Telangana High Court
The State Of Telangana vs Kampili Ranga on 6 December, 2023
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1018 of 2023
JUDGMENT:
1. This Criminal Appeal is filed by the State aggrieved by the
judgment of acquittal in S.C.No.301 of 2019 dated 20.04.2023 passed by
the Special Sessions Judge for Fast Tracking
The Cases Relating to Atrocities Against Women-cum-IV Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar acquitting the
respondent/accused for the offences under Sections 420, 506(i) and
376(2)(n) of IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution is that P.W.1 filed a complaint with the
police stating that the accused followed her for a period of three months.
He promised that he was in love and would marry her and given mobile
number to P.W.1/defacto complainant. Thereafter, they started
communicating and also had sexual intercourse. Even on 06.10.2018 in
the mid-night, the accused called her and had sexual intercourse with
her. When P.W.1 asked to marry her, he refused to marry her. For the
said reason of having sexual intercourse and not marrying, complaint
was filed. The said complaint was registered under Sections 417, 420
and 376 of IPC.
3. Learned Sessions Judge examined P.Ws.1 to 7 and also marked
Exs.P1 to P12 on behalf of the prosecution. Learned Sessions Judge
found that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 cannot be believed. According to
their evidence, they did not know about the accused being married and
having kids. The accused and P.Ws.1 to 3 were living in the same locality
and it is highly improbable that the marital status of the accused would
not be known. Learned Sessions Judge further found that P.W.1 is
married and she had sexual intercourse with the accused on her own
consent. There was no force used. However, the allegation is that the
accused did not marry she felt cheated and lodged complaint.
4. P.W.1 having knowledge about the marital status of the accused
had moved with him closely, had sexual relation. It cannot be said that
P.W.1 did not know the consequence of her relation with the accused,
who is a married man. In the circumstances, the question of either
misrepresentation by the accused or misconception of fact by the victim
does not arise. For the said grounds, learned Sessions Judge acquitted
the accused.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that on the
promise of marriage, the accused had sexual intercourse with P.W.1
having knowledge that he had already married. Promising P.W.1 that he
would marry her would amount to an offence of cheating.
6. 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.
7. 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;
(2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 536
(2008) 10 Supreme Court Cases 450
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. 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."
8. The victim/P.W.1 never stated that any kind of force was used on
her. Further, she was talking to him on phone and also continued her
relation with the accused over a period of time. Only for the reason of not
marrying, present complaint is filed. The version of P.W.1 that she did
not know about the marital status of the accused cannot be believed
since they lived in the same locality.
9. Unless there are compelling reasons to interfere with the order of
acquittal, the appellate Court cannot reverse the well reasoned judgment.
I do not find any infirmity with the grounds recorded by the learned
Sessions Judge while acquitting the accused.
10. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. Consequently,
miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 06.12.2023
kvs
