Telangana High Court
The State Of A.P., Rep. By Pp., High ... vs Noonavath Mohan Rao, Nalgonda on 31 January, 2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 333 OF 2012
JUDGMENT:
The State is aggrieved by the order of the acquittal of the respondent/accused for the offence under Section 417 and 376 of Indian Penal Code, filed this appeal.
2. Heard learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the State.
3. The Police on the basis of the complaint of PW.1 filed charge sheet against the respondent/accused. The allegation against the accused is that PW.1 developed intimacy with the accused when the accused promised to marry her. In the course of their relation, they had sexual intercourse resulting in the PW.1 bearing pregnancy. However, the accused failed to marry her. Since the cause of her pregnancy was the accused and having impregnated her he married someone else, the complaint was filed which is Ex.P1.
4. The Police concluded investigation and filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence of cheating and rape.
5. The learned Sessions Judge having examined the witnesses PWs.1 to 16 of whom PW.1 is the 'victim', found that the prosecution 2 failed to make out case against the accused. Learned Sessions Judge gave the following reasons for acquitting the accused;
i) PW.1 did not state in her complaint that as on the date of the complaint she was carrying 7 months pregnancy.
ii) In the complaint, she did not state that the accused had mentioned that there was any kind of force that was used or that the victim was under false impression on the basis of any misrepresentation made by the accused.
iii) PW.1 gave birth to a boy, however, during the course of postmortem examination of the boy, she did not mention that the accused was the father.
iv) The prosecution was not able to prove that when PW.1 had sexual relation with the accused, she was aged less than 16 years. No proof was filed regarding her age.
v) No DNA test was done insofar as the deceased boy was concerned to find out who the biological father was.
6. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State would submit that the victim was aged less than 16 years and her consent is of no consequence. However, Public Prosecutor admits that no proof was filed.
3
7. 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 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.
8. 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;1
(2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 536 2 (2008) 10 Supreme Court Cases 450 4
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 Ex.Pert, etc.
vii) This list is intended to be illustrative, not exhaustive.
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."
9. The learned Sessions Judge found that either in the complaint- Ex.P1 or during her examination before Court, did PW.1 mention about any kind of force that was used or that she was under false impression of getting married to the accused. The allegation is one of cheating. In the present circumstances, when PW.1 had relation with the accused over a period of three years, it cannot be said that during the said period of three years she was induced and pursuant to such inducement, she maintained relation for a period of three years.
10. There are no compelling reasons to interfere with the finding of the learned Sessions Judge while acquitting the accused.
11. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
_________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 31.01.2025 tk 5 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL APPEAL No.333 OF 2012 Date: 31.01.2025 tk