Telangana High Court
The State Of Telangana vs Shakti Somnath on 13 December, 2023
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1020 of 2023
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed by the State aggrieved by the order of acquittal passed by the IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, FAC: Spl.Sessions Judge for Fast Tracking the Cases Relating to Atrocities Against Women-II-cum-XI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Hyderabad, in SC.No.290 of 2021, dated 14.03.2023, for the offences of cheating and rape.
2. Heard the Public Prosecutor.
3. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that PW1 who is the victim, filed a complaint on 28.07.2020 stating that the marriage with Accused No.1 was fixed on engagement day i.e. 18.04.2018. After the engagement, accused took her to his house on several occasions with consent of both side elders. However, he had sexually assaulted her several times. The said acts of Accused No.1 were at the instigation and provocation of his parents who are Accused Nos.2 and 3. On 14.07.2020 also Accused No.1 assaulted her sexually, against her consent. It was informed to her parents and on 26.07.2020, the family members went to the house of the accused and insisted to get A1 and PW1 married. 2 However, it was refused by the accused. Accordingly, criminal complaint was filed on 28.07.2020.
4. After investigation, charge sheet was filed for the offences under Section 417, 420 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code against A1, and under Sections 417 and 420 r/w.109 of the Indian Penal Code against A2 and A3.
5. The learned Sessions Judge examined PWs.1 to 8 during the course of trial. Exs.P1 to P11 were also marked on behalf of the prosecution. No witnesses were examined in defence nor were any documents marked.
6. The learned Sessions Judge having conducted trial found that;
i) The prosecution was not able to prove the alleged incident on 14.07.2020 on which date the alleged sexual assault has taken place.
ii) Engagement was performed. To draw an inference that A1 indulged in sexual intercourse, whether with consent or without consent, can be from the facts of the case. It is not the case that there was any mis-conception of fact when PW1 consented to have sexual intercourse.
3
iii) When consent to the acts of sexual intercourse was given knowing fully well about the nature and implication of such act, it will not amount to an offence of rape.
iv) There is nothing to suggest that A2 and A3 had at any point of time abetted or instigated A1 to commit any acts of rape.
v) The prosecution had miserably failed to prove that the physical relation between PW1 and A1 was not consensual and either on mis-conception of fact or inducement by the appellant.
7. Having gone through the evidence on record, it appears that the complaint was filed since the marriage had not taken place. Nowhere in the evidence of PW1, is it mentioned that any force was used or that she was under mis-conception pursuant to any inducement caused by A1. Both are majors and engagement function had taken place. Having consensual sex after the engagement will not amount to an offence of rape or cheating.
8. In Ravi Sharma v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and another 1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court has to consider whether the trial Court's view can be termed as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been 1 (2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 536 4 analysed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the appellate court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal.
9. In Ghurey Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2 the Hon'ble Supreme Court after referring to several Judgments regarding the settled principles of law and the powers of appellate Court in reversing the order of acquittal, held at para 70, as follows:
"70. In the light of the above, the High Court and other appellate Courts should follow the well-settled principles crystallized by number of Judgments if it is going to overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal:
1. The appellate court may only overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal if it has "very substantial and compelling reasons" for doing so.
A number of instances arise in which the appellate court would have "very substantial and compelling reasons" to discard the trial court's decision. "Very substantial and compelling reasons" exist when:
i) The trial court's conclusion with regard to the facts is palpably wrong:
ii) The trial court's decision was based on an erroneous view of law;
iii) The trial court's judgment is likely to result in "grave miscarriage of justice";
iv) The entire approach of the trial court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal;
v) The trial court's judgment was manifestly unjust and unreasonable;
vi) The trial court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declarations/report of the ballistic expert, etc.
vii) This list is intended to be illustrative, not exhaustive.2
(2008) 10 Supreme Court Cases 450 5
2. The appellate court must always give proper weight and consideration o the findings of the trial court.
3. If two reasonable views can be reached__ one that leads to acquittal, the other to conviction __the High Courts/appellate courts must rule in favour of the accused."
10. There are no grounds to interfere with the well reasoned Judgment of acquittal. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the findings of the Court below.
11. Accordingly, the State appeal fails and dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 13.12.2023 tk 6 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1020 of 2023 Dt. 13.12.2023 tk