THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.889 of 2009
24-04-2014
BETWEEN:
The State of A.P., rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.
…..Appellant AND Nesepogu Poorna Chandra Rao …..Respondent/accused THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENT:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.889 of 2009
JUDGMENT:
The Criminal Appeal is preferred by the State challenging the Judgment dated 20.08.2007 passed in S.C.No.35 of 2007 by the Hon’ble Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Kurnool, whereby the learned Judge acquitted the accused for the offences under Sections 366, 376 and 417 IPC.
The case of the prosecution is as follows:
That the allegation against the respondent herein is that he promised to marry PW.1, aged about 27 years, who is also a divorced woman working as a teacher in a Government School. The respondent herein on the pretext of promise to marry her had sexual intercourse and subsequently refused to marry her. It is also the case of PW.1 that the respondent herein had sexual intercourse forcibly in spite of her resistance. Hence the charge for the offences under sections 366, 376 and 417 IPC. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed.
To prove the case of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 9 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.6 were marked. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused, but Exs.D.1 and D.2 were marked.
On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court acquitted the accused mainly on the following grounds:
PW.1 is aged about 27 years and she is working as a teacher and as such she is capable of understanding things. PW.1 admitted in her cross-examination that under Ex.D2, she demanded the accused to take her and to have cohabitation with her and not to marry again. Further, it is admitted that she is still wearing tali tied by the accused. When questioned, P.W.1 showed the tali around her neck. She also admitted that she is wearing toe rings. According to her, from the date of tying of tali, she is the wife of the accused. Further, admitted that the accused having promised her to live as wife and husband tied tali to her and now deceived her by not leading matrimonial life with her and this is only her grievance against the accused. This admission of the accused going by a long way to demolish the whole story of evidence by P.W.1. According to P.W.1 on the promise of accused, she accepted the accused to tie tali around her neck and as the accused now not willing to lead marital life, she is aggrieved the above piece of evidence is enough for the accused to prove that P.W.1 is a willing party to the whole episode as there is no truth in the evidence of P.W. 1 that by force she was kidnapped by the accused and the accused committed rape on her against her will. It is contended by the learned counsel for the accused that the accused and P.W.1 being wife and husband, allowed the accused to have intercourse with her. Now as the matrimonial relationship strained, P.W.1 to take revenge coined the story of kidnap and rape. I find the contention of the accused is appealing. On careful reading and examination of the evidence of P.W. 1, I find P.W.1 is not a woman of truth. Her evidence does not inspire confidence to believe. In so far as the evidence of rape is concerned, the Law is well settled. Once the evidence of prosecutor is trustworthy and believable, there is no need to look for corroboration and the case of the prosecution is to be believed. In the case on hand, the evidence of P.W. 1 is not trustworthy and believable. Therefore, it is difficult to place any reliance on her evidence, in so far as charges Under Sections 366 and 376 IPC.
Heard the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record.
On perusing the evidence available on record and the Judgment of the Court below, this Court is of the view that the trial Court has rightly observed that prosecution has failed to prove the case against the respondent herein. The Judgment of the trial Court is in accordance with law and it does not suffer from any perverse findings and the acquittal recorded by the trial Court needs no interference by this Court.
The Criminal Appeal is accordingly dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending in this appeal, shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO 24.04.2014 pln