JUDGMENT

1. This appeal, under section 378(4) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C’) is preferred by the Appellant / State against the judgment of acquittal rendered by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Tenali (for short, ‘the trial Court’) in Sessions Case No.942 of 2000 by its judgment dated 08.01.2002 acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under sections 366-A, 342, 344, 368, 354, 420, 379 r/w108 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’) against the accused.

2. Perused the impugned judgment of acquittal rendered by the Trial Court, which is challenged under this appeal. It consisted of evidence of PWs.1 to 5 and documents Exs.P.1 to P.5 were marked. On behalf of the accused, no oral or documentary evidence was marked.

3. The facts in a nutshell, which give rise to the present appeal, are as follows:

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Tsodayapalam Police Station, prosecuted Accused Nos.1 and 2 for offences punishable under Sections 366-A, 342, 344, 368, 354, 420, and 379 read with Section 109 of the IPC. According to the prosecution, the accused deceitfully abducted PW.1 (the victim), wrongfully confined her at multiple locations, and coerced her into marrying A1. It is further alleged that they assaulted her with the intent to outrage her modesty and committed theft of her property by employing fraudulent means.

4. The learned II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Repalle before whom the Charge Sheet was filed, complied with the provisions under section 209 Cr.P.C. and committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Guntur Division. The learned Sessions Judge, Guntur made over this case to learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Repalle, for disposal in accordance with law. The trial Court framed the charges for the offence punishable under Sections 366, 344, 342, 354, 417 and 379 I.P.C. against A.1 and for the offence under section 342, 368, 366 r/w 109 I.P.C. against A.2, read over and explained to the accused. They pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.

5. The Trial Court examined the accused as required under Section 313 Cr.P.C., to enable them to consider the evidence that had been led on the part of the prosecution and also appeared against them. But the accused denied the truth of the evidence adduced by the prosecution. After conclusion of arguments and upon perusal of the material, the trial Court found the accused not guilty and acquitted them.

6. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Appellant / State contends that the trial court erred in failing to appreciate that the essential ingredients of offence under Sections 366-A, 342, 344, 368, 354, 420, 379 r/w.109 IPC were made out. He further contends that the learned trial Court erred in disbelieving the evidence of prosecution witnesses, which is cogent and reliable and the Trial Court's disregard of prosecution evidence renders the acquittal unsustainable.

7. None appeared on behalf of the Respondents/Accused despite being afforded sufficient opportunities to prosecute the appeal.

8. I have heard learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and carefully perused the material available on record, including the oral and documentary evidence produced by the prosecution before the Trial Court.

9. The point for determination is:

Was the Assistant Sessions Court justified in acquitting the accused?

POINT:

10. Before re-appreciation of the evidence on record, it is necessary here to mention the power of the Appellate Court regarding interference. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of A. Shankar V. State of Karnataka, (2011) 6 SCC 279, at paragraph 26 of the judgment, has held as follows:

"26. It is settled legal proposition that in exceptional circumstances the appellate court, under compelling circumstances, should reverse the judgment of acquittal of the court below if the findings so recorded by the court below are found to be perverse i.e. the conclusions of the court below are contrary to the evidence on record or its entire approach in dealing with the