THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.910 of 2008 17-10-2014 BETWEEN:
The State of A.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh …..Appellant AND P.M.Nooruddin And another.
…..Respondents/Accused THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.910 of 2008 JUDGMENT:
The Criminal Appeal is preferred by the State challenging the Judgment dated 27.02.2007 passed in S.C. No.32 of 2006 by the Court of the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Chittoor, whereby the learned Judge acquitted A.1 for the offences under Sections 376 IPC and 506 IPC and acquitted A.1 and A.2 for the offence under Section 417 IPC.
The case of the prosecution is as follows:
That A.1 was in love with the victim and the same was informed to the victim, that the victim informed the same to A.2, father of A.1, and that A.2 also accepted to perform their marriage and that A.2 asked the victim not to reveal the promise of marriage to anybody till it is confirmed through her parents upon consultations by A.2. Therefore, she did not reveal such fact to anybody. With that promise, the victim and A.2 were moving freely and were visiting one another’s houses respectively. In that process, two months prior to the incident, when all the inmates of the house of the victim were out of station, A.1 went to the house of victim and had sexual intercourse with her forcibly though she was resisting and did not like to have the sexual intercourse. A.1 threatened her not to reveal the fact to anybody and therefore, she did not inform the same to anybody. Later also, A.1 had sexual intercourse with the victim on three more occasions at different intervals, and that the victim was not consenting party. Some time later, when the victim asked A.2 to marry her, he refused to marry her stating that his marriage is fixed with another girl, who is his maternal uncle’s daughter. Therefore, the victim had been to A.2 and represented the same to A.2, who also refused to perform her marriage with his son, A.1. Later, the victim informed the entire occurrences to their parents, who also requested A.1 and A.2 to perform the marriage of the victim with A.1 and they refused to do so. A panchayat was also held in this connection. On the advice of elders, the complaint was lodged against A.1 and A.2 and on that, a case was registered against A.1 for the offences under Sections 376 IPC and 506 IPC and against A.1 and A.2 for the offence under Section 417 IPC.
To substantiate the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 10 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.7. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused, but marked Ex.D.1.
On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court acquitted the accused on the following grounds.
The age of the victim is 22 years and she is capable of understanding the consequences of sexual intercourse with A.1. Further, there is no evidence on record to show that A.1 promised the victim to marry her and on that promise only, the victim consented to have sexual intercourse with A.1. Insofar as the Panchayat is concerned, the prosecution has failed to show that there is any threat to the victim in the hands of the accused.
Head and perused the material available on record.
When the case is taken up for hearing, this Court directed the Public Prosecutor to get instructions from the investigation officer regarding the status of A.1 as well as the victim girl. On instructions, the learned Public Prosecutor submits that both the victim and A.1 married different persons and they are living happily and they do not have any grievances against each other.
This Court, in view of the submission of the learned Public Prosecutor and also in view of the fact that Court below has considered the evidence in proper perspective and the reasoning given above while acquitting the accused for the offences under Sections 376 IPC, 506 IPC and 417 IPC in accordance with law, is of the view that the criminal appeal fails and is liable to be set aside.
The Criminal Appeal is accordingly dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending in this appeal, shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO 17.10.2014 pln