Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1168 (AP)

Polishetty Sreenivas v. State of A. P.

2004-10-08

P.S.NARAYANA

body2004
JUDGMENT - This Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellants/accused against the judgment dated On 09-1998 in S.C. No. 183 of 1997 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Siddipet. 2. Heard Sri Rama Krishna, representing Sri Polisetti Ravi, learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mohd. Osman Shaheed. 3. The learned Judge, on appreciation of the evidence available on record, held A-1 to A-4 found guilty for the charge under Section 366-A of the Indian Penal Code (for brevity 'I.P.C.') and accordingly convicted and sentenced them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for nine years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, A-1 to A-4 to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the fine amount already had been paid. 4. The case of the prosecution is that a minor girl, Gurram Rajitha was kidnapped by A-1 to A-4 and on the written complaint made at Dubbaka Police Station, where it was revealed .that on 05-08-1996, when the minor girl was going to their village Dumpalapalli from Dubbaka, A-1 to A-4 way laid her on the tank bund near Dubbaka, put a kerchief and gagged her mouth and neck with it, she became unconscious and they shifted her by a Jeep to Siddipet, where she regained her consciousness, and when she tried to raise alarm, they threatened her with dire consequences and thereby made her to keep quiet. They shifted her to Godavarikhani by a bus from Siddipet, and again they shifted her to Hyderabad, confined her in the house of uncle of A-1 at Malkajgiri, where they forced to marry A-1 and that on 09-08-1996 at evening hours, her uncles, Ganne Srinivasa Reddy, Enkamgari Srinivasa Reddy, Mallugari Kanakasena Reddy, traced her at Malkajgiri in the house of said Mallesham. Accused ran away from the said house, on seeing the said persons. 5. Basing on the said complaint, Crime No. 76 of 1996 was registered under Section 366 IPC, but however, ultimately charge was framed under Section 366-A IPC. 6. Prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 4 and Exs. P-1 to P-3 were marked. On appreciation of the evidence available on record, the learned Judge convicted the accused and recorded the sentence as aforesaid. Basing on the said complaint, Crime No. 76 of 1996 was registered under Section 366 IPC, but however, ultimately charge was framed under Section 366-A IPC. 6. Prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 4 and Exs. P-1 to P-3 were marked. On appreciation of the evidence available on record, the learned Judge convicted the accused and recorded the sentence as aforesaid. It is also brought to the notice of the Court that the fine amounts imposed already had been paid and further certain accused suffered imprisonment for about 190 days and certain accused suffered imprisonment for about 90 days. 7. The defacto-complainant Gurram Rajitha filed an affidavit along with marriage photos, wedding cards, certificate of marriage and other relevant documentary evidence and had sworn to the affidavit that she had deposed as P.W.1 in the above Sessions Case alleging that the accused kidnapped her, while she was a minor and inasmuch as A-1 to A-4 were convicted, the present appeal is preferred. It was also stated that the defacto complainant-P.W.1 and A-1 are legally wedded husband and wife. It is further stated that they loved each other prior to the above alleged offence and she could not depose these facts before the trial Court, because she belongs to Reddy community and accused No.1 belongs to Munnurukapu Community and as she was a minor girl at the time of alleged offence, as well as at the time of trial and hence she had to depose as P.W.1 as per the instructions of her parents and caste elders, and accordingly she deposed against the accused. It is also further stated that after attaining majority, her marriage was celebrated with accused No.1 with prior permission and blessings of both the parents and also the elders. as per Hindu Custom and Rites and the marriage had taken place at her parents house on 9-12-2001 at 10.06 a.m. before the elders and well-wishers and subsequently, the marriage also was registered before Registrar, Dubbaka Register Officer, Dubbaka, and the deponent also had sworn to the other details in the affidavit filed before this Court. 8. Section 366-A IPC is no doubt a non compoundable offence. The learned counsel for the appellants placed strong reliance on Salim and others v. State of M.P. (1995) 4 SCC 631. 8. Section 366-A IPC is no doubt a non compoundable offence. The learned counsel for the appellants placed strong reliance on Salim and others v. State of M.P. (1995) 4 SCC 631. where the Apex Court, while dealing with non-compoundable offence and the effect of compromise in relation to husband and wife, offence under Section 307/34 IPC. Victim wife and accused-husband patching up their differences and living happily with their children, special leave on question of sentence alone granted and sentence altered to that already undergone. 9. Reliance also was placed by the learned counsel for the appellants on Mulukuri Siva Prasad v. State of Andhra Pradesh 2001 (3) Crimes 50 = 2001 (2) ALD (Crl.) 9 (SC). where the accused is said to have assaulted his mother and caused injuries and parties have compromised the matter and the mother of the accused is being maintained by the accused and no further complaint of any ill-treatment by the mother and in the circumstances, application for compounding of the offence had been allowed. 10. These are the decisions, where the Apex Court had permitted compounding of offences, though the offences are non-compoundable, taking the peculiar facts into consideration. It is no doubt true that this is a case where the allegation itself is that the minor had been kidnapped by accused 1 to 4 and now the specific stand taken by the minor, who had attained majority and who also married A-1 subsequent thereto is that, it is just a love affair and due to duress and coercion at the relevant point of time, she had deposed in a particular fashion at the instance of the caste elders. 11. Apart from this aspect of the matter, it is no doubt true that punishment specified for an offence under Section 366-A IPC is a bit grave. But, however, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the fine amounts already had been paid and at least for some time they had undergone imprisonment also. A-1 alone is the main accused, who happens to be the husband of the defacto-complainant at present. But, however, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the fine amounts already had been paid and at least for some time they had undergone imprisonment also. A-1 alone is the main accused, who happens to be the husband of the defacto-complainant at present. Taking the peculiar facts and circumstances into consideration and in the interest of the couple, A-1 and the defacto complainant to continue the happy matrimonial tie, this Court is of the considered opinion that in view of the fact that the fine amounts already had been paid, and the accused also suffered some imprisonment, the accused are accordingly sentenced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him, and so far as the imposition of fine amounts are concerned, the same is hereby confirmed. 12. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is disposed of.