In Ravi Sharma v. State

THE STATE OF A.P., Rept. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P.,Hyderabad. ...AppellanUPetitioner AND Noonavath lvlohan Rao, S/o. Latchya, Occ: B.Ed.Student, R/o. Seethal Thanda (V) of Chilkur: Mandal, Nalgonda. ...Accused/Respondent l.A. NO: 2OF 2012(CRLAMP. NO: 715 OF 20121 Petition under Section 378(3) &(1) Cr.P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to grant leave to present an appeal against the order of acquittal of the accused/respondent in S.c.No. 127 ot 2010 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Suryapet. Counsel for the Appellant : Public Prosecutor Counsel for the Respondents : Sri C Hari Preeth The Court delivered the follo\ffing: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 333 0F'2012 JUDGMENT: The Statt: is aggrieved by the order of the acquittal of the respondent/ acc:used for the offence under section 41?, and 326 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 aliegation 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 inte rcourse resulting in the pW. 1 bearing pregnancy. However, the ac:cused 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 learnerl Sessions Judge having examined the witnesses PWs.l to 16 of whom pW. 1 is the lrictim,, found that the prosecution 2 failed to make out case against the accused. Learned Sessions Judge gave the following reasons for acquitting the accused; 0 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. I 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' t had sexual relation with the accused, she was aged less than 16 years' No proof was frled regarding her age. v) No DNA test was done insofar as the deceased boy was concerned to find out who the biologicai 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 coirsent is of no consequence. However, Public Prosecutor admits that no proof was hled. .r' I , 3

7. In Ravi Sharma v. State (Government of NCT of Delhit and another', the Flon'ble Supreme Court held that while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court has to consrider 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 innoce,ce in favour of the accused. Thus, the appellate court has to be relaljvely slow in reversing the order of the tria_l court rendering acquittal.

8. In Ghureg Lal u. State of uttar pradesh, the Hon,ble Supreme Court after referring to several Judgments regarding the settled principles of 1aw and the powers of appella te Court in reversing the order of acquittal, held at para 70, as follows: "7O. In the light of the aboue, the High Court and. other appellate Courts should folLou the uell-settted principles crystaltized, by number of Judgments tf it ts going to ouerrule or othenti_se disturb ttte trial court's acquittal: for doing so.

1. The appellate court mag onlg ouemtLe or othent.tise d isturb the -court's a<quittal if it has *uery substantial and. compellutg reasons" A numbt:r of instances orise in uhbh the appellate court utouLd. haue "uery sttbstantial and compelling reasons" to discard the trial court's decbio,t. "Very substantial and compeltinq reasons" exLqt when: i) The trial court's conclusion uith regard_ to the facts ts palpably ii) The fiial court's decision u.tos based. on an erroneous uieu of LUrOrLg: Iau.t; ^ . L.i.n TF trial court's judgment is tiketg to result in .graue of justice"; mlscarriage iu) TLLe en.fire approach of the triaL court in d.ealing tuith thet euid.ence uas potentlg illegal t 120221 8 Supreme Court (tases 536 '120081 10 supreme coun Cases 450 I I 4 u) The trial court's judgment u)as manifestlg unjust and unreosonable; ui) The trial court hos ignored the euidence or misread the material dui.d.ence or has ignored material documents like dAing declardtions/ report of the bollistic Bx.Pert, etc. uii)'|:ltis li.st is intended to be illustratiue, not exhaustiue. 2. The appellate court must alwags gitte proper weight and con-si.derotion o the findings of the trial court. 3- If tu,to reasonable uieu,ts can be reached- one that leads to High Courts/ appellate courts ,r.ust acquitta\ the other to conubtion. rule in fauour of the accused." -the

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. t had reiation 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 frnding of the learned Sessions Judge while acquitting the accused.

11. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is dismissed. Sd/- N. CHANDRA SEKHAR RAO D P TY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII s CTION OFFICER

1. The Assistant Sessions Judge, Suryapet. (With records) 2. The Station House Officer, Chilkur Police Station. 3. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. (OUf)

4. One CC to SRl. C HARI PREETH, Advocate IOPUC] 5. Two CD Copies To, i DL/gh I HIGH COURT DATED:31/0't/2025 JUDGMENT CRLA.No.333 of 2012 i .- ii',\. ';- \.... \r\ DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL I ) 7-.-__:=-\ :.-\,,E S14a'). L ,.:. 2 5 ilAit zoz5 7" .| {r SPATCH gO )