IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2109 of 2004 DATE: 20.12.2011 Between: The Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P, Hyderabad. …… Appellant And Bhimavarapu Srinivasa Rao and another …… Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2109 of 2004 JUDGMENT : The lower Court acquitted A-1 and A-2/respondents 1 and 2 of the offences under Sections 342 and 366 I.P.C. Questioning the same, the State filed this appeal. P.W-1 is the girl who is said to have been kidnapped by A-1, A-2 and 4 others. In spite of that, the police filed final report/charge sheet against A-1 and A-2 only leaving 4 others. P.W-1 was admittedly a major by the date of offence on 07.02.1999, she being aged about 20 years by then. It is alleged that A- 1, A-2 and 4 others took her forcibly into an auto at about 7.30 P.M on that day when she was returning from tuition. No report is given by any family members of P.W-1 to the police either on 07.02.1999 or any subsequent dates on missing of girl. P.W-1 has chosen to file private complaint before the Magistrate on 01.04.1999 after she returned to Jaggaiahpet. Even as per P.W-1’s version, A-1 was writing love letters to her previously and was sending the same to her through some other girls. According P.W-1, she was kidnapped at point of knife and by gagging her mouth with cloth. It is not her case in Ex.P-1 complaint filed by her before the Magistrate nor her case during investigation. According to P.W-1, the accused took her to Bonakal and from there to Khammam where she was detained in the house of one Ramu. It is further alleged that she was taken to a Hindu temple where ritual of marriage was performed by exchange of garlands after paying necessary fees in the temple. No persons from Bonakal were examined by the prosecution. Even though P.Ws 2 and 3 were examined from Khamma, they did not support the prosecution case and turned hostile. After a month, P.W-1 claims to have escaped from A-1 at Khazipet railway station and went to her sister’s house at Sattupalli. No sister of P.W-1 is examined. No report was given to the police that at Sattupalli or at Khazipet. The prosecution did not examine any persons from Hindu temple at Khammam and did not collect any documents relating to payment of fees for marriage in that temple. Even as per P.W-1’s version, A-1 did not misbehave towards her by way of exploiting her sexually. All the above factors drove the lower Court to the conclusion that what P.W-1 was saying in Court was nothing but false. I have no hesitation to agree with reasoning and conclusion of the lower Court. There are no circumstances in this appeal to interfere with finding of acquittal recorded by the lower Court. 2) Hence, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J December 20, 2011 ksh