2
CRI...A. mm U/S. 373(1) 85 (3) CR.P.C. BY THE SPF me ~ 'A
STATE PRAYENG THAT mzs HONBLE COURT MAY BE Pzgjasejj 9:0 " 4_
GRANT LEAVE TO FILE AN APPEAL AGAINSTJTHE ..IK.i"iL)(Iri*.{}:f'2l\I"I'V:lZv3'If. 'V
3.1.2001
passer) BY THE III ADDL. 3E%ss§:e~Ns’_’ §:U:;£3:E§.,,iii:*
BANGALORE cm: in s.C.No.222;97, 2
RESPONDEN13-ACCUSED FOR THE ofieeflgmsietgwzsiéiaeigsssv-u/-3.
366 AND sec. 114 R/W SEC. 376 EPC. A
This appeal coming on fof izeéxriiig Court today,
SREEDHAR mo, J., delivered the.!b_i10wing: 1, —
The ease «of the victim PW-4 was
giving tuition to the ef–i:iér”‘house. A~1 was rtmnmg a
shop in the premises of A~4 were the tenants nrsiding
in thefireiraises ~§_)n 21/L1″/i 1997 at 1o–3o a.m. it is said.’
that A-2 and forced PW-4 to go along with A-1
Vauto. take PW ~41 to Thirupathi, Velangani and
Otlieie and “else stayed at Bangalore in the residence of aunt
t(comp1a1r1a’ ntlfather of PW-4 lodged the complaint.
_A__–§1 surrendered before the jurisdictional Criminal Court
in 01:: 1/2} 1997 PW–4 aiong with her parenta gave a
coinplaint to S R Nagar P S afleging rape and kidnap and abetment
y..
3
of the said offence by A4210 A4. PW-4 was subjected
examination. The medical report rules out of K V’
against A-1. The police filed charge sheet agmerr
committing oflenee under Section 3639 Seetion …’fr1e
accused are acquitted. The State ‘is in 2 – . ;
2. ?W-4 is crucial witness jefIid,ence disclose
that by threat and foree,_ A-1 and that
she had to go along’ Velangani and
Bangalore and every time by giving
threat. She furri3.er” “accompanied them when
they visit Thimpathi 4P’W~4 further states that she
alongiwzfth Aisrnfrezrdered before the Court and made
statez1re115t’Ato”the that she gone with A–I volumarily
However, she explained that she
‘make estatereerzt under threat of A4 and other
/. VVoa’re-ful examination of evidence of PW-4 it discloses
of threat appears to be artificial and incredible. It
to be a case of love between A-1 and PW-4 that promptw
her to go along with A-1. There is no sufficient evidence to