ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
A.V. Ravindra Babu, J.
Gurram Venkat Nageswara Rao @ Pandu – Petitioner
versus
State of A.P., Rep. by PP. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.277 of 2010 and Criminal Appeal No.284 of 2010
Decided on 26.12.2023
Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 – Section 5 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 366-A and 417 – Women trafficking for the purpose of prostitution – Kidnapping from lawful guardianship – Conviction and sentence – Section 366-A of IPC is aggravated form of kidnapping – Throughout trial, accused did not dispute age as that of 17 years by time of offence as projected by prosecution – Victim was a minor by the time of offence in question – Except plea of false implication, nothing was brought to disbelieve case of prosecution – Evidence on record does not satisfy ingredients of Section 415 of IPC which is punishable under Section 417 of IPC – Offence of kidnapping punishable under Section 363 of IPC is a minor offence when compared to Section 366-A of IPC – Charges under Sections 366-A and 417 of IPC and proviso (ii) Sub-Section (1) of Section 5 of I.T.P. Act – Under the circumstances, Judgment of Assistant Sessions Judge is liable to be interfered by modifying conviction and sentence to that of Section 363 of IPC – Appellants acquitted of charges under Sections 366-A and 417 of IPC and proviso (ii) sub-section (1) of Section 5 of ITP Act but convicted for offence under Section 363 of IPC – Sentence modified. (Paras 23, 25, 29, 36, 43, 45, 46 and 47)
Result: Appeals allowed in part.
JUDGMENT (COMMON)
The Criminal Appeal No.277 of 2010 is filed by the unsuccessful A.2 challenging the judgment, dated 05.02.2010 in Sessions Case No.162 of 2009, on the file of Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Eluru (“Assistant Sessions Judge” for short), whereunder the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, found the appellant guilty of the charges under Sections 366-A and 417 of the Indian Penal Code (“I.P.C.” for short) and proviso (ii) Sub Section (1) of Section 5 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (“I.T.P. Act” for short), convicted him under Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“Cr.P.C.” for short) and after questioning him about the quantum of sentence, sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the charge under Section 366-A of IPC, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the charge under Section 417 of IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years for the charge under the proviso (ii) Sub-Section (1) of Section 5 of I.T.P. Act and that the sentences shall run concurrently.
2. The Criminal Appeal No.284 of 2010 is filed by the unsuccessful A.1 challenging the judgment, dated 05.02.2010 in Sessions Case No.162 of 2009, on the file of learned Assistant Sessions Judge, whereunder the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, found the appellant guilty of the charges under Sections 366-A and 417 of IPC and proviso (ii) Sub Section (1) of Section 5 of ITP Act, convicted her under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C., and after questioning her about the quantum of sentence, sentenced her to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the charge under Section 366-A of IPC, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the charge under Section 417 of IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years for the charge under the proviso (ii) Sub-Section (1) of Section 5 of I.T.P. Act and that the sentences shall run concurrently.
3. The parties to these Criminal Appeals will hereinafter be referred to as described before the learned Assistant Sessions Judge for the sake of convenience.
4. The Sessions Case No.162 of 2009 arose out of a committal order in P.R.C.No.12 of 2008, on the file of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Eluru in Crime No.215 of 2007 of Eluru II Town L & O Police Station.
5. The case of the prosecution, in brief, according to the contents of the charge sheet as above, is as follows:—
(i) A.1 is a native of Jalipudi Village, Eluru Mandal and she is residing in a house bearing Door No.21A-10-6, Ashok Nagar, Eluru. Earlier, she stayed in Singapore and Malaysia. She got a passport which is valid up to 18.08.2015. After returning to India, she started procuring women and sending them to Singapore or Malaysia on tourist Visas and thus indulged in women trafficking for the purpose of prostitution. A.2 is a resident of Kovvali village in Denduluru Mandal. He is an auto rickshaw driver. He is the cousin of A.1.
(ii) On 10.08.2007 the victim, who is a minor girl, aged 17 years and resident of K. Kannapuram village of Koyyalagudem Mandal, went to Tanuku to join in ANM course after completing Intermediate. While returning home, she was lonely waiting at the bus stand in Eluru at about 10 p.m., on the same day. Taking advantage of loneliness of the victim, A.2 hatched a plan, inquired about her and promised that he would send her to Chennai for ANM Nurse Training with the assistance of A.1. A.2 made her to believe his false promises. A.2 took the victim to the house of A.1 situated in Ashok Nagar. Then both the accused hatched a plan to send the victim to Singapore or Malaysia for prostitution. They promised the victim to get ready by 18.08.2007 to go to Chennai to undergo ANM training. Believing their words, on 18.08.2007 the victim contacted A.1 over phone. Then A.2 asked her to come to Eluru with her bag and baggage. Then A.1 detained the victim in her house and on the evening of 20.08.2007 A.1 went out of her house to contact passport agent to
Section 366-A of IPC is aggravated form of kidnapping – Offence of kidnapping punishable under Section 363 of IPC is a minor offence when compared to Section 366-A of IPC.
The appellate court upheld the victim's minority and the accused's guilt for kidnapping and sexual assault, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the need for compelling reasons to overturn ac....
Point of Law : Taking into consideration of these aspects on evidence and in absence of any documentary evidence, it can safely be said that on the date of alleged occurrence, the victim girl (PW-2) ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that while the evidence supported the conviction for kidnapping, it was insufficient to establish the allegations of rape and sexual assault due to....
Victim of rape being minor, her consent has no significance.
An offence under Section 366 IPC, it is necessary for the prosecution to prove that the accused induced the complainant woman or compelled by force to go from any place, that such inducement was by d....
Penetrative sexual assault upon minor girl – It is incumbent upon prosecution to establish beyond all reasonable doubts that victim was below 18 years as on date of occurrence to attract provisions o....
(1) A minor girl’s infatuation with her alleged kidnapper cannot by itself be allowed as a defence, for same would amount to surreptitiously undermining protective essence of offence of kidnapping.(2....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.