T Narsi Reddy

1 of 9 P/SC.No.34 of 2019

IN THE COURT OF FAST TRACK SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER

POCSO ACT–CUM-II ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE ,

NIZAMABAD

Present:- Sri T.NARSI REDDY, Spl.Judge for Trial of cases under POCSO Act-cum-II Addl.Dist. & Sessions

Judge, Nizamabad

Dated this the 10 th day of August, 2021

P/SESSIONS CASE No.34 of 2019

1 Name of the complainantTheStateofTelanganathrough Circle Inspector of Police, Nizamabad Town 2 Name of the accusedGandamala Balu @ Hari Babu S/o David, Age:25years,Caste:Munnurukapu, Occ:Mason, R/o Janagam District, present R/o Yellammagutta, Nizamabad 3 Offences chargedUnder section 376 (2) (i) of IPC and sec.5 (j)

(ii) (I) r/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012.

4 Crime No. & Name of 325 of 2017, PS Town-IV, Nizamabad Police Station 5 Plea of the accusedPleaded not guilty 6 Finding of the CourtFound not guilty 7 Sentence or orderIn the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 376 (2) (i) of IPC and sec.5 (j) (ii) (l) r/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012. Accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after six months, as per Section 437(A) Cr.P.C.

This case is coming before me on 03.08.2021 for final hearing in the presence of Sri V.Rajashekar Reddy, Spl. Addl.Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri S.Srinivas, Advocate for the accused and upon hearing both sides and perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

2 of 9 P/SC.No.34 of 2019

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

The Circle Inspector of Police, Nizamabad Town laid a charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.325 of 2017 for the offence punishable under section 376 (2) (i) of IPC and secs.3 r/w 4 & 5 (J) (ii) of the Protection of Children from Sexual offences Act, 2012.

2. Originally charge sheet in this case was filed before the

I Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Nizamabad, and the same was registered as

SC No.34 of 2019. Later, the said Court also took the cognizance for

the offence under sec-376 (2) (i) of IPC and secs.3 r/w 4 & 5 (J) (ii) of

POCSO Act, 2012 against the accused. Subsequently, at the stage of framing of charges, the case was transferred to this Court on 29-11-2019 vide Dis.No.5385/2019, dated 24-09-2019 of Hon’ble Prl. District & Sessions

Judge, Nizamabad.

3.The brief facts of case of the prosecution as follows:

(a)On 16-10-2017 at 1900 hours, the LW1/Complainant (Smt.T.Sunitha) lodged a written report before the Police, PS Town-IV,

Nizamabad and stating that she has one daughter and two sons, and on 16-10-2017 at about 1700 hours her daughter/victim girl informed to her that she was suffering from ill-health, on that she (LW1) took her daughter to

Sri Sai Hospital, Nizamabad, there the doctors examined her daughter and declared she (victim girl) was pregnant. Upon which, she enquired her daughter, on that her daughter informed to her that one Hari Babu/accused used to drop her at her School and developed good acquittance with her by giving chocolates, and started participating sexual intercourse with her at her house in the absence of her family members. As such, she requested for necessary action against the accused.

3 of 9 P/SC.No.34 of 2019

(b)Basing on the above said report, the LW13/G.Naresh, Circle

Inspector of Police (PW7) registered a case in Cr.No.325 of 2017 for the offence under section 376 (2) (i) of IPC and secs. 3 r/w 4 & 5 (J) (ii) of

POCSO Act, 2012 against the accused, and issued FIR under Ex.P7. On the above said report, the Police investigated the case, and after completion of the investigation, PW7 filed charge sheet against the accused.

4. On appearance of the accused before the Court, copies of documents were supplied to him as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C. Upon consideration of the material available on record and after hearing the learned Special Addl. Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused, this Court framed thecharge against the accused for the offence punishable under section 376 (2) (i) of IPC and sec. 5 (j) (ii) (I) r/w 6 of

POCSO Act, 2012, read over and explained to him, for which he pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.

5. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, though the prosecution cited as many as 13 witnesses in the charge sheet, but they got examined PWs.1 to 7 and marked Exs.P1 to P11. On behalf of accused, no defence witness is examined.

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, when the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C with reference to the incriminating material evidence appearing against him for which, he denied the same and he did not choose to adduce any evidence on his behalf.

7. Heard the learned Special Addl. Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused.

4 of 9 P/SC.No.34 of 2019

Now the point for determination is :-

Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under section 376 (2) (i) of IPC and sec. 5 (j) (ii)(I) r/w of POCSO Act, 2012 beyond all reasonable doubt”?

8. According to the case of prosecution, the accused committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the victim girl, who is under 16 years of age on several times and made her pregnant, as such the acts of accused is committed the offence punishable under section 376 (2) (i) of IPC and sec. 5 (j) (ii) (l) r/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012.

9. The learned Spl. Addl. Public prosecutor argued that the accused, who is having culpable mental state over the PW2, who is the daughter of

PWs. 1 & 3 and having such malafide intention, he developed good acquittance with the victim girl by giving chocolates and droping her at her school, and forcibly committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on her, in the absence of her family members, and other places and made her pregnant.

The learned prosecutor further argued that the evidence of PW1 is quite corroborated with the contents of Written report, and her evidence, which is marked under Ex.P2, and the evidence of PWs. 2 to 6, who are victim girl, her father, panch witness (Scene of offence) and Circumstantial witnesses, their evidence is also corroborated with the contents of Exs.P3 to

P6, and the learned Public Prosecutor further argued that the evidence of

PW7, who investigated the case, their evidence also supported right from receiving written report from the PW1 and recorded the statements of material witnesses under Exs.P2 to P4 including conducting the scene of offence panchanama and confession panchanama, as such the evidence of

PWs.1 to 7 coupled with Exs.P1 to P11 have clearly proved that the accused 5 of 9 P/SC.No.34 of 2019 committed the above said offences against PW2. Hence, he prays the Court to convict the accused as per law.

10.On the other hand, the learned defence counsel vehemently argued that though the prosecution cited as many as 13 witnesses in the charge sheet, but examined only 7 witnesses i.e. PWs.1 to 7, and got marked Exs.P1 to P11.

The learned defence counsel further argued that though the learned prosecutor very much relied on the evidence of PWs. 1 to 6, who said to be the parents of victim girl, victim girl, panch witness and circumstantial witnesses, and further argued that though the prosecution relied on the evidence of PWs.1 to 7, but the so called PWs.1 &3, who are parents of victim girl, they did not depose single word against the accused. Further, they (PWs.1&3) deposed that in the month of October, 2017 themselves and their family members went to their village by locking the door, after two days they returned and found that some unknown offenders tried to commit theft in their house, on that one of their neighbour obtained PW1’s signature on white paper and same was given in the police station. The

Ex.P1 is his (PW1) signature appearing on written report. Except that they do not know anything. The crucial witness in this case i.e.PW2 (victim girl),

Panch witness (PW4) and circumstantial witnesses (PWs. 5 & 6), they also did not depose anything against the accused. If it is so, the evidence of

PWs.1 to 6 is no way helpful to the case of the prosecution. Hence, the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, he prays the Court to acquit the accused from the accusation leveled against him.

6 of 9 P/SC.No.34 of 2019

11.The learned prosecutor mainly relied on the evidence of

PWs.1 to 7, who said to be the parents of victim girl, victim girl, panch witness, and circumstantial witness, including investigating officer (PW7).

On careful perusal of the evidence of PWs.1 & 3, who are the parents of victim girl, they simply deposed that in the month of October, 2017 themselves and their family members went to their village by locking the door, after two days they returned and found that some unknown offenders tried to commit theft in their house on that one of their neighbour obtained PW1’s signature on white paper and same was given in the police station. The Ex.P1 is PW1’s signature appearing on written report. Except that they do not know anything. PW4, who is the panch witness to the scene of offence panchanama, he deposed that on 17-10-2017 in the morning hours, he went to the Police Station in connection with their association, on that the police obtained his signature under Ex.P5. Except that he do not know anything.

On perusal of the evidence of PW5, who is gynecologist and examined the victim girl, she simply deposed that while she was in Sri Sai Hospital,

Nizamabad on 16-10-2017, PW1 brought her daughter (Victim girl) as the victim girl did not get periods regularly and suffering from ill-health, upon which she examined the said victim girl. On her examination, she found that she (Victim girl) was pregnant. Later, she also conducted Ultra Sound examination, then she concluded that the victim girl was pregnant under

Ex.P6. Ex.P6 is the examination report (Ultra Sound report). Later, she informed the said fact to Child protection Officer (LW5), Nizamabad for further action. But, in her cross-examination, she admitted that she did not verify any document including bonafide certificate to prove the age of 7 of 9 P/SC.No.34 of 2019 victim girl. As such, she does not know the age of victim girl at the time of treatment.

On perusal of the evidence of PW6, who is District Child Protection

Officer, Nizamabad, he deposed that on 16-10-2017, while he was present in her office, he received a phone call from PW5 Dr.Kavitha Reddy stating that the victim girl came to her hospital with some health problem. She further informed that the said victim girl was pregnant and asked him to come down to hospital. Accordingly, he went there and enquired about the issue.

Later, he took there victim girl to the Police station, IV Town, Nizamabad.

Thereafter, he discussed with her mother. Later, the mother of victim girl gave a report before IV Town, Police station. But,in his cross-examination, he admitted that he did not verify any date of birth particulars including bonafide certificate of victim girl at the time of sending them (PWs. 1 & 2) to the police station.

The learned Prosecutor mainly relied on the evidence of PW2, who is the victim girl in this case, she deposed that in the month of October, 2017, herself and her family members went to their native village by locking the door, after two days they returned and found that some unknown offenders tried to commit theft in their house. On that her mother/PW1 gave a report.

Except that she does not know anything. After careful consideration of the evidence of PW2, she has no where deposed that the accused forcibly committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on her on several times and made her pregnant. As such, the evidence of PWs. 1 to 6 is no way helpful to the case of the prosecution in any manner.

12.The learned Addl. Public prosecutor further relied on the evidence of PW7, who is the investigating officer in the present case though 8 of 9 P/SC.No.34 of 2019 his evidence may be corroborated right from receiving report from mother of victim girl (PW1), including conducting scene of offence panchanama and recording statements under sec.161 Cr.P.C, but when the material witnesses in particularly the parents of victim girl, victim girl (PW2) and

Panch witness and circumstantial witnesses have not deposed single word against the accused that the accused forcibly committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the victim girl, who is under the age of 16 years and made her pregnant. As such, the evidence of PW7 is also no way avail to the case of prosecution.

13. After consideration of the evidence of PWs.1 to 7 coupled with

Exs.P1 to P11 and this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution failed to prove the guilty of accused beyond reasonable doubt.

14. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 376 (2) (i) of IPC and sec.5 (j) (ii) (l) r/w 6 of

POCSO Act, 2012. Accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 235 (1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after six months, as per Section 437(A) Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property (non-valuable) if any, shall be ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 10th day of August, 2021.

Sd/-

Spl.Judge for Trial of cases under POCSO Act, -cum- II Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge 9 of 9 P/SC.No.34 of 2019

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(Witnesses examined) Prosecution:

PW1: Smt.Thumma SunithaComplainant/Mother of the victim girl

PW2: Victim girlDaughter of PW1

PW3: Thumma MaheshFather of the victim girl

PW4: Dibbikar Sai RamPanch witness (Scene of offence panchanama)

PW5: Dr.Kavitha Reddy Circumstantial witness (Examined the victim girl)

PW6: K.Chaithanya Kumar Circumstantial witness/Dist. Child Protection Officer, Nizamabad.

PW7: G.NareshCI of Police/ Investigation Officer

For the Defence: - None -

EXHIBITS MARKED:

Ex.P1:Signature of PW1 on Written report Ex.P2:Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1 Ex.P3:Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW2 Ex.P4:Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW3 Ex.P5:Signature of PW4 on the scene of offence panchanama Ex.P6:Examination report (Ultra sound report) Ex.P7:First Information report, dated 16-10-2017 Ex.P8:Scene of offence panchanama Ex.P9:II Scene of offence panchanama Ex.P10:Potential test report Ex.P11:Bonafide certificate of victim girl FOR DEFENCE: - Nil - MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED: – Nil -

Sd/-

Spl.Judge for Trial of cases under POCSO Act, -cum- II Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Nizamabad 10 of 9 P/SC.No.34 of 2019

1 of 9 P/SC.No.10 of 2020

IN THE COURT OF FAST TRACK SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES

UNDER POCSO ACT–CUM-II ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE ,

(FTC) NIZAMABAD

Present:- Sri T.NARSI REDDY, Spl.Judge for Trial of cases under POCSO Act-cum-II Addl.Dist. & Sessions

Judge, Nizamabad

Dated this the 15 th day of July, 2021

P/SESSIONS CASE No.10 of 2020

1 Name of the complainantThe State of Telangana through Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Kamareddy.

2 Name of the accusedDasari Sumanth S/o Siddaiah, Age:20 years, Caste:Mudiraj, Occ:Painter, R/o Gottimukkula (v), Domakonda (M).

3 Offences chargedUnder section 5 (m) r/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 4 Crime No. & Name of 74 of 2019, PS Domakonda. Police Station 5 Plea of the accusedPleaded not guilty 6 Finding of the CourtFound not guilty 7 Sentence or orderIn the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 5(m) r/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012. Accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after six months, as per Section 437(A) Cr.P.C.

This case is coming before me on 14-07-2021 for final hearing in the presence of Sri V.Rajashekar Reddy, Spl. Addl.Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri B.Krishnanand, Advocate for the accused and upon hearing both sides and perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

2 of 9 P/SC.No.10 of 2020

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

The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Kamareddy laid a charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.74 of 2019 for the offence punishable under Section 366 (A), 376 A, B of IPC and sec.5 (m) r/w 6 of the

Protection of Children from Sexual offences Act, 2012.

2. Originally charge sheet in this case was filed before the

I Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Nizamabad, and the same was registered as SC No.10 of 2020. Later, the said Court also took the cognizance for the offence under sec-366-A, 376-A, B of IPC and sec.5(m) r/w 6 of

POCSO Act, 2012 against the accused. Subsequently, at the stage of issuing of summons, the case was transferred to this Court on 04-02-20120 vide Dis.No.5385/2019 dated 24-09-2019 of Hon’ble

Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.

3.The brief facts of case of the prosecution as follows:

(a) On 06-08-2019 at 1700 hours, the LW1/Complainant (Dasari Suresh) lodged a written report before the police, PS Domakonda stating that on 4-8-2019 at 0900 hours, he went to the agriculture field and his wife also went to beedi Kharkana by leaving their daughter alone in the house, taking this advantage his neighbour by name Dasari

Sumanth (accused) came to his daughter and took her to his house by saying he will give the playing toys to her, and removed her underwear and forcibly raped her. On 5-8-2019 at morning hours his daughter informed the same to his wife (Sangeetha), while getting bathing to his daughter. Upon which, they took her (victim girl) to Government

Hospital, Domakonda for treatment. As such, he requested for necessary action against the accused.

3 of 9 P/SC.No.10 of 2020

(b)Basing on the above said report of LW1 (PW1), the PW9 (LW18), Sub-Inspector of Police, Domakonda Police Station registered a case in Cr.No.74 of 2019 for the offence under section 366 (A), 376 A, B of IPC and sec.5 (m) r/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 against the accused, and issued FIR under Ex.P12.On the above said report, the Police investigated the case, and after completion of the investigation, LW19 (T.Laxmi Narayana), Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Kamareddy filed charge sheet against the accused.

4. On appearance of the accused before the Court, copies of documents were supplied to him as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

Upon consideration of the material available on record and after hearing the learned Special Addl. Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused, this Court framed the charge against the accused for the offence punishable under section 5 (m) r/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 read over and explained to him, for which he pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.

5. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, though the prosecution cited as many as 19 witnesses in the charge sheet, but they got examined PWs.1 to 9 and marked Exs.P1 to P14, on behalf of accused, no defence witness is examined.

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, when the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C with reference to the incriminating material evidence appearing against him for which, he denied the same and he did not choose to adduce any evidence on his behalf.

7. Heard the learned Special Addl. Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused.

4 of 9 P/SC.No.10 of 2020

Now the point for determination is :-

Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under section 5 (m) r/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 beyond reasonable doubt”?

8. According to the case of prosecution that the accused committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the victim girl, who is below the age of 12 years, as such the act of accused is punishable under section 5 (m) r/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012.

9.The learned Spl. Addl. Public prosecutor argued that the accused by name Dasari Sumanth, who is having culpable mental state over the PW3, who is the daughter of PWs.1 & 2 and having such malafide intention, in the absence her parents, he came to her and took her to his house by saying he will give playing toys to her, and committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the victim girl, who is below the age of 12 years.

The learned prosecutor further argued that the evidence of PW1 is quite corroborated with the contents of written report, and also further argued that even the evidence of victim girl i.e., PW3, her evidence also supported to the case of the prosecution which is marked under Ex.P4, and PW2, who is the mother of the victim girl, and also

PWs. 4 to 8, who are the circumstantial witnesses (Grand parents of victim girl) and panch witnesses, their evidence is also corroborated with the contents of Exs.P3 to P7, even the evidence of PW9, who investigated the case, his evidence also supported right from receiving written report from PW1 and recording the statements of material witnesses under Exs.P2 to P7 including conducting the scene of offence panchanama, confessional panchanama and seizure panchanama, as such the evidence of PWs. 1 to 9 coupled with Exs.P1 to P14, have 5 of 9 P/SC.No.10 of 2020 clearly proved that the accused committed the above said offence against PW3. Hence, he prays the Court to convict the accused as per law.

10.On the other hand, the learned defence counsel vehemently argued that though the prosecution cited as many as 19 witnesses in the charge sheet, but examined only 9 witnesses i.e. PWs.1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P1 to P14.

The learned defence counsel further argued that though the learned prosecutor very much relied on the evidence of PWs. 1 to 8, who said to be the parents and grand parents of victim girl, victim girl, and panch witnesses, and also further argued that though the prosecution relied on the evidence of PWs. 1 to 8, but the so called PWs. 1 & 2, who are the parents of victim girl, they did not depose single word against the accused. Further, PWs.1 & 2 deposed that in the month of August 2019, there was a galata took place in between their family and the accused family members with regard to land disputes. Later, PW1 went to the Police station and gave a report, which was prepared by one person nearby police station, and Ex.P1 is his (PW1) signature appearing on Written report dated 6-8-2019. Except that they do not know anything. The crucial witness i.e. PW3 (victim girl) and PWs. 4 to 8 also did not depose anything against the accused. If it is so, the evidence of PWs.1 to 8 is no way helpful to the case of the prosecution.

Hence, the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, he prays the Court to acquit the accused from the accusation leveled against him.

6 of 9 P/SC.No.10 of 2020

11.The learned prosecutor mainly relied on the evidence of

PWs.1 to 8, who are said to be the parents and grand parents of the victim girl, victim girl, and panch witnesses, including investigating officer (PW9).

On careful perusal of the evidence of PWs. 1 & 2, who are the parents of the victim girl, they simply deposed that in the month of

August, 2019, there was a galata took place in between their family and the accused family members with regard to land disputes. On that,

PW1 went to the Police Station and gave a report, which was prepared by one person nearby Police station, and Ex.P1 is his (PW1) signature appearing on Written report dated 6-8-2019. Except that he do not know anything. PWs. 4 & 5, who are the grand parents of victim girl deposed that in the month of August, 2019, there was a galata took place in between their family and the accused family members with regard to land disputes at agriculture land, later, knowing the dispute between

PWs.1 &2 and the accused family, they came to their village and enquired with PW1. Except that they do not know anything. PW6 simply deposed that he do know anything about this case.

On the evidence of PW7, who is the panch witness to the Scene of offence panchanama, he deposed that in the month of August 2019, he went to the Police Station, Domakonda on his personal work along with

LW13/Chakali Pochaiah, there the police asked them to sign on some written papers. Ex.P8 is his signature appearing on panchanama, dated 7-8-2019. Except that he do not know anything. PW8, who is panch witness to the confession and seizure panchanama, he deposed that as per the instructions of their R.I (Revenue Inspector), himself and

LW15/Anand Rao went to Sirampur village i.e. house of father of the 7 of 9 P/SC.No.10 of 2020 accused, there the accused (Sumanth) was in the custody of police, as per the instructions of the police, they enquired the accused, upon which the accused confessed before them that he tempted on seeing the pornography in the channels on that he committed penetrative sexual assault on the victim girl, while she was alone in the house and in the pursuance of confession, the police also seized one jeans pant and one cut drawyer of the accused and seized under cover of confession panchanama under Ex.P11, and himself and LW15 (J.Anand Rao) also put their signatures. But in his cross examination, he admitted that the

Ex.P11 was prepared by one police constable and the police did not record the boundaries of the house of the accused, and he further admitted that he used to act as a panch witness, whenever the police or his revenue officers called him, and he denied the suggestion that he does not know the contents of said panchanama. However, from the evidence of PW8, it appears that he is stock witness of the police, so much reliance cannot be place on his evidence and moreover, the prosecution is fail to examine other panch witness though cited as LW15.

The learned Prosecutor mainly relied on the evidence of PW3, who is the victim girl in this case, she simply deposed that she do not know anything about this case. She further deposed that she came to the

Court at the instance of her parents. After careful consideration of the evidence of PW3, she has no where deposed that the accused committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on her, as such the evidence of PWs. 1 to 7 is no way helpful to the case of the prosecution in any manner.

12.The learned Addl. Public prosecutor further relied on the evidence of PW9, who is the First investigating officer in the present case 8 of 9 P/SC.No.10 of 2020 though his evidence may be corroborated right from receiving report from father of victim girl/PW1, including conducting scene of offence panchanama, confession and seizure panchanama, also also recording statements sec.161 Cr.PC, but when the material witnesses in particular victim girl, her parents, circumstantial witnesses (grand parents of victim girl) and panch witnesses have not deposed single word against the accused that the accused committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the victim girl, who is below the age of 12 years. As such, the evidence of PW9 is also no way avail to the case of prosecution.

13. After careful consideration of the evidence of PWs. 1 to 9 coupled with Exs.P1 to P14, and this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution failed to prove the guilty of accused beyond reasonable doubt.

14. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 5 (m) r/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012. Accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after six months, as per Section 437(A) Cr.P.C.

The unmarked case property i.e. clothes, shall be order to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 15th day of July, 2021.

Sd/-

Spl.Judge for Trial of cases under POCSO Act, -cum- II Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge - Nizamabad 9 of 9 P/SC.No.10 of 2020

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(Witnesses examined)

For the Prosecution:

PW1: Dasari SureshComplainant/Father of the victim girl PW2: Smt.Dasari SangeethaMother of victim girl PW3: Victim girl Daughter of PWs.1&2 PW4: Smt.Dasari LaxmiCircumstantial witness (Grand mother of victim girl) PW5: Dasari Yellaiah Circumstantial witness (Grand father of victim girl) PW6: Dasari ParushuramuluCircumstantial witness PW7: Dharpalli Bapu ReddyPanch witness (Scene of offence and seizure panchanama PW8: Pitla NarsimhuluPanch witness (Confession and seizure panchanama PW9: A.Rajeshwar GoudSI of police/Investigation Officer

For the Defence: - None -

EXHIBITS MARKED: Ex.P1:Signature of PW1 on written report Ex.P2:Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1 Ex.P3:Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW2 Ex.P4:Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW3 Ex.P5:Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW4 Ex.P6:Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW5 Ex.P7:Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW6 Ex.P8: Signature of PW7 on Scene of offence panchanama Ex.P9: Scene of offence panchanama Ex.P10: Seizure panchanama of victim girl Ex.P11:Confession and seizure panchanama Ex.P12:First information report, dated 06-08-2019 Ex.P13:Potential test report of accused Ex.P14:Final opinion report FOR DEFENCE: - Nil - MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED: -Nil-

Sd/-

Spl.Judge for Trial of cases under POCSO Act, -cum- II Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge (FTC) - Nizamabad

1 of 9 P/SC.No.31 of 2017

IN THE COURT OF FAST TRACK SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES

UNDER POCSO ACT–CUM-II ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

NIZAMABAD

Present:- Sri T.NARSI REDDY, Spl.Judge for Trial of cases under POCSO Act-cum-II Addl.Dist. & Sessions

Judge, Nizamabad

Dated this the 17 th day of August, 2021

P/SESSIONS CASE No.31 of 2017

1 Name of the complainantThe State of Telangana through Circle Inspector of Police, Bheemgal 2 Name of the accusedVelmala Gangadhar S/o Gangaram, Age:21 years, Caste:Gangireddula, Occ:Caste profession and Labour, R/o Kammarpally village and Mandal.

3 Offences chargedUnder section 417 of IPC and sec. 5 (j) (ii) r/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012.

4 Crime No. & Name of 14 of 2017 of P.S. Kammarpally Police Station 5 Plea of the accusedPleaded not guilty 6 Finding of the CourtFound not guilty 7 Sentence or orderIn the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 417 of IPC and sec.5 (j) (ii) r/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012. Accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after six months, as per Section 437(A) Cr.P.C.

This case is coming before me on 16-08-2021 for final hearing in the presence of Sri V.Rajashekar Reddy, Special Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri N.L.Shashtry, Advocate for the accused and upon hearing both sides and perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

2 of 9 P/SC.No.31 of 2017

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

The Circle Inspector of Police, Bheemgal laid a charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.14 of 2017 for the offence punishable under Sections 376 (1), 417 & 420 of IPC and sec.3 (a) r/w 4 and 5 (1) of Protection of Children from Sexual offences Act, 2012.

2. Originally charge sheet in this case was filed before the

I Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Nizamabad, and the same was registered as SC No.31 of 2017 for the offence under Sections 376 (1), 417 & 420 of IPC and sec.3 (a) r/w 4 and 5 (1) of Protection of Children from

Sexual offences Act, 2012, against the accused. Later, the said Court also took the cognizance for the above said offences. Subsequently, at the stage of framing of charges, the case was transferred to this Court on 10-10-2019 vide Dis.No. 5385/2019, dated 24-09-2019 of Hon’ble

Prl.District & Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.

3.The brief facts of case of the prosecution as follows:

(a)On 25-01-2017 at 1530 hours, the LW1 (Maddiveni

Pusavarla Venkati) lodged a written report before the police,

Kammarpally and stating that he decided to perform marriage of his daughter/victim girl, who is under 18 years of age with one boy of

Pochampad village as his daughter fell in love with one Velmala

Gangadhar/accused. On knowing this marriage, the Anganwadi Teacher by name Yamuna came to his house and took him and his daughter to

PS, Kammarpally for councilling, and later they sent the victim girl to

Sadaram Home, Nizamabad on her request. There the victim girl was suffering health problems, as such, the staff of Sadaram sent the victim girl to Hospital, and there the doctors conducted tests and declared she was pregnant. Upon which, they informed the same to him (victim’s father) over phone, and immediately, he went to Sadaram 3 of 9 P/SC.No.31 of 2017 home and brought his daughter to his house, and on his enquiry, his daughter disclosed that one Velmala Gangadhar forcibly participated sexual intercourse with her several times by saying deceitful words that he will marry her. Upon which, he informed the same to accused and requested him to marry his daughter/victim girl. But, the accused bluntly refused to marry the victim girl. As such, he held panchayath

before the caste elders, and the caste elders also tried to convince the

accused, but he did not agree to marry her. Hence, he requested for necessary action against the accused.

(b)Basing on the above said report, the LW18/P.Prabhakar (PW7), SI of Police registered a case in Cr.No.14 of 2017 for the offence under sections 376 (1), 417 & 420 of IPC and sec.3 (a) r/w 4 and 5 (1) of

POCSO Act, 2012 against the accused, and issued FIR under Ex.P8. On the above said report, the Police investigated the case, and after completion of the investigation, LW20/P.Ramana Reddy, Circle

Inspector of police filed charge sheet against the accused.

4. On appearance of the accused before the Court, copies of documents were supplied to him as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

Upon consideration of the material available on record and after hearing the learned Special Addl. Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused, this Court framed the charges against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 417 of IPC and sec. 5 (j) (ii) r/w 6 of

Protection of Children from Sexual offences Act, 2012, read over and explained to him, for which he pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.

5. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, though the prosecution cited as many as 20 witnesses in the charge sheet, but they got examined PWs.1 to 7 and marked Exs.P1 to P11. On behalf of accused, no defence witness is examined.

4 of 9 P/SC.No.31 of 2017 6.After closure of prosecution evidence, when the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C with reference to the incriminating material evidence appearing against him for which, he denied the same and he did not choose to adduce any evidence on his behalf.

Heard the learned Special Addl. Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused.

7. Now the point for determination is :-

Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under sec.417 of IPC and sec.5 (j) (ii) r/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 beyond reasonable doubt”?

8. According to the case of prosecution, the accused cheated the victim girl under the guise of love and marriage and forcibly committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on her on several times and made her pregnant, as such the acts of accused is punishable under section 417 of IPC and sec. 5 (j) (ii) r/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012.

9. The learned Spl. Addl. Public prosecutor argued that the accused by name Velmala Gangadhar, who was having culpable mental state over the PW3, who is the daughter of PW6 and having such malafide intention, the accused developed good acquittance with her by saying deceitful words that he will marry her and forcibly committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on her on several times and made her pregnant, and also the accused cheated the victim under the guise of love and marriage.

The learned prosecutor further argued that the evidence of

PW6 is quite corroborated with the contents of Written report, and also his evidence, which is marked under Ex.P7 and also the evidence of

PWs.1&2, who are the circumstantial witnesses, victim girl and Panch 5 of 9 P/SC.No.31 of 2017 witnesses (PWs.4 & 5), their evidence is also corroborated with the contents of Exs.P1 to P3, even the evidence of PW7, who investigated the case, his evidence also supported right from receiving written report from PW6 and recording the statements of material witnesses under Exs.P1 to P3 and Ex.P7 including conducting the scene of offence panchanama and confession panchanama, as such the evidence of

PWs.1 to 7 coupled with Exs.P1 to P11 have clearly proved that the accused committed the above said offence against PW3. Hence, he prays the Court to convict the accused as per law.

10. On the other hand, the learned defence counsel vehemently argued that though the prosecution cited as many as 20 witnesses in the charge sheet, but examined only 7 witnesses i.e.PWs.1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P1 to P11.

The learned defence counsel further argued that though the learned prosecutor very much relied on the evidence of PWs.1 to 6, who said to be circumstantial witnesses, victim girl, her father, and panch witnesses and also argued that though the prosecution relied on their evidence, but the so called PW6, who is the father of victim girl, he did not depose single word against the accused. Further, he (PW6) deposed that in the year 2017, while himself and his daughter were residing at Kammarpally and he was attending stove repairing and also coolie work at that time, some galata took place and somebody teased his daughter. On that, he lodged a report before the police, which bears his signature. Ex.P6 is his signature on report, dated 25-01-2017, which was drafted by person of his locality. Except that he does not know anything about this case.The crucial witness i.e. victim girl (PW3), Circumstantial witnesses (PWs.1&2) and Panch witnesses to the 6 of 9 P/SC.No.31 of 2017

Scene of offence and confession panchanama (PWs.4 & 5), they also did not depose anything against the accused. If it is so, the evidence of PWs.1 to 6 is no way helpful to the case of the prosecution. Hence, the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, he prays the Court to acquit the accused from the accusation leveled against him.

11.The learned prosecutor mainly relied on the evidence of

PWs.1 to 7, who said to be the circumstantial witnesses, victim girl, her father, and panch witnesses, including investigating officer (PW7).

On careful perusal of the evidence of PW6, who is the father of victim girl, he simply deposed that in the year 2017, while himself and his daughter were residing at Kammarpally and he was attending stove repairing and also coolie work at that time, some galata took place and somebody teased his daughter. On that, he lodged a report before the police, which bears his signature. Ex.P6 is his signature on on report,

dated 25-01-2017, which was drafted by person of his locality. Except

that he does not know anything about this case. He further deposed that the accused married his daughter/victim girl and they blessed two children.

On perusal of the evidence of PWs.1&2, who are the circumstantial witnesses, they simply deposed that in the month of November, 2016 they received information stating that LW1/M.Venkati intended to perform the marriage of his daughter/LW5/Victim girl, who isa minor, as per the instructions their superior officers, they stopped the marriage and later, they handed over the victim girl to Swadhar-Home,

Nizamabad. Except that they do not remember anything about this case.

7 of 9 P/SC.No.31 of 2017

On perusal of the evidence of PW4, who is panch witness to the

Scene of offence panchanama, he simply deposed that on 25-01-2017, the police, Kammarpally called him along with LW11/S.Jyother near

Saibaba temple, there the victim girl reside in a hut and police also conducted panchanama and drawn rough sketch and obtained his signature and also the signature of LW11. Ex.P4 is the Scene of offence panchanama. PW5, who is panch witness to the confession panchanama, he deposed that on 25-01-2017, the police, Kammarpally called him along with LW13/Shaik Sijauddin near to the hut of the accused and there the police asked them to sign on some written papers. Ex.P5 is signature on the panchanama, but he does not remember the contents of panchanama as it was conducted about 5 years back.

The learned Prosecutor mainly relied on the evidence of PW3, who is the victim girl in this case, she simply deposed that she does not know anything about this case. She further deposed that the accused married her and they blessed with two children. After careful consideration of the evidence of PW3, she has no where deposed that the accused committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on her by saying deceitful words and made her pregnant, as such, the evidence of PWs.1 to 6 is no way helpful to the case of the prosecution.

12.The learned Addl. Public prosecutor further relied on the evidence of PW7, who is the investigating officer in the present case though his evidence may be corroborated right from receiving written report from father of victim girl (PW6), including conducting scene of offence panchanama, confession panchanama and recording statements 8 of 9 P/SC.No.31 of 2017 of sec.161 Cr.PC, but when the material witnesses (PWs.1 to 6) in particular circumstantial witnesses, victim girl, her father and panch witnesses have not deposed single word against the accused that the accused committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the victim girl by saying deceitful words and made her pregnant. As such, the evidence of PW7 is also no way avail to the case of prosecution.

13. After consideration of the evidence of PWs. 1 to 7 coupled with Exs.P1 to P11 and since the material witnesses are not supported to the case of prosecution and remaining prosecution evidence i.e. PW7 is also no way help to the case of prosecution, and this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution failed to prove the guilty of accused beyond reasonable doubt against the accused.

14. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 417 of IPC and sec.5 (j) (ii) r/w 6 of the

Protection of Children from Sexual offences Act, 2012. Accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after six months, as per Section 437(A) Cr.P.C.

The unmarked case property (non-valuable) if any, shall be ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 17th day of August, 2021.

Sd/-

Spl.Judge for Trial of cases under POCSO Act, -cum- II Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge 9 of 9 P/SC.No.31 of 2017

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(Witnesses examined)

For the Prosecution:

PW1: Smt.Mekala YamunaCircumstantial witness PW2: Smt.Yedla JamunaCircumstantial witness PW3: Victim girl Daughter of PW6 PW4: Kalala Bala KrishnaPanch witness (Scene of offence panchanama) PW5: Komire NarsaiahPanchwitness(Confessional panchanama)

PW6: M.Pusavarla VenkatiComplainant/Father of victim girl PW7: P.PrabhakarSI of police/Investigation Officer

EXHIBITS MARKED:

Ex.P1:Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1 Ex.P2:Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2 Ex.P3:Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW3 Ex.P4:Scene of offence panchanama Ex.P5:Signature of PW5 on Confession panchanama Ex.P6: Signature of PW6 on Written report Ex.P7: Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW6 Ex.P8:First information Report, dated 25-01-2017 Ex.P9: Confession panchanama Ex.P10: Medical report of victim girl Ex.P11:Potential test report of accused FOR DEFENCE: - Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED: -Nil-

Sd/-

Spl.Judge for Trial of cases under POCSO Act, -cum- II Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Nizamabad

1 SC.No.100 of 2015

IN THE COURT OF THE SESSIONS COURT FOR FAST TRACKING THE

CASES OF ATROCITIES AGAINST WOMEN CUM XI ADDL. DISTRICT

AND SESSIONS JUDGE, NIZAMABAD

Present:- T.NARSI REDDY, II Addl.Dist. & Sessions Judge (FTC) FAC: Sessions Court for Fast Tracking the cases of Atrocities against Women-cum- XI Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge,Nizamabad.

Dated this the 19 th day of June, 2020

SESSIONS CASE No.100 of 2015

1 Name of the complainantThe State of Telangana through Circle Inspector of Police, Dichpally.

2 Name of the accusedBoidi Sudhakar S/o. Gangaram Aged: 31 years, Occ: Auto Driver, Caste: SC Madiga, R/o. Brahmanpally village of Jakranpally Mandal, District Nizamabad.

3 Offences chargedU/sec. 376, 417 and 506 of IPC 4 Crime No. & Name of 172 of 2013 of Jakranpally Police Station Police Station 5 Plea of the accusedPleaded not guilty 6 Finding of the CourtFound not guilty 7 Sentence or orderIn the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/sec. 376, 417 and 506 of IPC. Accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C for the said offences. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after six months, as per Section 437(A) Cr.P.C. The unmarked non valuable case property if any, shall be ordered to be destroyed after appeal time.

This case is coming before me on 15.06.2020 for fnal hearing in the presence of Sri M. Sudarshan Reddy, Addl.Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri B. Pavan Prasad, Advocate for the accused and upon hearing both sides and perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

2 SC.No.100 of 2015

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

The Circle Inspector of Police, Dichpally laid a charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.172 of 2013 for the offences punishable under Section under section 376, 417, 420 and 506 of IPC.

2. The case was taken on fle against the accused for the offences punishable under sections U/sec. 376, 417 and 506 of IPC by the Addl. Asst.

Sessions Judge (FTC), Nizamabad at Armoor and converted PRC No. 17 of

2015 and given SC No.100 of 2015 and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions vide order of Hon’ble High Court proceeding Dis. No.

179/E1/2013 dated 31-03-2016 and Subsequently the said case was made over to Sessions Court for Fast Tracking the cases of Atrocities against

Women cum XI Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge,Nizamabad for disposal according to law.

3.The brief facts of case of the prosecution are as follows:

(a) The complainant/victim (PW1) fled a private complaint before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Armoor and the same was referred to the S.H.O. Jakranpally Police Station and wherein the complainant alleged that she is the resident of Brahmanpally village and accused also belongs to her village and while she was studying 6th Class to 10th Class, the accused used to follow her under the guise of love and upon which she informed the matter to her parents and also school teacher for which they admonished the accused, while so, on 20.05.2002 the accused went to the house of the complainant and committed rape on her forcibly and in the year 2005, when the complainant was in Nizamabad hostel at that time, the accused went to the complainant and maimed her and promised to marry her and made sexual intercourse with her and also on 01-06-2010 the complainant/victim was alone in her house, the accused came to her house and forcibly committed rape on her without her consent due to which she got pregnancy, later on 09.02.2011 the complainant gave a birth to one male child at Aparna

Hospital, Armoor and the accused also threatened with dire consequence that he will kill her and her child by administering poison.

3 SC.No.100 of 2015

Later, the PW1 placed the matter before the caste elders, the accused agreed to marry her, but despite of her several request and demands, the accused failed to marry her and cheated her under the guise of love and marriage and she requested for necessary action against the accused.

(b)Basing on the above said report of PW1, the LW18 Sub-Inspector of police, registered a case in Cr.No.172 of 2013 and issued F.I.R. and took up the investigation, during the course of investigation, LW18 to LW21 (S.I of police and C.I of police) recorded the statements of PW1 to 3 and also other material witnesses and conducted the scene of offence panchanama in the presence of mediators. The police also got recorded the statement of the victim with the help of Addl.JFCM, Kamareddy under Sec. 164 Cr.P.C. The police also conducted the potential test to the accused and while the investigation is under progress, on 11-12-2013 the accused was arrested by the police and later produced him before the concerned court and after completion of the investigation, LW21 C.I of police, fled the charge sheet against the accused.

4. On appearance of the accused before the Court, copies of documents were supplied to him under section 207 Cr.P.C. Upon consideration of the material available on record and after hearing the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused, my predecessor framed the charges against the accused for the offence punishable under 376, 417 and 506 of IPC, read over and explained to him, for which he pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried. At the stage of trial, the matter was transferred to this Court.

5. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, though the prosecuting agency cited as many as 21 witnesses in the charge sheet but 4 SC.No.100 of 2015 got examined only four witnesses i.e., PWs 1 to 4 and marked Exs.P1 to P8.

On behalf of accused, no defence witness is examined.

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, when the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C with reference to the incriminating material evidence appearing against him for which, he denied the same and he did not choose to adduce any evidence on his behalf.

Heard the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused.

7. Now the point for determination is :-

Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable u/sec-376, 417 and 506 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt”?

8.The case of the prosecution is that the accused and PW1 are belongs to Brahmanpally village and the accused having malafde intention, used to follow the victim girl regularly, while she was studying and developed acquaintance with her and the accused also stated that he is loving her (victim) and intended to marry her under the guise of love and marriage that the accused committed rape on her on several occasions due to which she got pregnancy, when the victim girl demanded to marry her but the accused gave evasive reply and denied to marry her. Upon which the PW1 placed the matter before the local elders even though the accused did not heed the words of the local elders and well wishers and since there is no other alteration, the victim fled a private complaint before the concerned court and the police investigated the matter and the fled the charge sheet against the accused for the above said offences.

5 SC.No.100 of 2015

9. The learned Addl. Public prosecutor argued that the accused, who was having culpable mental state over the victim (PW1) and he committed rape on her under the guise of love and marriage and due to acts of the accused, the victim got pregnancy.

The learned prosecutor further argued that the evidence of PW1 is quite corroborated with the contents of Ex.P1 i.e. Written complaint, and statement and even the evidence of PW2 and 3, who are the brother and cousin brother of the victim, their evidence is also supported with statements made by victim girl before the police as well as before the statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. The learned Public Prosecutor further argued that the evidence of PW4, who is the investigating ofcer, his evidence is also clearly corroborated right from receiving written complaint under Ex.P.1 and also conducting the scene of offence panchanama and also corroborated in all material aspects right from recording statements of material witnesses i.e. PWs 1 to 3, the evidence of PWs 1 to 4, coupled with Exs.P1 to P8 have clearly proved that the accused committed rape on the victim by making false promise that he will marry the victim, later the accused refused to marry and when PW1 questioned, the accused threatened her with dire consequences. Hence, he prays the Court to convict the accused as per the law.

10.On the other hand, the defence counsel argued that the prosecution cited as many as 21 witnesses in the charge sheet but examined altogether four witnesses i.e., PWs 1 to 4 and got marked Exs. P1 to P8.

The learned defence counsel further argued that though the learned prosecutor very much relied on the evidence of PWs 1 to 3, who are said to be the victim (PW1), brother and cousin brother of the victim but all the 6 SC.No.100 of 2015 witnesses including the victim have not deposed that the accused committed rape on the victim (Pw1) without her consent under the guise of love and marriage as such the evidence of PW1 to 3 is no way helpful to the case of the prosecution in any manner.

The defence counsel further argued that the though the prosecution further relied on the evidence of PW4, who is the investigating ofcer, his evidence may be corroborated right from receiving the report and recording the statement of the material witnesses but when the material witnesses are not supported the case of the prosecution, the evidence of PW4 is no way helpful to the case of the prosecution and the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, he prays the Court to acquit the accused from the accusation leveled against him.

11. After hearing contention and rival contentions, now it is to be considered that how far the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused?

12. The learned prosecutor mainly relied on the evidence of

PWs 1 to 4, who are said to be victim, brother and cousin brother of the victim and including investigating ofcer (PW4).

On careful perusal of the evidence of PW1 to PW3, who are the victim, brother and cousin brother of the victim, they simply deposed that in the month of September, 2013, some galata took place between her family with the accused family with regard to the love affair between PW1 and the accused due to which she lodged a private complaint against the accused at the instance of her relatives and brother, which contains her signature and they did not depose anything against the accused that the accused committed rape on PW1. As such, the evidence of PWs. 1 to 3 are no way avail to the case of prosecution.

7 SC.No.100 of 2015

13.The learned Addl. Public prosecutor further relied on the evidence of PW4, who is the investigating ofcer in the present case though his evidence may be corroborated right from receiving complaint referred to the

Police station from the concerned court, including conducting the scene of offence panchanama and also recording statements of sec.161 Cr.PC, but when the material witnesses in particular victim(PW1) and her brother (PW2) and cousin brother of the victim (PW3) have not deposed single word against the accused that the accused committed rape without consent of PW1, as such, the evidence of PW4 is also no way avail to the case of prosecution.

14. After consideration of the evidence of PWs 1 to 4 coupled with

Exs.P1 to P8 and in particular, the victim (PW1), her brother (PW2) and cousin brother(PW3) are not supported to the case of prosecution and since the material witnesses are not supported to the case of prosecution and this

Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt against the accused.

15. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable 376, 417 and 506 of IPC. Accordingly, he is acquitted under

Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C for the said offences. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after six months, as per Section 437(A) Cr.P.C. The unmarked non valuable case property if any, shall be ordered to be destroyed after appeal time.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 19th day of June, 2020.

FAC: Sessions Court for Fast Tracking the cases of Atrocities against Women cum XI Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge,Nizamabad.

8 SC.No.100 of 2015

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(Witnesses examined)

For the Prosecution:

PW1 Victim Complainant PW2 Maisa @ Suddapally David Witness & Brother of the victim PW3 Maisa Zakriya Witness & Cousin brother of victim PW4 P. Srisailam CI of police/Investigation Ofcer

For the Defence: - None -

EXHIBITS MARKED:

Ex.P1:Private complaint Ex.P2:Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1 Ex.P3:Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW2 Ex.P4:Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW3 Ex.P5: First Information report Ex.P6: Scene of offence panchanama Ex.P7: DNA report Ex.P8: Potential test report

FOR DEFENCE: - Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:

– Nil -

FAC: Sessions Court for Fast Tracking the cases of Atrocities against Women cum XI Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge,Nizamabad.

9 SC.No.100 of 2015

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC) -CUM- SPECIAL

JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL

OFFENCES ACT, NIZAMABAD

Dated this the 10th day of March, 2020

PRESENT: Sri T.NARSI REDDY II Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge (FTC) -cum- Spl.Judge for Trial of cases under POCSO Act, Nizamabad

SC. No.33 of 2017

[Cr. No.221/2016 of P.S. Sadasivanagar]

BETWEEN: The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Sadasivanagar …Complainant

A N D

Shaik Hymed S/o Mahaboob Ali, 46 years, Muslim by caste, Occ:Labour, R/o Kupriyal village of Sadashivanagar Mandal, Kamareddy District. …Accused 1Date of offence24.12.2016 2Date of report or complaint25.12.2016 3Date of apprehension of accused28.12.2016 4Date of release on bail03.02.2017 5Date of commitment-- 6Date of commencement of trial 24.02.2020 7Date of close of trial 06.03.2020 8Date of Judgment 10.03.2020 9Explanation of delay and remarks--

Encl: Copy of Judgment II Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge (FTC) -cum- Spl.Judge for Trial of cases under POCSO Act, Nizamabad

To The Hon’ble Registrar (Judl.) High Court of Telangana, Hyderabad.

1 SC.No.59 of 2018

IN THE COURT OF THE SESSIONS COURT FOR FAST TRACKING THE

CASES OF ATROCITIES AGAINST WOMEN CUM XI ADDL. DISTRICT &

SESSIONS JUDGE, NIZAMABAD.

Present:- T.NARSI REDDY, II Addl.Dist. & Sessions Judge (FTC) FAC: Sessions Court for Fast Tracking the cases of Atrocities against Women cum XI Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge,Nizamabad.

Dated this the 12 th day of March, 2020

SESSIONS CASE No.59 of 2018

1 Name of the complainantThe State of Telangana through Circle Inspector of Police, Kamareddy Rural.

2 Name of the accusedThokala Praven Kumar S/o. Ramulu, Age: 25 years, Caste: Bestha, Occ: Electrician, R/o. Shabdipoor village of Kamareddy mandal.

3 Offences chargedU/sec. 376(2)(n), 417 and 506 of IPC 4 Crime No. & Name of 181 of 2017 of Devanpally Police Station Police Station 5 Plea of the accusedPleaded not guilty 6 Finding of the CourtFound not guilty 7 Sentence or orderIn the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under sections 376(2)(n), 417 and 506 of IPC. Accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C for the said offences. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after six months, as per Section 437(A) Cr.P.C. The unmarked (non valuable) case property if any, shall be ordered to be destroyed after appeal time.

This case is coming before me on 11.03.2020 for final hearing in the presence of Sri M. Sudarshan Reddy, Addl.Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri K. Ganesh, Advocate for the accused and upon hearing both sides and perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

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

2 SC.No.59 of 2018

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Devanpally laid a charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.181 of 2017 for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n), 417 and 506 of IPC.

2. The case was taken on file against the accused for the offences punishable under sections 376(2)(n), 417 and 506 of IPC by the concerned

Magistrate and converted PRC No. 6 of 2019 and the case was committed to

the Court of Sessions on 23-03-2018 and given SC No. 59 of 2018 and

Subsequently the said case was made over to this Court by Prl. District &

Sessions Judge, Nizamabad for disposal according to law.

3.The brief facts of case of the prosecution as follows:

(a) On 10.09.2017 at about 16.30 hours LW1/Complainant (Victim) lodged a written report before the Police Station, Devanpally stating that since four years, the accused by name Thokala Praveen Kumar followed her and got acquainted with her and made a false promise to her that he will marry and under false promises, he lured the victim and forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her with several times in the absence of inmates.

Subsequently she became pregnant on that she demanded him to marry her, but he refused to marry her and also threatened her that, if she disclose the said fact to anyone, he will kill her. Later she informed the said fact to her mother on 09.09.2017 on that she held panchayat in the village in the presence of village and caste elders, where he refused to marry her and threatened them with dire consequences and requested for necessary action against the accused.

(b)Basing on the above said report of PW1, the LW15/Santosh Kumar

Sub-Inspector of police, registered a case in Cr.No.181 of 2017 and issued

F.I.R. and took up the investigation, during the course of investigation, he got recorded the statement of PW1 with the help of LW14 Women P.C. and he also 3 SC.No.59 of 2018 referred the victim to Government Hospital. Thereafter the PW6 C.I of police took up further investigation and he recorded the statements of PWs 1 to 5 and also other material witnesses and he also conducted scene of offence panchanama and apprehended the accused and on his interrogation, the accused voluntarily confessed his guilt, upon which, he secured the presence of mediators and conducted the confession panchanama and after collecting the relevant documents, PW6 filed charge sheet against the accused.

4. On appearance of the accused before the Court, copies of documents were supplied to him as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C. Upon consideration of the material available on record and after hearing the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused, this Court framed the charge against the accused for the offence punishable under 376(2)(n), 417 and 506 of IPC, read over and explained to him, for which he pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.

5. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecuting agency though cited as many as 16 witnesses in the charge sheet but examined only six witnesses i.e., PWs 1 to 6 and marked Exs.P1 to P12. On behalf of accused, no defence witness is examined.

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, when the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C with reference to the incriminating material evidence appearing against him for which, he denied the same and he did not choose to adduce any evidence on his behalf.

Heard the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel

for the accused.

4 SC.No.59 of 2018

7. Now the point for determination is :-

Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable u/sec-376(2)(n), 417 and 506 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt”?

8.The case of the prosecution is that the accused and PW1 are belongs to Shabdipur village, Kamareddy mandal and the accused having malafide intention and followed the PW1 and developed acquaintance with her and forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her under the guise of love and marriage and thereafter the PW1 requested and demanded the accused to marry her but the accused refused the same and also threatened her with dire consequences and as such, he committed the offence punishable under 376(2)(n), 417 and 506 of IPC

9. The learned Addl. Public prosecutor argued that the accused, who was having culpable mental state over the victim (PW1), who is the daughter of PW2 and grand daughter of PW3, committed sexual intercourse under the guise of love and also making false promise that he will marry the

PW1.

The learned prosecutor further argued that the evidence of PW1 is quite corroborated with the contents of Ex.P8 i.e. Written report, and statement and even the evidence of PW2 and 3, who are the mother and grand father of the victim, their evidence is also supported with statements made by them before the police. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor further argued that the evidence of PW4 and 5, who are the villagers of the PW1, their evidence is also supported to the version of PW1 and 2 and even the evidence of PW6, who is the investigating officer, his evidence is also clearly corroborated with regard to the scene of offence panchanama and also corroborated in all material aspects right from receiving report from PW1, 5 SC.No.59 of 2018 and recording statements of material witnesses i.e. PWs 1 to 5, the evidence of PWs 1 to 6, coupled with Exs.P1 to P12 have clearly proved that the accused committed sexual intercourse on the victim by making false promise that he will marry the victim, later the accused refused to marry and when PW1 questioned, the accused threatened her with dire consequences. Hence, he prays the Court to convict the accused as per the law.

10.On the other hand, the defence counsel argued that though the prosecution cited as many as 16 witnesses in the charge sheet but examined altogether six witnesses i.e., PWs 1 to 6 and got marked Exs. P1 to P12.

The learned defence counsel further argued that though the learned prosecutor very much relied on the evidence of PWs 1 to 5, who are said to be the victim (PW1), mother of the victim and the grand father of the victim (PW2 and 3) but all the witnesses including the victim have not deposed that the accused committed sexual intercourse without her consent (PW1) under the guise of love and marriage as such the evidence of PW1 to 3 is no way helpful to the case of the prosecution.

The defence counsel further argued that the though the prosecution further relied on the evidence of PW6, who is the investigating officer, his evidence may be corroborated right from receiving the report and recording the statement of the witnesses. But when the material witnesses are not supported the case of the prosecution, the evidence of PW6 is no way helpful to the case of the prosecution and the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, he prays the

Court to acquit the accused from the accusation leveled against him.

6 SC.No.59 of 2018

After hearing contention and rival contentions, now it is to be considered that how far the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused?

11.The learned prosecutor mainly relied on the evidence of

PWs 1 to 6, who are said to be victim, mother of the victim and relative of the victim including investigating officer (PW6).

On careful perusal of the evidence of PW1 to PW3, who are the victim, mother of the victim and grand father of the victim, they simply deposed that in the month of September, 2017, some galata took place between her family with the accused family with regard to the land disputes upon which PW1 lodged written report under Ex.P7, which contains her signature which was drafted by one of her villager; and they did not depose anything against the accused that the accused committed sexual intercourse with PW1. As such, the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is no way avail to the case of prosecution.

The learned Prosecutor further relied on the evidence of PW4 and 5, who are the relatives of the victim in this case, but on perusal of their evidence, the said witnesses also did not depose anything against the accused nor the accused committed sexual intercourse with PW1, as such, the evidence of PW4 and 5 is also no way helpful to the case of the prosecution.

12.The learned Addl. Public prosecutor further relied on the evidence of PW6, who is the investigating officer in the present case though his evidence may be corroborated right from receiving report from PW1, including conducting scene of offence panchanama and also recording statements of sec.161 Cr.PC, but when the material witnesses in particular victim(PW1) and her mother (PW2) and grand father of the victim (PW3) 7 SC.No.59 of 2018 have not deposed single word against the accused that the accused committed sexual intercourse without her consent of PW1, as such, the evidence of PW6 is also no way avail to the case of prosecution.

13. After consideration of the evidence of PWs 1 to 6 coupled with

Exs.P1 to P12 and in particular, the victim (PW1), her mother (PW2) and grand father (PW3) are not supported to the case of prosecution and since the material witnesses are not supported to the case of prosecution and this

Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt against the accused.

14. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable 376(2)(n), 417 and 506 of IPC. Accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C for the said offences. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after six months, as per Section 437(A) Cr.P.C. The unmarked (non-valuable) case property if any, shall be ordered to be destroyed after appeal time.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 12th day of March, 2020.

FAC: Sessions Court for Fast Tracking the cases of Atrocities against Women cum XI Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge,Nizamabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(Witnesses examined)

For the Prosecution:

PW1 Victim Complainant and daughter of PW2 PW2 Smt. D. PadmavathiWitness & mother of the victim PW3 Dusagama LaxmaiahWitness & Grand father of the victim PW4 D. Ravinder Witness & Son of elder father’s of the victim PW5 Dusagama Balaiah Witness & Caste Elder. PW6 D. BikshapathiInvestigating officer & laid charge sheet.

8 SC.No.59 of 2018

For the Defence: - None -

EXHIBITS MARKED:

Ex.P1:Signature of PW1 on written report. Ex.P2:Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1 Ex.P3:Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW2 Ex.P4:Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW3 Ex.P5: Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW4 Ex.P6: Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW5 Ex.P7: Written report dated 10.09.2017. Ex.P8: First Information report. Ex.P9: Scene of offence panchanama Ex.P10: Confession panchanama of the accused. Ex.P11: Final opinion of FSL Report Ex.P12: Potential Test of the accused

FOR DEFENCE: - Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:

– Nil -

FAC: Sessions Court for Fast Tracking the cases of Atrocities against Women cum XI Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge,Nizamabad.

9 SC.No.59 of 2018

CALENDAR

IN THE COURT OF THE SPL. SESSIONS JUDGE FOR TRAIL OF CASES

RELATING TO ATROCITIES AGAINST WOMEN CUM XI ADD. DISTRICT &

SESSIONS JUDGE, NIZAMABAD

Present:T.NARSI REDDY, II Addl.Dist. & Sessions Judge (FTC) FAC: Sessions Court for Fast Tracking the cases of Atrocities against Women cum XI Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge,Nizamabad.

Dated on this 12th day of March, 2020

S.C.No. 59/2018

(PRC No. 50 of 2017 on the file of the Judl. Magistrate of F.C., Kamareddy)

BETWEEN: The State through police station, Circle Inspector of police, Kamareddy Rural. …. Complainant

AND

Thokala Praveen kumar S/o. Ramulu, Age: 25 years, Caste: Bestha, Occ: Electrician, R/o. Shabdipoor village of Kamareddy mandal. ….Accused 1Date of offence: Prior to complaint 2Date of complaint/report: 10-09-2017 3Date of apprehension of : 12-09-2017 accused 4Date of commitment: 15-02-2018 5Date of commencement of trial: 05-03-2020 6Date of closure of trial: 10-03-2020 7Date of sentence or order: 12-03-2020 8Charge: U/s 376(2)(n), 417 and 506 of the IPC 9Plea of accused: Not guilty 10Finding of Judge: Accused is found not guilty of the offences punishable under sections 376(2)(n), 417 and 506 of the IPC and accordingly he is acquitted U/s. 235(1) Cr.P.C for the said offence.

11Sentence or order: Acquitted.

Spl. Sessions Judge, for trial of cases relating to Atrocities against women cum XI Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Nizamabad. To: The Registrar (Judicial),

Hon’ble High Court of Talangana, Hyderabad.