V Bhavanamma

SC No.141-2021, dt.24.04.2026

POCSO COURT, VIJAYAWADA.

1

APKR230000062021

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR SPEEDY TRIAL OF

OFFENCES UNDER PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL

OFFENCES ACT :: VIJAYAWADA.

Present: Smt. Velpula Bhavani,

Special Judge for speedy trial of Offences under

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Vijayawada.

Friday, this the 24th day of April, 2026.

S.C.No.141/2021

Cr.No.211 of 2021 of II Town Police station

Prosecution:The State : Inspector of police, II Town P.S, Vijayawada city.

Represented by Smt. G. Rajeswara Rao, Learned Special Public Prosecutor

Defence Counsel:Sri V. Siva Kumar, Smt. K. Maheswari, Learned counsel for the accused.

Name(s) of the Accused: Aarugula Veera babu, s/o. Veera Prasad @ Veera Babu, 20 years, C/madiga, R/o. Behind RCM School, Hillock,Jodubommalacenter, Tailorpet, Vijayawada.

Charges under sections(s):Charge under section 4 of POCSO Act, sections 376 (1), 366 IPC are framed against the accused.

Plea of the accused:Pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the Court:Accused is found not guilty.

SC No.141-2021, dt.24.04.2026

POCSO COURT, VIJAYAWADA.

2

Result of the case: In the result, accused is found not guilty for the Charge under section 4 of POCSO Act, sections 376 (1), 366 of IPC. Hence he is acquitted u/s. 235 (1) of Cr.P.C. The Bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of 6 months in terms of section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Order relating to the case property:MO1toMO8/clothesvide CP No.63/2025 are ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

The above numbered Sessions Case presented before me on 20.04.2026 for final hearing and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The accused is tried for the Charges under Section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual offences Act, 2012 (herein after referred to as POCSO Act), sections 376 (1), 366 of Indian Penal Code (herein after referred to as IPC).

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the accused developed acquaintance with the victim minor girl, aged about 17 years and on 19.04.2021, accused went to the college of the victim ie., Gandhiji College,

Vijayawada and took her along with him and at 11-00 AM, caught bus to

Rajahmundry at Big Market Bus stop and reached Rajahmundry at 03-30 PM, visited Sivalayam and other temples and at 06-00 PM, accused took her to movie and from there, he took her to Railway station and on 20-04-2021, he took her to Annavaram in a bus and there he took a room and committed penetrative sexual assault against her and on 21.04.2021 at 03-30 hours, he contacted his uncle over phone and he scolded the accused and accused took the victim to Tuni to his uncle’s house and accused escaped from there, then his uncle brought the victim to Vijayawada.

SC No.141-2021, dt.24.04.2026

POCSO COURT, VIJAYAWADA.

3

(ii)Meanwhile, LW13/SI of police, received a report from

PW1/mother of victim girl, on girl missing and he registered the same as FIR in Cr.No.211/2021, under the head of girl missing and he submitted the FIR to the Tahsildar and copies to the concerned court. On 22.04.2021, victim was brought to police station and LW12/WSI recorded the statement of the victim and she handed over the statement to LW13 and basing on the statement of victim/PW2, LW13 altered the FIR from girl missing to sections 363, 376 of

IPC, section 4 of POCSO Act and handed over the case file to PW3/Inspector of police on 22.04.2021 and he verified the case file and found it in correct lines and he took up investigation.

(iii)On the instructions of PW3/Inspector of police, LW12/WSI recorded the statement of the victim in the presence of her mother under video coverage and she handed over the statement to him and handed over the clothes of victim to him, and on his instructions, LW13/SI of police, sent the victim to GGH, Vijayawada for medical examination and PW3 filed memo

before this court to change the victim name.

(iv) PW3 secured the presence of PW1 and LW4, examined them and recorded their statements. PW1 handed over the date of birth certificate of victim. On 23.04.2021, he arrested the accused in the presence of mediators under Mediators report and he recorded confessional statement of accused and he seized the clothes of accused. PW3 produced the accused

before Magistrate for judicial custody. On 26.04.2021, PW3 gave requisition to

II ACMM, Vijayawada to record statement of victim u/s. 164 Cr.P.C and the

Magistrate recorded the statement of victim and he handed over the case file

to PW4/Inspector of police for further investigation.

(v)On 13.05.2021, PW4/Inspector of police, received case file from

PW.3 and he took up investigation in this case and on 17.05.2021 at 10.00 a.m, he visited the scene of offence along with mediators and he observed the scene in the presence of mediators and prepared scene

SC No.141-2021, dt.24.04.2026

POCSO COURT, VIJAYAWADA.

4 observation report and rough sketch and he examined LW.6 and recorded her statement and he sent material objects to RFSL, Vijayawada for chemical examination through letter of advice and he received RFSL report and wound certificate from doctor and he filed petition in this court to conduct potency test to accused and he filed affidavit stating that he is potent and after completion of investigation, PW4/Inspector filed charge sheet against the accused.

3.Considering the material on record, cognizance was taken against the accused for the offence under Section 4 of POCSO Act, 2012, sections 363, 376 of IPC against the accused.

4. After hearing the learned Special Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for accused and considering the material on record, Charge under section 4 of POCSO Act, sections 376 (1), 366 of IPC are framed against the accused.

5.During trial on behalf of prosecution, PW1 to PW4 were examined and Exs.P1 to P19, MO1 to MO8 were marked.

6.After closure of prosecution side evidence, accused was examined u/s.313 of Cr.P.C. He denied the incriminating evidence appearing in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard arguments advanced by both sides.

8.Now the point for consideration is :

Whether the prosecution established the Charge under section

4 of POCSO Act, sections 376 (1), 366 of IPC, are framed against the

accused beyond all reasonable doubt ?

POINT :

9.In order to attract the provisions of POCSO Act, it is necessary to establish that the victim girl is below the age of 18 years and is a child as defined u/s. 2 (d) of POCSO Act. To prove the same, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of PW3/Investigating officer coupled with Ex.P12/ date of

SC No.141-2021, dt.24.04.2026

POCSO COURT, VIJAYAWADA.

5 birth certificate of the victim girl. As per Ex.P12, the date of birth of victim girl is 13.08.2003 Moreover, PW1 and PW2 deposed that the date of birth of the victim girl is 13.08.2003. As per the case of prosecution, the alleged offence took place on 19.04.2021. That means, by the date of alleged offence, the victim girl is below the age of 18 years. Hence, the provisions of POCSO Act are attracted to the present case, if the prosecution is able to establish that the accused committed any such offence against the victim girl.

10.To prove the case of prosecution, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of PW1 to PW4 and Exs.P.1 to P.19, MO1 to MO8 were marked.

11.PW1 is mother of victim girl. PW2 is victim. PW3 is Inspector of police. PW4 is Inspector of police, who is investigating officer in this case.

Ex.P1 is Signature of PW1 on the report. Ex.P2 is contradictory portion in the statement of Pw1, which was recorded u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.P3 is contradictory portion in the statement of PW1, which was recorded u/s. 161

Cr.P.C. Ex.P4 is signature of PW2 on the statement. Ex.P5 is signature of

PW2 on the statement u/s. 164 Cr.P.C. Ex.P6 is contradictory portion in the statement of Pw2, which was recorded u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.P7 is Report.

Ex.P8 is FIR. Ex.P9 is statement of PW2. Ex.P10 is altered FIR. Ex.P11 is

DVD. Ex.P12 is date of birth certificate of victim. Ex.P13 is Mediators report.

Ex.P14 is statement of victim u/s. 164 Cr.P.c. Ex.P15 is scene observation report. Ex.P16 is rough sketch. Ex.P17 is letter of advice along with covering letter. Ex.P18 is wound certificate. Ex.P19 is RFSL report.

MO1 is pink colour top red colour roses design, MO2 is red colour leggin, MO3 is multi colour scorff, MO4 is black colour bra, MO5 is blue colour under wear. MO6 is black colour pant, MO7 is blue colour shirt, MO8 is blue colour underwear.

12.Coming to the evidence of PW1, who is mother of the victim girl, she deposed in her evidence that in the year 2021, due to disputes, they went to police station, then police obtained her signature on some written paper and

SC No.141-2021, dt.24.04.2026

POCSO COURT, VIJAYAWADA.

6 she does not know the contents of the report and the signature in the report is that of her, Ex.P1 is the signature in the report and she stated that she does not know anything about this case and accused did not commit any offence against the victim. She also stated that they performed the marriage of accused and victim in this month.

13.PW2 is victim girl. She deposed in her evidence that in the year 2021, they went to police station, then police obtained her signature on some written paper and she does not know the contents of the statement and the signature in the statement is that of her, Ex.P4 is her signature in the statement and she does not know anything about this case and accused did not commit any offence against her. She also stated that her parents performed her marriage with accused in this month. She identified her

Ex.P5/signature on her statement u/s. 164 Cr.P.C, but she stated that she does not know the contents of the said statement.

14.Thus, PW1 and PW2 did not support the case of prosecution and did not whisper anything against the accused. As such, the Learned Special

Public Prosecutor cross examined them with the permission of the Court, by declaring them as hostile, but nothing was elicited from them except marking contradictory portion in their statements recorded u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. Hence, the evidence of PW1 and PW2 is no way helpful to the prosecution to prove the charges levelled against the accused.

15. Coming to the evidence of PW3/Inspector of police, he deposed in his evidence that LW13 received the report from PW1 on girl missing and registered same in Cr.No.211/2021, under the head of girl missing and he submitted the FIR to the Tahsildar and copies to the concerned court, Ex.P7 is Report, Ex.P8 is FIR and LW12 recorded the statement of the victim and she handed over the statement to LW13 and basing on the statement of victim/PW2, LW13 altered the FIR from girl missing to sections 363, 376 of

IPC, section 4 of POCSO Act, Ex.P9 is statement of PW2, Ex.P10 is

SC No.141-2021, dt.24.04.2026

POCSO COURT, VIJAYAWADA.

7 altered FIR and handed over the case file to him on 22.04.2021 and he verified the case file and found it in correct lines and he took up investigation.

16.PW3 further deposed that on his instructions, LW12 recorded the statement of the victim in the presence of her mother under video coverage,

Ex.P11 is DVD and she handed over the statement to him and handed over the clothes of victim to him, MO1 is pink colour top red colour roses design,

MO2 is red colour leggin, MO3 is multi colour scorff, MO4 is black colour bra,

MO5 is blue colour under wear and on his instructions, LW13 sent the victim to GGH, Vijayawada for medical examination and he filed memo before this court to change the victim name.

17.PW3 further deposed that he secured the presence of PW1 and

LW4, examined them and recorded their statements and PW1 handed over the date of birth certificate of victim, Ex.P12 is date of birth certificate of victim and on 23.04.2021, he arrested the accused in the presence of mediators under Mediators report and he recorded confessional statement of accused and he seized clothes of victim, Ex.P13 is Mediators report, Mo6 is black colour pant, MO7 is blue colour shirt, MO8 is blue colour underwear and he produced accused before Magistrate for judicial custody.

18.PW3 further deposed that on 26.04.2021, he gave requisition to

II ACMM, Vijayawada to record statement of victim u/s. 164 Cr.P.C and the

Magistrate recorded the statement of victim, Ex.P14 is statement of victim

u/s. 164 Cr.P.C and he filed a petition before this court to conduct potency test to accused and the same is allowed and accused filed a memo stating that no need for medical tests as he is potent and he handed over the case file to

LW15/Inspector of police for further investigation.

19.Coming to the evidence of PW4/ Inspector of police, he deposed in his evidence that on 13.05.2021, he received case file from PW.3 and he took up investigation in this case and on 17.05.2021 at 10.00 a.m, he visited the scene of offence along with mediators and he observed the scene in the

SC No.141-2021, dt.24.04.2026

POCSO COURT, VIJAYAWADA.

8 presence of mediators and prepared scene observation report and rough sketch, ExP15 scene observation report, ExP16 is rough sketch and he examined LW.6 and recorded her statement and he sent material objects to

RFSl, Vijayawada for chemical examination through letter of advice, ExP17 is the letter of advice along with covering letter and he received RFSL report and wound certificate from doctor, ExP18 is wound certificate, ExP19 is RFSL report and he filed petition in this court to conduct potency test to accused and accused filed affidavit stating that he is potent and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused. Nothing was elicited from the cross examination of PW3 and PW4, except denying the suggestions.

20.Since material witness ie., PW1 and PW2 did not support the case of prosecution and did not whisper anything against the accused, the learned Special Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of other witnesses, LW2 to LW4, LW6 to LW9, LW11 to LW13 as even if they are examined, no useful purpose would be served as victim girl and her mother turned hostile to the case of prosecution and this court closed the evidence of

LW10/Learned Magistrate.

21.Thus, after careful scrutiny of the entire evidence, it is clear that

PW1 and PW2 did not whisper anything against the accused to convict him for the charges levelled against him. When PW1 and PW2 did not depose any incriminating material against the accused to convict him, the evidence of

PW3, PW4/ Investigating officer is not sufficient to convict the accused for the charges levelled against him.

22.Thus, in the absence of any incriminating evidence against the accused, as fundamental facts are not proved by the prosecution, no presumption can be drawn against accused about his culpable mental state, as contemplated U/ss. 29 and 30 of POCSO Act 2012. Hence, this court has no hesitation to hold that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of

SC No.141-2021, dt.24.04.2026

POCSO COURT, VIJAYAWADA.

9 accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the charges levelled against him and accused is entitled for acquittal. Hence, point is answered accordingly.

23. In the result, accused is found not guilty for the Charge under section 4 of POCSO Act, sections 376 (1), 366 of IPC. Hence he is acquitted u/s. 235 (1) of Cr.P.C. The Bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of 6 months in terms of section 437-A of Cr.P.C. MO1 to MO8/clothes vide CP No.63/2025 are ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation, directly by the Stenographer Gr.II, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 24th day of April, 2026.

sd/-

Special Judge for Speedy Trial of

Offences Under Protection of Children From Sexual Offences, Vijayawada.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION

PW 1 : K. Aliveli PW 2 : victim PW 3 : N. Chalapathi Rao, Inspector of police. PW 4 : DKN Mohan Reddy, Inspector of police.

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR DEFENCE

-NONE-

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P1 is Signature of PW1 on the report. Ex.P2 is contradictory portion in the statement of Pw1, which was recorded u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.P3 is contradictory portion in the statement of PW1, which was recorded u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.P4 is signature of PW2 on the statement. Ex.P5 is signature of PW2 on the statement u/s. 164 Cr.P.C. Ex.P6 is contradictory portion in the statement of Pw2, which was recorded u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.P7 is Report. Ex.P8 is FIR. Ex.P9 is statement of PW2.

SC No.141-2021, dt.24.04.2026

POCSO COURT, VIJAYAWADA.

10

Ex.P10 is altered FIR. Ex.P11 is DVD. Ex.P12 is date of birth certificate of victim. Ex.P13 is Mediators report. Ex.P14 is statement of victim u/s. 164 Cr.P.c. Ex.P15 is scene observation report. Ex.P16 is rough sketch. Ex.P17 is letter of advice along with covering letter. Ex.P18 is wound certificate. Ex.P19 is RFSL report.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENCE

-NIL-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MO1 is pink colour top red colour roses design. MO2 is red colour leggin. MO3 is multi colour scorff. MO4 is black colour bra. MO5 is blue colour under wear. MO6 is black colour pant. MO7 is blue colour shirt. MO8 is blue colour underwear.

sd/-

Special Judge for Speedy Trial of

Offences Under Protection of Children From Sexual Offences, Vijayawada

SC No.167-2021, dt.27.04.2026

POCSO COURT, VIJAYAWADA.

1

APKR230000842021

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR SPEEDY TRIAL OF

OFFENCES UNDER PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL

OFFENCES ACT :: VIJAYAWADA.

Present: Smt. Velpula Bhavani,

Special Judge for speedy trial of Offences under

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Vijayawada.

Monday, this the 27th day of April, 2026.

S.C.No.167/2021

Cr.No.602 of 2021 of Ibrahimpatnam Police station

Prosecution:The State : The Assistant Commissioner of police, West Division, Vijayawada city.

Represented by Smt. G. Rajeswara Rao, Learned Special Public Prosecutor

Defence Counsel:Sri B.M. Deva Rayalu Learned counsel for the accused.

Name(s) of the Accused: Dokka Ajay, s/o. Ramesh Babu, 21 years, SC-Madiga, R/o. D.No. 9-78/A, Rajeev nagar, Guntupalli village, Ibrahimpatnam mandal.

Charges under sections(s):Charges under Section 5 (j) (ii), 5 (l) r/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012, sections 376 (2) (n), 313, 417of IPC are framed against the accused.

Plea of the accused:Pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the Court:Accused is found not guilty.

SC No.167-2021, dt.27.04.2026

POCSO COURT, VIJAYAWADA.

2

Result of the case: In the result, accused is found not guilty for the Charges under Section 5 (j) (ii), 5 (l) r/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012, sections 376 (2) (n), 313, 417of IPC. Hence he is acquitted u/s. 235 (1) of Cr.P.C. The Bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of 6 months in terms of section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Order relating to the case property:NIL.

The above numbered Sessions Case presented before me on 21.04.2026 for final hearing and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The accused is tried for the Charges under Section 5 (j) (ii), 5 (l) r/w 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual offences Act, 2012 (herein after referred to as POCSO Act), sections 376 (2) (n), 313, 417 of

Indian Penal Code (herein after referred to as IPC).

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the accused developed acquaintance with the victim minor girl, who is below the age of 18 years, at Malkapurampeta, Kondapalli Municipality and with his deceitful words, one week prior to 16th February, 2019, accused committed penetrative sexual assault against her and since then he committed rape on her repeatedly on 24.12.2020, 16.02.2021 and on 17.02.2021, as a result, she became pregnant and accused gave her tablets, she consumed the same and later she was aborted and on repeated questioning, accused refused to marry her.

(ii)In this connection, On 26.07.2021 at 11.00 p.m, while, LW.17/SI of police, was present in the police station, PW1/victim girl, came to police station, presented a report before him and he registered the same as FIR in

SC No.167-2021, dt.27.04.2026

POCSO COURT, VIJAYAWADA.

3

Cr.No.602/2021 u/s 376(2)(n) IPC and Sec 6 of POCSO Act and he submitted the original FIR to the court and concerned officers and he handed over the case file to PW5/the then ACP, for further investigation. During the course of investigation on 27.07.2021, PW5 examined PW.2 and 3 and recorded their statements and he visited the scene of offence along with mediators and he observed the scene in the presence of mediators and prepared scene observation report and rough sketch and taken photos and he secured LW.4 to 9 and examined them and recorded their statements and he deputed the

Woman S.I/LW.16 to record the statement of PW.1 and she recorded the statement PW.1 in the presence of her mother under video coverage and handed over the same to him and basing on the statement of victim, he added the sec. 313 and 417 IPC.

(iii) On 01.08.2021 at 07.00 p.m, PW5 arrested the accused at

Guntupalli center in the presence of mediators under Mediator’s report and he recorded the confession statement of the accused and he produced the accused before Magistrate for judicial custody and during the course of further investigation on 11.08.2021, he gave requisition to III AMM, Vijayawada to record the statement of victim U/s 164 Cr.P.C and accordingly, the Magistrate recorded the statement of victim.

(iv)PW5 gave requisition to LW13/Head Master, Bishop Azariah High

School for Girls, Vijayawada to issue transfer certificate of victim and he issued xerox copy of transfer certificate of victim, which contains the date of birth of Victim as 16.02.2003 and he forwarded the material objects RFSL,

Vijayawada for chemical examination through letter of advice and after

Completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused.

3.Considering the material on record, cognizance was taken against the accused for the offence under Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012, sections 376 (2), 313, 417 of IPC against the accused.

SC No.167-2021, dt.27.04.2026

POCSO COURT, VIJAYAWADA.

4

4. After hearing the learned Special Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for accused and considering the material on record, Charges under Section 5 (j) (ii), 5 (l) r/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012, sections 376 (2) (n), 313, 417of IPC are framed against the accused.

5.During trial on behalf of prosecution, PW1 to PW5 were examined and Exs.P1 to P20 were marked.

6.After closure of prosecution side evidence, accused was examined u/s.313 of Cr.P.C. He denied the incriminating evidence appearing in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard arguments advanced by both sides.

8.Now the point for consideration is :

Whether the prosecution established the Charges under Section

5 (j) (ii), 5 (l) r/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012, sections 376 (2) (n), 313, 417 of

IPC are framed against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt ?

POINT :

9.In order to attract the provisions of POCSO Act, it is necessary to establish that the victim girl is below the age of 18 years and is a child as defined u/s. 2 (d) of POCSO Act. To prove the same, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of PW5/Investigating officer coupled with Ex.P18/photostat copy of transfer certificate of the victim girl. As per Ex.P18, the date of birth of victim girl is 16.02.2003. Moreover, PW1 to PW3 deposed that the date of birth of the victim girl is 16.02.2003. As per the case of prosecution, for the first time, the alleged offence took place one week prior to 16th February, 2019. That means, by the date of alleged offence, the victim girl is below the age of 18 years. Hence, the provisions of POCSO Act are attracted to the present case, if the prosecution is able to establish that the accused committed any such offence against the victim girl.

SC No.167-2021, dt.27.04.2026

POCSO COURT, VIJAYAWADA.

5

10.To prove the case of prosecution, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of PW1 to PW5 and Exs.P.1 to P.20 were marked.

11.PW1 is the victim girl. PW2 is mother of the victim girl. PW3 is father of the victim girl. PW4 is Medical officer. PW5 is the then Assistant

Commissioner of police, who is investigating officer in this case.

Ex.P1 is Signature of PW1 on the report. Ex.P2 is Signature of PW1 on her statement. Ex.P3 is Signature of PW1 on her statement u/s. 164 Cr.P.C.

Ex.P4 is Contradictory portion in the statement of PW1, which was recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.P5 is Contradictory portion in the statement of

PW2, which was recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.P6 is Contradictory portion in the statement of PW3, which was recorded under section 161

Cr.P.C. Ex.P7 is Medico legal examination report. Ex.P8 is RFSL report, dt.

27.09.2021. Ex.P9 is Final opinion. Ex.P10 is Report. Ex.P11 is FIR. Ex.P12 is scene observation report. Ex.P13 is rough sketch. Ex.P14 is photographs along with DVD. Ex.P15 is section adding memo. Ex.P16 is Mediators report.

Ex.P17 is statement of victim u/s. 164 Cr.P.C. Ex.P18 is photostat copy of transfer certificate of the victim. Ex.P19 is letter of advice along with covering letter. Ex.P20 is DVD.

12. Coming to the evidence of PW1, who is the victim girl in this case, she deposed that in the year 2021, due to disputes, they went to police station, then police obtained her signature on some written paper and she does not know the contents of the report and the signature in report is that of him, Ex.P1 is her signature in the report. She stated that she does not know anything about this case and accused did not commit any offence against her.

13.PW2 is mother of the victim girl. She deposed in her evidence that in the year 2021, due to disputes, they went to police station and she does not know anything about this case and accused did not commit any offence against the victim.

SC No.167-2021, dt.27.04.2026

POCSO COURT, VIJAYAWADA.

6

14.PW3 is father of the victim girl. He deposed in his evidence that in the year 2021, due to disputes, they went to police station and he does not know anything about this case and accused did not commit any offence against the victim.

15 .Thus, PW1 to PW3 did not support the case of prosecution and did not whisper anything against the accused. As such, the Learned Special

Public Prosecutor cross examined them with the permission of the Court, by declaring them as hostile, but nothing was elicited from him except marking contradictory portion in their statements recorded u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. Hence, the evidence of PW1 to PW3 is no way helpful to the prosecution to prove the charges levelled against the accused.

16.Coming to the evidence of PW4/Medical officer, she deposed in her evidence that on 27.07.2021 at 08.25 am, WPC 3226 brought the victim girl for medical examination, then, she examined her after obtaining her consent and victim stated about the history that “ alleged to have been given false promise to marry her by accused and both of them were known since 2018 and victim has given history of abortion in May, 2021 and he refused to marry her and she had last intercourse with him on 17.02.2021”.

17.PW4 further deposed that on examination, she found the following observations : vitals normal, Per abdomen soft, External genetalia healthy, Hymen not intact, PR uterus normal in size, no fresh injuries over thigh and genetalia, Urine pregnancy test negative, Ultra sound normal. She collected vaginal swabs and smear, cervical swab and smear and nail clippings for sending the same to RFSL for chemical analysis, pending final report from RFSL, she issued Medico legal examination report, ExP7is

Medico legal examination report and after receipt of report from RFSL and on clinical examination, she issued final opinion, opining that “based on clinical and RFSL report, there is an evidence of sexual assault”,Ex.P.8 is the RFSL report, dt.27.09.2021, Ex.P9 is Final opinion.

SC No.167-2021, dt.27.04.2026

POCSO COURT, VIJAYAWADA.

7

18.During cross examination, PW4 denied the suggestions that she has not examined the victim and she gave medico legal examination report on instigation of police without examining the victim and that the victim did not state the history as alleged by her and that she is giving false evidence.

19.Coming to the evidence of PW5/Investigating officer, he deposed that on 26.07.2021 at 11.00 p.m, while, LW.17 was present in the police station, PW1 came to police station, presented a report before him and he registered the same as FIR in Cr.No.602/2021 u/s 376(2)(n) IPC and Sec 6 of

POCSO Act and he submitted the original FIR to the court and concerned officers, Ex.P.10 is the Report, ExP11 is FIR and he handed over the case file to him, for further investigation.

20.PW5 further deposed that during the course of investigation on 27.07.2021, he examined PW.2 and 3 and recorded their statements and he visited the scene of offence along with mediators and he observed the scene in the presence of mediators and prepared scene observation report and rough sketch and taken photos, ExP12 scene observation report, ExP13 is rough sketch, ExP14 photographs along with DVD and he secured LW.4 to 9 and examined them and recorded their statements.

21.PW5 further deposed that he deputed the Woman S.I/LW.16 to record the statement of PW.1 and she recorded the statement PW.1 in the presence of her mother under video coverage and handed over the same to him and basing on the statement of victim, he added the sec. 313 and 417 IPC, ExP15 is the Section adding memo.

22.PW5 further deposed that on 01.08.2021 at 07.00 pm, he arrested the accused at Guntupalli center in the presence of mediators under

Mediator’s report and he recorded the confession statement of the accused and he produced the accused before Magistrate for judicial custody, ExP16 is the mediators report and during the course of further investigation on 11.08.2021, he gave requisition to IIIAMM, Vijayawada to record the

SC No.167-2021, dt.27.04.2026

POCSO COURT, VIJAYAWADA.

8 statement of victim U/s 164 Cr.P.C and accordingly, the Magistrate recorded the statement of victim, ExP17 is the statement of victim u/s 164 Cr.P.C.

23.PW5 further deposed that he gave requisition to LW13/Head

Master, Bishop Azariah High School for Girls, Vijayawada to issue transfer certificate of victim and he issued xerox copy of transfer certificate of victim, which contains the date of birth of Victim, Ex.P18 is Xerox copy of the transfer certificate of the victim and as per Ex.P18, the date of birth of victim is 16.02.2003.

24.PW5 further deposed that he forwarded the material objects

RFSL, Vijayawada for chemical examination through letter of advice, EXP19 is the letter of advice along with covering letter, ExP20 is DVD and after

Completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused.

Nothing was elicited from the cross examination of PW5, except denying the suggestions.

25.Since material witnesses ie., PW1 to PW3, did not support the case of prosecution and did not whisper anything against the accused, the learned Special Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of other witnesses, LW4 to LW10, LW13, LW15 to LW17, as even if they are examined, no useful purpose would be served as the victim girl and her parents, turned hostile to the case of prosecution and this court closed the evidence of LW11, as he died. This court also closed the evidence of

LW14/Learned Magistrate.

26.Thus, after careful scrutiny of the entire evidence, it is clear that

PW1 to PW3, who are material witnesses in this case, they did not whisper anything against the accused to convict him for the charges levelled against him. Though PW4/Medical officer gave her final opinion that based on clinical and RFSL report, there is an evidence of sexual assault, but the victim girl did not depose any incriminating material against the accused that he committed sexual assault against her. Hence, the evidence of PW4 is no way helpful to

SC No.167-2021, dt.27.04.2026

POCSO COURT, VIJAYAWADA.

9 convict the accused. When PW1 to PW3 did not depose any incriminating material against the accused to convict him, the evidence of PW5/

Investigating officer is not sufficient to convict the accused for the charges levelled against him.

27.Thus, in the absence of any incriminating evidence against the accused, as fundamental facts are not proved by the prosecution, no presumption can be drawn against accused about his culpable mental state, as contemplated U/ss. 29 & 30 of POCSO Act 2012. Hence, this court has no hesitation to hold that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the charges levelled against him and accused is entitled for acquittal. Hence, point is answered accordingly.

28. In the result, accused is found not guilty for the Charges under

Section 5 (j) (ii), 5 (l) r/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012, sections 376 (2) (n), 313, 417of IPC. Hence he is acquitted u/s. 235 (1) of Cr.P.C.

The Bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of 6 months in terms of section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation, directly by the Stenographer Gr.II, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 27th day of April, 2026.

sd/-

Special Judge for Speedy Trial of

Offences Under Protection of Children From Sexual Offences, Vijayawada.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION

PW 1 : victim girl. PW 2 : V. Seshamma PW 3 : Vanguri Ramu PW 4 : GPN Karunavathi, Medical officer. PW 5 : K. Hanumantha Rao, the then ACP, Investigating officer.

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR DEFENCE

-NONE-

SC No.167-2021, dt.27.04.2026

POCSO COURT, VIJAYAWADA.

10

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P1 is Signature of PW1 on the report. Ex.P2 is Signature of PW1 on her statement. Ex.P3 is Signature of PW1 on her statement u/s. 164 Cr.P.C. Ex.P4 is Contradictory portion in the statement of PW1, which was recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.P5 is Contradictory portion in the statement of PW2, which was recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.P6 is Contradictory portion in the statement of PW3, which was recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.P7 is Medico legal examination report. Ex.P8 is RFSL report, dt. 27.09.2021. Ex.P9 is Final opinion. Ex.P10 is Report. Ex.P11 is FIR. Ex.P12 is scene observation report. Ex.P13 is rough sketch. Ex.P14 is photographs along with DVD. Ex.P15 is section adding memo. Ex.P16 is Mediators report. Ex.P17 is statement of victim u/s. 164 Cr.P.C. Ex.P18 is photostat copy of transfer certificate of the victim. Ex.P19 is letter of advice along with covering letter. Ex.P20 is DVD.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENCE

-NIL-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-NIL-

sd/-

Special Judge for Speedy Trial of

Offences Under Protection of Children From Sexual Offences, Vijayawada

SC No.97-2021, dt.22.04.2026

POCSO COURT, VIJAYAWADA.

1

APKR230000862021

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR SPEEDY TRIAL OF

OFFENCES UNDER PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL

OFFENCES ACT :: VIJAYAWADA.

Present: Smt. Velpula Bhavani,

Special Judge for speedy trial of Offences under

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Vijayawada.

Wednesday, this the 22nd day of April, 2026.

S.C.No.97/2021

Cr.No.164 of 2021 of II Town Police station

Prosecution:The State : Sub Inspector of police, II Town P.S, Vijayawada city.

Represented by Smt. G. Rajeswara Rao, Learned Special Public Prosecutor

Defence Counsel:Smt. M. Srilatha, Learned counsel for the accused.

Name(s) of the Accused: Madada Sai Kumar, s/o. Jagan- nadham, 21 years, Vada Balija, SF-7/Block No.114, YSR colony, Jakkampudi village, Vijayawada Rural Mandal.

Charges under sections(s):Charge under section 8 of POCSO Act, sections 354, 354 A, 354 D, 366 of IPC, section 9 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 are framed against the accused.

Plea of the accused:Pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the Court:Accused is found not guilty.

SC No.97-2021, dt.22.04.2026

POCSO COURT, VIJAYAWADA.

2

Result of the case: In the result, accused is found not guilty for the Charge under section 8 of POCSO Act, sections 354, 354 A, 354 D, 366 of IPC, section 9 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006. Hence he is acquitted u/s. 235 (1) of Cr.P.C. The Bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of 6 months in terms of section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Order relating to the case property:NIL.

The above numbered Sessions Case presented before me on 01.04.2026 for final hearing and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The accused is tried for the Charges under Section 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual offences Act, 2012 (herein after referred to as POCSO Act), sections 354, 354 A, 354 D, 366 of Indian Penal

Code (herein after referred to as IPC).

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are that accused used to follow the victim minor girl, aged about 17 years. On 24-03-2021, at about 14-00 hours, accused visited the house of the victim girl at YSR Colony,

Jakkampudi, Vijayawada and on noticing the same, mother of the victim girl admonished him, then he induced the victim girl on the pretext of love and marriage and took her along with him in the morning hours of the next day ie., at about 05-30 hours, to bus stand in an auto and from there both of them boarded a bus to Tuni and from there accused took her to the house of mother-in-law of cousin of accused in an auto at Venkatapuram village,

Payakaraopet Mandal, Visakhapatnam District and in a room in their house, accused kissed the victim girl, hugged her by saying that both of them are

SC No.97-2021, dt.22.04.2026

POCSO COURT, VIJAYAWADA.

3 going to marry and on 26-03-2021 at about 10-30 hours, he tied turmeric thread in the neck of the victim in front of Ammavari temple.

(ii)In this connection, on 26.03.2021 at 0.30 hrs, while PW3/SI was present in police station PW1/mother of victim came to police station and presented a report before him about missing of the victim girl and he registered the same as FIR in Cr.No.164/2021 under the head of girl missing and he submitted original FIR to the office of Tahsildar concerned at

Vijayawada and copies to the concerned court and thereafter he examined

PW1 and recorded her statement. PW3 visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch and he secured the presence of LW2 to Lw4, examined them and recorded their statements and on 27.03.2021, at 11.00 a.m, PW.1 came to police station along with PW.2 and gave another report and basing on report of PW.1, he altered the Sections from girl missing to Sec 354(A) IPC and Sec 8 r/w.7 of POCSO Act and he examined PW.1 and recorded her statement.

(iii)PW3 deputed Woman S.I/LW.13 to record the statement of victim and she recorded the statement of victim under video coverage and handed over the same to him and basing on the statement of victim as the victim girl is minor and he added the Section of law to Sec 366(A) of IPC. On 28.03.2021, at.5.00 pm, PW3 received reliable information, he proceeded to

YSR Colony, High School grounds, Jakkampudi and he arrested the accused in the presence of mediators under Mediators report and he recorded confessional statement of accused and he produced him before Magistrate for judicial custody. On 30.03.2021, PW3 gave requisition to LW6/Head Master,

Sri Kora English medium School, Gollapudi, Vijayawada to issue study certificate of victim and he issued study certificate of victim, which contains the date of birth of Victim as 16.06.2003 and he examined LW6 and recorded his statement and he examined Lws 7 and 8 and recorded their statements.

SC No.97-2021, dt.22.04.2026

POCSO COURT, VIJAYAWADA.

4

(iv) On 03.04.2021, PW3 gave requisition to II ACMM, Vijayawada to record statement of victim u/s. 164 Cr.P.C and the Magistrate recorded the statement of victim and he visited the scene of offence along with mediators and observed the scene and prepared scene observation report and rough sketch and he has taken photos and after completion of investigation, PW3 filed charge sheet against the accused.

3.Considering the material on record, cognizance was taken against the accused for the offence under Section 8 of POCSO Act, 2012, sections 366 A, 354 A of IPC, section 9 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 against the accused.

4. After hearing the learned Special Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for accused and considering the material on record, Charge under section 8 of POCSO Act, sections 354, 354 A, 354 D, 366 of IPC, section 9 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 are framed against the accused.

5.During trial on behalf of prosecution, PW1 to PW3 were examined and Exs.P1 to P19 were marked.

6.After closure of prosecution side evidence, accused was examined u/s.313 of Cr.P.C. He denied the incriminating evidence appearing in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard arguments advanced by both sides.

8.Now the point for consideration is :

Whether the prosecution established the Charge under section

8 of POCSO Act, sections 354, 354 A, 354 D, 366 of IPC, section 9 of

Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 are framed against the accused

beyond all reasonable doubt ?

POINT :

9.In order to attract the provisions of POCSO Act, it is necessary to establish that the victim girl is below the age of 18 years and is a child as

SC No.97-2021, dt.22.04.2026

POCSO COURT, VIJAYAWADA.

5 defined u/s. 2 (d) of POCSO Act. To prove the same, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of PW3/Investigating officer coupled with Ex.P15/study certificate of the victim girl. As per Ex.P15, the date of birth of victim girl is 16.06.2003. Moreover, PW1 and PW2 deposed that the date of birth of the victim girl is 16.06.2003. As per the case of prosecution, the alleged offence took place on 24-03-2021. That means, by the date of alleged offence, the victim girl is below the age of 18 years. Hence, the provisions of POCSO Act are attracted to the present case, if the prosecution is able to establish that the accused committed any such offence against the victim girl.

10.To prove the case of prosecution, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of PW1 to PW3 and Exs.P.1 to P.19 were marked.

11.PW1 is mother of the victim girl. PW2 is victim girl. PW3 is SI of police, who is investigating officer in this case.

Ex.P1 is signature of Pw1 on the report. Ex.P2 is signature of Pw1 on the report. Ex.P3 is Contradictory portion in the statement of PW1 which was recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.P4 is Contradictory portion in the statement of PW1 which was recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.P5 is signature of PW2 on her statement. Ex.P6 is signature of PW2 on her statement u/s. 164 Cr.P.C. Ex.P7 is Contradictory portion in the statement of

PW2 which was recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.P8 is Report. Ex.P9 is

FIR. Ex.P10 is Rough sketch. Ex.P11 is report. Ex.P12 is altered FIR.

Ex.P13 is section adding memo. Ex.P14 is Mediators report. Ex.P15 is study certificate of victim. Ex.P16 is section 164 Cr.P.C statement of victim. Ex.P17 is scene observation report. Ex.P18 is rough sketch. Ex.P19 is photos with

DVD.

12.Coming to the evidence of PW1, who is mother of the victim girl, she deposed in her evidence that in the year 2021, due to disputes, they went to police station, then police obtained her signatures on some written papers and she does not know the contents of the same, Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 are

SC No.97-2021, dt.22.04.2026

POCSO COURT, VIJAYAWADA.

6 signatures on the reports. She stated that she does not know anything about this case and accused did not commit any offence against the victim.

13.PW2 is victim girl, she deposed in her evidence that in the year 2021, due to disputes, they went to police station and she does not know anything about this case and accused did not commit any offence against her and Ex.P5 and Ex.P6/ signatures in the statement and statement u/s. 164

Cr.P.C is that of her and she does not know the contents of the said statements.

14.Thus, PW1 and PW2 did not support the case of prosecution and did not whisper anything against the accused. As such, the Learned Special

Public Prosecutor cross examined them with the permission of the Court, by declaring them as hostile, but nothing was elicited from them except marking contradictory portion in their statements recorded u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. Hence, the evidence of PW1 and PW2 is no way helpful to the prosecution to prove the charges levelled against the accused.

15.Coming to the evidence of PW3/SI of police, who is investigating officer in this case, he deposed that on 26.03.2021 at 0.30 hrs, while he was present in police station PW1 came to police station and presented a report

before him about missing of the victim girl and he registered the same as FIR

in Cr.No.164/2021 under the head of girl missing and he submitted original

FIR to the office of Tahsildar concerned at Vijayawada and copies to the concerned court, Ex.P.8 is the report, Ex.P.9 is the FIR and thereafter, he examined PW1, and recorded her statement.

16.PW3 further deposed that he visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch, Ex.P10 is rough sketch and he secured the presence of LW2 to Lw4, examined them and recorded their statements and on 27.03.2021, at 11.00 a.m, PW.1 came to police station along with PW.2 and gave another report and basing on report of PW.1, he altered the Sections from girl missing to Sec 354(A) IPC and Sec 8 r/w.7 of POCSO Act, ExP11 is

SC No.97-2021, dt.22.04.2026

POCSO COURT, VIJAYAWADA.

7 the report, ExP12 is the altered FIR and he examined PW.1 and recorded her statement.

17.PW3 further deposed that he deputed Woman S.I/LW.13 to record the statement of victim and she recorded the statement of victim under video coverage and handed over the same to him and basing on the statement of victim as the victim girl is minor and he added the Section of law to Sec 366(A) of IPC, ExP13 is section adding memo.

18. PW3 further deposed that on 28.03.2021, at.5.00 p.m, he received reliable information he proceeded to YSR Colony, High School grounds, Jakkampudi and he arrested the accused in the presence of mediators under Mediators report and he recorded confessional statement of accused and he produced him before Magistrate for judicial custody, ExP14 is the mediators report.

19.PW3 further deposed that on 30.03.2021, he gave requisition to

LW6/Head Master, Sri Kora English medium School, Gollapaudi, Vijayawada to issue study certificate of victim and he issued study certificate of victim, which contains the date of birth of Victim, Ex.P15 is study certificate of the victim and as per Ex.P15, the date of birth of victim is 16.06.2003 and he examined LW6 and recorded his statement and he examined LWs 7 and 8 and recorded their statements.

20.PW3 further deposed that on 03.04.2021, he gave requisition to

II ACMM, Vijayawada to record statement of victim u/s. 164 Cr.P.C and the

Magistrate recorded the statement of victim, Ex.P16 is statement of victim

u/s. 164 Cr.P.C and he visited the scene of offence along with mediators and observed the scene and prepared scene observation report and rough sketch and he has taken photos, ExP17 is the scene observation report, ExP18 is the rough sketch, ExP19 is the photos with the DVD and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused.

SC No.97-2021, dt.22.04.2026

POCSO COURT, VIJAYAWADA.

8

21.Since material witnesses ie., PW1 and PW2, did not support the case of prosecution and did not whisper anything against the accused, the learned Special Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of other witnesses, LW2 to LW4, LW6 to LW11, LW13 as even if they are examined, no useful purpose would be served as the victim girl and her mother turned hostile to the case of prosecution and this court closed the evidence of

LW12/Learned Magistrate.

22.Thus, after careful scrutiny of the entire evidence, it is clear that

PW1 and PW2 did not whisper anything against the accused to convict him for the charges levelled against him. No reason is assigned as to why, Pw1 signed on some written paper. Even if it is found that a false complaint has been made, as per section 22 (2) of POCSO Act, no punishment shall be imposed on a child. When PW1 and PW2 did not depose any incriminating material against the accused to convict him, the evidence of PW3/

Investigating officer is not sufficient to convict the accused for the charges levelled against him.

23. In the result, accused is found not guilty for the Charge under section 8 of POCSO Act, sections 354, 354 A, 354 D, 366 of IPC, section 9 of

Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006. Hence he is acquitted u/s. 235 (1) of

Cr.P.C. The Bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of 6 months in terms of section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation, directly by the Stenographer Gr.II, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 22nd day of April, 2026.

sd/-

Special Judge for Speedy Trial of

Offences Under Protection of Children From Sexual Offences, Vijayawada.

SC No.97-2021, dt.22.04.2026

POCSO COURT, VIJAYAWADA.

9

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION

PW 1 : Kaja Naga Lakshmi PW 2 : victim girl PW 3 : Y. Sekhar Babu, Sub Inspector of police.

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR DEFENCE

-NONE-

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P1 is signature of Pw1 on the report. Ex.P2 is signature of Pw1 on the report. Ex.P3 is Contradictory portion in the statement of PW1 which was recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.P4 is Contradictory portion in the statement of PW1 which was recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.P5 is signature of PW2 on her statement. Ex.P6 is signature of PW2 on her statement u/s. 164 Cr.P.C. Ex.P7 is Contradictory portion in the statement of PW2 which was recorded under section 161 Cr.p.c. Ex.P8 is Report. Ex.P9 is FIR. Ex.P10 is Rough sketch. Ex.P11 is report. Ex.P12 is altered FIR. Ex.P13 is section adding memo. Ex.P14 is Mediators report. Ex.P15 is study certificate of victim. Ex.P16 is section 164 Cr.P.C statement of victim. Ex.P17 is scene observation report. Ex.P18 is rough sketch. Ex.P19 is photos with DVD.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENCE

-NIL-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-NIL-

sd/-

Special Judge for Speedy Trial of

Offences Under Protection of Children From Sexual Offences, Vijayawada

SC No.85-2020, dt.23.04.2026

POCSO COURT, VIJAYAWADA.

1

APKR230000112020

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR SPEEDY TRIAL OF

OFFENCES UNDER PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL

OFFENCES ACT :: VIJAYAWADA.

Present: Smt. Velpula Bhavani,

Special Judge for speedy trial of Offences under

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Vijayawada.

Thursday, this the 23rd day of April, 2026.

S.C.No.85/2020

Cr.No.372 of 2018 of Machavaram Police station

Prosecution:The State : Sub Inspector of police, II Town P.S, Vijayawada city.

Represented by Smt. G. Rajeswara Rao, Learned Special Public Prosecutor

Defence Counsel:Sri Vanga Ramesh Kumar, Learned legal aid counsel for the accused.

Name(s) of the Accused: Lanke Ramu, s/o. Venkata Pothu Raj, 22 years, Agnikula Kshatriya, D.No.3-13A-1, Patha upakali village, NagayalankaMandal,Krishna District.

Charges under sections(s):Charge under section 12 of POCSO Act, sections 354 C & 509 IPC are framed against the accused.

Plea of the accused:Pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the Court:Accused is found not guilty.

SC No.85-2020, dt.23.04.2026

POCSO COURT, VIJAYAWADA.

2

Result of the case: In the result, accused is found not guilty for the Charge under section 12 of POCSO Act, sections 354 C & 509 of IPC. Hence he is acquitted u/s. 235 (1) of Cr.P.C. The Bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of 6 months in terms of section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Order relating to the case property:NIL.

The above numbered Sessions Case presented before me on 20.04.2026 for final hearing and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The accused is tried for the Charges under Section 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual offences Act, 2012 (herein after referred to as POCSO Act), sections 354 C & 509 of Indian Penal Code (herein after referred to as IPC).

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 27.06.2018 at 05.30 pm, at Moghalrajpuram, Vijayawada, when the victim minor girl, aged about 16 years, went for bathing in her bathroom, accused being her neighbour captured her photos, when she is bathing and on hearing the sound of flash light, she came outside by wearing clothes and noticed the accused and raised alarm.

(ii)In this connection, on 27.06.2018 at about 09-45 p.m. while

PW3/SI of police was present in the police station, PW1/husband of victim, came to police station and presented a written report against the accused

before him, PW3 registered the same as FIR in Cr.No.372/2018 under

sections 354 (C) IPC and Sec 12 of POCSO Act and he submitted the original

FIR to the court and copies to the court. During the course of investigation,

PW3 visited the scene of offence and he observed the scene in the presence

SC No.85-2020, dt.23.04.2026

POCSO COURT, VIJAYAWADA.

3 of mediators and prepared scene observation report and also prepared rough sketch, he examined PW.1, LW1, 3 to 5 and recorded their statements and he requested the Woman S.I/PW.2 to record the statement of LW.1 and she recorded the statement of LW.1 and handed over the same to him and on 7.7.2018, he served 41-A Cr.P.C notice to accused and directed him to appear before him and the accused appeared before him and accused was released on surety.

(iii) PW3 filed requisition before VI AMM, Vijayawada to record the

Sec 164 Cr.P.C. statement of victim and accordingly, the Magistrate recorded the statement and he gave requisition to LW.8/Head Master to issue the study certificate of victim and he issued study certificate of victim, which contains the date of birth of Victim as 12.05.2002 and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused.

3.Considering the material on record, cognizance was taken against the accused for the offence under Section 12 of POCSO Act, 2012, sections 354 C, 509 of IPC against the accused.

4. After hearing the learned Special Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for accused and considering the material on record, Charge under section 12 of POCSO Act, sections 354 C, 509 of IPC are framed against the accused.

5.During trial on behalf of prosecution, PW1 to PW3 were examined and Exs.P1 to P7 were marked.

6.After closure of prosecution side evidence, accused was examined u/s.313 of Cr.P.C. He denied the incriminating evidence appearing in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard arguments advanced by both sides.

SC No.85-2020, dt.23.04.2026

POCSO COURT, VIJAYAWADA.

4

8.Now the point for consideration is :

Whether the prosecution established the Charge under section

12 of POCSO Act, sections 354 C, 509 of IPC, are framed against the

accused beyond all reasonable doubt ?

POINT :

9.In order to attract the provisions of POCSO Act, it is necessary to establish that the victim girl is below the age of 18 years and is a child as defined u/s. 2 (d) of POCSO Act. To prove the same, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of PW3/Investigating officer coupled with Ex.P7/study certificate of the victim girl. As per Ex.P7, the date of birth of victim girl is 12.05.2002. Moreover, PW1 deposed that the date of birth of the victim girl is 12.05.2002. As per the case of prosecution, the alleged offence took place on 27.06.2018 . That means, by the date of alleged offence, the victim girl is below the age of 18 years. Hence, the provisions of POCSO Act are attracted to the present case, if the prosecution is able to establish that the accused committed any such offence against the victim girl.

10.To prove the case of prosecution, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of PW1 to PW3 and Exs.P.1 to P.7 were marked.

11.PW1 is husband of the victim girl. PW2 is woman SI of police.

PW3 is SI of police, who is investigating officer in this case.

Ex.P1 is Contradictory portion in the statement of PW1 which was recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.P2 is Report. Ex.P3 is FIR. Ex.P4 is scene observation report. Ex.P5 is rough sketch. Ex.P6 is section 164 Cr.P.C statement of victim. Ex.P7 is study certificate of victim.

12.Coming to the evidence of PW1, who is husband of the victim girl, he deposed in his evidence that victim is his wife and she is residing at Kathar country since two years and in the year 2018, due to disputes, they went to police station and he does not know anything about this case and accused did not commit any offence against the victim in his presence.

SC No.85-2020, dt.23.04.2026

POCSO COURT, VIJAYAWADA.

5 13 .Thus, PW1 did not support the case of prosecution and did not whisper anything against the accused. As such, the Learned Special Public

Prosecutor cross examined him with the permission of the Court, by declaring him as hostile, but nothing was elicited from him except marking contradictory portion in his statement recorded u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. Hence, the evidence of

PW1 is no way helpful to the prosecution to prove the charges levelled against the accused.

14.Coming to the evidence of PW2/WSI of police, she deposed in her evidence that on the directions of ACP, Mahila P.S, on 29.06.2018, she recorded the statement of LW1/victim girl in the presence of PW1, at her house under video coverage and later she handed over the said statement to

LW10/Sub Inspector of police.

15.PW3 is SI of police. He deposed in his evidence that on 27.06.2018 at about 09-45 p.m. while he was present in the police station,

PW1 came to police station and presented a written report against the accused before him, he registered the same as FIR in Cr.No.372/2018 under sections 354 (C) IPC and Sec 12 of POCSO Act and he submitted the original

FIR to the court and copies to the court, Ex.P.2 is the said report, Ex. P.3 is the FIR.

16.PW3 further deposed that during the course of investigation, he visited the scene of offence and he observed the scene in the presence of mediators and prepared scene observation report and also prepared rough sketch, ExP4 is the scene observation report, ExP5 is the rough sketch and he examined PW.1, Lw1, 3 to 5 and recorded their statements and he requested the Woman S.I/PW.2 to record the statement of LW.1 and she recorded the statement of LW.1 and handed over the same to him.

17.PW3 further deposed that on 7.7.2018, he served 41-A Cr.P.C notice to accused and directed to appear before him and the accused appeared before him and he released on surety and he filed requisition before

SC No.85-2020, dt.23.04.2026

POCSO COURT, VIJAYAWADA.

6

VI AMM, Vijayawada to record the Sec 164 Cr.P.C. statement of victim and accordingly, the Magistrate recorded the statement, ExP6 is the Sec.164

Cr.P.C statement of victim.

18.PW3 further deposed that he gave requisition to LW.8/Head

Master to issue the study certificate of victim and he issued study certificate of victim, which contains the date of birth of Victim, ExP7 is the study certificate of victim and as per ExP7 the date of birth of victim is 12.05.2002 and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused.

Nothing was elicited from the cross examination of PW2 and PW3, except denying the suggestions.

19.Since material witness ie., PW1, did not support the case of prosecution and did not whisper anything against the accused, the learned

Special Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of other witnesses, LW1,

LW3 to LW8, LW11 as even if they are examined, no useful purpose would be served as PW1 turned hostile to the case of prosecution.

20.Thus, after careful scrutiny of the entire evidence, it is clear that

PW1 did not whisper anything against the accused to convict him for the charges levelled against him. When PW1 did not depose any incriminating material against the accused to convict him, the evidence of PW2, PW3/

Investigating officer is not sufficient to convict the accused for the charges levelled against him.

21.Thus, in the absence of any incriminating evidence against the accused, as fundamental facts are not proved by the prosecution, no presumption can be drawn against accused about his culpable mental state, as contemplated U/s. 30 of POCSO Act 2012. Hence, this court has no hesitation to hold that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the charges levelled against him and accused is entitled for acquittal. Hence, point is answered accordingly.

SC No.85-2020, dt.23.04.2026

POCSO COURT, VIJAYAWADA.

7

22. In the result, accused is found not guilty for the Charge under section 12 of POCSO Act, sections 354 C, 509 of IPC. Hence he is acquitted u/s. 235 (1) of Cr.P.C. The Bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of 6 months in terms of section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation, directly by the Stenographer Gr.II, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 23rd day of April, 2026.

sd/-

Special Judge for Speedy Trial of

Offences Under Protection of Children From Sexual Offences, Vijayawada.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION

PW 1 : K. Chitti Babu, PW 2 : B.A.S. Kumari PW 3 : K. Naga Raju, Sub Inspector of police.

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR DEFENCE

-NONE-

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P1 is Contradictory portion in the statement of PW1 which was recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.P2 is Report. Ex.P3 is FIR. Ex.P4 is scene observation report. Ex.P5 is rough sketch. Ex.P6 is section 164 Cr.P.C statement of victim. Ex.P7 is study certificate of victim.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENCE

-NIL-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-NIL-

sd/-

Special Judge for Speedy Trial of

Offences Under Protection of Children From Sexual Offences, Vijayawada

SC No.85-2020, dt.23.04.2026

POCSO COURT, VIJAYAWADA.

1

APKR230000112020

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR SPEEDY TRIAL OF

OFFENCES UNDER PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL

OFFENCES ACT :: VIJAYAWADA.

Present: Smt. Velpula Bhavani,

Special Judge for speedy trial of Offences under

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Vijayawada.

Thursday, this the 23rd day of April, 2026.

S.C.No.85/2020

Cr.No.372 of 2018 of Machavaram Police station

Prosecution:The State : Sub Inspector of police, II Town P.S, Vijayawada city.

Represented by Smt. G. Rajeswara Rao, Learned Special Public Prosecutor

Defence Counsel:Sri Vanga Ramesh Kumar, Learned legal aid counsel for the accused.

Name(s) of the Accused: Lanke Ramu, s/o. Venkata Pothu Raj, 22 years, Agnikula Kshatriya, D.No.3-13A-1, Patha upakali village, NagayalankaMandal,Krishna District.

Charges under sections(s):Charge under section 12 of POCSO Act, sections 354 C & 509 IPC are framed against the accused.

Plea of the accused:Pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the Court:Accused is found not guilty.

SC No.85-2020, dt.23.04.2026

POCSO COURT, VIJAYAWADA.

2

Result of the case: In the result, accused is found not guilty for the Charge under section 12 of POCSO Act, sections 354 C & 509 of IPC. Hence he is acquitted u/s. 235 (1) of Cr.P.C. The Bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of 6 months in terms of section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Order relating to the case property:NIL.

The above numbered Sessions Case presented before me on 20.04.2026 for final hearing and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The accused is tried for the Charges under Section 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual offences Act, 2012 (herein after referred to as POCSO Act), sections 354 C & 509 of Indian Penal Code (herein after referred to as IPC).

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 27.06.2018 at 05.30 pm, at Moghalrajpuram, Vijayawada, when the victim minor girl, aged about 16 years, went for bathing in her bathroom, accused being her neighbour captured her photos, when she is bathing and on hearing the sound of flash light, she came outside by wearing clothes and noticed the accused and raised alarm.

(ii)In this connection, on 27.06.2018 at about 09-45 p.m. while

PW3/SI of police was present in the police station, PW1/husband of victim, came to police station and presented a written report against the accused

before him, PW3 registered the same as FIR in Cr.No.372/2018 under

sections 354 (C) IPC and Sec 12 of POCSO Act and he submitted the original

FIR to the court and copies to the court. During the course of investigation,

PW3 visited the scene of offence and he observed the scene in the presence

SC No.85-2020, dt.23.04.2026

POCSO COURT, VIJAYAWADA.

3 of mediators and prepared scene observation report and also prepared rough sketch, he examined PW.1, LW1, 3 to 5 and recorded their statements and he requested the Woman S.I/PW.2 to record the statement of LW.1 and she recorded the statement of LW.1 and handed over the same to him and on 7.7.2018, he served 41-A Cr.P.C notice to accused and directed him to appear before him and the accused appeared before him and accused was released on surety.

(iii) PW3 filed requisition before VI AMM, Vijayawada to record the

Sec 164 Cr.P.C. statement of victim and accordingly, the Magistrate recorded the statement and he gave requisition to LW.8/Head Master to issue the study certificate of victim and he issued study certificate of victim, which contains the date of birth of Victim as 12.05.2002 and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused.

3.Considering the material on record, cognizance was taken against the accused for the offence under Section 12 of POCSO Act, 2012, sections 354 C, 509 of IPC against the accused.

4. After hearing the learned Special Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for accused and considering the material on record, Charge under section 12 of POCSO Act, sections 354 C, 509 of IPC are framed against the accused.

5.During trial on behalf of prosecution, PW1 to PW3 were examined and Exs.P1 to P7 were marked.

6.After closure of prosecution side evidence, accused was examined u/s.313 of Cr.P.C. He denied the incriminating evidence appearing in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard arguments advanced by both sides.

SC No.85-2020, dt.23.04.2026

POCSO COURT, VIJAYAWADA.

4

8.Now the point for consideration is :

Whether the prosecution established the Charge under section

12 of POCSO Act, sections 354 C, 509 of IPC, are framed against the

accused beyond all reasonable doubt ?

POINT :

9.In order to attract the provisions of POCSO Act, it is necessary to establish that the victim girl is below the age of 18 years and is a child as defined u/s. 2 (d) of POCSO Act. To prove the same, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of PW3/Investigating officer coupled with Ex.P7/study certificate of the victim girl. As per Ex.P7, the date of birth of victim girl is 12.05.2002. Moreover, PW1 deposed that the date of birth of the victim girl is 12.05.2002. As per the case of prosecution, the alleged offence took place on 27.06.2018 . That means, by the date of alleged offence, the victim girl is below the age of 18 years. Hence, the provisions of POCSO Act are attracted to the present case, if the prosecution is able to establish that the accused committed any such offence against the victim girl.

10.To prove the case of prosecution, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of PW1 to PW3 and Exs.P.1 to P.7 were marked.

11.PW1 is husband of the victim girl. PW2 is woman SI of police.

PW3 is SI of police, who is investigating officer in this case.

Ex.P1 is Contradictory portion in the statement of PW1 which was recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.P2 is Report. Ex.P3 is FIR. Ex.P4 is scene observation report. Ex.P5 is rough sketch. Ex.P6 is section 164 Cr.P.C statement of victim. Ex.P7 is study certificate of victim.

12.Coming to the evidence of PW1, who is husband of the victim girl, he deposed in his evidence that victim is his wife and she is residing at Kathar country since two years and in the year 2018, due to disputes, they went to police station and he does not know anything about this case and accused did not commit any offence against the victim in his presence.

SC No.85-2020, dt.23.04.2026

POCSO COURT, VIJAYAWADA.

5 13 .Thus, PW1 did not support the case of prosecution and did not whisper anything against the accused. As such, the Learned Special Public

Prosecutor cross examined him with the permission of the Court, by declaring him as hostile, but nothing was elicited from him except marking contradictory portion in his statement recorded u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. Hence, the evidence of

PW1 is no way helpful to the prosecution to prove the charges levelled against the accused.

14.Coming to the evidence of PW2/WSI of police, she deposed in her evidence that on the directions of ACP, Mahila P.S, on 29.06.2018, she recorded the statement of LW1/victim girl in the presence of PW1, at her house under video coverage and later she handed over the said statement to

LW10/Sub Inspector of police.

15.PW3 is SI of police. He deposed in his evidence that on 27.06.2018 at about 09-45 p.m. while he was present in the police station,

PW1 came to police station and presented a written report against the accused before him, he registered the same as FIR in Cr.No.372/2018 under sections 354 (C) IPC and Sec 12 of POCSO Act and he submitted the original

FIR to the court and copies to the court, Ex.P.2 is the said report, Ex. P.3 is the FIR.

16.PW3 further deposed that during the course of investigation, he visited the scene of offence and he observed the scene in the presence of mediators and prepared scene observation report and also prepared rough sketch, ExP4 is the scene observation report, ExP5 is the rough sketch and he examined PW.1, Lw1, 3 to 5 and recorded their statements and he requested the Woman S.I/PW.2 to record the statement of LW.1 and she recorded the statement of LW.1 and handed over the same to him.

17.PW3 further deposed that on 7.7.2018, he served 41-A Cr.P.C notice to accused and directed to appear before him and the accused appeared before him and he released on surety and he filed requisition before

SC No.85-2020, dt.23.04.2026

POCSO COURT, VIJAYAWADA.

6

VI AMM, Vijayawada to record the Sec 164 Cr.P.C. statement of victim and accordingly, the Magistrate recorded the statement, ExP6 is the Sec.164

Cr.P.C statement of victim.

18.PW3 further deposed that he gave requisition to LW.8/Head

Master to issue the study certificate of victim and he issued study certificate of victim, which contains the date of birth of Victim, ExP7 is the study certificate of victim and as per ExP7 the date of birth of victim is 12.05.2002 and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused.

Nothing was elicited from the cross examination of PW2 and PW3, except denying the suggestions.

19.Since material witness ie., PW1, did not support the case of prosecution and did not whisper anything against the accused, the learned

Special Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of other witnesses, LW1,

LW3 to LW8, LW11 as even if they are examined, no useful purpose would be served as PW1 turned hostile to the case of prosecution.

20.Thus, after careful scrutiny of the entire evidence, it is clear that

PW1 did not whisper anything against the accused to convict him for the charges levelled against him. When PW1 did not depose any incriminating material against the accused to convict him, the evidence of PW2, PW3/

Investigating officer is not sufficient to convict the accused for the charges levelled against him.

21.Thus, in the absence of any incriminating evidence against the accused, as fundamental facts are not proved by the prosecution, no presumption can be drawn against accused about his culpable mental state, as contemplated U/s. 30 of POCSO Act 2012. Hence, this court has no hesitation to hold that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the charges levelled against him and accused is entitled for acquittal. Hence, point is answered accordingly.

SC No.85-2020, dt.23.04.2026

POCSO COURT, VIJAYAWADA.

7

22. In the result, accused is found not guilty for the Charge under section 12 of POCSO Act, sections 354 C, 509 of IPC. Hence he is acquitted u/s. 235 (1) of Cr.P.C. The Bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of 6 months in terms of section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation, directly by the Stenographer Gr.II, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 23rd day of April, 2026.

sd/-

Special Judge for Speedy Trial of

Offences Under Protection of Children From Sexual Offences, Vijayawada.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION

PW 1 : K. Chitti Babu, PW 2 : B.A.S. Kumari PW 3 : K. Naga Raju, Sub Inspector of police.

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR DEFENCE

-NONE-

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P1 is Contradictory portion in the statement of PW1 which was recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.P2 is Report. Ex.P3 is FIR. Ex.P4 is scene observation report. Ex.P5 is rough sketch. Ex.P6 is section 164 Cr.P.C statement of victim. Ex.P7 is study certificate of victim.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENCE

-NIL-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-NIL-

sd/-

Special Judge for Speedy Trial of

Offences Under Protection of Children From Sexual Offences, Vijayawada