IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF OCTOBER, TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1291 OF 2009 BETWEEN: The State of A.P., rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad …. Appellant AND Pandluru Penchalaiah S/o. Gopalaiah …. Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1291 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Appeal under Section 378 (1) & (3) Cr.P.C. is filed by the appellant - State against the judgment, dated 18-04-2008, in S.C. No.273 of 2006 passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Gudur, whereunder and whereby the respondent - accused was found not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 366-A and 376 IPC and acquitted of the same. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the appeal may be stated as follows: The accused developed love towards one Malli Vijayamma (PW.3), aged about 15 years, and both are residents of Unuguntapalem village. On 22-10-2003, when PW.3 went to School, the accused by making false promise took PW.3, minor girl, to Gudur and from there they went to Renigunta and stayed in a lodge. The accused committed rape on her forcibly in the lodge and thereafter they went to Tirupathi and stayed in a lodge. On 15-11-2003, PW.1, father of PW.3, lodged a complaint with the Police of Kota, who registered a case in Crime No.105 of 2003 under Section 366-A IPC and took up investigation. Thereafter, Police traced PW.3 at Ammapalem and they brought her to her parents. When the Sub- Inspector of Police, Kota Police Station examined her in the presence of mediators, she admitted that the accused procured her and committed rape on her forcibly and she sent to Government Hospital, Kota for treatment. On 21-11-2003, Police arrested the accused and produced him before the Court with a remand report. The Section was altered to 376 IPC on 27-11-2003 and on completion of investigation, the S.I. of Police filed charge sheet under Sections 366-A and 376 IPC against the accused. 3. When charges under Sections 366-A and 376 IPC were framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 8 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-11. On behalf of the accused, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. 5. The trial Court after consideration of the evidence, found the accused not guilty of the offences under Sections 366-A and 376 IPC and accordingly acquitted him. Challenging the same, this appeal is filed by the State. 6. Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution proved its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt of the offences with which he was charged ? 7. Heard the counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the impugned judgment. 8. PW.3, who is the victim girl, did not support the case of the prosecution. Similarly, PWs.1 and 2, parents of PW.3, also did not support the case of the prosecution. They were declared hostile. They stated in their evidence that when PW-2 scolded PW.3, she went to her maternal aunt’s house without informing them and that nobody kidnapped their daughter and committed rape on her. As they gave a complete go bye to their earlier version, the Additional Public Prosecutor, who conducted the case in the trial Court, declared them hostile. Even in their cross-examination also, nothing has been elicited to connect the accused with the crime. 9. The evidence of PW-4, with whom the accused said to have been pledged the gold ring, also did not support the prosecution case. PW-5 is the person with whom PW-4 pledged the gold ring for Rs.800/-. PWs.6 and 7 are the witnesses for mahazernama and these witnesses also did not support the case of the prosecution. 10. The only evidence remains is the evidence of PW-8 Sub-Inspector of Police, who conducted investigation. His evidence does not indicate about the kidnap of PW-3 by the accused or committing rape on her by him. In the absence of any evidence to connect the accused with the offence with which he was charged, the trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused and the order of the trial Court does not call for any interference by this Court. 11. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission confirming the judgment dated 18-04-2008 in S.C. No.273 of 2006 passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Gudur. _____________ K.C. BHANU, J October 23, 2009. KTL