JUDGMENT : C. Praveen Kumar, J. Heard Sri Challa Ajay Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant and Sri Soora Venkat Sainath, Assistant Public Prosecutor, through Blue Jeans video conferencing APP. 1. The sole accused in Sessions Case No. 329 of 2012 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Vijayawada, filed the present appeal challenging his conviction and sentence imposed therein. 2. The appellant herein was charged for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 376 and 420 I.P.C. By its judgment dated 12.01.2015 the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 376 I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to, pay a fine of 5,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. He was also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 417 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for two weeks. He was also found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 411 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for two weeks. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. The gravamen of the charge against the accused is that he induced Mulagada Venkata Lakshmi since a year prior to the offence and in the month of June, 2012, he is, alleged to have had sexual intercourse with her at Bhavani Island. 4. The case of the prosecution as culled out from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is as under: i. P.Ws. 2 and 3 are the parents of P.W. 1, who is the victim. P.W. 4 is the aunt of P.W. 1 and P.W. 5 is a tenant of P.W. 3, P.W. 6 is the wife of the accused. Suppressing the fact that the accused was a married person, he is said to have followed P.W. 1, promising to marry her. At that time, P.W. 1 was studying B.Sc. (Nursing) 2nd year at Pinnamaneni Sidhartha Medical Science College at Gannavaram. The accused and P.W. 1 were residents of Khuddus Nagar, Vijayawada. It is said that the accused followed P.W. 1 in the name of love and threatened to commit suicide if she does not love him. At that time, P.W. 1 was studying B.Sc. (Nursing) 2nd year at Pinnamaneni Sidhartha Medical Science College at Gannavaram. The accused and P.W. 1 were residents of Khuddus Nagar, Vijayawada. It is said that the accused followed P.W. 1 in the name of love and threatened to commit suicide if she does not love him. On his persuasion, P.W. 1 accepted his request, which was not to the knowledge of her parents. On a promise made that he would marry her, the accused took her to parks and Bhavani Island. It is said under the guise of marriage he had sexual intercourse with her and enjoyed her physically and mentally. On 09.10.2011 due to fear of pregnancy, P.W. 1 informed her love affair to her parents. Thereafter, her parents called the accused to their house and discussed about their love affair. At that time, the accused informed them that his parents are not accepting his request and insisted for performing his marriage with P.W. 1, without the knowledge of his parents. However, the parents of P.W. 1 went to the house of the accused, where they came to know that he was already married having two children. Accordingly, on 09.10.2011, they went to the Police Station and lodged a report. The evidence on record show that even prior to 09.10.2011, the accused has taken one gold chain and a cell phone from P.W. 1, as he had no money. ii. Basing on the report lodged by P.W. 1, the S.I. of Police [P.W. 11] registered a case in crime No. 586 of 2011 for the offence punishable under Sections 420 and 403 I.P.C. Ex. P11 is the F.I.R. He examined P.Ws. 1 to 3 at the Police Station and recorded their statements. Thereafter, he visited the house of P.W. 1 and examined P.Ws. 4 and 5. He made efforts to secure the accused, but, he was not available. On 12.10.2011 at about 10.45 a.m. P.W. 1 again went to the Police Station and presented a report, basing on which he altered the section of law to Sections 376, 417 and 406 I.P.C. Ex. P12 is the altered memo. The first report dated 09.10.2011 is placed on record as Ex. P1, while the second report is marked as Ex. P2. iii. P.W. 12, Inspector of Police, took up further investigation. P12 is the altered memo. The first report dated 09.10.2011 is placed on record as Ex. P1, while the second report is marked as Ex. P2. iii. P.W. 12, Inspector of Police, took up further investigation. He secured P.W. 1, recorded her statement and sent her to Government Hospital, Vijayawada for examination. He then visited the house of P.W. 1, examined P.Ws. 2 to 5 and once again recorded their statements. On the same day he secured the mediators, namely, P.Ws. 7 and 8 and proceeded to the house of the accused and apprehended him. The accused is alleged to have confessed about the commission of offence and handed over the cell phone and gold chain of P.W. 1 which were taken by him from the victim. The same were seized under a panchanama. iv. P.W. 9, who was working as Associate Professor in Sidhartha Medical College, examined P.W. 1 on 12.10.2011 at 5.00 p.m. and found an old hymen tears at 3, 6, 9 clock position. He also noticed small perpetual introduce cervix healthy, uterus ante verted, normal in size, mobile and fronces were free. Ex. P7 is the wound certificate of P.W. 1. v. On 13.10.2011, P.W. 10, who was working as Professor, HOD in Forensic Medicine, Sidhartha Medical College, Vijayawada, on a requisition received from Inspector of Police, conducted potency test of the accused. According to him, there is nothing to suggest that the accused is incapable of sexual intercourse. Ex. P10 is the potency report of the accused. vi. After collecting all the medical certificates, RFSL report, P.W. 12 filed the charge-sheet on 18.02.2012, which was taken on file as P.R.C. No. 17 of 2012 on the file of the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Vijayawada. 5. On appearance of the accused, copies of the documents as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C., were furnished and since the case is triable by a Sessions Court, the same was committed to the Court of sessions under Section 209 Cr.P.C. On appearance of the accused, charges, as referred to above, came to be framed, read over and explained to the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 12 and got marked Exs. P1 to P14, besides marking of M.Os. 1 and 2. 6. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 12 and got marked Exs. P1 to P14, besides marking of M.Os. 1 and 2. Out of the 12 witnesses examined by the prosecution, P.Ws. 2, 6, 7 and 8 did not support the prosecution case and they were treated hostile by the prosecution. After completing the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, to which he denied. However, no defence evidence was adduced. 7. Relying upon the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 3, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused. Challenging the same, the present appeal came to be filed. 8. Sri Challa Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant, mainly submits that though P.W. 1 in her evidence deposed many things, but the two reports given at the earliest point of time are inconsistent with each other. According to him, the first report, which was given on 09.10.2011, is bereft of any allegation of sexual intercourse or they going and spending time in parks. While the second report, given by her on 12.10.2011, contains issues, which never formed part of the first report. In view of the above, he submits that two inconsistent reports are sufficient to show how the evidence of P.W. 1 is false, unreliable and made to improve her case. Though the medical report show signs of sexual intercourse, but they are all old marks, which are not traceable to the incident in question. Even otherwise, he submits that the accused never refused to marry and the report came to be lodged when the parents of the accused expressed their displeasure. 9. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the same, contending that there are no reasons to disbelieve the evidence of P.W. 1. According to him, when the evidence of P.W. 1 inspires confidence, the same can be made the basis to convict the accused. He further submits that when the accused induced the victim on a false promise and cohabited with her by making her believe that he would many her, the said act amounts to an offence of rape. In other words, he would submit that as the consent was obtained by deceit, which was there from inception, the same amounts to rape. He further submits that when the accused induced the victim on a false promise and cohabited with her by making her believe that he would many her, the said act amounts to an offence of rape. In other words, he would submit that as the consent was obtained by deceit, which was there from inception, the same amounts to rape. He further submits, the second report given on 12th can be taken as 161 Cr.P.C. statement instead of treating it as F.I.R., as the variation therein do not go to the root of the matter. 10. The point that arises for consideration is, whether the prosecution was able to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 411 and 417 of I.P.C.? 11. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to refer to few judgments to show as to when and under what circumstance ingredients, constituting offences under Section 376 and 417 IPC are made out. In Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra (2019) 18 SCC 191 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 20 has observed that, there is a clear distinction between rape and consensual sex. The court, in such cases, must very carefully examine whether the complainant had actually wanted to marry the victim or had mala fide motives and had made a false promise to this effect only to satisfy his lust, as the later falls within the ambit of cheating or deception, Court observed and held as under:- '20. Thus, there is a clear distinction between rape and consensual sex. The court, in such cases, must very carefully examine whether the complainant had actually wanted to marry the victim or had mala fide motives and had made a false promise to this effect only to satisfy his lust, as the later falls within the ambit of cheating or deception. There is also a distinction between mere breach of a promise and not fulfilling a false promise. If the accused has not made the promise with the sole intention to seduce the prosecutrix to indulge in sexual acts, such an act would not amount to rape. There is also a distinction between mere breach of a promise and not fulfilling a false promise. If the accused has not made the promise with the sole intention to seduce the prosecutrix to indulge in sexual acts, such an act would not amount to rape. There may be a case where the prosecutrix agrees to have sexual intercourse on account of her love and passion for the accused and not solely on account of the misconception created by accused, or where an accused, on account of circumstances which he could not have foreseen or which were beyond his control, was unable to marry her despite having every intention to do. Such cases must be treated differently. If the complainant had any mala fide intention and if he had clandestine motives, it is a clear case of rape. The acknowledged consensual physical relationship between the parties would not constitute an offence under Section 376 of the IPC.' 12. In Anurag Soni v. State of Chhattisgarh 2019 (2) ALT (Crl.) 211 (SC) : (2019) 13 SCC 1 , the Hon'ble Apex Court, after examining catena of decisions, summed up the required conditions to be proved in the case of false promise of marriage as follows:- '12. The sum and substance of the aforesaid decisions would be that if it is established and proved that from the inception the Accused who gave the promise to the prosecutrix to marry, did not have any intention to marry and the prosecutrix gave the consent for sexual intercourse on such an assurance by the Accused that he would marry her, such a consent can be said to be a consent obtained on a misconception of fact as per Section 90 of the Indian Penal Code and, in such a case, such a consent would not excuse the offender and such an offender can be said to have committed the rape as defined Under Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code and can be convicted for the offence Under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.' 13. In Pramod Suryaban Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (2019) 9 SCC 608 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:- '18. To summarise the legal position that emerges from the above cases, the "consent" of a woman with respect to Section 375 must involve an active and reasoned deliberation towards the proposed act. In Pramod Suryaban Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (2019) 9 SCC 608 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:- '18. To summarise the legal position that emerges from the above cases, the "consent" of a woman with respect to Section 375 must involve an active and reasoned deliberation towards the proposed act. To establish whether the "consent" was vitiated by a "misconception of fact" arising out of a promise to marry, two propositions must be established. The promise of marriage must have been a false promise, given in bad faith and with no intention of being adhered to at the time it was given. The false promise itself must be of immediate relevance, or bear a direct nexus to the woman's decision to engage in the sexual act.' 14. In Maheswar Tigga v. the 'State of Jharkhand (2020) 10 SCC 108 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court, by following the earlier decision of the supreme court, held that it does amounts to rape on the false promise of marriage from the very inception and also it does not amounts to rape where there are difference of caste or religious beliefs which makes the marriage impossible and the victim also had the knowledge of the impossibility of performance of the marriage and the same leads to the acquittal of the accused. The relevant portion is reproduced hereunder: '13. The question for our consideration is whether the prosecutrix consented to the physical relationship under any misconception of fact with regard to the promise of marriage by the appellant or was her consent based on a fraudulent misrepresentation of marriage which the appellant never intended to keep since the very inception of the relationship. If we reach the conclusion that he intentionally made a fraudulent misrepresentation from the very inception and the prosecutrix gave her consent on a misconception of fact, the offence of rape under Section 375 IPC is clearly made out. It is not possible to hold in the nature of evidence on record that the appellant obtained her consent at the inception by putting her under any fear. Under Section 90 IPC a consent given under fear of injury is not a consent in the eyes of law. It is not possible to hold in the nature of evidence on record that the appellant obtained her consent at the inception by putting her under any fear. Under Section 90 IPC a consent given under fear of injury is not a consent in the eyes of law. In the facts of the present case we are not persuaded to accept the solitary statement of the prosecutrix that at the time of the first alleged offence her consent was obtained under fear of injury. 18. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the facts and circumstances of the present case and are of the considered opinion that the appellant did not make any false promise or intentional misrepresentation of marriage leading to establishment of physical relationship between the parties. The prosecutrix was herself aware of the obstacles in their relationship because of different religious beliefs. An engagement ceremony was also held in the solemn belief that the societal obstacles would be overcome, but unfortunately differences also arose whether the marriage was to solemnised in the Church or in a Temple and ultimately failed. It is not possible to hold on the evidence available that the appellant right from the inception did not intend to marry the prosecutrix ever and had fraudulently misrepresented only in order to establish physical relation with her. The prosecutrix, in her letters acknowledged that the appellant's family was always very nice to her.' 15. From the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, referred to above, it is very clear that in cases of this nature the accused should make a false promise or intentional misrepresentation of marriage leading to establishment of physical relationship between the parties. The promise of marriage must be a false one, made in bad faith and with no intention to adhere to at the time it was given. As held in Pramod Suryaban Pawarcase [supra], "false promise must be of immediate relevance, or bear a direct nexus to the woman's decision to engage in the sexual act". The knowledge of impossibility of performance of marriage shall also be one of the considerations to be taken into consideration for coming to a conclusion as to whether an offence of rape is, made out. [Maheswar Tigga case [supra]. 16. P.W. 1 set the law into motion by lodging a report on 09.10.2011. The knowledge of impossibility of performance of marriage shall also be one of the considerations to be taken into consideration for coming to a conclusion as to whether an offence of rape is, made out. [Maheswar Tigga case [supra]. 16. P.W. 1 set the law into motion by lodging a report on 09.10.2011. Before dealing with her evidence, it would be just and proper to refer to the contents of the report lodged by her on 09.10.2011. A reading of the said report lodged on 09.10.2011 would show that she was studying 2nd year B.Sc. course in Pinnamaneni Sidhartha Medical Science College, Gannavaram. Since last one year, one person, by name, Satish, was following her saying that he is in love with her and that if she fails to love him, he would commit suicide by falling under a running lorry and used to threaten her by standing in-front of a lorry. Believing his deceitful words, P.W. 1 fell in love with him. She is said to have told her parents about the love affair and expressed her intention to marry him. Her father asked her to bring the elders of the said Satish, but he seems to have told that his parents are not accepting their marriage and asked P.W. 2 to perform their marriage elsewhere. Enquiries came to be made by the parents of the victim girl on 09.10.2011 itself, which revealed that he is a married person having two children and that he is in a habit of following ladies by projecting himself as an unmarried person. It is also alleged in the first information report lodged on 09.10.2011, that the accused took a gold chain and Reliance Cell Phone from P.W. 1, apart from taking photographs. 17. One fact, which requires to be noted is that in the report lodged on 09.10.2011, there is no reference to any cohabitation or accused having sexual intercourse or intercourse by deceit. It only speaks about accused threatening to commit suicide if the victim fails to love him. Improvements in the case of P.W. 1 came to be made in the second report lodged on 12.10.2011, which was marked as Ex. P2, wherein she narrates about cohabitation and sexual acts in Bhavani Islands, which I shall discuss a little later. 18. While giving evidence in court, P.W. 1 deposed that while she was studying B.Sc. Improvements in the case of P.W. 1 came to be made in the second report lodged on 12.10.2011, which was marked as Ex. P2, wherein she narrates about cohabitation and sexual acts in Bhavani Islands, which I shall discuss a little later. 18. While giving evidence in court, P.W. 1 deposed that while she was studying B.Sc. 2nd year course at Pinnamaneni Siddhartha Medical Science College at Gannavaram, the accused used to follow her in the name of love and threatened to commit suicide if she does not accept his love. Thereafter, she accepted his love which was not to the knowledge of her parents. It is further deposed by her that under the promise of marriage, the accused took her to parks and Bhavani Island and under the guise of marriage had sexual intercourse with her and enjoyed her physically and mentally. Due to fear of pregnancy, she informed the love affair between her and the accused to her parents on 09.10.2011. Thereafter, her parents called the accused and discussed about the love affair, who informed that his parents are not accepting his love affair and requested the parents of P.W. 1 to perform their marriage Without the knowledge of his parents. According to P.W. 1, her parents went to the house of the accused, made enquiries about the accused and came to know that he is a married person having two children. Accordingly, on 09.10.2011, they went to the Police Station and lodged a report against the accused. 19. At this stage, it is also to be noted that, though, P.W. 1 claims to have informed about she moving along with accused and also participated in sexual acts with the accused on a belief that he will marry her, but the same does not find place in the first information report lodged by her on 09.10.2011. It is not as if she was an uneducated girl or was afraid to disclose about the incident. When she has disclosed about her affair in the first report, nothing prevented her to mention about the same in the said report. In fact, her father accompanied her to the police station on the first day itself. 20. P.W. 1 was subjected to lengthy cross-examination. When she has disclosed about her affair in the first report, nothing prevented her to mention about the same in the said report. In fact, her father accompanied her to the police station on the first day itself. 20. P.W. 1 was subjected to lengthy cross-examination. In the cross-examination, it has been elicited that on 09.10.2011 she and her family members went to the police station and after lodging the report, police examined her and her father on 09.10.2011. She further admits that, she has not mentioned the contents of Ex. P2 in the contents of Ex. P1. To a suggestion that accused has not taken the cell phone and gold chain from her, was denied by her. She further admits that she did not mention in Ex. P2 that due to fear of pregnancy she gave second report, though in the chief-examination, she deposed about having sexual intercourse in Bhavani Island. She also admits that in Bhavani Island, people were moving freely and when she raised cries, accused informed that they both are going to marry. She further admits that, she did not inform anything to the Security Guards at Bhavani Island about accused committing rape on her. She further admits that she has not given any report against the accused immediately after the incident. She further admits that she has not specifically mentioned the date when the accused had sexual intercourse with her under the guise of marriage. It would be relevant to extract the same, which reads as under: "In Bhavani Mand public were moving. I raised cries and accused informed me that we both are going to be marry. I have not informed anything against to the Security Guard of Bhavan I-land that the accused committed rape on me. Immediately after the incident I have not given any report against the accused. It is true I have not specifically mentioned the date when the accused had sexual intercourse with me under the guise of marriage." 21. At this stage, it would be appropriate to refer to the defense of the accused. According to him, the victim [P.W. 1] was having an affair with one Vinay and she used to go to parks and spend some time in hotel rooms along with Vinay. At this stage, it would be appropriate to refer to the defense of the accused. According to him, the victim [P.W. 1] was having an affair with one Vinay and she used to go to parks and spend some time in hotel rooms along with Vinay. The same was informed by P.W. 6 [wife of the accused] to the parents of P.W. 1 as they were having acquaintance since long time and that the father of P.W. 1 took a hand loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- from the father of the accused. The suggestions go to show that with a view to avoid payment of money, this false case is foisted against the accused. The record also shows P.W. 1 lodged two more cases against the accused, as the wife of accused refused the proposal of P.W. 1 vide Crime No. 245/2012 and Crime No. 419/2013. Of course, copies of those reports are not made available on record. But, however, P.W. 1 admits in the cross-examination that the wife of the accused lodged a report against P.W. 1 and others, which lead to registration of a crime against them and in the said case, the police have arrested the father of P.W. 1 and kept him in jail. 22. A reading of the evidence in chief of P.W. 1 coupled with relevant portion of cross-examination, makes it clear that P.W. 1 had been in love with accused since a year prior to lodging of the report. Her evidence is silent as to when and at what point and in what month or in which year both of them went to Bhavani Island, took a room and had sexual intercourse. 23. Further, when the cohabitation was in a room in Bhavani Islands, the investigating agency ought to have made some effort to find out the details from the hotel where both of them stayed together. The reason why much stress is being laid on cohabitation is that, to constitute an offence, not only the promise must be false and given in bad faith, but the false promise must have immediate relevance and bear a direct nexus to a women's decision to engage in sexual act. 24. The issue is whether there was any sexual act with the accused? In a given case, the evidence of the victim girl can be believed to connect the accused with the act of cohabitation. 24. The issue is whether there was any sexual act with the accused? In a given case, the evidence of the victim girl can be believed to connect the accused with the act of cohabitation. But, in the instant case, the first information report lodged by her is silent with regard to cohabitation and three days later another report came to be lodged improving the version stating that they had a sexual intercourse in Bhavani Island. Definitely, the said act cannot be in an open place and it has to be in a closed room. Since, these hotels in Bhavani Island are owned by Government, the investigating authorities ought to have made some effort to find out the truth in the statement of P.W. 1, moreso, having regard to the medical evidence on record, which I will refer to later. In fact, P.W. 12 - the investigation officer in his cross-examination admits that, no effort was made to seize the register and records from Bhavani Island, to show that accused and informant took a room in Bhavani Island. He further admits that he has not examined any Security Guard or Manager of the said lodge or the boat driver to prove the allegations made against the accused. It would be appropriate to refer the same, which is as under:- "It is true I have not examined any of the witnesses who witnessed the accused taken the victim to the parks. It is true I have not seized any register or record from Bhavani I-Land to show the accused and defacto complainant had taken a room at Bhavani I-Land. It is true I have not examined any of the witnesses at Bhavani I-land i.e., security guard or Manger of the said lodge and boat driver." 25. Further, to test the veracity of P.W. 1, with regard to cohabitation or sexual act, it would be appropriate to refer to the evidence of the doctor who examined her. 26. P.W. 9 - Associate Professor, Sidhartha Medical College, examined P.W. 1 on 12.10.2011 at 5.00 p.m. Her evidence show that there was old hymen tears at 3, 6, 9, clock position, small perpetual introduce cervix healthy, uterus ante verted normal in size, mobile and fronces were free. He collected vaginal swab, cervical swab and smear and thereafter referred P.W. 1 for examination of STD and also for blood examination. He collected vaginal swab, cervical swab and smear and thereafter referred P.W. 1 for examination of STD and also for blood examination. The original accident register of P.W. 1 show that a urine test was done to detect pregnancy, but it was negative. The RFSL report, which is placed on record also does not indicate blood on item No. 1 to 3 and spermatozoa were also not detected on the said items. 27. Be that as it may, it is to be noticed that P.W. 1 in her evidence-in-chief categorically deposed that she gave a second report to the police on 12.10.2011 at 6.30 p.m., which is marked as Ex. P2. In the said report, she narrates about the deceit and participation in sexual acts, on a promise made by accused to marry her. But the same appears to be incorrect for the reason that, if really the report was given at 6.30 p.m., as stated by P.W. 1, the doctor could not have examined her on 12.10.2011 at 5.00 p.m. as P.W. 1 in her evidence categorically deposed that she was sent to doctor for medical examination on 13.10.2011. Apart from that, P.W. 11 the Sub-Inspector of Police, who registered the crime deposed that the second report was lodged on 12.10.2011 at 10.45 a.m. and pursuant thereafter, P.W. 12 took up investigation, which is again contrary to the evidence of P.W. 1, who categorically states that the second report was lodged at 6.30 p.m., on 12.10.2011. Therefore, the second report which has been lodged or the second information which has been furnished in the form of a report has to be viewed with some suspicion along with the contents therein, more so when it came to be given after a report is lodged by P.W. 6 against P.W. 1, which is evident from the evidence of P.W. 2. 28. P.W. 2 is the mother of P.W. 1, who in her evidence-in-chief deposed about her daughter informing her love affair with one Satish and their enquiries disclosing that the said person is married person having two children and also about lodging of the report. At that stage, P.W. 2 was declared hostile by the prosecution and thereafter cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor. In the cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor, it has been elicited that only after enquiring about the accused, a report came to be lodged on 09.10.2011. At that stage, P.W. 2 was declared hostile by the prosecution and thereafter cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor. In the cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor, it has been elicited that only after enquiring about the accused, a report came to be lodged on 09.10.2011. It was further elicited that on 12.10.2011 they came to know through their daughter that accused under threat obtained her consent and, thereafter, with a promise to marry her had sexual intercourse against her will for three times at Bhavani Island. She further admits that due to fear of pregnancy, her daughter informed the same to them and again they went to police station and lodged a report to take further action against him. From the answers elicited in the cross-examination, it shows that a second report came to be lodged on 12.10.2011 on the basis of information furnished by her daughter about having sexual intercourse with accused for three times at Bhavani Island, under inducement/threat of marriage. 29. The accused also cross-examined P.W. 2. In the cross-examination, it has been elicited that P.W. 5 - P. Nagaraju is the tenant of P.W. 2, and that she has not given any receipt to show that articles M.O. 1 and M.O. 2 belong to her daughter. To a specific question as to whether P.W. 1 informed her about accused having sexual intercourse three times or at a time or different times, she answered it as different times. The suggestion given to P.W. 2 that P.W. 6 informed to P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 that P.W. 1 informed P.W. 6 about her love with one Vinay and visiting parks and hotels, was denied by her, P.W. 2 also denied the suggestion that taking advantage of the incident they foisted a false case against the accused, with an intention to avoid loan payment. However, P.W. 2 admits that her daughter gave two reports against the accused, apart from this ease. To a suggestion that she along with P.W. 1 and P.W. 3 went to the house of P.W. 6 in the absence of accused and beat her was denied. But, however, admits that on the basis of a report given by P.W. 6, police arrested them and the case is pending in the court. She further admits that the police examined her two or three days after lodging of second report. 30. But, however, admits that on the basis of a report given by P.W. 6, police arrested them and the case is pending in the court. She further admits that the police examined her two or three days after lodging of second report. 30. This evidence of P.W. 2 is relevant for more than one reason. Firstly, she being a mother does not depose about any sexual intercourse with the accused or they going to Bhavani Island, though P.W. 1 claims to have informed her. The Public Prosecutor in the cross-examination tries to elicit the same after declaring the witness hostile. In the cross-examination by the accused, it has been categorically elicited that P.W. 5 is their tenant and that two more reports were lodged by P.W. 1 against the accused. She also admits about P.W. 6 lodging a report against them and police arresting them in the said case. But, however, all the suggestions given with regard to acquaintance with P.W. 6 and their family; the loan taken from father of P.W. 6 by P.W. 3, were denied by P.W. 2. 31. The evidence of P.W. 3, who is the father of P.W. 1 toes in line with the evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 on all material aspects. Hence, it may not be necessary to refer to the evidence of P.W. 3. The evidence referred to above show that second report came to be lodged after a report is given by P.W. 6 against P.W. 2 and P.W. 3. 32. The next question would be whether the Accused was a known person to P.W. 1 to P.W. 3? 33. As seen from the evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 3, the antecedents of the accused came to be enquired within no time. P.W. 1 in her evidence claims to have informed about the affair with the accused on 09.10.2011 and immediately, thereafter, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 enquired about the accused and by 12.00 noon a FIR came to be registered against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 420 and 403 I.P.C. That being so, the accused must be a person either known to them or living in the nearby area. Suggestions came to be made to P.W. 1 to P.W. 3 that the house of the accused is next to the house of P.W. 2, but the same was denied. Suggestions came to be made to P.W. 1 to P.W. 3 that the house of the accused is next to the house of P.W. 2, but the same was denied. However, P.W. 2 admits that the accused is residing one line after their house. The same is as under: "Witness adds that the accused is residing after one line of my house." 34. P.W. 11 The investigation officer, who registered the two crimes, admits in the cross-examination that the house of the accused and the house of the informant are situated side by side. He further admits that he does not know that the accused and informant are relatives. He again says that he does not know whether defacto-complainant and the accused are residing side-by-side since long time. To a question by the court, namely, as to the basis for him to state before the court that the house of accused is adjacent to the house of the victim, he says that he has no record to say that the accused and defacto-complainant are residing side-by-side. 35. He was not declared hostile by the prosecution. From the answers elicited in the cross-examination of the Investigation Officer, it is very clear that the house of the informant and the house of the accused are side by side. In view of the evidence of P.W. 1, P.W. 3 and P.W. 11, two circumstances emerge, (1) P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 verified the antecedents of the accused within no time and (2) their houses are nearby/side-by-side, which indicate that the family of P.W. 1 to P.W. 3 know the accused and that he was not a stranger. 36. Further, immediately after P.W. 1 disclosed about her affair with the accused to P.W. 2 and P.W. 3, they straight away went to the house of the accused. Unless he is a known person, it is difficult to trace out the house immediately. It is not the case of P.W. 1 that she disclosed the address of the accused to P.W. 2 and P.W. 3. Further, as held earlier, an incident took place at the house of the accused, pursuant to which P.W. 6 lodged a report against P.W. 2 and P.W. 3. Immediately, after this incident, they have changed the version and a second report came to be lodged stating that the accused indulged in act: of sexual intercourse promising to marry P.W. 1. Further, as held earlier, an incident took place at the house of the accused, pursuant to which P.W. 6 lodged a report against P.W. 2 and P.W. 3. Immediately, after this incident, they have changed the version and a second report came to be lodged stating that the accused indulged in act: of sexual intercourse promising to marry P.W. 1. This is a counterblast to the report lodged by P.W. 6 against P.W. 2 and P.W. 3. All these circumstances show that, P.W. 1 to P.W. 3 knew the accused and it cannot be said that she would have moved with him without knowing about him. 37. It is one of the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent till he is proved to be guilty. It is equally well settled that suspicion howsoever strong can never take the place of proof. There is indeed a long distance between accused 'may have committed the offence' and 'must have committed the - offence' which must be traversed by the prosecution by adducing reliable and cogent evidence. Presumption of innocence has been recognised as a human right which cannot be wished away. [Kailash Gour and others v. State of Assam (5) 2012 (3) ALT (Crl.) 28 (SC) : AIR 2012 SC 786 ]. 38. Further, ingredients constituting an offence under Section 411 I.P.C. are also not made out. The articles of P.W. 1 found with the accused are not stolen properties but were retained by him to the knowledge of P.W. 1. Therefore, possessing them may not amount to an offence under Section 411 I.P.C. 39. Having regard to above, I feel that the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are not proved beyond reasonable doubt. May be P.W. 1 must have moved with the accused and the accused had forced her to love with him, but the act of sexual intercourse even assuming it to be there, in my view, is not by deceit. Thus, considering the judgments referred to above and in the absence of any cogent and convincing evidence to that effect, I am inclined to acquit the appellant on all counts, extending benefit of doubt. 40. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. Thus, considering the judgments referred to above and in the absence of any cogent and convincing evidence to that effect, I am inclined to acquit the appellant on all counts, extending benefit of doubt. 40. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant/accused in the Judgment, dated 12.01.2015 in Sessions Case No. 329 of 2012 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Vijayawada, for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 417 and 411 I.P.C., are set aside and he is acquitted for the said offences. Consequently, the appellant/accused shall be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other case or crime. The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant shall be refunded to him.