Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1561 (TS)

Shanigarapu Naresh v. State of Telangana

2025-11-19

TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

body2025
ORDER: TIRUMALA DEVI EADA, J. This Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellant-accused challenging the judgment dated 08.01.2019 passed in Spl.SC No.58 of 2017 by the Special Judge for trial of cases under SCs/STs (POA) Act cum V Additional District and Sessions Judge at Adilabad. 2. Heard Sri Y.Ashok Raj, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent. 3. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant-accused and the victim belong to the same village and that they both studied together and completed graduation. In the year 2013, the accused started insisting the victim to love him, but she denied and later she agreed and thereafter the accused used to visit the house of the victim frequently and sexually exploited her by promising to marry her. Believing his words, the victim surrendered herself to accused and after one year of their relation, when the victim asked the accused to marry him he extended the same and continued physical relationship with her. In the year 2017, the accused lost his father. When the victim went to the house of the accused and asked him about their marriage, the accused promised that he would marry her after the one year death ceremony of his father. Thereafter, the victim informed to her parents about her love with the accused and the sexual exploitation by the accused promising to marry her. Then, her father along with their caste people went to the house of accused and asked about the marriage. The accused refused and then the victim expressed that she would not leave the house and the accused assured her that he will marry her within one month. Thereafter, the accused escaped from the village. Then the victim lodged the complaint against the accused stating that the accused cheated her in the name of love and marriage. Based on the said complaint, police registered a case and investigated into the same and filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences under Sections 417 and 420 IPC and Section 3 (1)(w)(i)(ii) of SCs/STs Amendment Act, 2015. The case was taken on file by the Spl. Judge for trial of Cases under SCs/STs POA Act cum V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Adilabad vide Spl.SC No.58 of 2017. 4. The case was taken on file by the Spl. Judge for trial of Cases under SCs/STs POA Act cum V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Adilabad vide Spl.SC No.58 of 2017. 4. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 10 and marked Exs.P1 to P8 on their behalf. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused. On considering the evidence on record, the Sessions Court found the accused not guilty of the offence under Section 3 (1)(w)(i)(ii) of the SCs/STs Amendment Act, 2015 and accordingly, acquitted him for the said offence. However, the Sessions Curt found the accused guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 417 and 420 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months for the offence under Section 417 IPC and further sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence under Section 420 IPC in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and directed both the sentences to run concurrently, vide judgment dated 08.012019. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction, the present appeal is filed by the accused. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the judgment of the trial court is against law, weight and probabilities of the case. He further submitted that the prosecution has examined 10 witnesses, but only PWs.1 and 2 have deposed against the accused and favour the prosecution case while all the other witnesses turned hostile. He further submitted that there was a consensual relationship between PW.1 and the accused and the same was deposed by PW.1. PW.2 also has stated that she agreed for the relationship and thus there is no evidence at all on record to prove the alleged offences against the accused and that in the absence of any evidence against the accused, it is not justified to convict the accused. He further submitted that the trial court ought to have appreciated the evidence in proper perspective, but has failed to do so and therefore, prayed to set aside the judgment of conviction rendered by the trial court and to allow the appeal. 6. He further submitted that the trial court ought to have appreciated the evidence in proper perspective, but has failed to do so and therefore, prayed to set aside the judgment of conviction rendered by the trial court and to allow the appeal. 6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 is unchallenged. Though the other witnesses have turned hostile, the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 proved the love affair between the accused appellant and the victim. He further submitted that the trial court has passed the judgment of conviction and sentence based on sound reasoning. He, therefore, prayed to dismiss the appeal. 7. Perused the record. 8. The appellant herein is facing the charges under Sections 417 , 420 IPC and Section 3 (1)(w)(i)(ii) of SC and ST Act. The said Sections are extracted hereunder for the sake of reference: Section 417 IPC: “417. Punishment for cheating.— Whoever cheats shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.” Section 415 IPC: “415. Cheating.— Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to “cheat””. Section 420 IPC: “420. Section 420 IPC: “420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.— Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.” Section 3 (1)(w)(i)(ii) of SC and ST Act: Section 3 (1) in The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989: (w) - (i) intentionally touches a woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, knowing that she belongs to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, when such act of touching is of a sexual nature and is without the recipient‘s consent; (ii) uses words, acts or gestures of a sexual nature towards a woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, knowing that she belongs to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, Shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to five year and with fine. 9. The victim was examined as PW.1. It is elicited from her evidence before the trial court that she loved the accused and has willfully entered into the physical relationship with him and that for about a period one year, they were in the physical relationship. After one year she asked the accused to marry her and that the accused assured her saying that after the marriage of his younger sister, he would marry her. Believing his words, she continued the physical relationship with the accused. Subsequently, the father of the accused passed away and then when the de facto complainant asked the accused to marry her, he assured saying that after the death anniversary of his father, he can marry her. Subsequently, he switched off his cell phone. So, she has informed her family members about the love affair with the accused and she along with her parents went to the house of the accused, wherein the accused has refused to marry her. But, she intended to stay at the house of the accused. Subsequently, he switched off his cell phone. So, she has informed her family members about the love affair with the accused and she along with her parents went to the house of the accused, wherein the accused has refused to marry her. But, she intended to stay at the house of the accused. Then his family members requested her for some time and thereby, they left the house of the accused and from the next day, the accused was not seen in the village. Thus, they informed the village elder and thereafter lodged the complaint. In her cross- examination, it was elicited that since the beginning, they know the difference in caste and it is elicited from her that they both were classmates and that she still loves the accused. She admitted that prior to lodging the complaint, she informed about her love with the accused to her father and she did not go to the house of the accused to talk about their love affair with his parents. She further admitted that she has cohabited willfully with the accused. It is elicited from her that as on the date of cross-examination she was 25 years old which was done in the year 2017 while the offence alleged to have occurred in 2013. That means as on the date of offence also she was a major aged about 21 years. Thus, it is elicited through her that she loved the accused and her relationship with the accused was a consensual relationship. Though she stated in her chief examination that she too went along with her parents and intended to stay at the house of the accused, she contradicted her own version stating that she did not go to the house of the accused to talk to the parents of the accused about their affair. 10. PW.2 is the father of PW.1. It is elicited from him that when they went to the house of the accused and questioned about the love affair with his daughter, the accused has agreed to marry PW.1 and that he would inform them after consulting the caste elders. Thus, the statement of PW.2 again contradicts the statement made by PW.1, as she stated that accused had refused to marry her though the elders questioned him at his house while PW.2 stated that the accused agreed to marry her. Thus, the statement of PW.2 again contradicts the statement made by PW.1, as she stated that accused had refused to marry her though the elders questioned him at his house while PW.2 stated that the accused agreed to marry her. In the cross-examination of PW.2, it is brought out that he too agreed to the love affair of PW.1 with the accused. Initially, he stated that till PW.1 informed him, he did not know about the love affair of PW.1 and accused. Then he stated that PW.1 also liked accused and he too agreed for their love. Apart from the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, there is no other evidence on record to point out the guilt of the accused. All the other witnesses turned hostile but for the official witnesses. Looking into the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, it is elicited that it was a consensual relationship as PW.1 herself has stated so in her cross-examination. 11. To attract the ingredients of the offence of cheating, dishonest intention from the inception of the alleged act has to be made out. In the present case, since the victim herself has stated that she was in the consensual relationship, the point of dishonest intention or inducement cannot be made out. Therefore, the offence of cheating under Section 417 IPC is not proved against the appellant-accused. 12. Further, it is not the case of the prosecution that some property or valuable security is delivered by PW.1 on the alleged inducement of the accused. Thus, the ingredients of Section 420 IPC also do not get attracted. 13. Therefore, it is held that the prosecution could not prove the offence under Section 417 and 420 IPC against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the accused is entitled to be released. 14. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Special Judge for trial of cases under SCs/STs (POA) Act cum V Additional District and Sessions Judge at Adilabad, against the appellant-accused in Spl.S.C. No.58 of 2017, vide judgment, dated 08.01.2019, for the offences punishable under Sections 417 and 420 IPC are set aside and the appellant-accused is acquitted of the said offences. Fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant-accused shall be refunded to him. Bail bonds shall stand cancelled and the sureties are discharged. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.