THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1002 OF 2017

ORDER:

This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the State, aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned Special Judge for Trial of Cases under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act-cum-I Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal, in Spl.S.C.No.72 of 2015, dated 15.12.2015, whereunder respondent/accused was acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 366 and 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and Sections 5(1) r/w 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short ‘POCSO Act’).

2. The case of prosecution in brief is that the victim, a minor aged 17 years, was residing opposite to the accused in the same locality. Prior to the complaint, the accused used to follow and harass her, professing love. The victim was studying Intermediate at Kakatiya Mahila Junior College, Hanamkonda, and staying in a hostel. On 17.07.2014, while she was at home due to illness, the accused visited and spoke to her. On 23.07.2014, the accused called her, asked her to come to Mahabubabad railway station, and threatened her with dire consequences when she refused. Out of fear, she went to the station, where the accused forcibly took her by train to Khammam. After failing to secure shelter at a friend’s house, he took her to Vijayawada, where he forcibly married her at a church in Gunadala and rented a house. He kept her confined, threatened her, and subjected her to sexual intercourse against her will. Later, the victim informed a neighbour, Suvartha, who alerted her relatives. With their help, she was rescued and brought back.

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

4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the trial Court, without properly appreciating the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution, erroneously acquitted the respondent/accused. He further submitted that as on the date of the alleged offence, the victim was a minor, and the prosecution examined PW.14, the Headmaster of the school, who specifically deposed that the date of birth of the victim was 14.04.1997. In the absence of any contra evidence, the trial Court disbelieved the evidence of PW.14 solely on the ground that there was a material alteration in Ex.P14. He further submitted that the trial Court acquitted the respondent/accused on the ground of delay in lodging the complaint by PW.2. According to him, such delay cannot be a ground for acquittal. He further submitted that the prosecution proved the case against the respondent/accused beyond reasonable doubt, and despite such evidence, the trial Court acquitted the respondent/accused. Therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/accused vehemently contended that the trial Court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution, rightly concluded that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the charges against the respondent/accused beyond reasonable doubt. He further submitted that the trial Court has given specific findings on each of the contentions raised by the prosecution and has assigned cogent reasons. Therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the well considered judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, and the appeal filed by the State is liable to be dismissed.

6. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the impugned judgment, it reveals that, according to the allegations made in the complaint lodged by PW.2, PW.1 had left the house along with the respondent/accused on 23.07.2014. Initially, a case was registered as a “Girl missing” complaint, and subsequently, the offences under Sections 366 and 376(2)(n) of the IPC were added. The impugned judgment further reveals that PW.2 lodged the complaint on 06.0