Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

21) Sri Y. Jagadeeswara Rao, learned counsel, representing the learned Public Prosecutor, would contend that the prosecution proved the charge under Section 366-A of IPC i.e., kidnapping of a minor girl with an intention to seduce her to illicit intercourse. The case of the prosecution was that A.1 and A.2 enticed away P.W.2 so as to send her to Malaysia or Singapore for prostitution by making the victim to believe that in fact she will be sent to Chennai for the purpose of employment. P.W.5 caught hold of red handedly A.2 when the victim was in his custody at the house of A.1. As A.1 went to outside for some other work, police could not arrest her. At a later point of time, they arrested A.1. Both arrest of A.2 and A.1 were happened in the presence of mediators under the cover of two mahazars. P.W.2, the victim, supported the case of the prosecution. The act of A.2 when the victim was at bus stand to take her to the house of A.1 and made her to spend night at the house of A.1 is nothing but an act on the part of A.2 in enticing the victim from lawful guardianship. Both A.1 and A.2 further induced her to go around them with a promise to provide employment, but they had either intention to take her Malaysia or Singapore for the purpose of prostitution. The investigating officer seized M.O.1 to M.O.5 at the time of arrest of A.1 and in fact the accused provided those M.O.1 to M.O.5 to the victim so as to further induce her. The age of the victim was not in dispute throughout the trial. Now the appellants cannot contend that the victim was not a minor. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge on thorough appreciation of the evidence on record, convicted and sentenced A.1 and A.2, as such, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

34) Apart from this, nothing could be elicited during cross examination of P.W.6 to dispute the presence of A.2 at the house of A.1 on 20.08.2007 when the police effected raid. The conducting of raid by the police on 20.08.2007 at the house of accused and further on 23.08.2007 also at the house of accused has support from the evidence of P.W.4, the mediator. P.W.4 was mediator to Ex.P.5-mahazar, dated 20.08.2007 and Ex.P.6- mahazar, dated 23.08.2007.

35) It is to be noted that P.W.2 has no reason whatsoever to depose false against A.1 and A.2. The very act of A.2 taking P.W.2 to the house of A.1 during the night and the words spoken by A.1 is nothing but an act of enticement. P.W.2 categorically spoken about the conversation between her and A.1. A.1 and A.2 had no business whatsoever to get the victim to their house on 06.08.2007 and further get the victim to visit their house thereafter twice as spoken by victim. It is only on account of inducement and enticement only victim could be found in the house of A.1 in the custody of A.2. In my considered view, the very evidence of P.W.2 which is convincing is making out a case to the effect that both A.1 and A.2 induced and enticed the victim to come to their house. There is no dispute that P.W.2 had her parents by the time of the offence. Unfortunately, parents of the victim were not examined before the learned Assistant Sessions Judge. It appears that there was strained relationship after the incident between her parents and victim. It is evident from the evidence of P.W.6, the investigating officer, that after tracing the victim from the custody of A.2, he handed over the victim to Swadhara Home, Uluru for safe custody. It is not a case where P.W.2 had any grouse or ill-feelings against the accused. Nothing could be found in her cross examination to disbelieve her testimony. However, there was an answer from P.W.2 during cross examination that as per the directions of the police, she gave evidence before the Court. It is to be noted that the police are duty bound to guide the witnesses when they are summoned to give evidence. They are duty bound to effect the service of summons on the witnesses. It does not mean that she was tutored by police. There was no need for the police to tutor P.W.2 against A.1 and A.2.

36) Having regard to the facts and circumstances, the prosecution had established the fact that the victim was under

the age of 18 years by the time of offence which was not at all in dispute in anywhere. The prosecution established that A.2 enticed away the victim to the house of A.1 and where upon inducement made by A.1, the victim was compelled to ask her parents to send her to Malaysia or Singapore for which they refused and which was intimated by the victim to A.1 and further according to the victim she found M.O.1 to M.O.5 in her bag when she was going to Jangareddigudem. Later, she was compelled to come back to A.1 to give the same and on the part of day she was caught hold. The seizure of M.O.1 to M.O.5 was spoken to by P.W.6 in his evidence when she was in the custody of A.2 in the house of A.1. The accused have no probable defence at all in this regard. It is rather improbable to assume that M.O.1 to M.O.5 were of victim. When the parents of P.W.2 were not afforded to give a sum of Rs.2,000/- to her, it is improbable that she could be found in possession of M.O.1 to M.O.5. Hence, all these further goes to prove that by means of M.O.1 to M.O.5, there was A.1 and A.2 induced and enticed away P.W.2. In my considered view the evidence proves the essential ingredients of kidnapping. Further by virtue of the evidence of P.W.4-the mediator and P.W.6-the investigating officer, the seizure of Ex.P.8-savings bank account passbook of P.W.2, Ex.P.9-Photostat copy of ration card and Ex.P.10- residentail certificate was proved from the house of A.1. There are no doubtful circumstances to disbelieve the seizure of the above said documents. Except the plea of false implication, nothing was brought probabalized to disbelieve the case of the prosecution.

As this Court already pointed out the instances of kidnapping is established against A.1 and A.2. The prosecution alleged aggravated form of kidnapping.

38) It is to be noted that it is not the evidence of P.W.2 that A.1 and A.2 promised her to take her to Malaysia or Singapore for any immoral purpose on the pretext of any employment. It is not her evidence that A.1 and A.2 made such inducement or enticement so as to compel her for having sexual intercourse with any other person or for prostitution. Therefore, the theory that A.1 and A.2 wanted to send the victim to Singapore or Malaysia for the purpose of prostitution is nothing but a theory developed from the confession of the accused. In other words, except the confessed version of A.1 and A.2 in Ex.P.5 and Ex.P.6, there is no evidence at all to prove that the inducement or enticement made by A.1 and A.2 against victim was to compel her for the purpose of prostitution. Absolutely, the prosecution wanted to prove the guilt against the appellants under Section 366-A of IPC and the proviso (ii) Sub-Section (1) of Section 5 of the I.T.P. Act basing on the confession only. The prosecution did not adduce substantial evidence to prove the intention of A.1 and A.2 against the victim.