ORAL JUDGMENT :

B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI, J.

The present criminal appeal is preferred by the appellant–State challenging the order of acquittal dated 19.10.2006 passed in S.C. No. 79 of 2005 on the file of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Tanuku. The learned Sessions Judge recorded an order of acquittal for the offences under Sections 366-A, 376, 419, 354, 448, 506(1), and 182 IPC framed against the accused, and acquitted him under Section 235(1) CrPC.

2. The case of the prosecution is that PW1 is the daughter of PW2. She was studying Intermediate in the year 2003.The accused is a relative of PW2. On 03.09.2003, as usual, PW1 went to the college located at Tanuku. The accused met her at about 9:00 a.m. and represented to PW1 that her maternal aunt wanted to see her. Believing his representation, PW1 accompanied the accused on his bicycle. The accused took PW1 to the house of PW6, A. Kanakalakshmi, who is the maternal aunt of the accused. PW1 and the accused stayed there for ten days, during which period the accused committed sexual assault on PW1 and threatened to kill her if she disclosed the same to anyone.

3. Thereafter, the accused shifted PW1 to the house of PW4, M. Padmavathi, at Masjidpeta, Tadepalligudem, where he kept her for another ten days and again committed sexual assault on her, while issuing similar threats. Subsequently, the accused took PW1 to the house of her maternal grandmother located at Darsiparru of Pentapadu Mandal. The accused informed her maternal grandmother that he had found PW1 on the way and therefore, brought her there. The maternal grandmother requested the accused to hand over PW1 to her parents.

4. Accordingly, they came to the railway station at Tanuku. The accused telephoned one Burra Nageswara Rao (LW4), introduced himself as Vinod, and asked LW4 to collect PW1 at the Tanuku railway station. He also threatened LW4 that he would kill PW1 if LW4 brought anyone along with him. Further, he warned PW1 not to disclose the incident to anyone, stating that otherwise he would write a letter to her would-be husband informing him of the events, thereby damaging her reputation in society. LW4 came to the railway station and took PW1 to her home on 23.09.2003.

5. The parents of PW1, i.e., PW2 (father), questioned PW1 about what had happened to her during those days. PW1 informed them that the accused had handed her over to one Vinod of Rajahmundry. However, no report was lodged with the police immediately. On 08.10.2003, the accused came to the house of PW1 and PW2 and demanded that PW1 accompany him. PW1 raised cries, and her parents attempted to catch the accused, but he managed to escape.

6. Thereafter, PW1 and PW2 went to the police station at about 8:00 p.m. on 09.10.2003 and submitted Ex.P1 report. The Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police (PW13) registered the same as Ex.P9 FIR and forwarded the original to the jurisdictional Magistrate, along with copies to the concerned officials. PW14, the Inspector of Police, on receipt of the FIR, took up the investigation. He examined PW1 and PW2, recorded their statements, and sent PW1 to the hospital for medical examination. He also took steps to determine the age of PW1.

7. PW14 visited the scene of offence in the presence of mediators, namely PW5 and another, and prepared Ex.P10 rough sketch. He examined other witnesses and recorded their statements. The accused was arrested and produced before the learned Magistrate for remand to judicial custody. Subsequently, PW1 appeared at the police station on 27.10.2003 and gave another statement, pursuant to which steps were taken to record her statement under Section 164 CrPC. PW7, the jurisdictional Magistrate, recorded the statement of PW1 under Section 164 CrPC, which is marked as Ex.P6.

8. After completion of the investigation and upon receipt of medical opinions, the Investigating Officer filed a charge sheet before the jurisdictional Magistrate. The case was taken on file as P.R.C. No. 8 of 2004 on the file of the