HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1569 OF 2009
JUDGMENT:
1. The State aggrieved by the acquittal of the respondent for the offence under Sections 376 and 417 of IPC vide judgment in SC No.449 of 2007 passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge at Khammam, the present appeal is filed.
2. The case of the prosecution is that P.W.1 victim girl is the daughter of P.W.2. P.W.3 is the landlord where P.W.2 worked as labour in the firm. It is the case that one year prior to the complaint when P.W.1, victim was watching over the fields of P.W.3, the respondent went there and forcibly committed rape on her in the shed. When P.W.1 stated that she would inform her father, the respondent pleaded her not to inform anyone. However, the sexual relationship continued, since the respondent promised that he would marry her. P.W.1 was carrying 7th month pregnancy and at that juncture, she informed her father P.W.2 that the respondent was responsible for pregnancy and he forcibly had sexual intercourse with her. Accordingly, panchayat was held by the village elders. At the 2 panchayat, the respondent demanded one acre of land to marry her. When P.W.2 expressed his inability, the respondent refused to marry her. For the reason of not marrying P.W.1, complaint was lodged by P.W.1 in the police station on 08.05.2007.
3. The police, after investigation laid charge sheet against the respondent for the offence under Section 376 and 417 of IPC. However, after conclusion of trial, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge found that the respondent was not guilty for the offence of rape and cheating on the following grounds;
i) there is no corroborating evidence with regard to the rape committed by the respondent over a period of time except her solitary testimony;
ii)The complaint was given only when she was 7th month pregnant and during all these days, she has not disclosed any relation with the respondent;
iii) When it is the case of the prosecution that panchayat was held, however, P.Ws.4 and 5 who are independent 3 witnesses in their cross-examination stated that they were ignorant of such panchayat being held;
iv) Though the police during investigation found that there was a panchayat held, no steps were taken to examine the village Sarpanch, who was present in the panchayat.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the solitary testimony of the victim would be sufficient regarding the conclusion for the offence of rape. P.W.1, who is the victim, had specifically stated that the respondent committed rape on her over a period of time and ultimately during 7th month pregnancy, when asked to marry, the respondent refused, for which reason complaint was filed.
5. As seen from the circumstances of the case, the relationship between P.W.1 and the respondent was consensual, as she has never revealed such information to her parents or anyone else regarding the alleged rape.
6. The trial Court also acquitted the respondent for the offence under Section 417 of IPC for the reason of there being 4 no evidence of the respondent making any false promise inducing P.W.1 to participate in sexual intercourse.
7. The finding of the trial Court needs no interference as the reasons given by it are probable and reasonable.
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhakrishna Nagesh v. State of Andhra Pradesh1 held that under the Indian criminal jurisprudence, the accused has two fundamental protections available to him in a criminal trial or investigation. Firstly, he is presumed to be innocent till proved guilty and secondly that he is entitled to a fair trial and investigation. Both these facets attain even greater significance where the accused has a judgment of acquittal in his favour. A judgment of acquittal enhances the presumption of innocence of the accused and in some cases, it may even indicate a false implication. But then, this has to be established on record of the Court.
1 (2013) 11 supreme court Cases 688 5
9. Only for the reason of there being another view which would be possible, when the trial Court had arrived at a conclusion giving reasons, order of acquittal cannot be interfered with in such cases against acquittals.
10. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 25.08.2022 kvs 6 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1569 OF 2009 Date: 25.08.2022.
kvs 7