THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 905 OF 2003 ORDER: 1. This Criminal Revision Case, under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C., is directed against the judgment dated 21.01.2003 in Criminal Appeal No.146 of 2000 on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari, Rajahmundry. 2. It is the case of prosecution that, on 15.11.1997 at about 1.00 PM, the accused, who was working as Music Teacher in D.V.R. Convent, Rajahmundry, misrepresented P.W.1-Tanga Suneetha, aged about 13 years, studying 8th class in the same school stating that he was going to a music programme party and took her to Kovvur of West Godavari district and from there to Bhadrachalam, Nizamabad, Nanded and other places, and brought her back to Rajahmundry on 5.12.1997, and therefore, he kidnapped P.W.1 from the lawful custody and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 366 I.P.C. 3. The case was taken on file as Sessions Case No.98 of 1999 by the learned Sessions Judge, East Godavari and made over to the court of Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, East Godavari for disposal in accordance with law. 4. The trial Court framed a charge for the offence under Section 366 I.P.C. against the accused and when the same was read over and explained to him in telugu, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 12 and got marked Exs.P1 to P9 besides case property M.O.1. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused. 6. Upon appreciation of the evidence on record, the trial Court, by its judgment dated 21.4.2000, found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 366 I.P.C., accordingly convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months. 7. On appeal, the appellate court, by the impugned judgment, modified the conviction of the accused to that of the offence punishable under Section 363 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Challenging the same, the present revision is preferred by the accused. 8. Now, the point for determination is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the petitioner /accused of the offence punishable under Section 363 I.P.C. and whether the judgment of the appellate court is correct, legal and proper ? 9. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that except the solitary testimony of P.W.1, there is no other evidence to prove that the accused kidnapped her; that P.Ws. 3 to 5 are set up witnesses and the investigation conducted by the investigating officer is perfunctory, and therefore, he prays to set aside the conviction and sentenced imposed by the appellate court. 10. On the other hand, the learned counsel representing the Public Prosecutor contended that the evidence of P.W.1 is quite clear that the accused kidnapped her; that, the appellate court, upon appreciation of the evidence on record, rightly convicted and sentenced the petitioner and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. Hence, she prays to dismiss the revision case. 11. Revisional jurisdiction of this court under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. is truncated one. Unless the findings of the court below are illegal or improper or incorrect, normally this court will not interfere with the same. 12. The entire case of prosecution rests upon the evidence of P.W.1, who is the victim girl aged about 13 years at the time of the incident. Her evidence is very clear that on 15.11.1997 at about 1.00 PM, the accused forcibly took her in rickshaw to Godavari bund where they got into auto rickshaw and reached Kovvur bus stand; that, the accused took her to Bhadrachalam, and when she questioned the accused as to why she was taken to Bhadrachalam, he threatened her with dire consequences; that, from there she was taken to Nizamabad and both of them stayed in lodge for three days; that, at Nizamabad, the accused promised P.W.1 that he would marry her after she attained majority, and thereafter, the accused took her to Nanded, and on 4.12.1997, the accused brought P.W.1 to Rajahmundry and kept her in Siddartha Lodge. On the next day at about 4.00 PM, police officials and two others came and rescued her. 13. P.W.1 is a minor girl aged about 13 years at the time of the incident. P.W.2 is the father and P.W.7 is the mother, of P.W.1. There is no reason for P.W.1 to speak false against the accused, who is her own music master. Similarly, there is no enmity between the parents of P.W.1 and the accused so as to implicate him falsely in a case of this nature. Further, P.Ws. 3 to 6 saw the accused taking away P.W.1 in rickshaw near Venugopalaswamy temple and informed the same to P.W.7, who in turn informed P.W.2. P.W.2 searched for P.W.1 on that day and lodged police report on the next day i.e. on 16.11.1997. The evidence of investigating officer and mediators would go to show that after apprehension of the accused, he led them to room no.105 of Shdhardha lodge where they saw P.W.1 inside the room. Therefore, keeping of P.W.1 in the lodge is exclusively within the knowledge of the accused. 14. Further more, P.W.1 clearly admitted in her cross-examination that the accused did not misbehave with her nor did he molest her at any place. So, it is clear from the evidence that the accused kidnapped a minor girl from the lawful custody of P.W.2. The appellate court, upon appreciation of the evidence on record in right perspective, found the accused guilty and accordingly convicted of the offence punishable under Section 363 I.P.C. and there are no grounds to interfere with the conviction recorded by the appellate court. 15. The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the accused is working as Teacher and he has a deaf and dumb child, and so prayed to take a lenient view with regard to sentence. The incident took place about 12 years ago. Admittedly, the accused is the school teacher of P.W.1 and he did not misbehave with her. Considering these aspects, a lenient view can be taken with regard to sentence of imprisonment. 16. In the result, the conviction of the petitioner/accused of the offence punishable under Section 363 I.P.C. recorded by the appellate court is confirmed, but the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year, while confirming the fine and default sentence. 17. With the above modification, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. ------------------- (K.C.Bhanu, J.) 25.11.2009 DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 905 of 2003 Date: 25.11.2009 Between: Kothapalli Suresh Kumar …Appellant And State of A.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 905 of 2003 25.11.2009