1 of 16 S.C.No. 729 of 2020 Dt. 01-05-2026
IN THE COURT OF FAST TRACK SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL AND
DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND POCSO ACT CASES,
RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT RAJENDRANAGAR
Present: Sri T. Srinivas
Special Judge for Trial and Disposal
of Rape and POCSO Act cases, R.R.District at Rajendranagar
Wednesday, this the 1 st day of May, 2026
Sessions Case No.729 of 2020
(Cr.No.100 of 2020 of P.S. Miyapur, Cyberabad)
1 Name of the The State of Telangana through the Inspector complainantof Police, PS Miyapur.
2 Name of the accused Makkala Naveen, S/o.Anand, Age: 22 years, Occ: Driver, R/o. Film Nagar,Gautham Nagar, Hyderabad 3 Offences charged of under Section 366A, 376 (2) (n) IPC and Section 3 r/w 4 of POCSO Act, 2012 4 Crime No.& Name of 100 of 2020 of P.S Miyapur. the PS 5 Plea of the accusedPleaded not guilty.
6 Finding of the CourtFound not guilty 7 Sentence or order In the result, the accused is found not guilty of the offence punishable under under Section 366 (A), 376 (2) (n) of IPC and Section 3 r/w 4 of POCSO Act 2012 and section 9 and 10 of Prevention of Child Marriage Act and accordingly, he is acquitted U/Sec. 235(1) Cr.P.C for the above charges. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of six months as required U/s 437-A Cr.P.C. MO1 shall be destroyed after the appeal time is over.
8 Name of the Sri B. Venkateshwara Reddy, Spl Public Prosecution counselProsecutor 9 Name of the Defence Sri.Somasunder, Advocate, counsel counsel for accused.
2 of 16 S.C.No. 729 of 2020 Dt. 01-05-2026
This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri B. Venkateshwara Reddy, Spl Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri somasunder, Advocate, counsel for accused and upon hearing both sides and perusing the material on record, this Court delivered the following:
:: J U D G M E N T ::
1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Miyapur filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 366A, 376(2)(n)IPC and Section 3 r/w 4 of POCSO Act, 2012.
2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are that 27-01- 2020 at 21 hours received a Telugu written complaint from A Sai kumar S/o Raghavender aged 22 yrs, Occ: Private Job, R/o.H.No 2- 420, premnagar New Hafeezpet, Miyapur stating that on at 1600 hours, the complainant sister left her home by saying that she is going outside and did not return home so far. Then petitioner searched for her in all possible places but in vain. Previously also she left home from SR Nagar college with one Naveen and return home after three days. Petitioner suspecting that she may went with
Naveen. Hence requested to necessary action.
On receipt of the report to the above effect from the complainant/father of victim, a case was registered in
Cr.No.100/2020 under Section 366 A of IPC by LW20/Sub- 3 of 16 S.C.No. 729 of 2020 Dt. 01-05-2026
Inspector of Police During the course of investigation, LW20 examined and recorded the statement of PW1 and and visited the scene of offence and conducted scene of offence panchanama and drawn the rough sketch in the presence of mediators i.e., LWs 4 and 5 On 29-01-2020 on receiving the information about the presence of victim and accused at Lakkshmiputym the victim was rescued and the accused was apprehended and they were brought to PS. On his request the Women SI of police/LW-18 victim he added section under sec 376 (2)(n) of IPC and Sec 3 and 4 of POCSO Act. Victim was referred to Government Area Hospital, Kondapur. Where the medical office LW-15 examined the victim girl and preserved the samples, He also collected the 10th Class Memo of the victim as per the date of birth od the victim is 01-11-20022 Ex P& attested copy of
SSC Memo and handed over the file to LW-21 for further investigation
LW-21 took up further investigation of this case , he examined and recorded the statements of PW-3 LWs 5,6 and 19. On his instructions LW-7/ASI of police visited Lakshimipuram Jagityal and conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of LW-10 and LW-11. Ex P8 is second scene of offence panchanama On 29-01- 2020 PW-5 produced the accused before him and when the accused was about to confession he secured the presence ODF PW-4 and LW- 4 of 16 S.C.No. 729 of 2020 Dt. 01-05-2026 13 and recorded confession panchanama of the accused. And seized realme mobile from the accused. Later the accused was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. Basing on the confession sec 9 and 10 of Prevention of Child Marriage Act. He gave requisition to VIII addl metropolitan magistrate to record the Sec 164 statement of the victim girl He produced the accused before the LW-16 for conducting potency test report and collected FSL report and final opinion. After completion of investigation, LW21 filed charge sheet against the accused.
3.The Hon’ble Special Sessions Judge for Trial and Disposal of POCSO Act cases, R.R.District, at L.B.Nagar took cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 366 A, 376 (2) (n) IPC and
Section 3 r/w 4 of POCSO Act, 2012 and registered as SPL.SC.No.
729 of 2020.
4. By virtue of Orders in ROC No.346/E1/2022, dated 01-06- 2022 of the Hon’ble High Court for the State of Telangana the case was transferred to this Court for trial and disposal and directed the accused to appear before the court on next date of hearing.
5.On appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to him Under Section 207 Cr.P.C.
6.Heard the Counsel for the accused and the Spl. Public
Prosecutor on the charges. Charges under Section 366-A, 376 (2)(n) 5 of 16 S.C.No. 729 of 2020 Dt. 01-05-2026
IPC and Section 3 r/w 4 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 9 and 10 of Prevention of Child Marriage Act have been framed, read over and explained to the accused in the vernacular language under section 228 Cr.P.C. The accused denied the accusation, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
7. During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined,
PWs 1 to 6 and got marked Ex.P1 to P11 and MO1 marked.
8.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating material in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The accused denied the said incriminating material and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.
9.Heard the learned Spl. Public Prosecutor on behalf of prosecution and the learned counsel for the accused.
10.Now the point for determination is:-
Whether the prosecution could able to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 366-A, 376(2)(n) of IPC and Section 3 r/w 4 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 9 and 10 of Prevention of Child Marriage Act?
POINT
11.The charges leveled against the accused is that the accused stalked the victim girl, induced her to marry him, 6 of 16 S.C.No. 729 of 2020 Dt. 01-05-2026 kidnapped her in the name of love and marriage and thereby committed offence punishable under Section 366-A, 376(2) (n) IPC and Section 3 r/w 4 of POCSO Act, 2012.
12.In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined
PWs 1 to 6. PW1 is complainant and brother of the victim. PWs 2 is victim, PW- 3 is mother of the victim, PW-4 confession panch witness PW-5 First IO who issued FIR and marked Ex P4 to 7, PW-6 is the 2nd IO who filed charge sheet
13. PW1 is the brother of the victim girl and complainant and his evidence shows LW2 is my/victim is my sister. LW3 is my grandmother. LW4 is my mother. LW5 is my father in law. I know the accused.
The victim was studying intermediate 1st year in the year 2019. She used to attend the college by train.
On 13.11.2019, the victim/LW2 went to college and did not returned home. On eqnuiry we came to know that she left the college to go to home, but she did not returned home. Thereafter I lodged the report in the PS.SR Nagar. Three days thereafter police SR.
Nagar telephoned me stating that the victim came to PS with one
Naveen. Upon that he went to PS and on the promise of victim, He withdrew the report.
On 27.01.2020, the victim left the house at about 04.00 pm to go to stitch her clothes but did not return. My grandmother 7 of 16 S.C.No. 729 of 2020 Dt. 01-05-2026 informed me that the victim return home and upon that he searched for her and later lodged report with the police Miyapur, suspecting the accused. Ex.P1 is the report lodged by him. Three days thereafter the police informed him that the victim was present in
Jagityal and upon that gw went along with police to Jagityal and brought the victim with him. On enquiry the victim stated that the accused took her to his paternal aunt’s house, where they stayed for 2 days and sexually harassed her. The victim stated that the accused tied a Pasupu Thadu in her neck when he took her on previous time. Police examined me and recorded my statement. The witness identified the accused in the open court.
During the Cross examination of PW1 it it elicited that
He studied upto intermediate. Police scribed the report on his dictation. It is admitted by PW-1 that he did not mention in
Ex.P1/report about the accused tying Pasupu Thadu on the previous occasion. He do not remember whether he stated the crime number registered in PS S.R Nagar. The victim revealed about her marriage with accused after she returned from first incident, but he did not mention the same in the report/Ex.P1. It is denied by Pw-1 that the victim was aged 18-19 years at the time of incident. It admitted by PW-1 that he mentioned in previous report before S.R
Nagar PS, about the age of victim as 17 years and 8 months. It is denied by PW-1 that we performed marriage of victim after lodging the report before SR Nagar PS. It is denied by PW-1 that he filed a false case as the accused was not interested to marry the victim. It is denied by PW-1 that the victim and the accused married at the instance of victim as the victim was major. It is denied by PW-1 that the victim is still liking the accused even after her marriage. It is not true to suggest that the victim went along with accused with her consent and the accused never forced her. It is admitted by PW-1 8 of 16 S.C.No. 729 of 2020 Dt. 01-05-2026 that he showed the marriage photographs to police Miyapur. We did not collect any document from the temple. It is denied by PW-1 that we forcibly performed the marriage of victim with another person as she was insisting marry the accused. It is denied by PW-1 that the victim is not interested to reside with accused.
PW: 2/victim during the Chief examination by learned I/C Spl.
Public Prosecutor elicited tht PW1 is my brother. LW3 is my grandmother. LW4 is my mother. LW5 is my father in law. I know the accused.
she studied upto 5th class in Sairam School, Premnagar and thereafter studied in Naveen Talent school from 6th to 10th class. She studied intermediate in Sindhu College, SR Nagar.
while she was in intermediate 2nd year the accused got introduced to her though her friends. The accused is resident of Film
Nagar. After sometime the accused proposed love and she also accepted his proposal by believing his words.
On one day i.e. 13.11.2019 the accused took her to
Kondagattu near Jagityal and tied a Pasupu Thadu on her neck in
Kondagattu Anjaneya Swami Temple. On 15.11.2019 the accused brought her back to Hyderabad and dropped near her house. During the 2 days she and accused stayed in the house of his Paternal aunt’s in Lakshmi Puram. When parents enquired her she stated that she stayed in Chandnagar in her friend’s house as stated by accused. By that time her parents lodged missing complaint in SR
Nagar and the same was closed on my return. Thereafter she was not allowed to go to college and stayed in the house. 2 months thereafter she contacted the accused and used to talk to him. On 27.01.2020 she made phone call to the accused and asked him to 9 of 16 S.C.No. 729 of 2020 Dt. 01-05-2026 take her along with him. Upon that the accused took her to JBS in the cab and from there to Jagityal by bus. On that night they stayed in his aunt’s house at Lakshmi Puram at Jagityal and continued to stay on the next day also. The accused had physical relations with her on the 2 days stating that we already married.
On 29.01.2020 her brother came along with police and took her back to PS.Miyapur. Police examined her and recorded her statement. my date of birth is 02.11.2002. police referred her to hospital. She also gave my statement before the judge. Ex.P2 is 164
Cr.P.C statement which contained her signature. she can identify the accused.
During the Cross examination by learned Counsel for the
accused:
It is elicited that she was aged was 18 years at the time of lodging the report. She deposed in the chief examination on her own.
She herself made phone call to the accused and went along with him. The accused never forced her to come with him. It is admitted the accused never harassed her physically. She is not in touch with the accused after the marriage. Herstated in 164 Cr.P.C. statement at the instance of police.
Coing to the PW 3 Chief examination by learned I/C Spl. Public
Prosecutor: It is elicited that PW1 is my son. PW2/Victim is my daughter.LW3 is my mother. LW5 is my brother. she know the accused.
Her daughter was in intermediate at the time of incident.
About 5 years ago on one day, she went to Vemulawada and on that day PW1 informed her about the missing of victim/PW2, 10 of 16 S.C.No. 729 of 2020 Dt. 01-05-2026 immediately she returned to Hyderabad and PW1 lodged report with the police. 2 days thereafter her daughter returned home. on enquiry her daughter revealed that the accused took her to his paternal aunt’s house and forcibly harassed her. Police examined her and recorded her statement.
During the Cross examination of PW-3 it is elicited that she came to know about the incident after returning from
Jathara. It is denied by PW-2 that we filed a false case against the accused as her daughter was not interested to perform marriage with another person. It is denied by PW-2 that no incident occurred and we filed a false case against the accused by colliding with each other.
Coing to the PW 4 Chief examination by learned I/C Spl. Public
Prosecutor PW4 LWI know LW13.
It is elicited that On 29.01.2020, at about 07.00 pm she went to PS.Miyapur, on hid personal work. At that time the paternal uncle of the victim asked him to enquire the accused who was present in the PS. On enquiry the accused confessed that, on 27.01.2020 he took away the victim girl to Kondagattu and married her and went to
Jagityal on the same day night to the house of his aunt and in the absence of the family members he had physical relations with the victim and thereafter he was apprehended by the police and brought to PS. Upon the said confession the inspector of police recorded the confession and seized Blue Colour Realme mobile phone from the possession of accused undercover of panchanama. Ex.P3 is the confession cum seizure panchanama. MO1 is mobile phone.
During the Cross examination by learned Counsel for the
accused it is elicited and denied that the accused never confessed 11 of 16 S.C.No. 729 of 2020 Dt. 01-05-2026 the offence and nothing was seized. It is deneid by PW-4 that he is deposing false at the instance of police.
Coming to the PW 5 Chief examination by learned I/C Spl.
Public Prosecutor It is elicited that he is working as Inspector of Police,
Vikarabad Rural P.S. Previously, worked as SI of Police, P.S.Miyapur from May, 2017 to June, 2020.
On 27.01.2020 at 12.00 noon, he received report from PW1 and basing on it, he registered a case in crime no.100/2020 Under section 366-A IPC and issued FIR. Ex.P4 is the FIR issued by him.
During the course of investigation he examined and recorded the statement of PW1. Later he visited the scene of offence and conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of LWs 4 and 5. Ex.P5 is the crime details form. On 29.01.2020 on receiving information about the presence of victim and accused at
Laskshmipur, the victim was rescued and the accused was apprehended and they were brought to PS. On his request the
Woman SI of Police/LW18 recorded the statement of victim girl/PW2. Basing on the statement of victim he added section 376(2)
(n) IPC and section 3 r/w 4 of POCSO Act through memo. Ex.P6 is the alteration memo. Later he referred the victim girl to Government area hospital, Kondapur where the medical officer/LW15 examined the victim girl and preserved the samples. He also collected the 10th class memo of the victim as per which her date of birth is 02.11.2002. Ex.P7 is the attested copy of SSC memo. At this stage he handover the CD file to LW21 for further investigation.
During the Cross-examination of PW5 by the counsel for the
accused it is elicited and denied that he has done table investigation and that the accused is no way connected with the alleged offence.
12 of 16 S.C.No. 729 of 2020 Dt. 01-05-2026
Coming to the PW 6 Chief examination it is elicited that he is working as Inspector of Police, Electricity Vigilance,
Sangareddy, Previously worked as Inspector of police, PS Miyapur, from September 2018 to December 2021.
On 29.01.2020, he received the CD file from PW5 for further investigation. he examined and recorded the statements of PW3,
LWs 5 and 6 and 19. On his instruction, LW7/ASI of Police visited
Lakshmipuram, Jagityal and conducted scene of offence panchanama, in the presence of LWs 10 and 11. Ex.P8 is the second scene of offence panchanama. On 29.01.2020, PW5 produced the accused before him in the PS. On interrogation in the presence of panch witnesses PW4 and LW13, the accused confessed the commission of offence and upon recording the same he seized blue
Colour Realme mobile phone from the possession of accused under cover of panchanama. Later the accused was arrested and produced
before the court for court for judicial custody. Basing on the
confession of accused he added section 9 and 10 of Prevention of
Child Marriage Act. On his requisition the VIII Additional
Metropolitan Magistrate recorded statement of victim under section 164 Cr.P.C. He produced the accused before LW16 who conducted potency test on the accused. Ex.P9 is the potency certificate. He collected the FSL report and basing on it LW15 gave final opinion.
Ex.P10 is the FSL report and Ex.P11 is the final opinion. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused.
During the Cross examination by learned Counsel for accused
The SSC Certificate of the victim was collected from the school on giving requisition. We did not enquire about the birth place of the victim girl. It is denied by PW-6 that the accused never committed any offence and he is no way connected with the offence and that he 13 of 16 S.C.No. 729 of 2020 Dt. 01-05-2026 filed a false charge sheet against the accused for statistical purpose and that the documents collected by us were created for the purpose of the case.
14.The above evidence shows that PWs1 to 6, the accused
has a high probability of being acquitted based on the evidence
provided.
While the victim's official school record (SSC memo) indicates she was a minor (17 years and 2 months old) at the time of the second incident, her own testimony in cross-examination severely crippled the prosecution's case.
⚖️Key Grounds for Acquittal
1. Victim Turned Hostile in Cross-Examination
The victim (PW2) contradicted her own direct testimony and disowned the prosecution's case during cross-examination:
Voluntary Movement: She admitted that she called the accused herself and went with him voluntarily. No Force or Harassment: She explicitly stated that the accused never forced her and "never harassed her physically." Police Coercion: She admitted that her Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement (given before a magistrate) was made at the instance of the police.
2. Doubts Regarding the Victim's Age
In cases under the POCSO Act, the age of the victim is the most critical factor.
Conflicting Statements: While the SSC memo states her date of birth as 02.11.2002 (making her a minor), PW2 stated in her cross-examination that she was 18 years old at the time of lodging the report.
14 of 16 S.C.No. 729 of 2020 Dt. 01-05-2026 Benefit of Doubt: Major discrepancies in age assessment often benefit the accused in criminal trials.
3. Inadmissible Confession Hit by Evidence Act: PW4 testified that the accused confessed to the crime in the police station. No Legal Value: Under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, any confession made to a police officer or while in police custody is inadmissible in court and cannot be used to convict an accused.
4. Hearsay Evidence No Direct Witnesses: The testimonies of the brother (PW1) and the mother (PW3) regarding the sexual harassment are based entirely on what the victim allegedly told them. Weakened Corroboration: Since the victim herself denied being physically harassed in court, their statements lose all corroborative value.
15.The remaining evidence available on record is that of
PW6, who is the investigation officer. His evidence shows the investigation done by him and filing of the charge sheet against the accused.
16. Since the material witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution, the learned Spl. Public Prosecutor has rightly given up the remaining witnesses as no purpose would be served with their examination.
17.In the light of above discussion, it is clear that the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused kidnapped the victim minor girl/PW2 in the name of love and marriage, induced her to marry and kidnapped her and thereby committed offence 15 of 16 S.C.No. 729 of 2020 Dt. 01-05-2026 punishable under Section 366(A), 376(2)(n) of IPC and Section 3 r/w 4 of POCSO Act 2012, as alleged by the prosecution. In the above circumstances, it can be held that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offences leveled against him, and hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal. Hence, the point is answered accordingly.
18.In the result, the accused is found not guilty of the offence punishable under under Section 366 (A), 376 (2) (n) of IPC and Section 3 r/w 4 of POCSO Act 2012 and section 9 and 10 of
Prevention of Child Marriage Act and accordingly, he is acquitted
U/Sec. 235(1) Cr.P.C for the above charges. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of six months as required
U/s 437-A Cr.P.C. MO1 shall be destroyed after the appeal time is over.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 1 st day of May, 2026.
Special Judge for Expeditious Trial and
Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act cases, R.R.District at Rajendranagar
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
(Witnesses examined) For the prosecution: PW1Brother of the victim.
PW2Victim 16 of 16 S.C.No. 729 of 2020 Dt. 01-05-2026
PW3Mother of victim
PW4D.Hari Babu, Panch for confession cum seizure panchanama
PW5Ch. Raghu Ramulu, Inspector of Police, I.O
PW6S.Venkatesh, Inspector of Police, I.O.
For the defence: -None-
EXHIBITS MARKED
For the prosecution:
Ex.P1Report
Ex.P2Signature of PW2 in 164 Cr.P.C statement
Ex.P3Confession cum seizure panchanama
Ex.P4FIR
Ex.P5Crime Details Form.
Ex.P6Alteration memo
Ex.P7Attested copy of SSC memo.
Ex.P8Second Scene of offence panchanama
Ex.P9Potency Certificate.
Ex.P10 FSL Report.
Ex.P11 Final Opinion
For the defence: -Nil- MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED: M.O.1- Mobile Phone
Special Judge for Expeditious Trial and
Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act cases, R.R.District at Rajendranagar