IN THE COURT OF THE SPL. SESSIONS JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF
CASES UNDER PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL
OFFENCES ACT-CUM- I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,
WARANGAL.
Tuesday, this the 23rd day of October, 2018
PRESENT: N. Jaya Raj, Spl. Sessions Judge for trial of cases under Protection of children from Sexual Offences Act-cum- I Additional Sessions
Judge,Warangal.
SPL. SESSIONS CASE NO.17/2017
(in Crime No. 74/2016 of P.S.Thorrur)
1.Name and description of the :The State of Telangana rep. by complainantSub Inspector of Police,Thorrur.
2.Name and description of the :A.1. Bhukya Kasiram S/o. accusedNarsimha, 22 yrs, Lambada, Driver, R/o. Dubba thanda. A.2.Guguloth Baby Shalini W/o. Hari Dass, 20 yrs, Lambada, R/o, BudharavapetVillageof Khanapuram.
3.Offence charged:offences punishable under Sections 366, 343, 506, 354-D of Indian Penal Code of Crl. Law (Amendment) Act and Section 11 read with 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act against A.1 and under Section 366 read with 109 of the Indian Penal Code against A.2.
4.Plea of the accused:Pleaded not guilty
5.Finding of the Court:Found not guilty
6.Conviction,sentenceor :In the result, the accused Nos. acquittal1 and 2 are acquitted under Section 235 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the offencepunishableunder Sections 366, 343, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 354-D of the Indian Penal Code of Criminal Law Amendment Act and Section 11 read with 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act against the accused No.1 and under Section 366 read with 109 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused No.2. Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled. There is no 2 SSC.No,. 17/2017 order as to the property in view of pendency of case against the JCL-Bhukya Kavitha on the file of Juvenile Justile Board, Warangal.
7.Name of the Counsel for the :Addl.P.P. prosecution
8.Name of the Counsel for :Sri K.Krupakar Rao. accused
This case coming on this day for final hearing on 12.10.2018 before me in the presence of Additional Public Prosecutor for the State/complainant and of Sri K.Krupakar Rao, Counsel for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:
:: J U D G M E N T ::
Briefly stated the averments of the charge sheet filed by the
Sub-Inspector of Police, Thorrur against the accused Nos. 1 and 2 are as follows:
2. On 31st March, 2016 evening at about 1630 hours, P.W.9 came to the house of P.Ws. 1 to 3 and told the victim to accompany her for shopping, for which the victim took permission from her mother-P.W.3 and the victim along with P.W.9 and her aunt Bhukya
Yakamma altogether went to clothes store, where they exchanged dressed and later when they went to bangle shop, at the same time
A.2 and J.C.L. Bhukya Kavitha came to the victim and said her to come with them for purchasing sarees, for which the victim along with A.2 and J.C.L were proceeding on foot and all of a sudden an unknown car came and stopped beside them. Immediately A.2 and J.C.L pushed the victim into the said car, where A.1 was present in the car, caught hold of the victim and made her to sit in the car threatening to kill her if she raises hues and cries. He took her to Hanamkonda Bus stand, boarded her in a bus and took her to Karimnagar. That from there A.1 took her to Hyderabad bus stand, where they boarded Karnataka train and went to Karnataka. That A.1 forced her to marry him but when the 3 SSC.No,. 17/2017 victim refused the proposal, he kept her in a unknown room for three days and they did not participate in any sexual intercourse. That on 7th April, 2016, when she cried a lot, the accused No.1 took her to
Karnataka Railway Station, boarded her in Hyderabad train and brought her to Hyderabad. That A.1 went to fetch water in Hyderabad
Railway Station, the victim escaped, boarded Secunderabad bus and got down in Secunderabad Bus stand and phoned to her father through coin box phone. That the father of the victim telephoned to her uncle
Gumlal, who is residing at Secunderabad and informed the same. That the said Gumala and her brother came and brought the victim to police
Station, Thorrur in a car. That from the evidence collected in the investigation, it is established that the accused No.1 committed the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 343, 506 of the Indian
Penal Code and Section 354-D of Indian Penal Code of Criminal Law
Amendment Act, 2013 and Section 11 read with 12 of the Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act and that A.2 and J.C.L committed the offences punishable under Sections 363 read with 109 of the Indian
Penal Code.
3. The cognizance of the offences is taken for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 343, 506 of the Indian Penal
Code, Section 354-D of Criminal Law Amendment Act of the Indian
Penal Code and under Section 11 read with 12 of Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act against the accused No.1 and for the offence punishable under Section 363 read with 109 of the Indian
Penal Code against the accused No.2.
4 SSC.No,. 17/2017
4. On appearance of the accused Nos. 1 and 2, copies of the documents are furnished , as contemplated under Section 207 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure.
5. Under Section 226 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor opened the case of the prosecution.
6. Under Section 228(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, charges framed for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 343, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 354-D of the Indian Penal Code of
Criminal Law Amendment Act and Section 11 read with 12 of Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act against the accused No.1 and for the offence punishable under Section 366 read with 109 of the Indian Pneal
Code against A.2, read over and explained to them as required Sub
Section (2) of Section 228 Cr.P.C.
7. The accused Nos. 1 and 2 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
8. Under Section 230 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, schedule for prosecution evidence is issued.
9. Under Section 231 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, prosecution in all examined 11 witnesses and got marked Exs.P1 to P.10. Exs.D.1 and
D.2 are marked in the cross-examination of P.W.1. Ex.D.3 is marked in the cross-examination of P.W.11. The prosecution given up the evidence of
L.W.10-K.Jayanthi, Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mahabubabad, 5 SSC.No,. 17/2017
L.W.13.G.Subba Reddy, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Thorrur and
L.W.14-D.Ramana Murthy, Sub-Inspector of Police Station, Thorrur.
10. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused Nos. 1 and 2 examined under Section 313 (1) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure by explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The accused Nos. 1 and 2 denied the same. Exs.D.4 and D.5 are marked at the time of Section 313 (1) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure of accused No.1 on behalf of defence.
11. No witnesses are examined on behalf of defence.
12. Heard the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for prosecution and the learned counsel for the accused.
13. The point for consideration is:
Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 343, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 354-D of the Indian Penal Code of Criminal Law Amendment Act and Section 11 read with 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and guilt of accused No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 366 read with 109
of the Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt?
14. Point: P.W.1-victim in her chief-examination deposed that she was studying Degree first year in Sairam Degree College, Thorrur at the time of incident. That on 31.3.2016 at 4.30 PM PW.9-Dharavath
Anitha came to her while she was at her house and asked her to accompany her for shopping. That then she told her to ask her mother. That her mother permitted her. That herself, P.W.9-D. Anitha and one Yakamma went to Mahalaxmi Cloth Shop situated at Thorrur.
6 SSC.No,. 17/2017
That she exchanged clothes at the said shop. That from there they went to bangle shop situated at Thorrur. That then accused No.2 and
Bhukya Kavitha (JCL) came to the said shop and asked her to come for purchase of saree for accused No.2 at Thorrur. That herself, A.2 and
Bhukya Kavitha-JCL were walking on road at Thorrur. That suddenly one car came and stopped. That then accused No.2 and Bhukya
Kavitha (JCL) pushed her inside the car. That accused No.1 pulled her inside the car. That accused No.1 took her to Hanamkonda bus stand.
That accused No.1 asked her board RTC bus bound to Karimnagar along with him. That she boarded the said bus. That accused No.1 took her to the house of your friend at Karimnagar. That the mother of friend of accused No.1 asked accused No.1 as to why he brought her to their house. That she was weeping. That then accused No.1 told that accused No.1 will take her to her house. That accused No.1 took her to
Karimnagar bus stand and from there accused No.1 took her to
Hyderabad in RTC bus. That accused No.1 took her to railway station at Hyderabad and got her boarded in a train bound to Karnataka along with accused No.1. That accused No.1 took her to one room at
Karnataka and asked her to marry him. That she refused to marry accused No.1 by weeping. That he kept her in the room for three days.
P.W.1 further deposed that on 7.4.2016 she cried to take her to her house. That accused No.1 took her to Karnataka railway station stating that he will take her to her house. That they boarded a train bound to Hyderabad and got down at Hyderabad. That the accused
No.1 went to drink water at railway station. That she escaped and boarded a bus and went to Secunderabad bus stand. That she telephoned to her father through coin box telephone. That her father informed to her paternal uncle-Gumlal who is residing at Secunderabad 7 SSC.No,. 17/2017 through telephone. That he came along with her cousin Dharavath
Bhanu Prasad to Secunderabad bus stand and took her to Uppal Ring
Road. That there her father came and took her to Thorrur police station on 8.4.2016. That Thorrur police asked to come in the morning as it was night time. That on 9.4.2016 she was examined by the police. That she gave her statement under section 164 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure before Principal JFCM, Mahabubabad. That Ex.P1 is her 164 Cr.P.C statement.
15. P.W.2-Dharavath Manji Naik deposed that on 31.3.2016 at 4.30 p.m. P.W.9-Dharavath Anitha came to their house and asked his wife,
P.W.3-Vimala, to send the victim along with her as she is intending to buy clothes for herself at Thorrur. That his wife sent the victim along with LW3-Dharavath Anitha to Thorrur. That the victim and P.W.9-
Dharavath Anitha came out from the Mahalaxmi shop at Thorrur and when they were in front of the said shop on the main road, accused
No.2 and JCL-Bhukya Kavitha who were present there asked the victim to accompany them as they were also intending to purchase clothes, upon which the victim stated to them that already it was late in the evening and she intends to go to the house. Dharavath Anitha went into the said Mahalaxmi shop and when she returned, by that time the victim was found missing. That P.W.9-Dharavath Anitha asked accused No.2 and JCL-Bhukya Kavitha. That they informed P.W.9-
Dharavath Anitha that accused No.1 took away the victim in a car.
That he came to know about the same through P.W.9-Dharavath
Anitha. That they searched for the victim at Warangal, Karimnagar,
Kaleshwaram and Khammam. That they could not find her. That he gave complaint Ex.P2 to police, Thorrur on the same day in the night at 8 SSC.No,. 17/2017 10.00 or 11.00 pm. That on 8.4.2016 he received a phone call from his victim daughter stating that she is calling from coin box telephone near Alfa Hotel, Secunderabad railway station and informed him that the accused No.1 went for drinking water and she escaped and calling her. That then, he questioned whether she committed any mistake physically or mentally and if so, she won’t show her face to her. That then, she told that she has not committed any mistake and that accused No.1 was not leaving her hand as such she could not telephone all these days. That then, he asked her to telephone to
Dharavath Bhanu Prasad and Dharavath Bhoomi Lal, who were residing at Hyderabad at that time. That he telephoned to them to receive the victim and they were on the way from Thorrur. That they have brought the victim to Uppal Ring Road by the time they reached there. That they handed over the victim to him. That the victim informed him when he questioned that P.W.9-Dharavath Anitha came to their house and asked his wife,P.W.3-Vimala, to send her along with her as she is intending to buy clothes for herself at Thorrur and that his wife sent her along with P.W.9-Dharavath Anitha to Thorrur and that after purchasing clothes by P.W.3-Dharavath Anitha when the victim and P.W.9 came out from the Mahalaxmi shop at Thorrur and when they were in front of the said shop on the main road, accused No.2 and
JCL-Bhukya Kavitha who were present there asked the victim to accompany them as they were also intending to purchase clothes, upon which the victim stated to them that already it was late in the evening and she intends to go to the house and that Dharavath Anitha went into the said Mahalaxmi shop again and that accused No.1 came in a car and opened the door of the car and that accused No.2 and JCL-
Bhukya Kavitha pushed the victim into the car forcibly by gagging her 9 SSC.No,. 17/2017 mouth and closed the door of the car and accused No.1 took her to
Hanamkonda bus stand and parked the vehicle in a street near the bus stand, Hanamkonda and took the victim in a bus from Hanamkonda bus stand to Karimnagar and took her to the house of A1’s friend and that the friend of accused No.1 chastised accused No.1 and stated to him that the victim is weeping to take her to her home and that accused No.1 took the victim to Hyderabad railway station in a bus from Karimnagar bus stand and from there to Karnataka state in a train and confined her in a room for three days in Karnataka state and that after three days, accused No.1 brought her to Secunderabad railway station and that she escaped from accused No.1and telephoned to him.
16. P.W.3-Dharavath Vimala deposed that about one and a half years ago at 4.30 PM P.W.9 came to their house and asked her to send the victim along with her as she is intending to buy saree for herself at
Thorrur. That she sent her victim daughter along with P.W.9 to Thorrur.
That P.W.9 returned to their house at 5.30 PM and told her that accused No.2 and JCL Bhukya Kavitha and accused No.1 took the victim in a car. That herself and PW2 went to Thorrur police station.
PW2 gave complaint to police. That after one week the victim telephoned to PW2 and informed that she is at bus standat
Hyderabad. That they informed Bhanu, son of her brother-in- law and Ghoomlal her brother-in-law who are residing at Hyderabad about the presence of the victim at bus stand at Hyderabad and asked them to go there and be with her daughter.Thatherself,
P.W.2, her brother-in-law Balaji took a car and went to Hyderabad and brought back PW1 to our house. That the victim informed them that 10 SSC.No,. 17/2017 accused No.1 took her to Karimnagar to one house known to her and that the inmates of the house scolded accused No.1 as to why he brought the victim to their house as they found her weeping and told accused No.1 to take back her to their house and that accused No.1 took the victim to some other place and kept her in a room for three days and that the victim cried and that accused No.1 threatened the victim not to cry otherwise he will kill her and that the accused
No.1 forced her to marry you and that the accused No.1 used to lock the door and go out and that she was having one pair of clothes.
17. P.W.4-Dharavath Kavitha deposed that about two years ago while she was in her Kirana Shop at 4:00 P.M. she witnessed accused
No.1 and the victim talking with each other at Mandal Office which is situated adjacent to her shop. That she saw for the second time after one month at about 12:00 noon accused No.1 going to the house of the victim and talking with her. That she asked the victim as to why she is talking with accused No.1. The victim told her that A.1 is stalking behind her and stating to her that he is loving her and marry her. That she told her that she should have informed her parents about the same. The victim told that due to fear of their parents she is not revealing about the same to her parents. That after two or three days she went to the house of the victim and informed to the parents of the victim about A.1's stalking the victim and she is getting frightened. The parents of victim and the victim came to A.1's house and the victim and her mother Pw.3 gave warning to accused No.1 not to repeat the same otherwise they will hit him with Cheppal. That she came to know that P.W.9 took the victim from her house by taking permission from
Pw.3 to purchase clothes to Thorrur. P.W.9 in the evening returned to 11 SSC.No,. 17/2017 the house of the victim and told her parents that she is missing. Then, the parents of the victim became angry and questioned P.W.9 then she revealed that A-1 and JCL/Bhukya Kavitha pushed the victim into the
Car in which accused No.1 was sitting inside the Car and the accused
No.1 pulled the victim into the Car and accused No.1 took the victim in the Car. After one week the victim returned and told that A-1 took her to Karimnagar, Rajahmundry and Hyderabad and that she escaped at
Hyderabad from clutches of accused No.1 and telephoned to her father. That the father of he victim telephoned to his brothers who are residing at Hyderabad and told them to pick up the victim stating that they will come to Hyderabad. The parents of the victim went to
Hyderabad and brought back the the victim to their house.
18. P.W.5-G.Nagarjun deposed that he is resident of Ammapuram and he was working as Head Master in Sahithi High School at Thorrur.
The victim studied from 3rd standard to 10th standard in their school.
That she got admitted in the year 2005 in 3rd standard. That on 1.4.2016 ASI Thorrur Police station gave requisition to him to furnish date of birth certificate and the extract of the admission and withdrawal register of the victim. That on the same day he gave
Ex.P.3 study, conduct and date of birth certificate of PW.1 and Ex.P.4 attested copy of admission and withdrawal register pertaining to PW.1.
The date of birth of PW.1 as per Ex.P.3 and P.4 is 20.5.1998.
19. P.W.6-Mangalapally Prabhu deposed that about more than one year ago, he was sitting in his auto near bus stand,Thorrur at that time police,Thorrur called him tot he control room of RTC Bus Stand, Thorrur and obtained his signature on a white paper. That Ex.P.5 is his 12 SSC.No,. 17/2017 signature on Crime Detail form dt.1.4.2016. In his cross-examination on behalf of the prosecution, he denied the suggestion that on 1.4.2016 the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, Police Station Thorrur prepared Crime detail form including rough sketch in front of the
Mahalaxmi cloth show room, Thorrur in his presence and also in the presence of P.W.7.
20. P.W.7-Md. Imam deposed that about more than one year ago, he was sitting in his auto near bus stand Thorrur and waiting for passengers, at that time police, Thorrur called him to the control room of RTC Bus stand Thorrur and obtained his signature on a white paper.
Ex.P.6 is his signature on Crime Detail Form dt. 1.4.2016. In his cross- examination on behalf of the prosecution he denied the suggestion that on 1.4.2016 the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station
Thorrur prepared CDF including rough sketch in front of the Mahalaxmi cloth show room, Thorrur in his presence and also in the presence of
P.W.6.
21. P.W.8-V.Uma Women Police Constable deposed that she was working as WPC at Kuravi Police station from 2015. That on 9.4.2016 the S.I of Police, Thorrur called her to the Police Station,
Thorrur and asked to record the sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of the victim. That accordingly she recorded the statement of PW.1 at Police
Station at 11.00 A.M.
22. P.W.9-Dharavath Anitha deposed that about one year ago in the evening a;t about 4.00 p.m, the victim and herself went to
Mahalaxmi Cloth Shop at Thorrur. They purchased clothes. That while 13 SSC.No,. 17/2017 they were returning to their house, when they reached near the auto stop of Thorrur Bus Stand, accused No.2 and JCL-Bhukya Kavitha came and took away the victim stating that they had to do shopping of purchasing saree to accused No.2. That she does not no what had happened thereafter. In her cross-examination on behalf of the prosecution she denied the suggestion that she stated before police as in Ex.P.7.
23. P.W.10-A.Ramesh, Police Constable deposed that on 9.4.2016 at about 2.00 pm, he took videograph of recording Sec.161 Cr.P.C.
statement of PW1 by WPC/PW8 at police station, Thorrur.
24. P.W.11-M.Linga Reddy,ASI of Police,Thorrur on 31.3.2016 at 11.00 PM in the night PW2 came to Police Station Thorrur and gave
Ex.P2-complaint upon which he registered a case in Cr.No.74/2016 under section 363 and 366-A and issued FIR Ex.P8. That he took up investigation. That he examined PW2 and recorded his statement under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That on 1.4.2016 at 8.30 a.m,he visited the scene of offence situated at
Mahalaxmi Cloth Stores and secured mediators PWs 6 and 7 and conducted scene of offence panchanama and prepared Crime
Detail form dt.1.4.2016 and drawn rough sketch of the scene of offence. That Ex.P9 is the Crime Detail Form dt.1.4.2016 along with rough sketch of scene of offence. That on the same day he examined
PW3, PW9, PW4 at their house and recorded their statements under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That he obtained date of birth certificate of the victim (Ex.P3) from PW5 on 1.4.2016. That the the victim was brought by her parents to the police station Thorrur 14 SSC.No,. 17/2017 on 9.4.2016 in the morning hours. That he gotrecordedthe statement of the victim through PW8-WPC of Kuravi PS. That PW10 with i-Pad videographed the recording of Statement under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the victim by PW8. That he examined PW5 on 1.4.2016, That he examined PW8 on 9.4.2016,
That he examined PW10 on 9.4.2016 and recorded their statements under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
25. The victim girl deposed that her date of birth is 25th April, 1998. In her cross-examination, she deposed that her date of birth is 20th May, 1998. In her cross-examination on behalf of defence, she denied the suggestion that her date of birth is 4th April, 1995. The victim admitted that Ex.D.1 is her Voter I.D. card issued in the year 2014 pertaining to her. She further deposed that date of birth mentioned in the Voter I.D. Ex.D.1 is not correct. She admitted that she has casted her vote in the Grama Panchayat Elections in the year 2014. She admitted that her name is shown No. 733 at page No. 26 in the Voters' List of the year 2014. She also admitted that her name is reflected in the voters' list in the official website of Chief Electoral
Officer, Telangana and that Ex.D.2 is the copy of the particulars of the
Voters' List pertaining to the victim in the official website of Chief
Electoral officer, Telangana for the year 2014. The victim also admitted that the voters' list of 2017 of Dubba Thanda H/o. Thorrur contains her name at Serial no. 414 at page No. 14.
26. P.W.5 deposed that the date of birth of the victim as per
Exs.P.3 and P.4 is 20th May, 1998. P.W.5 in his cross-examination on behalf of the defence, deposed that the parents of the victim have not 15 SSC.No,. 17/2017 given any date of birth certificate of the victim at the time of her admission and that the parents of the victim have not given any record of study of I and II standards of the victim. He denied the suggestion that he has mentioned the date of birth is 20th May, 1998 at the request of police and that the date of birth of victim is 4.4.1995.
P.W.2, the father of the victim deposed that the date of birth of the victim is 20.5.1998. In his cross-examination on behalf of the defence, he admitted that the births and deaths will be registered in the Grama
Panchayat and that he does not know the date of birth of other children. He denied the suggestion that the date of birth of the victim is 4.4.95 and that she casted her vote in the yar 2014 Grama
Panchayat elections. The mother of the victim P.W.3 denied the suggestion that the victim is more than 21 years old and that the victim casted her vote in the year 2014 Grama Panchayat elections.
The victim clearly admitted that she has casted her vote in the Grama
Panchayat elections conducted in the year 2014. The alleged date of offence is 31st March, 2016. The victim appears to be major as on the date of alleged offence. The victim casted her vote in the Grama
Panchayat elections in the year 2014 itself. It cannot be said that even though she was minor she was allowed to caste her vote in the
Grama Panchayat elections in the year 2014. Ex.D.1-Voter I.D. reveals that her date of birth is 4th April, 1995. Ex.D.2 also goes to show that the victim was aged more than 18 years. The prosecution has not produced the date of birth certificate issued by the school in which the victim initially studies in first and second standards. The investigating officer P.W.11 in his cross-examination on behalf of defence denied the suggestion that the victim was major as on the date of alleged offence and that they gave incorrect date of birth of the victim. The 16 SSC.No,. 17/2017 prosecution failed to establish by adducing cogent and convincing ocular and documentary evidence that the victim was minor and below 18 years of age as on the date of alleged offence.
27. The victim in her cross-examination on behalf of defence deposed that the distance between Mahalaxmi cloth stores to Bangle stores, Main Road, Thorrur is about 200 meters. According to Ex.P.9, the scene of offence is in front of Mahalaxmi Cloth show Room,
Thorrur. The victim deposed that they went to bangle shop situated at
Thorrur after exchanging clothes at Mahalaxmi cloth shop and then A.2 and JCL-Bhukya Kavitha came to the said shop and asked her to come to purchase of saree for accused No.2 and that herself, accused NO.2 and JCL-Bhukya Kavitha, were walking on the road at Thorrur, suddenly one car came and stopped and then accused No.2 and Bhukya Kavitha-
JCL pushed her inside the car and that A.1 pulled her inside the car.
The victim in her cross-examination deposed that after passing 50 meters from bangle shop she was taken in the car and that the distance between Mahalaxmi cloth Stores and bangle stores is 200 meters. There is no mention of bangle stores in the crime details form
dt. 31.3.2016-Ex.P.9. The investigating officer-P.W.11 in his cross-
examination on behalf of defence admitted that there is no mention of bangle stores in the crime details form-Ex.P.9. He further deposed that he has not prepared the crime details form a bangle stores, Thorrur from which place the victim is alleged to be kidnapped. The panch witnesses for the scene of offence Ex.P.9-Crime details form, P.Ws. 6 and 7 turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution.
P.W.11 in his cross-examination on behalf of defence admitted that he has not prepared crime details form of scene of offence at Karnataka 17 SSC.No,. 17/2017 and that he has not prepared crime details form of bangle stores,
Thorrur from which place the victim was alleged to have kidnapped.
The prosecution failed to fix the scene of offence properly.
28. The victim girl in her cross-examination on behalf of defence deposed that she does not know owner of the car in which she was taken. That there was driver in the said car. That she cannot identify him and that she cannot give his name. That A.1 and the driver was there in the car. The investigating officer-P.W.11 in his cross- examination on behalf of defence admitted that the driver of the car in which the accused No.1 alleged to have kidnapped the victim is neither made as accused nor cited as eye witness.
29. The investigating officer-P.W.11 in his cross-examination on behalf of defence admitted that in Ex.P.2-Complaint it is mentioned that P.W.9 informed P.W.2 that the accused No.1 took the victim in an auto that he has not examined the auto driver. That he has not seized the car in which the victim was alleged to have been kidnapped. That he has not made the driver of the car as one of the accused that he has not cited him as a witness in the memo of evidence. The victim has not deposed with regard to accused No.1 shifting her in an auto whereas in Ex.P.1-Complaint, it is mentioned that the accused NO.1 kidnapped the victim in an auto, which is quite contrary to the case of the prosecution. The victim in her cross-examination on behalf of defence admitted that she has not stated before police that she was not handed over by her uncle at Uppal Ring Road, Hyderabad to her father. She denied the suggestion that she has not stated before police with regard to police, Thorrur asking her to come on the next 18 SSC.No,. 17/2017 day morning as it was night time on the date of her visit to the police station. P.W.8 in her cross-examination on behalf of defence admitted that the victim has not stated before her with regard to handing over her to P.W.2 by Dharavath Bhanu Prasad and Gumlal at Uppal Ring
Road and that the victim has not stated before her that she went to police station on 8.4.2016 in the evening hours and as it was late in night the police asked her to come on the next day. The victim has not specifically stated the place to where she was taken in Karnataka
State. Upon perusal of the evidence of victim, it appears that she is an interested and tutored witness. There are number of contradictions and omissions in her evidence. The evidence of victim girl is not trustworthy and cannot be relied upon. P.W.8 in her cross- examination on behalf of defence deposed that the Sub-Inspector of
Polcie, Thorrur, herself and one police constable of Thorrur was present at the time of recording of statement of the victim. She denied the suggestion that she has not recorded the statement of the victim and that she has not competent to record the statement. P.W.8 has not deposed with regard to taking videograph of recording Section 161
Cr.P.C Statement of the victim whereas P.W.10 deposed that he took videograph of Section 161 of the Code of Criminal procedure statement of the victim. In his cross-examination on behalf of defence he deposed that he was not appointed as videogrpher in police
Department that he has not taken any training for photographs. That he gave I-pad to P.W.11. That he has not copied the C.D. from I-pad.
He denied the suggestion that he has not taken any videographs of recording the statement of the victim. P.W.11 in his cross-examination on behalf of defence deposed that Ex.P.10 is the same C.D. pertaining to video recording of the victim on 9th April, 2016. That he cannot say 19 SSC.No,. 17/2017 the duration of Ex.P.10-C.D. P.W.11 was confronted with one calender pertaining to the year 2018 by the defence counsel and on questioning whether the calender hanging in the room of recording of 161 Cr.P.C.
Statement of the victimP.W.1 in Ex.P.10-C.D is similar to the calender shown to him but he is unable to see the year in Ex.P.10, which is played in the Court. That he does not know whether the picture in the calender will be different each year pertaining to Sri Bandlamamba
Chit Funds Private Limited, Mahabubabad. He denied he suggestion that P.W.8 is acting as if she is writing in Ex.P.10 and she has written not more than four lines and that Ex.P.10 is not recorded on 9.4.2016 and the same is prepared on 5th June, 2018 and that no video is recorded on 9th April, 2016 pertaining to the statement of the victim.
P.W.8 says that the Sub-Inspector of Police, Thorrur and one police
Constable of Thorrur were present at the time of recording of statement of victim by her whereas P.W.10 says that the Sub-
Inspector was not present at the time of recording of statement of the victim. It can be said that the recording of Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the victim is not proper. There are latches on the part of the investigation.
Upon perusal of the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 it appears that there are number of contradictions and omissions in their evidence. P.Ws. 2 and 3 appeared to be interested and tutored witnesses and their evidence is hearsay and cannot be relied upon. P.W.4 is not the direct eye witness to the alleged offence. The evidence of P.W.4 is not much of avail to the prosecution. P.W.9 deposed that while they were returning to their house near auto stand, Thorrur bus stand, accused No.2 and
J.C.L-Bhukya Kavitha took away the victim stating that they have to do shopping i.e. purchasing saree to accused No.2. That she does not know what had happened thereafter. P.W.9 is also not an direct eye 20 SSC.No,. 17/2017 witness to the occurrence. The prosecution treated her as hostile witness. In her cross-examination, on behalf of prosecution she denied the suggestion that she stated before police as in Ex.P.7. The evidence of P.W.9 is not much of avail to the prosecution.
30. The prosecution failed to establish the guilt of accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 343, 506 of the Indian
Penal Code and Section 354-D of the Indian Penal Code of Criminal Law
Amendment Act and Section 11 read with 12 of the Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act and guilt of accused No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 366 read with 109 of the Indian Penal
Code beyond all reasonable doubt.
31. The accused No.1 is found not guilt for the offence punishable under Sections 366, 343, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 354-D of the Indian Penal Code of the Criminal Law Amendment Act and Section 11 read with 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act and accused No.2 is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 366 read with 109 of the Indian Penal Code.
The point is answered accordingly.
32. In the result, the accused Nos. 1 and 2 are acquitted under Section 235 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 343, 506 of the Indian Penal
Code and Section 354-D of the Indian Penal Code of Criminal Law
Amendment Act and Section 11 read with 12 of the Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act against the accused No.1 and under
Section 366 read with 109 of the Indian Penal Code against the 21 SSC.No,. 17/2017 accused No.2. Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled. There is no order as to the property in view of pendency of case against the JCL-
Bhukya Kavitha on the file of Juvenile Justice Board, Warangal.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, after her transcription, corrected and
pronounced by me in the Open Court, on this the 23rd day of October,
2018)
Sd/-
SPL. SESSIONS JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES
UNDER PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL
OFFENCES ACT-CUM- I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,
WARANGAL.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PROSECUTION:
PW1 : Victim. PW2 : D.Manji Naik. PW3 : D.Vimala. PW4 : D.Kavitha. PW5 : G.Nagarjun. PW6 : M.Prabhu. PW7 : Md. Imam. PW8 : V.Uma, WPC. PW9 : D.Anitha. P.W10: A.Ramesh. P.W.11: M.Linga Reddy, I.O.
FOR DEFENCE:
-None-
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR PROSECUTION:
Ex-P1 : Statement Under Section 164 of the code of Criminal Procedure of P.W.1dated 27.07.2016. Ex.P2: Complaint given by P.W.2 dt. 31.3.2016. Ex-P3: Date of birth certificate of the victim issued by P.W.5. Ex-P4 : Extract of Admission Register. Ex-P5 : Signature of P.W.6 on Crime Details form dt. 31.3.2016. Ex.P6 : Signature of P.W.7 on Crime Details Form dt. 31.3.2016. Ex.P7: Statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of P.W.9 dated 1.4.2016. Ex.P8 : First Information Report dt. 31.3.2016. Ex.P9: Crime Details Form dt. 31.3.2016. Ex.P.10: C.D. pertaining to recording of statement of victim by P.W.10.
FOR DEFENCE:
22 SSC.No,. 17/2017
Ex.D.1-Voter I.D. of the victim. Ex.D.2-Copy of the particulars of the voters' list pertaining to the victim. Ex.D.3-Calender for the year 2018. Ex.D.4-Calender for the year 2016. Ex.D.5-Calender for the year 2017.
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED
-Nil-
Sd/-
SPL. SESSIONS JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER
PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL
OFFENCES ACT-CUM- I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,
WARANGAL.