Telangana High Court
C.Venkateswara Rao, vs State Of A.P., Rep By Pp., on 26 July, 2022
Bench: K.Surender
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 293 of 2009
JUDGMENT:
1. The appellant is convicted for the offence under Section
365 of IPC vide judgment in S.C.No.48 of 2005, dated
01.08.2008 passed by the Special Judge for the trial of
Offences under SCs & STs (POA) Act-cum-VI Additional
Metropolitan Sessions Judge. Aggrieved by the same, present
appeal is filed.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 11.05.2004 around
12.00 noon when the victim P.W.2 was alone and returning
home by walk, the appellant engaged a taxi and forcibly took
P.W.2 with him in the said taxi to the room of A.2, situated at
Nacharam. The next day morning, P.W.2 was taken to Boda
Thanda in Nalgonda District and was restrained at Boda
Thanda. Further, P.W.2 was threatened by appellant saying
that he would engage antisocial elements if she did not obey
him and outraged her modesty.
3. P.W.2 stated that while she was studying in Vignanjyothi
Junior college, on 02.11.2001, the accused took her to his
room and raped her. Thereafter, she was taken to Nizamabad
and they stayed in relatives house and thereafter was taken to
Hyderabad at Padmarao nagar. She stayed with the accused
for 18 days. Thereafter, Chilakalguda police traced them.
Their relationship continued thereafter. On 11.05.2004 while
she was returning from her tuition, the appellant forcibly took
her and stayed at Uppal, Suryapet and also at Nalgonda. After
she was traced, the police sent her for medical examination.
4. P.W.1, who is the mother of P.W.2 stated on similar lines
and that at her instance, First Information Report was
registered on 11.05.2004. In the said complaint she stated
that her daughter P.W.2 was taken by three unknown men
and one woman in a car.
5. The learned Sessions Judge having examined PWs.1 to 9
and marking Exs.P1 to P4 concluded that the appellant was
guilty for the offence under Section 365 of IPC and acquitted
the appellant for the offence under Sections 341, 343, 354,
120-B r/w Section 34 of IPC.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
learned Sessions Judge committed grave error in convicting
the appellant for the offence under Section 365 of IPC having
found the appellant was not guilty for the offence under
Sections 341, 343, 354, 120-B of IPC r/w Section 34 of IPC.
7. Further even according to the evidence of P.W.2, they
knew each other and the only logical conclusion that can be
drawn is that P.W.2 had voluntarily gone with the
appellant/accused, as such, conviction has to be reversed.
8. Sri Sudershan, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
submits that P.W.2 has specifically stated that she was
kidnapped by the appellant and another, as such, conviction
under Section 365 of IPC has to be maintained.
9. The State has not preferred any appeal for the acquittal
of the accused under Sections 341, 343, 354, 120-B r/w
Section 34 of IPC.
10. As seen from the evidence of P.W.2, even in the year
2001, she accompanied the appellant to Nizamabad and
stayed along with him for 18 days and thereafter, she joined
her parents. She continued to maintain the relationship with
the appellant herein as stated in her chief examination.
11. Section 365 of IPC reads as follows:
"365. Kidnapping or abducting with intent secretly and wrongfully to
confine person.--Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person with intent to
cause that person to be secretly and wrongfully confined, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."
12. Section 362 of IPC reads as follows:
"362. Abduction.--Whoever by force compels, or by any deceitful
means induces, any person to go from any place, is said to abduct that
person."
13. Section 359 of IPC reads as follows:
"359. Kidnapping.--Kidnapping is of two kinds: kidnapping from
1[India], and kidnapping from lawful guardianship."
14. As seen from the evidence of P.W.2, though she was
staying with her mother, from her past conduct, it can only be
said that she had voluntarily went along with the appellant on
the date of incident. To attract an offence under Section 365
IPC it has to be shown that P.W.2 was either kidnapped or
forced by any deceitful means by any person to go from one
place to another. As already found from the past history of the
relationship between P.W.2 and the appellant regarding their
stay together at different places for 18 days in Nizamabad and
thereafter also maintaining relationship with the appellant till
the incident, it cannot be said that she was in any manner
forced to go with the appellant.
15. For the aforesaid reasons, an offence under Section 365
of IPC is not attracted against the appellant and consequently,
the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge vide judgment in
S.C.NO.48 of 2005 dated 01.08.2008 is set aside.
16. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. Since the
appellant is on bail, his bail bonds stand cancelled.
________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 26.07.2022
kvs
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
Criminal Appeal No.293 of 2009
Date:26.07.2022
kvs
