THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ALAPATI GIRIDHAR CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1532 of 2009 JUDGMENT: 1. This Criminal Appeal is filed by the State against the Judgment dated 21-04-2008 passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Parchur in S.C.No.414 of 2007, wherein the Accused is acquitted for the charges under Sections 365 and 376 of IPC. I. BRIEF FACTS: 2. As per the prosecution, the victim girl, aged 18 years completed her 10th class and she was undergoing nursing training at Ongole, she was going daily from the village along with one Ms.B.Yesumani. On 17.11.2006, the Accused has lured the victim girl on the pretext to return a gold ring, he invited her for a Coffee, they were walking in front of the Collectorate, Ongole and the Accused forcibly took the victim girl in an auto and thereafter to Kandukur in a bus, and kept her at the Bus Stand for the night. On 18.11.2006 morning, the Accused took the victim girl to Singarayakonda by an auto and kept her at the Railway Station till afternoon, then he took her to Rajahmundry in a Train, took a house for rent and they both stayed there. The Accused committed rape on her without her consent. 3. On 12.01.2007 night, the Accused took the victim girl to Chirala and from there to his relative’s house at Karamchedu, and then to her village. The Accused is liable under Sections 365 and 376 of IPC. 2 II. CONTENTIONS: 4. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the Accused is neighbour of the victim, on the pretext of returning a gold ring, persuaded the victim to accompany the Accused. Thereafter, the Accused allegedly took the victim to a hotel for coffee and subsequently compelled her to board an auto-rickshaw. He allegedly took her to Kandukur, thereafter to Singarayakonda and then to Rajahmundry, where he secured a rent house and stayed with her. During their stay at Rajahmundry, the Accused allegedly committed sexual intercourse with the victim against her will and without her consent. Subsequently, the victim was brought to Chirala and then to her village. 5. The learned counsel for the Respondent/Accused, Sri K. Murali Pavan Naga Sai submits that no missing complaint was lodged by the parents of the victim for almost two months. That as per the prosecution L.W.4, who is a material witness with regard to the alleged gold ring and kidnapping near Collectorate, was not examined during the trial. Also submitted that the victim admitted in her evidence that the Train journey to Rajahmundry was crowded with passengers, yet she did not raise any alarm or seek assistance from any person. Though the prosecution alleges that the Accused had taken a rented house at Rajahmundry, the Investigating Officer did not inspect the said house or examine the owner or any neighbours as witnesses. Also contended that the medical evidence did not disclose any external injuries suggesting forcible sexual intercourse. The prosecution failed to examine any independent 3 witnesses from Rajahmundry. The conduct of the victim throughout the alleged period of stay with the Accused does not support the prosecution version that she was forcibly kidnapped and subjected to rape. Therefore, the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court does not warrant interference and prayed to dismiss the Appeal. 6. Per contra, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the evidence of the prosecutrix clearly establishes that the Accused kidnapped her near Collectorate, Ongole and successively took her to Kandukur, Singarayakonda and Rajahmundry, where she was wrongfully confined and subjected to forcible sexual intercourse. It is contended that the Trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence on record properly and erroneously acquitted the Accused and prayed to allow the Appeal and convict the Accused. III. ANALYSIS: 7. The record reveals that the learned Judicial First-Class Magistrate, Parchur, committed the case to the Court of Session and the same was made over to the Court of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Parchur, for trial. 8. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge framed charges under Sections 365 and 376 of IPC. The prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-8, the Trial Court found the Accused not guilty for the charges and acquitted him. Aggrieved by the acquittal, the State preferred this appeal challenging the judgment. 4 IV. The Charge of Kidnapping/Abducting and Rape, 365 & 376 of IPC): 9. It is relevant to note that, at the time of the alleged incident i.e., on 17.11.2006, as per un-amended Section 375 of IPC, rape is said to be committed if with or without her consent, when she is under sixteen years of age. 10. Section 361 of IPC deals with Kidnapping, that whoever takes or entices any minor under eighteen years of age if a female, out of the keeping of the lawful guardian of such minor without consent of such guardian, is said to kidnap such minor or person from lawful guardianship. Section 365 deals with punishment for kidnapping or abducting with intent to secretly and wrongfully to confine person. 11. Sections 365, 375 and 376 of IPC are extracted hereunder for reference; 365. Kidnapping or abducting with intent to secretly and wrongfully to confine person:- Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person with intent to cause that person to be secretly and wrongfully confined, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. 375. Rape:- A man is said commit "rape" who except in the case hereinafter excepted, has sexual intercourse with a woman under circumstances falling under any of the six following description: First:-Against her will. Secondly:-Without her consent. Thirdly:-With her consent, when her consent has been obtained by putting her or any person in whom she is interested in fear of death or of hurt. Fourthly:-With her consent, when the man knows that he is not her husband, and that her consent is given because she believes that he is another man to whom she is or believes herself to be lawfully married. 5 Fifthly:- With her consent, when at the time of giving such consent, by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication or the administration by him personally or through another of any stupefying or unwholesome substance, she is unable to understand the nature and consequences of that to which she gives consent. Sixthly:-With or without her consent, when she is under sixteen years of age. Explanation:-Penetrartion is sufficient to constitute the sexual intercourse necessary to the offence of rape. Exception :- Sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife, the wife not being under fifteen years of age, is not rape. 376. Punishment for rape:- (1) Whoever, except in the case provided for by sub-section (2) commits rape shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may be for life or for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine unless the woman raped is his own wife and is not under twelve years of age, in which case, he shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years or with fine or with both. Provided that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than seven years. (2) Whoever,- (a) being a police officer commits rape- (i) within the limits of police station to which he is appointed; or (ii) in the premises of any station house whether or not situated in the police station to which he is appointed; or (iii) on a woman in his custody or in the custody of police officer subordinate to hom; or (b) being a public servant, takes advantage of his official position and commits rape on a woman in his custody as such public servant or in the custody of a public servant subordinate to him; or (c) being on the management or on the staff of a jail, remand home or other place of custody established by or under any law for the time being in force or of a woman’s or children’s institution takes advantage of his official position and commits rape on any inmate of such jail, remand home, place or institution; or (d) being on the management or on the staff of a hospital, takes advantage of his official position and commits rape on a woman in that hospital; or (e) commits rape on a woman knowing her to be pregnant; or (f) commits rape on a woman when she is under twelve years of age; or 6 (g) commits gang rape, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may be for life and also be liable to fine: Provided that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment impose a sentence of imprisonment of either description for a term of less than ten years. Explanation 1:-Where a woman is raped by one or more in a group of persons acting in furtherance of their common intention, each of the persons shall be deemed to have committed gang rape within the meaning of this sub-section. Explanation 2:- "Women’s or children’s institution" means an institution whether called an orphanage or a home for neglected women or children or a widow’s home or by any other name, which is established and maintained for the reception and care of women or children. Explanation 3:- "Hospital" means the precincts of the hospital and includes the precincts of any institution for the reception and treatment of persons during convalescence or of persons requiring medical attention or rehabilitation. 12. It is not the case of the Prosecution or the Victim that the victim girl is under 18 years of the age on the date of alleged offence. Whereas the evidence of Head Master/PW.4 is that the date of birth of the victim girl is 15-06-1988 as per their school records, thus the victim girl is major on the date of alleged offence. 13. The evidence of victim girl, who is major, deposed that on 17.11.2006 she, LW.4/B.Yesumani and 4 boys boarded the Bus and went to Ongole, she forced B.Yesumani to return the gold ring, then B.Yesumani took her to the Accused, who was waiting near Collectorate, Ongole, he asked her to follow in a Auto to return the Ring, took her to Kandukur and they slept in the Bus Stand, in the afternoon they went to Singarayakonda in an Auto and waited at Railway Station, he has taken her to Rajahmundry in a Train, four friends of the Accused were there, she was kept in a house and the Accused 7 committed rape on her. In the cross examination she admitted that they both were taking each other, she did not complain to anybody in the crowded Railways Stations at Singarayakonda or Rajahmundry or in the Train against the Accused. The house at Rajahmundry is surrounded by residential houses. The Accused took food parcel every day. These instances do not any forceful acts by the Accused either in abduction or in sexual intercourse. The medical evidence also did not support the case of the prosecution, which will be discussed later part of the judgment. This lone evidence of victim girl/PW.2 is not inspiring confidence to prove the charges. 14. PW.1/Palathoti Anjaneyulu is victim girl’s father, who deposed that his daughter/victim girl did not return home, he came to know the issue and he requested the parents of the Accused for her daughter, hence he lodged the report. PW.3/Palathoti Vijayamma is also villager, who deposed about knowing the victim did not return to house, later she came to know about taking away the victim by the Accused. Thus the evidence of PW.2 and PW.3 is not helping the prosecution to prove abduction or rape. 15. The evidence of PW.5/Dr.M.Ch.Subbarao is that he examined the Accused. The evidence of PW.8/Dr. A. Vijaya Lakshmi is that she examined the victim girl, the evidence of PW.5 and PW.8 did not suggest any rape or forceful sexual intercourse. The evidence of PW.6 and PW.7 is on the Investigation. 16. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the Respondent/Accused that the Prosecution did not examine LW.4/B.Yesumani, 8 who was with the Accused and victim during the alleged abduction on 17-11- 2006, further there is no plausible explanation for non-examination of the crucial witness. Also the Investigation Officer did not visit the alleged place of rented house at Rajahmundry, where the alleged Rape is committed, also did not examine any witness at Rajahmundry, further there is no plausible explanation for not visiting the alleged rented house and for non examination of neighbours of the rented house at Rajahmundry. 17. As rightly contended by the counsel for the Respondent/Accused, the victim girl moved these Cities/Villages from Ongole, Kandukur, Singarayakonda and Rajahmundry in Auto, Bus and Trian as stated herein above, the journey is about 300 kilometers with 3 intervals and stays at RTC Depot and Railway Station, further the victim girl did not take any recourse in these journeys to escape from the Accused though these are crowded places, it appears these journeys are undertaken voluntarily, thus the prosecution could not prove abduction. 18. Further, even as per the prosecution that the victim girl, who is major, stayed at Rajahmundry for about 2 months, her evidence is not inspiring to prove the charge of rape, where as the circumstances support the defense of the Accused. 19. Thus, there is no cogent evidence adduced by the prosecution to prove the charge on abduction or rape. 9 20. Thus, the Court, inclined to hold that the State failed to prove the charges against the Accused beyond reasonable doubt and further the Appellant failed to prove any infirmities in the judgment of the Trail Court. CONCLUSION: 21. The Appellant/State could not prove the charges under Sections 365 and 376 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt, also could not demonstrate any material to warrant interference in the Judgment of the Trial Court, thus the Appeal deserves to be dismissed for the aforesaid reasons. The Criminal Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ JUSTICE ALAPATI GIRIDHAR Date : 10.07.2026 CHD 10 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ALAPATI GIRIDHAR CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1532 of 2009 Date: 10th July, 2026 CHD