THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.370 of 2006 15-12-2014 BETWEEN:
State of A.P., Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for The State of Telangana and the State of A.P., …..Appellant AND Nagala Sanjeeva Rao And others.
…..Respondents/Accused THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENT:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.370 of 2006 JUDGMENT:
This Criminal Appeal is preferred by the State challenging the Judgment dated 08.11.2004 passed in C.C.No.123 of 2001 passed by the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, whereby the learned Judge acquitted A.1 to A.4 for the offences under Sections 120-B, 465, 468, 471 and 420 IPC and also acquitted A.5 to A.7 and A.9 for the offences under Sections 120-B, 465, 468 IPC and 471 and 420 read with Section 511 IPC.
The case of the prosecution is as follows:
That A.1 was running a child crèche and procuring children and infants from various places by illegal methods and sending them abroad for adoption, for illegal gratification. Hence, the charge.
To prove the case of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 37 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.156 were marked. D.W.1 was examined and Exs.D.1 to D.7 were marked on behalf of the accused.
On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court acquitted A.1 to A.4 for the offences under Sections 120-B, 465, 468, 471 and 420 IPC and also acquitted A.5 to A.7 and A.9 for the offences under Sections 120-B, 465, 468 IPC and 471 and 420 read with Section 511 IPC. Aggrieved thereby, the State has preferred the present appeal.
Heard and perused the material available on record.
This Court by its order, dated 13.03.2006 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1693 of 2005 in Crl.A (SR) No.8404 of 2005, dismissed the case against the respondent No.2/A.2.
The trial Court acquitted the accused since most of the witnesses relied on by the prosecution turned hostile and have not supported the case of the prosecution. Apart from that, the prosecution failed to prove that the accused have conspired to commit the offence and also failed to prove that the accused has created forged documents and used the said forged documents as genuine documents. A perusal of the entire evidence reveals that the children were given to the accused association by way of relinquishment deeds for their welfare. Thereafter, the children were given in adoption to the persons belonging to various countries. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused procured the children by illegal methods and sent them to abroad for making money. In this context, the observation of the learned trial Judge reads as under.
Basing on the evidence of the witnesses, it is not at all established that the accused persons procured the children by illegal methods and sent them to abroad for making money. Though it is revealed in the evidence of P.W.35 Expert that the thumb impressions of the accused persons A.4 to A.8 are identical with that of the disputed thumb impressions on relinquishment documents, it cannot be said that it was made dishonestly or fraudulently. Nowhere it is established in the prosecution evidence that for any monetary benefit or for any other benefit, the accused persons have fabricated the relinquishment deeds. In the absence of the same, it cannot be said that the relinquishment documents are made dishonestly or fraudulently. If the dishonest or fraudulent intention on the part of the accused persons is not proved by the prosecution, the ingredients for the offence of forgery or making false document as defined under Section 464 IPC will not be attracted. As such, the accused cannot be punished under Section 465 IPC and 468 IPC. Even to attract an offence under Section 471 IPC, the prosecution must prove that there is fraudulent or dishonest intention on the part of any of the accused persons. Moreover there is no transaction established for the monetary purpose as alleged by the prosecution. The parents who adopted the children were not examined and produced as witnesses before this Court to speak that how much amount, they paid to the accused while taking adoption of the children, and the allegation that adoption was made with monetary benefit of the accused is not established. Therefore, the offence under Section 471 IPC cannot be attracted. Also the offence of cheating under Section 420 IPC is not established.
This Court is of the view that the trial Court has appreciated the evidence in proper perspective and the reasoning given while acquitting the accused is in accordance with law. The Judgment of the trial Court does not suffer from any perverse findings and the acquittal recorded by the trial Court needs no interference by this Court.
The Criminal Appeal is accordingly dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending in this appeal, shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO 15.12.2014 pln