Sc310 of 2018 dated 01-05-2024

It is the case of the prosecution that the accused kidnapped minor victim girl from the lawful

custody of her parents faking marriage even after having knowledge that she belongs to ST

Community and illegally confined her with him for 15 days and thereby accused committed an

offence punishable under Section 356, 366, 353-D of IPC and section 11 (iv) r/w 12 of

POCSO Act.

The prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused for the above said offences got examined

PWs 1 to 15 and further they got marked Ex.P1 to P13 documents.

PW1 is the complainant and the father of victim, PW2 is the mother of victim, PW3

is the victim. PWs 4 to 6 are the circumstantial witnesses PWs 7 and 8 are the panchas.

Further, scene of offence panchanama PWs 9 and 12 are the panchas for confession

panchanama. PW10 is the Tahsildar, who issued Caste certificate of the victim. PW11 is the

Medical Officer, who examined the victim girl, issued age determination certificate. PW13 is

the Woman Police Officer, who recorded the statement of the victim. PWs 14 and 15 are the

Investigating Officers, who did entire investigation in this case.

According to the prosecution the present case is registered and investigated based on

the complaint lodged by PW1/father of the victim. He in his evidence stated that on 15-12-

2012, he along with victim girl went to work to collect garbage, at that time he went to some

other house to collect garbage and similarly, victim went to different house but meanwhile

accused came there and took away victim girl from there. He searched for her in all possible

places but could not find her. Earlier to this incident once he noticed victim was talking to

accused, based on that he suspected accused is responsible person for missing of victim girl.
He further stated they could not find whereabout of the victim, went to police station and

presented Ex.P1 complaint. After 15 days, police called him and informed that they have

traced whereabouts of victim and asked them to come to police station and accordingly they

went to Hayathnagar and on enquiry, victim informed him that accused took her to his native

place and confined her in his house. This court observed that PW2 who is the mother of the

victim deposed in the same lines of PW1. She further submitted that the victim girl never

informed to them that accused took her to his native place and confined in his house.

The learned counsel for the defense, cross examined PWs 1 and 2 at length and

during cross examination PWs 1 and 2 admitted that they have not directly seen while accused

taking away victim. PW1 further went up to an extent and stated that though he filed complaint

police did not read over the contents of complaint to him and he is only signatory in Telugu.

This court further observed that it was suggested to PWs 1 and 2 that since they are

continuously insisting victim girl to attened the work, she on her own left from home and went

to her relatives house without intimation and accused is no way connected with the missing of

the victim for which they denied.

It is well settled principle of law that victim is the bedt evidence evidence as she is sufferer

she can shade light on the happening of the incidence

In this case the prosecution got examined victim girl as Pw2 in her evudence she

categorically stated that when her parents insisted to attened the work continuously she on her

own left the home and went to relatives house without intimation due to fear she did not to

anyone she for ther admitted that accused is on way conxerned and connect with this case and

he did not commit any offrnce against her.

As Pw3 who is crucial witness went against prosecution the learned Spl. public
prosecutor with the premission of the court cross examined Pw3, upon which she denied that

she stated before police as in Exp2 and she also denied that accused is the responible person

who kidnapped her,confined and committed sexual assault.

Pw4 to 6 who are said to be the circumst antial witness and close relative of the victim in

their evidence stated that they do not know the accused and they had never seen him before.

they for ther added they do not know anything about the present case and also never examined

them.

As Pw's 4 to 6 who are the crucial witneeses went against to the prosecotion, the learned

Spl.Public prosector with the permission of the court cross examined them and during

crossexamination also they demied that they stated before the police as in exhibits P3 toP5.

In this case it is the *********** contention of the prosecution that after registering of the

case Pw14 Investigating officer visited to the scene of offence and condocted scene of offence

panchanama in the presence of Pw's7 and 8. this court observed that Pw's 7 and 8 in their

evidence categori cally stated that they never attended panchanama of scene of offence

proceedings and about 5 years back police obitanded their signatures on some papers and they

do not know the contents therein through PW's7 and 8 identified their signatures on CDF as

Pw7 and 8 but they denied the contents there in they also denied about the conduct of

panchanama by the police in their presence. thus Pw's 7 and 8 no way help to the prosecetion