THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.274 OF 2005 DATED 29th NOVEMBER, 2010. BETWEEN : Gongati Pulla Reddy ..Petitioner-accused and The State of A.P. ..Respondent THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.274 OF 2005 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) is filed by the petitioner-A.1 against the judgment, dated 12.08.2004, rendered in Criminal Appeal No.129 of 2003 by the V Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Anantapur, confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence passed in Sessions Case No.695 of 2001 on 17.11.2003 by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Kadiri, in which the petitioner-A.1 was convicted along with A.3 under section 235 (2) Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 365 IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for four months. Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 15.03.1998 at about 5-00 p.m. A.1 went to the house of victim-P.W.2 when she was alone and asked her to give a glass of water. On that victim gave water to A.1 and took back the glass. At that time, A.1 kept a kerchief near the nostrils of victim, due to which she fell unconscious and A.1 taken away her. On the same day at about 12 O’ clock in the mid night, the victim gained her consciousness and found that she was nearby a house at Molakala Cheruvu where A.1 to A.3 were also present and she was taken by them to Tirupati on 22.03.1998 and kept her till 30.03.1998. On the next day, the accused brought her to Anantapur where they read a news item about the missing of P.W.2 in a paper. Immediately, the accused taken back P.W.2 to Kadiri and left her at Rayalaseema hotel in Kadiri Town. On the complaint of P.W.1-the father of P.W.2, the C.I. of Police registered a case and after completion of entire investigation, Police filed charge sheet against A.1 to A.3. Case against A.2 was split up vide P.R.C.No.99 of 2001 on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kadiri. Hence, the trial Judge proceeded only against A.1 and A.3. When examined by the learned trial Judge, accused denied the allegations levelled against them. They also denied the charge under Section 366A IPC framed against them, pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial. In order to prove its case, Prosecution got examined PWs 1 to 6 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.4. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., accused denied the incriminating evidence read over to them, which is available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. They got examined DWs 1 and 2 in their support. After evaluating the oral and documentary evidence adduced by both the parties, the learned trial Judge convicted the accused as stated above. Heard. Among the prosecution witnesses, PW.2 is the victim girl. Except P.W.2 none others witnessed the incident. From a mere reading of the prosecution case, it is evident that occurrence could not have occurred as portrayed by the Prosecution. It is also seen from the evidence of P.W.2 that she is the close friend of A.1’s sister. It is also her evidence that she followed the accused on the date of occurrence. Subsequently, she went along with A.1 and other accused persons to Tirupathi and other places. It is also evident from her evidence that on seeing her photograph in the news paper, accused took her back to Kadiri and left her at Rayalaseema hotel. P.W.2 deposed that the purpose for which she was taken by the accused is not known to her. Originally, the case was registered for an offence punishable under Section 366A IPC. In the absence of any evidence to attract the offence under Section 366A IPC, the learned trial Judge convicted the accused under Section 365 IPC taking into consideration that P.W.2 was taken away by the accused for the purpose of illegal confinement. It is not clear either from the evidence of the witnesses or the judgment of the trial Court that the victim was kept in illegal custody. Admittedly, there is no evidence adduced by P.W.2-victim girl to that effect. On overall reading of the entire evidence and judgments of both the Courts, this Court is of the view that the case of the prosecution is highly improbable and unbelievable. Hence, this Court has no hesitation to interfere with the impugned judgment. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the impugned judgment is hereby set aside. The conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner-A.1 is set aside and the petitioner is acquitted of the charge levelled against him. Fine amount paid by him, if any, shall be returned to him. ________________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO Dated : 29.11.2010 sur