Katakam Ramu vs State Of A.P.
2022 Latest Caselaw 3748 Tel

           HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

            CRIMINAL APPEAL No.417 OF 2009
JUDGMENT:

1. The appellant is convicted for the offence under Section

3(1)(xii) of SCs & STs (POA) Act, Sections 506, 323 & 427 r/w

149 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for one year and to

pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default, to undergo SI for one month,

vide judgment in SC No.18 of 2007 dated 08.04.2009 passed

by the Special Sessions Judge for trial of Cases under SC/ST

(POA) Act at Khammam.

2. The case of the prosecution is that two years prior to the

complaint Ex.P1 dated 16.11.2004, the accused was having

sexual intimacy with P.W.1. It is further stated that the

accused promised to marry P.W.1 and after giving birth to a

male child, the accused started avoiding P.W.1 and did not

marry. For the said reason a panchayat was held in which the

accused abused P.W.1 in the name of her caste and asked

them to go away and do whatever they want. Aggrieved by the

same, the present complaint was lodged on 16.11.2004.

3. It is the case of P.W.1 that she had intimacy with the

accused two years prior to lodging complaint. It is not stated

that the accused forced her in any manner or that the accused

was in a position to dominate the will of P.W.1 belonging to a

schedule caste community and used that position to exploit

her sexually. It is specifically stated in her evidence that they

had sexual intercourse over a period of two years, due to

which, she got pregnant.

4. Learned counsel for the accused would submit that the

trial Court had acquitted the accused for the offence under

Section 417 IPC for cheating and erred in convicting the

accused for the offence under Section 3(1)(xii) of the SC/ST

Act. The entire case of P.W.1 is belied by Ex.P8, FSL report of

the baby born to P.W.1, which states that the accused is not

the biological father. In the said circumstances, the conviction

recorded by the trial Court has to be reversed.

5. Sri Sudershan, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor

submits that though the accused was not the biological father

as per FSL report, however, it is the specific case of P.W.1 that

they were having intimacy for two years and thereafter,

refused to marry her, for which reason, the conviction

recorded by the trial Court is proper and correct.

6. As seen from the record, it is the specific case of the

accused that he had no relation with P.W.1 and he was falsely

implicated in the case.

7. P.W.1 specifically claims that she was having sexual

intimacy with the accused herein and he was the biological

father of the child. However, the FSL report Ex.P8 clearly

states that the accused is not the biological father of P.W.1, for

which reason, it casts a doubt on the version of P.W.1 stating

that she was impregnated by the accused is correct.

8. The specific case of the prosecution, as seen from the

evidence of P.W.12, the Doctor and DNA report Ex.P8, which

states that the accused was not the biological father, as such,

the benefit of doubt can be extended to the accused.

9. Accordingly, the sentence and conviction recorded by the

trial Court vide judgment dated 08.04.2009 in SC No.18 of

2007 is set aside and the accused is acquitted. Since the

accused was released on bail, his bail bonds stand cancelled.

In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. As a sequel

thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stands

closed.

__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 15.07.2022 kvs

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.417 OF 2009

Date: 15.07.2022.

kvs