THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.235 of 2009 01-12-2014 BETWEEN:
Arastu AND …..Appellant The State, rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.
…..Respondent THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING ORDER:
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.235 of 2009 JUDGMENT:
This appeal is preferred by the sole accused challenging the judgment of Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-III Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) at L.B.Nagar, R.R.District in S.C.No.143 of 2006 dated 24.02.2009, whereby the learned Sessions Judge found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 366 IPC and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him to undergo S.I. for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer S.I. for two months.
The case of the prosecution is that on 11.1.2006 the accused visited the house of P.W.1, who is his co-brother on the even of Bakrid festival and stayed in their house for that night and that on 12.1.2006 he asked his co- brother to send the victim-Snannu to his house at Barkas on the pretext that his wife and children asked to bring her. Believing his version, the complainant and his wife allowed the accused to take their daughter. The accused took the victim girl to Gulburga and stayed there for seven days, where he forced her to marry him and fulfil his sexual lust and also threatened her to kill if she creates any problem. Again the accused came back to Hyderabad and kept her in his friend’s house at Talabkatta. In the meanwhile, on 17.1.2006 the father of victim girl-P.W.1 lodged Ex.P.1 complaint on the basis of which, a case was registered under girl and man missing. On 20.1.2006, the accused was found at Boinpalli bus stand while shifting the victim to his sister’s house. Then the accused was taken into custody and the victim girl was handed over to the custody of P.W.1. On the basis of the statement given by victim girl, section of law was altered to one under Section 366-A IPC and after completion of investigation, police laid the charge sheet against the accused for the alleged offence.
To substantiate its case, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.8. On behalf of accused, Exs.D.1 and D.2 were marked. After evaluating the entire evidence, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as aforementioned.
P.W.1 is the father of victim girl and he deposed in support of the case of the prosecution. According to him, the accused came to his house and took the victim girl on the pretext that his wife and children wanted to see her. P.W.2, wife of P.W.1 deposed in similar lines as that of P.W.1. P.W.3, elder sister of P.W.2 deposed that on the next day of Bakrid, the accused and victim visited her house and they went after some time. P.W.4 is the victim girl and she deposed in support of the case of the prosecution. P.W.5, the wife of accused did not support the case of the prosecution and she was declared hostile. P.W.6 is the panch witness to Ex.P.5-panchanama. He deposed regarding the arrest of the accused near Boinpally bus stop and handing over the girl to her parents. P.W.7 is the doctor, who issued Ex.P.6 certificate opining that the age of the victim girl is about 17 years. P.W.8 is the investigating officer, who deposed regarding the procedure of investigation, arresting the accused, recording the statements of witnesses and laying the charge sheet.
After arguing for some time, on evaluation of entire evidence and the findings of the trial Court, when this Court pointed out that there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment, learned counsel for appellant confined his arguments only to the extent of quantum of sentence and prayed this Court to reduce the sentence of imprisonment in the circumstances of the case.
No grounds are made out to interfere with the impugned conviction imposed by the trial Court. Hence, the conviction imposed on the accused- appellant for the offence under Section 366 IPC is hereby confirmed, but considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence of imprisonment is modified to the one period already undergone by the accused-appellant herein. The fine amount and the default clause imposed by the trial Court is not interfered with.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, filed in this appeal shall stand closed.
RAJA ELANGO,J 01.12.2014.
Tsr