ORDER :

This Criminal Revision Case came to be filed by the petitioner namely Madugula Gurappa, daughter of late Appanna, who was the prosecution witness No.1 in Calendar Case No.187 of 2006, on the file of the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vizianagaram (for short, ‘the learned Magistrate’), under Sections 397(1) and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1972 (for short, ‘the Cr.P.C’), challenging the judgment, dated 22.08.2008, where under the learned Magistrate acquitted the first respondent/accused for the offence under Section 417 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’).

2. The parties to this Criminal Revision Case will hereinafter be referred to as described before the trial Court, for the sake of convenience.

3. The case of the prosecution, before the trial Court, according to the charge sheet filed by the State Government represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, II Town Police Station, Vizianagaram, in brief, is as follows:

LW.1-Madugula Gurappa is an un-married woman. Accused is resident of her locality. The accused and victim belongs to the same caste. In fact, accused got engagement with another lady by name Harathi of Srikakulam for marriage about five years prior to the date of incident. But he developed love on the victim and had sexual intercourse with her by promising her to marry. Later, he told the victim that he would marry both victim and the engaged lady at Srikakulam. Then, the victim raised an objection and consumed pesticide poison on the night of 25.03.2006 and she was shifted to Sukhibava Hospital, Vizianagaram for treatment. Subsequently, she gave a report to the Police. During investigation, basing on the statement, Police registered the F.I.R. and took up investigation and they arrested the accused. After completion of investigation, charge sheet is laid. The learned Magistrate, took cognizance of the case under Section 417 IPC and after appearance of the accused, copies of the case documents were furnished as required and the accused was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C. for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. To bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 8 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-10. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances for which he denied the same. In support of the defence, accused got examined DW.1 and got marked Exs.D-1 and D-2.

5. The trial Court, after hearing both sides and on considering the oral as well as documentary evidence on record, found the accused not guilty of the offence under Section 417 IPC and acquitted him under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C.

6. Aggrieved by the same, the de-facto complainant/victim/ PW.1 in C.C. No.187 of 2006, dated 22.08.2008, preferred this Criminal Revision Case under Sections 397(1) and 401 Cr.P.C.

7. Now, in deciding this Criminal Revision Case, the point that arises for consideration is as to whether the judgment in C.C. No.187 of 2006, dated 22.08.2008, by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vizianagaram suffers with any illegality, irregularity and impropriety and whether there are any grounds to interfere with the same?

8. POINT: Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would contend that the Court below instead of convicting the accused under Section 417 IPC acquitted him. PW.1 categorically testified that accused had sexual intercourse with her promising to marry and subsequently he did not marry. Her evidence has support from PW.2, the cousin sister, PW.3, younger brother of PW.1, and also from PW.4. They testified that accused used to come to the house of PW.1, chitchat and move with her very closely. He promised to marry PW.1 and had sexual intercourse with her. The trial Court did not look into the aspect. Though the accused got engaged with a lady by name Harathi of Srikakulam but quarreled with PW.1 by ref