Telangana High Court
Kethavath Raju, Karikalapadu V, ... vs The State, Rep. By P.P., ... on 23 August, 2022
Bench: K.Surender
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
Criminal Appeal No.1310 of 2009
1.
The appellant/A1 was convicted for the offences under
Sections 366 and 376 of IPC and sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years under both
counts, vide judgment in S.C.No.428 of 2008 dated
01.09.2009 passed by the IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions
Judge at Hyderabad. Aggrieved by the same, present appeal is
filed.
2. The case of the prosecution is that P.W.2 is the victim
girl. The appellant was following P.W.2 while she was going to
school. On 11.12.2006 at 9.00 p.m, the appellant took P.W.2
in an auto to temple. There the acquitted appellants A2 and
A3 were present and the marriage of P.W.2 and the appellant
was performed on the same day in the said temple.
Thereafter, they lived together in the house and lead marital
life for a period of two months. However the appellant and four
other accused started demanding dowry from P.W.2's parents.
It is further alleged that unless an amount of Rs.6.00 lakhs
was given, A1 would not continue the marital life with P.W.2.
It is further the case that the date of birth of P.W.2 is
04.02.1996. Ex.P2 is the proof of age which is the birth
certificate issued by Thakshashila Primary School. P.W.2
further stated that their marriage was also performed on
21.03.2009, five days prior to deposition before the Court.
They were living together and the said marriage was performed
at the behest of her parents and also other elders. However,
P.W.2 was not willing for the said marriage.
3. P.W.1 is the mother, who turned hostile to the
prosecution case and denied any criminal acts of the appellant
and others. P.W.3 is the sister of P.W.2-victim girl, who
turned hostile to the prosecution case. P.W.4 is the brother of
P.W.2 who also turned hostile to the prosecution case, P.Ws.5
and 6 are independent witnesses, who also turned hostile to
the prosecution case.
4. Except the evidence of P.W.2, there is no other evidence
to suggest any criminal acts were done by the appellant and
others. The main reason for recording the conviction is the
date of birth certificate provided under Ex.P2. The said
certificate was issued by the School where P.W.2 was
studying. According to the said certificate, the date of birth of
P.W.2 was shown as 04.02.1996.
5. It is the evidence of P.W.2 that after marriage, she stayed
with the appellant as his wife. Again, during the course of
trial also, the elders from both sides performed the marriage of
P.W.2 with the appellant. However, P.W.2 having entered into
witness box stated that she was living with the appellant but
she was not willing to continue with the marriage.
6. P.W.2 was in fact living with the appellant even prior to
the complaint and also during the course of trial. The date of
birth provided by the prosecution cannot be relied upon since
it is given by the school on the basis of the declaration of the
parents who turned hostile to prosecution case and did not
state about the age of PW2. Prosecution has not filed any
hospital record or municipal record to show the exact date of
birth of P.W.2. P.W.2 was also not sent to any Doctor for
conducting ossification test. In the said circumstances, Ex.P2
cannot be relied upon to conclude that the age of P.W.2 was
less than 18 years. Benefit of doubt is extended to the
appellant and the conviction recorded by the trial Court is
liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside.
7. In the result, the judgment of the trial Court in SC
No.428 of 2008 dated 01.09.2009 is set aside and the
appellant is acquitted. Since the appellant is on bail, his bail
bonds shall stand cancelled.
8. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 23.08.2022
kvs
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1310 OF 2009
Date: 23.08.2022
kvs
