IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE
AT: MAHABUBNAGAR
(FAC, SPL. SESSIONS COURT FOR TRIAL OF CASES RELATING TO
THE ATROCITIES AGAINST WOMEN, MAHABUBNAGAR)
Thursday, the 29th day of November, 2018
Present:- Sri C. Hare Krishna Bhupathi, Prl. Sessions Judge, FAC, Spl. Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar.
S.C.No.607 of 2013
Between:
The State of Telangana through Police, II-town P.S., Mahabubnagar ….Complainant. And. Kavuru Jayanth @ Harinath s/o Sathya Narayana, age: 53 years, occ: Naturopathi Yoga Doctor, r/o Seshamma Cheruvu of Panugonda mandal of West Godavari District now at LIG-10, B4, Flat No.101, Surya City, Chandapura Bangalore city of Karnataka State.
...Accused.
U/Secs.366-A, 346 and 376 (2)(i) and (n) of IPC. Nature of offences:
Plea of the accusedPleaded not guilty. :
Finding of the courtFound not guilty. :
:In the result, the accused is found not guilty for Sentence or order the offences U/Secs.366-A, 346 and 376 (2)(i) and
(n) of IPC and, accordingly, the accused is acquitted u/sec.235 (1) Cr.P.C for the offences u/secs.366-A, 346 and 376 (2) (i) and (n) of IPC.
The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after the expiry of the appeal time.
-o0o-
This case coming up before me for hearing on 22.11.2018 in the presence of Smt.S.Uma Maheswari, Additional Public Prosecutor for the
State and of Sri.B.Balaswamy, Advocate for the accused and upon perusing the material on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:- 2
J U D G M E N T
1.This case is tried against the accused for the offences U/secs.366-A, 346 and 376 (2)(i) and (n) of IPC.
2.Shorn of the unnecessary details, the factual matrix germane to the prosecution case is as follows:-
The victim (whose name is not disclosed in view of the bar u/s 228-A of I.P.C and also as guided by the Apex Court in 'State of Karnataka Vs.
Puttaraja – (2004 (3) ALT (Crl.) S.C. Page 6) is the daughter of PW.4 and late Vijay Mohan, who resided in New Gunj of Mahabubnagar. During the year 2012, late Vijay Mohan suffered from cancer. While getting him treated in Omega Hospital, Hyderabad, the family members of late Vijay
Mohan, more particularly, PW.5, who is the elder brother of the said Vijay
Mohan, preferred an alternative treatment to him through the accused who proclaimed to be a Naturopathy doctor. The accused was provided accommodation in the first floor of the building where late Vijay Mohan resided with his family, to provide medical aid to Vijay Mohan. The victim (PW.2) is the second daughter of late Vijay Mohan and she was studying 10th class in N.P.Subba Reddy High School in Mahabubnagar. The accused, with a malafide intention to have sexual intercourse with PW.2, informed her that her father’s health had deteriorated and that he would soon die within a couple of months and for that there was a need of performing some religious ceremonies and rituals in some famous temples in
Karnataka and Tamilnadu states and also influenced her mind strongly that she was required to perform those rituals. For a few days prior to 30.08.2012, the accused left the house of PW.2 after handing over a cell phone to her that he would be contacting her and guiding her to reach the places in Karnataka, so that he would receive her. On 29.08.2012, the accused greeted the elder sister of PW.2, by name, Gayathri, through phone on the eve of her birthday and also talked with PW.2 by asking her to come to him on the next day by somehow managing her family 3 members with some sort of hoax. On 30.08.2012 in the morning, PW.1 informed her family members that she was leaving for school and she was dropped at the school by PW.1, the younger brother of late Vijay Mohan.
After waiting for a while, PW.2 left for Raichur by bus and contacted the accused through cell phone. The accused asked her to come to Bangalore by train so that he would receive her. Accordingly, PW.2 boarded a train and reached Bangalore on the next day morning. The accused took her to
Palani, Dharmsthalam, Hampi, Vijayanagaram, Pasava and some other religious places and made her perform religious rituals and ceremonies.
He also took her to some places in West Godavari District and from there finally to Universal Peace Foundation in Tamilanadu State. During the period of these stays, the accused and PW.2 used to stay in one room and the accused had sexual intercourse with PW.2 by making lewd overtures towards her and also keeping her under the influence of some medicines, which he pretended to have given to her to alleviate the headache complained of by PW.2. PW.2 also found that her bed was tidy and that her clothes were disheveled by the time she woke up and all those suggested to her that she had been ravished by the accused. The accused was ostensibly representing to others at those places that PW.2 was his daughter. On 09.11.2012, PW.2 somehow got an opportunity to contact through the cell phone to her sister to whom she had revealed all the facts. In the meantime, PW.1 lodged Ex.P1 report with PW.12, the then S.I of Police, II-town P.S., Mahabubnagar on 06.09.2012 about the missing of PW.2 and also placing some suspicion on the accused. PW.12 registered Ex.P7 F.I.R., under the head ‘Girl missing’ and commenced the investigation. PW.12 observed the scene of offence on 06.09.2012 at about 17.30 hours in the presence of PW.6 and LW.9 Veeranna under a cover of Ex.P2 Crime Details Form-cum-rough sketch. LW.17 Mr. Durgaiah, the then Inspector of Police, II-town P.S., Mahabubnagar, took up the investigation. On reliable information, the said Inspector of Police 4 deputed PWs.10 and 11, the two Police Head Constables working in II- town P.S., Mahabubnagar, to Karnataka and Tamilnadu States by providing a passport size photo of PW.2 to trace out her. Accordingly, PWs.10 and 11 visited several places in Karnataka and finally reached Universal Peace
Foundation, Tamilnadu. They traced out PW.2, but the accused escaped.
PWs.10 and 11 brought PW.2 to the office of the Inspector of Police, II- town P.S., Mahabubnagar, on 09.11.2012. The inspector of police got the statement of PW.2 recorded by PW.12 and referred PW.2 to the
Government Hospital, Mahabubnagar for medical examination, where she was examined by PW.8. On 20.03.2013 at about 07.00 hours, the
Inspector of Police arrested the accused at the railway station,
Mahabubnagar and, after bringing him to the police station, referred him to the Government Hospital, Mahabubnagar for determination of his sexual potency and PW.9 examined the accused in the Government
Hospital, Mahabubnagar and issued Ex.P6 potency certificate thereby holding that the accused was sexually potent. Thereafter, the accused was produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Mahabubnagar for judicial custody and, subsequently, the accused was enlarged on bail granted by the Sessions Court. PW.13, the immediate successor of LW.17 Durgaiah, took up the further investigation and, on the completion of the investigation and on the receipt of the medical records, he filed the charge sheet thereby alleging that the accused committed the offences punishable u/secs.366-A, 405 and 376 of IPC.
3.This case was taken on file for the offences U/Secs.366-A, 405 and 376 of IPC against the accused by the learned Judicial Magistrate of
First Class, Mahabubnagar and, on the appearance of the accused before
that court, the copies of the charge sheet and all the annexures thereto were furnished to him in compliance of sec.207 of Cr.P.C. Basing upon the prima-facie case for the committal of the offences u/Secs.366-A and 376 of IPC, which are exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, besides the 5 other offence u/sec.405 of IPC, the case was committed u/sec.209 Cr.PC to the Sessions Court, Sessions Division, Mahabubnagar. The Sessions Court, after taking the cognizance of the offences u/secs.366-A, 405 and 376 of
IPC against the accused and, on assigning the case number, made over the case to the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar, for trial.
4.During the year 2016, this case was transferred from that court to this court being the designated court for trial of cases relating to the atrocities against women, as per the orders dated: 19.09.2016 in
Dis.No.4669/2017 of the Prl. District and Sessions Court, Mahabubnagar.
5.On the appearance of the accused before the Court and after hearing the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State and the learned defence counsel appearing for the accused, and upon the consideration of all the material placed by the prosecution, this court framed the charges u/secs.366-A, 346 and 376 (2) (i) and (n) of IPC against the accused and the said charges were read over and explained to the accused u/s.228 (2) of Cr.P.C and he having understood the same, denied the offence, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The accused is defended by his advocate.
6.In order to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offences arraigned against the accused, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 13 and got marked Exs.P1 to P8 on the prosecution side. The accused was examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C and he denied the incriminating evidence of the prosecution and further stated the same to be false. During the course of the examination of the accused u/Sec.313 Cr.PC, the accused stated that a huge arrears payable to him towards his fees for the treatment of Vijay
Mohan mounted up to a tune of Rs.2,20,000/- and when he asked for that amount, PW.1 and his other family members manhandled him and spoke ill of him and they got him falsely implicated in this case with a cooked up story. The accused stated that he had no defence evidence.
6
7.After the completion of the trial, the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor representing the State and the learned defence counsel appearing for the accused submitted their arguments and, thereafter, the case is coming for judgment.
8.Now, the following points arise for determination:
1) Whether the accused kidnapped the victim (PW.2), a minor girl, on 30.08.2012 from Mahabubnagar, with intent to seduce her and procure her for sexual intercourse and wrongfully confined her at different places in Karnataka and Tamilnadu States till 09.11.2012?
2) Whether the accused committed rape on the victim (PW.2) during the period of her wrongful confinement under him till 09.11.2012?
3) Whether the prosecution has brought home the guilt of the accused for the offences u/secs.366-A, 346 and 376 (2) (i) and (n) of
IPC beyond reasonable doubt?
9.POINT Nos.1 to 3:- The gravamen of the charges framed against the accused is that on 30.08.2012, the accused kidnapped the victim (PW.2), a minor girl, from the lawful guardianship of her parents in
New Gunj, Mahabubnagar by making her to come over to Bangalore via
Riachur and, after having kept her in wrongful confinement in different places in Karnakata and Tamilnadu states with the final destination in
Universal Peace Foundation in Tamilnadu State, repeatedly and several times committed rape on her while keeping her in the same room with him at those places and finally, the victim (PW.2) was rescued by PWs.10 and 11 on 09.11.2012 at Universal Peace Foundation Centre in Tamilnadu.
The defence taken by the accused is a total denial. As could be seen from the suggestions put to the prosecution witnesses, the stand of the accused is that the fees payable to him for giving treatment as a
Naturopathy doctor to the father of PW.2, by name, late Vijay Mohan, ran into a huge amount and, when he demanded for the payment of those arrears, the family of PW.2 grew wild and picked up a quarrel with him and 7 to evade that payment, they made him falsely implicated in this case.
During the course of his examination done u/Sec.313 Cr.PC, the accused stated the same version and quoted that defaulted fee at Rs.2,20,000/- allegedly due from the family of PW.2.
10.Out of 13 witnesses examined by the prosecution, PW.2 is the victim, PW.4 is her mother and PWs.1 and 5 are her Junior Paternal Uncles being the younger brothers of her deceased father late Vijay Mohan. PW.3 is the wife of PW.1 and PW.7 is their relative. PW.2 is the only direct witness to speak about the incident and the evidence of PWs.1, 3 to 5 and 7 is about their knowledge of the missing of PW.1 from the house of
PWs.1, 3 and 4 and about the lodging of a report by PW.1. PW.6 is examined for the proof of Ex.P2. The evidence of PWs.10 and 11 is about their rescuing PW.2 from Universal Peace Foundation, Tamilanadu and about the brining of PW.2 to the office of the Inspector of Police, II-town
P.S., Mahabubnagar on 09.11.2012. PWs.8 and 9 are the medical officers examined for the proof of Exs.P3 to P6 medical reports. PWs.12 and 13 are the investigating officers examined to speak about their investigation right from the stage of the registration of Ex.P7 F.I.R., by PW.12 on the strength of Ex.P1 report lodged by PW.1 till the filing of the charge sheet by PW.13.
11.As adumbrated above, the evidence of PWs.1, 3 to 5 and 7, the relatives of PW.2, is to speak about their knowledge of the missing of PW.2 from the house of PW.1, 3 and 4 on 30.08.2012 and about the lodging of
Ex.P1 report by PW.1. They deposed in their evidence that the accused used to stay in the first floor portion of the house of PWs.1 to 4 for the treatment of the father of PW.2 late Vijay Mohan for cancer and that on 30.08.2012, PW.2 left the house by informing the family members that she was going to her school, but she didn’t return home and, after making searches for her, PW.1 lodged Ex.P1 report with the police. They have 8 also further deposed that the accused was also found missing from the same day and hence they entertained a suspicion on the accused for the missing of PW.1. In the cross-examination done to PWs.1 and 4, they admitted that a case in S.C.No.19/2014 on the file of the learned Assistant
Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar was tried against one Pathlavath Ravinder
for allegedly kidnapping PW.2 on 16.04.2012 and committing rape on her and in that case, both of them deposed as the witnesses for the prosecution. PW.1 also further admitted in the same cross-examination that during the course of the recording of a statement of PW.2 by a W.P.C., in the investigation of that case, PW.2 stated that she had been in
Tamilnadu State during that time. PW.4 also further admitted that PW.2 was also examined as a witness in the said case, whereas PW.2 denied of those facts, of which there will be a separate discussion on that aspect while dealing with the evidence of PW.2 hereunder. PW.4 further deposed in her cross-examination that PW.2 was brought to their house by Ramesh
Naidu, the son of her husband’s elder sister, two months after the missing of PW.2 from their house. It is a fact that all of them stated that the accused was paid his fees for treating Vijay Mohan. PW.2 stated that the accused was paid Rs.2,000/- per day, whereas the other witnesses including PW.5 stated that the accused was paid Rs.5,000/- per day for treating Vijay Mohan. However, all of them denied the suggestions put to them by the learned defence counsel that they committed default in payment of fees to the accused which ran to the arrears of a huge amount and that the accused left the house for the non-receipt of his fees and then he was again brought, but this time also, the arrears of fees were not paid and that a quarrel was also picked up by them with the accused.
They have denied the suggestions put to them that a false case was foisted against the accused due to this grouse and also to evade the payment of the arrears of fees to the accused.
9
12.PW.2, who is the prime witness for the prosecution, and, who, in fact, is the only direct witness to speak about the crucial facts of the prosecution case, deposed in her chief-examination that the accused, while staying in the first floor in their house for treating her father late
Vijay Mohan, created a panicky in her mind that her father would die due to aggravated cancer and hence it was necessitated to perform some religious rituals in some famous temples in Karnataka and Tamilnadu
States, which were required to be performed by her and thereby influenced her mind which made her to leave for Bangalore via Raichur on 30.08.2012. PW.2 further deposed that the accused took her to several places in Karnataka and Tamilnadu States and finally to Universal Peace
Foundation in Tamilnadu and while keeping her in a single room with him, the accused used to misbehave with her by forcing her to kiss him and sometimes she went into semi unconscious state after taking the medicine given by the accused ostensibly for the cure of headache complained of by her and that she had a reason to believe that she was ravished by the accused, since she found her clothes disheveled and the bed untidy by the time she woke up and that she had also found the vaginal bleeding some times and that she also expressed pains in her body. She further stated that she suspected that the accused had sexual intercourse with her by keeping her under the influence of medicines given by him. It is also the evidence of PW.2 that the accused introduced her as his daughter to those present in Universal Peace Foundation and also to Guru Mahanand of that Ashram. PW.2 deposed that the accused took away her gold jewellery and disappeared from that place and when the authorities of Universal Peace Foundation enquired her by posing some suspicion on the behaviour of the accused, she revealed all the facts to them and, with their help, she contacted her sister on phone and within 2 or 3 three days, the police came and rescued her. She also stated that her two elder brothers also came along with the police. She 10 further stated that her statement was also recorded by the learned Spl.
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Prohibition and Excise, Mahabubnagar
besides a statement recorded by the police.
13.In the cross-examination done to PW.2, she deposed that the accused kept her under lock and key in the room while leaving the room and that he threatened to cause harm to her parents in case she raised any hue and cry and hence she could not raise any hue and cry. She also further stated that on the next day of leaving of the accused, she informed the authorities of Universal Peace Foundation and took their help in contacting her sister. She denied of having deposed as PW.2 in
S.C.No.19/2014 on the file of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge,
Mahabubnagar and also of the case tried regarding her kidnap and rape by an accused, by name, Pathalvath Ravinder, as per the case registered by the II-town P.S., Mahabubnagar and also the other fact that her mother and PW.1 also deposed as witnesses besides her in the said case. As per the evidence of PW.12, the investigating officer who recorded the statement from PW.2, PW.2 did not state before him that she had informed to the authorities of Universal Peace Foundation about the accused and they helped her in contacting the elder sister on phone and that the accused left that place after taking her gold jewellery and that PW.2 also did not state before him that the accused used to force her to kiss him and that she found the vaginal bleeding during the period of her stay with the accused. PW.12 further deposed that PW.2 also did not state before him that the accused used to tell others and Guru Mahanand of Universal
Peace Foundation that PW.2 was his daughter. As a matter of fact, the version of the statement of PW.2 recorded by PW.9 that on one day the accused went out to bring money and, during his absence, she found the cell phone of the accused through which she contacted her sister and, at that stage, does not appear in the evidence of PW.1 deposed before the court, but a totally different version is presented by her about her escape.
11
Furthermore, as stated by PW.2, she did not state before PW.12 that she had taken the help of the authorities of Universal Peace Foundation when they enquired her about the suspicious conduct of the accused. It is pointed out by the learned defence counsel that there is a glaring variation in the statement of PW.2 recorded by the learned Spl. Judicial
Magistrate of First Class, Prohibition and Excise, Mahabubnagar, wherein
PW.2 did not state the facts as those of the accused forcing her to have sexual intercourse with him and also her entertaining a suspicion that she had been ravished by the accused, but the only version stated by her during that time was that the accused took away her gold jewellery and disappeared from her presence and, thereafter, she contacted her brother on phone (whereas the statement of PW.2 before the court as well as in the statement given to the police is that she contacted her sister on phone).
14.The learned counsel for the accused has placed much reliance on the certified copy of the judgment dated: 26.06.2015 in S.C.No.19/2014 on the file of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar, placed by the accused during the course of the examination done u/Sec.313
Cr.PC, of which the learned counsel for the accused had a lot of cross- examination done to PWs.1 to 4, as discussed above. It is already discussed while dealing with their evidence that there were admissions of
PWs.2 and 4 about their depositions during the course of that trial and also about the fact that a case was registered by the police against one
Pathlavath Ravinder that he kidnapped PW.2 on 16.04.2012 and committed rape on her. A perusal of that judgment which forms part of the record after filing of the same before the court by the accused during the course of his examination u/Sec.313 Cr.PC, reveals the fact that a case in Cr.No.115/2012 was registered by the same police, i.e., II-town P.S.,
Mahabubnagar against Pathlavath Ravinder that he kidnapped PW.2 on 16.04.2012 on a car and committed rape on PW.2 and that PW.2 escaped 12 from him and she went to Hyderabad and finally returned home on 20.04.2012. Curiously, PW.2, who is the victim and the prime witness in that case, turned hostile to the prosecution and denied to have stated
before the police as in Ex.P3 marked therein. So also, PWs.1 and 4 herein,
who were also examined as PWs.1 and 4 in that case, turned hostile to the prosecution and denied to have stated before the police as in Exs.P2 and
P5 respectively. Interestingly, the elder sister of PW.2, by name, Gayathri, who was examined as PW.3 in that case, also turned hostile to the prosecution and denied to have stated before the police as in Ex.P3. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar, expressed surprise in discussing the fact as to why there was a long delay in filing the charge sheet by the police by waiting for about 1½ years despite the return of
PW.2 to her home on 20.04.2012 as per the version of the prosecution and also further expressed a finding on the lack of consistency in the evidence of the prosecution by pointing out that as per the evidence of one W.P.C., who was examined as PW.5 in that case, the victim was traced out at
Universal Peace Foundation on 09.11.2012 and was brought back, which was against the version of that case that PW.2 returned home on 20.04.2012. Those observations made in that case would show some nexus between that case and this case. First and foremost, the version of the prosecution in that case that PW.2 was kidnapped and subjected to rape on 16.04.2012 by one Pathlavath Ravinder was disbelieved by that court and, furthermore, there was no consistency in the version of the prosecution as pointed out in that case regarding the date on which PW.2 joined her family members, since the version of the prosecution is that
PW.2 returned home on 20.04.2012, whereas one constable, by name,
N.Laxmi, who was examined as PW.5 in that case, stated a different version that PW.2 was traced out in Universal Peace Foundation,
Tamilnadu on 09.11.2012. In the light of those facts, now it is essential to make a discussion of the evidence of PWs.10 and 11, who are the 13 witnesses examined by the prosecution to speak about the facts regarding the rescue and recovery of PW.2 from the Universal Peace
Foundation, Tamilnadu and that discussion is made in the immediate succeeding para hereunder.
15.PW.10 deposed in his evidence that while he was working as a constable in II-town P.S., Mahabubnagar, he had been deputed by the then
Inspector of Police to go to Bangalore on 01.11.2012 to trace out PW.2 and, accordingly, he went there and that he also visited Universal Peace
Foundation, where he found PW.2 and after identifying PW.2 with the help of a passport size photo possessed by him, he brought her to
Mahabubnagar on 09.11.2012 and handed over her to the Inspector of
Police. Throughout his chief-examination, he did not speak about the presence of PW.11 with him at the time of that rescue of PW.2 from the
Universal Peace Foundation. In the cross-examination, he stated that
PW.11 also accompanied him and besides PW.11 one W.P.C., by name,
Laxmi, also accompanied them. PW.10 took a stand that they found PW.2 in Universal Peace Foundation on 07.11.2012 and then brought her to
Mahabubnagar. PW.11 deposed in a different manner that they found
PW.2 on 08.11.2012 in Universal Peace Foundation and then they started at Tamilnadu on 08.11.2012 along with PW.2. PW.13, the Investigating
Officer who filed the charge sheet, stated in the cross-examination that as per the facts mentioned by him in the charge sheet, PWs.10 and 11 traced out PW.2 at Universal Peace Foundation on 09.11.2012 and brought her to the police station, Mahabubnagar. There is a big discrepancy between the versions presented by the prosecution, since there could not be a possibility to trace out PW.2 on 09.11.2012 if really the version of
PW.11 is correct that they started at Tamilnadu State on 08.11.2012. As against the version of PW.10 that one W.P.C., also accompanied them,
PW.11 took a different stand that he and PW.10 alone went to Bangalore in search of PW.2. When it is the version of PWs.10 and 11 that they went to 14
Universal Peace Foundation, it is expected of them to have mentioned the place where the said foundation is situated. PW.10 is of the view that the said Universal Peace Foundation is in Karnataka State itself. After much cross-examination, he stated that Universal Peace Foundation is in
Karnataka State near Tamilnadu border. PWs.10 and 11 stated that they did not record any statement from those present in Universal Peace
Foundation. PW.11 deposed that he did not remember the police station where he gave the intimation regarding their visit to Universal Peace
Foundation. The prosecution failed to place any iota of record to show that PWs.10 and 11 visited Universal Peace Foundation and brought PW.2 from that place. To make things much worse, PWs.12 and 13 deposed in their evidence that none of them visited Universal Peace Foundation,
Tamilnadu to make any investigation and that they also did not visit any of the places which were said to have been visited by PW.2 and the accused before reaching Universal Peace Foundation. There is no satisfactory explanation forthcoming from these two investigating officers about their failure to do any investigation in those places.
16.PW.8, the doctor who examined PW.2 in the Government
Hospital, Mahabubnagar, deposed in her evidence that as per Ex.P5 final opinion given by her, no definite opinion regarding the sexual assault can be given. PW.9, who claimed to have examined the accused for the purpose of issuing Ex.P6 potency certificate, stated in the cross- examination that he did not note the identification moles of the accused in Ex.P6 and also did not note the age of the accused and also the other fact as to who escorted the accused for bringing him for medical examination and that he used a printed proforma for issuance of Ex.P6.
17.The evidence of PW.2 does not seem to be worthy of total reliance without looking for the necessary corroboration, since the facts spoken by her before the court are variant from her earlier statement 15 recorded by PW.12 about some of the material particulars, as pointed out above, and also due to the fact that PW.2 blatantly denied of having been examined as PW.2 in S.C.No.19/2014 on the file of the learned Assistant
Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar, of which a certified copy of the judgment
is placed by the accused, in addition to the fact admitted by PWs.1 and 4 that PWs.1, 2 and 4 were examined as the witnesses in that case.
Moreover, the case of the prosecution in S.C.No.19/2014 is also on similar offences arraigned against one Pathlavath Ravinder, i.e., about the kidnapping and rape of PW.2, which ended in acquittal, more due to the hostile evidence of PW.2 and also PWs.1 and 4 herein and other witnesses in that case. These facts suggest that PW.2 is in the habit of making similar complaints to the police. Above all, that incident concerned in
S.C.No.19/2014 on the file of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge,
Mahabubnagar is said to have happened on 16.04.2012, which is nearer to the period of the incident stated in the present case and, furthermore, the rescue of PW.2 seemed to have been stated in that case on 09.11.2012 from Universal Peace Foundation, which fact was, in fact, not connected to that case, but a fact relevant to the present case on hand.
As pointed out above, the evidence of PWs.10 and 11 is filled with several discrepancies and inconsistencies with regard to the fact of their rescuing
PW.2 from Universal Peace Foundation in Tamilnadu State. In the same context, it is essential to mention that both PWs.12 and 13 admitted in their cross-examination that no investigation was done by anyone of them into the aspect of the theft of jewellery committed by the accused and no recovery of any such jewellery was made by them. The medical evidence of PW.8 also did not give much support to the prosecution case, since a definite opinion regarding the recent sexual assault on PW.2 was ruled out by PW.8 in Ex.P5.
18.On a holistic consideration of all these facts, this court is of the considered view that the prosecution has failed in placing cogent, 16 convincing, reliable and trustworthy evidence to prove the guilt of the accused for the offences u/Secs.366-A, 346 and 376 (2) (i) and (n) of IPC beyond reasonable doubt and, under these circumstances, the accused is entitled to seek a strong benefit of doubt in his favour. Hence, I found the accused not guilty for the offences u/Secs.366-A, 346 and 376 (2) (i) and
(n) of IPC.
19.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences
U/Secs.366-A, 346 and 376 (2)(i) and (n) of IPC and, accordingly, the accused is acquitted u/sec.235 (1) Cr.P.C for the offences u/secs.366-A, 346 and 376 (2) (i) and (n) of IPC. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after the expiry of the appeal time.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 29th day of November,
2018.
Prl. Sessions Judge, FAC, X Addl. Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar.
Appendix of Evidence: [Witnesses examined for] Prosecution:
PW.1V.Srinivasulu, PW.2Victim (the name is not disclosed as barred U/s 228-A of IPC and as observed by the Apex Court in State of Karnataka Vs. Puttaraj (2004 (2) ALT (SC) 6) as discussed in para 2 of the judgment), PW.3V.Jyothi, PW.4V.Vijayalaxmi, PW.5Vijaya Manohar, PW.6J.Raghu, PW.7U.Anand, PW.8Dr.A.Laxmi Padma Priya, PW.9Dr.G.Bucha Reddy, PW.10D.Yadaiah Goud, PW.11K.Amarnath, PW.12J.Srinivas, PW.13M.Appala Naidu.
Defence:
-None- Exhibits marked for 17
Prosecution:
Ex.P1Report of PW.1 dt: 06.09.2012 to the police, Ex.P2Crime Details Form-cum-rough sketch, Ex.P3Certificate issued by PW.8, Ex.P4F.S.L., Report, Ex.P5Final opinion, Ex.P6Potency certificate, Ex.P7F.I.R., in Cr.No.220/12 of II-town P.S. Mahabubnagar, Ex.P8Age determination certificate.
Defence:
- Nil -
Material Objects marked:
- Nil -
Prl. Sessions Judge, FAC, X Addl. Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar.