Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
This Application Is Filed To ... vs Heard Sri D. Purnachander Rao on 8 August, 2022
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
MAIN CASE No.: Crl.A. No.204 of 2022
PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl. Office
DATE ORDER
No Note
6. 08.08.2022 RC, J
Crl.A.No.204 of 2022
Post the matter after four (4) weeks.
________
RC, J
I.A.No.1 of 2022
This application is filed to suspend the execution
of sentence imposed against the petitioners/Accused
No.2 and 3 in the judgment dated 23.05.2022 passed in
S.C.No.24 of 2019 on the file of Special Judge for trial of
the offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act at Visakhapatnam and to release them on
bail.
Heard Sri D. Purnachander Rao, learned counsel,
representing Sri Eathakota Venkata Rao, learned counsel
for the appellants and and Sri Soora Venkata Sainath,
learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the
respondent-State.
The petitioners are A-2 and A-3 in S.C.No.24 of
2019 on the file of the learned Special Judge for trial of the
offences under the POCSO Act, Visakhapatnam. The
petitioners were found guilty for the offences punishable
under Sections 366 r/w 109 IPC and under Sections 3, 4,
16 r/w 17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act (for short 'POCSO Act') and were convicted
for the said offences and were sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years for the
offences punishable under Sections 3, 4, 16 r/w 17 of the
POCSO Act and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
period of five years for the offences punishable under
Sections 366 r/w 109 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-
and in default of payment of the said fine to undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the
aforesaid offences.
Learned counsel for the appellants contended that
the appellants herein are A-2 and A-3, who are brother
and mother of A-1 and their role in the alleged offences
are very limited. He submits that it is an admitted fact
that P.W.1 is a distant relative to the appellants. Learned
counsel for the appellants draws the attention of the
Court to the cross-examination of P.W.12, who is the
Circle Inspector, wherein he has deposed the reason for
the delay in registration of F.I.R that "both the parties are
relatives to each other and the complaint i.e., mother of
victim girl asked accused to handover her daughter and
as they did not respond and after waiting for three days,
she lodged the report".
Apart from that, learned counsel also draws the
attention of this Court to the evidence of P.W.1, who is
the victim girl, wherein she has categorically stated that
she knows A-1 and she got acquaintance with him when
she attended the marriage of son of her maternal aunt
which took place on 30.04.2015 at Cheepurupalli Village
of Vizianagaram District and A-3 asked her whether she
would marry A-1 for which she told to ask her parents.
Therefore, he would submit that there is no forcible
compulsion in getting marriage to P.W.1 and apart from
that A-3 is a woman and A-2, having children, is residing
with his family separately. Hence, prayed to grant bail to
the petitioners.
On the other hand, learned Special Assistant
Public Prosecutor would contend that the offences are
heinous in nature and after full length trial, the trial
Court has found the appellants guilty and convicted
them for the offences and sentenced them to undergo
imprisonment for a period of ten years and prayed for
dismissal of the bail application. In support of his
contention, he relied on the judgment of the Apex Court
in Criminal Appeal No.2 of 1997 reported in (1998) 7 SCC
324.
Having regard to the submissions made by both
the counsels, this Court is of the considered view that the
judgment relied on by the learned Special Assistant
Public Prosecutor is not applicable to the present facts of
the case. Considering the involvement/role of A-2 and A-
3 in the present case and taking into consideration the
facts and circumstances of the case, and also the disposal
of the present Criminal Appeal is not possible in sooner
days, as such the execution of substantive sentence of
imprisonment imposed against the petitioners in the
above case only, is hereby ordered to be suspended till
the disposal of this Criminal Appeal.
The petitioners shall be released on bail on their
executing self bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five
thousand only) each with two sureties for a like sum each
to the satisfaction of the learned III Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, at Gajuwaka.
________
RC, J
AKN
