IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.998 OF 2017

27^th November 2025 Between:

The State of Telangana rep. by The Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad. .....Appellant/Complainant AND Md.Asif, S/o.Wakeel, and two others.

.....Respondent/Accused

JUDGMENT:

This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the State, aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned Special Judge for the Fast Tracking Cases Relating to Atrocities Against Women, Adilabad, in Spl.S.C.No.18 of 2016, dated 29.07.2016, whereunder respondent/accused No.1 was acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 420 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and respondents/accused Nos.2 & 3 were acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 417 and 420 IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the complainant Md. Hasan lodged a report alleging that Md. Asif / accused No.1 deceived his minor daughter Chand Sulthana, aged about 15–16 years, by promising marriage and engaging in sexual intercourse with her, later refused to marry her despite a panchayat agreement executed by his father Wakeel/accused No.2 and brother Adeel/accused No.3. Investigation revealed that the victim was under 18 years of age, her medical examination confirmed sexual intercourse, and forensic reports detected semen. Subsequently, accused No.1 was apprehended, confessed about the commission of the offence, and medical examination was conducted on him. The marriage agreement deed was seized, age determination test was also carried out and the reports confirmed that the victim is a minor. Based on evidence, accused No.1 was charged under Sections 376, 417, and 420 IPC for rape and cheating, while accused Nos.2 & 3 were charged under Sections 417 and 420 IPC for abetment and cheating. Later accused Nos.2 & 3 were apprehended as well.

3. Heard Mr.M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the appellant/State and Mr.Rudresh Deshpande, learned Senior Counsel for respondents/accused Nos.1 to 3.

4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the trial Court, without properly considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution, erroneously acquitted the respondents/accused though the prosecution had proved the case beyond reasonable doubt that the respondents/accused had committed the offences. He further submitted that the trial court has not properly considered the evidence of PW.2 on proper prospective manner and disbelieved the same only on the ground that accused No.2 had filed complaint against PW.1 prior to lodging the complaint i.e., Ex.P1. The allegations made in both the complaints are different and distinct. He also submitted that, PW.2 in her evidence deposed that the accused No.1 had made false promise to her that he is going to marry her and developed physical relationship and hence, the ingredients for the offence under Section 376 of I.P.C. would attract. The trial court without properly considering the testimony of the PW.2 acquitted the accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 376 of I.P.C.

5. He further submitted that accused Nos.2 & 3 who are father and brother of the accused No.1 jointly executed Ex.P2 agreeing to perform marriage of PW.2 with accused No.1 and thereafter they have taken different stand. Hence, the ingredients for the offence under Section 417 & 420 of I.P.C. would attract against them. However, the trial court without properly considering the evidence acquitted accused Nos.2 & 3 for the above said offences. The impugned judgment passed by the trial court is contrary to law and the same is liable to be set aside and the respondent/accused No.1 is liable for conviction for the offences under Section 376, 417 & 420 of I.P.C. and accused Nos.2 & 3 are liable for conviction for the offence under Section 417 & 420 of I.P.C.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents/ac