Telangana High Court
The State Of Telangana vs Shakti Somnath on 13 December, 2023
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1020 of 2023
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed by the State aggrieved by the order of
acquittal passed by the IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions
Judge, Hyderabad, FAC: Spl.Sessions Judge for Fast Tracking the
Cases Relating to Atrocities Against Women-II-cum-XI Additional
Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Hyderabad, in SC.No.290 of 2021,
dated 14.03.2023, for the offences of cheating and rape.
2. Heard the Public Prosecutor.
3. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that PW1 who is the
victim, filed a complaint on 28.07.2020 stating that the marriage
with Accused No.1 was fixed on engagement day i.e. 18.04.2018.
After the engagement, accused took her to his house on several
occasions with consent of both side elders. However, he had
sexually assaulted her several times. The said acts of Accused
No.1 were at the instigation and provocation of his parents who
are Accused Nos.2 and 3. On 14.07.2020 also Accused No.1
assaulted her sexually, against her consent. It was informed to her
parents and on 26.07.2020, the family members went to the
house of the accused and insisted to get A1 and PW1 married.
However, it was refused by the accused. Accordingly, criminal
complaint was filed on 28.07.2020.
4. After investigation, charge sheet was filed for the offences
under Section 417, 420 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code against
A1, and under Sections 417 and 420 r/w.109 of the Indian Penal
Code against A2 and A3.
5. The learned Sessions Judge examined PWs.1 to 8 during the
course of trial. Exs.P1 to P11 were also marked on behalf of the
prosecution. No witnesses were examined in defence nor were any
documents marked.
6. The learned Sessions Judge having conducted trial found
that;
i) The prosecution was not able to prove the alleged incident on
14.07.2020 on which date the alleged sexual assault has taken
place.
ii) Engagement was performed. To draw an inference that A1
indulged in sexual intercourse, whether with consent or without
consent, can be from the facts of the case. It is not the case that
there was any mis-conception of fact when PW1 consented to have
sexual intercourse.
iii) When consent to the acts of sexual intercourse was given
knowing fully well about the nature and implication of such act, it
will not amount to an offence of rape.
iv) There is nothing to suggest that A2 and A3 had at any point of
time abetted or instigated A1 to commit any acts of rape.
v) The prosecution had miserably failed to prove that the physical
relation between PW1 and A1 was not consensual and either on
mis-conception of fact or inducement by the appellant.
7. Having gone through the evidence on record, it appears that
the complaint was filed since the marriage had not taken place.
Nowhere in the evidence of PW1, is it mentioned that any force
was used or that she was under mis-conception pursuant to any
inducement caused by A1. Both are majors and engagement
function had taken place. Having consensual sex after the
engagement will not amount to an offence of rape or cheating.
8. 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
(2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 536
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.
9. 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;
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.
(2008) 10 Supreme Court Cases 450
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."
10. There are no grounds to interfere with the well reasoned
Judgment of acquittal. This Court is not inclined to interfere with
the findings of the Court below.
11. Accordingly, the State appeal fails and dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 13.12.2023
tk
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1020 of 2023
Dt. 13.12.2023
tk
