THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2981 of 2018

JUDGMENT:

1 This criminal appeal, under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C., arises out of the judgment dated 09.11.2018 passed in SPL.S.C.No.14 of 2016 on the file of the Court of the Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs/STs (PoA) Act-cum-V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Adilabad, wherein and whereby the learned Special Judge found the appellant guilty of the offence under Sections 417 IPC and under Section 3 (1) (xii) of SCs/STs (PoA) Act, 1989, however, acquitted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC.

2 The gravamen of the charge levelled against the appellant, succinctly, is as follows:-

i) That on 10^th and 28^th of April, 2009 he took away the victim-Gomas Praneetha, aged about 21 years to Hyderabad with him on a false promise of love and marrying her and thereby induced her to participate in sex with him and thus the appellant having fulfilled his desire, refused to marry her later and thus committed offence under Section 417 of IPC;

ii) That on the above said dates the appellant took the victim to his room at Hyderabad and committed rape on her and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC; and iii) That on the above said dates the appellant not being a member of S.C or S.T community, and being in a position to dominate the will of the victim Praneetha, who belongs to Mala caste of Schedule Caste community, on a false promise of love and marrying her, exploited her sexually to which she would not have otherwise agreed and thereby committed an offence under Section 3 (1) (xii) of SCs/STs (PoA) Act, 1989.

3 During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 14 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.10. But no oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the appellant.

4 The trial Court, as stated supra, having appreciated the oral and documentary evidence, by an elaborate judgment dated 09.11.2018 found the appellant guilty of the offence under Sections 417 IPC and under Section 3 (1) (xii) of SCs/STs (PoA) Act, 1989, however, acquitted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC. Aggrieved, the accused preferred this appeal.

5 Sri B.Mayur Reddy, learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of Sri K.V.Raman, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the trial Court had relied on the sole testimony of P.W.1 to convict the appellant for the offences under Section 417 IPC and Section 3 (1) (xii)

of SCs/STs (PoA) Act, 1989 though there is no independent evidence. He further contended that medical examination of the victim after more than two years of the alleged intercourse has no bearing or relevance to the case inasmuch as there is nothing to show that it was actually the appellant who had intercourse with the victim or some other person and that there is also nothing to show that she did not have intercourse with some other person between April, 2009 till November, 2011.

6 On the other hand, Sri K.Rama Kotaiah, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the trial Court has gone through the evidence available on record in right perspective and accordingly convicted the appellant for the charged offences. He further submitted that though there are certain minor contradictions, they do not go to the root of the matter and hence the well considered judgment needs no interference at this stage.

7 The factual matrix of the prosecution case as culled out from the evidence of P.W.1, the prosecutrix, is that the complainant – Gomas Praneetha who belongs to S.C. Mala community was native of Balaji Anukonda village and she was studying B.Techin Meera college of Engineering at Miryalaguda of Nalgonda District. In the year 2009 the appellant, who belongs to B.C. Community, accidentally made a phone call to her mobile and disconnected it as wrong call. He made again another call to her mobile and introduced himself and requested for friendship. One day while she was going