Goni Manemma, R.R.Dt., vs The State Of Telangana, Rep Pp.,
2023 Latest Caselaw 614 Tel

         THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI

         CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1086 of 2016

ORDER:

This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner/

appellant/accused aggrieved by the judgment dated 13.04.2016 passed

in Criminal Appeal No.762 of 2015 on the file of the Special Judge for

Trial of Offences under SCs and STs (POA) Act - cum - VI Additional

Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad confirming the judgment

dated 02.09.2015 passed in C.C.No.290 of 2012 on the file of the XI

Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief was that on 20.08.2011

at 5:15 P.M., the defacto-complainant, Smt. S. Rajeshwari gave a

report to the Police that her daughter Neelima aged 6 years studying

1st class was kidnapped by one Manemma (accused) and demanded

money of Rs.1,00,000/-. She stated that her daughter Neelima was

suffering from fever as such, she was at home on that day. At about

12 noon, she went to attend Mahila Mandali meeting and returned

home at 1:00 P.M. and found that her daughter was missing. She left

her daughter under the care and custody of her father-in-law. All of Dr.GRR,J Crl.R.C.No.1086 of 2016

them searched for Neelima. The complainant's brother-in-law Raju,

who was returning from duty informed that he had seen Neelima with

Manemma, who was residing earlier in that locality. One Nagaiah,

who was a tenant of the complainant also informed that he saw

Neelima with Manemma and both were proceeding towards main

road. Between 2:00 P.M. to 3:00 P.M., Manemma made calls twice

to the complainant to her landline number and stated that

complainant's daughter was kidnapped by her and demanded

Rs.1,00,000/- for her release. The complainant further stated that

while she was at Mahila Mandali meeting, Manemma also attended

the meeting and took her landline number.

3. Basing on the said report given by the defacto-complainant,

Begumpet Police registered a case vide Crime No.285 of 2011 under

Section 364-A of IPC. The Police tracked the cell phone number of

the accused Manemma and tracked the victim girl with the accused in

an auto rickshaw bearing No.AP11Y1303 near Lifestyle Building,

Begumpet. They arrested the accused. On interrogation, she

admitted her guilt. After completion of investigation, police filed

charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 363 of Dr.GRR,J Crl.R.C.No.1086 of 2016

IPC.

4. Learned XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,

Secunderabad had taken cognizance of the offence against the

accused, framed charge under Section 363 of IPC and as the accused

pleaded not guilty, conducted the trial.

5. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined PWs.1

to 6 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4 on its behalf. No defence evidence

was adduced by the accused and no documents were marked on her

behalf.

6. On considering the oral and documentary evidence on

record, the trial court found the accused guilty for the offence under

Section 363 of IPC and sentenced her to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for a period of (06) months and to pay a fine of

Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple

imprisonment for 15 days.

7. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and sentence

recorded against her, accused preferred an appeal. The appeal was

heard by the the Special Judge for Trial of Offences under SCs and Dr.GRR,J Crl.R.C.No.1086 of 2016

STs (POA) Act - cum - VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge,

Secunderabad. Vide Criminal Appeal No.762 of 2015 dated

13.04.2016, the lower appellant court dismissed the appeal

confirming the conviction and sentence recorded against the accused

in C.C.No.290 of 2012 dated 02.09.2015.

8. Aggrieved further, the accused preferred this revision

contending that the order passed by the lower appellate court was

erroneous and contrary to law. The lower appellate court erred in not

considering that non-examination of the minor girl by the prosecution

was fatal. The lower appellant court erred in not observing that the

witnesses examined were interested and interrelated. In the cross-

examination of PW1, she stated that she had not seen anybody who

kidnapped the victim girl, but in the chief examination suspected the

accused. The lower appellate court failed to appreciate that as per the

investigation, on the basis of the confession statement of the accused,

the police recovered one Samsung Mobile phone from the possession

of the accused under the cover of panchanama in the presence of

panch witnesses. The panch witness cited as PW.4 turned hostile and

not supported the prosecution case and another panch witness was not Dr.GRR,J Crl.R.C.No.1086 of 2016

examined by the prosecution, as such the recovery was not proved

and the prosecution failed to establish the case against the accused

and prayed to allow the revision by setting aside the judgments of the

courts below.

9. Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner and learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor.

10. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner argued on the

same lines as raised in the grounds of the appeal. Learned Assistant

Public Prosecutor supported the judgments of the courts below and

submitted that there was no necessity to interfere with the same as

they were reasoned orders based on evidence on record.

11. As seen from the object of the revisional jurisdiction under

Section 397 of Cr.P.C., the revisional jurisdiction of the court can be

exercised where there is palpable error, non-compliance with the

provisions of law, the decision is completely erroneous or where the

judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily. The Hon'ble Apex Court

in Amit Kapoor vs Ramesh Chander & Anr.1 held that:

"Normally, a revisional jurisdiction should be

(2012) 9 SCC 406.

Dr.GRR,J Crl.R.C.No.1086 of 2016

exercised on a question of law. However, when factual appreciation is involved, then it must find place in the class of cases resulting in a perverse finding. Basically, the power is required to be exercised so that justice is done and there is no abuse of power by the court. Merely an apprehension or suspicion of the same would not be a sufficient ground for interference in such cases."

The revisional jurisdiction is very limited. The legality, proprietary

or correctness of an order passed by a court is the very foundation of

exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 of Cr.P.C.

12. On a perusal of the judgments of the courts below, both the

courts analysed the evidence of the witnesses and appreciated their

evidence basing on the touch stone of the proof beyond reasonable

doubt and the contentions raised by the accused with regard to the

interestedness of the witnesses.

13. The lower appellant court on considering the evidence of

PW1 and the Ex.P1 report given by her to the police observed that

PW.1 categorically mentioned in the FIR itself about the name of the

accused, as the accused came to her and enquired in the Mahila

Mandali meeting and took her landline phone number and

subsequently telephoned to her and demanded for Rs.1,00,000/- for Dr.GRR,J Crl.R.C.No.1086 of 2016

releasing the minor girl. She also stated in the FIR itself about PW.3

informing her that he saw the victim with the accused. The lower

appellate court observed that though PW.3 was a relative, his

evidence could not be discarded on the said ground. The Court on

analysing his evidence held that PW.3 though observed the minor girl

with the accused had not prevented her, as he did not suspect any foul

play, as the accused was known to them and residing in the vicinity

by selling vegetables but however, when he came to know that the

minor girl was missing, then he informed to her parents.

14. PW.5 WPC, PS, Begumpet and PW.6 Investigating Officer

traced the accused and victim in an auto between 6:30 P.M. to 7:00

P.M. on the same day near Lifestyle building. The evidence of these

witnesses, PWs. 1 and 2, the parents of the minor girl and the

evidence of PW.3 would disclose that the minor girl was kidnapped

and as PW.3 found the minor girl with the accused, they raised

suspicion against the accused and the evidence of PW.1 also would

disclose that the accused had taken her landline number and made

calls from her cell phone to that landline number and demanded

ransom for the release of the victim and the police traced out the cell Dr.GRR,J Crl.R.C.No.1086 of 2016

phone number of the accused and found her with the victim girl near

the Lifestyle building in an auto . The tracing of the victim girl with

the accused coupled with the evidence of other witnesses would

prove the case against the accused.

15. The defence taken by the accused was that the complainant

had lodged a false case against her at the instance of one Laxmi who

was running chits and the accused was due of some amount to Laxmi

and as such, the said Laxmi approached PW.1 and requested to

recover the amount due from the accused and with a view to recover

the said amount, a false case was foisted against her. Both the trial

court and lower appellate court observed that no evidence was

adduced by the accused in proof of her defence and the evidence on

record would establish her guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

16. The other contention of the accused was that the panch

witness examined as PW.4, who was cited in proof of recovery of cell

phone from the accused turned hostile and not supported the

prosecution case and the other panch witness was not examined by

the prosecution.

Dr.GRR,J Crl.R.C.No.1086 of 2016

17. The lower appellate court observed that as per clause (5) of

Section 100 of Cr.P.C., no person witnessing the search need to be

examined before the court by summoning him. Non-examination of

panch witness or the panch witness turning hostile itself would not

raise suspicion on the recovery. It has to be seen in the light of the

other facts and circumstances proved by the prosecution. The

evidence of PW.6, the investigating officer is corroborating with the

evidence of PWs.1 to 5 for the arrest of the accused and rescue of the

victim from the hands of the accused. Even though the recovery of

cell phone from the accused is not proved by the prosecution, the

other evidence is cogent and consistent to believe that the accused

kidnapped the minor girl and demanded PW.1, a ransom for her

release and the minor was rescued from the hands of the accused by

the police.

18. Another contention taken by the learned counsel for the

revision petitioner/accused was that non-examination of minor girl

before the court by the prosecution is fatal to the prosecution.

19. The lower appellate court observed that minor girl was aged

about 5 or 6 years and she was not worldly wise to know the things.

Dr.GRR,J Crl.R.C.No.1086 of 2016

If at all she was worldly wise, she would not have gone along with

the accused. Non-examination of the victim is not at all fatal and the

other material evidence on record would positively establish the

ingredients of the offence under Section 363 of IPC. Hence, this

Court does not find any perversity in the findings of the courts below

to set aside the same. As the trial court itself had taken a lenient view

in convicting the accused and inflicted a sentence of only (06) months

imprisonment, this Court does not find any necessity to interfere with

the same.

20. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed

confirming the judgments of the courts below in convicting and

sentencing the accused for the offence under Section 363 of IPC as

stated above. The revision petitioner/appellant is directed to be taken

into custody immediately by the trial Court and to implement the

sentence accordingly.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

_____________________ Dr. G. RADHA RANI, J February 07, 2023 SS Dr.GRR,J Crl.R.C.No.1086 of 2016

THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1086 of 2016

February 07, 2023

SS