The High Court · 2025

Judgment

2. 3 Md. Asif S/o. Wakeel, Aged 25 years, Occ: Mechanic Md.Abdul Wakeel, S/o. Ameer, aged 54 years, Occ Driver in SCCL, Md.Adeel, S/o. Wakeel, aged 27 years, Occ Auto Mechanic, (All are R/o. Naspur Village of Marichurial mandal) ...RESPONDENTS/ACCUSEO

Counsel for the Appellant: Sri M. Vivekananda Reddy, Assistant Public Prosecutor Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Rudresh Deshpande The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT a/ IN THE HIGH COURTFOR THE STATE OF TF LANGANA ATHYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENI /AS RAO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.998 0F 201 t- 27rh November 2025 Between: Jl" !r?,: ofTelangana rep. by The Public prosecutor. High Court at Hyderabad. Md.Asit S/o.Wakeel, and two others. JUDGMENT: AND .....Appel i nt/Complainant .....Resp, rrdent/Accused This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the State, rt1 grieved by the judgment passed by the rearned special Judge for the Fast -racking Relating to Atrocities Against Women, Adilabad, in Sp .S.C.No.lg of 2016, dated 29.07.2016, whereunder respondenUaccul:d No.l was acquitted for the ofrences punishabre under Section s 4r7, z 20 and 376 0f the Indian penal Code, lg60 (for short .IpC,) and respc,r dents/accused Nos.2 & 3 were acquifted for the offences punishable und,: gsc1i.r, 41, and 42O lpC.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the complainant Md. Hasan lodged a report alleging that Md. Asif / accused I {,c.1 deceived l l ] j i il, I i :ll i; :i i I i l i I 2 his minor daughter Chand Sulthana, agedabout l5-16 years, by promising marriage and engaging in sexual intercourse with her, later refused to marry her despite a panchayat agreement executed by his father wakeel/accused No.2 and brother Adeel/accused No.3. Investigation revealed that the victim was under 18 years of age, her medical examination confirmed sexual intercourse, and forensic reports detected semen. Subsequently, accused No.l was apprehended, confessed about the commission of the offence, and medical examination was conducted on him. The marriage agreement deed was seized, age determination test was also carried out and the reports conhrmed that the victim is a minor. Based on evidence, accused No.l was charged under Sections 376, 417 , and, 420 IPC for rape and cheating, while accused Nos.2 & 3 were charged under sections 417 and 420 IPC for abetment and cheating. later accused Nos.2 & 3 were apprehended as well. 3. Heard Mr.M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant public Prosecutor for the appellant/State and Mr.Rudresh Deshpande, learned Senior Counsel for respondents/accused Nos.l to 3. 4- Learned Assistant public prosecutor submitted that the trial court, without properly considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution, erroneously acquitted the respondentVaccused though the prosecution had proved the case beyond reasonable doubt that the a 3 respondents/accused had committed the offences. He 1 r rther submitted that the trial court has not properly considered the evi<[, nce of pW.2 on proper prospective manner and disbelieved the same on ),on the ground that accused No.2 had filed complaint against pW.l pri rr to lodging the complaint i.e., Ex.Pl. The allegations made in both tt : complaints are different and distinct. He also submitted that, pw.2 i, her evidence deposed that the accused No.l had made false promist: b her that he is going to marry her and developed physical relationsh:1 and hence, the ingredients forthe offence under section 376 of I.p.c. ,.r culd affract. The trial court without properly considering the testimor y of the pW.2 acquitted the accused No.l for the offence punishable rr uler Section 376 of I.P.C.

5. He further submitted that accused Nos.2 & 3 wt r are father and brother of the accused No.l jointly executed Ex.p2 agr:eing to perform marriage of PW.2 with accused No.l and thereafter hey have taken different stand. Hence, the ingredients for the offence unj :r Section 417 & 420 of I.P.c. would attract against them. However, the :r ial court without properly considering the evidence acquitted accused I.l ,s.2 & 3 for the above said offences. The impugned judgment passed b.z the trial court is contrary to law and the same is liable to be set aside and the respondent/accused No.l is liable for conviction for th, offences under .* \t .\ 4 Section 376, 417 & 420 of I.P.C. and a@used Nos.2 & 3 are liable for conviction for the offence under Section 417 & 42}of I.p.C.

6. Per contra, the leamed counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents/accused contended that the trial Court, after duly taking into consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution and also on defence side, rightly came to conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove the offences leveled against the respondents/accused beyond reasonable doubt and rightly acquitted the respondents/accused for the alleged offences levelled against them by giving cogent flrndings and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the trial court and therefore, the appeal filed by the Srate is liable to be dismissed.

7. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court, it reveals that basing upon the complaint lodged by pW.l, who is none other than the father of the PW.2, Crime No.l57 of 2010 was registered against the respondents/accused and after conducting investigation, the investigating offrcer filed a final report before the learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First class Mancherial and the leamed Magistrate took the cognizance and the same was numbered as o 5 P.R.c.No.l I of 20r l; thereafter, the said c,se was com r itted to the court of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Adilabad. r )n beharf of the prosecution, PW.l to pw.l6 were examined and Exs ltl to p22 were marked and on behalf of the defence Ex.Dl to Ex.D4 r,ore marked. The leamed trial court after evaluating the orar and doc.r 1entary evidence adduced by the respective parties came to the conclusic,r that the accused No. I and PW.2 were in love since gs class and as on ,l e, date of alleged offence, PW.2 became major and the relationship betur en accused No.l and PW.2 was a consensual. Hence, the ingredients for he offence under Section 376 of l.P.C. do not attract. 8' It is pertinent to mention that the prosecution sorri y reried upon the testimony of the Pw.2, convicted the accused without pri ducing any other corroborative evidence. The record further reveals that r:' en prior to filing of Ex.P.l, accused Nos.2 & 3 filed a complaint on 3(.09.2010 against P'w'1. Basing on the same, Crime No.r55 of 2010 was .egistered for the offences under Section 449, 427, 406 r/w Section 3a of Lp.c. The specific case of the defence side is that Ex.p2 was ft,r :ibly got signed from accused Nos.2 & 3 and the ingredients for the offert, e under Sections 417 & 420 of I.p.C. do not aftract. t \ 6 r-r g. It is relevant to mention that in Saztos h Prasad v. Stote of Biharl the Hon'ble Supreme Court relying upon the principle laid down in Krishna Kumar Matik v. State of Haryana2 reiterated that white the sole testimony of the prosecutrix can form the basis of conviction, such evidence must be of "sterling quality''. It should be trustworthy, unblemished, and inspiring of confidence. On examining the record, however, the Court found material contradictions in the deposition of the prosecutrix, including inconsistent about the manner of occurring discrepancies between oral and written complaint contradicts with the deposition of the PW.2. In the case on hand also, there is no discrepancy in the deposition of PW.2, the prosecution has relied upon only on the testimony of PW.2.

10. ln Mahendra Singh v. State of M.P.3the Hon'ble Supreme Court reaffrrmed the classic principle laid down in Vadivelu Thevar * State of Madras, that it is the quality of evidence, not the quantity, which determines guilt or innocence. Oral testimony, the Court observed, falls into three categories (i) wholly reliable, (ii) wholly unreliable, and (iii) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. In the first two categories, the Court's task is simple: conviction or acquittal may follow even on the ' (2020) 3 scc 443 ' lzor t; z scc ro t lzozzl t scc tst 7 testimony of a single witness if found absolutely tn stworthy, or be rejected if wholly unreliable. However, in the third cat )gory, where the witness is partly reliable and partly not, the Cou r must exercise circumspection and look for corroboration in materia particulars fiom reliable, direct, or circumstantial evidence. This prin<:i lle continues to guide the appreciation of evidence, particularly in ca.t s resting on the testimony of a solitary witness, including sexual offence t ials. I l. The Hon'ble Supreme court as welr as this cor.Lr r. in a catena of judgments, has held that to convict an accused for rt e offence under Section 376 lPC, the testimony of the prosecutrix must , ,r.dinarily inspire confidence. ln state of Punjab v. Gurmit singha, as re r )rated in Manak Chand @ Mani v. State of Haryanas, it has been categrl ig6lly laid down that the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, if credible ar: I trustworthy, is sufficient to base a conviction and the court need not insist upon corroboration by medical or other evidence. However, t r : Supreme court has also cautioned that in cases where the testimony rl'the prosecutrix does not inspire confidence or is riddled with inconsis:r ncies, the court must look for corroboration. t-- t '1ulo; z scc la+. 5 2023 SCC Online sc 1397 8 r\

12. In the present case, the prosecution has relied solely on the testimony of P.W.2, without any independent corroboration. The circumstances also reveal prior enmity, as the accused had already lodged a complaint against the de facto complainant under Sections 448,427, and 406 IPC, and the alleged paochayat agreement is stated to have been obtained only thereafter. In view of these factual deficiencies, the ratio in the above said precedents becomes directly applicable. The evidence in this case does not meet the standard required in situations where the prosecution rests on a solitary witness whose version suffers from contradictions. The prosecution's case, therefore, does not satisff the evidentiary requirements recognised in the above precedents, and a conviction cannot be sustained on the material presently available.

13. It is also relevant to mention that the Hon,ble Supreme Court in Kunal Chaterjee v. The State of l{est Bengal and others6, held that marriage and the subsequent physical relationship between the two with consent would not amount to rape. It is also relevant to mention the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex court in prithivirajan v. state, , 6 sel 1"a; No.7o04 of2025, dr.2g.o7.zo25 ' 2025 SCC Online SC 696 I r 9 Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. Sute of Maharashtras nd, Maheshwar Tigga v. Stau ofJharkhant.

14. In cases of acquittal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court it Ravi Sharma u State (Government of NCT of Dethi) and anothertc, held that while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, the appell,r rr Court has to consider whether the trial Court's view can be termed a ; a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analyze L The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumptiorr of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the appellate court has to br, elatively slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal.

15. lnGhurey Lalv. State of Uuar Pradeshrr the Hon'b e Supreme Court after referring to several Judgnrents regarding the settlerl principles of law and the powers ofappellate Court in reversing the orde- cfacquittal, held at para 70, as follows: "70. In the light of the above, the High Cott, t and other appellate Courts should follow the well..: ettled principles crystallized by number of Judgments f it is going to oyerrule or otherwise disturb the trial . )urt's acquittal. " t lzorl; I scc 608 ' lzozoy ro scc lo8 'o 120221 8 Supreme Court Cases 536 | ' 12008; l0 SuprentuCourt Cases 45 10 r\ I. The appellate court may only overrule or olherwise 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 reosons " to discard the trial court's decision. "Very substantial and compelling reasons " exist when: i) The trial court's conclusion with regard to the facx is palpably wrong: ii) Ihe 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 ofjustice " ; ,") The entire approach of the trial court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal; u) 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.

2. The appellate court must always give proper weight and cot*iferation o the findings of the trial court. 11

3. If nuo reasonable views can be reached one that leads to acquittal, the other to conviction the t\gh Courts/appellate courts must rule in fovour ol the accused. "

16. For the foregoing reasons as well as the principles I Lid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments cited supra, the L: med trial court has rightly acquitted the respondent/accused No.l lt r the offences punishable under Section 376, 417 & 420 of IPC a,r I acquitted the respondents/accused Nos.2 & 3 for the offence punishabu under Sections 417 & 420 of IPC. Hence, this Court does not find rny grounds to interfere with the well considered Judgment of the leamerl Sessions Court

17. Accordingly, the criminal appeal is dismissed. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand cl< sed S I/. A.V.S. PRASAD DE PUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY'/ iECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Special Judge for the Fast Tracking the Cases F 3lating to Atrocities Against Women, Adilabad.

2. The I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Manct ( rial 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the l) ate of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

4. One CC to Sri Rudresh Deshpande, Advocate [OpUC] 5. Two CD Copies VTYPSL o HIGH COURT DATED: 2711112025 t I I JUDGMENT CRLA.No.998 of 2017 r o C) t I'\E S IC; ' ! [1'8 2rl]; ( * o -) DISMISSING THE APPEAL : L f"0 s