IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1645 OF 2009 Between: The Sate of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. ..... Appellant/Petitioner AND 1. Thupakula Venkata Ramanaiah 2. Thupakula Santhamma 3. Vendoti Nageswara Rao 4. Thupakala Chinna Chenchaiah ..... Accused/Respondents The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: The Criminal Appeal, under Sections 378 (1) & (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the judgment, dated 27.03.2008, in S.C.No.187 of 2007, on the file of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Gudur, whereunder and whereby, the trial Court acquitted Respondent No.1/Accused No.1 of the offence punishable under Section 366A IPC, Respondent Nos.2 & 4/Accused Nos.2 & 4 of the offence punishable under Section 366A read with 109 IPC. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present criminal appeal may be stated as follows. All the accused were the residents of Palicherlavaripalem Village within the limits of Chillakur Police Station. P.W.4-Puttam Chenchamma @ Chinnari, the victim, aged about 16 years, was the second daughter of P.W.1-Puttam Ramanaiah, who was temporarily residing in the same village though he was a resident of Mahasamudram Village of Dakkili Mandal. P.W.1 was working as a watchman at the prawn culture ponds of one Varidireddy Srinivasulu Reddy. Accused No.1 was also working as a watchman with his mother at the ponds of Raghavareddy which were near to the ponds of Varidireddy Srinivasulu Reddy. There was closeness between the two families and P.W.4 used to visit the house of Accused No.1 frequently. On 12.04.2003 at about 7.00 p.m., it is alleged that Accused No.1 enticed P.W.4, who was a minor girl, from the lawful custody of P.W.1 by saying deceitful words to her and to marry her with the help of Accused Nos.2 to 4, and P.W.4, unable to understand the circumstances, followed Accused No.1. Basing on the report given by P.W.1, the police registered a case in Crime No.45 of 2003 for the offences under Sections 366-A read with 109 IPC on 23.04.2003 and investigated into. Police traced P.W.4 at the house of Accused No.1 and sent her for medical examination for the purpose of age determination. The Medical Officer who examined P.W.4 opined that her age was 16 years. Even according to the investigation, Accused No.1 married P.W.4 and they were living in one roof and Accused No.1 caused pregnancy to her. 3. When the charges for the offences under Section 366-A against Accused No.1 and Sections 366-A read with 109 IPC against Accused Nos.2 & 4 were framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6. 5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, with reference to the incriminating material found against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. They denied the same. On behalf of the accused, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. 6. The trial Court, after considering the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that there was no evidence to show that the accused have committed the offences punishable for which they were charged. Admittedly, P.Ws.1 to 3, who are the relatives of victim, and P.W.4, who is the victim, did not support the case of the prosecution. They were declared hostile. Their statements recorded by the police under Section 161 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, have been marked as Exs.P1 to P4 respectively. 7. There cannot be any dispute that the statements of the witnesses examined by the police during the course of investigation cannot be used for any other purpose except for contradicting the witness. So, there is absolutely no evidence to show that Accused No.1 enticed the minor girl and married her at the instance of Accused Nos.2 to 4. The only evidence remains on the record is the evidence of the Police Constable who stated that he registered a case basing on Ex.P1-report given by P.W.1 and also prepared Ex.P6-rough sketch, and that he verified about the whereabouts of the accused, but he did not find them, and subsequent investigation was taken up by the Sub-Inspector of Police. There is absolutely no evidence to show that P.W.4 was in the company of the accused at the time when he was apprehended by the police, or at the instance of Accused Nos.2 to 4, Accused No.1 has enticed the minor girl from the lawful custody of P.W.1. Therefore, the trial Court rightly acquitted the accused. The said order of acquittal does not suffer from any infirmities so as to call for interference by this Court. There are no substantial or compelling reasons to interfere with the impugned judgment. The Criminal Appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 8. Since case against Respondent No.3/Accused No.3 was separated at PRC stage, Criminal Appeal against Respondent No.3/Accused No.3 is dismissed. 9. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission confirming the judgment, dated 27.03.2008, in S.C.No.187 of 2007, on the file of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Gudur, in sofar as Respondent Nos.1, 2 & 4/Acccused Nos.1, 2 & 4 are concerned. _______________ (K.C. BHANU, J) Date: 27th October, 2009 KL