ORDER : 1. Assailing the Judgment, dated 15.11.2010 in Criminal Appeal No. 174 of 2010 on the file of the Court of learned-V Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), East Godavari, at Rajahmundry, confirming the conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner/accused No. 1 by Judgment, dated 07.05.2010 in C.C. No. 1320of 2008 on the file of the Court of learned VII Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajahmundry, for the offence under section 420 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) the petitioner/accused No. 1 filed the present criminal revision case under Section 397 read with 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. 2. The revision case was admitted on 19.04.2020 and the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the petitioner was suspended, vide orders in Crl. R.C.M.P. No. 3161 of 2010. 3. The shorn of necessary facts are that: (i) PW1 (Varadhi Hymavathi) is resident of Vadapeta, Sunnambatti Veedhi, Dowleswaram and all the accused are residents of same locality. Since 7 years, PW1 and Accused No. 1 were in love with each other and believing the words of Accused No. 1 that he would marry PW1, she cohabitated with Accused No. 1 many a times and whenever PW1 asked the Accused No. 1 for marriage, he postponed saying that he would marry her after his brother’s marriage was performed and later when the parents of PW1 came to know about their affair and put the matter before elders, Accused Nos. 1 to 6 demanded Rs.50,000/- as dowry for performing the marriage of PW1 with Accused No. 1. When the parents of PW1 expressed their inability to give dowry as demanded by the accused, the Accused No. 1 refused to marry PW1. Vexed with the behavior of Accused No. 1, on 24.09.2007, PW1 attempted to commit suicide by consuming ants poison, however, she was rescued by admitting in hospital. (ii) After discharge from the hospital, again mediation was held before elders on 07.10.2007, near Jalaripeta Ramalayam, where Accused Nos. 1 to 6 demanded Rs.50,000/- as dowry. As the family of the accused did not change their attitude and Accused No. 1 stubbornly refused to marry PW1, she gave a complaint to police. Based on the report of PW1, PW7-ASI registered the crime and took up investigation. 1 to 6 demanded Rs.50,000/- as dowry. As the family of the accused did not change their attitude and Accused No. 1 stubbornly refused to marry PW1, she gave a complaint to police. Based on the report of PW1, PW7-ASI registered the crime and took up investigation. (iii) During the course of investigation, PW7 visited the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch, recorded the statements of witnesses and on 16.10.2007 arrested the Accused No. 1 at his house and remanded him in judicial custody. Thereafter, on receipt of medical certificate, charge sheet was filed. 4. After completion of investigation, on receipt of medical certificate of PW1, Sub-Inspector of Police, Dowlaiswaram Police Station, filed charge sheet and the same was numbered as C.C. No. 1320 of 2008 on the file of the Court of learned VII Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajahmundry and trial was conducted and found the Accused No. 1 guilty of the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC and he is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of ONE year with benefit under Section 428 Cr.P.C. Whereas, it is found that Accused Nos. 2 to 6 are not found guilty for the offences under Sections 417 and 420 IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and they are acquitted for the same under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. 5. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/Accused No. 1 preferred an appeal, vide Crl. A. No. 174 of 2010 on the file of the learned V Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), East Godavari, at Rajahmundry and the same was dismissed, vide judgment, dated 15.11.2010, by confirming the conviction and sentence dated 07.05.2010 passed against the Appellant/Accused No. 1 by the trail Court for the offence under Section 420 IPC. 6. Against the said judgment of the first Appellate Court, the present Criminal Revision Case was preferred by the petitioner/Accused No. 1. 7. Heard Sri Y. Sudhakar, learned counsel for the petitioner/Accused No. 1 and Sri S. Dheera Kanishk, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. 8. Now the point that arises for determination in this revision is “whether there is any manifest error of law or flagrant miscarriage of justice in the findings recorded by the first Appellate Court?” 9. 7. Heard Sri Y. Sudhakar, learned counsel for the petitioner/Accused No. 1 and Sri S. Dheera Kanishk, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. 8. Now the point that arises for determination in this revision is “whether there is any manifest error of law or flagrant miscarriage of justice in the findings recorded by the first Appellate Court?” 9. Sri Y. Sudhakar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court is erroneous and contrary to evidence on record and probabilities of the case. The witnesses examined by the prosecution are highly interested witnesses. The ingredients of Section 420 IPC do not attract against the petitioner since PW1 gave consent to the petitioner, and after such consent only, they cohabitated. It is not the case of the PW1 that the petitioner induced her, who is the victim, to consent for sexual intercourse with a promise to marry her and subsequently he refused to marry her. The trial Court as well the Sessions Court failed to appreciate the said fact in a proper perspective and erroneously convicted the petitioner and the same is liable to be set aside. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Zindar Ali S.K. vs. State of West Bengal and Another, (2009) 3 SCC 761 , wherein in Para “14” it was held as under: “14. We cannot, however, persuade ourselves to agree with the High Court about the offence of cheating. The evidence about the cheating is of slip-shod nature and not believable. It is also self-effacing. After all, the first act of the sexual intercourse was without the consent and the accused had thereby, committed rape, however, the version that he gave a marriage promise, would really go against the prosecution, whereby, it would mean that the subsequent acts were done with the consent of the girl on account of the promise of marriage. We do not think that such could be an approach. After all, if the promise of marriage was given and the girl had succumbed on that account, by itself, may not amount to cheating. Besides this, the girl has very specifically stated that even subsequently, she was ravished against her wishes. We do not think that such could be an approach. After all, if the promise of marriage was given and the girl had succumbed on that account, by itself, may not amount to cheating. Besides this, the girl has very specifically stated that even subsequently, she was ravished against her wishes. Therefore, the theory of promise of marriage and the consent for sexual intercourse will wither away. We, therefore, acquit the accused of the offence under Section 417 of IPC.” [Emphasis supplied] The learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on the decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Surapathi Laxmana Rao vs. State of A.P. 2004 (1) ALT (Crl) 25 (AP), wherein, at Para 11 it was held that: “11.........On close scrutiny of the evidence of PW-1, it can certainly be said that she consented for sexual intercourse with the petitioner/accused as she was deeply fell in love with him. It is the love which preceded their physical union and the love lasted for nearly three years. The Trial Court and the appellate Court have committed grave error in finding that that consent of PW-1 for sexual intercourse is obtained by way of inducement. When the consent of PW-1 who is the victim girl for sexual intercourse is not because of the petitioner/accused promising to marry her, it cannot be said that the petitioner/accused committed offence punishable under Section 417 of IPC. Since the trial Court and the appellate Court committed grave error in convicting the petitioner/accused for the offence under Section 417 of IPC it needs to be rectified by this Court in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction.” [Emphasis supplied] 10. Per contra, Sri S. Dheera Kanishk, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent submits that the petitioner made believe the PW1 that he will marry her and deceitfully induced her for fulfilling his lust desire. When PW1 asked to marry her, the accused demanded for dowry and subsequently the petitioner refused to marry her. The evidence of material witnesses is cogent and corroborating with the testimony of PW1 that she and Accused No. 1 had affair and refusal of Accused No. 1 in marrying PW1 unless dowry of Rs.50,000/- is paid. Settled legal position is that conviction can be based upon the sole testimony of the prosecutrix provided it is reliable and is of sterling quality. Settled legal position is that conviction can be based upon the sole testimony of the prosecutrix provided it is reliable and is of sterling quality. It is further submitted that the Trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence and convicted the Accused No. 1 for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC and the Appellate Court has also rightly come to a conclusion that the Accused No. 1 is found guilty of the offence and accordingly confirmed the conviction passed by the trial Court. 11. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and having examined the evidence on record, it is the case of the prosecution that the Accused No. 1 on the promise of marriage with the victim entered into physical relation with the victim and when the victim asked the accused No. 1 to marry her, he refused to marry. 12. As regards the evidence having come on record by way of testimony of PW1, it is relevant to note that she during her chief-examination admitted that after she gave consent to his love, the accused used to take her to his friend by name Rajesh’s house near Godavari and used to cohabitate with her and it was a vacant house. It is further stated that the petitioner cohabitated with her for about 6 months. Whenever she asked the petitioner about their marriage, he used to say that after the marriage of his elder brother, he would marry her. When her parents asked for marriage, the accused demanded dowry of Rs.50,000/- but her parents expressed their inability, and on 07.10.2007 mediation was held before elders and in spite of requesting the accused, they failed to heed to the words of her parents. It enraged her and after three days, she lodged Ex.P1 Report. During the course of cross-examination, PW1 stated that she knows A1 since June 2006 and prior to that she do not have any acquaintance with the accused. She admitted that she stated before the police as in Ex.D1, so also, in Ex.D2 that she knows A1 since 7 years. She denied suggestion that she know Accused No. 1 as he came to her house in June 2006 for seeking her (pellichupulu). She also admitted that she went to the house of Rajesh and the said area was busy with movement of people. She denied suggestion that she know Accused No. 1 as he came to her house in June 2006 for seeking her (pellichupulu). She also admitted that she went to the house of Rajesh and the said area was busy with movement of people. She does not know that there is possibility of neighbours seeing her and accused entering in the house of Rajesh. 13. PW2 who is father of PW1 deposed that after PW1 discharged from hospital, he placed the matter before the elders consisting of LWs 5 and 6 (PW3 and PW5) and some other villagers. He also admitted that only on the information given by PW1, did he come to know about their affair. He further admitted that he does not remember the names of the elders before whom he placed the matter. He denied suggestion that he never placed the matter before elders and so he is unable to state their names. He also denied suggestion that an Advocate drafted Ex.P1 and a false case has been foisted against the accused. 14. PW3 who is village elder deposed that he knows PWs 1 and 2 and so also accused and other elders. During his cross-examination he admitted that he is neighbourer to PW1 and house of accused is situated at a distance of forty feet away from his house. He further admitted that on the information given by the father of PW1, he came to know about the affair between A1 and PW1. 15. PW4 is none other than own brother of PW1. He stated that in the year 2007 his sister PW1 informed him that she and A1 are in love with each other and further stated that A1 promised to marry PW1. During cross-examination, he stated that he had not ever seen PW1 and A1 together. He categorically stated that “Accused and his family members themselves came to their house for marriage talks.” He denied suggestion that A1 never love her sister and that as he refused their alliance after seeing his sister, out of vengeance they filed false complaint against the accused. He further admitted that PW3 and LW6 are their neighbours. He denied suggestion that they, with the help of their Advocate, fabricated a false case against the accused and gave complaint on 10.10.2007. 16. PW5, who is said to be independent witness, deposed that he is working as a lorry driver. He further admitted that PW3 and LW6 are their neighbours. He denied suggestion that they, with the help of their Advocate, fabricated a false case against the accused and gave complaint on 10.10.2007. 16. PW5, who is said to be independent witness, deposed that he is working as a lorry driver. He advised PW2 to place the matter before other caste elders. During cross-examination, he stated that he is neighbourer to PW2. He does not have personal knowledge about the affairs between PW1 and A1 and only on information through PW2, he came to know about their affair. He did not visit hospital when PW1 was admitted in the hospital. Police examined him after two days PW1 gave complaint. 17. PW6 Dr. A. Swarna Kumari, the then Civil Assistant Surgeon, District Hospital, Rajahmundry stated that on 11.10.2007 at 12.30 noon, she examined PW1 and she was discharged on 12.10.2007 at 3.40 P.M. She further stated that victim girl is habituated to sexual intercourse. Accordingly, she issued Ex.P2 certificate. During her cross-examination, she stated that patient is habituated to cohabitation till her examination. 18. Though the statement of prosecutrix must be given prime consideration, at the same time, broad principle that the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt applies equally to cases like this nature and there could be no presumption that a prosecutrix would always tell the entire story truthfully. It is not in dispute that that the prosecutrix, PW1 was aged about 23 years at the time of lodging report. PW1 made an irrefutable statement that after she gave consent, the accused used to take her to his friend house and used to cohabitate with her. 19. With regard to acquaintance with the accused No. 1, PW1 on one hand states that she knows the Accused No. 1 since 2006. On the other hand, coming to the cross-examination of PW1, she admitted the contents of Ex.D2 as stated by her before police that she knows Accused No. 1 since 7 years. As discussed by the learned Magistrate, it may be obvious that as both PW1 and the accused are residents of same locality and knowing each other since long time does not make any difference. But it is the evidence of prosecutrix which is of utmost importance and judgment is mainly based on her evidence, which should create confidence in the mind of the Court. 20. But it is the evidence of prosecutrix which is of utmost importance and judgment is mainly based on her evidence, which should create confidence in the mind of the Court. 20. PW2 who is father of PW1 during his cross-examination denied the suggestion that they foisted false case against Accused No. 1 and his family members as Accused No. 1 did not like her daughter and refused to marry her after seeing her (Pellichupulu) because of which her daughter attempted to commit suicide. It is further stated that he does not remember the names of the elders before whom they placed the matter. He denied that an Advocate drafted Ex.P1. WhereasPW4, who is none other than brother of PW1 during his cross-examination admits that Accused and his family members themselves came to their house for marriage talks. He had seen PW1 and A1 together. Furthermore, PW3 before whom the matter was placed by PW2 states that he is neighbourer to PW1 and the house of accused is situated at a distance of forty feet from his house. He accompanied PW1 and her parents to the police station on 10.10.2007 to give complaint. He further admitted that on the information given by the father of PW1, he came to know about the affair between Accused No. 1 and PW1. It is strange that PW2 in not remembering the names of the elders before whom he placed the matter and that too who are residing beside them since such a long time. It is not only the testimony of the victim woman is highly disputed and unreliable, but her testimony has also been thoroughly demolished by the depositions of PW2 and PW4. 21. Furthermore, it is the evidence of PW1 that on 07.10.2007, marriage talks were held before elders and even before elders, the accused demanded Rs.50,000/- but her parents expressed their inability and in spite of request, they failed to heed to the words of her parents and after 3 days she gave Ex.P1 report i.e. on 10.10.2007. The delay in lodging the report raises a considerable doubt regarding the veracity of the evidence of the prosecution and points towards the infirmity in the evidence and sometimes renders it unsafe to base any conviction. In the present case on hand, Ex.D3 shows that report was drafted after consulting Advocate, but the same was denied by PW2. The delay in lodging the report raises a considerable doubt regarding the veracity of the evidence of the prosecution and points towards the infirmity in the evidence and sometimes renders it unsafe to base any conviction. In the present case on hand, Ex.D3 shows that report was drafted after consulting Advocate, but the same was denied by PW2. It is clearly admitted by the PW4 that accused and his family members themselves came to their house for marriage talks, but the said suggestion was denied by both PWs 1 and 2. There are several contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses on several aspects and the same goes to the root of the matter. 22. It, therefore, appears that the prosecution witnesses have not placed the true facts before the Court. It is the duty of the Court to consider the trustworthiness of evidence on record. It is a settled position of law that the prosecution is required to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. 23. In the facts on hand, this Court feel that the evidence of these witnesses is filled with discrepancies, contradictions and improbable versions which draws us to the irresistible conclusion that the evidence of these witnesses cannot be a basis to convict the accused. 24. All the above facts and the ratio of the judgments referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner indicate that there is no veracity in the prosecution case and the accused merits to be acquitted for the offence under section 420 of the IPC. 25. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed setting aside the Judgment, dated 15.11.2010 in Criminal Appeal No. 174 of 2010 on the file of the Court of learned V Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), East Godavari, at Rajahmundry, confirming the conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner/accused No. 1 by Judgment, dated 07.05.2010 in C.C. No. 1320 of 2008 on the file of the Court of learned VII Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajahmundry. 26. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.