The High Court · 2025

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADISRIDEVI CRIMINAL REVI SION CASE No.1476 ol2O11 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case i5 filed by the petitioner- accused aggrieved by the impugned Judgment dated

23.06.2011 in Oriminal Appeal No.207 of 2019 passc'd by the learned Special Sessions Judge for trial of cases under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act-r;um-Additional Sessions Judge, Khammam, confirming the Judgment of Conviction and Sentence dated

29.11.2010 in Sessions Case No.564 of 2009 passe'd by the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge at Kothagudem. The offences alleged against the petitioner-accused are under Sections 417 and 376 of the lndian Penal Code (for short 'rPc').

02. Heard Sri Pulla Rao Yellanki, learned cc,unsel for petitioner and Smt.S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused the record

03. ln trrief, the case of the prosecution is that the accused used to visit the house of the victim as he is friend of her brothers The victim and the accused got ac;quainted k with each other. On 25.11.2008 at about 08:00 PM., when the victim went to outskirts of the village for attending calls of nature, the accused followed her by concealing his movements and made her to fall on the ground and committed rape upon her by threatening with knife. Later, the accused promised to marry her. Thereafter, the accused had sexual intercourse with her several times. Due to which she became pregnant. On 26.01.2009 the accused married the victim at Kothagudem and got photographed the marriage. They led marital llfe at Kothaguem. The accused took Rs.40,0001 from the victim for the purpose of business. Thereafter, he went away to Khammam and did not return. The victim went back to Madharam, where she met the accused. The accused refused to continue his marital life with the victim. For which, a report was filed before the Police.

04. After investigation, the Police filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences under Sections 417 and 376 of lPC. The learned trial Court after conducting the full-fledged trial, acquitted the accused for the offence under Section 417 of IPC and convicted and sentenced him for the offence under Section 376 of lPC. Aggrieved the 5 Judgment of Conviction and Sentence, the petitioner- accused prel'erred Criminal Appeal before the learned appellate Court and the said appeal was dismissed confirming the Judgment passed by the learned trierl Court.

05. Aggrieved by the said Judgment passed by the learned appellate Court, the present Criminal Revision Case is preferred by the petitioner-accused.

06. Learned counsel for petitioner submitte,d that the prosecution has not made out the ingredients for cr:nstituting the offence under Section 376 of lpC and the learned trial Court ought to have seen that after the alleged inc;ident, the complainant lived together being wife and husband and that the sexual relationship between the wife and husband do not amount to rape. There is a delay of more than 3 rnonths in lodging the complaint. Hence, he prayed to set aside the Judgments of learned trial Court as well as the learnecl appellate Court by allowing this Criminal Revision Case.

07. Learned Assistant Public prosecutor for the State submitted that the learned trial Court as well as; learned appellate Courl have righfly considered the material on record and passed the impugned Judgments and there are \ ,a] t",t \, \ - no illegalities or irregularities in the sald Judgments, for which no interference of this Court is needed and prayed to dismiss this Criminal Revision Case.

08. Both the learned trial Court as well as the learned appellate Court have considered the oral and documentary evidence available on record and came to a concurrent conclusion that the offence under Section 417 of lpC is not made out against the petitioner-accused and accordingly, acquitted the petitioner-accused for the said charge. There is no appeal challenging the said acquittal. The said concurrent findings recorded by the learned trial Court as well as the learned appellate Court, have attained finality.

09. lt is an undisputed fact that the accused and victim are majors and they are known to each other. A bare perusal of the record discloses that the accused married the victim on 26.01.2009. PW7-photogrpaher had categorically stated that he had taken the photos of the marriage and the same were marked as Exs.p2 to p6. pW4 categorically deposed that his brother by name Krishna was having vacant house at Ramanjaneya Colony, Kothagudem and the victim and the accused were inducted into the said house as 7 tenants. PW6 also deposed that they lived as husband and wife in a renteC house. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the victim and accused are married couple.

10. ln the above scenario, it is necessary to extract Section 375 of the lndian Penal Code, 1860:

375. Rape: A man is said to commit "rape" if he-' (g)penetrates hls penls, to any extent, into the vagina, ntouth, urethra or anus of a woman or mitkes her to do so with him or any other person; or (B)jnsefts, to any extent, any obiect or a part of the body, not being the penis, into the vagina, the urethra or anus of a woman or makes her to do so with him cr any other Person; or (p)maniprtlates any paft of the body of a woman so as to cause penetration into the vagina, urethra, anus or any parT of body of such woman or m,akes her to do so with him or any other person; or Qfiapplies his mouth to the vagina, anus, urethra of a woman or makes her to do so with him or any <tther person,under the circumstances falling under any of the fol I owi n g seve n d e scri ptlons:- (Firsl)- Against her will. (Secondly.) - Without her consent. (Thirdly.) - With her consent, when her consent has been obtained by putting her or any person in w'hom she is inlerested, in fear of death or of hurl, (Fourthly.) - With her consent, when the man knows that he is not her husband and that her consent is given because she believes that he is 8 another man to whom she is or betieves herself to be lavvfully married. (Fifthly.) - With her consent when, at the time of giving such consent, by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication or the administration by him personally or through another of any stupefying or unwholesome substance, she is unable to understand the nature and consequences of that to which she gives consent. (Sixthly.) - With or without her consent, when she is under eighteen years of age- (Seventhly.) - When she is unable to communicate consent. Explanation 1.- For the purposes of this section, "vagina" shall also include labia majora- Explanation 2.- Consent means an unequivocal voluntary agreement when the woman by words, gesfures or any form of verbal or non-verbal communication, communicates willingness to pafticipate in the specific sexual act: Proviled that a woman who does not physically reslst fo the act of penetration shall not by the reason' only of that fact, be regarded as consenting to the sexual activity. Exception 1 .- A medical procedure or interuention shall not constitute rape. Exception 2.- Sexual intercourse .or sexual acts by a man with his own wife, the wife not being under fifteen years of age, is not rape. 9

11. lt s the case of the prosecution that the petitioner-accu:ed committed rape upon the victim by putting her under fear by threatening with knife and also promised her that he will marry her. Thereafter, the petitioner-accused had sexual ink:rcourse with her several times and that she had become pregnant. But no complaint was lodged by the victim. lt shows that the relationship between the victim and accused is consensual. [\4oreover, it is an admittec fact that they are married couple. Therefore, the petitioner-a,icused is the husband of the victim and the offence under Section 376 of IPC cannot be attributed to the husband, as he ferlls under the exception 2 of Section 375 of lPC. The present complaint was filed when the accused refused to continue his marital life with the victim.

12. On a careful scrutiny of the entire material on record, the cir,:umstances that led the victim to lodge a complaint against the accused is that he had taken an amount of Rs.4C,000/- from the victim on the pretext of doing business and did not come back to the victim. Tl-rereafter, she found the ;rccused at her village and questioned as to why he deserted her, for which, the accused refused to 1U continue the marital life with her. There is unexplained delay \ of more than three months in lodging the said complaint.

13. ln Prashant v. State of NCT of Delhil the Honourable Supreme Court of India at paragraph Nos.19 and 20 held that: "19. ln our view, taking the attegations in the FIR and the charge sheef as they stand, the crucial ingredients of the offence under Section 376 (2)(n) lpC are absent. A review of the FIR and the complainant,s statement under Section 1 64 Cr.p.C discloses no indication that any promise of marriage was extended at the outset of their relationship in 2017. Therefore, even if the prosecution,s case is accepted at its face value, it cannot be concluded that the complainant engaged in a sexual relationship with the appettant solely on account of any assurance of marriage from the appellant. The relationship between the padies was cordial and also consensual in nature. A mere breakup of a relationship between.a consenting couple cannot result in initiation of criminal proceedings. What was a consensual relationship between the parlies at the initial stages cannot be given a colour of criminality when the said relationship does not fructify into a maiitat relationship. Fufther, both pafties are now married to someone else and have moved on in their respective lives. Thus, in our view, the continuation of the prosecution in the present case would amount to a ' zozs (r) arr (cnr.) ss (sc) - 11 gross abuse of the process of law- There'fore, no purpor:e would be served by continuing the prosecution.

20. The ingredients of criminal intimidation are threat to anc'ther person, inter alia, with any injwy to his persor,, reputation with intent to cause alarm to that persor, or to cause that person to any act which he is not legally bound to do. ln the instant case, as; already noted, the relationship between the appellant and the complirinant was consensual in nature. ln fztct, they wantecl to fructify the relationship into marriage. lt is in lhat context that they indulged in sexual activity. Therefore, there cannot be a case of criminal intimidation involved as aga,nsf the complainant. We do not find that there was any threat cause,C to the complainant by the appellant when all along there was cordialtty between them and it was only when the appellant got married in the year 2019 that the complainant filed a complaint. ln the circum:stances, we do not think that the offence under Section 503 read with Secflon 506 of the IPC has been made out in the instant case."

14. lrr the present case on hand, both the accused and the victim are majors and the relationship oetween the accused and the victim was consensual in nature. ln fact, the relationship r.vas fructified into marriage. pW6 categorically deposed that the victim and accused reside{ in renled house of cousin brotherr of PW4 as husband and wife. -fhere is no allegation of r;tpe spelt out by PW2-mother of the victim. There is 1-2 unexplained delay of more than three months in lodging the FlR, which creates doubt. The marriage between the petitioner- accused and victim is subsisting, and the petitioner-accused is husband of victim, therefore, he falls under the exception 2 of Section 375 of lPC. Hence, the essential ingredients required for constituting lhe offence under Section 376 of IPC are not made out against the petitioner-accused. Thus, the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the petitioner-accused for the offence under Section 376 of lPC.

15. ln view of the aforesaid discussion and also settled principle of law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the above decision, this Court is of the firm opinion that the learned trial Court as well as the learned appellate Court have failed to observe that the relationship between the petitioner- accused and victim is a consensual relationship, which fructified into marriage between them and also failed to consider the fact that the petitioner-accused is the husband of the victim and he falls under exception 2 of Section 375 of lPC. ln that view of the matter, the concurrent findings recorded by the learned trial Court as well as the learned appellate Court are liable to be set aside.

16. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed setting aside the impugned Judgment dated

23.06.2011 in Criminal Appeal No.207 of 2019 passed by the 13 learned Special Sessions Judge for trial of cases under the ScheduledCastesandtheScheduledTribes(Preventionof Atrocities) Act-cum-Additional Sessions Judge' Khammam' confirming the Judgment of Conviction and Sentence dated 29.11.2010 in Sessions Case No 564 of 2009 passed by the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge at Kothagudem' Consequently thr: petitioner-accused is acquitted for ther offence underSection3TSoflPC.Thefineamount'ifany'paidshallbe refunded to the pr:titioner-accused ' As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applicertions' if any' shall stand closed sD'- MoHD'tsMAtL DEPUTY REGISTRAR ,TTRUE COPYI/ \"t I SECTTON OFFICER oneFair".tJ#,13:[.,l3,ie,rtJLii:'JL:'", j:'i'"disridevi To, SCs and STs (POA) -casesr:nder

1. The Special Sessions Judge for Trial'of , h: Ull t'xl:ii...,""; Hfi lilil"v'.',,ilr [i'#il,. -,. a g u d em 3. The Judicial First class 4' 11 LR copies 'nion of lndia' Ministry of Law' Justice and company 5. The Under Secretary' u - A*airs, New Delhi es Association Library,.High court for the State of 6. The Secretary' Advocat ;H5d,ill#L?15.}:.{iiirltJ::rilf ir"$:ri':iT""ng"n,", 8. Two CCs to the Public I r B,nl"tt?S S?ill.to RAo YELLANKT' Advocate roPUC';

10.Two CD CoPies ADKr?SL + -1 HIGH COURT DATED:21 10312025 ORDER CRLRC.No.1476 of 2011 HI t: Rc\ s { ( o 1 * 1 7 ,ttjl 2025 1 t'9 f * .ln. . ,-. ALLOWING THE CRLRC