THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.429 OF 2017

JUDGMENT:

This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the State, aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar, in S.C.No.313 of 2013, dated 07.08.2015, whereunder respondent No.1/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 respondent Nos.2 to 6/accused Nos.2 to 6 were acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 420 and 376 r/w 109 of the IPC.

2. The case of prosecution in brief is that the complainant and the accused belong to Shakapur village and reside in the same locality. The first accused frequently visited the complainant’s house and developed intimacy with her. For about one year prior to the filing of the report, he had sexual intercourse with her by inducing her with false assurances of marriage, resulting in her pregnancy. When she insisted on marriage, he refused. Meanwhile, accused Nos. 2 to 6, the family members of the first accused, began searching for other marriage alliances for him. When the complainant approached the village elders, the accused refused to marry her and asked her to terminate the pregnancy in exchange for money.

Thus, the accused committed the alleged offences.

3. Heard Mr.M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the appellant/State and Mr.C.Sharan Reddy, learned counsel for respondents/accused Nos.1 to 6.

4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the trial Court, without properly appreciating the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution, erroneously acquitted respondents/accused Nos.1 to 6 of the above said offences. The prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that respondent No.1/accused No.1 committed the offences. He further submitted that accused No.1 induced PW.1 into a physical relationship under a false promise of marriage. As a result of this relationship, PW-1 conceived, and the DNA test reveals that respondent No.1/accused No.1 is the biological father of the child. The relationship between respondent No.1/accused No.1 and PW-1 was within the knowledge of respondents/accused Nos.2 to 6, and they supported respondent No.1/accused No.1 and they have not taken any steps to perform the marriage between respondent No.1/accused No.1 and PW-1. Therefore, the ingredients of the above said offences are attracted against respondents/accused Nos.1 to 6. Despite this, the trial Court acquitted respondents/accused Nos.1 to 6. Hence, the impugned judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge is contrary to the settled principles of law and is liable to be set aside, and the respondents/accused Nos.1 to 6 are liable to be convicted for the above said offences.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents/accused Nos.1 to 6 vehemently contended that the relationship between respondent No.1/accused No.1 and PW.1 was consensual relationship. PW.1 herself admitted in her evidence that prior to the alleged incident, she was already married to one Nagaraju and had not obtained a divorce from him. Therefore, when the marital relationship between PW-1 and Nagaraju was still subsisting, the question of respondent No.1/accused No.1 giving promise of marriage does not arise. In the absence of obtaining decree of divorce from the competent Court, the alleged allegation of PW.1 that accused No.1 induced her by making a false promise of marriage is not permissible under law.

6. He further submitted that the learned Sessions Judge, after properly evaluating the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution, rightly came to conclusion that the relationship between PW.1 and respondent No.1/accused No.1 was consensual relationship and the ingredients of Section 376 of the IPC are not attracted. Consequently, the trial Court rightly acquitted respondents/accused Nos.1 to 6 for the above said offences. Hence, there are no grounds to int