The State Of A.P., vs Sajja Ramakanth
2022 Latest Caselaw 8773 AP

                                       1




      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU

             CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1164 OF 2009

JUDGMENT:-

      This is a Criminal Appeal filed on behalf of the State,

represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra

Pradesh, under Section 378(1) & (3) of the Code of Criminal

Procedure ("Cr.P.C." for short), challenging the judgment in

Sessions Case No.211 of 2006, on the file of the Assistant

Sessions Judge, Narsapuram, dated 27.12.2007, with a prayer

to   set   aside   the   order    of   acquittal   and   to   convict   the

Respondents/Accused for the offences, with which they were

charged.

2) The parties to this appeal will hereinafter be referred

as described before the learned Assistant Sessions Judge,

Narsapuram, for the sake of convenience.

3) The State, represented by the Inspector of Police,

Palakol Circle, filed a charge sheet in Crime No.47 of 2005 of

Achanta Police Station, under Sections 343, 366A, 376 r/w 109

of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short), alleging in substance

that the victim is permanent resident of Padamatipalem and she

is aged about 14 years. So, she is a minor. L.W.2-Chilukuri

Venkata Narayana is the father of the victim and L.W.3-Chilukuri

Varalakshmi is the wife of L.W.2. The study record reveals that

the date of birth of the victim is 01.07.1991. A.1 to A.4 are the

residents of Padamatipalem. A.1 is the son of A.3. A.2 and A.4

are supporters of family of A.1 and A.3. As the victim belonged

to a rich family, A.1 wanted to marry her. A.2 to A.4 supported

the proposal of A.1. Prior to the offence, A.1 used to follow the

victim and used to tell her that he would marry her, for which

she could not make out her mind. A.1 used to demand the

victim to love him. A.2 used to call victim to his house and

compel her to accept the marriage proposal. A.3 and A.4

supported the conduct of A.1.

4) On 12.06.2005 evening A.1 stopped the victim on

her way and asked her to come with him for which she refused.

One Chilukuri Srinivas Rao was noticing them together and then

A.1 went away. Again on the same day, at 6-00 P.M. A.1 and

A.2 went to Ramalayam Temple in Padamatipalem and they

found the victim. A.1 asked her to come with him and he would

take her away and marry her. Victim intimated to A.1 to inform

her parents, but, he prevailed over her immature mind and

made her to believe his words. A.2 instigated A.1 to kidnap her.

The victim is made to leave the custody of her parents and to

follow A.1. A.1 took her on his motorbike to Bhimavaram, from

there to Tirupati and kept her in the house of his uncle, Yenugu

Ramaswamy, behind Venkateswara Theatre, near Bus Stand,

Tirupati. On 19.06.2005 A.1 took the victim to Razole, took a

room in the tiled house of one Yalangi Padma and kept the

victim girl there. On 20.06.2005 night A.1 had sexual

intercourse with the victim in spite of her objections in the

room. On 21.06.2005 A.3 and A.4 came there and learnt that

A.1 had sexual intercourse with the victim. A.3, the mother of

A.1, advised him to take to Annavaram temple for marriage. As

per the directions of A.3 and A.4, A.1 took the victim to

Annavaram on 30.06.2005, tied yellow thread in her neck in the

temple before Purohit. A.1 affixed toe rings to victim girl and

got photographs. A.3 and A.4 supplied money and aided A.1 to

commit the offence. She was detained in the rented room at

Razole. On 14.06.2005 at 6-00 P.M. on the report of father of

the victim, police registered the F.I.R. under Section 363 r/w 34

of IPC in Crime No.47 of 2005 and took up investigation. They

visited the scene of offence and prepared observation report and

rough sketch. Police collected date of birth certificate of the

victim.

5) Whenever the victim attempted to go home, A.1,

A.3 and A.4 threatened her with dire consequences and

compelled her to tell to police that she would prefer to be with

A.1. Anyhow, on 08.07.2005 A.1 brought the victim from Razole

to Achanta Centre and dropped her and went away. She

managed to go home and narrated everything to her parents.

On 08.07.2002 at 9-00 P.M. the parents of victim brought her to

police station where the Sub-Inspector of Police recorded

detailed statement of the victim and thereupon the police

altered the section of law into 366(A), 376 of IPC r/w 109 of

IPC. Sub-Inspector of Police referred the victim to medical

examination and obtained the age determination certificate. He

examined the house of Yalangi Padma where the accused

confined the victim and drafted observation report. On

10.07.2005 the Circle Inspector of Police concerned took up

further investigation and verified the investigation done by the

Sub-Inspector of Police. He arrested A.3 and A.4 and sent for

remand. A.1 and A.2 in fact surrendered before the police when

the offence was under Section 363 of IPC and were released on

bail by the police. Later, the police got cancelled the bail

granted to A.1 and A.2. So, again police arrested A.1 on

26.07.2002 and sent for medical examination and later A.1 and

A.2 were released.

6) The investigation reveals the offences under

Sections 366(A), 366(A) r/w 109 of IPC and also Sections 343

and 376 of IPC. Hence, the charge sheet.

7) The concerned Judicial Magistrate of First Class took

cognizance of the offences alleged and numbered the case as

Preliminary Register Case and after complying the formalities

under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., committed the case to the Court of

Sessions and thereupon the case was numbered as Sessions

Case and was made over to Assistant Sessions Judge,

Narsapuram.

8) On appearance of the respondents/accused before

the trial Court and by following the procedure, charges under

Sections 343, 366A, 376 of IPC against A.1 and Sections 366A

r/w 109 of IPC and 376 r/w 109 of IPC against A.2 to A.4 were

framed and explained to them in Telugu before the trial Court,

for which they denied the offences and claimed to be tried. The

prosecution before the trial Court got examined P.Ws.1 to 15

and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.18. Exs.D.1 and D.2 were marked

on behalf of the accused. After the closure of evidence of

prosecution, the accused were examined under Section 313 of

Cr.P.C., for which they denied the incriminating circumstances

and reported no defence evidence. The learned Assistant

Sessions Judge, on hearing both sides and on considering the

evidence on record, found them not guilty of the charges and

acquitted under Section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C. Aggrieved of the

same, the State, represented by the Public Prosecutor, High

Court of Andhra Pradesh, filed the present Criminal Appeal.

9) Now, in deciding the appeal, the points that arise for

consideration are as follows:

(i) Whether the prosecution before the trial Court was able to prove that the A.1 on 12.06.2005 kidnapped the victim girl and on 20.06.2005 subjected her to rape as alleged by the prosecution?

(ii) Whether the prosecution before the trial Court was able to prove that A.2 to A.4 abetted the commission of offence of kidnapping and rape of the victim girl by A.1?

(iii) Whether the judgment of the trial Court is sustainable under law or fact?

10) Sri Y. Jagadeeswara Rao, learned counsel,

representing the learned Public Prosecutor, would contend that

P.Ws.1 to 3, the victim as well as her parents, supported the

case of the prosecution. Though P.Ws.4 and 5 turned hostile,

but, there is evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3. The trial Court

unnecessarily disbelieved the evidence adduced by the

prosecution. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge did not

appreciate the evidence in proper manner and erred in acquittal

of the accused. P.W.9 supported the case of the prosecution.

The trial Court ought to have been seen that P.W.1 is a minor

girl and accused prevailed over her not to disclose the facts to

anybody. The evidence on record would prove that the victim

was a minor at the time of offence, as such, the accused are

liable for conviction.

11) Sri K. Raja Sekhar, learned counsel, representing

Smt. M. Renuka, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and

3, would contend that the evidence of P.W.1, the victim cannot

stand to the test of scrutiny. Her evidence means that forcibly

A.1 took away on motorbike and taken her to Bhimavaram and

from there to Tirupatiand again brought back to Razole and later

she was taken to Annavaram, etc. If really, A.1 kidnapped her

by force and if really he married the victim forcibly after

commission of rape, there would have been several

opportunities to the victim to reveal the incident and the

evidence of P.W.1 is totally unnatural. P.Ws.4 and 5, the so-

called direct witnesses, did not support the case of the

prosecution. The evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4 is interested in

nature. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge rightly passed an

order of acquittal and that there are no grounds to interfere with

the judgment of the trial Court.

12) There are no arguments advanced on behalf of the

other contesting respondents.

13) P.W.1 is the victim and P.Ws.2 and 3 are the parents

of P.W.1. P.Ws.4 and 5, the so-called direct witnesses,

admittedly turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. P.W.6

is the person, who issued the age proof of the victim. P.W.7

and P.W.8 are hearsay witnesses and they came to know about

the offence at a later stage. The prosecution examined P.W.9 to

prove that in her house the accused confined the victim and

committed rape. The prosecution further examined P.W.10, who

is a Photographer to speak to the fact that he took four photos

at the house of P.W.9. The prosecution further examined

P.W.11, who is a mediator to the observation report at

Padamatipalem. The prosecution also examined P.W.12 to

prove the age of the victim. P.W.13 is the medical officer, who

subjected the victim for physical examination. P.W.14 is the

person, who examined A.1 physically as regards his physical

structures, etc. P.W.15 is the investigating officer.

14) The evidence of P.W.1 on material aspects insofar as

allegations of kidnap and offence of rape is concerned is to the

effect that A.1 used to demand her to love him and he used to

make proposals to marry her. On one day she went to

Ramalayam on 12th June and lit a lamp and was coming back,

A.1 and A.2 came there and A.1 informed her that he want to

marry her, for which she refused. Then A.1 said to her that if

she would not come, he will die. A.2 informed A.1 that to take

away the victim and if any galata took place, he will look after it.

Still she refused to go with him. Then, A.1 said to her that if

she would not come, he will kill her parents. Then, A.1 forcibly

took her on his motorbike to Bhimavaram and from there to

Tirupati by train. He took her to his relatives' house at Tirupati

and confined there for one week. On 18.06.2005 A.1 took her

in a taxi to Razole to the house of Yelangi Padma, a tiled house

and kept her there. On the next day, on 20.06.2005, A.3 and

A.4 came there and gave some cash to A.1 and they went away.

On that day night A.1 hugged her and spoiled her life. On

21.06.2005 in the morning when she wake up, A.3 and A.4 were

present there. A.4 threatened her that if she reveal to anybody,

he will kill her. Then she left to go to her house, A.4 threatened

her. On that day completely she was weeping. On 30.06.2005

A.1, A.3 and A.4 took her to Annavaram in a Taxi and outside

the temple they called a Purohit and tied tali to her neck. They

tied black beads chain also to her neck and they fixed toe rings

to her legs. A.1 garlanded her. She was forced to garland to

A.1 and they took a photograph. A.1 told her that he married

her. From there A.1 took her to Razole. On 05.07.2005 A.1

went out and after A.1 returned A.4 went out. A.4 returned

back and informed A.1 that police are coming. Then A.1

informed her that if police came, she had to tell them that she

married A.1. On 08.07.2005 A.1 took her on motorbike and left

her at Achanta Center. Then she went to village by foot and

informed the incident to her parents. Then she, her father along

with village elders went to police station and reported the

incident. She was referred to Palakol Government hospital. As

there is no lady doctor, she was taken to Tanuku government

hospital, from there she was referred to Kakinada Government

hospital. This is the substance of the evidence of P.W.1.

15) The evidence of P.W.2 is to the effect that P.W.1

informed to him about the fact that A.1 used to tease her. Then

he questioned A.1. A.2 made a proposal to P.W.2 to give in

marriage of P.W.1 with A.1. But, as P.W.1 is aged only 14

years, he postponed her marriage and informed the same to

A.1. One year later, P.W.1 was missing. They searched for her

for two days and then he lodged Ex.P.1 report. Ultimately,

victim was left in the outskirts of Achanta and then she came to

the house. When he asked her what happened, she revealed

the entire incident. He took her to police station.

16) Coming to the evidence of P.W.3, her evidence is

also same as that of the evidence of P.W.2.

17) Admittedly, P.Ws.4 and 5 did not support the case of

the prosecution in any way.

18) A close look at the evidence of P.Ws.7 and 8 reveals

that they are not the persons, who witnessed the occurrence

and that they are the hearsay witnesses only. According to

P.W.7, A.1 forcibly took P.W.1 on his motorbike to Bhimavaram

and then to Tirupati and then to Annavaram and then to Razole.

A.2 and A.3 instigated A.1. A.1 used to demand P.W.2 to

perform the marriage of him with P.W.1. The evidence of P.W.8

is also such that he came to know about the offence committed

by the accused. So, P.Ws.7 and 8 are not the direct witnesses

to the occurrence. The direct witnesses P.Ws.3 and 4 did not

support the case of the prosecution.

19) Now, they remains the solitary evidence of P.W.1 to

prove the offences alleged against the accused and P.W.9, who

was the owner of the house i.e., Yalangi Padma, in whose house

A.1 was alleged to have kept the victim and committed rape.

Insofar as age of the victim is concerned, she was aged about

14 years as on the time of offence and she was a minor at the

time of offence which is evident from the evidence of P.W.12,

the Forensic Professor in Rangaraya Medical College coupled

with Ex.P.11, age certificate. The medical evidence adduced by

the prosecution is such a nature that there was no evidence of

recent sexual intercourse. However, the evidence of P.W.13 is

that the vegina admitting two fingers easily which means that

she was accustomed to sexual intercourse.

20) Now, the fact remained is that as P.Ws.2 and 3 are

not the direct witnesses to the occurrence and as evidence of

P.Ws.7 and 8 is the hearsay in nature, this Court has to

scrutinize the evidence of P.W.1, the victim and the P.W.9, the

owner of the house where the A.1 was alleged to have confined

the victim and committed rape. To appreciate the same, it is

pertinent to look into the answers spoken by P.W.1 during the

cross examination on material aspects.

21) P.W.1 deposed in cross examination on behalf of A.1

that there are several houses at Ramalayam centre. Nobody will

sit at Ramalayam center. Ramalayam center is a busy one

between 8-00 P.M. and 9-00 P.M., but not 7-00 P.M. to 9-00

P.M. Nobody would witness what is happening in the street.

Nobody was present on the street. She denied a suggestion

that she did not state before the police that A.1 threatened her

that he would kill her parents. A.1 took her on his motorbike

and she cannot say its number. She sits on the motorbike by

putting both legs on the one side of the bike. She went with A.1

on motorbike without any intention. She did not raise any alarm

on motorbike. She does not remember the time on which she

got in on the motorbike. She does not know the distance

between her village and Bhimavaram. She does not know the

time taken for journey. She did not inform that A.1 is taking her

by force in the train as she feared that he would kill her. She

passed 10th class examination in first class. She cannot give the

door number or the boundaries of the house at Tirupati. At

Razole she was detained for 10 days. She cannot identify the

Purohit who performed their marriage at Annavaram. Because

of thereat of A.1, she could not reveal that she is being taken by

force. She cannot give the door number and boundaries of the

house in which she was detained at Razole. She does not know

the way in which she was brought on Taxi from Tirupati to

Razole. When she tried to raise alarm, A.1 pressed her mouth

and threatened her that if she raised alarm, he will kill her. She

denied that she did not reveal to police about the threats alleged

to be given by A.1. She handed over the toe rings, tali and

black beads thread to the police.

22) During the cross examination on behalf of A.4, she

deposed that she did not reveal the incident to anybody at

Bhimavaram. They went in general compartment to go to

Tirupati. She purchased one pair of dress at Tirupati. She did

not intimate the taxi owner that A.1 is taking her by force. She

does not know how many family members are there in Yelangi

Padma house. She did not state before the police as in Ex.D.2.

She sustained small bleeding injuries on her hands and legs at

the time of rape. Her dress is not with any blood. A.1 used to

bring food all these days from outside including tiffin also. She

did not try to run away from A.1 when he was parking the

vehicle at Tirupati. At Tirupati, A.1 took a house of his relatives

where wife and husband were there. At Annavaram on the hills

they did not go into the temple. Purohit was contacted on the

top of the hill. The garlands were purchased on the top of the

hill. She does not know how much time was taken to complete

the marriage. Photographer was contacted on the hill. They

started at Annavaram during the night to go to Razole. She did

not take any meal at Annavaram. She denied that she was

deposing false.

23) Turing to the evidence of P.W.9, her evidence is that

she got a building at Sompalli and she is residing in up stair

portion and the ground floor is being given on lease. She also

let out her tiled house. The photos shown to her are her

houses. A.1 and P.W.2 came to her and asked to let out her

tiled house claiming that they married recently. They stayed in

their house for about 10 or 15 days only. During the course of

cross examination, she deposed that the houses are on her

husband's name, but not on her name. The houses are not in

the name of her husband even. Her brother-in-law has got four

family members and they occupied the ground floor. Kedida

Krupanandam and Lalitha Kumar stayed in the second portion.

She saw tali on the neck of P.W.1 and toe rings to the legs. She

cannot say the timings, date, month or year on which A.1 and

P.W.1 came to her to get the house on rent. Police did not

conduct any identification parade with A.1 and P.W.1. She did

not observe whether P.W.1 and A.1 came with any luggage or

not. Police did not collect any articles from her house. She did

not obtain any lease agreement. She did not collect any

advance amount. She meet the police at Court today. Police

had shown her P.W.1 and A.1. She denied that she deposing

false.

24) Now I would like to deal with as to whether the

evidence of P.W.1 is convincing? The crucial evidence as

regards the incident that was said to be happened on

12.06.2005 is such that when she refused to marry A.1 when

A.1 made such a proposal at Ramalayam, he informed to her

that he will die, if she did not come and that he will kill her

parents, if she will not accept his proposal. P.W.1 during the

course of cross examination denied the said suggestions. Now

as seen from the evidence of P.W.15, the investigating officer,

he deposed that P.W.1 did not state before him that A.1

threatened her that he will kill her parents and she did not state

to him any threats given by A.1. She did not state before him

that A.1 forced her to garland him. By virtue of the above, it is

quite clear that the evidence of P.W.1 that A.1 informed to her

that he would die, if she will not accept the proposal and that he

will kill her parents, etc. are material omissions which amounts

contradictions.

25) Apart from this, the very evidence of P.W.1 is that

on 12.06.2005 ultimately A.1 forcibly took her on his motorbike

to Bhimavaram and from there he took her by train to Tirupati.

According to the case of the prosecution, A.1 forcibly took away

P.W.1 on motorbike. If that be the case, it is not understandable

what prevented from P.W.1 from raising hue and cry when she

got down from the motorbike at Bhimavaram. Her evidence is

vague as to what was the mode of transport after reaching

Bhimavaram to Railway Station, Bhimavaram. It is not known

as to how she kept quite throughout journey from Bhimavaram

to Tirupati when A.1 was allegedly taking away her with force.

Apart from that, it is a case where she deposed that on

19.06.2005 A.1 took her to his relatives house at Tirupati. They

were there for one week. According to the evidence of P.W.15,

investigating officer, he has not gone to Tirupati where A.1 and

P.W.1 stayed there for one week. The investigating officer

ought to have probed into the allegations of the prosecution that

A.1 confined P.W.1 in his relatives house for a period of one

week to test the bonafides in the case of the prosecution. It is

not understandable as to how P.W.1 kept quite when she was

allegedly confined in the relatives house of A.1 at Tirupati, who

were residing in the said house and how she was there for about

one week is shrouded mystery.

26) Apart from this, according to P.W.1, on 19.06.2005

A.1 took her in a taxi to Razole and took tiled house of Yalangi

Padma and kept her there where he committed rape against

her. When the mode of transport from Tirupati to house of

Yelangi Padma at Razole is by a taxi, how she kept quite

throughout is not known. The evidence of P.W.1 on the above

aspects cannot stand to the test of scrutiny.

27) Now coming to the evidence of P.W.9, the owner of

the house i.e., Yalangi Padma during the course of cross

examination she deposed that she was not the owner of the

house where A.1 confined P.W.1. At one hand she deposed that

they were in the name of her husband and at another hand she

deposed that even the houses are not in the name of her

husband. So, when the houses claimed by P.W.9 were neither

in the name of her nor in the name of her husband, it is not

understandable as to how the investigating officer did not

ascertain as to who were the owners of the said house. It is

material for the reason that it is for the owner of the house to

say as to who resided in a particular house as tenants or

otherwise. P.W.9 in the chief examination deposed that she let

out the house to A.1 and P.W.1 for 10 or 15 days. When she

was not the owner and when her husband was not the owner,

her evidence is not convincing in this regard. Apart from this,

P.W.9 had no prior acquaintance either with P.W.1 or A.1. She

deposed in cross examination that police never conducted any

test identification parade involving A.1 and P.W.1. Apart from

this, she deposed further that police had shown A.1 and P.W.1

on the date of evidence before the Court. Under the

circumstances, I am of the considered view that the evidence of

P.W.9 is also not convincing. How P.W.1 could stay in the so-

called house of Yalangi Padma along with A.1, when A.1

allegedly kidnapped her force, is not convincing.

28) Apart from this, coming to the incident that was

happened at Annavaram i.e., A.1 allegedly tied a tali around the

neck of P.W.1 in the presence of a Purohit. The evidence

adduced by the prosecution cannot stand to the test of scrutiny.

There is no dispute that Annavaram is a pilgrimage center.

When it is the evidence of P.W.1 that she was forced to make

garlanding A.1, the so-called photographs have not seen the

light of the day. The photographs that are marked by the

prosecution under the cover of Exs.P.5 to P.8 are only relating to

the so-called vacant house where P.W.1 was allegedly confined.

They are not relating to the so-called marriage between A.1 and

P.W.1 at Annavaram temple. The prosecution did not examine

the so-called Purohit in whose presence the marriage was

performed. The alleged marriage between P.W.1 and A.1 could

not have been done without knowledge to the temple

authorities. Except self-serving evidence of P.W.1, which is not

at all convincing, they remained nothing on record in support of

such an allegation. Apart from this, when it is the evidence of

P.W.1 that A.1 enjoyed her sexually at the house of Yelangi

Padma at Razole and after that when she was taken to

Annavaram, a woman of reasonable prudence would have

ventured to raise hue and cry at Annavaram. The alleged

marriage could not have been done in a veil of secrecy. Hence,

the evidence of P.W.1 in this regard is not at all convincing.

29) It is to be noticed that when it was the evidence of

P.W.1, during the course of cross examination that nobody

would sit at Ramalayam center and it was a busy locality

between 8-00 P.M. to 9-00 P.M. and nobody would witness what

is happening in the street and nobody were present on the

street, the prosecution examined P.Ws.4 and 5 as if they

witnessed the occurrence, but, they turned hostile to the case of

the prosecution. Leave apart to the fact that the hostility of

P.Ws.4 and 5 against the prosecution is proved, but, in the light

of the answers spoken by P.W.1 during the course of cross

examination there was no chance to anybody to witness the

occurrence. The act of the police in citing P.Ws.4 and 5 as

prosecution witnesses throws any amount of doubt about the

bonafides in the case of the prosecution. It appears that they

were planted deliberately as direct witnesses and ultimately they

turned hostile to the case of the prosecution.

30) The serious lacunae in the case of the prosecution is

the conduct of P.W.1 is abnormal and if really she was taken

away by A.1 with all force, she would have ventured to raise hue

and cry atleast one place i.e., at Ramalayam, Bhimavaram,

Tirupati, Razole, Annavaram, etc.

31) When P.W.1 deposed that she handed over black

beads chain and tali Bottu, etc., to the investigating officer,

during the course of cross examination P.W.15 deposed that he

has not seized the tali and black beads chain and toe rings from

P.W.1. So, the evidence P.W.1 and P.W.15 in this regard is

inconsistent. The investigating officer did not go to the place at

Tirupati and even he did not examine the so-called relatives of

A.1 at Tirupati in support of the allegations against A.1 that he

confined P.W.1 in the relatives house and he did not examine

any neighbourers at the house of P.W.9 and he did not examine

the temple authorities or Purohit at Annavaram. The

investigation was not at all on right lines. The evidence adduced

by the prosecution, bristles with inherent, improbabilities and it

is absolutely unsafe to believe the evidence of P.W.1.

32) Though the learned Assistant Sessions Judge,

Narsapuram made a cryptic judgment by not looking into the

entire evidence on record, but when this Court dealing with an

appeal against acquittal, it is the bounden duty of the Court to

look into the entire evidence on record and to come an

independent conclusion as to whether the evidence on record

would prove the charges framed against the accused.

33) Having considered the facts and circumstances and

the evidence on record, I am of the considered view, that the

prosecution failed to prove that accused kidnapped P.W.1 and

A.1 had sexual intercourse with her in the manner as alleged by

the prosecution. Hence, there are no merits in the appeal.

34) In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.

Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any,

shall stand closed.

________________________ JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU Dt. 16.11.2022.

PGR

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU

CRL. APPEAL NO.1164 OF 2009

Date: 16.11.2022

PGR