THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1549 OF 2017

ORDER:

This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the State, aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge (II Fast Track Court), Nalgonda, in Crl.A.No.67 of 2014, dated 24.07.2017, whereunder respondent/accused was acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 417 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’), while setting aside the judgment passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Nalgonda, in C.C.No.144 of 2009, dated 28.03.2014.

2. The case of prosecution in brief is that on 05.12.2007, P.W.9 received a complaint from P.W.1 through Court endorsement, wherein she stated that the accused, Secretary of Gagillapuram Village, Chandampet Mandal, developed intimacy with her and induced her by promising marriage without dowry. Believing his words, she consented to physical relations and subsequently became pregnant. When she informed the accused, he refused to marry her and, along with others, threatened her with dire consequences to terminate the pregnancy.

Basing on the said complaint, Crime No.301 of 2007 was registered.

3. Heard Mr.M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the appellant and Mr.S.Satyanarayana, learned counsel for respondent/accused.

4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently contended that the learned Sessions Judge, without properly re-appreciating the evidence on record, set aside the well considered judgment of the trial Court in C.C.No.144 of 2009, dated 28.03.2014, wherein the respondent was convicted for the offence under Section 417 of the IPC. He further submitted that the prosecution had discharged its initial burden by proving the offences alleged against the accused under Sections 417, 493 and 506 of the IPC. However, the trial Court, while acquitting the respondent/accused for the offences under Sections 493 and 506 of the IPC, convicted him under Section 417 of the IPC by giving cogent reasons. He further submitted that the Sessions Judge erred in acquitting the respondent for the offence under Section 417 of the IPC, and the same is contrary to the evidence available on record.

5. He further submitted that P.W.7, who conducted the DNA test, clearly stated that the respondent/accused is the biological father of the male child and that P.W.1 is the biological mother. However, the learned Sessions Judge disbelieved the evidence of P.W.7 solely on the ground that the DNA report mentions the name of accused as ‘Chiluveru Nagaraju’, whereas his name is ‘Siliveru Nagaraju’. Hence, the impugned judgment of the learned Sessions Judge is liable to be set aside, and the respondent is liable to be convicted for the offence under Section 417 of the IPC.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent vehemently contended that the trial Court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, had acquitted the respondent of the offences under Sections 493 and 506 of the IPC, but convicted him for the offence under Section 417 of the IPC. He submitted that once the trial Court concluded that the ingredients of the offence under Section 493 of the IPC were not attracted, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class ought not to have convicted the respondent for the offence under Section 417 of the IPC. He further submitted that the learned Sessions Judge rightly set aside the judgment of the trial Court and convicted the respondent for the offence under Section 417 of the IPC, acquitted him for the offences under Sections 493 and 506 of the IPC. The learned Sessions Judge, after examining the provisions of Sections 415, 417, 493 and 506 of the IPC and relying on the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Tilak Raj v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2016 (1) ALD (Crl.) 356 (SC), allowed Crl.A.No.67 of 2014 and acquitted the respondent for the offence under Section 417 of the IPC by giving cogent reasons. Hence, ther