BILLINTI CHANDRAPPA Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal preferred by two accused in Sessions Case No. 159 of 1996 on the file of the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Chittoor, charged for the offence under Section 366-A of Indian Penal Code for procuring the minor daughter of the complainant by inducing her to have illicit intercourse.

(2.) The facts leading to the convictions of the appellants are as follows: P.W.1 is the father of the victim girl by name K. Manjula. She was induced by A-1 and A-2 to accompany A-1 during the night of 11-10-1995. P.W.2 the daughter of P.W.I went to a video cinema and did not return to the house. P.W.1 suspected that A-l and A-2 were responsible for the commission of the offence. Accordingly he lodged Ex.P-1 complaint with the police. The police traced the minor girl along with A-l at Bangalore three days after the date of the complaint and the police entrusted her to P.W.I. On the basis of Ex.P-1 the police registered Crime No.57 of 1995 of Baireddipally Police Station for the offence under Section 366 IPC. Subsequently the police altered the section of law under Section 366(A) and laid the charge-sheet after completing the investigation. The Sessions Court framed charges against both the accused. The accused denied the charge and claimed for trial.

(3.) The prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the accused examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-48. The accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. by putting the incriminating material against them and they generally denied the commission of the offence, but they did not chose to examine any witnesses on their behalf. They simply marked Exs.D-1 to D-7 which are portions of 161 Cr.P.C. statements of P.Ws.1 and 2.