Komeraboina Adi, vs The State Of Ap Rep By Its Pp Hyd.,
2025 Latest Caselaw 1222 Tel

Telangana High Court

Komeraboina Adi, vs The State Of Ap Rep By Its Pp Hyd., on 22 January, 2025

            THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

              CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 547 OF 2013

JUDGMENT:

The appellant/A1 filed the appeal aggrieved by the conviction

recorded by the Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under

SC/ST (POA) Act-cum-Additional Sessions Judge at Khammam, in

S.C.No.28 of 2012, dt. 28.06.2013, for the offence under Section

363 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Heard Sri V.R.Avula, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

appellant and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the

respondent-State.

3. The appellant was initially tried for the offence under Sections

366, 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(i)(xv) of the SC/ST

(POA) Act. Accused No.2 was also tried under Section 366 r/w.34 of

Indian Penal Code.

4. The case of the prosecution is that on 05.04.2011, PW.1 and

his wife went to the fields. The victim-PW.20 was alone in the house.

Then the appellant kidnapped PW.20 in his Auto. She was taken to

Yellandu from Pandithapuram where PW.1 was residing. PW.2 who

is the brother of PW.20 found her in the company of family of A2.

Then PW.2 and others brought back the appellant and PW.20. They

were taken to the Police Station where a crime was registered on the

basis of the statement made by the victim.

5. The learned Sessions Judge having examined the witnesses

found that the prosecution was not able to prove any case under

Section 376 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(i)(xv) of SC/STs

(POA) Act. However, the appellant was found guilty under Section

363 of Indian Penal Code (punishment for kidnapping).

6. Sections 359 and 363 of Indian Penal Code;

"359. Kidnapping.--Kidnapping is of two kinds: kidnapping

from India, and kidnapping from lawful guardianship.

363. Punishment for kidnapping.--Whoever kidnaps any

person from 1[India] or from lawful guardianship, shall be

punished with imprisonment of either description for a

term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be

liable to fine."

7. Kidnapping would mean that a person is taken against his or

her will in circumstances beyond their control. The act of

Kidnapping includes restraint of freedom and/or use of force, threat

or intimidating the victim.

8. PW.20 stated in one word that she was forcibly taken by the

appellant in his Auto. The place where PW.20 and A1 were found

was in the house of Accused No.2 at Yellandu which is at a distance

of 55 K.Ms. from Pandithapuram. There is absolutely no narration

by PW.1 as to how she was forced into the Auto and taken to a

distance of nearly 55 K.Ms. None of the witnesses stated anything

about any kind of force being used on PW.20 by A1. Further, PW.20

also did not narrate as to what was meant by forcibly taking her.

Unless it is convincingly stated by the victim about the kind of force

used or that she was intimidated or threatened and that there was

resistance by PW.20, merely mentioning that she was forcibly taken

would not fall within the meaning of kidnapping in the present facts

of the case. The ingredients of Kidnapping are not made out.

10. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is allowed and the appellant/A1

is acquitted. The conviction recorded by the Special Sessions Judge

for Trial of Cases under SC/ST (POA) Act-cum-Additional Sessions

Judge at Khammam, in S.C.No.28 of 2012, dt. 28.06.2013, is set

aside. Since the appellant is on bail, his bail bonds shall stand

discharged.

_________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 22.01.2025 tk