HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU Crl.A.No. 139 of 2010 DATED: 29.01.2010 Between:- The State of A.P., rep. by its P.P., .. Appellant And Athi Koti and four others .. Respondents JUDGMENT:- This Criminal Appeal is preferred by the State against the Judgment, dated 30.08.2007 in S.C. No.143 of 2006, on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Gudur, whereunder and whereby, the accused, who are the respondents herein, were acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 366-A IPC. 2) The case of the prosecution in brief is that on the intervening night of 26/27-06-2004, at about 01.00 hours, when PW1, who is the father of PW3 namely Siddavaram Venkata Lakshmi, was away, and PW2, who is the mother of PW3 was sleeping outside the house with her daughter, A1 to A5, went to her house and kidnapped PW3 forcibly by gagging her mouth with an intention to perform the marriage of PW3 with A1. They took PW3 to Vijayawada with an intention to marry A1 with her against her will. When she refused the proposal of marriage, A1, on 29.06.2004, took her to Guduru Railway Station, where one K.Venkateswarulu noticed the girl in the company of A1, and on seeing him, A1 escaped from the place. On the same day, PW1, the father of the girl, lodged a complaint to Station House Officer, Venkatagiri Police Station, who registered a case against the accused and after completing the investigation, police filed charge sheet. 3) When a charge under Section 366-A IPC was framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4) To substantiate the case of the prosecution, it examined PWs.1 to 5 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4. 5) After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., with reference to incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. They denied the same. No witness was examined, but Ex.D1 was got marked on behalf of the defence. 6) The trial Court, after considering the evidence on record, acquitted the accused. Challenging the judgment of acquittal, the State has preferred the present Criminal Appeal. 7) Now, the point for consideration is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 366-A IPC beyond all reasonable doubt? 8) Counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor for the appellant contended that the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 is very clear that the accused kidnapped PW3, Siddavaram Venkata Lakshmi, with an intention to marry her to A1, and therefore, she prays to set aside the judgment of acquittal. 9) There is a presumption under law that the accused is presumed to be innocent unless contrary is proved. That presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by an order of acquittal. Ordinarily, the appellate Court would not interfere with the order of acquittal unless the finding of the trial Court is shown to be perverse or contrary to law and not based on evidence. 10) To constitute the offence punishable under Section 366- A IPC, it must be shown that 1) A minor girl under the age of 18 years must be induced to go from any place or to do any act 2) such inducement must be with an intention that such girl may be, or knowing that it is likely that she will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person. 11) PWs.1 and 2 are the parents, who simply stated that their daughter was found missing from the house at about 1.00 A.M. and they came to know at about 5.30 A.M. that the accused kidnapped her. Ex.P1 is the complaint lodged by PW1. They are not eyewitness to the incident. They did not state in their evidence that they saw the accused taking away the girl from their house or their girl in the company of the accused subsequent to the date of the incident. PW3, who is no other than the victim, categorically stated in her evidence that she went to her grandmother’s house without informing their parents and returned after two days. As she was resiling from her earlier statement, she was declared hostile by the prosecution. Even then, nothing has been elicited to connect the accused with crime. PWs.4 and 5 also did not support the case of the prosecution and they were also declared hostile. Except marking Ex.P2 – statement of PW3 recorded by police under Section 161 (3) Cr.PC, nothing has been elicited to connect the accused with the crime as the victim herself turned hostile. There is no evidence to show that the accused kidnapped the minor girl for the purpose of marrying her or to have illicit intercourse with her. Therefore, the trial Court, after elaborate consideration of evidence on record, rightly acquitted the accused and there are no compelling or substantial reasons to interfere with the judgment impugned in this appeal. 12) Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission confirming the Judgment, dated 30.08.2007 in S.C. No.143 of 2006, on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Gudur. ​______________ K.C. BHANU, J. 29th January, 2010 bcj