Akula Raghuram vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh

2025 INSC 185 Non-reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Criminal Appeal No. 294/2015

AKULA RAGHURAM …Appellant

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH …Respondent

JUDGMENT

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

The appeal arises from the order of the

Revisional Court which confirmed the conviction and sentence

of the accused/appellant under Section 366-A of the Indian

Penal Code, 18601 as handed over by the Trial Court and

confirmed by the Appellate Court.

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by NARENDRA PRASAD Date: 2025.02.11 17:56:08 IST Reason: 1 “IPC”

1

2. Mr. Abhijit Basu, learned Senior Counsel

appearing for the appellant pointed out that the conviction

under Section 366-A is totally misconceived since none of the

ingredients under the provision are attracted in the above case.

The allegation is one that the appellant having taken away the

victim with an intention of marrying her. There is absolutely no

allegation of any sexual advance having been made against the

victim by the accused or any third party. The fact remains that

victim who was a major, had roamed around for about two

months and returned home to raise the allegation against the

appellant. There are gross inconsistencies in the evidence of

the victim and her parents as to the cause leading to the

alleged abduction; which makes the story completely

unbelievable. Neither has the appellant induced the victim nor

was there any likelihood of she being forced or seduced to illicit

intercourse with any other person. The victim was not proved to

be a minor girl and the courts below have erred aggregately in

convicting the appellant. Ms. Prerna Singh, learned standing

counsel appearing for the respondent-State, vigorously,

opposed the contention raised by the learned counsel for the

2 appellant. The expert evidence proved beyond doubt that the

girl was a minor and there is no question of consent arises. The

fact that the accused had taken her from the lawful custody of

her parents was proved beyond doubt. The desire of a marriage

with the victim, as entertained by the accused brings in a

likelihood of sexual intercourse which in the context of the age

of the victim attracts the offence. The Courts below have

convicted the accused on valid evidence.

3. We have given anxious consideration to the

evidence recorded, especially since it has been found to be

proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has

committed the offence charged. We have to immediately notice

that there is absolutely no allegation of any sexual act having

been committed against the victim nor even a sexual advance

made. The victim also does not speak of any apprehension of a

likelihood of an illicit intercourse being thrust upon her by

either the appellant or any other person.

4. In the trial, eleven witnesses were examined

as PWs 1 to 11 and the nine exhibits marked included the

portions of the statements made under Sections 161 and 164 of

3 the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 2. The material object,

namely; the white coloured tracks jeep was also produced

before the Court.

5. On the allegations, suffice it to notice that the

appellant is said to have forced the victim into a jeep on

03.05.2001, after having developed a friendly relationship with

the family of the victim and taken her to three different

locations inside the State. The abduction was alleged to be

since that appellant had a desire to marry the victim. At the last

location, the victim escaped and came back to her father after

which the First Information Report3 was registered on

information given by the victim to the police; when the father

took her to the police station.

6. PWs 1 and 2 are the parents and PW 7 is the

victim, the alleged minor child. PWs 1, 2 and 7 spoke of a close

relationship with the appellant; whose marriage they had

attended and PW 8 deposed that she along with her brother

had visited the accused and his family and stayed at their

residence with the consent of her parents. Strangely, the

2“Cr.P.C.” 3 “F.I.R.”

4 allegation levelled was there before the marriage of the

appellant, he had sought the hand of PW 7; which was denied

by her family. We cannot but notice that as per the evidence,

the friendly relationship between the families continued even

after the marriage and the allegation is that despite the

appellant being married, he took away the victim, PW 7, with a

desire to get married with her. The story spoken out by the

witnesses smacks of disbelief.

7. PW 3 is an eye-witness who is said to have

seen the abduction or rather, the victim being taken away in

the jeep. PW 3 is an acquaintance of the family of the victim

and he is a resident of a place which the victim is allowed to

have been kidnapped. This version is that on 03.05.2001 when

he was sitting in front of his house, he saw the victim passing-

by with a basket of bananas. Fifteen minutes later, he saw

passed a white coloured trax jeep moving in the direction in

which the victim had gone and one and a half an hour later saw

her going in the opposite direction, sitting inside the jeep. He

also deposed that apart from the victim, the jeep only had the

driver inside it. PW 3 did not identify the appellant and

5 strangely enough, he was not asked even to identify the jeep

which was seized and produced before the Court as M.O.1. In

this context, it has to be stated that PW 3 did not speak of the

registration number of the jeep nor was the registration

certificate of the jeep produced or even the seizure mahazar

proved before the Court.

8. PW 6 and 8 turned hostile. Of these, PW 8

was a tractor mechanic and he deposed that he had a shop at

Mandanapalle town. Previously, he was examined to prove the

seizure of the vehicle but even after he was declared hostile.

No question was specifically put to him as to the seizure

Mahazar and he denied since only exhibit P-6 portion of his 161

Cr.P.C. statement was confirmed by him. Exhibit P-6 statement

made by PW 8 was confirmed by the Investigating Officer 4

however, the seizure was carried out under exhibit P-9 as

spoken out by the I.O. was never confirmed to PW 8. The jeep

was said to be produced before the Court by the owner; whose

identify is not proved and hence, there is absolutely no way to

connect the appellant/accused with the jeep and the identify of

4 “I.O.”

6 the driver of the jeep having not been established who is said

to have abducted the victim.

9. PW 7 has been examined whose evidence is

crucial insofar as the victims testimony having established

specially status in law, especially when it has a ring of truth. PW

7 after speaking of the earlier relationship of the two families,

deposed that she went to Ramanaiahgaripalle to sell bananas

and after selling the same, she was returning at about 11:00

A.M. the accused came there in a jeep and asked her to board

it. The accused coaxed her and then pulled her into the jeep

forcibly and when the victim questioned him, he threatened her

with death. She was taken to Madanapalle in the jeep where

she left on the road while parking the jeep in a mechanic shed .

Here, we pause to observe that neither was the location of the

abduction visited and the details used in the seizure mahazar

prepared of the shed from which the vehicle was seized. We say

this specifically since the abduction presumably took place from

a public road and the victim herself claims that she was left on

the road, while the accused parked the jeep; when she did not

attempt to run away.

7

10. Be that as it may, PW 7 continues to say

that she was taken to RTC bus stand by the appellant from

where they boarded in a bus to Bangalore. It was at this point

that again she questioned the appellant of his intentions when

he disclosed his desire to marry her. Strangely enough, even as

per PW 7, she only resisted the proposal by reason of her desire

to continue her studies. Obviously, from the earlier part of PW

7’s deposition, she was aware that the appellant was married,

and she did not object to the proposal of that count which

seriously puts to peril her version especially the factum of the

appellant having forced her to proceed with him. PW 7

concludes by saying that she escaped from the clutches of the

appellant at Vijayawada and returned to her home on

09.07.2001 where her father first took her to the police station

who later sent her to the doctor for examination and the

Magistrate who recorded exhibit P-5 statement under Section

162of the Cr.P.C. She reiterated that the accused threatened to

kill her, kept her from communicating with any other person,

confined her in his presence and projected intention was also a

marriage with the victim.

8

11. Strangely, in the cross-examination, PW 7

turned turtle and stated that earlier to the alleged incident, she

did not talk to the accused and she did not had any previous

acquaintance with the accused. On a specific question asked

with regard to her stay in the house of the accused, her answer

was also that she does not remember the exact date. She

admitted that when she was travelling with the accused, she

did not at any time created a hue and cry so as to escape from

the accused. She also did not specify the places where she was

confined at Bangalore, Vizag and Vijayawada. Her version about

her escape was also that she came in a train, the details which

she was unaware of, by taking to the Ticket Collector without

taking a ticket and reached her home on 09.07.2001. She does

not speak about the station at which she had de-boarded the

train but claimed that she travelled her village from Tirupati in

a bus. In exhibit P-5 statement before the Magistrate, the victim

had clearly stated that she was not examined by the police

before which statement under Section 162 of the Cr.P.C. was

marked as exhibit 5. We cannot find that the testimony of the

witness does not have a ring of truth, and we find clear consent

9 when she travelled with the accused. The police have also not

done anything to establish the exact date of marriage of the

accused and though, his wife was examined as PW 6. Her

statement was only that she married the accused about one

and half years back. She specifically denied having visited the

house of the victim and that she knew nothing about the case.

She denied her statements in exhibit P-4.

12. We cannot ignore that fact that even if

there is a consent, the accused cannot be absolved of a

criminal liability if the child is a minor. No certificate to prove

the date of birth of the victim is produced before the Court nor

has the parents, who were examined as PWs 1 and 2 asked any

question about the age of the child. PW 7 deposed before the

Court that her date of birth is 04.03.1984 and that she was

studying in intermediate in 2000-2001 which makes her age to

be 17 years as on the date of the alleged abduction i.e.

03.05.2001; while a specific provision under Section, 366A

makes penal the inducement of a minor girl under the age of 18

years.

10

13. In this context, we have to examine

Annexure A-9- evidence of the Medical Officer who claimed that

the age of the victim was between 16 to 17 years. The doctor

specifically said that he referred PW 7 to a Radiologist and

based on the report, he issued certificate at exhibit P-7

certifying her age to be between 16 to 17 years. Even in the

case of ossification test, it was trite that there could be a

difference of two years, either way and in that circumstance,

the age determination by the doctor as between 16 to 17 years

does not conclusively establish that the victim was a minor

child at the time of the alleged abduction. We cannot also but

notice that the Radiologist was neither examined nor was the

his report marked in evidence. This seriously puts to peril the

prosecution case that the victim was a minor.

14. In the totality of the circumstances, we find

absolutely no reason to affirm the conviction of the appellant

and we acquit him of the charges. Bail bonds, if any executed,

shall stand cancelled.

15. Accordingly, the Appeal stands allowed as

above. Parties to bear their own costs.

11

16. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand

disposed of.

……………………………., J.

[B.R. GAVAI]

……………………….………,J.

[K. VINOD CHANDRAN]

NEW DELHI;

FEBRUARY 11, 2025.

12