IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1676 OF 2009 Criminal Appeal Under Section 378 (1) & (3) of Cr.P.C. against the Judgment dated 17-07-2008 in Special S.C.No.12 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the Special Judge for trial of cases under SCs & STs POA ( Act ) 1989, Adilabad. Between: The State of A.P., Rep. by the Public Prosecutor High Court of A.P., Hyderabad ...APELLANT/ Petitioner AND 1. Sheik Tajjuddin @ Babu, S/o. Ghousuddin, Occ: Auto Driver, R/o. Jandaguda village of Jainoor [/andal Adilabad District. 2. Gedam Raju @ Gedam Raj Kumar, S/o. Bapurao, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Jandaguda Village of Jainoor Mandal, Adilabad District ...RESPODENTSi Accused Counsel for the Appellant: THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRl. S. CHANDRASEKHAR The Court delivered the following: Judgment / HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1676 of 2OO9 ORDER: This appeal has been preferred by the State, aggrieved by the Judgment, dated, 17.O7.2008, passetl by the Special Judge for trial of cases under SCs/STs (POA) Act, Adilabad, in Sessions Case No.12 of 2008, whereby, the 1st respondent/A-l was acquitted of the offences under Sections 366(a), 376 of IPC and under Section 3(1)(xii) of SCs/STs (POA) Act, and the 2,',r respondent/A-2 was acquitted of the offence under Section 366(a) of lPC. 2. Heard learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/ accused, and also perused the record. 3. The case of the prosecution is that respondent No. 1/A-1 kidnapped the daughter of PW. 1 i.e. PW-2 on 26.07.2006 at about 8 p.m. from their village, took her to Hasnapur,.handed her over to the 2nd respondent/A-2 asking him to take her to Adilabad. Later, both the accused took her to Nizamabad and Jagtial, and during the stay at Nizamabad and Jagtial, the 1"t respondent/A- 1 committed rape on PW-2 and later both the accused fled from Jagtial leaving PW-2, on seeing PW-6. Then, PW-6 took PW-2 to the village and handedover to her parents. 4. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined PWs.1 to 13 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-20. On behalf of defence, no oral evidence was adduced, but trx.D.1 was marked. r ,) 5. The Court below,'after conclusion of trial, acquitted both the accused. Hence this appeal by the State. 6. It is contended by the learned Public Prosecutor that the trial Court has erred in disbelieving the evidence of prosecution witnesses and has erroneously acquitted the accused. 7. The learned counsel for respondents/ accused, on the other hand, contended that the trial Court, after evaluating the evidence of prosecution witnesses in detail and after perusing the documentary evidence on record, has given its findings that thc prosecution has failed to establish its case against the accused, and thus, has rightly acquitted the accused. He contended that there are no grounds to interfere with the weli-reasoned judgment of the court below acquitting the accused. Accordingly, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 8. The material on record shows that the trial Court has observed that PW-1 has Iodged complaint only on the information given by PW-2 about the accused allegedly kidnapping her. PW-2 deposed that she and A-2 alone were present in the RTC bus apart from Driver and Conductor of the bus while travelling from Utnoor Cross roads to Adilabad, yet, she did not raise any hue and cry and did not make any attempt to escape from A-2. The evidence of victim girl and her father i.e. PW- 1, apart from the medical evidence disclose that the victim/ PW-2 was not minor at the time of alleged incidcnt. Thc investigating officer also failed to collect medical evidence to show u", j:1."" ol semen of accused present at the private parts of thc victim girl/PW-2 to connect the accused with the offence. 3 9. Therefore, this Court is of the view that there is no infirmity or illegality in the Judgment of the trial Court and this appeal is liable to be dismissed. 10. The Criminal appeal is accordingly dismissed confirming the Judgment, dated 77.O7.2OO8, passed by the Special Judge for trial of cases under SCs/STs (POA) Act, Adilabad, in Sessions Case No.12 of 2008. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. SD/-M.RAMANA KRISHNA DEPU REGIS //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, br 1 2 4 6 s I!: ip::El Judge for triat of cases under SCs/Sts (pOA) Act, Aditabad. rne Judlcrat Magistrate of First Class, Utnoor, Adilabad District. lhe S-tation House Officer, Jainoor police Station, Adilabad District. Two CCs to Pubtic Prosecutor, High Court for the'StiiJ of fetangina at Hyderabad. 9r" 99 to Sri. S. Chandrasekhar, Advocate IOpUCI Two CD Copies \\.cr HIGH COURT DATED:2310212021 JUDGMENT CRLA.No.1676 of 2009 DISMISSING THE CRL.APPEAL 1 r 22 MAn 2021 f * TAr€ s Jo ( i. i- 9{"r, \5\h#