THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO + CRIMINAL APPEAL No.508 of 2013 % Dated 23.09.2025 # Mohammed Irfan Khan S/o Late Mohammed Ghouse Khan, aged 23 years, occ: Sales Man R/o H.No.19-5-28/68,E, Mahmood Nagar, Near Kachi Bugga Temple, Kishanbagh, Hyderabad.

….Appellant/Accused No.1 VERSUS $ State of A.P. rep., by Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad …

Respondent/Complainant ! Counsel for the appellant : Mr. C.Sharan Reddy ^ Counsel for Respondent : Mr. M.Vivekananda Reddy, Asst. P.P.

< GIST:

> HEAD NOTE: ? CITATIONS:

1. (2019) 5 SCC 628

2. (2008) 14 SCC 763

3. (2020) 3 SCC 443 4. (2022) 7 SCC 157 5. (2011) 7 SCC 130 6. AIR 1957 SC 614 7. (1996) 2 SCC 384

8. 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1397 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVASRAO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.508 of 2013

JUDGMENT

This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the appellant/accused No.1, aggrieved by the judgment passed by the V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge (Mahila Court) at Hyderabad, dated 17.06.2013, in S.C.No.280 of 2010, where under, the appellant/accused No.1 was found guilty for the offences under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC'), convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 376 of IPC and also sentenced to pay Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 506 of IPC.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the trial Court.

3. The case of the prosecution in nutshell:

3.1 The de facto complainant lodged a complaint on 03.04.2009 at about 8:00 A.M., to the Police, Bahadurpura Police Station, stating that she and accused No.1 fell in love with each other since four years and while so, in the month of November, 2008, accused No.1 asked her to come to Himayathsagar for which she refused. On 21.11.2008, taking advantage of the absence of her parents, accused No.1 entered into her house at 10:00 P.M, and chit chatted about 5 to 10 minutes and thereafter started misbehaving with her and also threatened her with dire consequences and had sexual intercourse with her forcibly and went away. Having come to know the said incident, the family members of accused No.1 and also his maternal uncle i.e., accused No.2, came to her house and tried to pacify the matter. While pacifying the matter, accused No.2 told her that they are not willing to perform the marriage of accused No.1 with her and also threatened with dire consequences, if she discloses the said incident to anyone. Due to which, she did not disclose the incident to anyone and failed to lodge complaint before the Police immediately. But on 03.04.2009, she came to the police station and submitted a report for taking necessary action against accused Nos.1 and 2. Basing on the said complaint, Crime No.84 of 2009 was registered against accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences under Sections 376, 417, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and the Investigating Officer after conducting investigation filed charge sheet and the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad took cognizance of the same and numbered it as PRC No.41 of 2009 and committed the case to the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge’s Court, Hyderabad, who in turn made over the case to the V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Hyderabad. 3.2. On behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 8 were examined and Exs.P1 to P8 got marked. On behalf of defence, no witnesses were examined and no document was marked.

3.3. Learned Sessions Judge after taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence on record and after hearing the parties, convicted accused No.1 for the offences under Sections 376 and 506 of IPC as stated above. Aggrieved by the same, accused No.1 has preferred the present appeal.

4. Heard Sri C.Sharan Reddy, le