Judgment in SC-425 of 2019 1/20 Dt :12-02-2025.
IN THE COURT OF THE XI ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE FOR FAST
TRACKING THE CASES RELATING TO ATROCITIES AGAISNT WOMEN-II,
HYDERABAD.
PRESENT : SMT.B.PUSHPALATHA,
Special Sessions Judge FTC for POCSO Act Cases FAC : XI Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast tracking the Cases relating to Atrocities against Women-II, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 12th day of February 2025
SESSIONS CASE No.425 /2019
Crime Number and Police Crime No.268/2018 of Police Station StationSR.Nagar Hyderabad (PRC No.2762019 of III ACJM, Hyderabad)
Name and description of the Gaddam Srinivas, S/o Gaddam Anjaiah, agedGaddam Srinivas, S/o Gaddam Anjaiah, aged accused person26 years Occ: Car Driver, H.No. 6-50,26 years Occ: Car Driver, H.No. 6-50, Gopaiahpalli Village, Peddapalli District. Gopaiahpalli Village, Peddapalli District.
Name and description of the The State represented by Inspector of Police complainantPS. SR.Nagar, Hyderabad.
Prosecution conducted bySri K.Jaffer Sab, Special Public Prosecutor.
Defence conducted bySri N. Mahendhar, counsel for the accused
Offences chargedU/sec. 376, 420 and 506 of IPC
Plea of the accusedPleaded not guilty.
Finding of the CourtFound not guilty
RESULT In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections
U/sec: 376, 420 and 506 of IPC. Accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C.
The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. Property if any shall be returned to the owner after expiry of appeal time.
Judgment in SC-425 of 2019 2/20 Dt :12-02-2025.
:: J U D G M E N T::
(a).The Inspector of Police, SR Nagar Police Station, has filed charge sheet alleging that on 16.04.2018 at 1600 hours Sri P.Neha Reddy D/o.
Surender Reddy, aged 26 years Occ: Yoga Teacher R/o Moti Nagar, Kalyan
Nagar Venture-III, Sidharth Nagar, Sanjeeva Reddy Nagar, Hyderabad, came to PS and lodge a complaint wherein she stated that, when she went for an audition for a Heroine movie by "Accident" Mr. Gaddam Srinivas came to interaction as he also came for audition for a friend role. They both have exchanged cell phone. Gaddam Srinivas has shown more interest in her and proposed his love with her and he wants to marry her. She rejected his proposal. He repeatedly forces to love him. He started asking other about her.
She revealed all her past and present circumstances about her life that she is married, got divorce and have one kid. After listening everything Mr. Gaddam
Srinivas said that he is not interested her past life but he loves her. After 2 to 3 weeks, Mr. Gaddam Srinivas again forced her to speak with her parents. Her parents wished that she must get marry. To fulfill her parents wish, she introduced him. Her mother asked his caste and he said "Gouds" but later came to know that he is "SC". Except father and mother of Mr. Srinivas everybody including sister, relatives and friends knew about their affair and proposals of marriage. He used to come into the house like a thief and used to force her to have sex with him for which she denied.
(b) Finally as her parents, relatives and friends agreed for marriage, she requested him to wait till marriage then they can have physical relation, but he did not accept and quarrelling with her at her residence in the society. One day he came to her house in fully drunken condition and forcibly had sexual intercourse with her. When she decided to lodge complaint, he fell at her feet
Judgment in SC-425 of 2019 3/20 Dt :12-02-2025.
and promised her that he is going to marry her as soon as possible. Thereafter she only used to meet but, had no physical relations with him. As soon as she finished her film and forced him for marriage but on the 7one pretext or the other he used to avoid, he said that he wants to speak his parents and need some time for marriage. Thereafter he started avoiding her completely and blocked her numbers, what’s app number and also face book. One day sudden he came to her residence in fully drunken condition, at the time she checked her mobile and shocked to see that he is having lot of affairs with so many girls and had sexual relationship with one Annapurna Reddy Ph. 8125911119. When she called Annapurna Reddy and asked about their relationship he denied to disclose anything and abused her in filthy language.
(c) Thereafter, Mr. Srinivas used to make calls with some of their parties and they used to abuse her in filthy language. She lodged complainant before PS
Sanjeeva Reddy Nagar, where police caught him and interrogated. He promised that he need 6 months time to marry her. One day he came to her residence without her permission and he had physically relation with her forcefully without her consent. Mr. Srinivas trapped the complainant by taking advantage of her loneliness and he brainwashed her and had a sexual pleasure by luring her and cheated by his family members and also blaming her and made false allegations against her. Hence, she requested to take necessary action against Gaddam Srinivas S/o. Gaddam Anjayya, aged 30 years Occ: Driving School (Driving Master) R/o. Gopaiahpalli H/o. Palitham (V),
Peddappalli District of Telangana State.
d).On receipt of the above complaint LW-13 registered a case in Crime No.
268/2018, U/Sec 376, 420, 506 of IPC and took up investigation.
Judgment in SC-425 of 2019 4/20 Dt :12-02-2025.
(e).During the course of investigation, LW-13 sent the victim LW-1 through
LW-12 to Bharosa centre where the victim girl was examined and recorded her statement by LW-8. The LW-1 was subjected for medical examination, where
LW-9 examined her medically and collected vaginal swabs, Vaginal smear for semen examination and sealed in cover. The sealed cover was sent to FSL along with letter of advice to exports opinion. Whereas LW-10 issued FSL report wherein opined that Semen and spermatozoa are not detected in item no's 1 to 4, blood is not detected on item no's 1 & 2, foreign hair is not found in item no 1, Foreign material is not detected on item no.2. Based on the FSL report LW-9 issued her final opinion sexual assault can't be ruled out (date of examination is 6 weeks after assault).
f) LW-13 examined LW-2 to LW-5 and recorded their detail statement in part-II case diary. While the investigation is in progress, today i.e., on 24.04.2018 at 10.15 hours the accused Gaddam Srinivas came to police station and surrendered himself before LW-13 by admitting his guilt in commission of this offence. On that, LW-13 examined the accused thoroughly.
On examination, as he was ready to confess the facts of the case, LW-13 secured two panchayatdars Lws.6 & 7, and in their presence recorded confessional statement of the accused. After completion of confessional panchanama, affected his arrested. After completing the arrest formalities and produced him before the Hon'ble court for judicial custody.
g)On the transfer of LW-13 further investigation of this case has taken by
LW-14. The LW-14 received FSL opinion from LW-10, the LW-14 issued notice to the accused to appear before LW-14 for Potency test. On receipt of the notice the accused appeared before LW-14. On that, the accused was sent to
Gandhi hospital Secunderabad for potency test, where LW-11 conducted
Judgment in SC-425 of 2019 5/20 Dt :12-02-2025.
potency test on the accused and issued opinion stating that “there is nothing to suggest the individual is not capable of performing sexual intercourse. After completion of investigation, the C.I., of Police, filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence U/s.376, 420, 506 of IPC.
2.Cognizance of the case was taken against the accused for the offences
U/sec.376, 420 and 506 of IPC by the Hon’ble Sessions Judge, Hyderabad and made over to this court.
3. On appearance of the accused, this court furnished the copies of documents to him as per the provision U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.
4. On appearance of the accused and upon hearing both sides, charges under Sections U/s.376, 420 and 506 of IPC were framed against the accused, read over the charges and explained to him. The accused denied the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5.During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution Pw-1 and 5 were examined and Exhibit P-1 to P8 were marked.
6. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined
U/s.313 of Cr.P.C., explaining the contents of the incriminating evidence appeared in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, and the accused denied the same and got marked Ex.D.1 and Ex.D.2.
7. Heard arguments on both sides and perused the material available on record.
8.Now the point for determination is:- “Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence under Sections U/s.376, 420 and 506 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?
Judgment in SC-425 of 2019 6/20 Dt :12-02-2025.
9.Pw.1 stated that she is the resident of Mothi Nagar, Borabanda,
Hyderabad. She is a film artist. LW2/P.Saidamma and TW3/P. Surender Reddy are her parents. She know LW4/S. Praveen Kumar was the owner of Flat No.
276 in P.R. Nagar: LW5/G. Naveen and he was watchman of the said apartments and the accused who is standing in the accused dock. Pw.1’s first marriage was performed when she was 14 years old with one Pavan at her native place as per the wishes of her parents. During that wedlock period, Pw.1 blessed with one female child. As she blessed with girl child her husband
Pavan not looked after properly and disputes cropped up in between their families and it ended to dissolution of marriage by filing a Divorce Petition by
Pw.1.
(a)Subsequent Pw.1 along with parents shifted to Hyderabad and started living at Bharath Nagar and started hotel business. My elder brother tried to perform her marriage with the help of her friends, for which Pw.1 have not accepted. As her elder brother constantly forcing for marriage, for that reason
Pw.1 came out of the family along with her daughter in the year 2015. After that
Pw.1 joined in a hostel namely Valluramma hostel situated at S.R. Nagar and stayed there for about one month. During her stay in the said hostel Pw.1 got acquaintance with two or three persons in the hostel inmates and we all took one room in Secunderabad and started living there. After few days of our stay in that room the other two erstwhile hostel-mates left the room, as such she brought her elder sister's daughter to our room and we three were residing in that room at Secunderabad. Pw.1 has done three months Yoga course in Koti
Gnanamandir. Thereafter she joined there itself as Yoga Teacher. There in the
Gnanamandir she got acquaintance with one Prabhakar who used to come
Judgment in SC-425 of 2019 7/20 Dt :12-02-2025.
there to learn Yoga. The accused offered Pw.1 for a heroine chance in a Telugu
Movie as he got acquaintance with one Director by name Nandi Venkat Reddy, for which she have accepted, also went even for audition test and qualified in that test. At that time accused also came for audition test to act a role as a friend to the hero. At that time Pw.1 got acquaintance with accused in the year 2016.
(b) Pw.1 purchased a Scooty during that period and planning to have driving license. At that time the above said Director Nandi Venkat Reddy introduced accused to her by stating that accused even used to attend RTA work. Then we both shared our mobile numbers. Two or three days thereafter accused shared messages and also used to call to her mobile. Accused helped to apply for her driving license in the RTA office of Khairatabad.
(c) About five days accused made a proposal for love and also informed
Pw.1 that he intends to marry her. Pw.1 rejected the said proposal made by the accused. After obtaining the licence accused dropped in her room. Thereby accused came to know about her room. Accused continued his love and marriage proposal to pw.1 for a period of three months or so, even then pw.1 rejected those proposals. Accused used to come near our room and used to keep his car there and to call over phone and thereby used to disturb the situation and the same was noticed by their house owner and questioned her about the accused. She told to our house owner that accused is our relative.
Pw.1 told to the accused about my previous marriage and also about family background, she having a girl child and we both are residing in that room.
(d)Then the accused assured me that he would not bother for her past life and intend to marry her and also assured that he will look after her and her
Judgment in SC-425 of 2019 8/20 Dt :12-02-2025.
daughter properly. Pw.1 told the accused to speak with her parents about the marriage proposals and introduced to her parents, as her parents are intending to perform marriage.
(d) Accused told to her parents that he belongs to Goud caste and he intends to marry her. Then her parents asked whether she interested for the said marriage proposal made by the accused, for which she also accepted.
Even by that time she was signed 'Accident' movie. Pw.1 told to the accused that she would marry him after completion of the above said 'Accident' movie.
Accused told me not to act in any other movies after marriage, for which she also accepted. Accused told her that his parents not going to accept for love marriage and assured that he will convince his parents after our marriage. By saying so he introduced his junior paternal uncle by name Kamalahasan, his sister Rajitha and also maternal uncle by name Shyam Sunder and brought them to their house. Accused introduced her to his above said relatives, but the accused has not informed to them that he is going to marry Pw.1.
(e) In the year 2016 accused brought her and her daughter to Mothi Nagar from Secunderabad room. When accused took the room at Mothi Nagar and introduced her and her daughter as his wife and daughter to the owner of that premises. Accused used to come in the morning hours and he has not stayed with us during night hours. However accused looked after us caringly. Once
Pw.1 checked the mobile of the accused and found some vulgar messages and questioned the accused about the same, for which he stated that the persons who sent those messages are his friends and relatives.
(f) Thereby she got doubt against the accused and used to check his mobile daily. Accused used to attend the calls by going outside the room. Pw.1
Judgment in SC-425 of 2019 9/20 Dt :12-02-2025.
enquired about the accused and came to know that accused got many illegal affairs and further came to know that accused got his younger sister-in-law (Sathvika). Pw.1 told to the accused that she do not want to marry him and she will continue in her acting field. Then accused followed her and also tortured her to marry him. As accused used to come to the audition office where she was checking the costumes and used to quarrel with her, for that reason only our Director removed Pw.1 from there. Then in April, 2016 Pw.1 gave a complaint against the accused in S.R. Nagar Police station. Police called both of them and pacified the matter by staling that henceforth each of them to lead own way of life without interfering with other's life. Thereafter, accused used to come to her room and stated that he cannot live without marrying her. By saying so he had sexual intercourse (rape) with her without her consent. Then
Pw.1 thought of committing suicide. At that time accused assured that he will heed her words and the accused will marry her and asked for her pardon. By saying so he sought six months time to marry me. But the accused was not in contact with her about two months after giving the above said assurance. Then once again PW.1 went to S.R. Nagar police station and gave a complaint against the accused. Ex.P1 is the complaint given by her to the police. Police examined and recorded my statement in the police station itself and thereafter referred to medical examination. Accused promised her that he will marry and left her without fulfilling his promise.
10)Pw-2 deposed that he is resident of Bharath Nagar, Hyderabad and running a Hotel at Bharath Nagar, Hyderabad, PW.1 is her Daughter and her marriage was performed when she was aged about 17 years, she got one daughter through her first marriage and she got divorced with her husband.
LW.3-P.Surender Reddy is her husband and he is suffering with ill health. He
Judgment in SC-425 of 2019 10/20 Dt :12-02-2025.
know the accused who is standing in the accused. She along with her husband as well as her son requested PW.1 to marry a person who was known to their family and also their relatives. Then PW.1 informed them that she does not want to marry at that time and she went out of their house in respect of the marriage proposal and she stayed in a women’s hostel at Ameerpet,
Hyderabad and that About 4 years back PW.1 went to act in movies from their house. PW.1 introduced the accused to her that she got acquaintance with him and further informed that accused also working in the cine field and working as a driver. She further told that she intends to marry accused as she needs male support and also look after her daughter. When PW.1 introduced accused to their family, then her husband not accepted the proposal of PW.1 to marry the accused as he will not suit for her. Even her son also did not accept for the said proposal made by PW.1.
(a)PW.2 came to know through PW.1 that she along with her daughter and accused took one room in Moti Nagar and stayed together. Thereafter quarrels took place in between PW.1 and accused, as such PW.1 not inclined to marry accused due to his behavior towards her and also as his character was not good. But accused insisted repeatedly to marry PW.1. Accused threatened
PW.1 that he will die if she did not marry him. Accused used to consume liquor and he also used to bring his friends to that room and not even provided financial aid to look after the family. In that connection also disputes aroused in between them and at that time accused left PW.1 and went away for a period of six months even without informing to PW.1. PW.1 further informed that accused used to suspect her fidelity and he even could not tolerate if PW.1 even speaks with her colleagues and ladies. Accused not even allowed PW.1 to act in movies and imposed restrictions on her movements by suspecting her
Judgment in SC-425 of 2019 11/20 Dt :12-02-2025.
fidelity. They have provided financial assistance to PW.1 when accused left her.
When accused left PW.1, then she lodged complaint against the accused
before the S.R.Nagar Police Station. Police examined and recorded her
statement. After about six months, accused again came back to their house at
Bharath Nagar along with some elders and requested them that he will look after PW.1 properly and he will not man handle her. Her husband and her son went to the house of accused at the instance of PW.1 to negotiate and settle the matter in amicable manner and that after release of the accused from the
Jail, he came back to their house and also convinced PW.1 and both of them married in Arya Samaj. They stayed together for some period, again disputes aroused in-between them. At present Accused and PW.1 are living separately.
At one point of time accused even stated before them that if he marries his sister in law, then he would have received more dowry. Accused has not changed his attitude and he repeatedly troubling PW.1 in similar manner. In those compelling circumstances, they brought PW.1 to their house.
11.PW.3 deposed that he is resident of Ganesh Nagar, Ramanthapur,
Hyderabad. I am working as Assistant Audit Officer in A.G. Office, Hyderabad.
He knew LW.5-G. Naveen and he was their watchman of P.R. Nagar colony, where he got property. He has let out a small portion of the said property to
PW.1 during the period November, 2017. He stayed in the said property for about six months period along with PW.1 her husband used to reside in the said property. He has let out the said premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 6,500/- per month. He can identify PW.1 and her husband if shown to him. Accused who is present in the accused dock is the husband of PW.1. Police examined him and recorded His statement.
12. PW.4 deposed that on 16-04-2018, she received information from the
Judgment in SC-425 of 2019 12/20 Dt :12-02-2025.
Administrator of Bharosa Centre to examine and record the statement of victim-PW.1. Accordingly she examined and recorded her statement in vernacular language, read over and explained its contents to her. Thereafter she has handed over the said statement to the Station House Officer of
P.S.S.R.Nagar.
13.Pw-5 deposed that on 21-04-2018, on receipt of requisition to examine
Pw-1, accordingly on the same day at about 12.00 p.m, she examined victim girl/PW.1, and on physical examination of the victim, she found her general condition was good. Her external geneteria is healthy, Hymen is not intact, and vagina is healthy. Perenal is healthy and it is lax. Thereafter she issued
Preliminary Examination Certificate. she collected the swabs and smears and sent them to the Director, Telangana State Forensic Science Laboratory,
Hyderabad for analysis and report. After getting the FSL Report she issued
Final Opinion.
14.Examination by court is that as per the version given by the victim, the alleged incident took place in the first week of March 2018.
15. PW.6/Associate Professor, deposed that on 30-07-2018, the Inspector of Police, P.S.S.R.Nagar sent requisition to conduct potency test on G.Srinivas.
Accordingly on the same day, he conducted the Potency Test on the said
G.Srinivas. After thorough examination of general and physical of the individual, he is of the opinion that there is nothing to suggest that individual is not capable of performing sexual intercourse. Accordingly he issued the
Potency Test Certificate.
16. Pw.7/Inspector of Police, S.R.Nagar deposed that he received a complaint from Nehareddy/Lw1, basing on the said complaint he registered
Judgment in SC-425 of 2019 13/20 Dt :12-02-2025.
the same as a case in Crime No.268/2018, U/sec. 376, 420, 506 of IPC and issued FIR. Thereafter, he sent Pw-1 to Bharosa centre with a requisition to record the statement U/sec. 161 Cr.PC as well as medical examination. PW-4 examined and recorded statement of PW-1. On 24-04-2018, at 10.15 hours, the accused came to police station and surrendered before him by admitting his guilt in commission of offence on that he examined accused thoroughly and accused ready to confess on that he secured LW-6 and LW-7 and recorded the confessional statement of accused in their presence. He effected the arrest of accused and produced him before the court for judicial remand. On 26-04- 2018, he recorded statements of LW-2 to 5. He sent a requisition for medical examination of Pw-1/Victim and also sent vaginal smear for semen’s examination in a sealed cover to FSL along-with letter of advise to expert opinion. In view of his transfer, he handed-over the CD file to LW-14 for further investigation.
17.Pw.8/Inspector of police deposed that in the month of September 2018 he received the CD file from Lw-14, he verified the CD file and proceeded with the investigation and found that the investigation done by Lw-13/Pw-7 and
Lw-14 were on proper lines and after completion of investigation he has filed the charge sheet against the accused.
18. The learned special public prosecutor submitted that all the prosecution witnesses have supported the case, further submitted that accused is liable to be convicted for the offence charged in accordance to law and also submitted written arguments perused the written submissions.
19. On the other hand the defence counsel submitted that present case is liable to be dismissed for the reasons that accused and the victim are married
Judgment in SC-425 of 2019 14/20 Dt :12-02-2025.
and the case of the prosecution is that accused committed sexual assault against victim and that prosecution also marked EXP8 CC:No:9893/2021 on the file of XIII ACMM Hyderabad filed by the victim for the offence under section 498-A, 406, 506 IPC and under section 4 & 6 of DP Act, which goes to show that accused is falsely implicated though the accused and the victim are husband and wife and the same is admitted by the victim in the cross examination. The defence counsel prayed that the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt and acquit the accused.
The following issued were not disputed:-
1)that the victim/Pw1 was earlier married to one pavan kumar and that out of the said wed-lock victim/Pw1 was blessed witha female daughter.
2)further it is also not disputed that victim/Pw1 filed case vide
CC:NO:9893/2021 on the file of XIII ACMM Hyderabad for the offence under section 498-A,406,506 IPC and under section 4 & 6 of DP Act.
3)Pw1/victim also admitted that she got married to accused and that as on the date of her chief examination (i.e) on 2-11-2022 accused and the victim/Pw1 were husband and wife as per law.
4)Pw1/victim stated she married the accused and after filing civil cases against him, and that after obtaining injunction order she has taken marriage certificate from Arya Samaj on 08-10-2008.
5) Pw1/victim admitted that all together she filed nine cases against the accused.
20.It is pertinent to mention here that admitted facts need not be proved.
The case of the prosecution is that in the year 2016 victim/Pw1 got introduced
Judgment in SC-425 of 2019 15/20 Dt :12-02-2025.
to accused by one Nandi Venkat Reddy stating that accused will help her to attend RTA work and that both shared mobile numbers and that accused helped in getting done RTA work and driving license and that after five days accused proposed his love towards victim/Pw1, and that victim/Pw1 informed accused about her first marriage and also about her daughter and rejected love proposal made by the accused. The accused went to the house of the victim/Pw1 and continued to propose to marry her and also promised that he will take care of the victim/Pw1 and her daughter. Thereby accused used to come to her house in a car and used to talk with her over phone and that the owner of the house came to know about the same and made her to vacate the room, and that the accused also spoke with the parents of the victim/Pw1 and expressed his willingness to marry Pw1/victim.
21. In the year 2016 accused took Pw1 and her daughter to Motinagar from
Secunderabad and took a room for rent at Motinagar and stayed together and that victim/Pw1 got a doubt and checked mobile of the accused and came to know that accused was having illegal relationship with other women and that he has committed sexual intercourse with the victim/Pw1 without her consent.
22. Pw1/victim stated that inspite of her rejecting the love proposal of the accused, the accused convinced the family members of the victim/Pw1 to perform her marriage with the accused, admittedly Pw1/victim admitted that as on the date of her evidence also she was wife of the accused as per law, on one hand victim/Pw1 stated she accused raped her without her consent, as if she is not married to the accused and further Pw1/victim stated that she stayed with the accused in a rented room at Motinagar, Pw2/mother of the victim also stated on the same lines but in the cross-examination both Pw1/victim admitted that she do not know the contents of her complain under EXP1. Pw3 owner of
Judgment in SC-425 of 2019 16/20 Dt :12-02-2025.
the room where the accused and the victim stayed for rent stated that it was the victim/Pw1 who approached him and took the room for rent by stating that accused and Pw1/victim were married recently therefore from the version of
Pw3 it is clear that the accused and the victim/Pw1 stayed together at
Motinagar.
23.As per the evidence on record, admittedly there is no direct evidence to the alleged offence. Most of the prosecution witnesses are circumstantial witnesses. Further official witnesses spoke about the incident as per the investigation conducted. Except Pw1 and Pw2 none of the independent witnesses were examined by the prosecution to support the version of the prosecution witnesses.
24. Now it has to be seen whether the accused had committed the alleged offence against the victim/Pw1.There is no dispute that victim/Pw1 has filed as many as nine cases against the accused Pw1 admitted that she got married to accused and that as on the date of her chief examination (i.e)on 2-11-2022 and that the accused and the victim/Pw1 were husband and wife as per law.
Pw1/victim admitted during cross-examination that she married the accused and after filing civil cases against him, and that after obtaining injunction order she has taken marriage certificate from Arya Samaj on 08-10-2008. Pw1/victim also admitted that all together she filed nine cases against the accused. Even as seen from the EXD1 and EXD2 it shows that both the accused and the victim/Pw1 lived at Motinagar as husband and wife. It is the content of the victim/Pw1 that accused committed sexual assault against her without her consent for several times with a false promise to marry the victim/Pw1. As seen from Ex.D-1 and Ex.D-2 and Pw-1/victim also admitted that she was wife of the accused. Then the question of accused false promise by him to marry
Judgment in SC-425 of 2019 17/20 Dt :12-02-2025.
Pw1/victim does not arise.
25. Section 90 of IPC defines “consent ”known to be given under fear or misconception; “Section 90 CONSENT GIVEN UNDER FEAR OR MISCONSECPTION – A consent is not such a consent as it intended by any section of this code, it the consent is given by a person under fear of injury, or under a misconception of fact, and has reason to believe, that the consent was given in consequence of such fear or misconception”.
“THUS, THOUGH SECTION 90 IPC DOES NOT DEFINE CONSENT
BUT DESCRIBES WHAT IS NOT A CONSENT “.
If the consent is given by the complainant under misconception of fact, it is vitiated. Consent for the purpose of section 375 requires voluntary participation not only after exercise of intelligence based on the knowledge of the significance and moral quality of the act. But also after having fully excised the choice between resistance and assent.
26.In the instant case victim/Pw1 admitted that she stayed with the accused at Motinagar and that she got married to the accused at Aryasamaj, it is pertinent to mention here that when the examined by court Pw1 categorically admitted that she was wife of the accused as on the date of her examination as per law, which clearly establishes that the consent of the victim/Pw1 was not given under a misconception of fact or in consequence of such fear or misconception”.
27.The Hon’ble Supreme court in the matter of Uday Vs state of
Karnataka reported in 2003 (SC) 212. held that the sexual intercourse with a
Judgment in SC-425 of 2019 18/20 Dt :12-02-2025.
person with whom the victim is deeply in love on a promise that he would marry her in later date, cannot be said to be given under a misconception of the fact. In the case Hon’ble Supreme court held that prosecutix was a grown up girl deeply in love with the appellant and was aware of the fact that that the marriage was not possible and she has sufficient intelligence to understand the significance and moral quality of the act she was consenting to and that is why she kept it a secret as long as she could and hence all the circumstances lead to the conclusion that she freely, voluntarily and consciously consented to having sexual inter-course with the appellant and the consent was not in consequence of any misconception of the fact.
28.In Sonu alias subahsh kumar vs state of uttar pradesh and another 2021 (2) ALD (Crl)179 (SC)-
In Pramod Suryabhan Pawar’s case (supra), while dealing with a similar situation the principles of law which must govern a situation like the present were enunciated in the following observations: “Where the promise to marry is false and the intention of the maker at the time of making the promise itself was not to abide by it but to deceive the woman to convince her to engage in sexual relations, there is a “misconception of fact” that vitiated the woman’s consent”/
On the other hand, a breach of a promise cannot be said to be a false promise.
To establish a false promise, the maker of the promise should have had no intention of upholding his word at the time of giving it.
29.Further, the court has observed: “ To summaries 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
Judgment in SC-425 of 2019 19/20 Dt :12-02-2025.
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”.
30. As far as the offence u/s 506 IPC none of the prosecution witnesses did not speak about criminal intimidation committed by accused, from the evidence as discussed above it evident that prosecution failed to examine material witnesses and failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence under section 506 of IPC.
31.In the light if the above authorities and the evidence on record benefit of doubt is given to the accused. On care full scrutiny of the material on record and the oral testimony of the prosecution witness, this court is of the view that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of he accused for the offence under section 376,420 506 IPC beyond reasonable doubt.
32. In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections U/sec: 376, 420 and 506 of IPC. Accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. Property if any shall be returned to the owner after expiry of appeal time.
Typed to my dictation by Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 12 th day of February 2025.
Sd/-
FAC XI ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE FOR FAST
TRACTING THE CASES RELATING TO
ATROCITIES AGAINST WOMEN-II
HYDERABAD.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION:-
Judgment in SC-425 of 2019 20/20 Dt :12-02-2025.
PW-1: Victim woman PW-2: Smt.P.Saidamma: Mother of victim woman. PW-3: Sri S.Praveen Reddy: Circumstantial witness PW-4: Smt. Adi Laxmi: Woman Sub-Inspector of police PW-5: Dr.J.Rajeshwari: Examined the victim and collected material objects PW-6: Dr.Venkat Nagaraju: conducted potency test of accused PW-7: Sri Md Waheeduddin: Issued First Information Report PW-8: Sri S.Murali Krishna: Inspector of police/IO
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR DEFENCE :- -Nil-
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION:-
Ex.P1: Complaint Ex.P2: Preliminary Medical Examination Certificate Dated. 21-04-2018 . Ex.P3: FSL Report Ex.P4: Final Opinion Ex.P5: Potency Test Certificate Ex.P6: First Information Report Ex.P7: Relevant Portion of confession cum seizure panchanama Ex.P8: Charge Sheet in CC.No. 9893 of 2021.
FOR DEFENCE :-
ExD1: Relevant portion of 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW.1. ExD2: Relevant portion of 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW.1.
MOs MARKED:- NIL
FAC XI ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE FOR FAST
TRACTING THE CASES RELATING TO
ATROCITIES AGAINST WOMEN-II
HYDERABAD.
.