BHEEMAYYA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts leading to this petition are that the Circle Inspector of Police, Chittapur Circle has filed a charge sheet against the accused persons including these petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 366-A , 376(2)(n) , 504 , 506 , 109 read with Section 149 IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of POSCO Act. On filing of the charge sheet, the case was committed to the Special Court. The charge was framed against accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 366(A) , 376(2)(n) , 504 , 506 , 109 read with Sections 149 IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act. Thereafter, full-fledged trial was held and on appreciating the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, accused No.1 was acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 366(A) , 376(2)(n) , 504 , 506 , 109 read with Sections 149 IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act and he has set at liberty. The petitioners in this case are accused Nos. 2 to 5 and they have sought for quashing of the proceedings in Special Case (POCSO) No.53/2018, which is later numbered as Spl.C.C.No.1/2019.

(2.) The main grounds urged for quashing of the proceedings are that the victim girl has not supported the prosecution case. She has clearly stated in her evidence that neither accused No.1 nor accused Nos.2 to 6 have committed any offence. Further, she has clearly stated that accused have not kidnapped her and have not committed rape by threatening her. Even other direct witnesses have also not supported the case of the prosecution. Considering her evidence, accused No.1 has been acquitted. Under these circumstances, continuation of proceedings against the petitioners would be a futile exercise. Even if the evidence recorded in the earlier Special Case (POCSO) No.53/2018 is concerned, absolutely there is no case whatsoever against these petitioners and there is no possibility of conviction. Apart from this, the precious time of the Court would be wasted in this process. In this view of the matter, it is necessary to quash the proceeding initiated against these petitioners.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his contention relied on the decision of the Apex Court reported in 2005(1) SCC 478 in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Akhilesh Singh wherein it is held as under: