HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.813 OF 2004 Dated 23-6-2010 Between: Pandi Ramu. …Petitioner. And: The State of A.P. represented by the Station House Officer, Attili Police Station, West Godavari District. Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. …Respondent. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.813 OF 2004 ORDER: Aggrieved by the judgment passed on 22-4-2004 in Criminal Appeal No.12 of 2000 by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Tanuku, confirming the conviction and sentence against the petitioner and others passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Tanuku, in S.C.No.62 of 1999, on 12- 1-2000, the present revision case is preferred by the petitioner. Petitioner herein is A.1. No representation is made on behalf of the petitioner though the case is posted to today under the caption ‘for dismissal’. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: Petitioner-Pandhi Ramu is the farm servant of A.3, A.2, A.4, and A.5 who belong to one family. On 12-9-1997 at about 11 P.M., the accused kidnapped P.W.2 and confined her in the house of A.2 situated in K.S.Gattu village with a view to celebrate the wed lock of the petitioner once again with P.W.2 against her will and consent. P.W.1 who is the father of P.W.2 caused enquiry about P.W.2 and finally reported the same to P.W.8. In this connection, Attili Police registered the same as a case in Crime No.73 of 1997 for the offence under Sections 366 and 342 I.P.C. against the petitioner and others and investigated into. On behalf of prosecution, P.Ws.1 to P.W.8 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.4 were marked. On behalf of defence, no witnesses were examined, but Ex.D.1 was marked. The trial Court on a perusal of both oral and documentary evidence and on hearing the arguments on both sides and having observed that the prosecution established the case against the petitioner and others for the offence under Sections 342 and 365 I.P.C., convicted and sentenced them. Petitioner is sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years for the offence punishable under Section 365 I.P.C. Petitioner, A.2 and A.5 are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 342 I.P.C. Having aggrieved by the same, the petitioner carried the matter to the 1st appellate Court and the 1st appellate Court after reappraisal of the entire evidence, confirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court against the petitioner and others. Having aggrieved by the same, the present revision has been preferred by the petitioner. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the entire evidence of P.W.1 will not inspire confidence of the Court and therefore the evidence of P.W.1 is contrary to the other witnesses. There is no evidence to show regarding the age of the victim girl and further she has not stated anything about the fact that she resisted the said abduction. On the other hand, the learned Pubic Prosecutor has contended that there is no irregularity or irregularity in the findings of the Courts below and hence, the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court which were confirmed by the 1st appellate Court do not warrant any interference by this Court and as such, the revision is liable to be dismissed. This Court perused the entire evidence and also the judgments of the trial Court as well as the 1st appellate Court. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the victim girl deposed before the trial Court that the petitioner wanted to marry her and demanded her to go along with him and that about three years back, on Friday night, he came to their house and took her to the house of A.2. She has not stated anything to attract the offence as to whether she accompanied him against her will or on her own accord. When the same is not adduced as evidence by the prosecution and when P.W.1-victim girl is not in a position to say either the date of occurrence or the place whereunder she was kept illegal and also when she is not in a position to inform the Court regarding her age, I feel that it is highly unsafe to convict a persons for the offence under Sections 365 I.P.C. and 342 I.P.C. Considering the above said evidence adduced by P.W.1- victim girl and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the conviction and sentenced passed by the trial Court which was confirmed by the 1st appellate Court for the charges leveled against them are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed setting aside the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court which was confirmed by the 1st appellate Court. ______________________ Justice RAJA ELANGO Dated 23-6-2010 Dvs HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.813 OF 2004 Dated 23-6-2010