Order High Court · 2025

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.l116 OF 2014 ORDER: The present criminal revision case is filed by th<: petitioner/ accused under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., allgrieved by the judgment ciated 28.05.2014 in Criminal Appeal No.135 of 2013 on the file of thc learned Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes ( rC)A) Act-cum- Additional Sessions Judge at Khammam whert rn atrd where under conviction of accused for the offences pu;rishable under Sections 417 and 376 of IPC sentencing the petitio ner/ a ccusecl to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of o re year and to pay a fine cf Rs.5O0/- in default to suffer simple inLprisottment for a furlhcr period of one month for the offence unc.er St:ction 417 I PC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a pt'riod ol seven years and t() pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default ro suffer simple imprisonrrrent for a period of three months lor the offence punrshable under Section 376 IPC passed vide -rr-tdgment dated

12.12.2013 in SC No. 177 ol 2013 on the file of the learned Assistant Scssions Judge at Khammam was conhrrted. \ I i j

2. Heard Sri C.Sharan Reddy, learned counsel representing learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri E.Ganesh, learned assistant public prosecutor for the respondent/ State.

3. SC No. 177 of 2013 is a case registered against the petitioner/ accused on the allegation that the accused, being a photographer, took the photographs of the victim/PW1, who was minor and studying Bff class during that time, and under the guise of handing over the said photographs, he developed acquaintance with her and subsequently, making her to believe that he loved her and would marry her, on 19. l2.2Ol I the petitioner called her to his photo studio and had sexual intercourse with her in between 12.OO noon and 02.00 PM and promised her to marry but subsequently, also he had sexual intercourse with the victim and later he avoided her and got marriage alliance hxed with another girl and hence, the victim revealed the matter to her parents and thereafter, complaint dated

17.05.2012 was got registered and the same culminated into Crime No.55 of 2012. The police after compietion of investigation laid charge-sheet in the Court against the accused in PRC No.30 of 2012, which was subsequently renumbered as SC No177 of

2013. / wi{ lrl ,/

4. Before the trial Court, the prosecul ion examined witne sses FWs.1 to 12 and' got marked Exs'P1 to Pl0 No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of tht' accused

5. Basing on the above evidence, the tritLl Court found the petitioner/ accused guilty and sentenced him as stated supra holding thzLt thc prosecution succeeded in proving the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt' AggrieveC by the said hnclings, the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal I'1o 135 of 2013 on the file of the appellate Court. The appellate Court dismissed the said ap,peal conhrming the hndings of the triai tlourt'

6. Aggrieved by the findings of the appellate Court' the petitioner/ accused preferred the present criminal revision case mainly cortending that both the trial Court anrl the appcllate Court ha're erroneously found the petitioner/ accused guilty basing on the untrustworthy evidence of PW1 and contradictory medical e'" ide nce 7 . On the other hand learned As sistant Public Prosccr.rtor vehemently opposed the present crimir'al revision case mainly contending that both the trial Court and appellate Court have rightly lound the petitioner guilty and th at the grounds urged through the present criminal revision cas': have no force ,- warranting interference of this Court with the well considered findings.

8. This Court perused the impugned judgments of both the trial Court and appellate Court and heard the rival contentions. PW 1 is the victim, PW2 is her father, PW3 is her sister, their evidence is almost reiteration of complaint allegations. PWs.4 and 5 are known persons to the victim's family and accused but they did not support the prosecution case. The prosecution examined PW6, who worked as Head Master in National Child Labour Protection School of Cheruvumadharam Village and issued Ex.P4 birth certificate of PW1 to prove the date of birth of PW 1 as 07 .O4.I994 and to establish that PW 1 was minor at that time. PWs.7 and 8 signed on crime details lorm under Ex.Ps and P6 on the request of police without knowing the contents therein and they did not support the prosecution case. PW9 worked as Civil Assistant Surgeon at District Headquarters Hospital, Khamrnam and examined PW1 and gave Ex.p7 medical examination certihcate conhrming participation of PW1 in sexual intercourse. PW10 worked as Duty Medical Officer, Government Headquarters Hospital, Khammam and issued Ex.P8 medical certihcate after examining the accused on the request of the police and confirmed that the accused was capable of performing sexual a _.. ,2,-j ! i i I ; t'age 5 act. PWl1 worked as SI of Police' Neiakondapally z nd basing on Ex.P1 complaint he registered FIR/trx'P9 in Crime l'1o 55 of 2O12 against the accused' PW12 is the investigating officcr' ' g. Though PWs.4, 5, 7 and 8 did not support the prosecutiori case, rvith the help of evidence of PWs; 1' 2' 3' 6' 9 10, 1 1 an,1 12, the Prosecutlon could able to l)rove that the accused / pt:titioner under the guise of satisfying h is lust, taking advantage of acquaintance with PWl' had sexual intercourse with her making her to believe that he loved her and marry her and subsequer.tl5r, avoicled her' It is also proved that at the time of the incident, PW1 was minor and was studying 86 standard' It is also proved that if the accused did not make PWl to believe that he rvould marry her, PW1 did not express her c')nsent Though the learnt:d counsel for the petitioner contended -hat eviCence of PW1 is untrustworthy one they faiied to rebut the same The material on record particularly the evidence a'dduced by the prosecution established that the petitioner/ accr Lsed had sexual intercourse with PWl/victim against her wish and the consent was obtained by fraud and hence' the petitione'- is guilty of the offence

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in fee case between ,...,. ,'l Prithivirajan Vs. State rep. by the Inspector of police and anotherl and contended that because physical relations were established basing on a promise to marry, which itself will not amount to rape. Further, to establish an offence of rape, the prosccution has to prove the fact that the accused promised to marry the prosecutrix solely to secure consent for sexual relations without having any intention of fu1fi1ling said promise from the very beginning and the prosecutrix gave her consent for sexual relalions having been directly influenced by such false promise of marriage. He further contended that the Hon,ble Apex Court quashed the impugned proceedings against the accused in the said case holding that promise to marry could not be fulhlled due to intervening circumstances and the consequent ending of reiatronship resulted in registration of FIR and in such circumstances letting the accused to face rigour of trial would be nothing short of an abuse of process of law. Basing on the abovc decision learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the Section of iaw imposed against the petitioner i.e. Section 376 of IPC cannot be made applicable to the facts of the case when Section 376 of IPC is not applicabie, Section 472 of IpC ' c.l.A.No. 12663 of 2022 rcry' 45;:t:; l/ , cannot stand for legal scrutiny and hence, the petitioner may be exonerated from the said charges

11. When the facts of the case on hand are tested on the touchstone of the proposition of law laid down Ln the above decision, when PW 1 came to know that the marriage of the petitioner rrvas fixed with another girl and when she tried to question the: petitioner/ accused in this regard, he er aded her and hence, she informed the same to her parents, rvho in turn complained the same to the police. When the facts are scrutinized, no intervening circumstances can be found to exonerate the petitioner from the rigor of Section 376 IPC and hence, the same cannot be made applicable to the facts of the case on hard.

12. Having regard to the above facts and circumstances, \ \ a I this Court is of the considered view that the trial Court as well as the appellale Court have meticuiously evaluated thc evidence on record and hence, this Court ltnds no fault or errr)r on the said findings. IJowever, in view of the fact that incidt:nt took place during the year 2011 and since then the petitior erl accused is roaming around the Courts to defend him from the case by facing mentai ag<>ny and also physical incarceration, lrasing on the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Ape>: Court in VK ,.} Verma Vs.Central Bureau of Investigation2 , Raj Kumar Alias Raju Yadav Alias Raj Kumar yadav Vs. State of Bihar3 and Ravinder Vs. State of Mp4 this Court feels it appropriate to take a lenient view in his favour by reducing the period of imprisonment. Accordingly, the period of i-p.i"o.r-ent rmposed against the petitioner for all the counts is reduced to that of the period which he had already undergone while upholding the fine amount. Except the above modification with regard to the sentence of imprisonment, this criminal revision case stands dismissed in all other aspects.

13. In the result, this criminal revision case is dismrssed Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending stand dismissed. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stard closed //TRUE COPY// SD/- MOHD. ISMAIL EPUTY REGISTRAR r I SECTION OFFICER

1. The Assistant Sessions Judge at Khammam' 2. The special Sessions Judge for Trial of cases under scheduled Tribes andScheduledCastes(PA)Act-cum-AdditionalSessionsJudgeat Khammam.

3.TheJudicialMagistrateofFirstClass(SpecialMobileCourt)Khammam. 4.TheStationHouseOfficer,NelakondapallyPoliceStation,KHammam District. (our)

5. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Warangal.^. 6 Two CC! to public prosecutor, High court for t-he state of Telangana at Hyderabad. 7. One CC to SRl. A HARIPRASAD REDDY Advocate [OPUC] 8. Two CD CoPies To, M- PM/gh HIGH COURT DATED:271O112025 ORDER CRLRC.No.1116 ot 2Q14 I /= -z'/ ,- 1. ,4,.:. 'r{: S \:t r.q r{ 15 riEP Atr o a a:sp ,+ '\y:';/ .:-). )t DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE. 5 b