The High Court · 2025

THE HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DE\/ EADA ORDER: CRIMINAL APPEAL No.13 of 2019 This Criminal Appeal is filed by the appe lant-accused challenging the judgment dated 08.0'1 .2019 passed in )pl SC No.58 of 2017 by the Special Judge for trial of cases under S( s/STs (POA) Act cum V Additional District and Sessions Judge at Arl abad 2 Heard Sri Y Ashok Raj, learned counsel for he appellant and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Adc i ional Public Prosecutor for the respondent. 3 The case of the prosecution is that the appr: ant-accused and the victim belong to the same village and that the I both studied together and completed graduation. ln the year 2013, the accused started insisting the victim to love him, but she denied rnd later she agreed and thereafter the accused used to visit the I ouse of the victim frequently and sexually exploited her by pronrrs ng to marry her. Believing his words, the victim surrendered herse ' to accused and after one year of their relation, when the victrr asked the accused to marry him he extended the same and conti rted physical relationship with her. ln the year 2017, lhe accused l,r ;t his father. When the victim went to the house of the accused an I asked him \ \ 2 \ \l -+l EfD,J Crl.A- No.li o12019 - about their marriage, the accused promised that he would marry her after the one year death ceremony of his father. Thereafter, the victim informed to her parents about her love with the accused and the sexual exploitation by the accused promising to marry her Then, her father along with their caste people went to the house of accused and asked about the marriage. The accused refused and then the victim expressed that she wourd not reave the house and the accused assured her that he will marry her within one month. Thereafter, the accused escaped from the village. Then the victim lodged the compraint against the accused stating that the accused cheated her in the name of love and marriage. Based on the said complaint, porice registered a case and investigated into the same and filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences under Sections 417 and 4ZO tp} and Section 3(i)(w)(i)(ii) of SCs/STs Amendment Act,20 15. The case was taken on file by the Spl. Judge for trial of cases under SCs/STs poA Act cum V Additionar District and Sessions Judge, Adilab ad vide Spl.SC No.5g of 2017.

4. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined pWs.1 to 10 and marked Exs.pl to pB on their behalf. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused. On considering the evidence on record, the sessions court found the J ETO,J Crt.A. No-13 o12019 accused not guilty of the offence under Section 3 )(w)(i)(ii) of the SCs/STs Amendment Act, 2015 and accordingly, ;l ;quitted him for the said offence. However, the Sessions Curt foLr d the accused guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 4' 7 and 420 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonmer : for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default, kr :ndergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months for thr: offence under Section 417 IPC and further sentenced him to irr dergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.'l 0,000/- for the offence under Section 420 lF' ) in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment f : ' three months and directed both the sentences to run concurrenilr, vrde judgment dated 08 012019. Aggrieved by the said judgment ct conviction, the present appeal is filed by the accused.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has sut nitted that the judgment of the trial court is against law, weight anrl crobabilities of the case. He further submitted that the prosecution has examined 10 witnesses, but only PWs.'l and 2 have deposrd against the accused and favour the prosecution case while all the other witnesses turned hostile. He further submitted th a there was a consensual relationship between pW.1 and the ac r used and the I \ 4 EfD,J Cd-A. No.13 ol20t9 same was deposed by PW.1. PW.2 also has stated that she agreed for the relationship and thus there is no evidence at all on record to prove the alleged offences against the accused and that in the absence of any evidence against the accused, it is not justified to convict the accused. He further submitted that the trial court ought to have appreciated the evidence in proper perspective, but has failed to do so and therefore, prayed to set aside the judgment of conviction rendered by the trial court and to allow the appeal.

6. Learned Additional Pubilc Prosecutor has submitted that the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 is unchallenged. Though the other witnesses have turned hostile, the evidence of PWs.l and 2 proved the love affair between the accused appellant and the victim. He further submitted that the trial court has passed the judgment of conviction and sentence based on sound reasoning. He, therefore, prayed to dismiss the aPPeal

7. Perused the record

8. The appellant herein is facing the charges under Sections 417, 420 IPC and Section 3(1)(w)(i)(ii) of SC and ST Act. The said ': Sections are extracted hereunder for the sake of reference: I ) ETD.J C.A.No-13of2019 Section 417 lPC. "417. Punishment for cheating.- Whoever cheats shall be punished with imc isonment of erther description for a term which may extor d to one year. or with frne, or with both." Section 415 IPC "415. Cheating.- Whoever, by deceiving any person, frauJ dishonestly induces the person so deceived to,j, property to any person, or to consent that any o,_, retain any property, or intentionally induces the p deceived to do or omit to do anything which he wor rlently or liver any son shall Srson so ld not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act cr causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that omission )erson in body, rnind, reputation or property, is said to 'chea' Section 420 lPC. "420. Cheating and dishonestly inducin(, delivery of property.- Whoever cheats and thereby dishonesfly ir ( Jces the person deceived to deliver any property to any pe.r cn, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of ,r valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, an: which is capable of berng converted into a valuable securiti shall be punrshed with imprisonment of either description ,( r a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also b€ liable to frne.' / t I 6 ErO,J Crl-A- No.t3 o12019 Section 3(1)(w)(i)(ii) of SC and ST Act Section 3(1) in The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989: (w) - (i) intentionally touches a woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, knowing that she belongs to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, when such act of touching is of a sexual nature and is without the recipient's consent; (ii) uses words, acts or gestures of a sexual nature towards a woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Trlbe, knowing that she belongs to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, Shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to five year and with fine.

9. The victim was examined as pW.1. lt is elicited from her evidence before the trial court that she loved the accused and has willfully entered into the physical relationship with him and that for about a period one year, they were in the physical relationship. After one year she asked the accused to marry her and that the accused assured her saying that after the marriage of his younger sister, he would marry her. Believing his words, she continued the physical relationship with the accused. Subsequently, the father of the / accused passed away and then when the de faclo complainant -7/ 7 EfD,J c.l.a No t3 0t 20t9 asked the accused to marry her, he assured sayirg that after the death anniversary of his father, he can marry her. { ubsequenily, he switched off his cell phone. So, she has infor ned her family members about the rove affair with the accused a* she arong with her parents went to the house of the accused, whe,r :in the accused has refused to marry her. But, she intended to stay at the house of the accused. Then his famiry members requested l-r r for some time and thereby, they reft the house of the accused a r i from the next day, the accused was not seen in the village. ThL r , they informed the village elder and thereafter rodged the comprai, rn her cross- examination, it was ericited that since the beginninrl they know the difference in caste and it is ericited from her that hey both were classmates and that she still loves the accused. srr r admitted that prior to lodging the compraint, she informed about lrr r rove with the accused to her father and she did not go to the housr: of the accused to talk about their love affair with his parents. she f rrther admitted that she has cohabited willfully with the accused. rl s ericited from her that as on the date of cross-examination she wr; 25 years ord which was done in the year 2017 while the offence a leged to have occurred in 2013. That means as on the dare of o.1 :nce arso she was a major aged about 21 years. Thus, it is elicited 1l rough her that i she loved the accused and her rerationship with the e :cused was a r! I 8 EfD,J c.l.A. No_13 0t 2019 consensuaI relationship. Though she stated in her chief examination that she too went along with her parents and intended to stay at the house of the accused, she contradicted her own version stating that she did not go to the house of the accused to talk to lhe parents of the accused about their affair.

10. PW.2 is the father of pW.i lt is elicited from him that when they went to the house of the accused and questioned about the love affair with his daughter, the accused has agreed to marry PW.1 and that he would inform them after consulting the caste elders. Thus, the statement of pW.2 again contradicts the statement made by PW.1, as she stated that accused had refused to marry her though the elders questioned him at his house while pW.2 stated that the accused agreed to marry her. ln the cross_examination of PW.2, it is brought out that he too agreed to the love affair of pW..1 with the accused. lnitially, he stated that till pW.1 informed him, he did not know about the love affair of pW.1 and accused. Then he stated that PW.1 arso riked accused and he too agreed for their rove. Apart from the evidence of pWs .l and 2, there is no other evidence on record to point out the guilt of the accused. All the other witnesses turned hostile but for the official witnesses. Looking into / 9 ETO.J C -4. No.13 o12019 the evidence of PWs.l and 2, it is elicited that it i,r.: s a consensual relationship as PW.1 herself has stated so in her crcl s-examination 11 . To attract the ingredients of the offe I ;e of cheating, dishonest intention from the inception of the allegr: I act has to be made out. ln the present case, since the victim h: self has stated that she was in the consensual relationship, lhe p I nt of dishonest intention or inducement cannot be made out. Theref rre, the offence of cheating under Section 417 IPC is not pro,r rd against the appellant-accused.

12. Further, it is not the case of the prose<:r lion that some property or valuable security is delivered by pW " on the alleged inducement of the accused. Thus, the ingredients cf Section 420 \ I IPC also do not get attracted. I \ 'l 3. Therefore, it is held that the prosecuilon rould not prove the offence under Section 417 and 42O lp} again ;t the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the accused rs entitled to be released ,0. 'n,.the result, the Criminal Appeal is al twed and the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Sr;:cial Judge for trial of cases under SCs/STs (POA) Act cum V Additi: ral District and 10 ETD,J c.l.a. No.13 0t 2019 Sessions Judge at Adilabad, against the appellant_accused in SplS.C. No.58 of 2017, vide judgment, dated 08.01.2019, for the offences punishable under Sections 417 and 420 lp} are set aside and the appellant-accused is acquitted of the said offences. Fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant-accused shall be refunded to him. Bail bonds shall stand cancelled and the sureties are discharged. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// D/- B. SATYAVATHI OINT REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Special Judge for Trial of Cases under S Additional District and Sessions Judge at Adilabad. The Judicial [Vlagistrate of First Class, Luxettiipet, Mancherial. The Superintendent, District Jail, Adilabad. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] One CC to Sri Y. Ashok Raj, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies STs (POA) Act-cum-V 2 J 4 ( Kam/sa HIGH COURT DATED:1911112025 \ _:-... ., . _ ,t .. rr-. . :. ORDER CRLA.No.13 of 2019 !a i: 1,- i ,., m6 lri) a' ,i ,;, ,'l/ i:-1- '' -----: -:::::-- ' ...;- ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL