JUDGMENT :

C. Praveen Kumar, J.

Heard Sri Challa Ajay Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant and Sri Soora Venkat Sainath, Assistant Public Prosecutor, through Blue Jeans video conferencing APP.

1. The sole accused in Sessions Case No. 329 of 2012 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Vijayawada, filed the present appeal challenging his conviction and sentence imposed therein.

2. The appellant herein was charged for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 376 and 420 I.P.C. By its judgment dated 12.01.2015 the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 376 I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to, pay a fine of 5,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. He was also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 417 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for two weeks. He was also found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 411 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for two weeks. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.

3. The gravamen of the charge against the accused is that he induced Mulagada Venkata Lakshmi since a year prior to the offence and in the month of June, 2012, he is, alleged to have had sexual intercourse with her at Bhavani Island.

4. The case of the prosecution as culled out from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is as under:

i. P.Ws. 2 and 3 are the parents of P.W. 1, who is the victim. P.W. 4 is the aunt of P.W. 1 and P.W. 5 is a tenant of P.W. 3, P.W. 6 is the wife of the accused. Suppressing the fact that the accused was a married person, he is said to have followed P.W. 1, promising to marry her. At that time, P.W. 1 was studying B.Sc. (Nursing) 2nd year at Pinnamaneni Sidhartha Medical Science College at Gannavaram. The accused and P.W. 1 were residents of Khuddus Nagar, Vijayawada. It is said that the accused followed P.W. 1 in the name of love and threatened to commit suicide if she does not love him. On his persuasion, P.W. 1 accepted his request, which was not to the knowledge of her parents. On a promise made that he would marry her, the accused took her to parks and Bhavani Island. It is said under the guise of marriage he had sexual intercourse with her and enjoyed her physically and mentally. On 09.10.2011 due to fear of pregnancy, P.W. 1 informed her love affair to her parents. Thereafter, her parents called the accused to their house and discussed about their love affair. At that time, the accused informed them that his parents are not accepting his request and insisted for performing his marriage with P.W. 1, without the knowledge of his parents. However, the parents of P.W. 1 went to the house of the accused, where they came to know that he was already married having two children. Accordingly, on 09.10.2011, they went to the Police Station and lodged a report. The evidence on record show that even prior to 09.10.2011, the accused has taken one gold chain and a cell phone from P.W. 1, as he had no money.

ii. Basing on the report lodged by P.W. 1, the S.I. of Police [P.W. 11] registered a case in crime No. 586 of 2011 for the offence punishable under Sections 420 and 403 I.P.C. Ex. P11 is the F.I.R. He examined P.Ws. 1 to 3 at the Police Station and recorded their statements. Thereafter, he visited the house of P.W. 1 and examined P.Ws. 4 and 5. He made efforts to secure the accused, but, he was not available. On 12.10.2011 at about 10.45 a.m. P.W. 1 again went to the Police Station and presented a report, basing on which he altered the section of law to Sections 376, 417 and 406 I.P.C. Ex. P12 is the altered memo. The first report dated 09.10.2011 is placed on record as Ex. P1, while the second rep