Smt. T .suhasini

1 S.C.No.101 of 2021

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR FAST TRACKING OF

CASES RELATING TO ATROCITIES AGAINST WOMEN-CUM-IX

ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, WARANGAL

Friday, this the 24th day of September, 2021

PRESENT:-Smt.T.Suhasini,

Special Judge For Fast Tracking Of Cases

Relating To Atrocities Against Women-Cum- IX Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal

SESSIONS CASE NO.101 OF 2021

(in Cr.No.104/2018 of P.S.KUC)

1.Name and description of the :The State of Telangana through complainant.SHO of P.S.KUC

2.Name and description of the :Dhravath Bheemanna, accusedS/o.Chandu, Occ: Student, R/o.Kondapuram Vilage of Palakurthy Mandal, Jangaon District

3.Offence charged:offence punishable under Sections 376 (2)(n) and 420 of IPC

4.Plea of the accused:Pleaded not guilty.

5.Finding of the Court: Found not guilty for the charge under Sections 376 (2)(n) and 420 IPC and acquitted u/s. 232 Cr.P.C.

6.Conviction, sentence or : Accused is found not guilty for acquittalthe charges under Sections 376 (2)(n) and 420 IPC Accordingly, the accused is acquitted under section 232 Cr.P.C for the charges under sections 376 (2)(n) and 420 of IPC. The bonds and bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for six months as provided under Section 437-A Cr.P.C. The unmarked property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

7.Name of the Counsel for the Addl.Public Prosecutor prosecution

8.Name of the Counsel for :Sri A. Mukunda Rao accused Counsel for the Accused

This case is coming on 23.09.2021 for final hearing before me in the presence of Additional Public Prosecutor for the State/complainant 2 S.C.No.101 of 2021 and of Sri A. Mukunda Rao, Counsel for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Inspector of Police, Thorrur laid charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under sections 417, 420 and 376

IPC and in Cr.No.104/2018 of P.S.Thorrur.

2. The gist of the prosecution case in nutshell are that : the defacto- complainant lodged a complaint with the police on 24.04.2018 at 1400 hours with certain allegations against the accused stating the accused deceived her by saying deceitful words and had sexual intercourse with her. It is further alleged the defacto complainant while pursuing her

M.Sc in Kakatiya University and stayed in Pakmakshi Girls hostel in the year 2016 and she met with the accused who is doing his PhD in Botany and they got acquaintance with each other. After few days, the accused expressed his love towards the victim and made her believe stating he is loving her and intends to marry her. Initially the defacto complainant did not accept the proposal and not believed him. After few days, the accused with his deceitful words took her to his room and had sexual intercourse with her by force and threatened her to fulfill his lust. It is further contended that she informed the same to her parents and the accused promised to marry her but he dodged the matter on one pretext or the other and after completion of his studies, he will marry her. The defacto complainant when told the accused she will complain to their

Processor Christopher he requested the complainant not to inform anyone and also threatened her if she informs to anyone he will commit suicide. After some days, she conceived when she asked the accused to 3 S.C.No.101 of 2021 marry her, he threatened her that he will commit suicide by taking some sleeping pills and also gave tablets to defacto complainant to abort her pregnancy. In the month of October, 2017, accused was appointed as Teacher in Assam state and he left the station without informing the defacto complainant. When she telephoned to the accused, he told her that he will return in the month of January and promised to marry and requested her not to disclose the same to anyone. It is further alleged on 4.01.2018, the accused came to her and he picked up quarrel with her and refused to marry her, she slit her hand in front of the accused but he left her on the way. She went to Church and informed the same to Christopher, Professor and also informed to H.O.D and when they enquired with the accused, he accepted his relation with victim but refused to marry her. It is further contended on 05.4.2018, she gave a representation to the Collector in Grievance cell who in turn made call to the accused and the accused responded and inform that he will come by 13th April but to the utter surprise the accused married another girl. On the basis of the complaint, a case was registered against the accused.

(ii) On receiving report from PW.1 on 14.00 hours on 24.04.2018

LW18/C.Sathish Babu registered a case as in Cr.No.104/2015 for the offences under sections 417 and 376 IPC and issued FIR. He dispatched copies of FIR to all the concerned and took up investigation in this case.

During the course of investigation, as per his instructions,

LW15/G.Sridevi, WSI visited KUC campus and recorded statement of the victim. LW18 along with victim visited 1st scene of offence at KUC

Campus and prepared CDF in the presence of LWs 11 and 12 and visited 2nd scene of offence situated at Pochammakunta, Vidyaranyapuri,

Hanuman Nagar, Hanamkonda, where the accused forcibly committed 4 S.C.No.101 of 2021 rape on the victim and in the presence of LWs 13 and 14, prepared CDF and referred the victim to LW16/Dr.P.Rajini, Asst Professor who examined and opined that hymen not intact. LW16 preserved pubic hair clippings, 2 vaginal swabs and 2 slides and transmitted to FSL for final report wherein it contains there is no evidence of recent sexual intercourse. LW18 examined and recorded the statements of LWs 2 to 8 and recorded their statements. LW18 produced victim before LW17 to record her 164 Cr.P.C statement. Subsequently, LW19 took up further investigation and on 22.10.2018 at 10.30 hours, the accused surrendered before LW19 at P.S, KUC and on interrogation, he voluntarily confessed to have committed the offence and produced him

before the court for judicial remand. After completion of investigation

LW19 filed charge sheet.

3. The learned VI Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Warangal, took cognizance of the case for the offence punishable u/ss.

420 and 376 of IPC, vide PRC.No.03/2020, secured presence of the accused, supplied his with copies of documents as provided u/s.207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and committed the same to the

Sessions Division, Warangal. The Hon'ble Principal Sessions Judge took

cognizance of the offence and numbered as S.C.101/2021 and made over the same to this Court for disposal according to law.

4. The accused was examined u/s. 228 (1) Cr.P.C. After hearing the learned Addl.P.P and the learned defence counsel, charges u/ss.

376(2)(n) and 420 of IPC are framed, read over and explained to the accused in vernacular, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. To prove the complicity of accused in the case, the prosecution has 5 S.C.No.101 of 2021 relied on evidence of PWs 1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6.

6. The examination of accused u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. was dispensed with as there was no incriminating material appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, since the material witnesses PWs 1 to 4 failed to support the case of the prosecution.

7. Heard arguments of the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel representing the accused.

8. The point for determination is:

1. “Whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of accused for the charges under Section s 376(2)(n) IPC, beyond reasonable doubt ?”

2. “Whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of accused for the charges under Section s 420 IPC, beyond reasonable doubt ?”

Points No.1 and 2 :- All the above points are inter related and hence, they are discussed together for brevity and to avoid repetition of evidence.

9. To establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has cited as many as 19 witnesses to prove its case against the accused. It has examined the complainant cum victim as PW1 and circumstantial witness as PW2. The learned Addl. PP has given up the evidence of

LW2/Thamadila Kristopher, LW4/Maganti Surekha, LW5/Dhussa

Shobhana, LW6/Puravasthula Bhagyalaxmi circumstantial witnesses,

LW7/Chintha Kalyani and LW10/Sulthana Radha, friends of victim,

LW8/Chintha Parushuramulu, LW11/Kothapally Prabhakar, LW12/Matteda

Ellaraju, LW13/Dhonikena Sreenivas, LW14/Nanneboina Ravi, are the panch for CDF, LW15/G.Sridevi,WSI who recorded the statement of the victim, LW16/Dr. P.Rajini, Assistant Professor who examined the victim

LW17/D.Geetha Rani, III Addl. Judl.I Class Magistrate, Warangal 6 S.C.No.101 of 2021

LW18/C.Sathish Babu is the investigating officer and LW19/SV

Raghavender Rao who filed charge sheet. As the material witness PW1 who is the victim herself failed to support the prosecution against the accused. Ex.P1 to P6 are for the prosecution.

10. The gist of the prosecution case is that, the accused deceived

PW1/victim by saying deceitful words and had sexual intercourse with her. while PW1 was pursuing M.Sc in Kakatiya University stayed in

Pakmakshi Girls hostel in the year 2016 and met with the accused who was doing his PhD in Botany and thus got acquaintance with each other.

After few days, the accused expressed his love and made believe her that he intends to marry her. Initially PW1 did not accept the proposal and not believed him. After a few days, the accused with his deceitful words took her to his room and had sexual intercourse with her by force and threatened her to fulfill his lust. PW1 informed the same to her parents. The accused dodged the matter on one pretext or the other and after completion of his studies, he will marry her but failed to keep up his promise. PW1/victim complained to their Processor Christopher but accused requested the complainant not to inform anyone and also threatened her he will commit suicide, if she inform the same to anyone. After some days, PW1/victim was conceived and asked the accused to marry her but he threatened that he will commit suicide by taking some sleeping pills and also gave tablets to PW1/victim to abort her pregnancy. In the month of October, 2017, accused was appointed as Teacher in Assam state and left the station without informing

PW1/victim. When she telephoned to the accused, he told PW1 that he will return in the month of January and promised to marry and on 4.01.2018, the accused came to her and picked up a quarrel with her 7 S.C.No.101 of 2021 by refusing to marry her. PW1/victim slit her hand in front of the accused but he left her on the way. She went to Church and informed the same to Christopher, Professor and also informed to H.O.D and when they enquired with the accused, he accepted his relation with

PW1/victim but refused to marry her and so on 05.4.2018, she gave a representation to the Collector in Grievance cell who in turn made call to the accused and the accused responded and inform that he will come by 13th April but he married another girl.

11. PW1 testified before the Court that about 4 years ago, she joined in Kakatiya University for Post Graduation in Botany and at that time the accused was doing P.hd who was senior to her and used to clarify her doubts. Except that there was no intimacy between them and there was no chance for her to come in contact with the accused and some disputes arose in the campus between some students and accused, someone has obtained her signature on blank papers and she was not examined by the police. PW2 is the Assistant Professor in Kakatiya

University testified before the Court that he heard some disputes between PW1 and the accused but he doesn’t know anything and police not examined her. PW3 is roommate of the accused deposed that he doesn’t know anything about the case and stated before the police that he doesn’t know PW1.

12. Though PW1 has lodged a complaint with the Police and gave statement to LW15 when it comes to evidence she resiled from her earlier stand and not supported the case of the prosecution. When it comes to her evidence, she clearly stated that there was no intimacy between her and the accused and there was no chance to come in 8 S.C.No.101 of 2021 contact with the accused.

13. Since the witnesses PWs 1 to 3 have not supported the case of the prosecution. The learned Addl.P.P has declared both PWs 1 to 3 as hostile and cross examined them as per 161 Cr.P.C statements given by them to the police, they denied those suggestions. The said 161 Cr.P.C statement of PWs 1 to 3 marked as Ex. P4 to P6 respectively.

14. The victim PW1 has not uttered a single word against the accused and retracted from her earlier stand. In view of aforesaid evidence of

PW1, who is victim in the case, the learned Addl. P.P has given up the evidence of all the remaining witnesses listed by the prosecution as no fruitful purpose would have been achieved by examining them. Thus, there is no incriminating material against the accused no.1 touching the charges framed against them. Therefore, the prosecution could not prove the guilt of the accused as victim failed to support the prosecution. Hence, accused is entitled for acquittal. The points are accordingly answered.

In the result,theaccused is found not guilty for the charges under sections 376 (2)(n) and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly, he is acquitted of the said charges u/s. 232 Cr.P.C. The bonds and bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months as provided under Section 437-A Cr.P.C. The unmarked property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

(Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 24 th day of September, 2021)

Sd/-

SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR FAST

TRACKING OF CASES RELATING TO

ATROCITIES AGAINST WOMEN-CUM-IX-

ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

WARANGAL

9 S.C.No.101 of 2021

:APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW1 : Victim None

PW2 : Mustafa Mohd. PW3 D.Prakash :

:EXHIBITS MARKED:

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1 - Signature of PW1 on complaint

Ex.P2 - Section 164 Cr.PC statement of PW1 Ex.P3 - contents of the complaint Ex.P4 - 161 Cr.PC statement of PW1

Ex.P5 - 161 Cr.PC statement of PW2

Ex.P6 - 161 CrPC statement of PW3

FOR DEFENCE: NIL.

:MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:

-Nil-

Sd/-

SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR FAST

TRACKING OF CASES RELATING TO

ATROCITIES AGAINST WOMEN -CUM-

IX-ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE ,

WARANGAL

10 S.C.No.101 of 2021

9. As can be seen from above detailed evidence of prosecution witnesses, according to PW.1, she has given complaint initially in P.S

Seerole at about 4.30 pm but as the police in that P.S did not give any response she proceeded to C.I of Police Kuravi where as per dictation her villager drafted complaint and she put signature on it and gave to the C.I. It is also her evidence that a lady police constable examined about the incident in the said P.S and then she was referred for medical examination to Warangal.

10. The evidence of her relative PW.6 also that she accompanied PW.1 to P.S Seerole where later gave a complaint and no case was registered at that P.S. They proceeded to C.I of Police whose office at Kuravi and then the C.I took the case from them and then forwarded the PW.1 to hospital. However, PW.6 stated that her statement and the statement of

PW.1 was recorded at their Thanda i.e., Beelya thanda.

11. PW.11 is WPC who was working in P.S Kuravi at the relevant time, even her evidence is that on the instructions of the CI of Police PW.15 she has recorded the statement of victim in Kuravi P.S on 02.08.2015 at about 4.00 p.m and that the CI of Police, Kuravi and SI of Police Seerole were present at that time. Thus, the evidence of these witnesses is consistent that the case was registered only after PW.1 along with PW.6 met the CI off Police in his office at Kuravi and even the statement of

PW.1 was recorded by PW.1 as per the directions of PW.15 at Kuravi P.S only.

12. According to PW1, they reached CI of Police Kuravi at 6.00 pm and 11 S.C.No.101 of 2021 submitted the complaint Ex.P.1 at about 7.00 pm. Her statement was recorded by the Lady constable at 8.00 pm at office of CI of Police,

Kuravi as against the aforesaid evidence of PWs 1, 6 and 11. The senior paternal uncle of victim who is PW.2 testified that she along with PW.1 proceeded to Seerole village at about 4.00 pm an submitted the complaint in that P.S and a Lady police office recorded the statement of

PW.1 at Seerole P.S only. According to him, the complaint was given at about 4.30 pm. The evidence of Investigating Officer PW.14 is also tht he received Telugu written petition at 1630 hours from PW.1 and basing on the contents therein he registered a crime and issued express FIR.

He and PW.15 also testified that the statement of PW.1 was recorded in

PS Seerole by summoned PW.11 from PS Kuravi to P.S Seerole for recording the statement. The contradicting evidence of PW.1 and PW6 was confronted to both the Investigating Officers but they denied the evidence of PW.1 that no case was registered at P.S Seerole on her complaint at 4.30 pm.

13. A perusal of Ex.P.1 reveals that the crime was registered on receiving complaint at 1630 hours on 02.08.2015 at P.S Seerole only.

The prosecution failed to submit any reasons for such contradicting evidence of the victim, the presence who accompanied her and the

Investigating Officers. Similarly, according to PW.1, she was sent for medical examination to Warangal after recording her statement, on the night of 02.08.2015 and she reached Hanamkonda at about 5.00 or 6.00 am and one our later the medical officer came to hospital and then she was examined by the doctor for about two hours.

14. The evidence of PW.6 who accompanied PW.1 to hospital is that after recording the statement of PW1 in P.S Kuravi they went to CKM 12 S.C.No.101 of 2021

Maternity Hospital, Warangal and reached 6.00 pm and thereafter doctor examined PW.1 immediately. The evidence of PW12 who is Civil

Assistant Surgeon in CKM Maternity Hospital, Warangal is that she as examined PW1 on 03.08.2015 at 12.30 am and the same is evident from Ex.P.4 which is a professional opining given by her. The

Investigating Officer PW.15 also testified that PW.1 was examined at 12.30 am n 03.08.2015 as per this investigation. Thus, there is quite contradiction in the evidence of PW.1, PW.6, PW.12 and PW.15 as to the time of examination of PW.1 by the doctor and if the evidence of PW.1 has to be believed in that regard, the medical evidence under Ex.P.4 and the oral testimony of PWs 12 and 15 has to be discarded and if the later has to be believed, then the evidence of victim PW.1 has to be discarded.

15. With regard to the conducting the scene of offence panchanama, the prosecution case is that the victim PW.1 was taken to the scene and there she identified her bangle pieces and her hair rubber band which fell at the scene during the incident. Thereafter, three scenes in the case and the first scene is 20 feet away from the second scene and third scene is 10 feet away from the second scene. The pen of accused, MO.3 some bangle pieces and MO.2 one hair rubber band were seized at scene numbers 1 to 3 respectively. The evidence of PW.1 is that after her medical examination, she proceeded to the office of Kuravi CI again reached there at about 9.30 am and from there she went to her house at Beelya Thanda and she was not taken to any place thereafter.

16. PW.6 has accompanied through out and her evidence is that after medical examination of PW.1 at CKM Maternity hospital, they went directly to their houses from the hospital and she and PW.1 did not visit 13 S.C.No.101 of 2021 the scene of offence after the complaint was filed.

17. PW.8 is one of the mediator to the Crime Detail Form, his evidence is that he along with LW.10/Gade Sudhakar, and PWs 9 and 10 proceeded to the scene of offence at about 8.00 am and found bangles, a band and pen at the scene. He did not state about presence of PW.1 during the said panchanama at the scene.

18. PWs 9 and 10 are mediators to the confession-cum-seizure panchanama of accused and they stated that after the confession of accused, the police took them to scene of offence and there is nothing in their evidence that PW.1 also accompanied them to the scene. As per

Ex.P.3 Crime Details Form, the scene of offence was shown by PW.1 herself and having regard o the aforesaid evidence of PW.1, PWs 7 to 9, the case of prosecution that the victim identified the scene is not proved.

19. It is the case of prosecution that on the advise of PW3, PW.5 and her husband L.W.6/Manukonda Vijay Kumar, the victim and PW.4 were advised to go to their village on the bike of accused as it was already late night. However, soon after PW.1 sat on the motor cycle of accused, he left even before PW.4 could sit on his bike. It is apparent from above detailed evidence of prosecution witnesses including that of PW.1 that when the accused left the house of PW.5 even before PW.4 could sit on the bike of accused, PW.1 did not ask him to stop and she even did not scream / shout when the accused was taken her alone on his bike. This fact assumes important for the reason that the case of prosecution is that the accused had taken away PW.1 forcibly on his bike on the same is not appearing from the evidence of victim.

20. The learned counsel for the accused argued that the instant 14 S.C.No.101 of 2021 complaint of had happened near the Sub Station off Upparigudem as per the prosecution case and even according to the evidence of PW.1 some people were working at the relevant time but her cries had gone unheard. Though the Investigating Officer has visited the scene, he did make any attempt to examine anyone in the Sub Station and has even attempted to verify who were working in the Sub Station at the relevant time since at least one person or the other would be there in the Sub

Station and the same can be verified from the concerned registers maintained in the office. The learned counsel further argued that though some bangle pieces are mentioned in Crime Details Form and in the charge sheet how many bangle pieces were seized from each of the scene nos.1 and 2 not mentioned clearly and the evidence of PW.1 that after the incident she has seen Mos 2 and 3 bangle pieces for the first time in the Court only, reveals that PW.1 was not taken to the scene and the evidence of Investigating Officers in that regard does not inspire confidence that the same is true.

21. Having regard to the above detailed evidence of prosecution witnesses and material contradictions in the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned counsel argued relying upon the Judgment of

Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sujith Biswas Vs. State of Assam

reported in 2013(12) SCC 406 wherein the Hon’ble Court held that the duty of the Court is to insure that mere conjectures or suspicion do not take place of legal proof and clear, cogent and unimpeachable evidence adduced by the prosecution is a must before the Court is condemned as convict.

In the result,accused is found not guilty for the charges under sections 376 and 506 IPC and accordingly, accused is acquitted u/s.

15 S.C.No.101 of 2021 235(1) of Cr.P.C for the charges under sections 376 and 506 IPC. The bonds and bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for six months as provided under

Section 437-A Cr.P.C. The Mos 1 to 3 and unmarked property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 2nd day of March,

2020)

SPECIAL JUDGE FOR FAST TRACKING

OF CASES RELATING TO ATROCITIES

AGAINST WOMEN-CUM-IX ADDITIONAL

SESSIONS JUDGE, WARANGAL

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined For prosecution: For Defence:

P.W.1-Victim -None- P.W.2-Maloth Bheelya P.W.3-Banoth Veeranna P.W.4-Banoth Achamma P.W.5-Banoth Putrani P.W.6-Banoth Kamalamma P.W.7-Patti Prabhakar P.W.8-Neelakanta Mallaiah P.W.9-Ch.Devaiah P.W.10-Banoth Veeranna P.W.11-V.Uma P.W.12-Dr.S.Swetha P.W.13-B.Madusudhan Rao P.W.14-A.Ravinder P.W.15-K.Karunasagar Reddy

Exhibits Marked For Prosecution:

Ex.P.1 is the Complaint Ex.P.2 is the Photos with CD Ex.P.3 is the Crime Details Form & Rough Sketch Ex.P.4 is the Medical Certificate Ex.P.5 is the FSL Report Ex.P.6 is the Final Report Ex.P.7 is the Potency Certificate Ex.P.8 is the FIR

For Defence:

16 S.C.No.101 of 2021

Ex.D.1 is the Portion of 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW.3 Ex.D.2 is the Portion of 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW.4 Ex.D.3 is the Portion of 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW.4 Ex.D.4 is the Portion of 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW.4

Material Objects Marked For Prosecution:

MO.1 is the Bajaj Motor Cycle bearing No.AP 20 R 7754 of accused. MO.2 is the hair band of PW.1 MO.3 is the Bangle pieces.

For Defence: -Nil-

SPECIAL JUDGE FOR FAST TRACKING

OF CASES RELATING TO ATROCITIES

AGAINST WOMEN-CUM-IX ADDITIONAL

SESSIONS JUDGE, WARANGAL

SC.No.74 of 2019

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR FAST

TRACKING OF CASES RELATING TO ATROCITIES AGAINST

WOMEN-cum-IX ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, WARANGAL

Friday, this the 24th day of September, 2021

PRESENT: Smt. T.Suhasini, Special Sessions Judge for Fast Tracking of Cases Relating to Atrocities against women-cum- IX Addl. Sessions Judge, Warangal.

SESSIONS CASE NO. 74 OF 2019

(in Cr.No.192 of 2016 of Police Station Kazipet)

1. Name and description of the : The State of Telangana rep. by the complainant Sub Inspector of Police, P.S, Kazipet

2. Name and description of the : A1:Ponnam Anjaiah, S/o. Mogili, accused Age: 29 years, Occ: Toddy Tapper, R/o. Malyala, Kalva Sreerampur, Karimnagar District

3. Offences charged : Under Sections 366,342,376(2)(k) of the Indian Penal Code.

4. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty

5. Finding of the Court : Found not guilty

6. Conviction, sentence or : IN THE RESULT,theaccused no.1 acquittal is found not guilty for the charges under sections 366, 342 and 376 (2)(k) of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly, he is acquitted of the said charges u/s. 232, Cr.P.C. The bonds and bail bonds of the accused no.1 shall remain in force for a period of six months as provided under Section 437-A Cr.P.C. The unmarked property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

7. Name of the Counsel for the : Addl.P.P. prosecution

8. Name of the Counsel for : Sri G.Damodar, Advocate accused

This case coming on this day for final hearing on 09.09.2021

before me in the presence of Additional Public Prosecutor for the

State/complainant and of Sri G.Damodar, Counsel for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following :: J U D G M E N T ::

The Sub Inspector of Police, P.S, Kazipet laid charge sheet against the accused no.1 in Cr.No. 192/2016 of P.S. Kazipet for the offences under section 366, 342, 376 (2) (k) and 376 (1) of Indian Penal Code.

2. The factual matrix of the prosecution case is that:- LW1 is the victim cum defacto complainant working as Aaya at Jain Public school,

Boinapally, Hyderabad. She is unmarried and residing with her mother while A1 is married and got two children. The wife of A1 with her two children, left his conjugal society. Since then, A1 developed sexual lust towards the victim and in pursuance of his intention, he visited the house of victim/LW1 on 30.9.2016 and disclosed to the mother of the victim that he is looking a proposal for LW1/victim, accordingly requested the mother of the victim to send LW1 along with him to his village. On 01.10.2016, LW1 and A1 boarded Push-pull train at

Secunderabad and got down at Kazipet at 10.30 p.m. Then, A1 went Jai

Telangana wine shop and purchased Original Choice quarter bottle from

LW2, consumed it and later A1 took LW1 to Pooja hotel of LW3/Arepally

Yadagiri for dinner. Later, they went to Railway station and at about 12.30 hours, A1 took LW1 towards SSC/OHE office on the railway track and forcibly committed sexual assault on her and threatened her with dire consequences if she inform about the incident to anyone. While A1 and LW1 were returning, meanwhile A2 and A3 who observed them went there stating that they are the police personnel and wrongfully confined A1 and LW1/victim. A3 caught hold collar of A1 while A2 forcibly took LW1 to meet his superior officer at Railway track cement pole which is 250 meters away and committed sexual assault on her, thereafter, A3 called A2 on phone. Accordingly, A3 threatened A1 to 2/9 stay there and went to LW1 and committed sexual assault on LW1.

Later, A2 and A3 brought LW1 near to A1 and threatened them with dire consequences and fled away from the place. Subsequently, A1 on the pretext of bringing food, he too left away LW1 alone. At about 6.30 a.m., LW1 reported the matter before LW10/WPC 1747, P.S, Kazipet.

The identity of A2 and A3 is not established, as such, a separate charge sheet is filed against A2 and A3.

3. Basing on the strength of statement of LW1/victim recorded by

LW10/WPC, LW16/L.Ramesh Kumar, Inspector of police registered a case in Cr.No.192/2016, U/se. 366,342,376 (k), 376 (1) IPC and issued

FIR and dispatched all copies to the concerned.

(ii) During the course of investigation, as per the directions of LW16,

LW10 recorded the statement of PW1/victim under video coverage by

LW5/Photographer. Further, LW16 along with PW1/victim, LW10 rushed to the 1st scene of offence at Railway track, B.T road at a distance of about 2 k.ms towards Eastern side to P.S, Kazipet and prepared 1st crime detail form in the presence of LW6/Konda Ramakanth and

LW7/Sheelam Rajashekhar and thereafter visited 2nd scene of offence at a distance of 105 meters to the first up line Vijayawada Ballarsha which stands in between BPL 35 and BPL 37 and in the presence of same panchas prepared 2nd crime detail form and photographed it with the help of LW5/Sree Ramula Ravinder. Later, LW10/WPC referred the

PW1/victim to Government Maternity Hospital, Hanamkonda where

LW15/Dr.K.Aruna Kumar conducted medical examination and issued report. LW15 preserved vaginal swabs, pubic hair and Blue color

Punjabi dress, Blue color Pants and Chunny and issued report and the same has been forwarded to RFSL by LW16, thereafter LW16 examined 3/9 and recorded the statement of LWs 2 to 5. LW14/Dr.S.Gautami,

Asst.Director, TS FSL, Hyderabad examined material objects no.1 to 11 and issued report stating that semen and spermatozoa are not detected on items sent and blood is not detected on items no.4 to 11 and foreign hair is not found in item no.4.

(iii) On the requisition of LW16, as per the proceedings of C.J.M,

LW13/the then, Judicial Magistrate of First Class recorded the statement of PW1/victim U/sec. 164 (5) Cr.P.C.

(iv) On 4.10.2016 at 7.00 hours, LW16 with assistance of Bheemesh,

S.I apprehended A1 who was found in suspicious circumstances and interrogated the accused in the presence of LWs 8 and 9/VRO in front of

Kazipet Railway station wherein the accused voluntarily confessed to have committed an offence and revealed the descriptive particulars of

A2 and A3 who have been committed rape on PW1. LW16 recorded his statement and seized the clothes of A1 under cover of confession cum seizure panchanama in the presence of LWs 8 and 9. Later, at 9.45 hours, LW16 brought A1 along with seized property to P.S, Kazipet and effected his arrest and produced before the court for judicial remand.

(v) LW16 sent the accused for potency test, wherein, LW12/Dr. Sk.

Khajamoinuddin and issued report stating that the accused is potent.

After completion of investigation, LW17/Inspector of Police laid charge sheet against the A1.

(vi) The learned IV-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Warangal, took cognizance of the case for the offence punishable u/ss.

366, 342, 376 (2)(k) and 376 (1) of IPC, vide PRC.No.53/2018, secured presence of the accused, supplied him with copies of documents as provided u/s.207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and 4/9 committed the same to the Sessions Division, Warangal. The Hon'ble

Principal Sessions Judge took cognizance of the offence and numbered

later renumbered as Special S.C.No.74/2019 and made over the same to this Court for disposal according to law.

4. The Accused was examined u/s. 228 (1) Cr.P.C. After hearing the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned defence counsel, charges u/ss. 366, 342 and 376 (2) (k) of the Indian Penal

Code of Criminal Law (Amendment) Act were framed against the accused, read over and explained to him in vernacular, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. To prove the complicity of accused, the prosecution has examined as many as two material witnesses i.e., LW1 examined as PWs 1 and

LW2 examined as PW2 and got marked Ex.P1 to P4.

6. The examination of accused u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. was dispensed with as there was no incriminating material appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, since the material witnesses PWs 1 and 2 failed to support the case of the prosecution.

7. Heard arguments of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel representing the accused through Video

Conference. Perused the material on record.

8. The point for determination is:

1) Whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of accused for the charge u/section 366 of Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt ?

2) Whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of accused for the charge u/section 342 of Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt ?

5/9

3) Whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of accused for the charge u/section 376 (2) (k) of Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt ?

Points No.1 to 3 :- All the above points are inter related and hence, they are discussed together for brevity and to avoid repetition of evidence.

9. To establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has cited as many as 17 witnesses to prove its case against the accused no.1. It has examined the complainant cum victim as PW1 and circumstantial witness as PW2. The learned Addl. PP has given up the evidence of

LW3/Arepally Yadagiri who worked as cashier cum worker in Pooja hotel near Kazipet chowrastha, LW4/Kotte Prem Kumar who was Security

Guard, Senior Section Engineering office, LW5/Sree Ramula Ravinder who is a private photographer, LW6/Konda Ramakanth and

LW7/Sheelam Rajashekhar, both mediators to the scene of offence panchanama and crime detail form at scene no.1 and 2,

LW8/Choudaboina Srishailam and LW9/Sunchu Narsaiah, both mediators for confession and seizure clothes of the accused no.1,

LW10/B.Sandhya who is WPC 1747 who recorded the statement of the victim U/sec. 161 Cr.P.C, LW11/G. Krupamani who is WPC 1769 and escorted victim for medical examination at Government Maternity

Hospital, Hanamkonda, LW12/Doctor Sk. Khaja Moinuddin, Assistant

Professor in K.M.C,Warangal who conducted potency test on accused no.1, LW13/Smt. Pramila Jain, Special J.F.C.M for P.C.R cases who recorded the statement of the victim under 164 Cr.P.C, LW14/Dr. S.

Gautami, Asst. Director, TS,RFSL, Hyderabad who examined material objects preserved by Medical Officer and issued report, LW15/Dr. K.

Aruna Kumari, Civil Assistant Surgeon in Government Maternity 6/9

Hospital, Hanamkonda, who examined the victim and forwarded the material objects to RFSL and issued final opinion, LW16/L.Ramesh

Kumar, Inspector of Police,P.S, Kazipet who issued FIR is 1st investigating officer and LW17/Ch.Ajay, Inspector of Police, P.S, Kazipet who is 2nd investigating officer filed charge sheet in the case. As the material witness PW1 who is the victim herself failed to support the prosecution against the accused no.1. Ex.P1 to P4 are for the prosecution.

10. The gist of the prosecution case is that, the A1 is known to victim and related to her on the pretext of searching a match to her, he took

PW1 along with him to his village and both of them boarded a train at

Secunderabad railway station and got down at Kazipet, Railway Station on the night of 01.10.2016. Thereafter A1 went to wine shop where

PW2 worked as cashier cum worker and A1 purchased of one Original

Choice of quarter bottle from PW2, consumed 90 m.l of the same and later took the victim to Pooja hotel at Kazipet chowrastha and both of them had dinner and on the guise of boarding a bus to Jammikunta at about 12.30 hours in the mid night, A1 took the victim/PW1 towards

SSC/OHE office on the railway track and forcibly committed sexual assault on her and further threatened her not to inform anyone about it and while they were returning, the absconding A2 and A3 threatened them that they were police personnel and committed rape on the victim.

11. PW1 testified before the Court that she doesn’t know about A1 and that she came to Kazipet about 2 years ago on some personal work and while she was at the railway station at about 10.00 or 11.00 p.m, two persons committed sexual assault on her but she doesn’t know who were they and immediately she went to P.S, Kazipet lodged a report. It 7/9 is also the evidence of PW1 that she being an illiterate, gave details and police took her signatures on some papers and she has no knowledge of what was written in that papers. She further deposed that she gave statement before the Magistrate that some unknown persons raped her.

The evidence of PW2 is that he doesn’t know PW1 and A1 and further doesn’t know anything about the case.

Though PW1 has lodged a complaint with the Police and gave statement to LW13 when it comes to evidence she resiled from her earlier stand and not supported the case of the prosecution. When it comes to her evidence, she clearly stated that she is an illiterate person and approached the police after the said incident, they had obtained her signature.

12. Since the witnesses PW1 and PW2 has not supported the case of the prosecution. The learned Addl.P.P has declared both PWs 1 and 2 as hostile and cross examined them as per 161 Cr.P.C statements given by them to the police, they denied those suggestions. The said 161 Cr.P.C statement of PWs 1 and 2 marked as Ex. P3 and P4 respectively.

13. The victim PW1 has not uttered a single word against the accused and retracted from her earlier stand. In view of aforesaid evidence of PW1, who is victim in the case, the learned Addl. P.P has given up the evidence of all the remaining witnesses listed by the prosecution as no fruitful purpose would have been achieved by examining them. Thus, there is no incriminating material against the accused no.1 touching the charges framed against them. Therefore, the prosecution could not prove the guilt of the accused no.1 as victim 8/9 failed to support the prosecution. Hence, accused no.1 is entitled for acquittal. The points are accordingly answered.

In the result,theaccused no.1 is found not guilty for the charges under sections 366, 342 and 376 (2)(k) of the Indian Penal

Code and accordingly, he is acquitted of the said charges u/s. 232

Cr.P.C. The bonds and bail bonds of the accused no.1 shall remain in force for a period of six months as provided under Section 437-A

Cr.P.C. The unmarked property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

(Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 24 th day of September, 2021)

Sd/-

SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR FAST

TRACKING OF CASES RELATING TO

ATROCITIES AGAINST WOMEN-CUM-IX-

ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

WARANGAL

:APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW1 : Victim None

PW2 : Golkonda Raju

:EXHIBITS MARKED:

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1 - Signature of PW1 on complaint

Ex.P2 - Section 164 CrPC statement of PW1.

Ex.P3 - Section 161 CrPC statement of PW1. Ex.P4 Section 161 CrPC statement of PW2.

FOR DEFENCE: NIL.

:MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:

-Nil-

Sd/-

SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR FAST

TRACKING OF CASES RELATING TO

ATROCITIES AGAINST WOMEN -CUM-

IX-ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE ,

WARANGAL

9/9

1 S.C.No.102 of 2020

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR FAST TRACKING OF

CASES RELATING TO ATROCITIES AGAINST WOMEN-CUM-IX

ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, WARANGAL

Thursday, this the 30th day of September, 2021

PRESENT:-Smt.T.Suhasini,

Special Judge For Fast Tracking Of Cases

Relating To Atrocities Against Women-Cum- IX Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal

SESSIONS CASE NO.102 OF 2020

(in Cr.No.104/2019 of P.S, Inthezargunj)

1.Name and description of the :The State of Telangana through complainant.SHO of P.S. Inthezargunj

2.Name and description of the :Pastham Raju, S/o. Late accusedKommalu, Age: 42 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o. Balajinagar, Enumamula, Warangal.

3.Offence charged:offence punishable under Sections 376 (1) of IPC

4.Plea of the accused:Pleaded not guilty.

5.Finding of the Court: Found not guilty for the charge under Sections 376 (1) of IPC and acquitted u/s. 232 Cr.P.C.

6.Conviction, sentence or : Accused is found not guilty for acquittalthe charges under Section 376 (1) of IPC and accordingly, the accused is acquitted under section 232 Cr.P.C. The bonds and bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for six months as provided under Section 437-A Cr.P.C. The unmarked property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

7.Name of the Counsel for the Addl.Public Prosecutor prosecution

8.Name of the Counsel for :Sri R.Srinivas Reddy accused Counsel for the Accused

This case is coming on 29.09.2021 for final hearing before me in the presence of Additional Public Prosecutor for the State/complainant and of Sri R.Srinivas Reddy, Counsel for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

2 S.C.No.102 of 2020

J U D G M E N T

The Inspector of Police, Inthezargunj laid charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under sections 376 of IPC and in

Cr.No.104/2018 of P.S.Inthezargunj.

2. The factual matrix of the prosecution case in nutshell are that :

On the defacto-complainant lodged a complaint with the police on 20.3.2019 at 7.00 hours with certain allegations against the accused stating that on 25.3.2019 at 2030 hours, the complainant who is eking out her livelihood by doing coolie work and she is having 2 sons and a son. It is further alleged on 20.3.2019 in the morning hours, at 7.00 a.m., she left for coolie work and her 2nd daughter Gnaneshwari went to the house of P.Raju to attend the household work as she was maid and on the same day night when she returned to her house her daughter informed her by weeping that P.Raju committed rape on her in the absence of his wife and also threatened with dire consequences if she disclose the matter to anyone and threatened to kill her and on the next day also with his deceitful words i.e., on 24.3.2019 he took her daughter

Erragattu Hasanparthy temple, where they exchanged garland meanwhile, her younger brother Kumar and his friend Bharath went there on seeing them, P.Raju left and fled away. She reported the matter to the elders and thereafter filed complaint against the accused. On the basis of the complaint, a case was registered against the accused.

(ii) On receiving report from PW.1 on LW6 registered a case as in

Cr.No. 104/2019 for the offences under sections 376 of IPC and issued

FIR. He dispatched copies of FIR to all the concerned and took up investigation in this case. During the course of investigation, as per his 3 S.C.No.102 of 2020 instructions, LW16/Ch.Sridhar examined and recorded her statement and deputed LW8/G.Swapna, WSI to record the statement of the victim/LW2 under video coverage by LW9 and she was referred to

Government hospital, CKM for medical examination and LW12/Dr. S.

Padma examined and preserved vaginal swabs and also seized the clothes of the victim to FSL LW14/Y. Neeraja, for analysis and she issued report. During the course of investigation, LW16 examined LWs 8 and 9 recorded their 161 Cr.P.C statements, visited scene of offence conducted scene observation panchanama in the presence of LWs 10 and 11 and also examined LWs 3 to 7 and recorded their statements.

3. While the things stood thus on 27.3.2019 at 10.30 hours, LW16 apprehend the accused at his house Balajinagar, Enumamula Warangal and interrogated him and he voluntarily confessed about the offence. On 27.3.2019 at 11.00 hours, LW16 affected arrest of the accused and referred to LW13/Dr. Mohd Razak Mallikhan for potency test and produced him before the Court for judicial remand. LW16 gave a requisition to LW15/ Learned II Addl. JFCM, Warangal to record 164

Cr.P.C statement of victim accordingly she recorded the statement of the victim. LW17 took up further investigation and collected 164 Cr.P.C statement of victim and after completion of investigation LW17 filed charge sheet.

4. The learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Warangal, took cognizance of the case for the offence punishable u/ss.

376 of IPC, vide PRC.No.399/2019, secured presence of the accused, supplied his with copies of documents as provided u/s.207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and committed the same to the Sessions

Division, Warangal. The Hon'ble Principal Sessions Judge took 4 S.C.No.102 of 2020 cognizance of the offence and numbered as S.C.102/2020 and made over the same to this Court for disposal according to law.

5. The accused was examined u/s. 228 (1) Cr.P.C. After hearing the learned Addl.P.P and the learned defence counsel, charges u/ss. 376(1) of IPC are framed, read over and explained to the accused in vernacular, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. To prove the complicity of accused in the case, the prosecution has relied on evidence of PWs 1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P1 and P2.

7. The examination of accused u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. was dispensed with as there was no incriminating material appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, since the material witnesses PWs 1 to 4 failed to support the case of the prosecution.

8. Heard arguments of the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel representing the accused.

9. The point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of accused for the charges under Section s 376(1) IPC, beyond reasonable doubt ?”

Points No.1 and 2 :- All the above points are inter related and hence, they are discussed together for brevity and to avoid repetition of evidence.

10. To establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has cited as many as 17 witnesses to prove its case against the accused. It has examined PWs 1 to 4. The learned Addl. PP has given up the evidence of LW3/Gandam Kumar, LW4/Rangaraju Bharath Raju, LW6/Pathi

Saramma, LW8/G.Swapna, LW9/P.Kavitha, LW10/Pastham Kommalu,

LW11/Patri Ili Kumar, LW12/Dr,.S. Padma, Assistant Suregon, LW13/Dr.

5 S.C.No.102 of 2020

MD. Raza Malik Khan, LW14/Y.Neeraja, LW15/learned II Addl.

Magistrate, LW16/Ch.Sridhar and LW17/R.Venkateshwarlu who filed

charge sheet. As the material witness PW1 who is the mother of the victim and PW2 is the victim failed to support the prosecution against the accused. Ex.P1 and P2 are for the prosecution.

11. The gist of the prosecution case is that, the defacto complainant is having two daughters and a son and her 2nd daughter PW2 used to work as maid in the house of the accused and on the fateful day, the accused taking advantage of absence of his wife committed rape on victim/PW2 and on the next day the accused with his deceitful words took the victim to Erragattu Hasanparthy temple and exchanged garlands. When Kumar and his friend Bharath went to said place and on seeing them, the accused fled away and the police registered a case.

12. As per the evidence of PW1, the mother of the victim and defacto complainant who lodged a complaint with the police deposed about 2 years ago her daughter PW2 eloped with accused as both of them were in love and she went to the P.S, gave complaint about her missing daughter and the police obtained her thumb impression on some paper.

In her chief she has clearly stated she doesn’t know what was written in those papers as she is an illiterate and the police has not examined her.

As seen from the evidence of PW2/victim deposed about 2 years ago she left the home without informing her mother and her mother approached the police but PW2 doesn’t know what case was registered basing on complaint of PW1. She further deposed police examined her and her statement was recorded and she further deposed that the

Magistrate also recorded her statement and she stated before the

Magistrate as per the directions of the police.

6 S.C.No.102 of 2020

13. As per the evidence of PW1 who is the defacto complainant who lodged a complaint with the police when it comes to evidence she has resiled from her earlier stand and deposed PW2 has eloped with accused. She approached the police for missing of her daughter but she doesn’t know what the police mentioned in the complaint. In her chief she clearly stated she is an illiterate and police obtained her signature on some papers. As per the evidence of PW2, who stated she left the home without informing her mother and her mother has lodged complain and she doesn’t know what case the police has registered. In the chief PW2 clearly stated as per the directions of the police, she gave statement before the Magistrate. Since both the witnesses resiled from their earlier stand the learned APP treated the witnesses as hostile and cross examined the witnesses and both of them denied stating as per their 161 Cr.P.C statements vide Ex.P1 and P2. PW3 and 4 who were cited as circumstantial witnesses by the prosecution deposed on 21.3.2019 at 8.00 a.m., PW1 informed him Raju raped her daughter

PW2. He along with PW1, Swarupa and Lalitha went to house of the accused and asked him and they came to know from LW3 that the accused married the PW2 at Erragattu Hasanparthy temple and in the cross examination he admitted that both accused and PW2 living together as accused married her and PW4 deposed she came to know that accused has raped PW2 she also went along with PW1 and 3 to the house of the accused. They came to know that accused married to PW2 and living together. In the cross examination she admitted she doesn’t know what was happening with in four walls of the accused and she admitted the accused married PW2 and living with her.

14. Though PW1 has lodged a complaint with the Police when it comes 7 S.C.No.102 of 2020 to evidence she resiled from her earlier stand and not supported the case of the prosecution. When it comes to her evidence, she clearly stated that PW2 eloped with the accused. PW2 victim has also not supported the case of the prosecution and deposed she left the home without informing her mother.

15. Since the witnesses PWs 1 and 2 have not supported the case of the prosecution. The learned Addl.P.P has declared both PWs 1 and 2 as hostile and cross examined them as per 161 Cr.P.C statements given by them to the police, they denied those suggestions. The said 161 Cr.P.C statement of PWs 1 and 2 marked as Ex. 1 and 2 respectively. Though

PWs 3 and 4 who were cited as circumstantial witnesses by the prosecution and supported the case of prosecution the witnesses clearly stated they came to know about the alleged offence through PW1. From their evidence, it is clear at the time of alleged incident, they were not present nor witness the incident and their evidence is hearsay evidence and same cannot be considered.

16. Moreover, the victim PW2 and PW1 has not uttered a single word against the accused and retracted from their earlier stand. PWs 3 and 4 admitted the accused married PW2 and both of them living as a couple.

In view of aforesaid evidence of PW1 defacto complainant, PW2 who is victim in the case, the learned Addl. P.P has given up the evidence of all the remaining witnesses listed by the prosecution as no fruitful purpose would have been achieved by examining them. Thus, there is no incriminating material against the accused touching the charges framed against him. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt as victim failed to support the 8 S.C.No.102 of 2020 prosecution. Hence, accused is entitled for acquittal. The points are accordingly answered.

In the result,theaccused is found not guilty for the charges under sections 376 (1) of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly, he is acquitted of the said charges u/s. 232 Cr.P.C. The bonds and bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months as provided under Section 437-A Cr.P.C. The unmarked property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

(Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 30 th day of September, 2021)

Sd/-

SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR FAST

TRACKING OF CASES RELATING TO

ATROCITIES AGAINST WOMEN-CUM-IX-

ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

WARANGAL

:APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW1 : Pathi Pochamma None PW2 : Victim PW3 : Bodam Sammaiah PW4 : Thurpati Lalitha

:EXHIBITS MARKED:

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1 - Section 164 CrPC statement of PW1

Ex.P2 - Section 161 CrPC statement of PW2.

FOR DEFENCE: NIL.

:MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:

-Nil-

Sd/-

SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR FAST

TRACKING OF CASES RELATING TO

ATROCITIES AGAINST WOMEN -CUM-

IX-ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE ,

WARANGAL