THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.389 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 Sankala Peter Subbaiah And others.
…..Respondents/Accused THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENT:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.389 of 2006 JUDGMENT:
This Criminal Appeal is preferred by the State challenging the Judgment dated 29.12.2004 passed in C.C.No.481 of 2000 passed by the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, whereby the learned Judge acquitted A.1 to A.13 for the offences under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC; A.1 to A.3, A.11 and A.12 for the offences under Sections 468 and 471 IPC.
The case of the prosecution is as follows:
That A.1 was running a child crèche in the name of ‘Good Samaritan Evangelical and Social Welfare Association’. A.2 to A.13 are the associates of A.1. It is alleged that A.1 was securing children from various places by illegal methods with the assistance of A.2 to A.13 and sending them abroad for adoption with an intention to make money by obtaining guardianship certificates from the Family Court.
A.1 also submitted forged relinquishment documents before the Family Court. Hence, the charge.
To prove the case of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 50 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.70 were marked. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused, but marked Exs.D.1 to D.6.
On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court acquitted A.1 to A.13 for the offences under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC; A.1 to A.3, A.11 and A.12 for the offences under Sections 468 and 471 IPC. Aggrieved thereby, the State has preferred the present appeal.
Heard and perused the material available on record.
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 K.Krishna Murthy (P.W.36) , Expert from FSL and P.Rajani (P.W.49) another expert from FSL, the thumb impressions and signatures of some of the accused are tallied with the disputed thumb impressions and signatures on some Relinquishment Deeds. But no other witness i.e., parents of the children deposed that their thumb impressions and signatures are forged on the relinquishment deeds. To make responsible the accused persons for the offence of forgery, the prosecution must prove that the accused persons committed forgery with dishonest or fraudulent intention as defined under Section 464 IPC. Here, in this case, no parent deposed that any of the accused persons committed any act dishonestly or fraudulently against them while taking the children. The act of the accused persons did not cause any harm to any person in body, mind or property of any person. Therefore, the evidence of experts cannot be useful to the prosecution case. Further, it is not safe to base a conviction solely basing on the expert opinion, without substantial corroboration, which is by its nature a weak piece of evidence.
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