Samuel Subba Rao, Subbadu, vs The State Of Ap Rep By Its Pp Hyd.,
2022 Latest Caselaw 1485 AP

         HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY

                 CRL.R.C.NO.1879 OF 2007

ORDER:-

     Questioning the conviction and sentence imposed by the

Additional Munsif Magistrate, Chirala in C.C.No.94 of 2000, dated

04-03-2003

, which was confirmed by the I Additional District

and Sessions Judge, Ongole in Crl.A.No.50 of 2003, dated 15-

12-2005, the petitioner/Accused No.4 filed the present Criminal

Revision Case.

2. The case of the prosecution succinctly is thus:-

A-1 who is the paramour of Pw.1 used to visit the house of

the latter for some time along with A-2 to A-4. While so,

disputes arose between Pw.1 and A-1. On 25-08-1999 at about

9.30 P.M, A-1 with the active support of A-2 to A-4, engaged a

jeep bearing No.ADE 5397 and came to the house of Pw.1 and

woke her up and dragged her inside the jeep and forcibly

kidnapped her. While they were taking her towards Purchur, on

the way at Naiduvaripalem, the jeep stopped due to traffic jam.

At that time, on hearing the hue and cries of Pw.1, Lws.3 and 4

rushed to the spot along with other villagers and rescued Pw.1

from the clutches of accused. Thereafter, Pw.1 along with Pws.3

and 4 went to police station and gave Ex.P-1 report. On the

basis of the same, a case in Cr.No.73 of 1999 of Inkollu Police

station was registered for the offence under Section.365 r/w.34

IPC. After completion of investigation, the police filed charge

sheet.

3. The case was taken on file as C.C.No.94 of 2000 on the file

of the Court of Additional Munsiff Magistrate, Chirala.

4. The prosecution in support of its case, examined Pws.1 to

8 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-5. The plea of the accused was

one of the denial.

5. Accepting the evidence of Pw.1 coupled with evidence of

Pws.3 and 5, the learned Magistrate convicted all the accused for

the offence punishable under Section 365 r/w 34 IPC and

sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of

six months each and also to pay a fine of Rs.200/- each in

default to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days. Questioning

the same, Accused No.1 filed Crl.A.No.43 of 2003, Accused

Nos.2 and 3 filed Crl.A.No.69 of 2003, whereas the

petitioner/Accused No.4 filed the Crl.A.No.50 of 2003 before the

I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ongole, and all the

appeals were dismissed by way of common judgment, dated 15-

12-2005. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/Accused No.4

filed the present Criminal Revision Case.

6. Heard Sri Nimmagadda Satyanarayana, learned counsel for

the revision petitioner and the learned Special Assistant Public

Prosecutor.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that except

the evidence of Pw.1-interested witness, there is no other

evidence to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence. As

seen from the evidence of Pw.1 that she is the paramour of A-1

and A-1 used to visit her house for some time along with A-2 to

A-4 also. At one point of time, the owner of the house, in which

Pw1 is residing as a tenant, objected for the same.

Subsequently, disputes arose between A-1 and Pw.1. Further,

Pw.1 stated that on 25-08-1999 at about 9.30 P.M A-1 along

with A-2 to A-4 came in a jeep and forcibly kidnapped her.

Apart from the evidence of Pw.1, the evidence of Pws.3 and 4

also lend support to the version of the prosecution. Both the

courts have placed reliance on the evidence of Pws.1, 3 and 4.

As seen from the record, there is nothing to disbelieve the

evidence of Pw.1. Therefore, this court is not inclined to interfere

with the conviction recorded by both the courts. However, as the

incident took place in the year 1999, this court is inclined to take

a lenient view with regard to sentence of imprisonment alone.

8. In that view of the matter, the Criminal Revision Case is

dismissed confirming the conviction recorded by both the courts.

However, the sentence of imprisonment of six(6) months is

reduced to the period already undergone while maintaining the

fine amount.

Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed

in consequence.

_________________ K.SURESH REDDY,J 25-03-2022.

TSNR