M. NARAYANA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THIS judgment, according to Law, arises out of a Criminal Appeal, filed by the sole appellant, against R-l to R-3, under subsections (1) and (3) of Section 378, Cr. P. C. , 1973, questioning the, validity and legality, of the adjudications made by, and set forth in para 2, infra. ( 2 ) JUDGMENT, dated 16-12-1996, of the court of the Addl. Assistant Sessions Judge, guntur (Trialcourt),made in S. C. No. 25/95, of its file. ( 3 ) PERUSED the material papers of the record. ( 4 ) ARGUMENTS were heard of the learned addl. Public Prosecutor for the sole appellant, and the learned Counsel, engaged for R-l to r-3, at the expenses of the State. ( 5 ) THE sole appellant in this Criminal appeal corresponds to the sole complainant in the said S. C. No. 25/95, of the file of the said Trial Court, being, the S. H. O. , pattabhipuram, Law and Order Police Station, guntur. R-l to R-3 herein correspond, respectively, to A-1 to A-3 in that Sessions case. ( 6 ) THE parties are, here-in-after, referred to, with reference to their respective descriptions before the said Trial Court, in that Sessions Case, unless, otherwise, so specified. ( 7 ) THE S. H. O. , Pattabhipuram Law and order, Police Station, Guntur, filed charge- sheet against A-l to A-3, in the Committal court, being, the Court of the V Addl. Judicial magistrate of First Class, Guntur, under sections 366-A; 363; 368 and 372, IPC, read with Section 511, thereof, inter alia, alleging, as under:- (A) A-2 is the wife of A-l, A-3 is their son. (b) A-l, A-2 and A-3, are aged, respectively, 40 years; 35 years; and 19 years, and are residents of pattabhipuram, Guntur. (c) The prosecutrix, being, the alleged victim, covered by the case, is a minor girl, aged about 17 years, and residing in Guntur, is the de facto complainant, and is P. W. 1 in the case. (d) On25-7-1992,around 12. 45p. m. ,while the said minor P. W. 1 was proceeding to the College, to attend her Practicals of I Year Intermediate, and, reached 3rd lane of Krishna Nagar, an auto rickshaw overtook her, and stopped. (d) On25-7-1992,around 12. 45p. m. ,while the said minor P. W. 1 was proceeding to the College, to attend her Practicals of I Year Intermediate, and, reached 3rd lane of Krishna Nagar, an auto rickshaw overtook her, and stopped. (e) Thereafter, A-l came out of that auto rickshaw, and pushed P. W. 1 thereinto, when A-3, who was accompanying a-l, in the same auto rickshaw, pulled her into the same, and, later, made p. W. 1, to sit in between A-l and A-3. (f) When P. W. 1 raised cries, A-l and a-3 closed her mouth, with palms. A lady, who was sitting in that auto rickshaw, placed, something, near the nose of P. W. 1, after the auto rickshaw went ahead, due to which, P. W. 1 lost her consciousness. (g) By the time P. W. 1 re-gained consciousness, she was found confined in a room. She also found, in that room, the presence of A-l, and that lady, who travelled in that auto rickshaw, as aforesaid. Also, one person, having beard, came into that room. (h) When P. W. 1 asked A-l, to leave that room, then, A-l locked the doors of that room, from inside, kissed P. W. 1, and pressed her breast, and enjoyed her, sexually. (i) P. W. 1 was confirmed in that room, for about one month and fifteen days. During that period, A-l enjoyed her sexually, for about 5 to 6 times, while his son, who is A-3, also, enjoyed for about 5 to 6 times. (j) When P. W. 1 raised objections, for the actions of A-l and A-3, they beat her. (k) During the period of confinement, in that room, A-l brought some papers, and asked P. W. 1, to write love letters, as if they were addressed by her, to a-3. (1) When P. W. 1 refused to do so, A-l, and that beard person, slapped on her cheeks, and also, beat her with sticks, and made her to write letters, to the dictation of A-3. (m) A-l also threatened P. W. 1, that, in case, she informed anyone about the kidnapping, they will see her end, by again kidnapping her. (n) When P. W. 1 did not return home in the evening, her mother, who is p. W. 2, and her brothers, who are p. Ws. (m) A-l also threatened P. W. 1, that, in case, she informed anyone about the kidnapping, they will see her end, by again kidnapping her. (n) When P. W. 1 did not return home in the evening, her mother, who is p. W. 2, and her brothers, who are p. Ws. 3 and 4, searched for her, in their relatives houses, but could not trace her. (o) The report given in respect of the missing of P. W. 1, etc. , was registered by the Police, Pattabhipuram Police station, as crime No. 88/92, as girl missing case , and issued F. I. R. (p) Subsequently, the said crime was investigated into, in the process whereof, P. Ws. 2 to 6 were examined, and their statements were recorded. (q) Also, in that process, the house of the accused was inspected, when, only, a-2 was found present in the house. However, A-2 did not disclose, anything. Hence, radio messages were sent to all the Inspectors of Police, guntur District, to trace the missing girl (P. W. I ). (r) A-l, and that beard person, brought p. W. 1, to Chiluvuru Railway Station, whereat, she was handed over to an old man, who, in turn, brought her to revendrapadu Check-Post, where, while leaving P. W. 1 there, he warned her, not to reveal, anything, and left that place. (s) Later, P. W. 8, the Watchman of the check-Post, Revendrapadu, enquired p. W. 1, etc. , and, later, took her to his house, in that night. (t) On the next day morning, P. W. 8 brought P. W. 2 and P. W. 4, to his house, around 11. 00 p. m. , (a. m.), and, later, after satisfying about them, sent p. W. 1, to their house. (u) On the next day, P. Ws. 1,2 and 4, went to the said P. W. 12, and informed him, about what had happened. (v) On the same day, P. W. 12 sent P. W. 1, to the Government General Hospital, guntur, for treatment. There, P. W. 10, the Government Doctor, examined p. W. 1, and issued a wound certificate. (w) Subsequently, on 25-9-1992, P. W. 1 went to the Police Station, and gave a written report (Ex. P-1 ). (v) On the same day, P. W. 12 sent P. W. 1, to the Government General Hospital, guntur, for treatment. There, P. W. 10, the Government Doctor, examined p. W. 1, and issued a wound certificate. (w) Subsequently, on 25-9-1992, P. W. 1 went to the Police Station, and gave a written report (Ex. P-1 ). (x) Basing thereon, the provisions of Law, in respect of the said FIR, were al tered, to Sections 366-A; 366; 368; and 372, ipc, read with Section 511, thereof. (y) P. W. 12 recovered from the house of the accused, the love letters, alleged to have been obtained from P. W. 1, forcibly. (z) P. W. 13, the Headmaster of the pattabhipuram High School, issued the Date of Birth Certificate of P. W. 1. (aa) P. W. 11, the Asst. Professor, department of Psychiatry, government General Hospital, guntur, examined P. W. 1, in september, 1992, as to her mental state, and found, that, P. W. 1 was suffering from re-active depression, and hence, advised her to go to him, for treatment, regularly, but, P. W. 1 did not do so. (bb) The investigation revealed, that, A-l to A-3 committed the offences punishable under the said Secs. 366-A; 366; 368; and 371 IPC, read with section 511, thereof, and, hence, charge-sheet is filed against them, accordingly, for their punishments there-under, by the Court. ( 8 ) THE said Committal Court registered the said charge-sheet, as P. R. C. No. 84/94, of its file, under the said same penal provisions, and, later, committed the same, to the Court of Sessions, Guntur District. ( 9 ) THE said Court of Session, after registering the said P. R. C. , as the present s. C. No. 25/95, of its Sessions Division, has, later, after made over the same, to the said trial Court, for trial and adjudications thereof, according to Law. ( 10 ) THE said Trial Court framed two separate common charges against A-l to a-3, as under:- (1) Under Section 366-A, IPC; and (2) Under Section 372, IPC, read with section 511, thereof. ( 11 ) BECAUSE, A-l to A-3 pleaded not guilty in respect of the two common charges, framed against them, and claimed to be tried, in respects thereof, the said Committal Court tried the said S. C. No. 25/95, following the procedure prescribed in Chapter XVIII, crl. ( 11 ) BECAUSE, A-l to A-3 pleaded not guilty in respect of the two common charges, framed against them, and claimed to be tried, in respects thereof, the said Committal Court tried the said S. C. No. 25/95, following the procedure prescribed in Chapter XVIII, crl. P. C, 1973, for trial of Sessions Cases, in the process whereof, it recorded the oral evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 14, and exhibited the documentary evidence, by way of Exs. P-1 to p-9, and Exs. D-1 to D-6, and, later, after due arguments there-into, finally, adjudicated thereupon, by its now impugned Judgment, dated 16-12-1996, set forth in para 2, supra, as under:- (I) Finding A-l to A-3, not guilty of the alleged offences, as also, the common charge framed against them, both punishable under Section 366-A, IPC; and Section 372, IPC, read with section 511, thereof; and (ii) Consequently, acquitting, all, A-l to a-3, under sub-sec. (1) of Section 235, cr. P. C, 1973, in respect of both the offences and charges, in respects whereof, they were found not guilty, as set forth in sub-para (i), supra. ( 12 ) AGGRIEVED thereby, and, questioning the, validity and legality, thereof, the State filed the present Criminal Appeal, as set forth in para 1, supra, read with para 2, supra. ( 13 ) HENCE, the point for consideration and adjudications thereupon, by this appellate Court, in this Criminal Appeal, will be, as under:-"whether the impugned Judgment, dated 16-12-1996, of the Trial Court, made in S. C. NO. 25/95, of its file, and the findings of no guilt, as well as, acquittals of A-l to A-3, recorded thereby, as set forth in para 11, supra, are, all, unsustainable, either, at fact, or, Law, and hence, are liable to be set aside, in toto, or, modified, or, interfered with, in any manner?" ( 14 ) NO additional, oral, or, documentary, evidence, is sought to be adduced by any of the parties to this Criminal Appeal. ( 15 ) ARGUMENTS were heard, in detail, as set forth in para 4, supra. ( 16 ) POINT: The brief, material, required, facts and circumstances of the case, are all set forth in the foregoing paragraphs. ( 17 ) THE alleged victim of the foregoing offences, and the de facto complainant in the case, was examined as P. W. 1. ( 16 ) POINT: The brief, material, required, facts and circumstances of the case, are all set forth in the foregoing paragraphs. ( 17 ) THE alleged victim of the foregoing offences, and the de facto complainant in the case, was examined as P. W. 1. She was a minor, aged about 17 years, and past one month, and add, as on the date of the foregoing offences. Her date of birth was proved by her Study Certificate, exhibited as ex. P-9, issue by Pattabhipuram High Court, guntur. P. W. 13, the then Head Master of that School, proved the same, and exhibited it. as such. He deposed, that, as per the admission Register, as incorporated in that Ex. P-9, the date of birth of P. W. 1 is 12-06-1975. ( 18 ) THE said P. W. 1 deposed, in extenso, about the method and manner of the foregoing offences, being committed against her, by A-1 to A-3, and as set forth in the charge-sheet, as re-set forth in sub-paras (d) to (m), of para 7, supra. ( 19 ) HER (P. W. 1) deposition, in chief, and, cross-examinations, runs into 14 pages. Out of it, her chief-examination runs into 61/2 pages, while her cross-examination runs into 71/2 pages. I am of the opinion, that, hence, the same doesn t require re-production, once again, herein, except for repetition, and to lengthen the Judgment, unnecessarily. ( 20 ) FOR all practical purposes, she (P. W. 1) deposed, satisfactorily, about the alleged offences being committed against her, by a-l to A-3, as urged by the prosecution, and re-set forth in sub-paras (d) to (m), supra, of para 7, supra. The said P. W. 1 was cross- examined, at length, and, in extenso, on different aspects, minutely. ( 21 ) HOWEVER, after examining the evidence, in chief, on Oath, of P. W. 1, on the one hand, vis-a-vis-, her cross-examination, on the other hand, fully and thoroughly, satisfied with her evidence, in her chief- examination, on all the material incriminating aspects deposed by her, against A-l to A-3, and, hence, accept the same, in toto. Her evidence is un-ambiguous. ( 22 ) I see no valid, or, tangible, reason, whatsoever, to doubt her (P. W. 1) evidence, in respect of any part, or parts, thereof. Her evidence is un-ambiguous. ( 22 ) I see no valid, or, tangible, reason, whatsoever, to doubt her (P. W. 1) evidence, in respect of any part, or parts, thereof. There is no enmity, much less, tangible, much less, proved, for her, to tender false evidence, against any of A-l to A-3, and, that too, of such a nature, as she did, in her chief- examination, which also, in the Society, may, or, will, have its own known adverse affects against her, especially, when she was a minor, and aged, only, 17 years, and 11/2 months, and odd, and was a student, at that relevant time, and had, yet, to marry in future years, by then. ( 23 ) IN my opinion, it can t be conceived, or, comprehended, even remotely, much less, reasonably, much less, by any sensible person, that, at that age, she has had taken recourse to tender such false evidence, against all, or, any, of A-l to A-3, almost, implicating herself also, in one known sense, or, senses, vis-a-vis, the society, especially, as already observed, in the absence of any tangible enmity between her and A-l to A-3, or, any of them vis-a-vis, any of the family members. Almost, A-l to A-3, and P. W. 1, were strangers. At best, they might be studying in the same College, if at all it so does. ( 24 ) THE powers of expression and observation, vary from person to person. The alleged offences are committed in broad day light, almost, during mid-day, while she was going to College, to attend practicals. ( 25 ) BY way of cross-examination of p. W. 1,1 am of the opinion, that, her evidence, in chief, has not been impeached, much less, substantially, so as to reject the same, as not true, false, motivated, for any reason, and the like, with ulterior motives, or, malice, enmity, and the like. ( 26 ) HER evidence, as I could understand, is, substantially, fully Truthful, on all the material incriminating aspects. Her evidence is natural and convincing and is in cogent manner. ( 27 ) MINOR discrepancies cannot be attached much significance of, and, in any case, the same cannot, and do not, warrant rejection of the evidence of P. W. 1, ipso facto, on such basis, or, on such ground. Her evidence is natural and convincing and is in cogent manner. ( 27 ) MINOR discrepancies cannot be attached much significance of, and, in any case, the same cannot, and do not, warrant rejection of the evidence of P. W. 1, ipso facto, on such basis, or, on such ground. ( 28 ) SECTION 134 of the Evidence Act categorically and statutorily, postulates, that, no specific number of witnesses are required, to prove a given fact, or, facts. It is well- known, that, it is the quality, but not, the quantity of evidence, that, matters in respect of proof of a given fact. ( 29 ) IN my opinion, the sole evidence of p. W. 1 is fully sufficient, to warrant convictions and sentences of A-l to A-3, in respect of the foregoing offences and charges, set forth in para 10, supra, because, the same proves their guilt in respects thereof, beyond all reasonable doubts. ( 30 ) IN my opinion, it requires no corroboration, that is to say, even without corroboration, the sole evidence of P. W. 1 can, ipso facto, be accepted and acted thereupon, in the direction of convicting and sentencing all, A-l to A-3, in respect of the foregoing offences, recording findings of proof of guilt of A-l to A-3, in respects thereof, beyond all reasonable doubts. ( 31 ) WHILE so, the said Trial Court, erroneously, and, so to say, wrongly, refused to accept and act upon the sole evidence of p. W. 1, to record findings of guilt of A-l to a-3, and the consequences thereof, by way of their convictions and sentences, etc. ( 32 ) IT is well-known, basic, and elementary, that, it is not necessary, that, in all cases, invariably and necessarily, there should be corroboration. It depends upon the facts and circumstances of each, individual and specific case. The Court has to take a pragmatic and realistic approach, having regard to realities in life, and the practical world. It is well-known, that, if something happens in the mid-day, in the heart of the City, still, it may go un-noticed, and for that reason, ipso facto, be said, that, there is no corroboration for that reason, and the like. The Court has to take a pragmatic and realistic approach, having regard to realities in life, and the practical world. It is well-known, that, if something happens in the mid-day, in the heart of the City, still, it may go un-noticed, and for that reason, ipso facto, be said, that, there is no corroboration for that reason, and the like. ( 33 ) THE evidence of P. W. 1, inter alia, discloses, that, all of a sudden, while she was going to her College, she was overtaken by an auto rickshaw, whereupon, A-l came out of that auto rickshaw, and pushed her thereinto, and A-3 pulled her into the auto rickshaw, and then, she was made to sit in between A-l and A-3, and that, when she raised cries, A-l and A-3 closed her mouth, with their palms. Obviously, therefore, she was over-powered by A-l and A-3, who are aged, respectively, 40 years and 19 years, and later, proceeded from that place, as further deposed by P. W. 1. ( 34 ) THE Trial Court observed, that, P. W. 1 deposed, that, the report covered by Ex. P-1 is not the document given by her, to the police. For that reason, the Trial Court observed, that, because, there is no corroboration of her evidence, by Ex. P-1, her evidence, on Oath, before the Trial Court, being solitary, cannot be acted upon, apart from the inconsistent versions given by her, etc. ( 35 ) HOWEVER, I am of the opinion, that, there are no inconsistent, much less, material inconsistent versions, in the evidence of p. W. 1. The evidence of a given witness cannot be examined in a mechanical, or, technical, manner. It should be examined from the fact, that, the evidence is being given by a human being, and has to be considered and appreciated in a realistic manner, and the dominating and paramount consideration, always, with the Court, being, and should be, the Truth of the case, i. e. , the core of the Truth of the case of the evidence of the witnesses. Minor discrepancies, or, inconsistencies, in respect of even material aspects, which are not relevant, cannot be given undue, or, unwarranted weight, at all, much less, to reject the evidence of a given witness. Minor discrepancies, or, inconsistencies, in respect of even material aspects, which are not relevant, cannot be given undue, or, unwarranted weight, at all, much less, to reject the evidence of a given witness. ( 36 ) IT should be examined naturally, and if the court is satisfied with the Truth thereof, should accept and act thereupon, ignoring such minor, or, major, discrepancies on irrelevant aspects, and the like. ( 37 ) FOR all practical purposes, no witness can be expected to tender evidence, as if, like an audio tape, or, video tape, or, recorder. The evidence should be examined from human angle, of the faculties of a given witness, and the circumstances, in which the witness was placed, at the relevant time, being, under threat, force, and the like. ( 38 ) IN fact, the evidence of P. W. 1 categorically discloses, and, so to say, warrants, recording of finding of the alleged offence of rape committed by A-l to A-3, under sub-section (1) of Section 376 , IPC, because, she was a minor, at the relevant time. But, however, the said Trial Court, erroneously, omitted to frame any charge, against any of them, in respects thereof, might be due to want of medical evidence in respect thereof. ( 39 ) NO doubt, even now, the High Court can remand the case, back to the said Trial court, to frame appropriate charge, or, charges, against A-l to A-3, in respect thereof, but, it may take another couple of years. The alleged offence being committed in the year 1992, it is more than a decade back. Also, there is no medical evidence. ( 40 ) EVEN otherwise, the punishments, being imposed against A-l to A-3, in respect of the foregoing two charges, by themselves, will meet the Ends of Criminal Justice. ( 41 ) AFTER examining the entire evidence of P. W. 1, I am thoroughly satisfied, that, truth is writ, large, on her evidence. ( 42 ) P. W. 2 is the mother of P. W. 1, and aged about 56 years. She is not a direct eyewitness to the alleged offences. Inter alia, she deposed, that, as usual, on the date of the alleged offences, her daughter. ( 42 ) P. W. 2 is the mother of P. W. 1, and aged about 56 years. She is not a direct eyewitness to the alleged offences. Inter alia, she deposed, that, as usual, on the date of the alleged offences, her daughter. P. W. 1, left home, for College, and did not return back, subsequently, and that, thereupon, they searched for P. W. 1, in the houses of their relatives, and other places, but, that, however, she could not be traced, and that, hence, on the next day, on 27-7-1992, she gave an oral report to the Police, about missing of P. W. 1. Subsequently, P. W. 1 was traced, and that, subsequently, she gave Ex. P-2-Report, to the police. It is^ this report, that, was registered by the Police, as crime No. 88/92, under section 366-A, I. P. C. , and the original F. I. R. , issued in pursuance thereof, is exhibited as ex. P-8. ( 43 ) IT is the said Ex. P-8, which transformed into, or, resulted into, the said Sessions Case, trial thereof, and the present Criminal appeal, but not, the earlier Ex. P-1. P. W. 2 proved Ex. P-2-Report. ( 44 ) IN the course of cross-examination of p. W. 2, the contradictory portions of her police statement, recorded under sub-sec. (3) of Section 161, Cr. P. C. 1973, were exhibited as Exs. D-2 and D-3. However, after considering the same, I am of the opinion, that, the same are not of much significance, and, in any case will not have any adverse affect on the case of the prosecution. ( 45 ) P. W. 3 is the elder brother of P. W. 1 and son of P. W. 2. He was studying B. A. Final Year, in the year 1992. Admittedly, he is not a direct eye-witness to the alleged offences. He also deposed like P. W. 2 did, about searching for the missing P. W. 1, etc. , and, later, reporting to the Police, orally, and, later, tracing P. W. 1, etc. ( 46 ) P. W. 4 is another elder brother of p. W. 1, and son of P. W. 2. He is also not an eye-witness to the alleged offences. He also deposed as P. Ws. , and, later, reporting to the Police, orally, and, later, tracing P. W. 1, etc. ( 46 ) P. W. 4 is another elder brother of p. W. 1, and son of P. W. 2. He is also not an eye-witness to the alleged offences. He also deposed as P. Ws. 2 and 3 did, about their searching for the missing P. W. 1, and, later, giving oral report to the Police, and, ultimately, tracing P. W. 1, etc. ( 47 ) THE said P. Ws. 2 to 4 were cross- examined, at length, for the accused. In the course of cross-examination of P. W. 3, the contradictory portion in his Police statement was exhibited as Ex. D-4, and that of the contradictory portions in the Police statement of P. W. 4 were exhibited as Exs. D-5 and D-6. However, after considering the same, I am of the opinion, that, they are not material contradictions, having any adverse affect, in respect of the proof of the case of the actual offences against A-l to A-3, mach less, to render the case of the prosecution, as false, or, exposed it to doubt. ( 48 ) P. W. 5 is a resident of Guntur, and working as Typist in D. R. D. A. She was cited and examined as residing in the house, opposite to the house of P. Ws. 1 to 4. She denied any knowledge about kidnapping of p. W. 1, by the accused, etc. Hence, she was got declared by the prosecution, as hostile to it, and, hence, with the permission of the court, she was cross-examined by the learned addl. . Public Prosecutor, in the process whereof, her Police statement, under section 161 (3), Cr. P. C, 1973, was exhibited as Ex. P-3. Whether, subsequently, it is duly proved by the Investigating Officer, or, not, still, in either case, it does not have the factual, or, legal, effect, of evidence, on Oath, before a Court of Law. ( 49 ) THE statutory mode of user of Police statements, recorded under sub-section (3) of Sec. 161, Cr. P. C. , 1973, is again, postulated, statutorily, in Section 162, thereof. Hence, such Police statements cannot be made use of, than, there beyond. Hence, Ex. ( 49 ) THE statutory mode of user of Police statements, recorded under sub-section (3) of Sec. 161, Cr. P. C. , 1973, is again, postulated, statutorily, in Section 162, thereof. Hence, such Police statements cannot be made use of, than, there beyond. Hence, Ex. P-3, as well as, the evidence of P. W. 5, are of no factual, actual, use for the prosecution, to substantiate its case against any of A-l to A-3. ( 50 ) P. W. 6 is a resident of Guntur. He deposed, that, he owns a house, by the side of the house of P. Ws. 1 to 4. However, he did not depose, anything incriminating, against a-l to A-3, or, in respect of the present case. Hence, like P. W. 5, he was also cross- examined for the State, in the process whereof, his Police statement was exhibited as Ex. P-4, which will have the same, factual and legal, effect, as Ex. P-3 does, and set forth in the immediately preceding paragraph. ( 51 ) P. W. 7 was also a resident of Guntur, at the relevant time. She was a Lecturer. She pleaded ignorance about P. W. I, at all, and also, about A-3. Hence, as in the case of p. Ws. 5 and 6, P. W. 7 was also cross-examined for the State, in the process whereof, her police statement was exhibited as Ex. P-5, which will have the same, factual and legal, effect, etc. , as already found in respect of exs. P-3 and P-4. ( 52 ) P. W. 8 is the Watchman of the agricultural Market Committed Check-post, revendrapadu. Inter alia, he deposed, that, on 11-9-1992, around 8. 30 p. m. , a girl, aged about 18 years (P. W. 1), came to the checkpost, while he was, on duty, and enquired him about the details of the buses, and bus stops, and, some time later, she, again, came back to him, and informed him, that she lost her parents, etc. , and that, she is an orphan, etc. , and called him as babai , and that, when P. W. 8 enquired her about money with her, she cried loudly, etc. ( 53 ) P. W. 9 is the Supervisor of the agricultural Market Committee, at the said check Post. , and that, she is an orphan, etc. , and called him as babai , and that, when P. W. 8 enquired her about money with her, she cried loudly, etc. ( 53 ) P. W. 9 is the Supervisor of the agricultural Market Committee, at the said check Post. This P. W. 9, as well as, P. W. 8, deposed, that, they enquired P. W. 1, from different angles, asdeposedby them, in detail, in their respective chief-examinations. ( 54 ) P. W. 8 deposed about P. W. 1 informing him about her being kidnapped, etc. P. Ws. 8 and 9 deposed, that, they decided to keep p. W. 1, in the house of P. W. 8, because, he is having wife and children, and that, P. W. 1 was there, for two days. P. W. 8 deposed about other details, and, ultimately, P. W. 1 being taken from his house, to their house, by the mother and brothers of P. W. 1, etc. ( 55 ) BOTH, P. Ws. 8 and 9, were not, at all, cross-examined for any of A-1 to A-3. ( 56 ) P. W. 10 was the then Civil Assistant surgeon, Obstertrics and Gynecology, government General Hospital, Guntur. She deposed about medical examination of p. W. 1, on the requisition of the Police, and issue of the Wound Certificate, in respect thereof, exhibited as Ex. P-6. She deposed, that, hymen of P. W. 1 was torn, etc. , and that, there is no evidence of internal injuries. She was not cross-examined for any of the accused. ( 57 ) P. W. 11 is the then Asst. Professor, department of Psychiatry, of the said government Hospital, Guntur. He deposed about P. W. 10 referring to his Department, p. W. 1, in the month of September, 1992, for examination of her mental condition, and that, after so examining, he found, that, p. W. 1 was suffering from reactive depression, which is scientifically known as post-traumatic stress disorder. He also deposed, that, he advised P. W. 1, to attend the Hospital, for regular follow up treatment, etc. P. W. 11 was cross-examined for the accused, at length, but, I see no tangible reason, as to why, the opinion about the mental condition of P. W. 1 should not be believed, accepted, or, acted upon. He also deposed, that, he advised P. W. 1, to attend the Hospital, for regular follow up treatment, etc. P. W. 11 was cross-examined for the accused, at length, but, I see no tangible reason, as to why, the opinion about the mental condition of P. W. 1 should not be believed, accepted, or, acted upon. This evidence of P. W. 11 also corroborates, to some extent, and also, probabilize the case of the case, and the evidence of P. W. 1. Obviously, she was shocked for such kidnapping, and wrongful confinement, for so long, in a foreign place, and the ill- treatment, which she received thereat, etc. ( 58 ) P. W. 12 is the Investigating Officer, being, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, of the said Pattabhipuram Police Station, guntur. He deposed, in detail, about the investigation made by him, into the crime, inter alia, to trace missing P. W. 1;. examination of different witnesses, and recording their statements; and sending radio messages, to all the Inspectors of Police, Guntur District, to tare missing P. W. I, etc. , and, later, after tracing of P. W. 1, sending her for medical examination, etc. He deposed about the original FIR in respect of the said crime no. 88/92, being registered as a Girl Missing case, and, later, altering the same, into one, under Section 366-A, IPC, and issue of FIRs, etc. He also deposed about other details of his investigation. He was cross-examined, at length, for the accused. However, his evidence, on material aspects, has not been impeached. ( 59 ) P. W. 14 is the then successor Sub-Inspector of Police of P. W. 12, of the said police Station. He deposed about filing of the charge-sheet in the case. He was not cross- examined for the accused. ( 60 ) AFTER considering the evidence of p. W. 1, and the evidence of P. Ws. 8 and 9, as also, the evidence of P. Ws. 10 and 11, as well as, the evidence of P. Ws. 2, 3 and 4, and exs. P-9, P-8 and P-6,1 am fully satisfied, that, thereby, the prosecution proved, beyond all reasonable doubts, the alleged offences and charges, punishable under Sections 366-A, and 372, IPC, read with Section 511, thereof, beyond all reasonable doubts. The probabilities and the improbabilities, of the case, also, corroborate that. 2, 3 and 4, and exs. P-9, P-8 and P-6,1 am fully satisfied, that, thereby, the prosecution proved, beyond all reasonable doubts, the alleged offences and charges, punishable under Sections 366-A, and 372, IPC, read with Section 511, thereof, beyond all reasonable doubts. The probabilities and the improbabilities, of the case, also, corroborate that. ( 61 ) EVEN otherwise, as already found, the evidence of the sole evidence of P. W. 1 itself is sufficient, to warrant a recording of guilt of a-l to A-3, for the foregoing offences, and their convictions and sentences, of such basis, etc. ( 62 ) I am of the opinion, that, the Trial court mis-appreciated the material, on record and relied upon immaterial, or, unwarranted circumstances, to disbelieve the evidence of P. W. 1, and hence, refusing to act thereupon, etc. , and hence, wrongly found, not guilty, and acquitted A-l to A-3, in respect of the foregoing offences, etc. Hence, the same has to be set right, accordingly. ( 63 ) I therefore, recording my findings on the sole point framed, accordingly, and as I did in paras 60 to 62, supra. ( 64 ) HAVING regard to the nature of the offences, being, a minor girl, being dragged, forcibly, into an auto rickshaw, almost, in the heart of the Guntur Town, that too, in the mid-day, broad day-light and the purpose, for which she was so kidnapped, etc. , in my opinion, warrant, imposition of maximum sentence prescribed by the concerned statutory penal provisions, inter alia, apart from punishing them in respect thereof, duly, also, to act as deterrent to the concerned, of like nature, in the society. A-l to A-3 are not unsocial, but are anti-social elements, who pose threat to the girls, and the civilized society, for the purposes, for which they kidnapped P. W. 1, and expose them to any amount of insecurity, as they did in the midday broad light, in the case, on hand. ( 65 ) ADMINISTRATION of Criminal Justice cannot be allowed to be made mockery of, by such anti-social elements, and proved criminals. ( 66 ) THE prosecution, therefore, proved the guilt of A-l to A-3, of the alleged offences, as also, the two common charges, framed against them, and punishable under section 366-A, IPC, and Section 372, read with Section 511, IPC, beyond all reasonable doubts. ( 66 ) THE prosecution, therefore, proved the guilt of A-l to A-3, of the alleged offences, as also, the two common charges, framed against them, and punishable under section 366-A, IPC, and Section 372, read with Section 511, IPC, beyond all reasonable doubts. ( 67 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, I set aside, in totb, the impugned Orders of acquittal of a-l to A-3, in respect of the two offences and the common charges, framed against them, under Section 366-A, IPC, and Section 372, ipc, read with Section. 511, thereof, and, consequently, find each of A-l, A-2 and A-3, guilty of the offences and common charges, punishable under Section 366-A, IPC, and sec. 372, IPC read with Section 511, thereof. ( 68 ) HAVING regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to apply to the case, on hand, or, to any of a-l to A-3, the provisions, either, of Sec. 360, cr. P. C, 1973, or, Sections 3, or, 4 of the probation of Offenders Act, 1958. ( 69 ) WHILE sub-section (2) of Section 235, cr. P. C. , 1973, pertains to Sessions Trails, and sub-section (2) of Section 248, Cr. P. C. , 1973, pertains to Warrant Trials, A-l to A-3 cannot be examined under either of those provisions, as to hearing any of them, on the question of sentences, before actually passing the sentences. There is no other specific statutory provision contained in respect thereof, either, in the Cr. P. C. , or, any other rules framed there-under, for hearing the accused, in respects thereof, in Criminal appeals. ( 70 ) HENCE, A-l to A-3 were examined, separately, under Section 482, Cr. P. C. in respect of the sentences proposed to be imposed upon them, in respect of both the proved offences and charges under sections 366-A, IPC, and Section 372, IPC, read with Section 511, thereof. During their such separate examinations, each of A-l to a-3, pleaded not guilty, and urged for lenient punishments and for mercy. ( 71 ) HOWEVER, after considering the, method and manner, in which A-l to A-3 committed the foregoing offences, as discussed, in detail, in the foregoing paragraphs, I am of the opinion, that, none of a-l to A-3 deserve any sympathies, and that, there are no mitigating circumstances, to reduce any of the sentences, to be imposed upon them. ( 71 ) HOWEVER, after considering the, method and manner, in which A-l to A-3 committed the foregoing offences, as discussed, in detail, in the foregoing paragraphs, I am of the opinion, that, none of a-l to A-3 deserve any sympathies, and that, there are no mitigating circumstances, to reduce any of the sentences, to be imposed upon them. Nor, are there any mitigating circumstances, for imposing lenient punishments upon them. ( 72 ) I am of the opinion, that, sentencing a-l, A-2, and A-3, to the respective substantive sentences of imprisonment, as well as, fine amounts, with respective default sentences, as is being imposed in sub-para III of para 73, infra, will meet the Ends of criminal Justice, and will act deterrent to like minded persons, in the Society. ( 73 ) HENCE, the High Court doth hereby adjudicate upon the Criminal Appeal, under sub-section (a) of. Section 386, Cr. P. C, 1973, as under:- (I) Set aside, in toto, the impugned judgment, dated 16-12-1996, of the court of the Additional Assistant sessions Judge, Guntur, made in s. C-No. 25/95, of its file; (II) Consequently, finding A-l to A-3, guilty of the alleged offence, as also the common charge framed against them, both, punishable under section 366-A, IPC, as well as, the alleged offence, as also, the common charge framed against them, both, punishable under Section 372, IPC, read with Section 511, thereof; (III) Consequently,convictinga-l,a-2and a-3, in respect of both the foregoing offences and charges, set forth in sub- para (II), supra, and hence, sentence each of them, there-under, as under:- (a) (i) Under Section 366-A, IPC, each of A-l, A-2 and A-3, to undergo rigorous Imprisonment for a period of ten years, each; as well as; (ii) To pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Rs. Five thousand only), each, and, in default of payment thereof, to undergo Simple imprisonment for a period of two months, each; (b) (i) Undersection372,ipc,readwith section 511, thereof, to undergo rigorous Imprisonment for a period of five years, each; as well as; (ii) To pay a fine of Rs. 2,500/- (Rs. 5,000/- (Rs. Five thousand only), each, and, in default of payment thereof, to undergo Simple imprisonment for a period of two months, each; (b) (i) Undersection372,ipc,readwith section 511, thereof, to undergo rigorous Imprisonment for a period of five years, each; as well as; (ii) To pay a fine of Rs. 2,500/- (Rs. Two thousand and five hundred only), each, and, in default of payment thereof, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of thirty days, each; (IV) The foregoing substantive sentences, imposed upon A-l to A-3, as set forth in clauses (a) and (b) of para III, supra, shall run, concurrently; (V) The period, or, periods, during which all, or, any of A-l to A-3, were, in Jail in the past, in connection with the crime No?. 88/92 of the Police Station, pattabhipuram, Guntur District, covered by the Sessions Case, and this criminal Appeal, shall be set off, under section 428, Cr. P. C. 1973, against the concerned respective A-l to A-3; (VI) Under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 357, Cr. P. C. , out of the total fine amount imposed by sub-para III, supra, the defacto complainant (P. W. I) shall be paid a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand only), towards compensation, and the balance will go to the credit of the State of Andhra pradesh; (VII) Under sub-section (1) of Section 388, cr. P. C, 1973, certify, copy of the judgment, to the Additional Assistant sessions Judge, Guntur, forthwith, for implementation thereof.