The State Of A.P., vs Tejavath Balakrishna
2022 Latest Caselaw 4296 Tel

             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

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

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

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.

(2013) 11 supreme court Cases 688

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

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1569 OF 2009

Date: 25.08.2022.

kvs