him to do so would be the abettor of the offence of transporting.

160.So, in the instant case, the evidence goes to show, A1 to A3, when found under suspicious circumstance, when they tried to abscond, they were chased and apprehended and on interrogation, they said to have confessed regarding the commission of offence, and they tried to fled away from the scene by keeping the bag on the vehicle, and it appeared from the testimonies of PW1, 3 and 4, that the contraband was seized from the possession of A1, even though it was deposed 71/79Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 54 of 2022

that vehicle was seized from the possession of A2, but by virtue of not marking the said vehicle as material object or not producing the vehicle, hence it cannot be considered A2 was found, while transporting ganja it could not be considered prosecution was able to establish A2 was in possession of the vehicle on which the contraband was kept, but the evidence of Pw3 and 4 coupled with the testimony of Pw1 goes to show the recovery of contraband from the possession of A1.

161.So, under such circumstances, it can be considered in the light of aforementioned discussion and observation, as the evidence on record is corroborating with one another and it established the commission of offences by

A1, by virtue of having conscious possession of contraband, being Ganja a

Narcotic, as he failed to rebutt the presumption contemplated under the NDPS

Act. A presumption of culpable mental state can be drawn. It can be presumed it can be that the first accused has committed an offence under the Act nothing was placed to rebut the presumption. By virtue of evidence, under section 54 of the

NDPS Act, as contrary was not proved under section 54 of the NDPS Act, it shall be presumed that the accused no.1 committed offences under the Act.

162.In view of not recovering any contraband from the second and third accused, and also it was not established the vehicle said to have seized from A2 belonged to particular accused, as confession made to PWs 3 and 4 by virtue of presence of the police personnel who drafted the Panchnama, which would show their presence was hit by section 24 and 25 of Indian Evidence Act.

163.Hence, the second and third accused cannot be held liable, as the first accused was found in conscious possession of contraband of 2.25 grams of ganja, 72/79Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 54 of 2022

being medium, found to be in possession of ganja, hence, he can be held liable, as he possessed more than 1000 grams of contraband.

164.Hence, by virtue of the aforementioned discussion and observations made supra, on cumulative evaluation of entire evidence on record, coupled with the exhibits marked, as the 1st accused were found in possession of ganja, hence it can be considered prosecution is able to establish the guilt of the first accused regarding having in conscious possession of contraband or transportation of ganja.

165.As per the evidence placed by the prosecution, the 1st accused was found in possession of 2.25 kilograms ganja, which was a Narcotic Drug and as it involved the quantity lesser than commercial quantity, but greater than small quantity.

Hence, for contravention relating to class (b) of the section 20 of NDPS Act, hence it is appropriate, reasonable to sentence the 1st accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for certain period to imose fine.

166.A1 failed to rebut the presumption. At this juncture, it is worth mentioning the ruling of Hon’ble Apex Court in Rakesh Kumar Raghuvanshi vs The State of

Madhya Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No.1953 of 2014 of Honourable Supreme

Court of India. It was pleased to held: Conscious possession refers to a scenario where an individual not only physically possesses a narcotic drug or psychotropic substance but is also aware of its presence and nature. In other words, it requires both physical control and mental awareness. This Court through various of its decisions has repeatedly underscored that possession under the NDPS Act should not only by physical but also conscious. Conscious possession implies that the 73/79Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 54 of 2022

person knew that he had the illicit drug or psychotropic substance in his control and had the intent or knowledge of its illegal nature.

167.IV. Mahesh Laxmanbhai Patel vs State of Gujarat reported in 2002 (4)

GLR 3127 of Honourable High Court of Gujarat. It was pleased to held: From the documentary evidence of the FSL, it is proved beyond doubt that the muddamal seized from the accused had reached FSL without any tampering and the same was analyzed to be a narcotic drug.

168. The property i.e. Honda Motor Cycle & Scooter bearing No. TS 24 FTR 0405 was given towards interim custody to the Abboju Laxmi i.e. owner of the property vide orders dated 18.05.2021 vide Crl.M.P.No. 147/2022 in Cr.No.128/2021 of P.S.

Pasra.

Hence, in the light of aforementioned observations and discussion made supra, it can be considered prosecution proved the guilt of the accused no.1, for the charged offence punishable under section 8(c) r/w 20 (b) of NDPS Act, hencethe first accused is liable for punishment under section 20 (b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act (NDPS Act). However, as the prosecution failed to establish the possession of contraband by the second and third accused, or regarding transportation of ganja by the second and third accused, as substantial evidence is shortcoming to connect the accused two and three, for the charged offence referred supra, hence it is not unreasonable to held that prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused two and three, for the charged offence punishable under section 8 (c) r/w 20 (b) of the Narcotic Drugs and

Psychotropic Substance Act (NDPS Act). Accordingly, these points are determined.

74/79Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 54 of 2022

169.In the result, the first accused is found guilty for the charged offence punishable under section 8 (c) r/w 20 (b) of NDPS Act and accordingly, the accused no.1 is convicted as per the provisions of 235(2) CrPC. The accused No.2 and 3 are found not guilty for the chargedoffence under section 8 (c) r/w sec.

20 (b) of NDPS Act and accordingly, they are acquitted as per the provisions of 235(1) CrPC. The bail bonds of A2 and A3 shall stand cancel after expiry appeal period.

Dictated to the stenographer/voice, after correction pronounced by me in the open

Court on this the 30 th day of April, 2026.

Principal District and Sessions Judge-

cum-Spl. Court to deal with the cases filed under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Mulugu.

171. The sentence contemplated under section 8 (c) r/w 20 (b) of

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act), was explained to the accused No.1 and he pleaded mercy. In view of the nature of the accusation and considering the circumstances of the case and accused is heard with regard to quantum of sentence to be imposed upon him. Accordingly the point is determined

172.Accused No.1 is heard with regard to quantum of sentence to be imposed upon him.

75/79Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 54 of 2022

Accused No.1 submitted that he used to do cultivation. He has to look after his parents. His father is not good health.

173. On hearing the accused one on quantum of sentence, in view of the nature, facts and circumstances of the case, it appears sentencing him to imprisonment and also to impose fine will meet the ends of justice for the offences punishable under Section 8 (c) r/w 20 (b) of NDPS Act.

174. Having regard to the relevant facts and circumstances of the case, on balancing mitigating circumstances and aggravating punishment, in the light of circumstances, sentencing the accused to imprisonment and imposing fine for causing acts referred supra, appears to be quite- appropriate and adequate punishment in the light of given facts.

175. After exercising discretion judiciously, in the light of circumstances and considering the submission of the accused, having regard to the enormity and gravity of offences and on considering the submissions of the accused, it is just, reasonable and appropriate to impose sentence of (10) years imprisonment and fine of Rs. 50,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 8 (c) r/w 20 (b) of NDPS Act against the first accused.

POINT NO. 2

176.In the result the accused No.1 is found guilty for the charged offence punishable under 8 (c) r/w 20 (b) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances 76/79Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 54 of 2022

Act (NDPS Act). Hence, the accused no.1 is convicted under section 235 (2) Cr.P. C and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years, and also sentenced to pay fine of Rs 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) for the chargedoffence punishable under 8 (c) r/w 20 (b) of Narcotic Drugs and

Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act). In default of payment of fine amount of

Rs.50,000/-, the accused No.1 shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of (06) six months.

The remand period already undergone by the accused No.1 for the period from 14.11.2021 to 21.12.2021 shall be given set off under section 428 CRPC.

The MO.1 sample packet shall be destroyed subsequent to confirmation regarding disposal of appeal if any.

The unmarked case property that is Scooty bearing No. TS24 FTR 0405 given towards interm custody to Abboju Laxmi vide order in Crl.MP. 147/2022, dt.18-05-2022 holds good after confirmation regarding disposal of appeal if any, with a direction to the registered owner to keep the property intact and shall not transfer the property in the name of any person and not to alinate the same and to produce the property before the court as and when directed.

The copy of the judgment is furnished tothe 1st accused at free of cost and the accused no.1 is informed his right to file appeal against this judgment before the Hon’ble High Court for the state of Telangana and also the accused No.1 is appraised of his right to obtain free legal aid, if necessary, if he does not have means to file an appeal.

The accused No.2 and 3 are acquitted for the charged offence punishable 77/79Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 54 of 2022

under section 8 (c) r/w sec. 20 (b) of NDPS Act. The bail bonds of Accused 2 and 3 shall be cancelled after confirmation regarding disposal off Appeal if any. The bonds executed by Accused Nos. 1 to 3 under Section 437-A of Cr.PC shall be infroce for (6) months from the date of execution.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, and after correction pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 30 th day of April, 2026.

Sd/-

Principal District and Sessions Judge-

cum-Spl. Court to deal with the cases filed under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Mulugu.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW1Ch. Karunakar RaoNone.

PW2T. Narsimha Chary

PW3K.Someshwar Rao

PW4G. Diwakar

PW5P. Devendar Rao

PW6M. Bhanu Prakash

PW7G. Laxmipathi

PW8V. Shankar

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1:Report of Pw.1 dated 13.11.2021 in Cr.No.128/21 of Police station 78/79Prl. S.J., Mlg.

SC 54 of 2022

Pasra. Ex.P2:Requisition given to MEO by Pw.1 dated 13.11.2021

Ex.P3:Is seizure and panchanama dated 13.11.2021

Ex.P4:Two photographs with CD at scene of offence

Ex.P5:Is photo studio receipt issued by Photographer Pw.5

Ex.P6:Crime details form, dated 14.11.2021 in Cr.No.128/2021 of Police Station Pasra. Ex.P7:Is FIR dated 13.11.2021 in Cr.No. 128/2021

Ex.P8:Requisition dated 14.11.2021, filed by Pw.8 /C.I of Police Pasra before the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mulugu. Ex.P9:Certificate issued by learned JFCM, Mulugu dated 16.11.2021

Ex.P10:FSL report, dated 18.01.2022

FOR DEFENCE:

Nil.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:

Mo.1 is sample packet received from FSL, Hyderabad.

Sd/-

Principal District and Sessions Judge-

cum-Spl. Court to deal with the cases filed under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Mulugu.

79/79Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 15 of 2023

IN THE COURT OF THE FAST TRACK SESSIONS JUDGE FOR EXPEDITIOUS

DISPOSAL OF CASES OF RAPE AND PROTECTION OF CHILD AGAINST SEXUAL

OFFENCES (POCSO) ACT :: AT MULUGU

Present: Smt. S.V.P. Surya Chandrakala,

Principal District and Sessions Judge, Mulugu,

FAC Fast Track Sessions Judge for Expeditious disposal of cases of Rape and Protection of child against sexual offences (POCSO) Act, Mulugu.

Thursday, the 30 th day of April, 2026

SPL. SESSIONS CASE No. 1 5 OF 202 3

(Cr.No.14/2023, PS., Venkatapur)

Crime Number and Police Station:Cr.No.14 of 2023 of Police Station: Venkatapur

Name and description of the Accused:Lyadalla Rajnikanth S/o Venkanna, Age: 20 years, Caste: Mudiraj, Occu: Auto Driver, R/o Kondapur village of Ghanpur Mandal.

The State of Telangana, represented Name and description of the : by Sub-Inspector of Police, PS. Complainant Venkatapur. Sri D. Ram Singh, Prosecution conducted by : Special Public Prosecutor. Sri B. Sarangapani, Accused defended by: Advocate, Mulugu. U/secs. 354-D, 448, 290, 506 (1) of IPC, Offence charged: Sec. 11 r/w 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 against Accused.

Pleaded not guilty and claimed to be Plea of the Accused: tried. Found guilty. Finding of the Court:

In the result, the accused is Result: found guilty for the charged offences punishable U/secs. 354- 1/84Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 15 of 2023

D, 448, 290 of IPC, Sec. 11 r/w 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and accused is convicted of the said offences Under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C.

The accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of (02) Years and he shall also pay fine of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only)for the charged offence punishable under Section 3 54 -D of IPC, and in default to make payment of fine of Rs.1000/-, the accused shallundergosimple imprisonment for a period of (02) months.

Further the accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of (01) year and also shall a l s o pay fine of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) for the charged offence punishable under Section 448 IPC, and in default to make payment of fine of Rs.1000/-, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for 2/84Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 15 of 2023 a period of (02) two months.

Further the accused is sentenced to pay fine of

Rs.200/- (Rupees two hundred only) for the charged offence punishable under Section 290,

IPC, and in default to make payment of fine of Rs.200/-, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one week (7 days).

Further the accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of (01) year and also shall a l s o pay fine of Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) for the charged offence punishable under Section 11 r/w 12 of

Protection of Children from

Sexual Offences Act, and in default to make payment of fine of Rs.2000/-, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of (02) two months.

The sentences shall run concurrently in respect of offences U/secs. 354-D, 448, 290 3/84Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 15 of 2023 of IPC, Sec. 11 r/w 12 of the

Protection of Children from

Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

In this case accused was released on station bail, hence, there was no remand set off

Under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.

Further the accused is found not guilty for the charged offencepunishalbeunder section 506 IPC and he is acquitted for said offence under

Section 235(1) CPC.

The accused is informed about his right to prefer an appeal against this Judgment and also appraised to obtain free legal aid if he required. The accused is furnishedwithcopyof

Judgment.

Before parting with the

Judgment, in the light of nature and circumstance of the case this Court is satisfied and is of considered view that it is a fit case to award compensation to the victim of Rs. ₹ 2,00,000 4/84Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 15 of 2023 (RupeestwoLakhs only)as provided under Section 357-A of Cr.P.Cr/w Rule7of

Protection of Child from Sexual

Offences Rules, 2012 to the victim as provided for her rehabilitation for loss of injury causing severe mental agony to child victim.

Hence recommended to

DistrictLegalServices

Authority, Mulugu to disburse the compensation amount of ₹ 2,00,000/- (RupeestwoLakhs only) to the victim namely xxxxx, under Section 357-A (2) of Cr.P.C r/w Rule 7 of POCSO

Act R/w Section 33(8) of

POCSO Act.

The office is directed to forward the copy of Judgment as well as copy of charge sheet containing the address of victim/PW1 xxxx to the District

Legal Services Authority, Mulugu to disburse the quantum of compensation to the victim xxxx.

This case coming before me on 20.04.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri D. Ram Singh, Special Public Prosecutor for the Complainant/State and Sri 5/84Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 15 of 2023

B. Sarangapani, Advocate for the accused upon perusing the material papers on record, having been heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

:: JUDGMENT ::

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Police, Venkatapur Police station filed charge- sheet against the accused in crime No.14 of 2023 of P.S. Venkatapur for the offences punishable U/secs.354-D, 448, 290, 506 of IPC and Sec. 11 r/w 12 of the

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

2.The case of the prosecution against the accused, in brief, was that the criminal was set into motion basing on alleged report of the defacto complainant on 02.02.2023 at 19:00 hours in which he stated that he had one son aged 13 years old and daughter/alleged victim girl was aged about 16 year old. His daughter was staying in BC Girls hostel at Ghanpur Mandal and was studying 10th standard in

Model school. His daughter used to board in an auto belonged to the accused and traveled in his auto for few days and in that process, the accused used to roam around the hostel of his daughter and harassed his daughter mentally by alleged saying that he loved her and he stalked their daughter in various ways. He said to have been behaving like that for one year. About one week ago i.e. on 25.01.2023 in the morning at about 11:00 hours his wife and himself said to have gone to their chilli crop field, the accused said to have come to their house by his auto and said to have harassed their daughter by alleged saying that he would marry her and said to have threatened to kill her daughter, due to fear, their daughter said to 6/84Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 15 of 2023 have informed about alleged incident to him through phone, on alleged telephonic information his wife and himself said to have come back to their house and said to have found alleged presence of the accused in their house, and he said to have questioned him why he was stalking his daughter, he said to have abused him and said to have pushed him and fled away. As his wife was suffering from alleged ill health, he got her treatment and later he came to Police Station and lodged a report and requested to take necessary action.

3.On receipt of the above report from LW1, LW-10/ Sri A Balaiah, Head constbale, P.S. Venkatapur registered a case vide Cr.No.14/2023 U/Sec. 354-D, 448, 290, 506 IPC and Sec.11 r/w 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012, issued FIR and dispatched the copies to all the concerned and said to have taken up investigation.

4.During the course of Investigation, LW-10/Sri A Balaiah, Head constable,

P.S. Venkatapur said to have examined the complainant/LW1 and said to have recorded his alleged statement in part-I CD, Later on the next day, on alleged direction of LW-10/Sri A Balaiah, Head constbale, P.S. Venkatapur LW4/WPC said to have examined and said to have recorded alleged statement of alleged victim girl/LW2 (YYYY) under video coverage, LW-5 said to have taken video graph of the statement under 161 Cr.P.C of LW-2/alleged victim in her mobile phone thereafter

LW-10 said to have visited alleged scene of offence at Gurrampet village of

Bhupalapalli Mandal, said to have observed alleged scene minutely and said to have incorporated physical features of the scene in crime detail form in alleged 7/84Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 15 of 2023 presence of mediators LWs 7 & 8 P. Kishtaiah and Chinna Mallaiah, thereafter he said to have secured alleged presence of LW 3 to LW 5 alleged mother and

Women PC., Venkatapur said to have examined them and said to have recorded their alleged statements.

5.Subsequently, LW-11 said to have taken up further investigation in the case, said to have verified alleged investigation said to have done by LW-10 and said to have found it on proper lines. LW-11 said to have summoned witnesses by alleged visiting alleged scene of offence said to have re-examined them who said to have reiterated the same facts as said to have stated earlier before LW-10, as such, LW- 11 did not record their statements.

6.LW-10/Sri A Balaiah, Head constbale, Police station Venkatapur said to have filed a requisition before the learned Addl. 1st Class Judicial Magistrate,

Mulugu to record 164 Cr.P.C. Statement of alleged victim/LW-2. On 04.03.2023

LW-9/learned Magistrate, Mulugu said to have recorded 164 Cr.P.C statement of

LW-2/alleged victim girl (YYYY). Thereafter LW-11 said to have received the 164

Cr.P.C certified copies from the Court.

7.On 15.02.2023 LW-11/ Sri SK. Tajuddin, S.I of Police, Venkatapur said to have served notice U/s. 41-A (1) Cr.P.C to the accused with alleged instructions to ascertain facts and circumstances from them. Accordingly on 16.02.2023 on alleged receipt of 41-A (1) Cr.P.C. notice, the accused said to have appeared

before LW-11 at PS. On alleged interrogation he said to have voluntarily

confessed about alleged commission of offence, Later LW-11/ Sri SK. Tajuddin, S.I 8/84Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 15 of 2023 of Police, Venkatapur said to have served notices U/s 41-A (3) Cr.P.C to the accused for his appearance in the Court at the time of trial as per the guidelines of

Honorable Supreme Court, LW-11 said to have not collected the any documents

from sureties.

8.LW-11/ Sri SK. Tajuddin, S.I of Police, Venkatapur said to have addressed a letter to LW-6 for date of birth certificate of LW-2/alleged victim, thereafter LW- 11 said to have collected alleged victim girl’s/LW-2(YYYY) Date of Birth Certificate from LW-6, and said to have examined him and said to have recorded his alleged statement in part-II CD in detail. As per School record, LW-2/alleged victim girl’s (YYYY) date of birth was 04.02.2006. As per the certificate of alleged victim/LW4, she was aged about 17 years old. LW-11/ Sri SK. Tajuddin, S.I of Police, Venkatapur said to have examined LW-6 in part-ll CDs in detail.

9.Alleged investigation said to have established case against the accused, hence on competition of investigation, on receipt of alleged documents, charge sheet was filed against the accused. As the accused said to have made alleged sexual harassment on unmarried girl/alleged victim LW-1 and had alleged physical contact with her and said to have advanced alleged involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures of alleged victim/LW-2 and said to have threatened her with alleged dire consequences, hence filed charge sheet against the accused

U/Sec.354-D, 448, 290, 506 IPC and Sec.11 r/w 12 of Protection of Children from

Sexual Offences Act 2012.

10.The case was taken on file by taking cognizance against the accused on 9/84Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 15 of 2023 02.06.2023 by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Mulugu for the offences punishable U/secs. 354-D, 448, 290, 506 of IPC, Sec. 11 r/w 12 of the Protection of

Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and made over to the court of Special

Sessions Court for POCSO Act Cases, Mulugu and registered the case as

Spl.SC.No. 15/2023.

11.On appearance of the accused before the court, all the copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated under Section 207 CrPC by the court.

12. On appearance of the accused before the Court, on hearing the accused, learned counsel for the accused and learned Special Public Prosector under

Section 226 Cr.P.C as the court was of the opinion that there were grounds for presuming that the accused committed alleged offences and on considering the material on record and as per Section 228 (1) (b) CrPC, the charges U/secs. 354-D, 448, 290, 506 of IPC, Sec. 11 r/w 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual

Offences Act, 2012were framed against accused and same were read over and explained to the accused under Section 228 (2) Cr.P.C in his vernacular language, for which the accused denied the charges and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

13.During the course of trial, the prosecution examined Pws. 1 to Pw.10 and got marked Ex.P1 to P8. PW1 is alleged victim, Pw.2 and Pw.3 are said to be parents of alleged victim girl, Pw.4 and Pw.5 are woman police constables, Pw.6 is panch witness for crime detail form, Pw.7 is principal of school, who said to have 10/84Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 15 of 2023 issued date of birth certificate of alleged victim, Pw.8 is panch witness for crime details form, Pw.9 is the 1st investigation officer and Pw.10 is the 2nd investigation officer.

14.Ex.P1 is the report dated 02.02.2023 presented by Pw.2 in Cr.No.14/2023 of P.S. Venkatapur, Ex.P2 is CD prepared by PW4, Ex.P.3 Is signature of Pw.6 on crime details form in crime no. 14 of 2023, Ex.P4 Is bonafied cum date of birth certificate of Pw.1, Ex.P5 Is signature of Pw.8 on the crime details form datged 03.02.2023, Ex.P6 Is original FIR in Cr.No.14/2023, Ex.P7 Is the crime details form in Cr.No. 14/2023 and Ex.P8 Is 164 Cr.P.C statement of victim/Pw.1.

15.Prosecution given up the evidence of LW9, learned Additional judicial

magistrate of first class Mulugu and prosecution evidence reported close. After

closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/sec. 313 Cr.P.C on the incriminating evidence available against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and he denied the same and reported no witness to be examined on his behalf.

16. Heard the arguments of learned Special Public Prosecutor, representing the State and the learned counsel for the accused.

17. The point that arises for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution proved it’s case against the accused for the charged offences punishable U/secs. 354-D, 448, 290, 506 of IPC, Sec. 11 r/w 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 the beyond all 11/84Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 15 of 2023 reasonable doubt ?”

POINT:

18.Perused the record.

19.To bring home the guilt of the accused and to prove the charges U/secs.

354-D, 448, 290, 506 of IPC, Sec. 11 r/w 12 of the Protection of Children from

Sexual Offences Act, 2012 the prosecution has to establish that prior to one year and on 25.01.2023 at about 11.00 hours at Gurrampet village of Venkatapur mandal the accused used to follow and contacted the victim minor girl/lw.2 to foster personal interaction repeatedly in the name of love, despite a clear indication of disinterest by the victim minor gir//Lw.2 and forced her to love the accused and outraged the modesty of victim minor girl/Lw.2, thereby the accused committed an offence punishable U/secs. 354-D of IPC.

20.Further, it has to be established by the prosecution that the accused, on the above date, time and place mentioned supra, committed house tress pass by entering into the house of victim minor girl/Lw.2 with sexual intent and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 448 of IPC.

21.It has to be established by the prosecution that accused, on the above date, time and place mentioned supra, committed public nuisance in the pubic place i.e.

on the road quarreled with the victim minor girl/Lw.2 and her father and caused public obstruction and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 290 of IPC.

12/84Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 15 of 2023

22.It has to be established by the prosecution that accused, on the above date, time and place mentioned supra committed criminal intimidation by threatening the victim minor girl/Lw.2 to marry the accused or otherwise the accused threatened her with dire consequences and to kill the victim girl/Lw.2 and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC.

23.It has to be established by the prosecution that accused, on the above date, time and place mentioned supra, committed sexual harassment of the victim minor girl/lw.2 with sexual intent, repeatedly or constantly in the name of love and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC.

24. To establish the charges U/secs. 354-D, 448, 290, 506 of IPC, Sec. 11 r/w 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, now the evidence available on record is the evidence of Pws. 1 to Pw.10 coupled with Ex.P1 to P8 referred supra.

25.The learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that the prosecution has clinchingly established the commission of offences U/secs. 354-D, 448, 290, 506 of IPC, Sec. 11 r/w 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 against the accused, by virtue of the evidence of Pw.1 and Pw.10 coupled with Exs. P1 to P8 beyond all reasonable doubt and sought for conviction of the court.

26.On the other hand, the learned counsel for accused submitted that the accused never followed and contacted the victim minor girl/lw.2 to foster 13/84Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 15 of 2023 personal interaction repeatedly in the name of love, despite alleged clear indication of disinterest by the victim minor gir//Lw.2 and never forced her to love the accused and never outraged the modesty of victim minor girl/Lw.2, and the accused never committed house tress pass by entering into the house of victim minor girl/Lw.2 with sexual intent, and accused also never committed criminal intimidation by threatening the victim minor girl/Lw.2 to marry the accused or otherwise the accused threatened them with dire consequences and to kill the victim girl/Lw.2 and accused never committed sexual harassment of the victim minor girl/lw.2 with sexual intent repeatedly or constantly in the name of love and the prosecution failed to establish alleged commission of offences against the accused for the charged offences punishable U/secs. 354-D, 448, 290, 506 of IPC,

Sec. 11 r/w 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 beyond all reasonable doubt, hence, the accused was entitled for benefit of doubt and sought for acquittal of the accused.

27.As seen from the record, the prosecution relied on the evidence of Pws.1 to Pw.10 coupled with Ex.P1 to P8 referred supra.

28.PW1/alleged victim girl deposed that she was resident of Gurrampet village, Venkatapur Mandal, Mulugu District. She completed 1st year Intermediate from NRI College, Erragattu Gutta, Hanamkonda. Ashok(LW1) as her father.

Anitha(LW3) as her mother. She deposed she knew Rajinikanth (Accused) . PW1 further deposed that during Corona period she was studying 9th Class at Model

School, Ghanpur (M) she used to attend the school from Kondapur to Ghanpur(M) 14/84Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 15 of 2023 as day scholar by auto. She further deposed her father used to get board her into the Auto at Kondapur. The Auto belonged to Rajinikanth, the Accused. She further deposed she attended the school for 20 days in the same auto of the accused and also returned from her school in the same auto. After 20 days she was promoted to 10th class and she joined in the BC hostel situated in front of the same school.

After she joined in the hostel, the accused used to roam around her on the pretext of loving her and intending to marry her. But she did not care about the same.

29. PW1 further deposed that as the accused continued the same attitude, hence through their warden she made a call to her father and informed about the accused, then her father warned the accused. The accused was kept quite for some time. Again accused continued the same attitude. During Sankranthi holidays from 12-01-2023 to 18-01-2023, she went to their house at Gurrampet. At that time she was not feeling well, hence on 24th of the same month, she went to

Hospital at Chelpur village. As her father had some work, as she had to return to her school by 25th of January, 2023, hence her father informed her that he would send her to the school on 25th evening.

30. PW1 further deposed that her father went to fields along with her mother.

At about 11.00 am. Rajinikanth, the Accused came to their house and stated to her that accused liked her and accused would marry her and also forced her. Then she asked the accused to leave the place soon and locked the door from inside and she made a call to her father. Her father returned to their house along with 15/84Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 15 of 2023 her mother. Her father questioned the accused about his presence at their house.

Then the accused informed to her father that accused liked her and intended to marry her, then her father stated to the accused that their family was respectable family, then the accused by pushing her father left their house.

31. PW1 further deposed that her parents gave report against the accused at

Police station in respect of the said incident. She deposed Police examined her and recorded her statement. She deposed she was also brought by police to the

Court at Mulugu and her statement was recorded by the learned Judge at Mulugu.

She deposed she had no idea whether she put her signature on her statement recorded by learned Judge, but deposed she could identify her signature if it was shown to her. When 164 Cr.P.C. statement was shown to PW1 she identified the signature on 164 Cr.P.C. statement, dated:04-03-2023 as her signature.

32.During Cross examination of PW1, PW1 categorically deposed that she completed Intermediate 1st year. She could read and write Telugu. But deposed she could not say the number of the auto in which she said to have got boarded into to proceed to her school. She denied that she could not say the ownership or possessor of the auto in which she said to have attended her school. She deposed the auto belonged to Rajinikanth (the accused).

33.PW1 further deposed the accused did not show her any documents regarding his alleged ownership in respect of the auto. She denied that the accused was not the owner of the auto and he was not the driver of 16/84Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 15 of 2023 the auto and he never took her in the auto to any place. She also denied that her father never brought her on his bike to get board her into the auto from Gurrampet to Kondapur to go to her school by her.

34.PW1 deposed that Police examined her about the case and examined her what was happened and also recorded her statement.She deposed two women constables examined her. She denied that she did not state to the police that her father used to get board her into the auto at Kondapur. She denied that the accused never roamed around her near her school on pretext of loving her and intending to marry her.

35.She deposed she could not say the total number of students used to board in to the auto in which she proceed to the school. She deposed but many students used to board in to the auto and she did not count.

PW1further deposed the accused never stated during journey regarding his intention to marry her and loving her. PW1 denied that the accused met her during the traveling to school but not met her at her school. PW1 deposed the hostel in which she stayed was girls hostel and deposed the classes used to be conducted at Model School. She admitted boys would not be permitted to enter into girls hostel. She deposed whenever she went out of hostel, the accused used to be present out side the gate and also present at the shop to which she proceeded. PW1 deposed that the accused used to follow on the bike on her returning to hostel. She admitted that she did not state to the police or before learned Judge, 17/84Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 15 of 2023

Mulugu who recorded her statement, regarding presence of the accused out side of their hostel near the gate or following them to the hostel or to the shop, when ever they went to shop.

36.PW1 further deposed that she stated to the police that the accused used to follow her when ever she went out side. She admitted that she did not state to the police that the accused used to follow her on bike.

She deposed along with 3 or 4 students she used to go out of hostel for shopping. She deposed hostel authorities would not send out the students alone.

37.PW1 admitted that the accused was not her relative and also not her villager. She denied that what she deposed that during Sankranthi holidays from 12-01-2023 to 18-01-2023 she went to their house at

Gurrampet and she was not feeling well at that time was false. She denied that she did not inform to her parents or anyone regarding continuing the same attitude towards her by the accused after remaining silent for some period by the accused.

38.PW1 further denied that what she deposed that as her father had some works as she had to return to her school by 25-01-2023 hence her father informed her that he would send her to the school on 25-01-2023 was false. She deposed she had one younger brother.

39.PW1 deposed that presently her younger brother was 16 years old.

18/84Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 15 of 2023

She deposed on 25-01-2023 she was alone present at her house and her younger brother was not present in the house. She denied that the accused did not come to their house at about 11.00 am on 25-01-2023 and never stated her that he liked her and he would marry her and she deposed false.

40.PW1 further deposed that the accused came to waranda (front yard) of their house, but not entered into the rooms of their house. She admitted she did not state to the police and also before learned

Magistrate that the accused forced her. She deposed the accused asked

her to come out along with him, but did not state by holding her hand.

41.PW1 denied that she did not state to the police that she asked the accused to leave the place soon and she locked the door from inside. She denied that what she deposed that she made a phone call to her father was false. She denied that she did not state to the police that her father returned to their house along with her mother.

42.PW1 further denied that she did not state to the police that her father questioned the accused about his presence at their house and not stated about alleged saying by her father that their family was respectable family. PW1 further denied that what she deposed that the accused by pushing her father left their house was false.

43.PW1 deposed it took for about half an hour from the time the 19/84Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 15 of 2023 accused came to their house and till he left their house. According to further testimony of PW1, three houses were situated surrounding to their house and the neighboring house people did not come to their house from alleged time of alleged arrival of the accused to their house till the time, the accused said to have left their house.

44.She admitted that either after next day of 25-01-2023 or within two days of 25-01-2023, neither her parents nor herself gave any report to the police but they gave report to police after 8 days of alleged incident.

PW1 deposed due to ill health of her mother and herself, the report was not immediately given. She admitted that she did not state to the learned

Judge at Mulugu who recorded her statement that the accused used to

come near to their hostel gate and also about coming of accused on the bike. She also admitted, she did not state before learned Magistrate regarding stating by her father that they belonged to respectable family.

Again she deposed she stated before learned Magistrate that, her father stated to the accused that they belonged to respectable family.She denied that she did not state to learned Magistrate that she asked the accused to leave the place and about locking the door by her from inside.

She also denied that the accused never taken her in the auto to her school or taken to house from the school and never stated to her that he was coming to her and intended to marry her and she deposed false.

She also denied that during the pendency of proceedings about two months ago her parents beat the accused with footwear.

20/84Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 15 of 2023

45.25.During Re-examination by learned Addl. Public Prosecutor,

PW1 deposed one women police personnel examined her and another women constable videographed while recording her statement and her date of birth as 04-02-2006.

46.During Re-Cross examination of PW1 by learned counsel for the accused PW1 admitted thatshe did not state to the learned Magistrate that one women constable examined her and other women constable videographed while recording her statement. She deposed except women police personel SI or CI or DSP or SP examined her.

47.PW2said to be alleged father of PW1 deposed that he was resident of

Gurrampet village, Venkatapur Mandal, Mulugu District. He was an agriculturist.

LW3/Anitha as his wife. PW1 as their daughter. He deposed he knew the accused.

He identified the accused. PW2 further deposed that the date of birth of their daughter PW1 was 04-02-2006. He deposed during the period of Lock down in the year 2022 the schools were opened, but hostels ceased to run. Hence he used to take his daughter PW1 on his bike from their village Gurrampet till Kondapur and there he get boarded his daughter PW1 into auto of Rajinikanth i.e. Accused. As the accused was auto driver hence, they gave the phone number of their daughter/PW1. The accused used to harass their daughter/PW1 by phone by stating accused was loving PW1 and wanted to marry PW1. Students of their village nearly 20 to 30 used to board into the auto of accused.

48.PW2 further deposed that the accused used to keep his auto near the 21/84Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 15 of 2023 hostel and by going near to the hostel and school the accused harassed their daughter/PW1, under the guise of love and marry PW1. He admonished the accused twice and also threatened the accused that he would give a report, but again the accused used to follow PW1. He deposed PW1 came to their house during Sankranthi festival for holidays. As PW1 was suffering from teeth problem even though the holidays were completed by 18-01-2023 he intended to send

PW1 on 25-01-2023 to the hostel after medical checkup of PW1. Later his wife and himself went to fields on 24-01-2023, during their absence when his wife and himself went to fields accused harassed their daughter/PW1 on 24-01-2023, then his daughter/PW1 made a phone call to him and informed about the same. PW2 further deposed that then his wife and himself returned to their house from the fields by which time the accused was present at their house. When he questioned the accused why the accused came to their house, then the accused pushed him and left their house by auto. Later 0n 02-02-2023 he went to Venkatapur police station and he gave a report against the accused. Ex.P1 report was marked. He deposed he was examined by the police and police recorded his statement.

49.During Cross examination of PW2, PW2 deposed PW1, himself and his wife/LW3 went to Police station on 02-02-2023 at about 6.30 pm. or 7.00 pm. He deposed a known person with whom he had acquaintance drafted Ex.P1 report of him. He admitted after 8 days of alleged occurrence he gave report. He also corroborated the testimony of PW1 alleged reasons for not reporting the matter forthwith by deposing that due to alleged ill health of his wife they went to hospital. PW2 deposed 22/84Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 15 of 2023

Ex.P1 was the report presented by him. He deposed but his signature was not appearing (the signature and other particulars beneath the signature column in Ex.P1 report and the descriptive particulars of defacto complainant were covered with whitener and contained initials of the learned Magistrate who received FIR and report).PW2 deposed he studied upto 5th class. He further deposed he signed some times in Telugu and some times in English. He deposed for most of the time he used to sign in

English. PW2 denied that Ex.P1/report was not presented by him to the police. He deposed Police examined him and recorded his statement after giving report by him. PW2 admitted that he did not state to the police that he gave phone number of their daughter/PW1 to the accused. So, what was deposed by him in that regard was proved to be an improvement.

50.PW2 further deposed he also gave (his/PW2) phone number to the accused. PW2 denied that he did not state to the police that the accused harassed PW1 by phone that he was loving her and wanted to marry

PW1. He denied that he did not state to the police that the accused harassed PW1 by going near to the hostel that he was loving PW1 and wanted to marry PW1. He also denied that what he deposed that he admonished the accused twice was false.PW2 further deposed then the accused stated that he could do what ever he would do.

51.PW2 admitted he did not state to the police that PW1 had teeth 23/84Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 15 of 2023 problem. He deposed but he stated that PW1 was suffering from ill health. Even in Ex.P1 report of PW2 the reasons for alleged delay in presenting report was mentioned as alleged ill health of his wife and the testimonies of PWs. 1 and 2 were corroborated on those aspects.

52.PW2 denied that what he deposed that his daughter/PW1 made a phone call to him about harassment of PW1 by accused by coming to their house and his wife and himself when returned to their house he quested the accused about his presence at their house and about pushing him by the accused and leaving their house by the accused by auto as false.

53.He deposed by the time they reached their house PW1 was inside of their house with fear by locking the door of their house where as the accused was present near the door of their house out side. He deposed there were 3 or 4 houses surrounding to their house and their neighboring house people did not come to their house when they said to have returned from fields. He deposed all the people went for works to the fields. PW2 denied that he never sent PW1 in to the auto of the accused and the accused never harassed PW1 under guise of love and marry her and the accused never came to their house, never pushed him and false report was presented by him and he deposed false. He also denied that while the accused was attending the Court about 2 months ago, his wife and himself beat the accused with footwear, on the way to 24/84Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 15 of 2023

Mulugu. He denied that the accused also gave report against them before

Venkatapur Police. He denied that the Police Venkatapur examined his wife and himself in respect of said incident and admonished them.

54.PW3 said to be mother of PW1 and said to be the wife of PW2 deposed that she was resident of Gurrampet village, Venkatapur Mandal, Mulugu District.

She was an agriculturist. She deposed PW2 as her husband. PW1 as their daughter.

She deposed she knew the accused. She deposed the accused belonged to their neighboring village. She identified the accused. PW3 further deposed that a report was given against the accused by her husband/PW2. She deposed that in the year 2022 after Corona period even though the schools were reopened but the hostels were not reopened. At that time their daughter/PW1 was studying 9th class at Government school, Gurrampet. Again she deposed PW1 studied at

Government school Ghanpur. She further deposed her husband/PW2 used to drop their daughter/PW1 on the bike of accused upto Kondapur. Her husband/PW2 used to get board their daughter/PW1 in to the auto of the accused to take their daughter to her school situated at Ghanpur. After 15 or 20 days of proceeding of their daughter in the auto of the accused used to state to their daughter/PW1 that accused liked PW1 and also accused was loving her and asked PW1 to marry him.

55.PW3 further deposed that then their daughter/PW1 informed about the same to her husband(PW2). Hence her husband (PW2) admonished the accused and also questioned the accused. Her husband(PW2) also stated to the accused 25/84Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 15 of 2023 that their family was not that kind of family. Hence the accused was kept quiet.

After reopening of the hostel, they sent their daughter/PW1 to the hostel. She deposed their daughter (PW1) in order to go to school, she had to come out of her hostel. While proceeding to school by PW1, the accused asked PW1 that she was not talking to him and he was liking PW1 and wanted to marry her. Then PW1 stated by salutation the accused as “brother” and informed that her father was not good if he knew about the same he would scold at him.

56.PW3 further deposed that then her daughter by taking the phone of warden made a call to PW2 and informed to PW2 about arrival of the accused to the school. Then along with PW2 she went to the accused and admonished the accused by stating that it was not good for them to behave like that. Then the accused stated to them to do what ever they could and caught hold the shirt caller of her husband. At the intervention of the surrounding people the accused and themselves left to their respective places.

57.PW3 further deposed later Sankranthi holidays were declared in the year 2022. From 12-01-2022 onwards Pongal holidays were declared. Their daughter had to return to her school on 18-01-2023. Due to ill health of their daughter, she was remained at their house. PW1 had to attend the school on 15-01-2023, but due to her ill health, she did not attend the school. PW3 further deposed that on 25-01-2023 PW2 and herself went to the fields by leaving her daughter (PW1) at their house. Then the accused came in front of their house by auto and stated to

PW1 that accused was interested in PW1 and why PW1 was not talking to the 26/84Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 15 of 2023 accused and he wanted to marry her and accused was coming to her. Then PW1 by bolting the door from inside made a phone call from her phone to them and informed that accused was teasing and asked her father to come to the house.

Then they returned to their house. Then her husband (PW2) questioned the accused why he was making nuisance, by stating their family was respectable family. PW3 further deposed that then the accused stated that accused wanted to marry their daughter and by saying so the accused pushed her husband and went away. Later as she was suffering from ill health for abut 8 days, hence they went to hospital. Later on the 2nd day of February, 2023 her husband PW2 gave report and also PW1 and herself went to the police station. She deposed she was examined by the police, police recorded her statement. 04-02-2006 is the date of birth of their daughter(PW1).

58.During cross examination Pw.3 on behalf of the accused, PW3 deposed, her husband PW2 gave report on 02-02-2023 and deposed at the time of presenting report by her husband, she was present along with her husband and she also went to police station. In that way PW3 corroborated the testimony of PW2 who deposed on same lines but there was discrepancy regarding scribe of Ex.P1 report as PW1 deposed it was drafted by known person where as PW2 deposed Ex.P1 report was drafted by police personal.

59.PW3 denied that what she deposed that in the year 2022 after

Corona period, even though the schools were reopened, but the hostels 27/84Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 15 of 2023 were not opened was not correct. She denied that her husband did not drop their daughter upto Kondapur and not get boarded their daughter

PW1 in to the Auto of the accused from Kondapur to go to Ghanpur.

60.PW3 denied further that PW1 never informed to her and to her husband about alleged saying of the accused that he liked PW1 and he was loving her and asked PW1 to marry her.

61.PW3 deposed Police examined her and recorded her statement.

PW3 denied that she did not state to the police that when her daughter was taken by the accused in his auto, he stated to their daughter/PW1 that he was loving her and wanted to marry her and also denied that PW1 never disclosed about the same to her husband/PW2. PW3 denied that she did not state to the police that PW2/her husband admonished the accused and also he stated to the accused that their family was respectable family.

62.PW3 denied that she did not state to the police that PW2/her husband admonished the accused. She further denied that on admonition of accused by her husband,hence the accused kept quite. PW3 denied that she did not state to the police that after reopening of the hostel they sent PW1 to the hostel and while PW1 was proceeding to school again the accused asked PW1 why she was not talking to him and he liked her and wanted to marry her. PW3 denied that she did not state to the police that then PW1 stated to the accused by calling him as brother and informed 28/84Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 15 of 2023 that her husband was not good if he knew about the same he would scold at him. PW3 denied that she did not state to the police that then her daughter by taking the phone of warden made a call to PW2 and informed to her husband/PW2 about arrival of the accused to the school.

PW3 denied she did not state to police that then along with PW2, she went to the accused and admonished the accused by stating that it was not good for him to behave like that. PW3 further denied that she did not state to the police that then the accused stated them to do whatever they could and caught hold the shirt collar of her husband/PW1. PW3 denied that she did not state to the police that at the intervention of the surrounding people the accused and themselves left to their respective places.

63.PW3 further denied that she did not state to the police that later

Sankranthi holidays were declared in the year 2022, from 12-01-2022 onwards Pongal holidays were declared and their daughter had to return to her school on 18-01-2023. PW3 denied that she did not state to the police that due to ill health of their daughter she was remained to their house. PW3 deposed that PW1 had to attend the school on 15-01-2023, but due to her ill health, she did not attend the school. PW3 denied that she did not notice when the accused said to have come in front of their house by auto and stated to PW1 that he was interested in PW1 and wanted to marry her. PW3 denied that she did not stated to police then the accused came in front of their house by auto and stated to PW1 that 29/84Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 15 of 2023 he was interested in PW1 why PW1 was not talking to him and he wanted to marry her and he was coming to her. PW3 denied that what she deposed that then PW1 by bolting the door from inside made a phone call from her phone to them and informed that accused was teasing and asked her father to come to the house was false.

64.PW3 further denied that she did not state about the same to the police. PW3 denied that she did not state to the police that then they returned to their house. PW3 denied that she did not state to the police that then her husband (PW1) questioned the accused why he was making nuisance by stating their family was respectable family. PW3 further denied that she did not state to the police that then the accused stated that he wanted to marry their daughter and by saying so the accused pushed her husband and went away. PW3 denied that she did not state to the police that later as she was suffering from ill health for abut 8 days, hence they went to hospital. PW3 further denied that she did not know anything about the case at the instance of her husband she deposed false.

65.PW4/woman police constable deposed that she had been working as

Women Constable at Venkaktapur, PS for the past two years. She further deposed that on 02-02-2023 their head constable Balaiah (LW10) called women PC Saleema

Begum (LW5) and herself at 7.00 pm. and shown a girl and asked them to record her statement. As it was already late night, hence they asked the parents of the 30/84Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 15 of 2023 girl to go home. PW4 further deposed that on the next day i.e. on 03-02-2023 at about 9.00 am. the parents of the girl came to police station along with their daughter. Then Saleema Begum LW5 and herself took the girl to a separate room situated in their police station, then she gave her phone to Saleema Begum to record the video, while Saleema Begum (LW5) was recording the video she examined the girl child regarding what was happened and recorded her statement. After completion of video recording her cell phone was handed over to her by women PC (LW5). PW4 further deposed that then she made a CD of the video and handed over the CD to (LW10) head constable along with the statement of the girl recorded by her. She deposed the CD shown to her as the CD got prepared by her and handed over to LW10 HC. She deposed later on the same day in the evening her statement was recorded by (LW10) Balaiah the head constable.

Ex.P2 CD prepared by PW4 of alleged victim girl was marked.

66.During Cross examination of PW4, she deposed that their head constable did not give any written instruction to her to record statement of

PW1/alleged victim. She deposed that she was examined by the police regarding recording the statement of PW1 by her. She deposed her statement was recorded by Balaiah (LW10). She denied that she did not state to the police that on 02-02-2023 their head constable Balaiah (LW10) called women PC Saleema Begum (LW5) and herself at 7.00 pm.

and shown a girl and asked them to record her statement.

67.PW4 denied that she did not state to the police that as it was 31/84Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 15 of 2023 already late night, hence they asked the parents of the girl to go home and on the next day i.e. 03-02-2023 at about 9.00 am. the parents of the girl came to police station along with their daughter. She deposed she could read and write Telugu. She denied that she did not state to the police that then Saleema Begum LW5 and herself took the girl to a separate room situated in their police station and examined PW1. She denied that what she deposed that then she gave her phone to Saleema

Begum to record the video, while Saleem Begum (LW5) was recording the video, she examined the girl child regarding what was happened and recorded her statement was false.

68.PW4 denied that she did not state to the police about the things stated by PW1 while recording her statement by her. She deposed she recorded the statement of only one person in respect of the case. She deposed she herself prepared CD. Ex.P2 in the police station and handed over the same. PW4 denied that there was no facility in their police station to make CD like Ex.P2. She deposed her statement was recorded on the same day i.e. on 03-02-2023. PW4 denied that she deposed false to support alleged false case filed against accused. PW4 deposed that the statements of Salema Begum and herself were recorded by their

Head constable Balaiah one after an other.

69.PW5/another woman PC deposed that she was resident of Venkatapur. She had been working as Women Constable at Venkaktapur, PS for the past two years.

32/84Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 15 of 2023

She deposed on 02-02-2023 at about 7.00 pm. their head constable (Balaiah) LW10 called PW4 and herself and asked them to record the statement of a girl. As it was already night time, hence they asked the parents of the girl to come on the next day morning along with the child. Accordingly, the parents of the child came to their police station along with the child. PW5 further deposed that then PW4 recorded the statement of PW1 in a separate room situated in their police station.

While PW4 was recording the statement of PW1 then, she videographed the statement of PW1 from the cell phone of PW4. She further deposed after completion of video recording she handed over the cell phone of PW4 to PW4.

She deposed she was examined by LW10 H.C. and her statement was recorded by

Balaiah (LW10) Head Constable.

70.PW5 denied that what she deposed that on 02-02-2023 at about 7.00 pm. their head constable (Balaiah) LW10 called PW4 and herself and asked them to record the statement of a girl was false. PW5 deposed she was examined by their head constable/Balaiah and her statement was recorded by him. PW5 denied that she did not state to the police that as it was already night time, hence they asked the parents of a girl to come on the next day morning and along with the child, accordingly, the parents of the child came to their police station along with the child and not stated specifically. PW5 denied that she did not state to the police that then PW4 recorded the statement of PW1 in a separate room situated in their police station. PW5 denied that she did not videograph the statement of PW1 from the cell phone of PW4, while PW4 was 33/84Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 15 of 2023 recording the statement of PW1. After taking videograph of the statement of PW1 when she handed over the phone to PW4/Supriya she did not know inturn to whom Supriya handed over the CD. PW5 denied that she did not know the name of the company of the phone from which she said to have videographed the statement. PW5 deposed that it was Redmi phone. PW5 further deposed that she did not know regarding the name of the company of the phone. She deposed nearly it took 15 minutes to take videograph i.e. to record the statement by videography. PW5 further denied that as she did not take videograph while recording statement of the PW1, hence she would not state the name of the company of the phone. PW5 denied that she did not cover the statement of PW1 by way of videography and she deposed false.

71.PW6 is said to be the panch witness for the crime details form, he deposed that he was resident of Gurrampet Village, Bhupalpally Mandal, Dist. Jayashankar

Bhupalpally. He was doing cultivation. He deposed he knew Chinnamallaiah (LW8) who was his neighbour. He deposed Police never took him to any place for any purpose. PW6 further deposed that about more than one year ago when police people came for patrolling they obtained his signature as evidence of their presence in the village. He deposed he could identify his signature. He deposed to his remembrance he put his signature on written papers. He deposed he had no idea about the same. He identified the signature on the crime detail form as his signature when the crime detail form was confronted to PW6 Ex.P3 his signature on crime detail form was marked.

34/84Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 15 of 2023

72.As PW6 turned hostile, when he was cross-examined by the Learned special

PP during Cross examination of PW6 by the learned Special P.P., PW6 denied that on 03-02-2023 Chinna Mallaiah (LW8) and himself acted as panch witness at the house of PW2 and also scene of offence was observed in their presence, crime detail form was prepared in the presence of Chinna

Mallaiah (LW8) and himself on which his signature Ex.P3 contained and he deposed false as he won over by the accused.

73.PW7 said to be the incharge principal of the school in which PW1 studied deposed that she was resident of Ghanpur(Mulugu) village, Ghanpur(Mulugu)

Mandal, Jayashankar Bhupalpally District. She had been working as PG Teacher since 22-09-2014 in TS Model School and Junior College, Ghanpur(Mulugu). She deposed on 06-04-2023 she was placed as incharge of Principal of TSMS & Jr.

College, Ghanpur(Mulugu). PW7 further deposed that the SI of Venkatapur Police

Station and constables approached her and submitted a requisition or letter to issue Date of Birth Certificate of alleged victim PW1. Accordingly, on verification of record of PW1, she issued Study and Date of Birth Certificate of PW1. Pw7 further deposed that the Bonafied-cum-date of birth certificate shown to her of

PW1, belonged to PW1 issued by her. Ex.P4 the bonafied-cum-date of birth certificate of PW1 was marked. She deposed as per Ex.P4 bonafied-cum-date of birth certificate of PW1 the date of birth of PW1 was 04-02-2006. PW7 deposed

PW1 was studying 10th standard at that time. She deposed Police examined her and recorded her statement.

35/84Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 15 of 2023

74.During Cross-Examination of PW7 on behalf of the accused, PW7 deposed on 06-04-2023 the SI of police came to their school-cum-college. They gave her written requisition or letter. PW7 further deposed that she also made an endorsement on the requisition given by the SI of police,

Venkatapur regarding receipt of requisition or letter. PW7 deposed she did not mention in Ex.P4 bonafied-cum-date of birth certificate that she issued Ex.P4 basing on the requisition or letter of SI of Police. PW7 denied that as no such requisition or letter was given to her by the SI of police, hence it was not mentioned in Ex.P4 that she issued Ex.P4 as per requisition or letter of SI of police. She deposed that she stated to the police that basing on requisition or letter of SI of police, she issued Ex.P4.

PW7 denied that she did not state to the police that basing upon the requisition or letter of the SI of police, she issued Ex.P4 bonafide-cum- date of birth certificate. She deposed she could read and write Telugu.

After going through the contents of the statements of PW7, PW7 deposed that she stated to the police that basing on the requisition or letter of the

SI she issued Ex.P4.

75.PW7 further denied that she did not state to the police, that the SI of police Issued her requisition or letter and she deposed false. She deposed that on receipt of requisition or letter, on making endorsement on the requisition they kept the requisition in their office. PW7 deposed the SHO accompanied by a constable came to her when her statement was recorded and her statement was recorded by the SHO. She further 36/84Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 15 of 2023 deposed that in her presence only her statement was scribed. PW7 further denied that at the oral request of the police, she issued Ex.P4 and no such requisition or letter was given to her by the police and she deposed false at the instance of police.

76. PW8 said to be alleged mediator for alleged scene of offence observation report deposed that he was resident of Gurrampet village, Venkatapur Mandal,

Mulugu District and he was doing cultivation and he was a Toddy tapper. He deposed he knew PW6. He further deposed on 03-02- of the last year. PW6 and himself were present near their house. Again he deposed PW6 and himself were present in front of the house of PW6 by chitchatting. PW8 further deposed that meanwhile police personnel came there and stopped and asked PW6 and himself to sign on some papers. Then he asked the police personnel why he had to sign.

He deposed they told that they came on patrolling if any one asked, then to inform that he signed. He further deposed without observing whether those papers were written papers or not, he signed. He deposed he could identify his signatures. He identified the signature on the crime details form as his signature.

Ex.P5 his signature on the crime detail form, dated 03.02.2023 was marked.

77.As PW8 also not supported version of prosecution and turned hostile, hence he was cross-examined by learned additional PP. During Cross-Examination of PW8 by the learned Addl. Public prosecutor, PW8 denied that PW6 and himself went to the house of PW2 there the police personnel observed the scene in their presence and also the same was reduced into writing 37/84Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 15 of 2023 after they read over the contents of the panchamas to PW6 and himself they both signed and he was aware of the contents of the panchanama on which his signature Ex.P5 contained and he deposed false to help the accused due to his acquaintance with the accused.

78.PW9/Head Constable deposed that he was resident of Venkatapur Village.

He deposed he had been working at Venkatapur PS since 2015. He further deposed previously he worked as constable at said police station. He also deposed he had been working as Head constable at Venkatapur PS from February, 2018 onwards. PW9 further deposed that during Medaram Jathara during the absence of their SI of police (LW11), he was placed as in-charge of Venkatapur PS from 02- 02-2023 onwards for a period of one week. He deposed on 02-02-2023 in the evening at 19.00 hours the parents of alleged victim girl (Pws.2 and 3) along with

PW1 alleged victim girl came to police station and presented a report under Ex.P1.

79. PW9 deposed that on the same day he registered the said report as a case in Cr.No.14/2023 U/Sec. 354-D, 448, 290 and 506 IPC and Sec. 11 r/w 12 of POCSO

Act. Ex.P6 original FIR in Cr.No. 14/2023 U/Sec. 354-D, 448, 290 and 506 IPC and

Sec. 11 r/w 12 of POCSO Act was marked. PW9 further deposed that then he submitted the original FIR to the Court and copies to the concerned. He deposed on the same day i.e. on 02-02-2023 he examined and recorded the statement of the defacto complainant i.e. the father of alleged victim girl (PW2). He deposed as it was late hours he informed to PWs. 1 to 3 to come to the police station on the next day at 9.00 am. Accordingly, PWs. 1 to 3 came to Venkatapur Police Station.

38/84Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 15 of 2023

Then he deputed Pws.4 and 5 two women PCs to record the statement of PW1 under videography. He further deposed PW4 recorded the statement of alleged victim girl (PW1) while taking videography by PW5. PW9 further deposed that then he proceeded to alleged scene of offence i.e to the house of defacto complainant situated at Gurrampet and there he examined the scene and prepared crime detail form and rough sketch in the presence of PWs. 6 and 8.

Ex.P7 crime detail form in crime No. 14/2023 along with rough sketch was marked.

80.PW9 deposed later he returned to their police station at about 11.00 am.

There he examined and recorded statements of two women PCs i.e. Pws.4 and 5.

He deposed he received the statement of alleged victim girl PW1 recorded by

PW4 from PW4. He deposed he also examined and recorded the statement of

PW3. PW9 further deposed that later he sent a requisition to the learned Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Mulugu to record 164 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1 alleged

victim girl, accordingly the Court recorded 164 Cr.P.C. statement of alleged victim girl (PW1). He further deposed on 06-03-2023 on resuming duties by their SI of police, he handed over the CD file to LW11 our S.I of police.

81.During Cross examination of PW9, PW9 deposed that PW1 presented written report to him. PW1 deposed that he gone through the report. He deposed Ex.P1 report was presented by father of alleged victim girl. PW9 admitted that the marker of the report had to sign on the report. PW9 further admitted as per Ex.P1 report it appeared there was no signature said to be of the defacto complainant. PW9 deposed that PW1 presented 39/84Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 15 of 2023

Ex.P1 report by putting his signature, but the particulars should not be revealed, as alleged victim was minor, hence the name and particulars and signature of the defacto complainant were concealed with whitener.

He deposed he did not put his initial at the signature portion beneath

Ex.P1 report of the maker against whitener. PW9 admitted that the name and particulars of the defacto complaint were in whitener. PW9 further admitted the name and particulars of the defacto complainant were not visible on Ex.P1 report.

82.PW9 deposed but the defacto complainant PW1 furnished his particulars in Ex.P1 report, but they were concealed with whitener. He deposed he did not put whitener in Ex.P1 report at the particulars column of the defacto complainant, as well at the signature portion of Ex.P1 report, before he submitted Ex.P1 report to the Court concerned. He deposed he got typed the particulars under Ex.P6 FIR. PW9 deposed he did not know typing. He deposed their writer typed the particulars under

Ex.P6 FIR. PW9 admitted that there was delay of 9 days in registering the crime from the date of alleged occurrence. PW9 deposed due to ill health of wife of the defacto complainant, they came subsequently. Pw9 deposed after going through the contents of Ex.P1 report, he endorsed on

Ex.P1 report. PW9 admitted the column No.6 of the Ex.P6 FIR was left blank regarding particulars of the report or informant. He deposed he did not record the statement of alleged victim girl PW1. He deposed he examined four witness in the police station, Venkatapur i.e. the defacto 40/84Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 15 of 2023 complainant, wife of the defacto complainant, women PC Supriya and women PC Saleema Begum (PWs. 2 to 5). He deposed he did not issue any written instructions or proceedings to PW4 to record the statement of

PW1 and also not issued any instructions in writing to PW5 the women PC to videograph the recording of the statement of PW1 by PW4.

83.PW9 denied that he did not visit alleged scene of offence and not prepared Ex.P7 crime detail form at alleged scene and it was prepared in the police station. PW9 denied that as per Ex.P1 report it was not revealing who gave the report and against whom the report was given and he did not examine any witness.

84. PW10/the investigating officer deposed that he was residing at

Eturnagaram village of Tadvai Mandal. Previously he worked as Sub-Inspector of

Police, PS. Venkatapur from 24-08-2022 to 09-09-2023. He further deposed on 06- 02-2023 he took up investigation from PW9 their Head constable and he verified the same and found it on correct lines. PW10 further deposed that later he examined the witness i.e. Pws.2 and 3, as they stated before PW9, hence he did not re-record the statements of Pws.2 and 3. He deposed on 15-02-2023 he issued notice U/Sec. 41A Cr.P.C. to the accused to appear before him accordingly, the accused appeared before him on the next day.

85.PW10 further deposed after due formalities later he instructed the accused to attend before the Court. PW10 further deposed that later he sent a requisition to the Head Mistress of the school (PW7), where alleged victim girl studied, to 41/84Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 15 of 2023 issue date of birth certificate of alleged victim girl, accordingly PW7 issued Ex.P4 bondafide-cum-date of birth certificate of alleged victim (PW1). He deposed as per Ex.P4 Bonafide-cum-Date of birth certificate of PW1, her date of birth was 04- 02-2006. PW10 further deposed later he examined PW7 and recorded her statement. He further deposed later he collected 164 Cr.P.C. statement of alleged victim (PW1). Ex.P8 164 Cr.P.C. statement of alleged Victim (PW1) recorded by learned Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mulugu was marked. He deposed on completion of investigation he filed charge sheet in the case.

86.During Cross-Examination of PW10, PW10 deposed that he verified the report under Ex.P1. PW10 admitted that as per Ex.P1 report it was not mentioned the name and particulars of the defacto complainant in Ex.P1 report to show particular person gave report. PW10 deposed that even though the name and particulars of defacto complainant were mentioned, but the same were concealed with whitener. PW10 denied that hence he could not say who gave report under Ex.P1. He deposed he could not say who gave Ex.P1 report when name and particulars were not appearing from Ex.P1 report. He deposed that by the time the CD file was handed over to him by PW9, the name and particulars of the defacto complainant were not concealed with whitener.

87. PW10 deposed he did not issue summons in writing to any of the witness, whom he deposed he re-examined them. PW10 admitted that it was not mentioned specially in charge sheet whom he summoned. He 42/84Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 15 of 2023 denied that it was not mentioned in the charge sheet regarding re- examining PWs.2 and 3 by him. PW10 admitted he did not file copy of the requisition given by him to PW7 to issue date of birth certificate.

PW10 denied that as no such requisition was issued by him to PW7, hence no such copy of the requisition was filed by him before the Court.

PW10 denied that he did not verify alleged investigation of PW9 and not re-examined Pws.2 and 3, not examined PW7 and not collected any material record and he did table investigation and false charge sheet was filed against the accused. PW10 denied that 41-A Cr.P.C. notice was not issued to the accused.

88.As seen from the testimony of PW1 said to be alleged victim, she categorically deposed regarding alleged acts of accused towards her when she said to have boarded into an auto in order to proceed to the school when she said to have been studying 10th class, by taking advantage of boarding into his alleged auto, the accused said to have roam around her on the pretext of loving her and intending to marry her.

Even when she said to have joined in the hostel he said to have continued the same harassment for which she said to have informed to her parents and even her father said to have warned the accused or admonished him and during Sankranti Festival when she came to her parents house at Gurampet, due to her alleged ill health she was not sent immediately after completion of Pongal vacation and it was decided by their father to send her on 25th January 2023. On 24th January, 2023 at 43/84Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 15 of 2023 about 11.00 am the accused whom, PW1 alleged victim and her parents

PWs 2 and 3 claimed that they knew him, said to have come to the house of Pws.1 to 3 during the absence of parents of PW1 and said to have stated to PW1 that he liked her and would marry her and also said to have forced her and then PW1 said to have asked him to leave the house and also she said to have informed about the same over phone to her parents who said to have gone to attend works and on their arrival still the accused was said to be present at the house and on being questioning him by her father PW2 when he questioned him by pushing his father the accused said to have left the house, for which criminal law was set into motion by alleged father of PW1.

89.PWs 2 and 3 also deposed on the same lines as deposed by PW1 and also corroborated the testimony of PW1 on all those aspects regarding alleged acts of the accused towards PW1 on being informed by

PW1 to them alleged admonishing the accused. Admittedly there was delay in reporting the matter and the delay was properly explained in Ex.

P1 report that due to ill health of mother of PW1, hence the report was given and the reasons for delay were also mentioned at column no.8 of

FIR under Ex.P8 marked through PW9 I.O investigating officer.

90.In view of suggestion put forth to PW1 on behalf of the accused that the accused met her during the traveling to school but not met her at any school in one way or other would go to show proceeding of PW1 to 44/84Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 15 of 2023 her school in the Auto of the accused, So, the suggestions put to PW1 that the accused was not the owner of the auto or not the driver of the auto and he never took her in the auto to any place was of no consequence when any person traveled by auto, it could not be expected to ascertain the ownership particulars of the auto by a traveller. So under such circumstances not deposing about the registration number of the auto or ownership particulars of auto by PW1 was of no consequence.

91.When according to the testimony of PW1, when she boarded into auto and while taking her to school no acts were committed by the accused hence when the evidence placed by the prosecution i.e., PW1 to 3 would show other people also used to board into the auto. In the absence of alleged committing any acts by the accused towards PW1 during the travel, it could not be expected to depose by the regular travelers of the auto against the accused, as it was not the case of PW1 that the accused used to harass her while traveling by auto said to have driven by the accused.

92.PW1 admitted of not stating to the learned Magistrate regarding presence of the accused outside the hostel, near the gate following them to the hostel or to shop whenever they go to the shop, when the same things were elicited in the cross-examination, when she deposed about the same during course of cross-examination, under such circumstances, it could not be said that there were improvements or omissions in the 45/84Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 15 of 2023 testimony of PW1 and when she did not depose that the accused used to follow her on the bike, when the same was elicited in the cross- examination, as she deposed about the same, then put forthing a suggestion to PW1 that not stating to the police that the accused who used to follow her on bike could not be considered as an improved version as the same was elicited in the cross-examination of PW1 only when she deposed about alleged following her on the bike by the accused when the same was not deposed by her in her chief-examination and only when she deposed in her cross-examination under such circumstances, it could not be considered that she improved her version.

Admittedly, the accused was not the relative or villager of PW1, but when

PW1 and her parents deposed they knew the accused and also her alleged father PW2 identified the accused as well as her mother PW3 also identified the accused, it was undisputed regarding having acquaintance between PW1 and accused and moreover, it was established boarding into auto or traveling in the auto of accused by PW1 from the suggestions put forth to PW1, what was deposed by PW1 that the accused forced her was proved to be an improvement from her admission that she did not state to the police and also before the learned Magistrate that the accused forced her.

93.PW 1 admitted either after next day of 25.01.2023 or within 02 days of 25.01.2023, neither her parents nor herself gave any report to the police and they gave report to the police after 08- days of alleged 46/84Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 15 of 2023 incident and she deposed due to ill health of her mother and herself. The report was not immediately given.

94.Under such circumstances, delay in reporting matter was properly explained PWs 2 and 3 said to be the parents of PW1 corroborated and supported the testimony of PW1 regarding boarding PW1 into the auto of

Rajinikanth the accused and also PW2 deposed the accused used to keep his auto near the hostel and also deposed as if he gave the phone number of her daughter to the accused and the accused used to harass their daughter by making phone but the same was not deposed by PW1.

95.Admonishing the accused by PW2 was deposed by PW1 as PW1 deposed her father warned the accused and also arrival of accused to the house of PW1, for which making a phone call by PW1 to PW2 was corroborated by PW2 and he deposed when PW1 made a phone call to him and informed about arrival of the accused to their house during their absence and by the time they returned to their house from the fields by which time the accused was present at their house and when he questioned the accused regarding his arrival to their house, then the accused pushed him and left their house by auto and the same was deposed by PW1 also.

96.Presenting report by PW1 was deposed by PWs 1 to 3 and admittedly by PW2 also there was delay of 08 days in reporting the matter and explained about the delay in giving report by deposing due to 47/84Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 15 of 2023 ill health of his wife he went to the hospital. There was no deviation in the testimony of PW1 from her 164 Cr.PC statement under Ex.P8. Nothing was contradicted from Ex. P8.

97.PW2 is the defecto complainant who set the criminal law into motion about the occurrence and the police under the guise of not disclosing the identity of the parents of the victim, they covered the signature of the defecto complainant with whitener in exhibit P1 report.

98.Though an attempt was made on behalf of the defense to establish

PW1 was not the defecto complainant and the report did not contain his signature but in view of suggestion put forth to PW2 that there was delay in giving report as it was suggested after 08- days of alleged occurrence he gave report. In one way or other it was undisputed by the defense the person who gave report was none other than PW2. Whatever was deposed by PW2 regarding giving phone number of their daughter to the accused was proved to be an improvement from the admission of PW2.

99.PW2 admitted further of not stating to the police that PW1 had teeth problem but the same was elicited in the cross examination only.

When there was no such things deposed by him in his chief examination deposing subsequently on eliciting in cross examination, under such circumstances, it cannot be considered as an improvement.

100.As per the testimony of PW1 and PW2 by the time PW2 reached the 48/84Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 15 of 2023 house, PW1 was inside of their house by locking the door of their house and the accused was present near the door of their house at outside.

PW1 also deposed she locked the house door from inside and the accused was present at outside of their house and she deposed the accused came to veranda that i.e., front yard of their house, but not entered into the rooms of their house. When PW2 deposed that there were 3 to 4 houses surrounding to their house and deposed the neighboring people did not come by deposing they went to fields, as PW2 and 3 also went to the fields and on arrival on making phone call by PW1 to her father they returned to their house and also PW1 deposed when her parents went to fields the accused came to their house, it shows absence of neighboring people also . By taking advantage of going outside by parents of PW1 as well as neighboring people as went to attend the works, hence the accused came to the house of PW1 and PW1 also deposed on the date of alleged occurrence she was alone in the house and her brother was not present and she deposed the time of alleged occurrence at 11.00 amb, by which time the people went to attend works as per the testimony of

PW2, hence under such circumstances, it cannot be expected the neighboring people to witness alleged occurrence. Though, it was suggested to PW2 that the accused also gave report against them at

Venkatapur police and also suggested that while the accused was attending the court about two months ago, his wife and himself beat the accused with footwear on the way to Mulugu but no such report was seen 49/84Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 15 of 2023 in the light of the court and it was suggested about the things that said to have taken place during pendency of the present case proceedings.

101. PW3 said to be the wife of PW2 and said to be the mother of PW1 also corroborated the testimonies of PW1 and 2 and also deposed about presenting report by PW2 for alleged things happened and she also corroborated regarding dropping of PW1 by her husband up to Kondapur from there boarding into the auto of the acused by PW1 to proceed to the school and alleged stating by the accused to her daughter that he liked her and also loving her and wanted to marry her and informing about the same by PW1 to them and admonishing the accused by PW2 and joining of PW1 in the hostel and while proceeding to the school from the hostel following her by the accused and making phone call by PW1 through warden was deposed by PW1 and 3 and also PW2 deposed about making phone call by PW1 and informing about attitude of the accused and admonishing accused by PW2 was also supported and corroborated with the testimony of PW3.

102.Even though PWs 1 & 2 did not depose specifically certain things that along with the PW2, PW3 went to the accused and admonished the accused on making phone call from the phone of warden and admonishing the accused by stating that it was not good for him to behave like that. Then the accused stated to them to do whatever they could and caught hold the shirt collar of her husband and at the 50/84Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 15 of 2023 intervention of surrounding people the accused and themselves left their respective places. The same was not specifically deposed by PWs 1 & 2, however PW1 deposed that as the accused continued the same harassment and attitude, hence through their warden she made a call to her father and informed about the accused then her father warned the accused for which the accused kept quiet for a while and PW 2 also deposed that twice the accused used to keep his auto near the hostel and by going near to the hostel and school the accused used to harass their daughter under the guise of love and marry PW 1 and here and deposed he admonished the accused twice and also threatened the accused that he would give a report but again the accused used to follow.

103.The material aspect of warning or admonishing of accused by PW 2 was deposed by PWs 1 to 3. PW3 claimed that when PW2 gave report PW 1 and herself went to the police station, but it was not specifically elicited from the cross-examination of PWs 1 & 2 that PWs 1 & 3 also accompanied PW2 when he gave report, she deposed Ex.P1 report was drafted by police personnel certain things were suggested to PWs 1 to 3 as if they were improvements and PWs 1 to 3 denied the same PW4 & 5 are the police constables who said to have recorded the statement of

PW1 under videography taken by PW5 on 02.02.2023 after setting the criminal law into motion by PW2 it appeared the statement of PW1 alleged victim was recorded by women P.C but not the police officer not below the rank of woman SI and it was said to have recorded in a 51/84Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 15 of 2023 separate room of police station Venkatapur.

104.When the same was said to have recorded by PW4 it was said to have covered under videography by PW5 and PW4 said to have got prepared C.D and said to have handed over to their head constable

Balaiah at whose instance she said to have recorded part-II statement of the of PW1 and Ex.P2 CD said to have prepared by her of alleged victim girl was marked. PW5 also corroborated the testimony of PW4 regarding alleged recording the statement of PW1 by PW4 in a separate room at their police station Venkatapur and taking videography of the statement of PW1 when it was recorded by PW5 and she could depose the name of the company of the phone from which her statement was recorded or taken videography from Redmi phone it was deposed by PW5 that it took 15- minutes to take videography of recording the statement under videography, but when procedure is contemplated as per provision of

POCSO Act not below the rank of S.I of police is competent person to record the statement of victim under the provisions of POCSO Act:-

105.POCSO Act provides for the persons competent under POCSO Act to record the statement of victim girl. As per the provisions of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act under section 24 it was prescribed to record the statement of victim as far as practicable by woman police officer.

106.The statement of a victim, especially a victim of sexual offences, must be recorded as per legal procedures laid out under Indian law, particularly the 52/84Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 15 of 2023

Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) and special enactments like Protection of

Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, Juvenile Justice Act, and IPC provisions (Sections 354 and 376 ).

Under Section 161 CrPC (During Investigation):

The Investigating Officer (IO), who is a police officer, must record the statement.

By virtue of Section 24 of POCSO Act, As far as practicable, it must be recorded by a woman police officer or woman officer not below the rank of SI of police

Therefore, a woman constable cannot record statement Police constable is not police officer and not authorized under CrPC or under POCSO Act.

2. Under Section 164 CrPC (Before Magistrate):

A Judicial Magistrate records the statement voluntarily made by the victim.

In cases of sexual offences, the Magistrate recording the statement should be a woman Magistrate as far as practicable.

Again, Women Police/CDPO/Supervisor has no authority under Section 164 CrPC.

And Under the POCSO Act:

For child victims (under 18), Section 24 POCSO allows the statement to be recorded by a woman police officer not below rank of S.I.

It must be done in a child-friendly manner.

NGOs, social workers, or child welfare officers can assist, but not authorised to record the statement themselves for legal purposes.

Hence Police constable/CDPO/Supervisor in ICDS, cannot Record the Statement, they do not have authority under CrPC. They are not designated as police officers.

They can be present to provide emotional support or act as a 53/84Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 15 of 2023 liaison in welfare roles. Their notes or reports cannot replace victim’s statement under Sections 161 or 164 CrPC.

107. In the instant case,but the person who said to have recorded the statement of PW1 i.e., PW5 is not competent being not the police officer in the cadre of not below the rank of S.I and she being not competent to record the video or record the statement, hence no weight can be attached to the testimony of PW4 and even though certain things were suggested to PW1 to establish that there were omissions or improvement but the same were not established through PW4 who said to have recorded the statement of PW1.

108. PW6 and PW8 are said to be the mediators for alleged crime detail form or scene of offense observation proceedings but for the reasons best known to them PW6 and PW8 turned hostile and did not support the case and PW6 deposed as if his signatures were obtained on written papers and his signature under Ex.P3 was only marked.

109. Likewise, PW8 also deposed as if police obtained his signatures and without observing whether they were written papers or not he simply said to have signed under Ex.P5 and they both denied of conducting scene of offense observation proceedings at the house of PW2 on 3.2.2023 but from the testimonies of PWs 1 to 3 the house of PW3 as one of these scene of offenses was established.

54/84Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 15 of 2023

110.PW7 is alleged in-charge Principal of TSMS Junior College, Ganapur, who said to have issued study and date birth certificate of PW1 and she deposed about issuing ExP4 Bonafide cum date of birth certificate of

PW1. As per which the date of birth of PW1 was deposed by PW7 as 4-2- 2006 and also PW1 deposed on the same lines by deposing her date of birth as 4-2-2006 and PW7 deposed that PW1 was studying 10th standard at that time. There was no suggestion specifically put forth to PW1 to 3 or

PW7 that PW1 never studied in the school from where ExP4 was issued.

So, by virtue of testimony of PW1 to 3 coupled with the testimony of PW7 and ExP4 it was established the date of birth of PW1 as 4.2.2006 as it was not disputed regarding studying of 10th class at the time of alleged occurrence in particular school by PW1 on behalf of the defence by putting specific suggestions.

111.So, it was established PW1 was child as on the date of alleged commission of offence as her date of birth was said to be 04.2.2006 and alleged incident said to have taken place on 25.1.2023 and PW1 was aged about 16 years, 11 months, 21 days and she was child or minor.

112.It was established that the date of birth of Pw.1 was 04.02.2006, the same was corroborated and supported with the testimony of her parents who are Pws. 2 and 3 who are the competent to depose the same.

113.PW9 is said to be the Head constable, who said to have registered 55/84Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 15 of 2023 the crime basing on the report of PW2 under ExP1 regarding alleged occurrence which was presented on 02-02-2023. Though it was argued on behalf of the accused that by virtue of not having signatures in the report and particulars of the defacto complainant, it could not be looked into and it was doubtful who gave report whether he was the father or the son of the de facto complainant, but as observed earlier, with a view to not to reveal the identity of the family members of alleged victim, it appeared even though the name and particulars were mentioned in the report under ExP1 and also PW2 said to have signed on the report, but in order to conceal the same, to avoid disclosing the identity, it appeared

Whitener was put on the name and particulars as well as at signature portion in the report under Ex.P1. Moreover in view of suggestion put forth to PW2, it was established the person who gave the report was none other than PW2, alleged father of PW1 and also PW9 deposed that PW2 was the person who gave report and even in ExP1 report, the particulars of PW1 were mentioned, hence, it could be considered the person who gave report was none other than her father PW2.

114.PW9 deposed about investigating part regarding alleged examining

PW2, examining the witness and also he supported the testimony of PW3 that PW1 to 3 came to police station and he deposed about examining the defecto complainant on the same day of report and deposed about got recording the statement of PW1 alleged victim under videography by

PW4 with the help of PW5 when taken videography and as well as 56/84Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 15 of 2023 observing the scene and proceedings of observation report or crime detail form under ExP7 and recording the statements of PW4 and 5 and sending requisition to the learned Magistrate concerned to record 164 statement of victim. So, it is unwarranted to lay emphasis more on the cross-examination of PW9 regarding having no signature on the report, it was not the case of not at all putting any signature on the report by PW2, but when PW2 presented ExP1 report by putting signature, according to

PW9 as the particulars should not be revealed as the victim was minor, hence the name and particulars and signature of the defecto complainant were concealed with the whitener.

115.So, for the acts done subsequent to presenting report by the I.O, it should not affect the case of PWs 1 to 3, when the report was the basis for proceeding with investigation on account of acts of police personal in concealing the name and particulars, it would not go to the route of the case, as it was not the case of not furnishing the name and particulars by the defecto complainant and PW9 deposed he was not the person put whitener at ExP1 particulars as well as signature, even he deposed about explained about the reasons for delay in registering crime or in presenting report and it was not at all suggested that PW2 never gave any report.

116.PW10 is said to be the second investigating officer who said to have arrested the accused and taken up investigation from PW9 and who 57/84Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 15 of 2023 said to have sent a requisition to PW7 the in charge Head Master of the school to issue date of birth certificate of PW1 under ExP4. Accordingly,

PW7 said to have issued Ex P4 bonafide/date of birth certificate of PW1 and also the Investigating Officer PW10 deposed as per the said certificate the date of birth of PW1 was 04.02.2006.

117.PW10 deposed about collecting ExP8 164 CRPC statement of the victim. It was also suggested to the Investigating Officer regarding not mentioning the name and particulars of the defecto complainant, though he admitted about the same but it was not the case of not mentioning the particulars and from perusal of ExP1 report, the name and particulars were mentioned but it was concealed with whitener and PW10 deposed about the same subsequently. He deposed at the time of handing over the C.D file to him by PW9 the name and particulars of the defecto complainant were not concealed with whitener. When PW1 to 3 came to the police station to present report and also after registering the crime basing upon the report of PW2 when the first Investigating Officer PW9 examined him on the same day of report and also in view of suggestion put forth to PW2 that there was delay in presenting a report by him which was undisputed, in one way or other regarding the person who gave the report as PW2.

118.Even though PW10 did not file the copy of requisition given by him to PW7. PW7 being third party have no interest to issue date birth 58/84Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 15 of 2023 certificate unless request was made by the police concerned.

119.From perusal of ExP4 bonafide cum date of birth certificate of PW1, it appeared that she studied 10th class in the year,2018 and it was the certificate issued by TS Model school and Junior College. From 10th class onwards PW1 said to have studied in the school cum college and her date of birth was mentioned as 04.02.2006. As observed earlier alleged date of offence was being 25-01-2023 as on the date of alleged commission of offence PW1 was minor as she was aged about 16 years, 11 months, 21 days. Hence she was child at the time of alleged occurance.

120.PW1 was aged about 16 years, 11 months and 21 days old as on the date of alleged commission of offence. Hence, it was established that

PW1 was minor and she was child as on the date of alleged commission of offence and also it was mentioned in Ex.P1 report that by staying in the hostel she was studying in model school. Even though several things were suggested to PWs 1 to 3 with an attempt to establish that there were improvements or omissions in the testimonies of PWs 1 to 3, but the same were not proved by virtue of omitting to suggest the same to the investigating officers. Hence none of the suggestions put forth to PWs 1 to 3 that they did not state to the police certain things were not established as improvements or omissions by virtue of not proving the same from the investigating officers.

121.The learned counsel for the accused relied upon the ruling of the Hon’ble 59/84Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 15 of 2023

High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Appeal No. 471 of 2017, in the case of Ravindra (Appellant) versus State of Maharashtra (Respondent), and submitted that the ingredients of the offence under Section 354D of the IPC are not attracted to the present case on hand.

24.Section 354-A of the IPC deals with, "sexual harassment and punishment for sexual harassment".

Before that, Section 354 of the IPC deals with, "assault or criminal force to

woman with intent to outrage her modesty".

In view of Section 354-A (1) of the IPC, (a man committing any of the following acts-

(i) physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures; or

(ii)a demand or request for sexual favours; or

(iii) showing pornography against the will of a woman; or

(iv) making sexually coloured remarks, shall be guilty of the offence of sexual harassment.

Sub-section (2) of Section 354-A of the IPC deals with any man who commits the offence specified in clause (i) or clause (ii) or clause (iii) of sub- section (1) shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

Sub-section (3) of Section 354-A of the IPC, states that any man who 60/84Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 15 of 2023 commits the offence specified in clause (iv) of sub-section (1) shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.

Thus, in view of definiton provided under Section 354-A of the IPC, whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any woman or abets or conspires to assault or uses such criminal force at any woman intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that by such assault he will thereby outerage or causes to be outraged the modesy of a woman, is said to have committed the offence of sexual harassment.

Any sexual act performed without a woman's consent constitutes "sexual assault". It includes unwanted touching of private parts, forced kissing, or other sexual contact with a woman and modesty involves acts that are offensive, indecent, or degrading to a woman's sense of decency and morality. It includes acts like inappropriate touching, forcible disrobing, indecent gestures or remarks with the intent to insult modesty.

Said Section 354 of the IPC deals with "assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty". The said Section states that whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any woman, intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will there by outrage her modesty shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not 61/84Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 15 of 2023 be less than one year but which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Admittedly, "modesty" is not defined in the IPC. However, it refers to indecent propriety of a woman and conduct. Whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any word, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object, intending that such word or sound moshall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be seen, by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, and also with fine.

The same ingredients to attract the offence must be fulfilled.

29. Section 354-D of the IPC defines the offence of "stalking" and it lays down that in order that this offence is committed, there must be following of a woman and contacting her or attempting to contact a woman to foster personal interaction repeatedly despite a clear indication of disinterest by such a woman or there should be monitoring of the use by a woman of the internet, email or any other form of electronic communication.

In paragraph 29 of the said judgment, it was pleased to observe Section 354D of the IPC, which defines the offence of stalking, lays down that, in order to constitute the said offence there must be following of a woman and contacting her or attempting to contact her, to foster personal 62/84Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 15 of 2023 interaction repeatedly despite a clear indication of disinterest by such woman. Alternatively, there must be monitoring of the use by a woman of the internet, email, or any other form of electronic communication”

However, it is not a case of non-establishment of the ingredients of Section 354D of the IPC. In the instant case, the evidence placed by the prosecution clearly goes to show that the charge under Section 354D of the IPC is established, as there is material to demonstrate that the victim was followed by the accused in an attempt to force personal interaction repeatedly, despite a clear indication of disinterest by LW-2.

Therefore, the facts and circumstances of the present case are different from those in the aforementioned ruling. In the said ruling, as substantial evidence was lacking, the Hon’ble High Court was kind enough to found the accused not guilty of the offences charged under Section 354D(1)(i) of the

IPC and under Section 8 of the POCSO Act.

“ In the said ruling it was pleased to observe that 31.A bare perusal of the evidence of prosecution witnesses nowhere reveals that with a "sexual intent", these words, "I Love You", are used by the accused.

32. The expression "sexual intent" is a question of fact and it is to be determined on the basis of the evidence.

63/84Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 15 of 2023

33. In order to understand intention of the accused behind such utterances, one has to look into the entire evidence of the prosecution.

34. Admittedly, "intention" is inner compartment of mind of that person and has to be determined from surrounding facts and circumstances. If somebody says that he is in love with another person or expresses his feelings itself would not amount to an "intent" showing some sort of his "sexual intention". What constitutes such "sexuality" or "sexual intent" and what is not, is a question of fact.

35. While interpreting "sexual intent", single judge bench of this court in the case of Bandu Vitthalrao Borwar vs. State of Maharashtra, thr.PSO, reported in 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 16128 observed that perhaps understanding generally accepted meaning of words "sexual" and "intent" will help us in finding out an answer. Words 'sexual' and 'intent' have not been defined anywhere in the Act and, therefore, it would be useful to understand their meaning as are commonly understood in English language. For this purpose, a reference to the English dictionary would be useful. In Webster's New Explorer Encyclopedic Dictionary, 2006th Edition, the words 'sexual' and 'intent' have been defined on Page Nos. 1683 and 959 respectively as under:

"Sexual": 1: of, relating to, or associated with sex or the sexes (sexual differentiation) (sexual conflict) 2: having or involving sex (sexual reproduction)", 64/84Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 15 of 2023 "Intent": "1a: the act or fact of intending: PURPOSE; especially the design or purpose to commit a wrongful or criminal act (admitted wounding him with intent)., and b: the state of mind with which an act is done: VOLITION. 2: a usually clearly formulated or planned intention AIM 3a :MEANING, SIGNIFICANCE b:

CONNOTATION".

36. Thus, the state of mind, must be to establish some sort of physical contact or must be related to or associated with sex or indicative of involvement of sex in the relationship, if it is to be considered as sexual.

Words uttered should be with "sexual intent" associated with indicative of involvement of sex or physical contact or expressing sexual overtures.

Words expressed "I Love You" would not by itself amount to "sexual intent" as contemplated by the legislature. There should be something more which must suggest that the real intention is to drag in the angle of sex, if the words uttered are to be taken as conveying sexual intent. it should reflect by the act.”

122.With reference to paragraphs 31 to 36 of the above judgment, in the instant case, the state of mind of the accused can be clearly ascertained from the surrounding circumstances, which indicate that his real intention was to establish sexual contact with the victim.

65/84Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 15 of 2023

123.The evidence placed on record by the prosecution is sufficient to demonstrate that there were gestures on the part of the accused, including eye expressions and body language, indicative of his intent. The accused not only followed the victim near her hostel but also went to her house and expressed that he liked her and intended to marry her, and further attempted to force himself upon her.

124.It is evident that the accused used to loiter around the victim on the pretext of loving her and intending to marry her, despite her clear and unequivocal indication of disinterest. Further, during the Sankranti holidays, when the victim had gone to her parents’ house, the accused, upon noticing the absence of her parents, went to her house and again expressed his alleged love and intention to marry her.

125.These acts clearly attract the necessary ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 354D of the IPC. Moreover, the conduct of the accused establishes that he committed sexual harassment upon the victim girl (LW-2) with sexual intent, repeatedly and continuously, under the guise of love and marry her.

Therefore, the accused is liable for the offence punishable under Section 354D of the IPC.

126. In the instant case, the evidence placed by the prosecution is quite sufficient in establishing alleged acts of the accused towards PW1 in following her and in contacting the victim girl to foster personal interaction repeatedly in the name of love and despite clear indication of disinterest by the victim and his attitude in coming to the hostel as well 66/84Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 15 of 2023 as to the house would go to show he forced her to love him and thereby the accused committed an offence punishable under section 354-D of IPC as he outraged her modesty.

127.S ection 354 D speaks about Stalking,As per the said provision, (1) Any man who— follows a woman and contacts, or attempts to contact such woman to foster personal interaction repeatedly despite a clear indication of disinterest by such woman; or monitors the use by a woman of the internet, email or any other form of electronic communication,commits the offence of stalking1;

Provided that such conduct shall not amount to stalking if the man who pursued it proves that— it was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime and the man accused of stalking had been entrusted with the responsibility of prevention and detection of crime by the State; or it was pursued under any law or to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by any person under any law; or in the particular circumstances such conduct was reasonable and justified.

(2) Whoever commits the offence of stalking shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine; and be punished on a second or subsequent conviction, with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine.

67/84Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 15 of 2023

128. Further, it was also established that the accused committed house trespass by entering into the house of the victim PW1 with sexual intent and thereby he committed an offence punishable under section 448 IPC.

129.Section 448 speaks Punishment for house-trespass, Whoever commits house- trespass shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

130.Section 442. speaks House-trespass, As per the said provision, whoever commits criminal trespass by entering into or remaining in any building, tent or vessel used as a human dwelling or any building used as a place for worship, or as a place for the custody of property, is said to commit "house-trespass".

131. Under Explanation to said provision —The introduction of any part of the criminal trespasser's body is entering sufficient to constitute house-trespass.

132.Thus by virtue of coming to the house of PW 1, with intent ot conmit acts, during absence of parents of PW1, it itself shows criminal intention and constituted offence of house trespass.

133.Further, the evidence placed by the prosecution is not sufficient in establishing causing criminal intimidation by the accused by threatening the victim to marry else threatened with dire consequences to do away the life of victim. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is quite sufficient in establishing the accused on given date, time and place the accused 68/84Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 15 of 2023 committed sexual harassment upon the victim with sexual intent repeatedly or constantly by approaching her in the name of love and thereby he committed an offence punishable under section 11 read with 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.

134.Section 11. speaks of Sexual harassment. A person is said to commit sexual harassment upon a child when such person with sexual intent,--

(i) utters any word or makes any sound, or makes any gesture or exhibits any object or part of body with the intention that such word or sound shall be heard, or such gesture or object or part of body shall be seen by the child; or

(ii) makes a child exhibit his body or any part of his body so as it is seen by such person or any other person; or

(iii) shows any object to a child in any form or media for pornographic purposes; or

(iv) repeatedly or constantly follows or watches or contacts a child either directly or through electronic, digital or any other means; or

(v) threatens to use, in any form of media, a real or fabricated depiction through electronic, film or digital or any other mode, of any part of the body of the child or the involvement of the child in a sexual act; or

(vi) entices a child for pornographic purposes or gives gratification therefor.

Under Explanation.--Any question which involves '[sexual intent" shall be a question of fact.

Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 prescribes Punishment for sexual harassment.—As per the said provision,

Whoever, commits sexual harassment upon a child shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

69/84Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 15 of 2023

135.Even as per the prosecution, the accused said to have committed public nuisance in the public place on the road by quarreling with the victim minor girl and her father and caused public obstruction, thereby committed an offence he thereby committed an offense punishable under section 290 IPC the mother of alleged victim PW3 who deposed that on informing about alleged attitude of the accused in asking PW1 that she was not talking to him and he was liking PW1 and wanted to marry her.

Then PW1 on being informing from the warden phone to her parents.

Then PW2 and PW3 went to the accused and admonished the accused by stating that it was not good for him to behave like that and the accused said to have stated to them to do whatever they could and he said to have caught hold the shirt collar of her husband and at the intervention of surrounding people, the accused and themselves left their respective places but except PW3, PW1 and PW2 did not depose those things.However, PW1 deposed after she joined in hostel the accused used to roam around her on the pretext of loving her and intenidng to marry her and he continued same attitude.

136. Their evidence was sufficient in that regard regarding alleged making public nuisance by the accused. By virtue of acts of accused in causing nuisance in the public, inviting attention of the general public whenever she went outside accused used to follow her. He said to have caused nuisance however it was deposed by PW3 the surrounding people intervened. As per the testimonies of PWs 1 to 3 they deposed regarding 70/84Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 15 of 2023 admonishing the accused, it is not unreasonable to held that evidence of

Pws 1 to 3 is sufficient in establishing alleged causing public nuisance, nuisance at public place on the road or quarrelling with PW1 and her father.

137. Likewise, PWs 1 to 3 did not depose that the accused on given date, time and place committed criminal intimidation by threatening the victim minor girl that on failure to marry her, marry him, he threatened to kill her and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 506

IPC.

138.Except harassment of the accused in following her and under the guise of loving her and insisting her to marry her, PWs 1 to 3 did not depose regarding causing criminal intimidation by the accused by threatening PW1 with dire consequences to kill her.

139.But the acts of accused in following her while going to the school from the hostel and meeting her in public places and stalking her under the guise of love attracts the ingredients of the offence punishable under section 290 IPC. Even though her mother alone deposed about alleged disputing with them and making galata but PWs 1 and 2 also deposed about attitude of the accused towards PW1 as PW1 deposed that after she joined in the hostel the accused used to roam around her and he accused continued the same attitude and also PW2 deposed on the same lines that the accused used to harass their daughter by going near to the 71/84Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 15 of 2023 hostel under the guise of love and marry and despite admonition of accused by PW2 again the accused used to follow. So, the accused committed those acts in public place on the road and thereby the accused committed an offence punishable under section 290 IPC.

140.Section 290 IPC speaks about Punishment for public nuisance. As per the said provision, whoever commits a public nuisance in any case not otherwise punishable by this Code, shall be punished with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees.

141. So, in view of aforementioned observations and discussion made supra, on cumulative evaluation of entire evidence on record coupled with the exhibit's marked, the prosecution is able to establish alleged commission of offences of stalking and causing outrage and modesty by the accused towards PW1 under the guise of love and marrying her, used to follow her and thereby he committed an offence punishable under section 354-D of IPC.

142.As per section 29 of POCSO Act, when a person is prosecuted for committing or abetting an offence under Section 5 of the POCSO Act, the Court shall presume that such person has committed the offence unless the contrary is proved. Under Section 30, if the accused raises a defence of consent, the burden lies on him to prove that he had a reasonable belief that the victim was above 18 years.

72/84Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 15 of 2023

143.Section 29 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO)

Act, 2012, establishes a presumption of guilt for certain offenses. When a person is prosecuted for committing, abetting, or attempting to commit offenses under

Sections 3, 5, 7, or 9 of the Act, the Special Court shall presume that the accused has committed the offense unless the contrary is proven.

In simpler terms: If someone is accused of a serious sexual offense against a child under the POCSO Act, the court will assume they are guilty unless they can prove their innocence.

144.Section 30 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act 2012, deals with the presumption of a culpable mental state on the part of the accused in cases under the Act. Essentially, the Special Court is required to presume that the accused possessed the necessary guilty mind (intention, motive, knowledge, etc.) to commit the offense. However, the accused can rebut this presumption by proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that they lacked the required mental state.

145.In the present case, the prosecution has made out a prima facie case, and the presumption under Section 30 of POCSO stands triggered. The defense has failed to rebut the presumption.

146.So, by virtue of Sec. 30 of POCSO Act presumption of culpable mental state.

Can be presumed. As per said provision —(1) In any prosecution for any offence under this Act which requires a culpable mental state on the part of the accused, the

Special Court shall presume the existence of such mental state but it shall be a defence for the accused to prove the fact that he had no such mental state with 73/84Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 15 of 2023 respect to the act charged as an offence in that prosecution. (2) For the purposes of this section, a fact is said to be proved only when the Special Court believes it to exist beyond reasonable doubt and not merely when its existence is established by a preponderance of probability under Explanation in this section, “culpable mental state” includes intention, motive, knowledge of a fact and the belief in, or reason to believe, a fact.

147. By virtue of Section 42-A, the POCSO Act is not in derogation of any other law such as, it has over riding effect and shall prevails over any other law. In case of any inconsistency the provisions of POCSO Act prevails.

Power is vested with Special (POCSO) Court to Award Compensation. The

POCSO Court can directly decide the quantum of compensation, including high amounts like ₹10 lakhs, under the following provisions:

148.Section 33(8) of POCSO Act it Enables the Special Court to recommend compensation.

Rule 7 of POCSO Rules, 2012 (as amended) – Allows the Special Court to order interim or final compensation to the child victim regardless of conviction, if it feels the child has suffered harm.

Section 357A CrPC, Provides for compensation to be awarded by the Legal

Services Authority on the recommendation of the Court.

Therefore the POCSO Court can recommend a specific quantum (e.g., ₹10 lakhs) to the District Legal Services Authorities (DLSA).

74/84Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 15 of 2023

However, disbursement lies with the DLSA, which must process the recommendation and sanction the amount in accordance with the scheme.

149.The DLSA shall also ensure that the compensation is utilized in the best interests of the child, including medical treatment, education, psychological counseling, and rehabilitation.

150. Rule 7, Section 33(8)of POCSO Act, reads as follows:

Rule 7 of the POCSO Rules, read with Section 33(8) of the POCSO Act, mandates the Special Court to consider awarding compensation to child victims for the physical or mental trauma they have suffered, or for their immediate rehabilitation. The Special Court has the power to direct payment of compensation in addition to any punishment imposed. This ensures that victim receive support for her recovery and well-being.

151.Section 357A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) deals with the

Victim Compensation Scheme, providing a framework for compensating victims of crime. This section mandates that State Governments, in coordination with the Central Government, prepare a scheme to provide funds for compensating victims or their dependents who have suffered loss or injury due to a crime and require rehabilitation.

152.Section 357-A of Cr.P.C speaks of victim compensation. Who suffered loss or injury as a result of crime and who require rehabilitation.

75/84Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 15 of 2023

153.By virtue of Section 33(8) of the POCSO Act, 2012, (read with Section 357(1)(A) of the CrPC),

154.“The Special Court may, in appropriate cases, in addition to the punishment, direct payment of such compensation as may be prescribed to the child for any physical or mental trauma caused to the child or for immediate rehabilitation of such child.”

155.On a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offences committed against the minor victim, the psychological trauma, physical and emotional harm suffered by the child, and the financial condition of the family, this Court is of the opinion that the child victim is entitled to compensation under the Telangana Victim

Compensation Scheme, 2015.

The offence falls under the category of Sexual harasment which warrants the maximum compensation under the Scheme.

The Court, therefore, recommends compensation of ₹ 2,00,000 (Rupees two

Lakhs only) to be paid to the minor victim, under:

Section 357A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Rule 7 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Rules, 2012

Section 33(8) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012

156.By virtue of circular of Hon’ble High Court vide ROC.No.

2539/SO/2025, dated 02.12.2025, by virtue of direction of the Hon’ble 76/84Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 15 of 2023

Supreme Court of India, while passing Orders in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 989 of 2025, issued certain directions and the relevant paras are extracted hereunder:

157.“We find that one of the impediments in disbursement of victim compensation to the victims is the absence of a direction being issued by the Special Courts/Session Courts to pay compensation to the victims of a crime. Consequently, the victims have to seek such compensation on their own, either by making an application to the State Legal Services Authority or by any other means known to law. There is also an absence of awareness in this regard.

158.In the circumstances, we direct that the concerned Special

Court/Section Courts ought to pass appropriate directions with regard to payment of victim compensation in appropriate cases, so that the implementation of the said directions of the concerned Special

Court/Session Courts could be easily made by the State Legal Services

Authority through the District Legal Services Authority or the Taluk Legal

Services Authority, as the case may be.

159.So, it is appropriate to direct the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) to make payment of victim compensation to the victim.

160.As the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and state failed to take care of minor victim girl, hence 77/84Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 15 of 2023 the victim is entitled for compensation under Section 33(8) of the POCSO

Act r/w Rule 9 of the POCSO Rules, 2020 r/w sec. 357A of Cr.P.C and

Telangana victim compensation scheme.

161.Accordingly, the District Legal Services Authority, Mulugu District is directed to Process the recommendation expeditiously, and Sanction and disburse the amount of ₹ 2,00,000 (Rupees two Lakhs only) to the child victim through the victim’s lawful guardian, preferably by direct bank transfer to an account opened in the name of the minor, with proper safeguards.

162.It is needless to emphasize more on the aspects which are subsidiary in nature. As the evidence on record of Pw.1/victim and her parents who has occasion to witness the things happened in the life of their daughter is quite ample and sufficient which is reliable, worth convincing, trustworthy and free from doubt, which cannot be brushed aside on the ground of interestedness hence, the evidence of prosecution witnesses Pw.1/victim, her parents Pw.2. PW3, PW.7 incharge Principal of TS Model School and

Junior College, who issued study, conduct and date of birth certificated of

PW1 and corroborated on material particulars coupled with exhibits, can be pressed into service to base conviction.

163.So, the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the charged offences punishable U/secs.

354-D, 448, 290 of IPC, Sec. 11 r/w 12 of the Protection of Children from

Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and accused failed to rebut the presumption 78/84Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 15 of 2023 under Section 29 and 30 of POCSO Act. Hence, the accused can be found guilty for the aforementioned offences. Accordingly, this Point is determined in favour of the prosecution.

164.In the result, the accused is found guilty for the charged offences punishable U/secs. 354-D, 448, 290 of IPC, Sec. 11 r/w 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and he is convicted of the same Under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C. The accused is found not guilty for the charged offence punishable under Section 506 IPC, and he is acquitted for the said offence under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 30 th day of April, 2026.

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

MULUGU,

FAC - FAST TRACK SESSIONS JUDGE FOR

EXPEDITIOUS DISPOSAL OF CASES OF RAPE AND

PROTECTION OF CHILD AGAINST SEXUAL

OFFENCES (POCSO) ACT, MULUGU

165.Accused is heard with regard to quantum of sentence to be imposed upon him.

Accused submitted that, he used to run auto, her mother is 79/84Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 15 of 2023 differently disabled. His father is drunken. He has to look after hismother and wife.

166. On hearing the accused on quantum of sentence, in view of the nature, facts and circumstances of the case, it appears sentencing him to imprisonment and also to impose fine will meet the ends of justice for the ofence punishable under Section 354-D IPC, as well as imprisonment and fine will meet the ends of justice for the offence punishable under

Section 448 IPC, imposing some fine will meet the ends of justice for the offence punishable under Section 290 IPC as well as imprisonment and fine will meet the ends of justice for the offence punishable under

Sections 11 r/w 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences

Act.

167. Having regard to the relevant facts and circumstances of the case, on balancing mitigating circumstances and aggravating punishment, in the light of circumstances, sentencing the accused to imprisonment and imposing fine for causing acts referred supra, appears to be quite- appropriate and adequate punishment in the light of given facts.

168. After exercising discretion judiciously, in the light of circumstances and considering the submission of the accused, having regard to the enormity and gravity of offence and on considering the submissions of the accused, it is just, reasonable and appropriate to impose sentence under Section 354-D IPC imprisonment of ( 02) years and fine of

Rs.1000/-, under Section 448 IPC imprisonment of (01) year and fine of

Rs.1000/-, under Section 290 IPC imprisonment and fine of Rs.200/-, and

under Sections 11 r/w 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual

Offences Act and sentencing to Imprisonment of 01- year and fine,

Rs.2000/- will meet ends of justice.

169. In the result, the accused is found guilty for the charged offences punishable U/secs. 354-D, 448, 290 of IPC, Sec. 11 r/w 12 of the 80/84Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 15 of 2023

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and accused is convicted of the said offences Under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C.

170. The accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of (02) Years and he shall also pay fine of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only)for the charged offence punishable under Section 35 4- D of IPC, and in default to make payment of fine of Rs.1000/-, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of (02) months.

171. Further the accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of (01) year and also shall a l s o pay fine of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) for the charged offence punishable under Section 448 IPC, and in default to make payment of fine of Rs.1000/-, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of (02) two months.

172. Further the accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.200/- (Rupees two thousand only) for the charged offence punishable under Section 290,IPC, and in default to make payment of fine of Rs.200/-, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one week (7 days).

173. Further the accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of (01) year and also shall a l s o pay fine of Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) for the charged offence punishable under Section 11 r/w 12 of Protection of Children from

Sexual Offences Act, and in default to make payment of fine of

Rs.2000/-, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of (02) two months.

174. The sentences shall run concurrently in respect of offences U/secs.

354-D, 448, 290 of IPC, Sec. 11 r/w 12 of the Protection of Children from 81/84Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 15 of 2023

Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

175. In this case accused was released on station bail, hence, there was no remand set off Under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.

176. Further the accused is found not guilty for the charged offence punishalbe under section 506 IPC and he is acquitted for said offence under Section 235(1) CPC.

177. The accused is informed about his right to prefer an appeal against this Judgment and also appraised to obtain free legal aid if he required.

The accused is furnished with copy of Judgment.

178. Before parting with the Judgment, in the light of nature and circumstance of the case this Court is satisfied and is of considered view that it is a fit case to award compensation to the victim of Rs. ₹ 2,00,000 (Rupees two Lakhs only) as provided under Section 357-A of

Cr.P.C r/w Rule7 of Protection of Child from Sexual Offences Rules, 2012 to the victim as provided for her rehabilitation for loss of injury causing severe mental agony to child victim.

179. Hence recommended to District Legal Services Authority,

Mulugu to disburse the compensation amount of ₹ 2,00,000/- (Rupees two Lakhs only) to the victim namely xxxxx, under Section 357-A (2) of

Cr.P.C r/w Rule 7 of POCSO Act R/w Section 33(8) of POCSO Act.

180. The office is directed to forward the copy of Judgment as well as copy of charge sheet containing the address of victim/PW1 xxxx to the 82/84Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 15 of 2023

District Legal Services Authority, Mulugu to disburse the quantum of compensation to the victim xxxx.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 30 th day of April, 2026.

Sd/-

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

MULUGU,

FAC - FAST TRACK SESSIONS JUDGE FOR

EXPEDITIOUS DISPOSAL OF CASES OF RAPE AND

PROTECTION OF CHILD AGAINST SEXUAL

OFFENCES (POCSO) ACT, MULUGU

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: PW1Is victim girlNone. PW2Father of victim girl PW3Is mother of victim girl PW4P.Supriya, WPC 563 PW5S.Saleema Begum, WPC 559 PW6P.Kistaiah, panch witness for Crime detail form PW7Annapureddy Devaki Devi,

principal of who issued date of

brith certificate of victim PW8M. Chinna Mallaiah, panch witness for Crime detail form in cri;me no. 14/2023 of police station venkatapur PW9A.Balaiah,1stinvestigation officer PW10SK. Tajoddin, 2nd investigation officer 83/84Prl. S.J., Mlg.

Spl.SC 15 of 2023

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1 Is report dated 02.02.2023 presented by Pw.2 in Cr.No.14/2023 of P.S.

Venkatapur.

Ex.P2 CD prepared by PW4.

Ex.P.3Is signature of Pw.6 on crime detail form in crime no. 14/2023 of police station Venkatapur

Ex.P4Is bonafied cum date of birth certificate of Pw.1

Ex.P5 Is signature of Pw.8 on the crime details form dated 03.02.2023

Ex.P6 Is original FIR in Cr.No.14/2023

Ex.P7Is the crime details form in Cr.No. 14/2023

Ex.P8Is 164 Cr.P.C statement of victim/Pw.1

FOR DEFENCE: Nil.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED: Nil.

Sd/-

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

MULUGU,

FAC - FAST TRACK SESSIONS JUDGE FOR

EXPEDITIOUS DISPOSAL OF CASES OF RAPE

AND PROTECTION OF CHILD AGAINST SEXUAL

OFFENCES (POCSO) ACT, MULUGU.

84/84Prl. S.J., Mlg.