Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1303 (AP)

State of A. P. v. Sajja Ramakanth

2022-11-16

A.V.RAVINDRA BABU

body2022
JUDGMENT : This is a Criminal Appeal filed on behalf of the State, represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, under Section 378(1) & (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“Cr.P.C.” for short), challenging the judgment in Sessions Case No.211 of 2006, on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Narsapuram, dated 27.12.2007, with a prayer to set aside the order of acquittal and to convict the Respondents/Accused for the offences, with which they were charged. 2. The parties to this appeal will hereinafter be referred as described before the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Narsapuram, for the sake of convenience. 3. The State, represented by the Inspector of Police, Palakol Circle, filed a charge sheet in Crime No.47 of 2005 of Achanta Police Station, under Sections 343, 366A, 376 r/w 109 of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC” for short), alleging in substance that the victim is permanent resident of Padamatipalem and she is aged about 14 years. So, she is a minor. L.W.2-Chilukuri Venkata Narayana is the father of the victim and L.W.3-Chilukuri Varalakshmi is the wife of L.W.2. The study record reveals that the date of birth of the victim is 01.07.1991. A.1 to A.4 are the residents of Padamatipalem. A.1 is the son of A.3. A.2 and A.4 are supporters of family of A.1 and A.3. As the victim belonged to a rich family, A.1 wanted to marry her. A.2 to A.4 supported the proposal of A.1. Prior to the offence, A.1 used to follow the victim and used to tell her that he would marry her, for which she could not make out her mind. A.1 used to demand the victim to love him. A.2 used to call victim to his house and compel her to accept the marriage proposal. A.3 and A.4 supported the conduct of A.1. 4. On 12.06.2005 evening A.1 stopped the victim on her way and asked her to come with him for which she refused. One Chilukuri Srinivas Rao was noticing them together and then A.1 went away. Again on the same day, at 6-00 P.M. A.1 and A.2 went to Ramalayam Temple in Padamatipalem and they found the victim. A.1 asked her to come with him and he would take her away and marry her. Victim intimated to A.1 to inform her parents, but, he prevailed over her immature mind and made her to believe his words. Again on the same day, at 6-00 P.M. A.1 and A.2 went to Ramalayam Temple in Padamatipalem and they found the victim. A.1 asked her to come with him and he would take her away and marry her. Victim intimated to A.1 to inform her parents, but, he prevailed over her immature mind and made her to believe his words. A.2 instigated A.1 to kidnap her. The victim is made to leave the custody of her parents and to follow A.1. A.1 took her on his motorbike to Bhimavaram, from there to Tirupati and kept her in the house of his uncle, Yenugu Ramaswamy, behind Venkateswara Theatre, near Bus Stand, Tirupati. On 19.06.2005 A.1 took the victim to Razole, took a room in the tiled house of one Yalangi Padma and kept the victim girl there. On 20.06.2005 night A.1 had sexual intercourse with the victim in spite of her objections in the room. On 21.06.2005 A.3 and A.4 came there and learnt that A.1 had sexual intercourse with the victim. A.3, the mother of A.1, advised him to take to Annavaram temple for marriage. As per the directions of A.3 and A.4, A.1 took the victim to Annavaram on 30.06.2005, tied yellow thread in her neck in the temple before Purohit. A.1 affixed toe rings to victim girl and got photographs. A.3 and A.4 supplied money and aided A.1 to commit the offence. She was detained in the rented room at Razole. On 14.06.2005 at 6-00 P.M. on the report of father of the victim, police registered the F.I.R. under Section 363 r/w 34 of IPC in Crime No.47 of 2005 and took up investigation. They visited the scene of offence and prepared observation report and rough sketch. Police collected date of birth certificate of the victim. 5. Whenever the victim attempted to go home, A.1, A.3 and A.4 threatened her with dire consequences and compelled her to tell to police that she would prefer to be with A.1. Anyhow, on 08.07.2005 A.1 brought the victim from Razole to Achanta Centre and dropped her and went away. She managed to go home and narrated everything to her parents. Whenever the victim attempted to go home, A.1, A.3 and A.4 threatened her with dire consequences and compelled her to tell to police that she would prefer to be with A.1. Anyhow, on 08.07.2005 A.1 brought the victim from Razole to Achanta Centre and dropped her and went away. She managed to go home and narrated everything to her parents. On 08.07.2002 at 9-00 P.M. the parents of victim brought her to police station where the Sub-Inspector of Police recorded detailed statement of the victim and thereupon the police altered the section of law into 366(A), 376 of IPC r/w 109 of IPC. Sub-Inspector of Police referred the victim to medical examination and obtained the age determination certificate. He examined the house of Yalangi Padma where the accused confined the victim and drafted observation report. On 10.07.2005 the Circle Inspector of Police concerned took up further investigation and verified the investigation done by the Sub-Inspector of Police. He arrested A.3 and A.4 and sent for remand. A.1 and A.2 in fact surrendered before the police when the offence was under Section 363 of IPC and were released on bail by the police. Later, the police got cancelled the bail granted to A.1 and A.2. So, again police arrested A.1 on 26.07.2002 and sent for medical examination and later A.1 and A.2 were released. 6. The investigation reveals the offences under Sections 366(A), 366(A) r/w 109 of IPC and also Sections 343 and 376 of IPC. Hence, the charge sheet. 7. The concerned Judicial Magistrate of First Class took cognizance of the offences alleged and numbered the case as Preliminary Register Case and after complying the formalities under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., committed the case to the Court of Sessions and thereupon the case was numbered as Sessions Case and was made over to Assistant Sessions Judge, Narsapuram. 8. On appearance of the respondents/accused before the trial Court and by following the procedure, charges under Sections 343, 366A, 376 of IPC against A.1 and Sections 366A r/w 109 of IPC and 376 r/w 109 of IPC against A.2 to A.4 were framed and explained to them in Telugu before the trial Court, for which they denied the offences and claimed to be tried. The prosecution before the trial Court got examined P.Ws.1 to 15 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.18. Exs.D.1 and D.2 were marked on behalf of the accused. The prosecution before the trial Court got examined P.Ws.1 to 15 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.18. Exs.D.1 and D.2 were marked on behalf of the accused. After the closure of evidence of prosecution, the accused were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., for which they denied the incriminating circumstances and reported no defence evidence. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, on hearing both sides and on considering the evidence on record, found them not guilty of the charges and acquitted under Section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C. Aggrieved of the same, the State, represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, filed the present Criminal Appeal. 9. Now, in deciding the appeal, the points that arise for consideration are as follows: (i) Whether the prosecution before the trial Court was able to prove that the A.1 on 12.06.2005 kidnapped the victim girl and on 20.06.2005 subjected her to rape as alleged by the prosecution? (ii) Whether the prosecution before the trial Court was able to prove that A.2 to A.4 abetted the commission of offence of kidnapping and rape of the victim girl by A.1? (iii) Whether the judgment of the trial Court is sustainable under law or fact? 10. Sri Y. Jagadeeswara Rao, learned counsel, representing the learned Public Prosecutor, would contend that P.Ws.1 to 3, the victim as well as her parents, supported the case of the prosecution. Though P.Ws.4 and 5 turned hostile, but, there is evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3. The trial Court unnecessarily disbelieved the evidence adduced by the prosecution. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge did not appreciate the evidence in proper manner and erred in acquittal of the accused. P.W.9 supported the case of the prosecution. The trial Court ought to have been seen that P.W.1 is a minor girl and accused prevailed over her not to disclose the facts to anybody. The evidence on record would prove that the victim was a minor at the time of offence, as such, the accused are liable for conviction. 11. Sri K. Raja Sekhar, learned counsel, representing Smt. M. Renuka, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 3, would contend that the evidence of P.W.1, the victim cannot stand to the test of scrutiny. The evidence on record would prove that the victim was a minor at the time of offence, as such, the accused are liable for conviction. 11. Sri K. Raja Sekhar, learned counsel, representing Smt. M. Renuka, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 3, would contend that the evidence of P.W.1, the victim cannot stand to the test of scrutiny. Her evidence means that forcibly A.1 took away on motorbike and taken her to Bhimavaram and from there to Tirupatiand again brought back to Razole and later she was taken to Annavaram, etc. If really, A.1 kidnapped her by force and if really he married the victim forcibly after commission of rape, there would have been several opportunities to the victim to reveal the incident and the evidence of P.W.1 is totally unnatural. P.Ws.4 and 5, the socalled direct witnesses, did not support the case of the prosecution. The evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4 is interested in nature. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge rightly passed an order of acquittal and that there are no grounds to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court. 12. There are no arguments advanced on behalf of the other contesting respondents. 13. P.W.1 is the victim and P.Ws.2 and 3 are the parents of P.W.1. P.Ws.4 and 5, the so-called direct witnesses, admittedly turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. P.W.6 is the person, who issued the age proof of the victim. P.W.7 and P.W.8 are hearsay witnesses and they came to know about the offence at a later stage. The prosecution examined P.W.9 to prove that in her house the accused confined the victim and committed rape. The prosecution further examined P.W.10, who is a Photographer to speak to the fact that he took four photos at the house of P.W.9. The prosecution further examined P.W.11, who is a mediator to the observation report at Padamatipalem. The prosecution also examined P.W.12 to prove the age of the victim. P.W.13 is the medical officer, who subjected the victim for physical examination. P.W.14 is the person, who examined A.1 physically as regards his physical structures, etc. P.W.15 is the investigating officer. 14. The evidence of P.W.1 on material aspects insofar as allegations of kidnap and offence of rape is concerned is to the effect that A.1 used to demand her to love him and he used to make proposals to marry her. P.W.14 is the person, who examined A.1 physically as regards his physical structures, etc. P.W.15 is the investigating officer. 14. The evidence of P.W.1 on material aspects insofar as allegations of kidnap and offence of rape is concerned is to the effect that A.1 used to demand her to love him and he used to make proposals to marry her. On one day she went to Ramalayam on 12th June and lit a lamp and was coming back, A.1 and A.2 came there and A.1 informed her that he want to marry her, for which she refused. Then A.1 said to her that if she would not come, he will die. A.2 informed A.1 that to take away the victim and if any galata took place, he will look after it. Still she refused to go with him. Then, A.1 said to her that if she would not come, he will kill her parents. Then, A.1 forcibly took her on his motorbike to Bhimavaram and from there to Tirupati by train. He took her to his relatives’ house at Tirupati and confined there for one week. On 18.06.2005 A.1 took her in a taxi to Razole to the house of Yelangi Padma, a tiled house and kept her there. On the next day, on 20.06.2005, A.3 and A.4 came there and gave some cash to A.1 and they went away. On that day night A.1 hugged her and spoiled her life. On 21.06.2005 in the morning when she wake up, A.3 and A.4 were present there. A.4 threatened her that if she reveal to anybody, he will kill her. Then she left to go to her house, A.4 threatened her. On that day completely she was weeping. On 30.06.2005 A.1, A.3 and A.4 took her to Annavaram in a Taxi and outside the temple they called a Purohit and tied tali to her neck. They tied black beads chain also to her neck and they fixed toe rings to her legs. A.1 garlanded her. She was forced to garland to A.1 and they took a photograph. A.1 told her that he married her. From there A.1 took her to Razole. On 05.07.2005 A.1 went out and after A.1 returned A.4 went out. A.4 returned back and informed A.1 that police are coming. Then A.1 informed her that if police came, she had to tell them that she married A.1. A.1 told her that he married her. From there A.1 took her to Razole. On 05.07.2005 A.1 went out and after A.1 returned A.4 went out. A.4 returned back and informed A.1 that police are coming. Then A.1 informed her that if police came, she had to tell them that she married A.1. On 08.07.2005 A.1 took her on motorbike and left her at Achanta Center. Then she went to village by foot and informed the incident to her parents. Then she, her father along with village elders went to police station and reported the incident. She was referred to Palakol Government hospital. As there is no lady doctor, she was taken to Tanuku government hospital, from there she was referred to Kakinada Government hospital. This is the substance of the evidence of P.W.1. 15. The evidence of P.W.2 is to the effect that P.W.1 informed to him about the fact that A.1 used to tease her. Then he questioned A.1. A.2 made a proposal to P.W.2 to give in marriage of P.W.1 with A.1. But, as P.W.1 is aged only 14 years, he postponed her marriage and informed the same to A.1. One year later, P.W.1 was missing. They searched for her for two days and then he lodged Ex.P.1 report. Ultimately, victim was left in the outskirts of Achanta and then she came to the house. When he asked her what happened, she revealed the entire incident. He took her to police station. 16. Coming to the evidence of P.W.3, her evidence is also same as that of the evidence of P.W.2. 17. Admittedly, P.Ws.4 and 5 did not support the case of the prosecution in any way. 18. A close look at the evidence of P.Ws.7 and 8 reveals that they are not the persons, who witnessed the occurrence and that they are the hearsay witnesses only. According to P.W.7, A.1 forcibly took P.W.1 on his motorbike to Bhimavaram and then to Tirupati and then to Annavaram and then to Razole. A.2 and A.3 instigated A.1. A.1 used to demand P.W.2 to perform the marriage of him with P.W.1. The evidence of P.W.8 is also such that he came to know about the offence committed by the accused. So, P.Ws.7 and 8 are not the direct witnesses to the occurrence. The direct witnesses P.Ws.3 and 4 did not support the case of the prosecution. 19. A.1 used to demand P.W.2 to perform the marriage of him with P.W.1. The evidence of P.W.8 is also such that he came to know about the offence committed by the accused. So, P.Ws.7 and 8 are not the direct witnesses to the occurrence. The direct witnesses P.Ws.3 and 4 did not support the case of the prosecution. 19. Now, they remains the solitary evidence of P.W.1 to prove the offences alleged against the accused and P.W.9, who was the owner of the house i.e., Yalangi Padma, in whose house A.1 was alleged to have kept the victim and committed rape. Insofar as age of the victim is concerned, she was aged about 14 years as on the time of offence and she was a minor at the time of offence which is evident from the evidence of P.W.12, the Forensic Professor in Rangaraya Medical College coupled with Ex.P.11, age certificate. The medical evidence adduced by the prosecution is such a nature that there was no evidence of recent sexual intercourse. However, the evidence of P.W.13 is that the vegina admitting two fingers easily which means that she was accustomed to sexual intercourse. 20. Now, the fact remained is that as P.Ws.2 and 3 are not the direct witnesses to the occurrence and as evidence of P.Ws.7 and 8 is the hearsay in nature, this Court has to scrutinize the evidence of P.W.1, the victim and the P.W.9, the owner of the house where the A.1 was alleged to have confined the victim and committed rape. To appreciate the same, it is pertinent to look into the answers spoken by P.W.1 during the cross examination on material aspects. 21. P.W.1 deposed in cross examination on behalf of A.1 that there are several houses at Ramalayam centre. Nobody will sit at Ramalayam center. Ramalayam center is a busy one between 8-00 P.M. and 9-00 P.M., but not 7-00 P.M. to 9-00 P.M. Nobody would witness what is happening in the street. Nobody was present on the street. She denied a suggestion that she did not state before the police that A.1 threatened her that he would kill her parents. A.1 took her on his motorbike and she cannot say its number. She sits on the motorbike by putting both legs on the one side of the bike. She went with A.1 on motorbike without any intention. She denied a suggestion that she did not state before the police that A.1 threatened her that he would kill her parents. A.1 took her on his motorbike and she cannot say its number. She sits on the motorbike by putting both legs on the one side of the bike. She went with A.1 on motorbike without any intention. She did not raise any alarm on motorbike. She does not remember the time on which she got in on the motorbike. She does not know the distance between her village and Bhimavaram. She does not know the time taken for journey. She did not inform that A.1 is taking her by force in the train as she feared that he would kill her. She passed 10th class examination in first class. She cannot give the door number or the boundaries of the house at Tirupati. At Razole she was detained for 10 days. She cannot identify the Purohit who performed their marriage at Annavaram. Because of thereat of A.1, she could not reveal that she is being taken by force. She cannot give the door number and boundaries of the house in which she was detained at Razole. She does not know the way in which she was brought on Taxi from Tirupati to Razole. When she tried to raise alarm, A.1 pressed her mouth and threatened her that if she raised alarm, he will kill her. She denied that she did not reveal to police about the threats alleged to be given by A.1. She handed over the toe rings, tali and black beads thread to the police. 22. During the cross examination on behalf of A.4, she deposed that she did not reveal the incident to anybody at Bhimavaram. They went in general compartment to go to Tirupati. She purchased one pair of dress at Tirupati. She did not intimate the taxi owner that A.1 is taking her by force. She does not know how many family members are there in Yelangi Padma house. She did not state before the police as in Ex.D.2. She sustained small bleeding injuries on her hands and legs at the time of rape. Her dress is not with any blood. A.1 used to bring food all these days from outside including tiffin also. She did not try to run away from A.1 when he was parking the vehicle at Tirupati. She sustained small bleeding injuries on her hands and legs at the time of rape. Her dress is not with any blood. A.1 used to bring food all these days from outside including tiffin also. She did not try to run away from A.1 when he was parking the vehicle at Tirupati. At Tirupati, A.1 took a house of his relatives where wife and husband were there. At Annavaram on the hills they did not go into the temple. Purohit was contacted on the top of the hill. The garlands were purchased on the top of the hill. She does not know how much time was taken to complete the marriage. Photographer was contacted on the hill. They started at Annavaram during the night to go to Razole. She did not take any meal at Annavaram. She denied that she was deposing false. 23. Turing to the evidence of P.W.9, her evidence is that she got a building at Sompalli and she is residing in up stair portion and the ground floor is being given on lease. She also let out her tiled house. The photos shown to her are her houses. A.1 and P.W.2 came to her and asked to let out her tiled house claiming that they married recently. They stayed in their house for about 10 or 15 days only. During the course of cross examination, she deposed that the houses are on her husband’s name, but not on her name. The houses are not in the name of her husband even. Her brother-in-law has got four family members and they occupied the ground floor. Kedida Krupanandam and Lalitha Kumar stayed in the second portion. She saw tali on the neck of P.W.1 and toe rings to the legs. She cannot say the timings, date, month or year on which A.1 and P.W.1 came to her to get the house on rent. Police did not conduct any identification parade with A.1 and P.W.1. She did not observe whether P.W.1 and A.1 came with any luggage or not. Police did not collect any articles from her house. She did not obtain any lease agreement. She did not collect any advance amount. She meet the police at Court today. Police had shown her P.W.1 and A.1. She denied that she deposing false. 24) Now I would like to deal with as to whether the evidence of P.W.1 is convincing? Police did not collect any articles from her house. She did not obtain any lease agreement. She did not collect any advance amount. She meet the police at Court today. Police had shown her P.W.1 and A.1. She denied that she deposing false. 24) Now I would like to deal with as to whether the evidence of P.W.1 is convincing? The crucial evidence as regards the incident that was said to be happened on 12.06.2005 is such that when she refused to marry A.1 when A.1 made such a proposal at Ramalayam, he informed to her that he will die, if she did not come and that he will kill her parents, if she will not accept his proposal. P.W.1 during the course of cross examination denied the said suggestions. Now as seen from the evidence of P.W.15, the investigating officer, he deposed that P.W.1 did not state before him that A.1 threatened her that he will kill her parents and she did not state to him any threats given by A.1. She did not state before him that A.1 forced her to garland him. By virtue of the above, it is quite clear that the evidence of P.W.1 that A.1 informed to her that he would die, if she will not accept the proposal and that he will kill her parents, etc. are material omissions which amounts contradictions. 25. Apart from this, the very evidence of P.W.1 is that on 12.06.2005 ultimately A.1 forcibly took her on his motorbike to Bhimavaram and from there he took her by train to Tirupati. According to the case of the prosecution, A.1 forcibly took away P.W.1 on motorbike. If that be the case, it is not understandable what prevented from P.W.1 from raising hue and cry when she got down from the motorbike at Bhimavaram. Her evidence is vague as to what was the mode of transport after reaching Bhimavaram to Railway Station, Bhimavaram. It is not known as to how she kept quite throughout journey from Bhimavaram to Tirupati when A.1 was allegedly taking away her with force. Apart from that, it is a case where she deposed that on 19.06.2005 A.1 took her to his relatives house at Tirupati. They were there for one week. According to the evidence of P.W.15, investigating officer, he has not gone to Tirupati where A.1 and P.W.1 stayed there for one week. Apart from that, it is a case where she deposed that on 19.06.2005 A.1 took her to his relatives house at Tirupati. They were there for one week. According to the evidence of P.W.15, investigating officer, he has not gone to Tirupati where A.1 and P.W.1 stayed there for one week. The investigating officer ought to have probed into the allegations of the prosecution that A.1 confined P.W.1 in his relatives house for a period of one week to test the bonafides in the case of the prosecution. It is not understandable as to how P.W.1 kept quite when she was allegedly confined in the relatives house of A.1 at Tirupati, who were residing in the said house and how she was there for about one week is shrouded mystery. 26. Apart from this, according to P.W.1, on 19.06.2005 A.1 took her in a taxi to Razole and took tiled house of Yalangi Padma and kept her there where he committed rape against her. When the mode of transport from Tirupati to house of Yelangi Padma at Razole is by a taxi, how she kept quite throughout is not known. The evidence of P.W.1 on the above aspects cannot stand to the test of scrutiny. 27. Now coming to the evidence of P.W.9, the owner of the house i.e., Yalangi Padma during the course of cross examination she deposed that she was not the owner of the house where A.1 confined P.W.1. At one hand she deposed that they were in the name of her husband and at another hand she deposed that even the houses are not in the name of her husband. So, when the houses claimed by P.W.9 were neither in the name of her nor in the name of her husband, it is not understandable as to how the investigating officer did not ascertain as to who were the owners of the said house. It is material for the reason that it is for the owner of the house to say as to who resided in a particular house as tenants or otherwise. P.W.9 in the chief examination deposed that she let out the house to A.1 and P.W.1 for 10 or 15 days. When she was not the owner and when her husband was not the owner, her evidence is not convincing in this regard. P.W.9 in the chief examination deposed that she let out the house to A.1 and P.W.1 for 10 or 15 days. When she was not the owner and when her husband was not the owner, her evidence is not convincing in this regard. Apart from this, P.W.9 had no prior acquaintance either with P.W.1 or A.1. She deposed in cross examination that police never conducted any test identification parade involving A.1 and P.W.1. Apart from this, she deposed further that police had shown A.1 and P.W.1 on the date of evidence before the Court. Under the circumstances, I am of the considered view that the evidence of P.W.9 is also not convincing. How P.W.1 could stay in the socalled house of Yalangi Padma along with A.1, when A.1 allegedly kidnapped her force, is not convincing. 28. Apart from this, coming to the incident that was happened at Annavaram i.e., A.1 allegedly tied a tali around the neck of P.W.1 in the presence of a Purohit. The evidence adduced by the prosecution cannot stand to the test of scrutiny. There is no dispute that Annavaram is a pilgrimage center. When it is the evidence of P.W.1 that she was forced to make garlanding A.1, the so-called photographs have not seen the light of the day. The photographs that are marked by the prosecution under the cover of Exs.P.5 to P.8 are only relating to the so-called vacant house where P.W.1 was allegedly confined. They are not relating to the so-called marriage between A.1 and P.W.1 at Annavaram temple. The prosecution did not examine the so-called Purohit in whose presence the marriage was performed. The alleged marriage between P.W.1 and A.1 could not have been done without knowledge to the temple authorities. Except self-serving evidence of P.W.1, which is not at all convincing, they remained nothing on record in support of such an allegation. Apart from this, when it is the evidence of P.W.1 that A.1 enjoyed her sexually at the house of Yelangi Padma at Razole and after that when she was taken to Annavaram, a woman of reasonable prudence would have ventured to raise hue and cry at Annavaram. The alleged marriage could not have been done in a veil of secrecy. Hence, the evidence of P.W.1 in this regard is not at all convincing. 29. The alleged marriage could not have been done in a veil of secrecy. Hence, the evidence of P.W.1 in this regard is not at all convincing. 29. It is to be noticed that when it was the evidence of P.W.1, during the course of cross examination that nobody would sit at Ramalayam center and it was a busy locality between 8-00 P.M. to 9-00 P.M. and nobody would witness what is happening in the street and nobody were present on the street, the prosecution examined P.Ws.4 and 5 as if they witnessed the occurrence, but, they turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. Leave apart to the fact that the hostility of P.Ws.4 and 5 against the prosecution is proved, but, in the light of the answers spoken by P.W.1 during the course of cross examination there was no chance to anybody to witness the occurrence. The act of the police in citing P.Ws.4 and 5 as prosecution witnesses throws any amount of doubt about the bonafides in the case of the prosecution. It appears that they were planted deliberately as direct witnesses and ultimately they turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. 30. The serious lacunae in the case of the prosecution is the conduct of P.W.1 is abnormal and if really she was taken away by A.1 with all force, she would have ventured to raise hue and cry atleast one place i.e., at Ramalayam, Bhimavaram, Tirupati, Razole, Annavaram, etc. 31. When P.W.1 deposed that she handed over black beads chain and tali Bottu, etc., to the investigating officer, during the course of cross examination P.W.15 deposed that he has not seized the tali and black beads chain and toe rings from P.W.1. So, the evidence P.W.1 and P.W.15 in this regard is inconsistent. The investigating officer did not go to the place at Tirupati and even he did not examine the so-called relatives of A.1 at Tirupati in support of the allegations against A.1 that he confined P.W.1 in the relatives house and he did not examine any neighbourers at the house of P.W.9 and he did not examine the temple authorities or Purohit at Annavaram. The investigation was not at all on right lines. The evidence adduced by the prosecution, bristles with inherent, improbabilities and it is absolutely unsafe to believe the evidence of P.W.1. 32. The investigation was not at all on right lines. The evidence adduced by the prosecution, bristles with inherent, improbabilities and it is absolutely unsafe to believe the evidence of P.W.1. 32. Though the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Narsapuram made a cryptic judgment by not looking into the entire evidence on record, but when this Court dealing with an appeal against acquittal, it is the bounden duty of the Court to look into the entire evidence on record and to come an independent conclusion as to whether the evidence on record would prove the charges framed against the accused. 33. Having considered the facts and circumstances and the evidence on record, I am of the considered view, that the prosecution failed to prove that accused kidnapped P.W.1 and A.1 had sexual intercourse with her in the manner as alleged by the prosecution. Hence, there are no merits in the appeal. 34. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.