Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Seekaramilli Jaya Raju, vs The State Of Ap Rep By Its Pp Hyd., on 17 February, 2022
Author: K. Suresh Reddy
Bench: K. Suresh Reddy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURESH REDDY
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.265 OF 2007
ORDER:
Questioning the conviction and sentence, dated 19.02.2007 passed in Crl.A.No.104 of 2006 on the file of the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Narsapur, West Godavari District, the petitioner/Accused No.1 filed the present criminal revision case.
2. Heard Sri G.Ram Gopal, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Soora Venkata Sainath, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor.
3. Case of the prosecution in nutshell :
Accused No.1 developed intimacy with P.W.1 and with a false promise to send her to Soudi Arabia, induced her to pay a sum of Rs.4,40,000/- for Passport, Visa and other flight charges and asked her to pay a sum of Rs.4,10,000/-. Believing his words, P.W.1 went to the house of Accused No.2 at Narsapur, where her signatures were obtained on empty papers by both the accused on the belief of obtaining Passport and Visa. Accused No.1 & 2 pressurized P.W.1 to do prostitution. Later, both the accused took P.W.1 to Hyderabad and sold her to a Prostitute Den. While the things stood thus, on 24.12.2004, P.W.1 escaped from Hyderabad and went to Poduru police station and lodged a report against both the accused. Subsequently, police got recorded her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., and after completion of investigation, police filed charge sheet against them for the offences under Sections 363, 368 and 420 Cr.P.C., and Section 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). The case was numbered as C.C.No.169 of 2005 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Palakol, West Godavari District, for the offences aforesaid.2
4. In support of its case, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 9 and marked Exs.P1 to P3. On behalf of defence, no witnesses were examined. However, Exs.D1 to D10 were marked. After closure of the prosecution evidence, both the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., for which, they denied and reported no evidence.
5. After completion of trial, the learned trial Judge, acquitted both the accused for the offence under Section 368 IPC and also acquitted Accused No.2 for the offence under Section 420 IPC. The learned trial Judge convicted Accused No.1 alone for the offence under Section 420 and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two (02) months. The trial Judge also convicted Accused Nos.1 & 2 for the offence under Section 5 of the Act and sentenced them to suffer Rigorous imprisonment for a period of three (03) years each and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of nine (09) months. Aggrieved by the same, Accused No.1 filed Criminal Appeal No.104 of 2006 on the file of the Court of VI Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Tract Court) Narsapur, West Godavari District. Accused No.2 did not file any appeal and she served the sentence. After elaborate discussion, the appellate Court acquitted Accused No.1 for the offence under Section 5 of the Act, while confirming the conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 420 IPC. Aggrieved by the same, Accused No.1 filed the present criminal revision case.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that P.W.1 neither in her deposition nor in her 164 Cr.P.C., statement stated anything about the payment of advance amount of Rs.10,000/- to Accused No.1 for the purpose of obtaining Passport, Visa etc. As such, the evidence of P.W.1 3 is silent with regard to the payment of advance amount. He further contended that P.W.1 admitted in her deposition that she stayed at Hyderabad for a period of one year three months. It is also disclosed in her deposition that she travelled all the way from West Godavari to Hyderabad along with the accused without any resistance. Therefore, in view of the improbabilities in the evidence of P.W.1, the finding given by the appellate Court and convicting the petitioner for the offence under section 420 IPC is incorrect and prays to set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the appellate Court.
7. This Court has perused the entire evidence of P.W.1. In her deposition, she stated that the petitioner/Accused No.1 demanded her to pay an amount of Rs.40,000/- and asked her to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards advance and Rs.30,000/- can be paid later. But, P.W.1 did not pay the said amount also. Moreover, the conduct on the part of P.W.1 in staying for a period of one year three months at Hyderabad without giving any report to the police officials and also travelling from West Godavari to Hyderabad along with the accused without any resistance is quite artificial. On the other hand, P.W.1 did not pay any amount to the petitioner. Hence, there is no pecuniary loss to P.W.1 and no pecuniary gain to the petitioner. Therefore, in view of the above said fact, when there is no pecuniary loss to P.W.1 and no pecuniary gain to the petitioner, the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC does not attract.
8. Considering all these aspects, this Court is of the considered view that as the evidence of P.W.1 does not inspire confidence of this Court to convict the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC and the finding of both the Courts is liable to be set aside. 4
9. In that view of the matter, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Palakol, West Godavari District, in C.C.No.169 of 2005, dated 09.06.2006, which was confirmed by the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Narsapur, West Godavari District, in Crl.A.No.104 of 2006, dated 19.02.2007. The petitioner is acquitted for the offence under Section 420 IPC. Fine amount, if any, paid by the petitioner/Accused No.1 shall be refunded. Bail bonds shall stand cancelled.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
_______________________ K. SURESH REDDY, J 17th February,2022.
RPD.
5
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURESH REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.265 OF 2007 Dated : 17-02-2022 RPD