Sate Of Telangana vs Ponnala Madhu

The present appeal is filed by the State aggrieved by the acquittal of the respondent recorded by the Special Judge for Trial of Cases under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act-cum-I Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal, for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 420, 376(2)(n) of the IPC and Section 5(I) r/w 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012.

Briefly, the facts of the case are that the respondent/accused was a driver of vehicle belonging to the Vaagdevi Junior College, Pallakurthy. The victim girl/P.W.1 used to go to the college and return in the vehicle driven by the respondent/accused. During July-August, 2014, the respondent/accused stated that he was loving P.W.1/victim girl and would marry. However, she refused the said proposal. In the month of September, P.W.1 accepted the love proposal and the respondent/accused used to talk to her over phone and met him regularly. In the month of October, 2014, one day, the respondent/accused asked P.W.1 to come to the agricultural well in the evening, accordingly, P.W.1 went to the said agricultural well at the outskirts of the village at 7.00 p.m. Thereafter, P.W.1 was constantly in touch with the respondent.

On 20.09.2015, the respondent/accused informed P.W.1 that he would marry another girl, however, P.W.1 questioned the respondent/accused about the marriage, then the respondent/accused replied that he was joking and there is no such marriage proposal. Thereafter, P.W.1 questioned as to why he had sexual intercourse with her, then the respondent/accused replied that it was to satisfy his desire. On 05.01.2016, at about 4.30 p.m, while P.W.1 was returning from college, she asked the respondent/accused to marry her, then the respondent/accused abused her in the name of caste that she belong to ‘Lambada’, for the said reason, she lodged complaint Ex.P1 on 07.01.2016. Thereafter, P.W.1 also gave Section 164 Cr.P.C statement before the Judicial First Class Magistrate. On 28.01.2016 in the presence of both parents and elders, her marriage with the respondent/accused was celebrated at Burgula Venkateshwara Swamy Temple and thereafter she was taken to her matrimonial house. However, the parents of the respondent/accused did not accept P.W.1 as their daughter-in-law. Both P.W.1 and respondent/accused cohabited 14 days. The brother of the respondent/accused, sister-in-law and mother-in-law of P.W.1 asked her to leave the house, for the said reason, there was an altercation and the respondent/accused beat P.W.1 with a bucket. However, while leading marital life, P.W.1 conceived. When she was 1 ½ month’s pregnancy, she was taken to the hospital and without her knowledge, it is alleged that her pregnancy was aborted. Due to the acts of the respondent/accused and his family members, on account of differences, they went to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who advised the respondent/accused and his family members not to harass P.W.1. On 09.04.2016, the respondent/accused and his mother beat P.W.1 severely on the chest and back of the waist, for which reason, P.W.1 was injured and treated in Government Hospital, Palakurthy.

Learned Sessions Judge, after considering the entire evidence on record i.e., witnesses P.Ws.1 to 21 and Exs.P1 to P19, came to the conclusion that the respondent/accused is not guilty of the charges framed under Sections 417, 420, 376(2)(n) of IPC and Section 5(I) r/w 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor referring to the record submits that P.W.1, who is victim, has categorically stated that she was subjected to rape and for the said reason, the finding that the prosecution case is not proved and consequent acquittal has to be reversed.

The main reasons for recording the acquittal by the Sessions Judge are as follows; i) Section 161 statement indicates the age of P.W.1 as 19 years and the certificate Ex.P6, though it reflects the date of birth as 22.06.1997, the same is informed by the parents and is not reliable; ii) P.W.1 had specifically stated before Mandal Legal Services Authority that she lead marital life for 20 days and thereafter, she was beaten by the respondent/accused and his family members, however, there is no evidence i.e., either medical or oral to corroborate such allegation of beating; iii) P.Ws.13, the Doctor’s evidence and the medical examination report Exs.P10 to 12 did not support any allegation of rape; iv) The version stated during P.W.1’s cross examination before the police is totally contradicted by her in the chief examination before the Court and further the entire chief examination is an omission as elicited during cross-examination.

As seen from the record, it is apparent that P.W.1 on her own showing married the respondent/accused and lead marital life for some time and in the said circumstances, when the age of P.W.1 was not proved to be under 18 years of age and admittedly, she had married and lead marital life for some time, which was specifically stated by P.W.1. The offence of cheating or rape does not arise further in the background of there being no acceptable evidence that P.W.1 was aged below 18 years, it cannot be accepted that the respondent/accused has committed any offence under the POCSO Act, 2012. In fact, as seen from the chief examination and cross-examination of P.W.1, she herself had stated regarding their love affair, subsequent marriage and also leading marital life. Any marital discord or disputes arising subsequent to marriage will not attract an offence under Sections 417, 420 or 376 of IPC.

In view of above facts and circumstances, there are no valid grounds to interfere with the order of acquittal recorded by the Sessions Judge and the appeal filed by the State fails and accordingly, the same is dismissed.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stand closed.