IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL APPEAL No.617 of 2011 Date:30.03.2026 Between:

Berelly Sunil …Appellant/Accused And State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Public Prosecutor High Court Buildings, Hyderabad.

… Respondent

JUDGMENT:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the appellant-accused aggrieved by the judgment dated 12.05.2011 passed in S.C. No.191 of 2008 by the Special Sessions Judge for SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar.

2. The facts of the case are that the de facto complainant has lodged a complaint on 31.05.2007 at 17.00 hours before the Police, Mominpet, stating that she was having illicit intimacy with one Sunil- accused, who is a resident of the same village since two years as he promised her that he would marry her and enjoyed her sexually. It is alleged that when she conceived and was carrying two months pregnancy, the accused administered pills and got aborted her pregnancy. In the said manner, she was aborted for about 2 to 3 times. Thereafter, he refused to marry her as she belongs to Harijan community and threatened her. Then, she lodged the complaint.

3. Basing on the said complaint, the police registered Crime No.54 of 2007 against the accused for the offences under Sections 493 and 420 IPC and Section 3(1)(xii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short ‘SC & ST Act’) and took up investigation. After thorough investigation, the police have filed charge sheet against the accused for the said offences. After following the due process, the case was committed to the court of I-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District and after establishment of the Special Courts for SC and ST cases, the case was transferred to the court of Special Sessions Judge for SC and SC (PoA) Act 1989, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, for trial vide ROC No.2157/EI/2116, dated

08.01.2008 of this Court.

4. On receipt of the summons by the trial court, the accused appeared, and on perusing the material available on record, the trail court has framed charges against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 493 IPC read with 3(2)(v) of the SC & ST Act and Sections 320 and 313 IPC and the same were read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.

5. To substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 4 and marked Exs.P1 to P8. After closure of the evidence of prosecution, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., with incriminating material on record. On behalf of the defecne, no oral documentary evidence was adduced.

6. Upon hearing the learned counsel on both sides and on considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the trial court has convicted the accused for the offence under Section 420 IPC and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of find, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month; and the trial court has acquitted the accused for the offences under Section 494 read with 3(2)(v) of the SC and ST Act and 313 IPC as he was found not guilty for the said offences, vide judgment dated 12.05.2011 in SC No.191 of 2008. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and sentence, the present appeal is preferred by the accused.

7. Heard Sri Koppula Gopal, learned counsel for the appellant-accused and Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor counsel for the respondent-State.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant-accused has submitted that the learned trial Judge has not appreciated the evidence in a proper perspective and that having acquitted the appellant for the offences under Section 493 IPC read with Section 3(2)(v) of the SC and ST Act and 313 IPC, has made an error in convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 420 IPC. He further has submitted that the trial c