Allowed

T.Jyothi , Susheela, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC30 Oct 2012CRLRC/1666/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Revision No.1666 of 2010, this Court allowed the revision filed against convictions under Sections 5 and 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. Finding that the prosecution failed to examine crucial witnesses and lacked direct evidence, the Court acquitted the petitioners.

What did the court decide?

The convictions and sentences imposed on the petitioners are set aside and they are acquitted of the charge. The fine amount, if any, paid shall be refunded.

T.Jyothi , Susheela, Vs The State of Andhra… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1666 of 2010

¶3

30-10-2012

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

T.Jyothi @ Susheela and another

¶6

…..Petitioners

¶7

AND

¶8

State of A.P., through the Inspector of Police, P.S.Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad, rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad.

¶9

…..Respondent

¶10

THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING ORDER:

¶11

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO

¶12

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1666 of 2010

¶13

ORDER:

¶14

This revision is filed by the petitioners, who are A.1 & A.3 challenging the Judgment of III Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad dated 17.9.2010 dismissing Crl.A.No.214 of 2010 and confirming the convictions and sentences imposed by the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate for Excise Cases, Hyderabad in C.C.No.407 of 2008 dated 22.6.2010 whereby the petitioners were convicted for the offence under Section 5 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (for short ‘Act’) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years each and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months each.

¶15

The allegations against the petitioners herein are that A.1 during the rescue operation conducted by the police, paid a sum of Rs.100/- to L.W.8 for taking L.W.7, who is examined as P.W.5 for the purpose of prostitution and P.W.5 was taken in a car being driven by A.3. For the act of A.1 paying a sum of Rs.100/- to L.W.8 for the purpose of prostitution with L.W.7, who is examined as P.W.5 and in view of the presence of A.2, the said case was registered for the said offence. After due trial, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioners as aforementioned and the same was confirmed by the lower appellate Court.

¶16

This Court perused the record and heard the arguments.

¶17

It is to be noted that in the case on hand, the petitioner-A.1 alleged to have paid a sum of Rs.100/- for the purpose of procuring P.W.5 from the hands of L.W.8. But L.W.8 was not examined before the Court to

¶18

substantiate the fact that the first petitioner-A.1 paid a sum of Rs.100/- to her for the purpose of procuring P.W.5 and to involve her in prostitution. Further a reading of evidence of P.W.5, who volunteered herself to assist the police in the rescue operation, nowhere it is stated that the petitioners herein more particularly A.1 induced her to participate in sexual intercourse with any one or induced her to be a part in the activity of prostitution. The Courts below mainly relied on the confessions of the petitioners-A.1 and A.3. Further though charges are framed under sections 5 and 7 of the Act, none of the ingredients of Sections 5 and 7 are attracted to the present facts and circumstances of the case. In the absence of any evidence of P.W.5 and also the non-examination of L.W.8, this Court is of the view that the convictions and sentences imposed on the petitioners by the trial Court as confirmed by the lower appellate Court cannot be sustained since the prosecution miserably failed in its attempts to establish the offence alleged.

¶19

Accordingly, the revision is allowed and the convictions and sentences imposed on the petitioners herein are set aside and the petitioners are acquitted of the charge. The fine amount, if any, paid by the petitioners shall be refunded to.

¶20

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, filed in this revision shall stand closed.

¶21

_________________ RAJA ELANGO,J

¶22

30.10.2012. Tsr

T.Jyothi , Susheela, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Jyothi , Susheela, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

N.Padmavathi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Sri Ganta Narsi Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Ippa Bondaiah Vs The Government of Ap., rep.by its Secretary, Major

Konduri Durga Nageswara Rao, Vs Konduri Rama Devi , Lakshmi Rama Devi

M/s.Allanthus Biotech and Research Institute Ltd., Vs M/s.Vasudha Pharma Chem Ltd.

Pyda Satayanarayana, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh