Page Nos.1 of total 15 pages Judgment in SC No.

545 of 2024

IN THE COURT OF THE SPL. SESSIONS JUDGE FOR FAST TRACKING

THE CASES RELATING TO ATROCITIES AGAINST WOMEN-CUM-XIII
ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B. NAGAR.
Present : SMT. M. VANI.
XIII Addl. District and Sessions Judge
Ranga Reddy District at LB Nagar.
Thursday, this the 03rd day of April, 2025.
SC No. 545 of 2024
1. Name of the complainant : The State represented by Station House
Officer, Police Station Saroornagar, in
Cr.No.05/2020.
2. Name of the Accused Cheruku Sakshith S/o. Cheruku Narsimha,
Age: 30 years, Occ: Pvt. Job, R/o H.No.
6-8, Budha Nagar, Peerzadiguda,
Medipally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
3. Offence under sections : U/Secs.376(2)(n), 417 and 493 of IPC are
framed against the Accused.
4. Cr. No. and Name of P.S : 05 of 2020 of Police Station Saroornagar
5. P.R.C. No. : 174 of 2020.
6. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
7. Finding of the Court : Found not guilty.
8. Sentence of Order : IN THE RESULT, the accused is
found not guilty for the offences
punishable under Sections 376 (2)(n),
417 and 493 of Indian Penal Code; and
accordingly he is acquitted under
Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The accused shall
be set at liberty and his bail bonds shall
stand cancelled after expiry of appeal
time.
9. Prosecution conducted by : Smt. P. Manjula Devi.
Additional Public Prosecutor for State.
10. Defence conducted by : Sri. M. Rajender Reddy, Learned Counsel
for Accused.
11. Case committed by : Spl. J.F.C.M. Excise-cum- V Addl.
Metropolitan Magistrate at L.B Nagar,
Ranga Reddy District.

XIII ADSJ
Page Nos.2 of total 15 pages Judgment in SC No.545 of 2024

This Sessions case came before me for final hearing on 27.03.2025

in the presence of Smt. P. Manjula Devi, Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor
for the Complainant/State and of Sri. M.Rajender Reddy, Learned
Counsel for Accused and the matter having been heard and stood over
for consideration till today, this court delivered the following:-
JUDGMENT

1. The State represented through Inspector of Police, Police Station

Saroornagar filed the charge sheet against the Accused in Crime No. 05

of 2020 for the offences punishable U/Secs.376(2)(n), 417 and 493 of

IPC.

2. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that on

02.01.2020 at 19:30 hrs received a Case Diary file vide Cr.No: 265/2019

U/s.417, 493, 376(2)(n) of IPC of Valigonda Police Station from

LW-13/Sri. N. Srinivasa, Circle Inspector of police, Ramannapet Rural

Incharge Ramannapet Circle wherein the complainant/victim studied up

to DMLT in Bhongiri and in view of her job she shifted to her uncle's

house situated at Boduppal, there she came in contact with her brother-

in-law by name Cheruku Sakshith/Accused R/o. Boduppal. Hyderabad

and that they exchanged their phone numbers and used to talk with

each other, thereafter they fell in love and that accused induced her

that he would be marry her and forcibly committed sexual intercourse

with her in her room situated at Saroornagar and continued the same

and that for nine years they have been in love and that on 20.10.2019

the victim asked the accused for marriage but the same was denied by

XIII ADSJ
Page Nos.3 of total 15 pages Judgment in SC No.545 of 2024

the Accused, for which the Victim consumed 65 B.P. tablets and slit her

left hand with blade. In-spite of that also he denied for marriage.

Thereafter, the victim along with her parents went to the house of the

Accused and asked for marriage but they also denied for the same .

Thus the accused cheated the complainant. Hence she requested to

take necessary action against accused as per law.

3. Basing on the contents of the above complaint, PW-5

re-registered a case in Crime No. 05/2020 U/Sec 376 (2) (n), 417, 493 IPC

and took up the investigation. Later, LW-13/Sri. N. Srinivasa, Circle

Inspector of police, Ramannapet Rural Incharge of Ramannapet Circle

who was the Investigating officer in Cr.No: 265/2020 U/s. 376(2)(n), 417,

493 IPC of Valigonda Police Station referred PW-1 to Area Hospital,

Ramannapet for medical examination under the escort of woman staff,

where the LW-09/Dr. B. Swathi Bai, Civil Asst. Surgeon, Area Hospital

Ramannapet examined the PW-1 and collected Vaginal Swabs and

handed over the same to Woman Police Constable for onward

submission of the same to F.S.L to know about the presence of Semen

and Spermatozoa and report. As it is a mandatory to record the

statement of PW-1 in sexual offences by a woman police officer. Upon

the request of PW-5 the LW-12/S. Divya, Woman Sub-Inspector of

Police, Saroornagar examined and recorded the detailed statement of

XIII ADSJ
Page Nos.4 of total 15 pages Judgment in SC No.545 of 2024

PW-1, which incorporated in part-II case diary, wherein she corroborated

the facts of the FIR in all aspects.

4. Later, PW-5 also secured the presence of the LW-7/Kota Srinu and

LW-8/Banoth Kishan and visited the scene of offence situated at H.No:

10-1-19/5, Priyadarshini Park adjacent Lane, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga

Reddy District along with PW-1, examined the scene and drafted

observation panchanama of scene of offence, but not incriminated

material found. The PW-5 secured the presence of PW-2, LW-3/Gade

Rajeshwari, LW-4/Gundlapuri Naresh, PW-3 and PW-4 examined them

and recorded their detailed statement in part-II CDs.

5. While the Investigation was in progress, on 28.01.2020 the

accused surrender before the Police Station along with order copy of

XIV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B

Nagar and obtained anticipatory bail. Thereafter the accused gave his

consent for conducting potency test. Then PW-5 referred the accused

to Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad for conducing potency test of

accused, where the LW-10/Dr. Sk. Khaja Moinuddin, Associate professor

of Osmania Medical College conducted potency and opined that "it can

be concluded that there is nothing to suggest that the individual

examined is not capable of performing act of sexual inter-course".

6. Thereafter PW-5 collected F.S.L. report from T.S.F.S.L, Red Hills,

Hyderabad. Wherein the LW-11/G. Swarna Rani, Assistant Director,

XIII ADSJ
Page Nos.5 of total 15 pages Judgment in SC No.545 of 2024

T.S.F.S.L., Red Hills, Hyderabad issued F.S.L. report and opined that

"Items 1 to 3 are examined, Semen and Spermatozoa are not detected

on item Nos.1 to 6. Blood is not detected on item No.3, Foreign hair is

not found in item No.3". The PW-5 collected the final opinion from

LW-09/Dr. B.Swathi Bai, Civil Asst. Surgeon, Area Hospital, Ramannapet.

Basing on the F.S.L report of LW-11/G. Swarna Rani, Assistant Director,

T.S.F.S.L. Red Hills, Hyderabad, the LW-09/Dr. B. Swathi Bai, Civil

Assistant Surgeon, Area Hospital, Ramannapet furnished opinion that

"The victim might not have undergone recent sexual inter course but

sexual assault cannot be ruled out.

7. The LW-15/B. Venkatesham, Detective Inspector of police,

Saroornagar took the Case Diary file from PW-5 as the PW-5 went in

leave. After obtaining Case Diary file the LW-15/B. Venkatesham,

Detective Inspector of police, Saroornagar scrutiny the Case Diary file

under proper lines. Subsequently the LW-16/K. Seetharam, Inspector of

police, Saroornagar police station took the Case Diary file from

LW-15/B. Venkatesham, Detective Inspector of police, Saroornagar on

his transfer to Saroornagar police station. After obtaining the Case

Diary file the LW-16/K. Seetharam, Inspector of police, Saroornagar

police station also scrutiny the Case Diary file and investigation done by

PW-5, LW-13/N. Srinivasa, Circle Inspector of Police, Ramannapet Rural

Incharge of Rammanpet Circle and LW-15/B. Venkatesham, Detective

XIII ADSJ
Page Nos.6 of total 15 pages Judgment in SC No.545 of 2024

Inspector of Police, Saroornagar under proper lines. Thereafter, LW-16/

K. Seetharam, Inspector of Police, Saroor Nagar Police Station filed

Charge Sheet against the Accused.

8. On filing and on verification of the said charge sheet, the learned

Spl. Judicial First Class Magistrate-Cum-Excise-cum-V Addl. Junior Civil

Judge-cum-V Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate at L.B Nagar, Ranga Reddy

District had taken cognizance of the case for the offences U/Secs.376

(2)(n), 417 and 493 of IPC are framed against the Accused and on

appearance of the Accused, the copies of the documents were

furnished to him as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C. and committed

the case to the Court of the Hon'ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge,

Ranga Reddy District U/Sec.209 of Cr.P.C vide PRC No.174/2020, since

the matter is triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions. Later, the

Hon'ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District made over

the case to this Court to dispose of the case according to law vide SC

No.545/2024.

9. After serving of summons and on appearance of the Accused, this

Court furnished copies of the statements and documents to the

Accused person as provided under Section 208 of the Cr.P.C.

10. On appearance of Accused, the charge for the offences

punishable U/Secs.376(2)(n), 417 and 493 of IPC are framed against the

Accused, the contents were read over and explained to him in

XIII ADSJ
Page Nos.7 of total 15 pages Judgment in SC No.545 of 2024

vernacular language, for which he denied charges, pleaded not guilty

and claimed to be tried.

11. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, has examined

PW-1/who is the defacto complainant/Victim, PW-2/Circumstantial

witness and friend of the victim, PW-3/Circumstantial Witness and

father of the victim, PW-4/Mother of the victim, PW-5/who is the first

investigating officer and issued First Information Report and got

marked Ex.P1 is the Signature of the victim on complaint, Ex.P2 is the

161 Cr.P.C. Statement of the PW-1, Ex.P3 is the 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of

the PW-2, Ex.P4 is the 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of the PW-3, Ex.P5 is the

161 Cr.P.C. Statement of the PW-4, Ex.P6 is the First information report,

Ex.P7 is the Scene of offence panchanama, Ex.P8 is the rough sketch,

Ex.P9 is the Potency Test report, Ex.P10 is the FSL Report and Ex.P11 is

the Final Opinion.

12. Since PW-1 did not support the prosecution case, she denied the

occurrence of the incident as projected by the prosecution, though

ample time has been given to the prosecution to produce the witness

ie., LW-3, LW-4, LW-7 to 13, 15 and 16 but they failed to produce the

above mentioned witnesses, as such this Court is closed the evidence of

LW-3, LW-4, LW-7 to 13, 15 and 16 as no useful purpose would be

served by examining them.

XIII ADSJ
Page Nos.8 of total 15 pages Judgment in SC No.545 of 2024

13. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the Accused is

examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

stating the particulars of incriminating material made against him for

which he denied the same and claimed no defense evidence.

14. Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the prosecution is able to establish the charges
against the Accused beyond all reasonable doubt?”

15. POINT:- In order to prove the prosecution case, it has to be

established the ingredients of Sections U/Secs.376(2)(n), 417 and 493 of

IPC are framed against the Accused. Therefore, the burden lies on the

prosecution to prove its case.

16. In this case, as many as 16 witnesses are cited, out of them, P.Ws-1

to 5 were examined and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-11 on behalf of the

Prosecution.

17. PW-1 who is the defacto Complainant/Victim in this case and she

deposed in her chief Examination is that she know the accused. They are

in love for 9 years and with her consent she had sexual intercourse with

accused as accused did not agree for the marriage then she consumed

BP tablets and cut her left side wrist and that she do not know contents

of the complaint at the instance of the elders she had lodged complaint

against accused. Witness identified her signature on the complaint and

same is marked as Ex.P1. Police did not examine her and not recorded

XIII ADSJ
Page Nos.9 of total 15 pages Judgment in SC No.545 of 2024

her statement. Police referred her to Government Area Hospital,

Ramanapet for Medical examination. Due to intervention of elders she

compromised the matter with the accused and that she do not want to

proceed further in this case. Herself and accused are married with other

persons and to save her marital life she do not want to proceed with

this case. At this stage, PW-1 was declared hostile by learned Addl.

Public Prosecutor and was cross examined with the permission of the

Court; She deposed in her Cross Examination that she denied the

suggestion that she voluntarily given the complaint against the Accused

and also she know the contents of complaint and she denied the

suggestion that she was examined by LW-12/S. Divya, Woman Sub

Inspector of Police, Police Station Saroornagar and she stated before

her as in Ex P2 ie., 161 Cr.P.C statement and finally she denied the

suggestion that she is deposing false due to compromise between her

and accused.

18. PW-2/Kum. Munde Gowthami, who is the circumstantial witness

and friend of the Victim deposed that she do not know LW-4/G. Naresh,

LW-5/ V. Yadagiri, LW-6/V. Devendra are parents of PW-1 and that she

do not know accused and that she do not know contents of the

complaint. Police did not examine her and not recorded her statement.

At this stage, PW-2 was declared hostile by learned Addl. Public

Prosecutor and was cross examined with the permission of the Court;

XIII ADSJ
Page Nos.10 of total 15 pages Judgment in SC No.545 of 2024

She deposed in her Cross Examination that she denied the suggestion

that she know the contents of complaint and she denied the suggestion

that Inspector of police, Police Station Saroornagar examined and

recorded her statement and she stated before him as in Ex-P3 ie., 161

Cr.P.C statement and finally she denied the suggestion that she is

deposing false due to compromise between PW-1 and accused.

19. PW-3/ V. Yadagiri who is the father of the Victim deposed that he

know the accused, he is his distant relative and that he do not know

contents of the complaint. Police did not examine him and not recorded

his statement. At this stage, PW-3 was declared hostile by learned Addl.

Public Prosecutor and was cross examined with the permission of the

Court; He deposed in his Cross Examination that he denied the

suggestion that he know the contents of complaint and he denied the

suggestion that Inspector of police, Police Station Saroornagar

examined and recorded his statement and he stated before him as in

Ex-P4 ie., 161 Cr.P.C statement and he finally denied the suggestion that

he is deposing false due to compromise between PW-1 and accused.

20. PW-4/who is the mother of the victim deposed that she do not

know the accused and that she do not know the contents of this case.

Police did not examine her and not recorded her statement. At this

stage, PW-4 was declared hostile by learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and

was cross examined with the permission of the Court; She deposed in

XIII ADSJ
Page Nos.11 of total 15 pages Judgment in SC No.545 of 2024

her Cross Examination that she denied the suggestion that she know

the contents of complaint and she denied the suggestion that Inspector

of police recorded her statement and she stated before him as in Ex-P5

ie.,161 Cr.P.C statement and finally she denied the suggestion that she

is deposing false to help the accused.

21. PW-5/who is the first investigating officer and issued first

Information report deposed that on 02.01.2020 at about 19:30 hours,

he received a Case Diary file from Police station Valigonda through LW-

13/N. Srinivas, Circle Inspector of Police Ramanapet. Basing on that he

re-registered a case in Cr.No.5/2020 U/s.376(2)(n), 417, 493 of IPC and

issued Ex.P6 FIR. After verification of the Case Diary file this case was

registered at Valigonda Police Station in Cr.No.265/2019 U/s. 417, 493,

376(2)(n) of IPC on 24.12.2019 and on point of jurisdiction this case was

transferred to Police station Saroornagar after verification of the Case

Diary file PW-1 was sent to Medical examination at Ramanapet where

LW-9/Dr. Swathi Bai examined victim. Further he took up the

investigation and he got examined PW-1 through LW-12/S. Divya,

Woman Sub-Inspector of Police, Saroor Nagar Police Station. On the

next day ie., on 03.01.2020 he visited scene of offence along with panch

witnesses LW-7/K. Srinu, LW-8/Bhanu Kishan along with PW-1, there he

observed the scene of offence and recorded Ex.P7 scene of offence

panchanama and drawn Ex.P8 rough sketch. In the scene of offence he

XIII ADSJ
Page Nos.12 of total 15 pages Judgment in SC No.545 of 2024

examined and recorded the statements of PW-2 and LW-3/Raja

Rajeshwari, LW-4/G. Naresh. PW-2 stated before him as in Ex.P3. On

15.01.2020 he examined and recorded the statements of PW-3, PW-4.

PW-3 and PW-4 stated before him as in Ex.P4 and Ex.P5. Thereafter, he

collected vaginal swabs and material objects sent to F.S.L. for

examination on that LW-11/Dr. G. Swarna Rani issued F.S.L report. While

the investigation is in progress on 28.01.2020 accused obtained

anticipatory bail from XIV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga

Reddy District at L.B Nagar vide Crl.M.P. No.156/2020, basing on that

accused was released and also gave a consent for conducting potency

test on which accused was referred to Osmania General Hospital for

Potency test, where LW10/Dr. SK Khaja Moinuddin conducted potency

test on accused and issued Ex.P9 Potency test certificate. After

collection of Ex.P10 FSL report he collected Ex.P11 final opinion from

LW-9/Dr. Swathi Bai, Civil Asst. Surgeon, Area Hospital Ramanapet. On

his transfer he handed over the Case Diary file to LW-15/D. Venkatesh,

Detective Inspector of Police, Saroornagar.

22. During the Course of Cross Examination he deposed that he

admitted that he had not taken any separate complaint from PW-1 and

in column No.14 of the First Information Report he had not obtained

signature of PW-1.

XIII ADSJ
Page Nos.13 of total 15 pages Judgment in SC No.545 of 2024

23. Now coming to the evidence on record is the testimony of PW-5,

who is the then Inspector of Police, Saroor Nagar Police Station and he

is the first investigating officer and issued First Information Report,

though PW-5 stated about the manner of conducting of investigation

on proper lines, but he being the Police official who had taken part of

investigation in the process appears to be an interested witnesses to

the prosecution. In the absence of a corroboration, the sole testimony

of PW-5 cannot be taken as a base to convict the Accused person.

24. As stated above, PW-1/who is the defacto complainant/Victim,

PW-2/Circumstantial witness and friend of the victim, PW-

3/Circumstantial Witness and father of the victim, PW-4/Mother of the

victim, PW-5/who is the first investigating officer and issued First

Information Report and this Court has closed evidence of the remaining

witnesses ie., LW-3, LW-4, LW-7 to 13, 15 and 16. Since, the PW-1/Victim

who is the main crucial witness to speak about the facts of the case has

not deposed anything with regard to the offence committed by the

Accused.

25. In the absence of crucial evidence of PW-1 and further the

evidence of PWs-2 to 5, it is nothing but a futile exercise to discuss

about the case since, the prosecution case will not improve in any

manner by discussing the same. As such, this Court is left with no other

option except, to acquit the accused.

XIII ADSJ
Page Nos.14 of total 15 pages Judgment in SC No.545 of 2024

26. For the above reasons, this Court holds that the prosecution has

failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused for

the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 417 and 493 of IPC.

The point is answered accordingly.

27. IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the

offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 417 and 493 of Indian

Penal Code; and accordingly he is acquitted under Section 235(1)

Cr.P.C. The accused shall be set at liberty and his bail bonds shall

stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer directly on computer, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 03rd day of April,2025.

SPL. SESSIONS JUDGE FOR FAST

TRACKING THE CASES RELATING TO
ATROCITIES AGAINST WOMEN-CUM-XIII
ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
R. R. DISTRICT AT L.B NAGAR.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PROSECUTION:
PW-1: XXXX (Complainant/Victim)
PW-2: Munde Gowthami (Cir. witness and friend of the victim)
PW-3: Velimineti Yadagiri (Father of the victim)
PW-4: Velimineti Devendra (Mother of the victim)
PW-5: E. Srinivasa Reddy (who issued First Information Report and the
first investigating Officer)
For Defence:
-Nil-
EXHIBITS MARKED
For Prosecution:
Ex.P1 is the Signature of the victim on complaint,
Ex.P2 is the 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of the PW-1,

XIII ADSJ
Page Nos.15 of total 15 pages Judgment in SC No.545 of 2024

Ex.P3 is the 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of the PW-2,

Ex.P4 is the 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of the PW-3,
Ex.P5 is the 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of the PW-4,
Ex.P6 is the First information report,
Ex.P7 is the Scene of offence panchanama,
Ex.P8 is the rough sketch,
Ex.P9 is the Potency Test Certificate,
Ex.P10 is the FSL Report,
Ex.P11 is the Final Opinion.
For Defence:
-Nil-
SPL. SESSIONS JUDGE FOR FAST
TRACKING THE CASES RELATING TO
ATROCITIES AGAINST WOMEN-CUM-XIII
ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
R.R. DISTRICT AT L.B NAGAR.

XIII ADSJ