1 SC No.349 of 2022
IN THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,
WARANGAL
Thursday, this the 9th day of April, 2026
PRESENT: SMT. G. PREMALATHA, I Additional Sessions Judge.
SESSIONS CASE NO. 349 OF 2022
(PRC No.37 of 2022 on the file of I-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal – Crime No.353 of 2021 of AJ Mills Colony Police Station)
1.Name of the Complainant : The State of Telangana, through Inspector of Police, AJ Mills Colony.
2.Name of the Accused:
Akuthota Shireesh, S/o Sudhakar, Age: 32 years, Occu: A1) Business, R/o H.No.12-3-132, Yellambazar, Warangal.
Akuthota Sudhakar, S/o Mallaiah, Age: 58 years, Occu: A2) Business, R/o H.No.12-3-132, Yellambazar, Warangal.
3.Offence with which : U/s.417, 420, 376, 406, 506 of IPC Chargedagainst A1 and U/s.506 of IPC against A2.
4.Plea of the Accused: Pleaded not guilty.
5.Finding of the Court: A1 is found guilty for the offences punishable U/s.376, 417, 420, 406, 506 of IPC and A2 is found guilty for the offence U/s.506 IPC.
: Accused No.1 is found guilty of
6.Sentence or Order the offences punishable U/s.376, 417, 420, 406 and 506 of IPC and accused No.2 is found guilty of 2 SC No.349 of 2022 the offence punishable U/s.506 of IPC and accordingly, they are convicted for the said offences U/s.235(2) of Cr.P.C.
(i) Accused no.1 is sentenced to undergorigorous imprisonment for a period of TEN YEARS and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only), for the offence punishable u/s.376 of IPC, in default of payment of fine amount, he shall undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of ONE MONTH;
(ii) Accused No.1 is further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ONE YEAR. for the offence punishable U/s.417 of IPC.
(iii) Accused No.1 is further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of SEVEN YEARS and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) for the offence punishable U/s.420 of IPC, in default of payment of fine amount, he shall undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of ONE MONTH,
(iv) Accused No.1 is further 3 SC No.349 of 2022 sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ONE YEAR for the offence punishable U/s.406 of IPC.
(v) Accused No.1 is further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ONE MONTH for the offence punishable U/s.506 of IPC.
The Accused No.2 is sentenced pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one thousand only) for the offence punishable U/s.506 of IPC, in default of payment of fine amount, he shall undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of ONE MONTH.. ,
All the sentences imposed on accused No.1 shall run concurrently and the default sentences shall run consecutively.
Theremandperiod undergone by the accused from 01.10.2021 to 26.10.2021 shall be set off U/s.428 of Cr.P.C.
The accused No.1 and 2 are apprised about their right to prefer appeal before the Hon’ble High Court and they are further informed that they will will be 4 SC No.349 of 2022 provided legal aid counsel, if required, as per rules.
Free copy of Judgment is supplied to the accused.
7.Name of the Prosecution : Sri D.Brinda Devi, CounselSpecial Public Prosecutor
8.Name of the Defence : Sri T.Sridhar, Counsel Advocate for Accused No.1. Sri E.Anand Mohan, Advocate for Accused No.2.
This case having come before me on 02.03.2026 for final hearing in the presence of both counsel; upon hearing from both sides; upon perusing the material evidence available on record; and having stood over for consideration in the matter, till this day, this Court delivered the following:
:: J U D G M E N T ::
1.The Inspector of Police, AJ Mills Colony filed charge-sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 420, 376, 406, 506 IPC against the accused No.1 and Section 506 IPC against the accused
No.2.
2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows: A1 is the son of A2 and they hail from Yellambazar. Warangal. A2 is a well known person as 'SSS Sudhakar in liquor business’ in Warangal town. In the year 2014, the victim/LW-1 completed her M.Tech. In 5 SC No.349 of 2022 the month of January, 2017, when she went to Hanamkonda to meet one leader Konda Murali along with her mother and sister i.e., LWs 2 and 3, to take help for their land issue, where A1 followed her, developed acquaintance with her by giving his phone number and said that if she has any problem, he will solve.
Meanwhile, when A1 asked, the victim/LW1 gave her phone number and since then, he started doing frequent phone calls by saying he is unmarried, since when he saw her, he compassionated over her and he is in love with her. In that regard, the victim/LW-1 attracted with the optimistic words of A1 and she also fell in love with him. In the year-2013, when the father of victim/LW-I was expired, her two elders sisters marriages were solemnized by her mother. Presently, victim/LW-1 and her mother/LW-2 only residing together in their house. As A1 made the victim/LW1 believe that he will marry her, he took her several times to his house in the absence of his family members and when she was alone in their house, A1 convinced her by saying that anyhow they are going to marry nothing will happen if they have physical relation and forcibly participated in sexual intercourse with her. Further, A1 moved the victim/LW1 at various places and convinced and 6 SC No.349 of 2022 participated in sex with her. When LWs 1 to 3 sold away their agricultural land at Stambampally Village, Geesugonda Mandal vide Sy.No 292/B/1 and 170/A an extent of Ac 2.10 guntas and they got money for performing the marriage of LW-1 and make a living of Lws-2 and 3 and further, the entire money transaction was done with LW-1, by observing the money with LW-1, A1 told her that anyhow they are going to marry and for better future, if they invest the said money in any business, they can earn more money.
On that, LW1 by believing his words that however he will marry her, she handed over some amount in cash and transferred some amount through the accounts of herself and LWs 2 and 3 to A1, as under:
Details of Online transaction with Account Numbers of LWs 1 to 3 to Account No.1:
Sl.Name of theAc. No. & BankAmountAmount No.accounttransferredreceived to holderto theLWs 1 to 3 accusedaccounts as accountinterest
1.Victim5010014162030053,26,011-00 33,31,857-00 HDFC
2.Victim501002239626001,80,000-005,70,500-00 motherHDFC
3.Victim sister 50100398354836--1,00,000-00 HDFC 7 SC No.349 of 2022
4.Akuthota51501003516852248,66,001-00 28,11,858-00 Shireesh/A1Axistransferred to LWs 1 to 3 accounts
5.Akuthota501002785068044,60,000-005,19,999-00 Shireesh/A1HDFCtransferred to the LWs 1 to 3 accounts
6.Akuthota17560200003774GoldStatement Shireesh/A1Federalornamentsenclosed used by A1during the belongs toperiod 2017 victimto 23.09.2021.
Victim HDFC Credit Card A/c No.4854980605375353 used by the Accused No.1 in wine shops etc.
Sl.StatementPaymentTotal due No.Datedue dateamount
1.23.10.202113.10.20212,52,536-00
2.23.10.202113.10.20212,52,536-00
3.23.08.202112.09.20212,47,460-00
4.23.07.202112.08.20211,65,865-00
5.23.06.202113.07.20211,76,503-00
6.23.05.202112.06.20211,86,675-00
7.23.04.202113.05.20212,37,252-00
8.23.03.202112.04.20212,28,315-00
9.23.02.202115.03.20212,11,385-00
10.23.01.202112.02.20211,12,439-00
11.23.12.202012.01.20201,79,839-00 8 SC No.349 of 2022
12.23.11.202013.12.20201,66,236-00
13.23.10.202012.11.20202,23,115-00
14.23.09.202013.10.202033,505-00
15.23.08.202012.09.20201,50,000-00
Mother of the Victim HDFC Credit Card A/c No.5589830500750938 used by the Accused No.1 in wine shops etc.
Sl.StatementPaymentTotal due No.Datedue dateamount
1.14.10.2021----
2.14.09.202104.10.20211,38,444-00
3.14.08.202103.09.20211,67,735-00
4.14.07.202103.08.20211,37,541-00
5.14.06.202104.07.20211,27,347-00
6.14.05.202103.06.20211,26,211-00
7.14.04.202104.05.20211,43,087-00
8.14.03.202103.04.20212,19,101-00
9.14.02.202106.03.20211,71,916-00
10.14.01.202103.02.20211,60,253-00
11.14.12.202003.01.20211,66,75-00
12.14.11.202004.12.20201,53,546-00
13.14.10.202003.11.20201,61,213-00
14.14.09.202004.10.20202,771-00
15.03.08.202003.09.20201,31,203-00
16.14.07.202003.08.20207,135-00 9 SC No.349 of 2022
A1 used two Credit Cards belong to L.Ws 1 and 2 as per the statements supra and swiped amounts and used the same for his personal, and still kept the said two cards with him.
Later, the victim/LW1 came to know that A1 was already married and has a daughter, through his cell phone via social media
Apps, like Facebook, Whatsapp accounts and confirmed that she was cheated by A1 and for two months, she started questioning him to marry her, on that he started neglecting her and said that he is having background, he will not marry her and threatened with dire consequences. On 20.08.2021, the victim/LW1 went to the house of A1 and requested him to return their amounts at least, but A1 and A2 abused her in filthy language, where A2 has told her to give a legal notice to her and threatened with dire consequences. In that regard, when the victim/LW1 approached
LW5/Matta Durgaprasad, LW6/Adepu Sagar, LW7/Bollam Raju and
LW8/Kasturi Srinivas @ RTC Srinu for mediation about her gold ornaments of about 150 grams and Credit Cards, on that on 07.09.2021, A1 has returned gold ornaments only before LWs 5 to
8.Further, A1 mortgaged the gold ornaments of victim in 10 SC No.349 of 2022 federal bank from the year 2017 to 23.09.2021 and obtained loans through his account No.175602000003774, which account was linked to other accounts and used for his personal (bank statement enclosed) and on the force of victim, A1 handed over the gold ornaments to the victim before LWs 5 to 8.
3.On the complaint given by the victim/LW1, LW23/
Investigating Officer registered a case in Crime No.353/2021,
U/s.417, 420, 376 406, 506 IPC, issued Express FIRs to all the concerned and after completion of due investigation and collecting the required material papers from concerned, laid the charge- sheet.
4.Learned I-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal took cognizance of the offences punishable U/Sec.417, 420, 376, 406, 506 of IPC against accused No.1 and Section 506 of IPC against A2 and issued summons to them by registering the case as
PRC No.37 of 2022. Later on, as the offence punishable under
Section 376 of Indian Penal Code is exclusively triable by Court of
Sessions, it was committed to the Hon’ble Principal Sessions Judge,
Warangal vide Committal Order, dated 17.05.2022.
11 SC No.349 of 2022
5.On committal of the case, Hon'ble Principal Sessions Judge,
Warangal took the file on record as S.C.No.349 of 2023 and made over to this Court for trial and disposal as per law.
6.On appearance of the accused, they were furnished with copies of the documents as required U/Sec.208 Criminal Procedure
Code.
7.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused were heard on the charges.
8.Charges for the offences punishable under Sections U/s.417, 420, 376, 406, 506 IPC against Accused No.1 and U/s.506 IPC against Accused No.2 were framed, read over and explained to them in vernacular language, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
9.During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined L.Ws 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 12, 13, 15, 19, 20, 16, 17, 18, 22 and 23 as PWs 1 to
PW16 respectively and got marked Exs.P1 to P26. Learned
Addl.P.P. has given up the evidence of LW3/victim’s sister, LW8/
K.Srinivas, LW10/M.Manasa, Support person in BAROSA, LW11/ 12 SC No.349 of 2022
N.Narender, circumstantial witness and LW14/P.Anil Kumar, one of the panch witnesses. Police failed to serve the summons on the remaining witnesses, as such, their evidence was closed. During cross-examination of PW1, Ex.D1 was got marked.
10.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused No.1 and 2 were examined U/s.313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. They denied the same and reported no defence evidence.
11.Heard both sides. Perused the written arguments filed on both sides. Perused the material available on record.
12.Now the points for determination are:
Whether the prosecution could able to prove the guilt of the accused No.1 for the offences punishable U/s.417, 420, 376, 406, 506 of IPC and the guilt of the accused No.2 for the offence punishable U/s.506 of IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt?
POINT:
13.During the course of arguments, learned Addl. Public
Prosecutor and learned defence counsel for A1 filed written 13 SC No.349 of 2022 arguments along with citations. Learned counsel for A2 adopted the arguments of A1.
14.Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor submitted that as per the material portion of evidence of PW1, she had deposed that in the month of January 2017, PW1 went MLA’s office in Hanamkonda regarding land issue, where A1 followed her outside and offered to help her and in that regard, A1 had taken mobile number of PW1.
After that, A1 began to call her and message her falsely claiming that he was unmarried and he fallen in love with her and he promised to marry her, then she also started loving A1 based on his promise to marry. Subsequently, when family members of A1 were not present in his house at Yellambazar, A1 took PW1 to his house, where he forcibly committed sexual intercourse on PW1 in the name of love and marriage without her free consent.
Subsequently, the family of PW1 sold out their ancestral land and portion of sale consideration i.e., Rs.50 lakhs was kept aside for the marriage of Pw1. By knowing the same, A1 advised PW1 that keeping money in the bank was non-profitable and asked PW1 to invest it in his business. On that, PW1 transferred a total 14 SC No.349 of 2022 amount of Rs.90 lakhs from her and her family member's bank accounts to A1's bank accounts in Axis Bank, HDFC Bank, on different occasions. PW1 also gave her gold jewellary weighing 15 tulas to A1 for safe custody in his Federal Bank locker. A1 also used the Credit Cards of PW1 and PW2, worth of Rs.6 lakhs. When
PW1 discovered that A1 was already married and had a child after seeing his Facebook profile, PW1 confronted the same with A1, on that A1 abused her and not intending to marry her.
On 22.0812021, when PW1 went to the house of accused, in order to take back her money and gold ornaments, A2 refused to return the money, insulted her and threatened to kill her, if she comes again. On that, PW1 approached elders including PW5 and a Reporter by name Sagar. On 07.09.2021 at the house of PW5, A1 returned 15 tulas of gold but failed to return the cash or settled the credit cards. Thereafter, A1 threatened PW1 that if she tells to anyone, he would make their private photos, videos and conversations to public to damage her reputation, as such, PW1 lodged Ex.P1 complaint/report.
It is further argued by learned Addl. Public Prosecutor that 15 SC No.349 of 2022
PW1 testified that A1 had executed Exs.P2 to P5/four separate agreements on Non-judicial stamp papers acknowledging debt to
PW1. These documents constitute admission in writing by A1.
According to Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act, facts admitted need not be proved. The facts admitted by A1 by way of bonds i.e., the receipt of money and liability to pay, need not be proved by any other evidence and this is the most compelling evidence in admission against one's own interest is considered highly reliable.
It conclusively proves the financial transaction and dishonest intention behind it. Exs.P6 to P8 are blank signed cheques from
A1's Axis, Federal and HDFC bank accounts signed by A1. These cheques acted as corroborative evidence to the bond papers i.e.,
Exs.P2 to P5. These cheques proved the fact of financial transactions in between A1 and PW1. Ex.P9 is a sale deed, which was executed by mother of PW1, which shows the sale of their land. From Exs.P2 to P5 and P6 to P8, clearly show 1) providing a legitimate source of funds which were transferred to A1 by PW1l;
2) Corroborate the testimony of PW1 and PW2 regarding the sale of ancestral land; and 3) Rebut the potential defence claims that the victim lacked the financial means to give Rs.90 Lakhs to A1.
16 SC No.349 of 2022
The discrepancies between the documented sale price and the actual amount claimed are explained by PW1. The actual sale consideration amount will not be shown in the sale deed and it is common practice of under reporting the transaction value in sale deed to save the taxes and fees. This Court has to consider the above explanation along with overall evidence to determine the facts.
It is further argued by learned Addl. Public Prosecutor that
Ex.P10/GPA deed was executed by father of PW1 when he was alive. This GPA deed is a fact that occasioned the subsequent sale of properties, which in turn occasioned the availability of funds transferred to A1. Ex.P10 shows that PW1 and PW2 had control and right over immovable property and had valid means to generate funds. Exs.P11 and P12 are Encumbrance Certificates, which prove that the family of PW1 had property and executed sale deeds in order to raise the funds.
15.On the other hand, learned defence counsel in his written arguments while reproducing the evidence of PW1 further submitted that PW1 never stated that without her willingness and 17 SC No.349 of 2022 consent the sexual intercourse took place. She did not state in her
Sec.161 CrPC statement that PW1 and A1 sent their messages through phones and the same was continued about 6 to 7 months and A1 told to PW1 that he was unmarried and fell in love and promised to marry her. PW16 did not seize the phones at the time of recording her statement. PW1 did not hand over any cell phones to PW16 and PW16 did not collect any cell phone from A1 to prove the conversations between PW1 and A1. PW16 did not retrieve any conversations of chatting and audio recording in between PW1 and A1 from the cell phone of PW1. PW1 in her cross examination admitted that she handed over the chatting and audio recordings to PW16. PW1 did not state that PW16 verified the chatting and audio recording from the mobile of PW1. PW16 did not convert the same into CD or pen-drive, but he stated that he filed pen-drive, which was taken from CD in this Court. PW1 did not furnish any document or deposited bank statements or fixed deposit bonds before the Court to show that her father deposited
Rs.15 lakhs amount. Father of PW1 died in the year 2013 and the said GPA/Ex.P10 executed by father of PW1 was markeda s Ex.P10, but the same was not seized by PW16. Ex.P10 shows the total 18 SC No.349 of 2022 market value as Rs.13.80,000/- only. Father of PW1 already performed his two other daughters marriages. Exs.P2 to P5/bond papers furnished by PW1 on Rs.100/- non-judicial stamp paper,
dated 01.07.2020, 01.10.2020, 19.04.2021 and 17.07.2021
respectively in the said exhibits did not show that when PW1 gave amount to A1, but the said amount was not reflected in the bank statements of PW1 or PW2. ExsP6 to P8 are blank cheques and the amount was not mentioned in the said cheques. ExP-9 is certified copy of Sale deed executed by PW2 in favour of K.Mahesh for total sale consideration of Rs 3,00,000/-. Ex.P10 is the certified copy of
GPA executed by the father of PW1 in favour of Gaddam Ravi under which PW1 stood as witness.
He further argued that, as per the evidence of PW1, she deposed that in absence of his family members and when A1 was alone, A1 took her to his house and committed sexual intercourse on her in the name of love and marriage without her willingness and consent. Except the aforesaid words, PW1 did not say anything against A1 with regard to alleged rape. PW1 did not state for how many times A1 participated in the sexual intercourse with 19 SC No.349 of 2022 her during the period of 2017 to till lodging of Ex.P1. PW16 also did not investigate in this aspect. PW1 did not depose when she saw the Facebook account and Whatsapp account of A1, in which
A1 was holding a baby and with a lady, when she got knowledge about the marriage of A1 with the lady shown in Whatsapp and
Facebook. It is an admitted fact that the wife of A1 is Corporater in
Yellam Bazar area where A1 house is situated. PW16 did not examine any of the witnesses to show the closeness of PW1 and
A1. The house of A1 is in busy locality. PW1 admitted that A1 has taken her in his car, but she did not reveal the vehicle number, color of the vehicle, which company of the vehicle and when A1 roaming with PW1 in his car none of the person saw them. PW1 did not file any single piece of evidence to show their closeness except chatting and audio recording which was retrieved by PW1 from her mobile. PW16 did not send chatting records to the concerned mobile company to FSL for comparison and genuinety of chatting, whether those chattings were made out from the mobile of PW1. PW16 did not send voice recordings of A1 to the
FSL for comparison. Further, as per the Ex.P9, PW2 sold only 20 guntas for consideration of Rs.3.00.000/-. When PW2 sold away 20 SC No.349 of 2022 the property for an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- only, transferring of
Rs. 90,00,000/- amount by PW1 and Pw2 to A1 is false.
16.Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor filed written reply argument to the written arguments filed by defence counsel stating that initially, the defence counsel has suggested that PW1 never visited the house of A1 at all and subsequently, during cross-examination of PW2, the defence counsel has suggested that PW1 came to the house of A1 for asking money only. PW3 explicitly clarified in cross-examination that they went for asking money as well as for not marrying PW1 in spite of promising to marry her and using her sexually. Such shifting stands demonstrate that the defence has no consistent version of events and relied on the citation i.e.,
Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Suresh, reported in
2001 (1) SCC 471, in which it was held that :“
Contradictory defence versions indicate fabrication and strengthen the prosecution case.”
17.Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor further argued that the defence contention that PW1 knew about A1’s marriage from the beginning, since the wife of A1 was a Corporator and flexes and 21 SC No.349 of 2022 banners were displayed and PW1 saw Whatsapp and Facebook showing wife and child. The relationship period between PW1 and
A1 is from January 2017 to February 2021. The Municipal Elections were held in January 2016 and April 2021. Wife of A1 was elected as Corporator in the month of April 2021. The relationship concluded in the month of February 2021. Therefore, during the entire relationship period i.e., January 2017 to February 2021, the wife of A1 was not a Corporator. She was elected in the month of
April 2021, after the relationship ended. The claim of flexes in chronologically impossible and demonstrably false. Regarding
Facebook discovery, PW1 stated that she discovered the marital status only after the relationship was ongoing. The evidence shows that A1 did not change his phone number even after discovery. At this juncture, the prosecution relied on a citation reported in 2019 (13) SCC in between Anurag Soni Vs. State of
Chattisgarh, the Supreme Court held that:
“When accused never intended to marry from inception, consent is vitiated by misconception. The timing of discovery is irrelevant to whether initial consent was obtained through deception.” 22 SC No.349 of 2022
18.The crucial legal question in the present case is whether consent was valid or vitiated by misconception under Section 90
IPC. Section 90 IPC speaks “Consent is not valid if given under fear of injury or under misconception of fact, and the person doing the act knows or has reason to believe that the consent was given in consequence of such fear or misconception.” Accused No.1 actively concealed his existing marriage and child. He falsely represented himself as unmarried and promised to marry PW1. PW1’s consent was conditional upon and induced by the false promise of A1. The promise was false from inception, as he was already married.
19.For the above citations filed by the prosecution, learned defence counsel relied on the following citations:
i) 2025 (3) ALT (Crl.) 318 (T.S.) ii) 2025 (3) ALT (Crl.) 512 (T.S.) iii)2025 (2) ALT (Crl.) 359 (DB T.S.) iv)2025 (2) ALT (Crl.) 378 (S.C.)
20.Now, the prosecution has to establish the first element of consent given by PW1 under misconception of fact under Section 90 of IPC. As per the evidence of PW1, under the guise of love and 23 SC No.349 of 2022 false promise of marriage, she believed the accused No.1, then after 6 or 7 months period, he committed sexual intercourse on her in the absence of his family members at Yellambazar. As submitted by defence counsel, PW1 stated that only on the above occasion,
A1 has committed sexual intercourse and thereafter, she did not state for how many times he committed sexual intercourse, etc.
After few days, by seeing his Facebook account and Whatsapp, etc., she came to know that he was already married and having one baby. When she questioned the accused, he revealed the same. By knowing that she was cheated by accused, on 22.08.2021, she went to the house of accused No.1 and asked him to return her money and gold, then A2 also abused her saying that they will not give any money and threatened her to do whatever they want. Then, she approached the elders by name Sagar, Reporter of CVR news and
Bollam Raju, and revealed everything to them. On that, A1 returned 15 tulas gold kept by him in his locker at the house of
Bollam Raju on 07.09.2021. During her cross examination, PW1 replied that two months prior to lodging of this complaint, she came to know about the marriage of A1. PW2, mother of PW1, also stated that A1 took her daughter's mobile number and started 24 SC No.349 of 2022 talking with her and also used to come to her house. Her husband expired about 10 years ago. During his lifetime, they sold out 2 acres of land situated at Dubakutta, and received an amount of one core, out of which they deposited Rs.90 lakhs in the bank account of herself and her daughters to perform marriage of PW1, who is her younger daughter. Then, accused No.1 advised PW1 that by keeping an amount in the bank, she will not get any profit and advised to invest in his business. Then, he utilized Rs.90 lakhs amount and also took 15 tulas of gold. He used her daughter sexually by coming to her house, in her absence. He used to roam with his daughter. Her daughter went to his house to ask about marriage, then he revealed that he got married and having child and refused to marry her and also threatened to kill her.
21.PW3 stated that he has acquaintance with PW1’s grandmother's family and he also stated that accused No.1 used
PW1 sexually and he has taken Rs.90 lakhs cash and gold, and two credit cards to start his business.
22.Learned defence counsel submitted that the medical evidence is also not supporting the version of PW1. As per 25 SC No.349 of 2022
Ex.P18/preliminary report issued by PW10, everything was normal and PW1’s hymen was not intact. Finally, PW10 stated that there is no medical evidence of recent sexual intercourse, and nothing is suggestive of that she has not participated in sexual intercourse.
In her cross examination, she stated that as per Ex.P18/preliminary report, there was no forcible intercourse and there are no signs of external injuries. As per Ex.P19/FSL report, it is mentioned that “Letter, dated 11.10.2021, Lr.No.100/RFSL/ACP/Warangal/2021”.
She admitted that as on the date of examination, the victim was 30 years old. In her preliminary report, Ex.B18, her observation is hymen was not intact, introitus admitting two fingers and basing on that, she gave her final opinion, opining that there was nothing to suggest that she has not participated in sexual intercourse. She further admitted that there is no other medical evidence or clinical evidence to say that she participated in sexual intercourse.
23.Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor replied that this is not a case of forcible rape with resistance. This is a case of consensual sexual intercourse obtained through fraud, therefore, no injuries are expected. Further, the time gap of 7 months between last 26 SC No.349 of 2022 intercourse and examination, explains absence of semen. Hymen was not intact proves sexual intercourse. At this juncture, prosecution has relied on the citation i.e., Rajiv Kumar Vs. State of
HP, (2023) INSC 88, in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that:
“In rape on false promise where acts, consensual but consent vitiated by deception, medical evidence of forcible penetration, not expected. Prosecution case rests on proving consent obtained through fraud, not medical proof of forcible intercourse.”
24.At this juncture, this Court also relies on a citation i.e., State of Punjab Vs. Gurmit Singh, reported in (1996) 2 SCC 384, wherein it was held that :
25. “In the absence of injury on the private part of the prosecutrix, it cannot be concluded that the incident had not taken place or the sexual Intercourse was committed with the consent of the prosecutrix.”
25.The evidence of PW1 is corroborated by PW2 and PW3 to the extent of A1 committing sexual intercourse with PW1. Since it is an offence of sexual intercourse committed by accused within four walls, the defence cannot expect the evidence of the 27 SC No.349 of 2022 eyewitnesses.
26.Apart from her oral evidence, PW1 also relied on the documentary evidence of Exs.P2 to P5/bonds executed on Rs.100/- stamp paper and Exs.P1 to P6 and P23 to P26. Ex.P2 is the bond, dt.01.07.2020 executed by accused undertaking that he will return the amount of Rs.20 lakhs taken from the defacto-complainant/ victim/PW1 within 6 months with 2% interest. Ex.P3 is another bond executed by accused in favour of victim, undertaking to return Rs.30 lakhs taken by him from the victim by January 2015.
Ex.P4 is another bond executed by accused in favour of victim undertaking to return her Rs.35 lakhs amount and he will close the loan before July. He also stated that he would return Cards’ loan,
Rs.3 lakhs loan and also gold took by him from the victim, on or
before July. Otherwise, he is ready to sell the properties and he
also assured that he will give interest on every 15th of the month for the above Rs.35 lakhs. Ex.P5 is another document executed by accused in favour of victim, undertaking to give Rs.35 lakhs on or
before August 31st and if he dies, his father would give the same.
All these documents Exs.P2 to P5 clearly establishes that A1 has 28 SC No.349 of 2022 taken lakhs of rupees i.e., Rs.20 lakhs, Rs.30 lakhs, Rs.35 lakhs,
Credit cards, gold, etc., from the victim. Further, he also handed over blank signed cheques, though the defence counsel disputes that these are blank cheques, not issued in the name of anybody, then the burden is also on the defence to prove that how these cheques have come into the hands of PW1 and there is no evidence on this aspect. Execution of Exs.P2 to P5 by accused for lakhs of rupees in favour of PW1 clearly reveals that he has taken the amounts reflected under those documents from her. As such,
Exs.P2 to P5 coupled with Ex.P6 to P8 clearly establish the closeness between PW1 and accused. Unless and until there is
closeness between two persons, transfer of huge amounts by
one unmarried female to a male is not a simple issue and cannot
be taken in a lighter way and the same remained unexplained by
defence though they are accountable for it.
27.Further, learned counsel has taken a defence that, PW1 has knowledge about wife and daughter of A1, since wife of A1 is a
Corporator. The contention of learned Addl.PP is that the
Municipal Elections were conducted in the year 2016 and 2021 29 SC No.349 of 2022
April only and by the time of election in 2021, the relationship between them was concluded (i.e., in the month of February 2021).
In Municipal Elections of 2016, some other was elected as
Corporator, and only in the year of 2021 April, the wife of A1 was elected as Corporator. Since the defence failed to file any documentary proof, such as election commission record, government gazette notification, certified documents, proving the date of elections and A1’s wife tenure as Corporator, his defence would not sustain.
28.In view of the above discussion, the consent obtained by A1 falls U/s.90 IPC, as the accused falsely represented himself as unmarried and promised to marry her, as submitted by learned
Addl.PP. Due to inducement of his false promise, she also accepted his love and under the guise of marriage, sexual intercourse took place between them. As contended by learned
Addl.PP, A1 from the inception was never intended to marry her and made false promises, as such, the consent is vitiated by misconception of fact, constituting the rape under Section 375 IPC.
By believing his false promise, lakhs of rupees amount has been 30 SC No.349 of 2022 transferred to the bank accounts of accused, he utilized the same and later executed Ex.P2 to P5/bonds and also handed over blank cheques to her. As such, the sole testimony of PW1 is trustworthy and corroborated by documentary evidence under Exs.P2 to P5.
Further, to show the source of income, the victim also relied on the documentary evidence of sale deed showing that her mother has sold out the land under Ex.P9 in favour of K.Mahesh. Though the sale consideration amount is shown as Rs.3 lakhs, the discrepancies between the documents and sale price and the actual amount claimed are explained by PW1 and the actual sale consideration amount will not be shown in the sale deed as common practice of reporting the same transaction value in the sale deed to save the taxes and fees. At this juncture, the prosecution relied on the citation: Kamraj Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2013 (9) SCC 299, in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that:
“Actual consideration often higher than sale deed mentioned. This practice is widespread. When other evidence establishes true consideration, courts should not mechanically reject merely because, it differs from the registered document.” 31 SC No.349 of 2022
29.In view of the above, the explanation given by PW1 can be considered on this aspect. Exs.P11 and P12/E.Cs also prove that the family of PW1 had property and they executed sale in order to raise the funds. Ex.P10/Certified a copy of GPA executed by her father is a fact, that occasion is subsequent sale of properties, which, in turn, occasion the availability of funds transferred to A1, hence all the subsequent documents of Ex.P9 to P12, which are the documents relating to immovable properties of father of PW1 also corroborates her evidence.
30.The evidence of PW1 is corroborated by the evidence of her mother, in material particulars and also the documentary evidence, which strongly supports her version.
31.Ex.P13 is the pen-drive, in which the data was retrieved from
CD in the open Court filed along with charge-sheet. Since the
Investigating Officer has not forwarded the said pen-drive to FSL for comparison and for confirmation of accused voice in the said pen-drive, and in the absence of Sec.65-B Certificate issued by an
Expert or proper authority, the same cannot be considered, though the prosecution has agitated much about the conversation 32 SC No.349 of 2022 between the accused and herself in terms of messages, Whatsapp chats etc.
32.Ex.P14 is the 65-B Certificate filed along with pen-drive by defacto-complainant, which was marked subject to objection, as the same was given at a later point of time along with petition, and this Ex.P14 was also not issued by proper authority (and it is the certificate of the victim, but not issued by any authority), Further,
PW16/Investigating Officer did not send the chatting records to the concerned mobile company or to FSL for comparison and about the genuinety of chattings, whether those chattings were made out from the mobile of PW1 etc., and he did not send voice recording of A1 to FSL. In view of the above, Exs.P13 and P14 cannot be considered.
33.Learned defence counsel further argued that PW1 did not furnish any descriptive particulars of gold i.e., either of the ornaments or raw material, and she did not give any details of credit cards’ particulars i.e., which bank credit cards she handed over to A1. PW16 collected the gold loan account statement.
When A1 kept gold in bank locker, why he collected the gold loan 33 SC No.349 of 2022 statement etc. PW2 says that PW1 is not going anywhere from her house. As such, the alleged return of gold in the presence of PWs 3 to 5 does not arise.
34.Learned defence counsel raised another contention that there is contradiction between the evidence of PW1 and PW2 about the place of accused No.1 committing sexual intercourse i.e., whether in the house of accused or in the house of PW2, as stated by PW2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 2 is quite different with regard to receiving of gold also. In this regard, learned Addl.P.P. argued that the crime is not a single, isolated event that happened at one pinpointed location. Instead, it was a continuing offence or a single transaction that occurred over time and across different locations in Warangal. Courts have consistently held that if several criminal acts are so connected that they form part of the same transaction. Any court within whose jurisdiction, any one of those acts occurred, can try the entire case. According to Section 178
CrPC, when it is uncertain, in which of several local areas and an offence was committed, it may be inquired into or tried by a court having jurisdiction, over any of such local area. For an offence 34 SC No.349 of 2022 consisting of acts any court within whose jurisdiction any one of those acts is committed has jurisdiction to try the entire efforts.
The court emphasized the need to see the transaction as a whole.
For the offence of rape committed on a false promise of marriage, the entire sequence of events from the false promise of marriage to subsequent acts can be considered as a single transaction. If any part of the transaction occurs in a different jurisdiction, that court can also try the case. As contended by the prosecution, the
offence is not single and there are series of acts committed by
accused over a period of time and all these acts were not at one
place. Hence, their jurisdiction cannot be fixed at one place. As
such, for the contention of the defence counsel with regard to
jurisdiction of the police station and the reply given by the
prosecution holds good.
35.Learned counsel further argued that PW3 to PW5 are alleged elders, but the evidence of PW3 is hearsay evidence. PW1 not stated anywhere in her chief evidence that in the presence of PW4 gold was returned. PW5 is also one of the elders. Accused No.1 returned the gold in his presence to PW1, but they did not execute 35 SC No.349 of 2022 any document with regard to return of gold. When he does not know about the transaction, the question of issuing the gold and receiving of gold does not arise. PWs 3 to 5 did mention anywhere that the gold was weighed in their presence.
36.The prosecution replied that PW3 is an independent and unrelated witness. He directly supported PW1's allegation that her consent was obtained under false pretext. His evidence supports the legitimate source of Rs.90 lakhs and dishonest inducement, financial exploitation and threat by A1 and A2. During cross- examination, PW3 replied that they went to the house of A1 for asking money as well as for not marrying PW1 in spite of promising to marry her and using her sexually. The above reply is with regard to financial demand i.e., return of money, and also about breach of marriage, promise and sexual exploitation, as submitted by
Addl.PP. Hence, the evidence of this witness is also supporting the case of proscription. The witness PW4 is a Reporter by profession and independent witness, to whom PW1 approached for her redressal. In the presence of PW4, A1 admitted his guilt of committing sexual intercourse and also admitted about taking of 36 SC No.349 of 2022 cash and gold. During the same meeting, A1 returned the gold ornaments to PW1 and sought time to return the cash and credit cards.
37.PW4 evidence regarding sexual exploitation Is hearsay evidence, since he knows the same through PW1. Just because his evidence is hearsay evidence, it cannot be ignored, since he is not interested witness and PW1 approached him as he is an elder. The defence counsel has not elicited anything disproving his version.
38.The witness PW5 is also an independent witness. In his chief examination, he stated that in the year 2021, a scrolling was coming in CVR news channel about A1 stating that he used one lady sexually and utilized her money and by seeing that scrolling,
A1 called him and requested him to discuss the matter. After 2 or 3 days, Sagar, PW4, A1, K.Srinivas/LW8 and victim came to his house. All of them enquired the victim, then she disclosed that in the name of marriage, A1 committed sexual intercourse on her and used her money of Rs.90 lakhs. He also used her credit cards and gold, then they questioned A1. On that, A1 admitted the same to be true and returned her gold to them. In turn, they handed over 37 SC No.349 of 2022 the said gold to victim. To return the money and credit cards, A1 asked 2 months time, then they all disbursed. During cross examination, he replied that there was no written document and they did not calculate the gold in terms of money etc., and no document was executed in his presence and he does not know the total amount given by PW1 to A1 and the amount returned by A1 to PW1. The defence counsel has not elicited any such points disproving the version of this witness, except the above. Mere non-mentioning of calculation of gold in terms of money, not excluding of document, etc., will not come to the rescue of defence. On the whole, PW5 supported the case of prosecution and his evidence is corroborating the evidence of PW1 with regard to sexual exploitation in the name of love and marriage.
39.PW6 is an Inspector of Police, who recorded the statement of victim. In her cross-examination, she admitted about some omission portion of evidence of PW1. Though there are some omissions admitted by this witness, deposed by PW1 in her chief examination, the defence counsel could not disprove the act of sexual intercourse or handing over money and gold etc., by PW1. It 38 SC No.349 of 2022 is settled law that when a victim has been narrating the series of incidents, minor discrepancies or omissions may bound to occur, but there is no such material contradiction or omission nor improvement made by her, which is fatal to the case of prosecution. Further, since the victim was examined by doctor after a period of seven months of their intercourse, the medical evidence of injury, etc., cannot be expected, and the citation filed by the Addl.PP is applicable to the present case.
40.PW7 is a witness for scene of offence panchanama. He deposed about conducting of scene of offence panchanama.
Nothing material is elicited from his cross-examination.
41.PW8 in his chief examination could not say in detail, but in his cross examination, he admitted that the house of A2 is in front of his house and A1 is son of A2. After coming to his house, Police went to the house of A2, but he denied about conducting of panchanama. Though this witness turned hostile, the other panch panch witness i.e., PW7, supported the case of prosecution. Since it is a sexual offence, drafting of rough sketch does not play much role.
39 SC No.349 of 2022
42.PW9 is a witness, in whose presence, confession panchanama-cum-recovery panchanama was recorded. In his presence, police recovered the Passport of A1, four cheque books and four Xerox stamp papers containing money transaction.
Ex.P17 is four cheque books. In his cross-examination, the defence counsel has not elicited any such material points disproving his version.
43.PW11 is the doctor, who conducted potency test of accused and his cross examination is reported as nil.
44.PW12 is the then Branch Manager of Axis Bank and present
Manager of HDFC. Ex.P23 is the statement of Axis Bank provided by him to the Inspector of Police, on the requisition. In his cross examination, he replied that his statement was not recorded. He does not remember whether he sent the material under Ex.P23 to police through post. In the requisition, there is no mention about the transaction with whom Akuthota Sirish has done and he does not have personal knowledge about the transaction. On perusal of
Ex.P23, it is clear that, on number of occasions, PW1 has transferred several amounts to A1. Ex.P23 is the account details of 40 SC No.349 of 2022
A1 issued by Axis Bank, Warangal Branch, which bears the stamp of the bank.
45.PW13 is the then Branch Manager in HDFC Bank. He stated that Ex.P24 is the statement of account of Suramma, M.Anitha and credit card transaction of S.Haritha, and S.Suramma i.e., PW1 and
PW2. During cross examination, he replied that Ex.P24 does not bear the signature of issuing authority. The said Ex.P24 contain seal of the bank and signature of staff in page No. 2 and 3. He cannot say who utilize the credit cards. As seen from Ex.P24.
which is the statement account of HDFC Bank (download printout) and bears the stamp of HDFC Bank. Hence, this Ex.P24 issued by bank authority with their stamp can be believed. Bunch of documents under Ex.P24 clearly establishes the transfer of funds from PWs 1 and 2 to the account of accused, since the said statements bear the stamp of the bank, as such, the objection of the counsel does not sustain.
46.Ex.P25 is the HDFC credit card account transaction details, which also bears the stamp of the bank with signature. Ex.P26 is the Federal Bank account details, which also bears the stamp of 41 SC No.349 of 2022 the bank, marked through PW14.
47.All the above bank transactions from Exs.P23 to P26 clearly establish that the accused No.1 has utilized the amounts of PW1 and PW2 and the credit cards of PW1, etc. Under Ex.P26 Federal
Bank letter, it is stated that the information sought on gold loans closure in the name of Akuthota Sirish and it is stated that no gold loans are closed during the period from 01.082021 to 31.10.2021 in the name of Akuthota Sirish. So, the above documentary evidence clearly establishes the deception on the part of accused towards
PW1 in the name of love and marriage.
48.With regard to evidence of PW16/ Investigating Officer, learned defence counsel contended that he did not send any charts or audio clips to FSL to show that whether it was retrieved from the mobile of PW1 and he did not investigate on which device PW1 retrieved the charts and voice records, and converted into CD.
PW16 admitted that there is two months delay in lodging Ex.P1 and PW16 also admitted that, 2 months prior to lodging the complaint, there were no disputes of money transactions between
PW1 and A1. Then, PW1 approached the elders, as such, there was 42 SC No.349 of 2022 a delay in lodging Ex.P1. Ex.D1 i.e., portion marked in Ex.P1 complaint, does not reveal about the sexual relation between PW1 and A1. The said portion is only with regard to date of her visit on 22nd August 2021. When the complaint, which runs into two pages, reveals the version of the victim, the particular portion cannot be split, and the complaint has to be read and considered on the whole. As such, Ex.D1 cannot be considered.
49.In his written arguments, learned counsel go on mentioning about some admissions of Investigating Officer and contended that Exs.P2 to P4 and P23 to P26 were filed after filing charge- sheet and prayed not to consider the same. Learned Addl. Public
Prosecutor replied that for the lapses of Investigating Officer, the case cannot be ended in acquittal. The Addl. P.P. relied on the citation of Muniappan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2010) 9 SCC 567, in which it was held that:
“While investigating the officer lapses do not automatically warrant acquittal, the court must scrutinize the evidence to determine if the lapses prejudiced the accused or rendered the evidence unreliable. The court will assess the overall evidence, including the reliability of witnesses, to determine the truth of the charge despite 43 SC No.349 of 2022 investigative flaws.”
50.Perused the charge-sheet. The prosecution has not introduced a new case through Exs.P2 to P12 and P23 to P26. The charge-sheet discloses all the details of Exs.P2 to P12 and also
Exs.P23 to P26. Initially, the Investigating Officer filed xerox copies of the same and later he filed originals. As such, the objection of the defence counsel doest not sustain.
51.This Court did not consider Exs.P13 and P14, which were filed at a later point of time, in view of grounds as discussed in the preceding paragraphs.
52.With regard to delay in lodging complaint, learned Addl.PP submitted that, the delay is fully explained and natural given circumstances i.e., discovering 4-year deception require time to process; attempts at private resolution, first confronted A1 on 22.08.2021, sought elder intervention; on 07.09.2021 gold returned, but money not returned; and after refusal and threats,
FIR lodged on 23.09.2021.
53.The prosecution also relied on the citations: (2001) 6 SCC 71, 44 SC No.349 of 2022 in between State of HP v. Gian Chand, in which the Hon’ble
Supreme Court held that:
“Delayed in sexual offences not fatal when reasonable explanation. Victim attempting private resolution before police is natural course. Law does not expect immediate police approach.”
54.Learned Addl.PP relied on another citation : (2009) 8 SCC 28, in State of Maharashtra v. Narayan Shamrao Kulkarni. in which the Hon’ble Court held that:
“In rape on promise of marriage, victims often delay due to societal stigma, emotional trauma, hopes accused might fulfill promise. Such delay, when satisfactorily explained, does not make case doubtful.”
55.At this juncture, this Court also relies on the citations of AIR 2006 SC 3084, in between Dildar Singh v. State of Punjab, wherein it was held that “delay in lodging FIR cannot be used as a ritualistic formula for doubting the prosecution case and doubting the same.”
56.Since the honour of the family is involved in reporting the case to police, the family of the victim may be under pressure for different factors, like concentrate on solving the issue amicably in 45 SC No.349 of 2022 the presence of elders. As such, the family of the victim in the sexual offences cannot be expected to rush to the police station for lodging complaint. In the present case, it is evident that the parties approached the elders to solve their issue and the elders/PWs 3 to 5 also supported the case of PW1 and PW2 when they failed to get any fruitful result in the attempts made by them.
57.It is not out of place to mention that, initially the victim questioned the accused and then, she approached the elders. As submitted by the Addl. P.P. Initially, gold was returned in the presence of elders and later, complaint was lodged. It doesn't mean that, only for the purpose of returning her money, she filed this complaint.
58.After considering the entire prosecution evidence i.e., oral and documentary evidence, it is clear that the Accused No.1 obtained consent of PW1 for sexual intercourse by false promise of marriage, though he was already got married and having one baby and thereby vitiating her consent under Section 90 IPC constitutes rape under Section 375 IPC, punishable under Section 376 IPC. He dishonestly induced PW1 to deliver Rs.90 lakhs and 46 SC No.349 of 2022 gold ornaments and thereby committed cheating under Section 420 IPC. He committed a criminal breach of trust by mortgaging gold ornaments of PW1 for his own benefit and thereby committed the offence under Section 406 IPC. PW1 in her chief examination clearly stated that when she visited their house, A2, who is father of A1, abused her saying that they will not give any money and threatened her to do whatever she wants. He threatened her saying that they have good background and insulted her by refusing to return the money, and threatened to kill her if she comes again. The above portion of evidence against
A2 falls under Section 506 IPC. Both A1 and A2 criminally intimidated PW1. Hence, the offence punishable U/s.506 IPC is established against A1 and A2.
59.Apart from the oral arguments, learned defence counsel relied on the following citations:
i.The first citation filed by the counsel is 2025 (3) ALT (Crl.) 318 (T.S.), which is in between Mohammed Irfan Khan v.
State of A.P., in which PW1 lodged complaint with an intention to pressurize the accused No.1 to marry her. In 47 SC No.349 of 2022 the present case, the accused No.1 was already married and having daughter. Hence, it is clear that the occasion of accused No.1 marrying PW1 in future does not arise.
Hence, here the accused No.1 is having dishonest intention since the date of acquaintance with PW1. As such, the question marrying in future or making efforts to marry in future, or pressurizing him to marry her, or lodging false complaint against him to marry him, etc., does not arise at all. As such, the above citation filed by the defence counsel is not applicable to the present case.
ii.The 2nd citation is 2025 (3) ALT (Crl.) 572 (T.S.), which is in between Bheemineni Bhanu Chander and others v.
State of Telangana, and it is with regard to delay in lodging complaint and such delay was remained unexplained, and in the said case, the victim is a married woman, having two children. The said case is not applicable to the present case.
iii.Another citation is 2025 (2) ALT (Crl.) 359 (DB) (T.S.), which is in between Colonel Rishi Sharma v. State of 48 SC No.349 of 2022
Telangana. This case is with regard to delay of 7 days creating doubt. In the documentary evidence placed by the appellant supports the case of appellant.
60.In the present case, the victim has placed bundle of
documentary which support her version strongly. Though in her
oral evidence there are some omissions and she could not
depose in sequence as stated in her complaint and 161
statement, due to lengthy narration, it doesn't mean that she
has improved or exaggerated, or given false version etc. When
her documentary evidence is strong enough, the simple
contradiction between PW1 and PW2 with regard to place of
offence cannot be scrutinized deeply.
61.Learned defence counsel relied on another citation of
Pramod Kumar Navratna Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others, in which it was held that the criminal prosecution was malafied intention maliciously instituted to take vengeance against accused.
In the present case, the victim has not reported the case out of the vengeance. If so, she ought to have approached the police immediately, but she roamed around the elders PWs 3 to 5, which 49 SC No.349 of 2022 itself speaks her efforts in getting her money and gold back at least, as it appears that since the accused No.1 was already got married and having a child, she would not get proper justice (by marrying him as a second wife, which is not legal). Hence, the version of defence cannot be accepted. As such, all the contentions raised by the defence in the written arguments cannot be accepted.
62.Learned defence counsel also relied on another citation reported in 2025 (2) ALT (Crl.) 378 (SC), which is in between
Jothiragawan v. State, it was held that “as per the victim’s statement, she willingly accompanied the accused to a hotel room and she stated that after the first instance and second instance, she was mentally upset, but that did not caution her from again accompanying the accused to hotel room.” This case law is entirely different from the present case. As such, the same is not applicable.
63.Learned Addl. P.P. replied that the citations filed by the defence counsel are not applicable to the present case. In one of the citations, divorce petition is kept pending. In the present case, 50 SC No.349 of 2022 the victim is an unmarried woman.
64.Hence, the above citations filed by learned defence counsel are in no way applicable to the present case and the defences taken by the defence counsel with regard to delay in lodging FIR and about the point of jurisdiction, the contradiction between place of offence between PW1 and PW2 and non-mentioning of dates of payments etc., do not vitiate the case of prosecution.
65.On the other hand, the citations relied upon by learned
Addl.P.P i.e., (I) Anurag Soni vs. State of Chattigarh, wherein the
Hon’ble Supreme Court held that:
“When accused from inception never intended to marry and made false promises to satisfy lust. Consent is vitiated by misconception of fact constituting rape under Section 375 IPC”.
(ii) (2003) 4 SCC 46 in between Uday Vs. State of Karnataka, in which it was clarified that:
“There is a distinction between mere breach of promise and not fulfilling a false promise. Court must examine whether accused had actually wanted to marry or had malafide motives or made false promise only to satisfy lust.” 51 SC No.349 of 2022
(iii) Dr. Dhruvaram Muralidhar Sonar Vs. State of
Maharashtra, reported in (2019) 18 SCC 191, wherein it was held that:
“When a woman consents to sexual intercourse believing false promise of marriage, never intended to be fulfilled. Constant becomes vitiated under Section 90 IPC and the act constitutes the rape under Section 376 IPC. The crucial test is, whether promise was false from inception.”
In the present case, promise was indisputably false from inception, because A1 was already married. It was legally and factually impossible to marry PW1 without dissolving existing marriage. Concealment of marital status demonstrates mens rea and dishonest intention from beginning. As such, the above citations relied upon by learned Addl.P.P. are aptly applicable to this case.
66.In view of the above citations which are aptly applicable to the case and in view of the above discussion, the testimony of PW1 is credible and this Court find no difficulty to rely on her testimony, 52 SC No.349 of 2022 which inspires confidence and further corroborated by the evidence of P.Ws 2 to 5 along with bunch of documentary evidence. As such, the prosecution could able to prove the ingredients of Sec.375 IPC and thereby established the offence
U/s.376 IPC.
67.With regard to deposit of Rs.50 lakhs, learned Addl. P.P.
submitted that, since banks maintain records only for 7 to 10 years and the FIR was registered in the year 2021, the said record of father depositing Rs.50 lakhs in the joint account P.Ws 1 and 2 could not be filed. Though the said documentary evidence has not been placed by prosecution, the remaining documentary evidence supports the version of PW1.
68.With regard to offence of cheating, Section 415 IPC defines the elements of cheating, as under:
“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 53 SC No.349 of 2022 likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to “cheat”.”
The accused No.1 with a guilty intention and with a deception played on the victim, dishonestly and fraudulently induced her to deliver her property and by deception, practiced, he induced her to give her consent and thereby, he caused harm to her body, mind and also to her property and thereby committed cheating. In view of the above, the offences under Sec.417 and 420 IPC is established.
Now, the Section 405 IPC, which defines the criminal breach of trust, as under:
“405. Criminal breach of trust.—Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or willfully suffers any other person so to do, commits “criminal breach of trust”
The accused No.1 with dishonest intention converted the amounts and gold of victim entrusted to him to his own use and 54 SC No.349 of 2022 made loss to PW1 and her family and thereby committed the offence U/s.405 IPC, punishable U/s.406 IPC. In view of the above, it is also clear that the accused No.1 has also committed the offence U/s.406 of IPC.
69.In view of the foregoing discussion, the prosecution could able to prove that the accused No.1 has committed the offences punishable U/s.376, 417, 420, 406 506 of IPC and the accused No.2 is found guilty for the offence punishable U/s.506 of IPC and accordingly, they are convicted U/s.235(2) Cr.P.C., for the said offences.
Sd/- (SMT. G.PREMALATHA),
I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,
WARANGAL.
70.The accused No.1 and 2 are questioned with regard to quantum of sentence, for which A1 replied that he is having old aged parents and recently, his mother fell down and her backbone was fractured and prayed to consider the same, whereas A2 replied that he has nothing to say.
71.Since the accused No.1 has committed the graves offence of 55 SC No.349 of 2022 rape and fraudulently induced her and received several lakhs of rupees, and cheated her in the name of love, being a married one and having a child, this Court is not intending to take any lenient view while imposing the sentence by showing any mercy.
72.In the result, Accused No.1 is found guilty of the offences punishable U/s.376, 417, 420, 406 and 506 of IPC and accused No.2 is found guilty of the offence punishable U/s.506 of IPC and accordingly, they are convicted for the said offences U/s.235(2) of
Cr.P.C.
i.Accused no.1 is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of TEN YEARS and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only), for the offence punishable u/s.376 of IPC, in default of payment of fine amount, he shall undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of ONE MONTH;
ii. Accused No.1 is further sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a period of ONE YEAR. for the offence punishable U/s.417 of IPC.
iii.Accused No.1 is further sentenced to undergo 56 SC No.349 of 2022 rigorous imprisonment for a period of SEVEN YEARS and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) for the offence punishable U/s.420 of IPC, in default of payment of fine amount, he shall undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of ONE
MONTH, iv.Accused No.1 is further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ONE YEAR for the offence punishable U/s.406 of IPC.
v.Accused No.1 is further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ONE MONTH for the offence punishable U/s.506 of IPC.
The Accused No.2 is sentenced pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-
(Rupees one thousand only) for the offence punishable U/s.506
of IPC, in default of payment of fine amount, he shall undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of ONE MONTH.. ,
All the sentences imposed on accused No.1 shall run
concurrently and the default sentences shall run consecutively.
57 SC No.349 of 2022
The remand period undergone by the accused from 01.10.2021 to 26.10.2021 shall be set off U/s.428 of Cr.P.C.
The accused No.1 and 2 are apprised about their right to prefer appeal before the Hon’ble High Court and they are further informed that they will will be provided legal aid counsel, if required, as per rules.
Free copy of Judgment is supplied to the accused.
Partly typed to my dictation and partly dictated to the Stenographer, after his transcription, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 9 th day of April, 2026.
Sd/- (SMT. G.PREMALATHA),
I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,
WARANGAL.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PROSECUTION:
PW1 : Victim
PW2 : Mother of the Victim
PW3 : Dadi Shiva
PW4 : M.Durga Prasad
PW5 : Bollam Raju
PW6 : A.Suvarna, Inspector of Police, AHTU, Warangal.
PW7 : Vemula Pawan 58 SC No.349 of 2022
PW8 : V.Yugender
PW9 : T.Uday Kumar
PW10 : Dr. K.Nirmala, Asst. Professor, C.K.M. Govt. Maternity Hospital, Warangal.
PW11 : J.Surender, Asst. Professor, Forensic Medicine & Toxicology, KMC, Warangal.
PW12 : J.Hari Krishna, Bank Operation Head, Axis Bank, Warangal.
PW13 : P.Gopala Krishna, Manager, HDFC Bank, Warangal.
PW14 : G.ChaitanyaReddy,Manager,Federalbank, Pochammaidhan, Warangal.
PW15 : A.Ramu, Scientific Officer, RFSL, Warangal.
PW16 : M.Srinivas,InspectorofPolice,PSMills Colony/Investigating Officer.
FOR DEFENCE : - None -
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1 : Complaint lodged by PW1. Ex.P2 : Original Rs.100/- bond paper, dt: 1.7.2020, executed by A1 agreeing to repay the amount of Rs.20,00,000/- to the defacto complainant with interest 2% p.m., within 6 months. Ex.P3 :Original Rs.100/- bond paper, executed by A1 agreeing to repay the amount of Rs.30,00,000/- to the defacto complainant taken by him. Ex.P4 :Original Rs.100/- bond paper, executed by A1 in favour of defacto complainant, agreeing to return an amount of Rs.35,00,000/ by July, credit cards, Rs 3,00,000/- loan and gold. Ex.P5 :Original Rs.100/- bond paper, executed by A1 in favour of 59 SC No.349 of 2022 defacto complainant, agreeing to repay an amount of Rs.35,00,000/- by August 31st and also to return gold, credit cards, etc. Ex.P6 :Blank cheque with account number of AXIS bank signed by A1. Ex.P7 :Blank cheque with account number of Federal bank signed by A1. Ex.P8 :Blank cheque with account number of HDFC bank signed by A1. Ex.P9 :CC of sale deed executed by mother of defacto complainant in favour of K Mahesh, for total consideration of Rs.3,00,000/-. Ex.P10 : CC of GPA executed by father of defacto complainant/ S.Sudhakar in favour of Gaddam Ravi, under which defacto complainant is a witness. Ex.P11 : EC obtained through online for Sy.No.292/B/1 to an extent of 20 guntas. Ex.P12 : EC obtained through online for Sy.No.170/A to an extent of 46 guntas. Ex.P13 : Pen drive (kept with P.O.) in which the data was retrieved from CD in the open court filed along with charge sheet. Ex.P14 : Sec 65-B certificate filed along with pen drive by defacto complainant marked subject to objection as the first given at a later point of time along with petition. Ex.P15 : CDF along with rough sketch, signed by PW7 as a panch witness. Ex.P16 : Signature of PW8 on CDF. Ex.P17 : (04) cheque books. Ex.P18 : Confession panchanama. Ex.P19 : Recovery panchanama. Ex.P18/1 : Preliminary report of PW10. Ex.P19/1 : Final opinion of PW10. Ex.P20 : Final opinion of PW10. Ex.P21 : Letter of PW10 to Inspector of Police, PS Mills Colony.
60 SC No.349 of 2022
Ex.P22 : Potency Certificate of A1 issued by PW11. Ex.P23 : Statement of Axis Bank containing (88) pages provided by PW12 to Inspector of Police along with covering letter. Ex.P24 : Statement of Account of S.Suramma, M.Anitha and Credit Card transactions of S.Haritha and S.Suramma. Ex.P25 : Account details, statement account, KYC details of accused No.1/Shireesh.
Ex.P26 : Details of gold mortgaged in favour of bank by accused No.1, furnished by PW14. Ex.P27 : FIR.
FOR DEFENCE: Ex.D1 :Certain portion in Ex.P1/complaint.
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:
- NIL -
Sd/- (SMT. G.PREMALATHA),
I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,
WARANGAL.