THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1009 of 2017

ORDER:

This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the State aggrieved by

the Judgment passed in Spl.SC.No.8 of 2016 on the file of the Special Judge for trail of cases under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act - cum - 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal (‘trial Court’ for brevity) dated 31.10.2016 whereunder the respondent- accused was acquitted for the offences punishable under Section 420, 366 and 376(2)(i)(n) of the Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’ for brevity) and Section 5(j)(ii) read with Section 6 of Protection of Children from

Sexual Offences Act (‘POCSO’ Act for brevity).

2. Heard Mr. M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for appellant/State and Sri B.Chennaiah, learned counsel appearing for Sri P.Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel for

respondent/accused.

3. Brief facts of the case:

3.1. The case of the prosecution is that the victim was a minor aged only 14 years old at the time of incident. The accused, who was the

victim classmate’s elder brother, developed an intimate relationship with the victim and made a false promise of marriage. Approximately ten months prior to the complaint, the accused allegedly had forcible sexual intercourse with the victim at her home. Later, on 07.12.2013, the accused took the victim to Hyderabad, confined her in a rented house, and the victim conceived. When the victim expressed her desire to see her mother, the accused called her mother and when they came to the house, the accused fled away and the victim was brought to the house of her parents.

4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the trial Court without properly appreciating the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution erroneously acquitted the accused for the offences under Section 420, 366 and 376(2)(i)(n) of the IPC and Section 5(j)(ii) read with Section 6 of POCSO Act. He further submitted that prosecution proved the offences against the accused by producing the evidence. He further submitted that trial Court has failed to consider the evidence of PW 8 and 9 who are Headmaster and Head Mistress of MPPS, Kannegundla who specifically stated that victim was minor as on the date of alleged incident. The prosecution also filed documentary evidence i.e., exhibit P5, P6 P7. The said documents clearly prove that victim was minor as on the date of alleged incident. The trial Court without considering the exhibits P4 to P6 and evidence of PW8 and 9 came to a conclusion that the prosecution has not taken steps to send the victim girl to medical examination as required. The accused with a dishonest intention committed the offence under Section 376. Hence, the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court is liable to be set aside and the accused is liable to be convicted for the above said offences.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of accused vehemently contended that the trial Court after evaluating the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution rightly came to conclusion that prosecution failed to prove the offences which were alleged against the accused. He further submitted that accused and victim fell into love and their marriage was solemnized and they were blessed with one child and they are living happily. PW2 lodged complaint against the accused only on the ground that accused and PW1 performed their marriage without her consent. He further submitted that as on the date of their marriage PW1 victim was major. The trial Court rightly passed the impugned judgment acquitting the accused for the above said offence by giving cogent and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court.

6. Having considered the rival submissions made by respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that on 07.12.2013, PW1 left the house of PW2 and thereafter PW2 lodged complaint on 21.08.2014, after lapse of long