LexSANNAIA SUBBA RAO & ORS. versus STATE OF A.P.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 11 S.C.R. 243 SANNAIA SUBBA RAO & ORS. v. STATE OF A.P. (Criminal Appeal No. 1306 of 2003) JULY 24, 2008 [R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860; Ss. 363, 366A, 368 and 372 rlw s.511: A B Kidnapping of a girl by accused allegedly with intention C to commit sexual intercourse/selling her for prostitution - Held: Evidence given by prosecutrix in trial different from the one set out in the complaint - There were contradictions in her statements - In her deposition, the prosecutrix gave embel- lished and more aggravated form of deposition by alleging D commission of major offences of sexual abuse against ac- cused persons and selling her for prostitution but in support thereof no evidence adduced - No case under Ss. 366A or 372 rlw s.511 made out against accused- Hence, to that ex- tent, trial Court justified in acquitting all the accused persons. E Kidnapping from lawful guardianship - Charge under s.363 /PC - Held: Though charge-sheet submitted by Police for offence uls. 363 /PC but trial Court did not frame any charge i - Offence under s.366A /PC is a major offence as compared to offence under s. 363 /PC - In terms of s.222 Cr.PC. ac- F cused could be convicted of a minor offence if such a case is made out though he was not charged with it - Ingredients set out ins. 363 IPC made out as against accused No.3- Hence, accused No. 3 is convicted for committing the offence punish- able uls. 363 /PC - However, since 15 years elapsed since G occurrence of incident, interest of justice would be sub-served by sentencing accused No. 3 to undergo rigorous imprison- ment for a period of 3 years - Directed accordingly - Sen- tencing - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 222. 243 H 244 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 11 S.C.R. ~ --- A Appeal against acquittal - Power of High Court to review - Held: It can consider the entire evidence and come to con- clusion either accepting the evidence which were rejected by trial court or vice-versa. B Age of prosecutrix - Proving of - Held: Onus to prove the age effectively discharged by Prosecution - She was a ~ minor on the date of offence. Mother of the prosecutrix filed a missing report on 29.07.1992 in the Police Station stating that her youngest c daughter aged about 16 years went to the college on 25.7.1992 at 12.30 p.m. and did not return home and that .._ ' they have got doubt on the appellants. The Police could .-- not trace out the girl. However, the girl was traced out on 11.9.1992 at the instance of PW 8 and PW9, the employ- D · ees of Agricultural Market Committee. They informed whereabouts of the girl to her mother. The mother, along- with the aunt and brother of the girl took her back to their A house on 14.9.1992. On 19.9.1992, they informed the Po- lice about tracing of the girl ~nd she was admitted to the E Government General Hospital, for treatment as she was found to be weak both physically and mentally. On 25.9.1992 she again went to the Police Station and filed a complaint. Police examined the prosecutrix and recorded her statement and thereafter also got the statement of PW- F 8 and PW-9 recorded. After completion of investigation, a charge sheet was submitted by the Police against all the three accused persons under Section 363, 366A, 368 and "· -~ Section 372 read with Section 511 of the IPC. Trial Court acquitted all the accused persons as charges against G them have not been proved. Being aggrieved by the or- der of acquittal, State filed an appeal. The Single Judge of the High Court set aside the order of acquittal passed by the trial court holding that the evidence on record does )... prove a case against the appellants/accused persons both under Section 366 A and 372 read with Section 511 H IPC. They were sentenced to undergo rigorous impris- SANNAIA SUBBA RAO & ORS. v. STATE OF 245 AP. ,'- ). A onment for a period of 10 years and also under Section -:'· 372 read with Section 511 IPC and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years each. Hence the present appeal. Accused-appellants contended that the High Cour,t B has set aside the order of acquittal without appreciating ""'- the grounds on which the trial court passed the order of acquittal and also without giving any reason thereof. Partly allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The power of the High Court in an appeal c from acquittal is no different from its pow
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.