IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2025 of 2004 DATE: 02.12.2011 Between: The Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P, Hyderabad …… Appellant And Seelam Bhushanam and another …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2025 of 2004 JUDGMENT : This is an appeal against acquittal. The lower Court after trial, recorded acquittal of A-1 and A-2 for the oﬀences under Section 366-A I.P.C on several grounds. Firstly there is no acceptable evidence to show that the victims P.Ws 1 and 2 were minors by the date of oﬀence. P.W-9/doctor who examined P.W-1 and gave Ex.P-7 certiﬁcate opining that P.W-1 was aged about 15 years. There is no similar determination of age of P.W-2 by any doctor. Ex.P-7 is Photostat copy of age certiﬁcate given by P.W-9 in respect of P.W-1. The original certiﬁcate is not ﬁled into Court. No school certiﬁcates of P.Ws 1 and 2 are ﬁled by the prosecution. No birth registration extracts of P.Ws 1 and 2 are ﬁled. In the absence of any such evidence produced by the prosecution, the lower Court rightly came to the conclusion that there is no evidence of P.Ws 1 and 2 being minors. 2) Secondly, even as per evidence of P.Ws 1 and 2, no force or deception was used by A-1 or A-2 on them for taking them from Kakinada to Chennai. It is only when P.W-1 informed P.W-2 about getting good job under cine artist Vijayashanti, P.W-2 agreed to accompany P.W-1 to Chennai for job. A-1 and A-2 took P.Ws 1 and 2 in general compartment of Circar express from Kakinada to Chennai. Even though it is stated that on the way P.Ws 1 and 2 suspected behaviour of the accused and demanded them to send back, and A-2 slapped them and threatened them to kill by throwing them out of train, P.Ws 1 and 2 did not make any issue in the train by raising cries and creating scene in the compartment. This is a case where P.Ws 1 and 2 voluntarily accompanied A-1 and A-2 to Chennai from Kakinada to have job under Vijayashanti. This is another circumstance which goes against the prosecution case. 3) Thirdly, A-1 and A-2 are stated to have handed over P.Ws 1 and 2 to Radha and Santha at Chennai who forced them to do prostitution. But, there is no investigation made in Chennai muchless the role played by Radha and Santha in this case. After return from Chennai even though P.W-1 was examined by another doctor P.W-8 who gave Ex.P-6 certiﬁcate, no similar examination was made on P.W-2. This is not a case where the police raided the prostitute dens at Chennai and rescued P.Ws 1 and 2. After coming to know about P.W-3 who is the mother of P.W-1 giving report to police at Kakinada, A-1 and A-2 brought back P.Ws 1 and 2 to Kakinada voluntarily within 20 days. Since it is a case of P.Ws 1 and 2 voluntarily accompanying A-1 and A-2 to Chennai to secure job, the lower Court rightly came to the conclusion that Section 366-A I.P.C has no application in this case. There are no grounds in law to reverse the said ﬁnding of acquittal in this appeal. 4) Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J December 02, 2011 ksh