PRAKASH S/O CHANNAPPA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Criminal Appeal No.2702/2009 connected with Criminal Appeal No.2703/2009, since these two appeals are arising out of the common judgment passed by the trial court, since common questions of law and facts are involved in both the appeals, they were taken together to dispose of by this common judgment in order to avoid repetition of discussion.

(2.) Criminal Appeal No.2702/2009 is preferred by accused No.1 and 2 and Criminal Appeal No.2703/2009 is preferred by accused No.3 to 5. All these accused were the accused persons before the trial court in S.C.No.46/2005. The above accused were charged for the offences punishable under Sections 366 and 366A read with 34 of the I.P.C. All the five accused were convicted for the said offences by the trial court and they were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 5 years with fine of Rs.2,000/- each and there is also default sentence in case if they failed to pay the fine amount. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction and also challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment of the trial court, the appellants in these above two appeals are before this Court. The appellants have challenged the correctness and legality of the judgment of the trial court on the grounds as they have mentioned in the respective appeal memorandums. In Criminal Appeal No.2703/ 2009 though there are three appellants, but appellant No.1/accused No.3 namely Prakash S/o Channappa expired and hence the proceedings as against the said accused/appellant are abated.

(3.) Brief facts of the prosecution case as per the complaint averments as per Ex.P1 that PW1 one Smt.Leelavathi who is the mother of the victim girl lodged complaint before the Siruguppa Police on 16.02.2005 alleging that on that day morning at 9.15 a.m. her daughter namely L.Anuradha who was studying in II year PUC, went from the house in order to attend to the said classes in the S.C.S. Girls Pre University College and when she was nearby Abhiyanjaneya Temple, on the backside some unknown persons forcibly took her, which she came to know. As her daughter did not reach to the college, she made a request that immediately Anuradha be searched and the culprits may be punished. The further allegation at the end of the complaint, she was told by one Naveen Kumari and another student that Anuradha was taken away in the Tata Sumo vehicle. On the basis of the said complaint case came to be registered in the respondent- police station for the alleged offences.