IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2330 of 2004 DATE: 28.11.2011 Between: The Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P, Hyderabad …… Appellant And Bayya Sridhar, ...Respondent HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2330 of 2004 JUDGMENT : This is an appeal against acquittal. The accused was acquitted by the lower Court of the charge under Section 366 I.P.C. The alleged victim P.W-1 was studying intermediate course at Sneha Junior College, Naim Nagar, Hanamkonda and was going to the college daily by bus from her native place Keshavapur. The accused was also pursuing his studies. This is a case of immature love affair between P.W-1 and the accused. The prosecution did not file any records to show that P.W-1 was a minor girl by the date of offence on 25.12.2000. No educational certificates of P.W-1 are filed. No steps are taken for examination of P.W-1 by a Radiologist by way of ossification test to determine her age. Apart from failure to prove P.W-1 being minor by the date of offence, she was an intermediate student having age of discretion. It is alleged that the accused was moving round P.W-1 requesting her to marry him and harassing her and that on 25.12.2000 at about 11.20 A.M the accused met P.W-1 at petrol pump and brought her to his room along with his friends and insisted P.W-1 to agree for marriage with him, for which P.W-1 did not agree and that the accused allowed P.W-1 to leave his room on 26.12.2000, after keeping P.W-1 in his room for the entire night. It is not the prosecution case that the accused misbehaved with P.W-1 during P.W-1’s stay in his room. P.W-4 who is landlady of that room, turned hostile to the prosecution. P.W-3 is not an eye witness to the alleged kidnapping. P.W-1 is stated to have informed P.W-3 about the offence on 26.12.2000. But P.W-3 did not inform the same to parents of P.W-1. According to the accused, P.W-1 left her house on 25.12.2000 and went to a place of her choice and returned to her house on 26.12.2000 and when her parents questioned P.W-1 about her absence in the house for one day, P.W-1 gave a story involving the accused. Even though the accused is stated to have set P.W-1 free on 26.12.2000, P.W-1 did not choose to give any report to the police until 28.12.2000. There is no explanation for the delay of two days in giving Ex.P-1 report to the police. Even though P.W-1 and her brother P.W-2 claimed to have given Ex.P-1 report to the police at 7.00 A.M. on 28.01.2000, the Sub Inspector of Police P.W-5 deposed that Ex.P-1 report was presented at 7.00 P.M. on that day. P.W-2 is also not an eye witness to the alleged kidnapping of P.W-1 by the accused. In the absence of any independent evidence, the lower Court rightly disbelieved evidence of P.W-1. It is not her case that she raised any cries at the time when she was being taken by the accused in auto rickshaw or when she was detained in his room. I do not find any grounds to come to a different conclusion in this appeal. 2) Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J November 28, 2011 ksh