Order High Court · 2025

The State of A.P., Through High Court Building, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl. V RAGHUNATH Counsel for the Respondent: SRl.E. GANESH, ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER I ) THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.23O7 OF 2OL2 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner seeking to set aside the judgment dated 28.09.2012 in Criminal Appeal No.105 ol 2012 on the file of the learned IV Additional Sessions Juclge, at Karimnagar (for short, "the appellate Court") in modifying the judgment dated 27.O7.2012 in S.C.No.118 of 2009 on the frle of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, at Peddapalti (for short, "the trial Court").

2. Heard Mr.V.Raghunath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.E.Ganesh, Assistalt Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No. 1 -State.

3. The brief facts of the case are on 09 .O7 .2OOa , when the minor girl/LW2 was in her house alone, at Musala Vil1age, at about 01:30 P.M, the accused went to her home and asked her to come with hrm, stating that he intends to marry her, she refused; that the accused, while threatening her with dire consequences, forcibly took her in an Auto by threatening her family members; on Seeing the same, neighbour/ LW4 informed to the brother of the girl, over phone; the brother cane to know that another 2 Villager (LW5) was also in the same auto; she got the kidnap, confirmed through him over phone; so the brother intercepted the Auto along with his friends (LWs.7 & g) rescued his sister and then, the accused escaped. Basing on the said facts, the present case was registered against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 366 and 506 of I.p.C.

4. The trial Court, vide judgment dated 22.OT.2012 in S.C.No. 118 of 2O09, found the petitioner guilty for the offence punishable under section 363 of I.p.c.; convicted ancl sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, he was directed to su ffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months; Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred al Appeat.

5. The appellate Court, vide impugned judgment, partly allowed the appeal and reduced the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the petitioner for the offence under Section 363 of I.P.C., from five year to three years of rigorous imprisonment; the fine amount remained the same. Assailing the same, the petitioner preferred the present Revision. 3

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the evidence of PWs.3, 4 and 6 did not support the evidence of PW2 (victim) and that both of them loved each other; that if at all PW2 has attained majority, the ingredients under Section 363 of I P C' would not be attracted. Therefore, he seeks to a-llow this Revision.

7. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that the appellate Court, upon careful scrutiny of the material available on record, rightly passed the impugned judgment and interference of this Court is not warranted. Therefore, he seeks to dismiss this Revision. B. On behalf of the prosecution, the trial Court examined PWs.1 to 10 and marked Exs.Pl to P3. On beha-lf of the defence, none were examined and no document was marked. MOs/Exs D1 and D2 were marked. Upon careful scrutiny of the evidence of PWs.1 to 7, the trial Court observed that the evidence does not show the reason for abducting the victim girl by the accused. Therefore, the trial Court held that the petitioner was liable for the offence under Section 363 of I.P.C. With regard to the charge under Section 506 of I.P.C., the evidence of PW2 did not corroborate with any other witnesses. Neither PW3, who saw the accused and the victim while boarding the Auto nor the PW4, 4 who accompanied the accused and victim girl in the Auto have stated that the accused threatened the victim girl. Therefore, the trial Court heid that the prosecution failecl to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 506 of I.p.C.

9. In the appeal, the appellate Court, upon re-appreciating the materia-l available on record, observed that the victim was 16 years old and that the tria-l Court had rightly convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 363 of I.p.C. Stating thus, the appellate Court, rendered its judgment, modifying the judgment passed by the trial Court. 10' A careful reading of the evidence available on record shows that PW2 ald accuseri were familiar with each other. As per the evidence of PW3, PW1 intercepted the Auto at Kunaram road near function hall and the accused, on seeing pW1 had fled away. The act of the accused shows that the offence of Kidnapping is not complete. The 1aw would only intervene at the point where an individual has acquired the means to commit a further offence and will not mere punish the mere thought of committing the offence. Thus, the critical or central component of any inchoate crime is the preliminary or preparatory actus reus that sufficiently reflects the essence or existence of a criminal intent. 'ffi5i7'r r' 5

11. For better understanding para Nos.1O and 11 of the decision passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tilku Alias Tilak Singh Vs. The State of Uttarakhandl are extracted as hereunder:- " 1O. However, in her examination-in-chief, the prosecutrix admits that though her father (Kedar Singh) had information that she had been kidnapped, he reached the village of Jot Singh the next day requesting him to return his daughter. The prosecutrix further admits that efforts were made to settle the matter in the village panchayat and for this purpose 2-3 village palchayats were held at villages Koti and Fahnar. From her testimony, it is further clear that she travelled all the way to Dehradun from the village Luni, which is 14- 15 kms away from Fahnar, in a bus. Admittedly, in the said bus there were at that time 15- 16 passengers. She further admitted tl1at she did not make any effort to raise any alarm when she was travelling in the bus. A suggestion was given to her that she was taken to Courts in Dehradun and was asked to sign various documents which were pertaining to her marriage. To these suggestions, she admitted that she went to the Court arrd she was asked to sign various forms.

11. A perusal of testimony of the prosecutri\ itself would reveal that she had gone on her own accord with the appellant herein. Therefore, the defence of the appellant herein that he had married the prosecutrlx ald not only that but also that the marriage was certihed before the competent authority at Dehradun and thereafter they were living as husband and wife at Dehradun is a plausible defence."

72. As per Ex P2/Birth certi{icate of the victim, her date of birth was 08.07.1992. Th.e offence occurred on 09.07.2008. Therefore, the age of the victim girl was more tharr 16 years. The age of the petitioner, at the tiine of filing of S.C.No.118 of 2009 is about 21 years. PW6/Driver of Auto, in his evidence, did not state that the l. I CrimiiiaT?ppeal No. 183 of 2014 t 6 girl had raised hue arrd cry, at the time of boarding the Auto. If at all the girl was not interested to board the Auto along with the petitioner, she ought to have expressed her resentment, in Auto, either by 'shouting or screaming'. Therefore, there is every probability to presume that the girl on her own volition had accompanied the accused in the Auto. The accused, as admitted, had surfaced at the house of the de facto complainant, after the said incident, which clearly established that the accused has not committed the alleged offence of Kidnapping. As such, in the absence of any clinching evidence to prove that the accused had kidnapped the girl from the larvful guardianship of the parents, this Court is not convinced to presume that the accused is guilty of the offence punishable under Section 363 of I.P.C lZ. In view of the mitigating circumstances discussed above and relying on the decision crted supra, this Court is inclined to acquit the petitioner/ accused by extending benefit of doubt. Hence, the impugned judgment is not sustainable under law and the same is liable to be set aside. 14* In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the impugned judgment is set aside. The conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner/accused by the trial Court, which was 7 modified by the appellate Court, are hereby set aside and he is not found guilty of the said offence and therefore, acquitted of the charge. The fine amount, if any, paid by the accused shall be returned to him. The bail bonds of the petitioner/ accused shall stand cancelied. The petitioner shall be released forthwith, if he is not required in any other crime Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shail stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. MOHD. ISMAIL PUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, The Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Peddapally, Karimnagar District. The lV Additional Sessions Judge at Khammam- The Assistant Sessions Judge at Peddapally, Karimnagar' The Superintendent District Jail, Karimnagar. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad. One CC to SRI V RAGHUNATH Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies. 1 2 ., 4 5 o 7 PM/gh HIGH COURT DATED:1410212025 / t ORDER CRLRC.No.2307 of 2012 irE S !-4 pe 2O JUN M i, \\ /; //'; /i5ilo il,.> csPAT C\ri :i) ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE. 4 (? 6