Telangana High Court
The State Of A.P., Rep. By Pp., High ... vs Noonavath Mohan Rao, Nalgonda on 31 January, 2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 333 OF 2012
JUDGMENT:
The State is aggrieved by the order of the acquittal of the
respondent/accused for the offence under Section 417 and 376 of
Indian Penal Code, filed this appeal.
2. Heard learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the
State.
3. The Police on the basis of the complaint of PW.1 filed charge
sheet against the respondent/accused. The allegation against the
accused is that PW.1 developed intimacy with the accused when the
accused promised to marry her. In the course of their relation, they
had sexual intercourse resulting in the PW.1 bearing pregnancy.
However, the accused failed to marry her. Since the cause of her
pregnancy was the accused and having impregnated her he married
someone else, the complaint was filed which is Ex.P1.
4. The Police concluded investigation and filed charge sheet
against the accused for the offence of cheating and rape.
5. The learned Sessions Judge having examined the witnesses
PWs.1 to 16 of whom PW.1 is the 'victim', found that the prosecution
failed to make out case against the accused. Learned Sessions Judge
gave the following reasons for acquitting the accused;
i) PW.1 did not state in her complaint that as on the date of the
complaint she was carrying 7 months pregnancy.
ii) In the complaint, she did not state that the accused had
mentioned that there was any kind of force that was used or that the
victim was under false impression on the basis of any
misrepresentation made by the accused.
iii) PW.1 gave birth to a boy, however, during the course of
postmortem examination of the boy, she did not mention that the
accused was the father.
iv) The prosecution was not able to prove that when PW.1 had sexual
relation with the accused, she was aged less than 16 years. No proof
was filed regarding her age.
v) No DNA test was done insofar as the deceased boy was concerned
to find out who the biological father was.
6. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State
would submit that the victim was aged less than 16 years and her
consent is of no consequence. However, Public Prosecutor admits
that no proof was filed.
7. 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.
8. 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;
(2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 536
(2008) 10 Supreme Court Cases 450
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 Ex.Pert, 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."
9. The learned Sessions Judge found that either in the complaint-
Ex.P1 or during her examination before Court, did PW.1 mention
about any kind of force that was used or that she was under false
impression of getting married to the accused. The allegation is one of
cheating. In the present circumstances, when PW.1 had relation with
the accused over a period of three years, it cannot be said that
during the said period of three years she was induced and pursuant
to such inducement, she maintained relation for a period of three
years.
10. There are no compelling reasons to interfere with the finding of
the learned Sessions Judge while acquitting the accused.
11. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 31.01.2025
tk
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.333 OF 2012
Date: 31.01.2025
tk
