SESSIONS CASE SPL.No.197 of 2020
Dt:12.05.2026
IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF
SCs/STs (POA) ACT CASES CUM II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE AT NALGONDA.
Present: Smt.N.Roja Ramani
Special Sessions Judge for Trial of SCs/STs (POA) Act Cases-cum- II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nalgonda
(Dated this the 12 th day of May, 2026)
…
SESSIONS CASE SPL.No. 197 of 20 20
(In Crime No.151 of 2013 of Dindi Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 417,420,323,506 r/w 109 of IPC and 3 (1) (x) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act-2015 against the accused)
Name of the Complainant: The State of Telangana through the Sub Divisional Police Officer, Devarakonda
Names of the accused:A1: Nakka Parvathalu, S/o Late Chandraiah, Age:26 years, Occ: Private employee,
A2: Neelam Sathemma, W/o Venkataiah, Age:45 years, Occ: Agriculture, both are R/o Gannerlapally village, Chandampet mandal.
Offences complied of:Under section 417,420,323,506 r/w 109 of IPC and 3 (1) (x) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act-2015 Crime No. & P.S151/2013, Dindi Plea of accused:Not guilty Finding the Court:Found guilty Sentence or Order: In the result the accused No.1 is found guilty for the offence under section 323,417,420,506 of IPC and 3 (1) (x) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act-2015 and accused No.2 is found guilty for the offence under section 323 r/w 109 of IPC and Sec. 3 (1) (x) of SC/ST (POA)
Page 38 of 40
SESSIONS CASE SPL.No.197 of 2020
Dt:12.05.2026
Amendment Act-2015. Accordingly, they are convicted under section 235 (2) of Cr.P.C. The accused Nos.1 and 2 are sentencedtoundergorigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years for the offence under section 3 (1) (x) of SC/ST POA Act and shall pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) each in default of payment of fine amount they shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two months. The accused No.1 sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 1 year for the offence under section 417 of IPC and shall pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) in default of payment of fine amount he shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two months. The accused No.1 further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years for the offence under section 420 of IPC and shall pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) in default of payment of fine amount he shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two months. The accused Nos.1 and 2 are sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) each for the offence under section 323 of IPC in default of payment of fine amount they shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two months The accused Nos.1 and 2 are sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) each for the offence under section 506 of IPC in default of payment of fine amount they shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two months. All sentences shall run concurrently.The Accused No.1 remand to judicial custodyon 13.12.2013 and released on bail on
Page 38 of 40
SESSIONS CASE SPL.No.197 of 2020
Dt:12.05.2026
03.01.2014 and accused No.2 remanded to judicial custody on 13.12.2013 and released on 26.12.2013. The remand period of accused Nos.1 and 2 already undergone by them is set off under section 428 of Cr.P.C.Fine amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) for Accused No.1 and Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only)for Accused No.2. Total fine amount of Rs.8,000/- (Rupees Eight Thousand
only)
The accused Nos.1 and 2 are informed about their right to prefer an appeal before the Hon’ble High Court against the judgment passed by this Court. A free copy of the Judgment is supplied to the accused under due acknowledgment. Prosecution conducted Sri D.Narsimha, Spl.Public Prosecutor by : Name of the counsel for Sri G.Mohan, learned counsel for accused accused:
This case is coming up before me for final hearing in the presence of learned Spl.Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri G.Mohan, learned counsel for accused, and upon hearing arguments of both sides and on perusal of the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration, till this day, the Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
1)This case arises out of charge sheet filed by the the
Sub Divisional police Officer, Devarakonda Division in Cr.No.151 of 2013 for the offences punishable Under sections 417,420,323,506 r/w 109 of
IPC and 3 (1) (x) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act-2015 against the accused.
2) The briefly stated prosecution case is to the following effect:
Page 38 of 40
SESSIONS CASE SPL.No.197 of 2020
Dt:12.05.2026
(I) On 05.12.2013 at 1600 hours the Lw1/Barpati Sridevi lodged a
Telugu written petition in which she stated that she got introduced with accused No.1, who is working at Laxmi eye hospital, Nagol, Hyderabad, while she went to hospital along with her mother. Later he developed friendship with her by telling her deceitful words inducing a belief of marriage that occurred prior to 1½ year, he took a room at Indraprastha
Nagar, Hasthinapur colony, Hyderabad and enjoyed with her sexually. As a result she got 05 months pregnancy. While they maintaining good terms, she gave him 1 ½ tula gold and net cash Rs. 5000/-. While asked him to marry her, accused Nos.1 and 2 along with his mother Nakka
Sailamma abused her in filthy language by offending her caste and denied to perform the marriage. They also threatened her with dire consequences to kill. Hence, she requested to take legal action against the accused.
(II)Basingonthecontentsofthereport,
The Sub Inspector of Police/Lw17, Dindi P.S registered a case in
Cr.No.151 of 2013 for the offences under section 417,420,506 r/w 34 of
IPC and 3 (1) (x) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act-2015 against the accused and issued First Information Report.
(III) During the course of the investigation, Lw18 examined and recorded the statement of the Lw1 and sent the victim to Govt., Hqrs.,
Hospital, Nalgonda for medical examination, where the LW-14 examined the victim and issued report in which she opined that the patient is
Page 38 of 40
SESSIONS CASE SPL.No.197 of 2020
Dt:12.05.2026
pregnant with gestational age of 23 weeks. Later, visited Gonaboinapally village of Dindi Mandal, examined and recorded the statements of LWs-2 to 4. The LW-18 went to Hyderabad and visited scene of offence situated at Huda Sai Nagar, Bayathnagar, Hyderabad and secured the presence of
LWs-12 & 13 and conducted scene of offence Panchanama and drafted rough sketch. Meanwhile examined the LWs-5 & 6 and recorded their statements. Later, visited Gannaboinapally village of Dindi Mandal, examined and recorded the statements of LWs-7 to 9. The LW-18 visited
Gannerlapally (v) of Chandampet (M) and examined the LWs-10 & 11 and recorded their statements. The LW-18 sent a requisition to the
Tahasildhars of Chandampet/LW-15 and Dindi/LW-16 Mandals, for furnishing the caste certificates in respect of the victim and the accused.
Accordingly the Tahasildhars of Chandampet and Dindi Mandals issued caste certificates in respect of the victim and the accused. In which they stated that the Lw1 belongs to SC-Madiga caste and the A-1 & A-2 belongs to BC-D Yadav caste. He arrested the accused and sent them to the court for judicial remand and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.
3)This Court took cognizance of the case for the offence punishable under sections 323,417,420,506 of IPC and 3 (1) (x) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act-2015 against the accused No.1 and for the offence punishable under section 323 r/w 109 of IPC and Sec. 3 (1) (x) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act-2015 against accused No.2
Page 38 of 40
SESSIONS CASE SPL.No.197 of 2020
Dt:12.05.2026
4)On appearance of the accused before this Court, copies were furnished to them as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C., upon considering the material available on record and after hearing the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused,
charges under Sections 323,417,420,506 of IPC and 3 (1) (x) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act-2015 against the accused No.1 charges under section 323 r/w 109 of IPC and Sec. 3 (1) (x) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment
Act-2015 against accused No.2 were framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu as contemplated under Section 228 (2) Cr.P.C., for which they denied the same and claimed to be tried.
5)During the trial the prosecution examined Pws.1 to 12 and exhibited P1 to P8.
6)After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, by explaining the incriminating material available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which they denied the same and reported no defence evidence.
7)Heard the arguments of the learned Spl. Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused. The learned counsel for the accused and learned Spl.Public Prosecutor filed written arguments and the same are made as part of the record.
8) Now the points that would arise for determination are :
Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of the
accused for the offence punishable under Sections
3323,417,420,506 of IPC and 3 (1) (x) (va) of SC/ST (POA)
Page 38 of 40
SESSIONS CASE SPL.No.197 of 2020
Dt:12.05.2026
Amendment Act-2015 against the accused No.1 and for the offence punishable under section 323 r/w 109 of IPC and
Sec. 3 (1) (x) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act-2015 against
accused No.2 beyond all reasonable doubt?
9)It is the contention of the prosecution that the accused No.1 under the false promise of marriage sexually exploited the victim. Accordingly, she conceived and gave birth to a child and A1 refused to marry her as she belongs to lower caste and A1 and A2 beat the Pw1 and abused her in the name of caste during the panchayath in Dindi in the presence of elders of the panchayath and it was within public view.
10)In order to prove the offence under sections 323, 417,420,506 r/w 109 of IPC and 3 (1) (x) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment At-2015. The prosecution has to establish that the accused No.1 under the false promise of marriage sexually exploited the victim. Accordingly, she conceived and gave birth to a child and A1 refused to marry her as she belongs to lower caste and A1 and A2 beat the Pw1 and abused her in the name of caste during the panchayath in Dindi in the presence of elders of the panchayath and it was within public view.
11) To support and substantiate its contention the prosecution examined Pws.1 to 12 and Exhibited Pw 1 to P8.
12a) After meticulously scanning the entire evidence on the record found that the Pw1, who is the complainant and victim to the case of the prosecution deposed that Lw.2/Laxmamma is her mother. Lws.3 to 7 are her relatives. She Knows LW.8 to 11. A1 is her husband. She know A2.
Page 38 of 40
SESSIONS CASE SPL.No.197 of 2020
Dt:12.05.2026
On 05.12.2013, she took her mother to Hyderabad for eye treatment of her mother. She was treated in Sri Laxmi hospital, Nagole, Hyderabad.
A1 was working in that hospital and he took her phone number and used to talk with her on phone. On one day he proposed love and promised that he will marry her. She accepted his proposal. One day the
A1 took her to his house and she stayed there 2-3 days. From there she went to the house of LW.5/Kondrapally Venkataiah, who is her maternal uncle. The A1 called her and asked her to come to a movie. Accordingly, she went to watch a movie along with A1 and returned at 12.00 at mid night. Lw.5 enquired her about A1 then, she informed him that they are going to perform marriage. The A1 had physical contact with her several times, as a result she conceived. She informed the same to A1 on phone.
Then, A1 refused to marry her and threatened to kill her. She informed the same to her mother and brother. Then, her brother questioned A1 on phone. A1 asked her brother to come with elders to his place.
Accordingly, she along with her mother, her brother and village elders went to Dindi. A1 and his village elders also came to Dindi. In the presence of the elders, the A1 accepted to marry her. A2 is the aunt of
A1. The A2 stated that she belongs to SC madiga caste and by holding her tuft of hair she abused her as “niku na koduku kavalane madiga lanja dana” and dragged her. Then, A1 also abused her as “madiga lanja dana ninnu chesukunta nannu kulam vallu ranivvaru ninnu chesukonu” and kicked her on her back. Then she filed a report before
Page 38 of 40
SESSIONS CASE SPL.No.197 of 2020
Dt:12.05.2026
the police. Ex.P1 is the report filed by her. On 06.12.2013 the DSP enquired her. The police sent her for DNA test. She gave birth to a male baby in the year 2014.
12b) During the cross-examination it was elicited that she completed her Intermediate course in the year 2006-2007 in Government college,
Dindi in CEC group. She is having knowledge about sex. In Biological
Science there was a topic on reproduction. After her intermediate she started attending labour work. They are five children to their parents i.e., she, her elder sister and three brothers. Venkataiah, Laxmaiah and
Srinu are her brothers. Mangamma is her elder sister, who is resident of
Anand nagar, Hyderabad and a married lady. She used to stay with her parents in her village. She is not having any acquaintance with dance and other cultural activities. She never participated in Dhoom Dham programme during Telangana agitation. She is having acquaintance with
A1 since 2012. The mobile number 8106551082 was used by her from 2012 to till the end of the 2014. She used to call A1 with the above said mobile number. She does not know the name of the network.
12c) In the year 2013 the A1 proposed love. The A1 took her to his room situated at Hasthinapuram there they met for the first time physically and they stayed there for 2 days as wife and husband. They had consensual sex. As he promised to marry her. For the second time they went to a movie, second show. Then they went to the house of her uncle in Hyderabad and had consensual relationship and stayed there for one
Page 38 of 40
SESSIONS CASE SPL.No.197 of 2020
Dt:12.05.2026
day. The house of her uncle is consisting of one room only. They slept outside of the house and her uncle and his family members slept inside the house during night time. They had physical relationship outside of the house of her uncle during the night time. Thereafter, they met frequently whenever they got time. She is aware about the consequences after physical relationship between a man and women.
12d) She did not disclose about her relationship with A1 to her parents, siblings and her relatives, friends till the date of the filing of the complaint. She does not remember when she missed her menstrual periods during that relevant period. She did not inform about missing her menstrual period till 5th or 6th months of her pregnancy to anybody.
During that period she was with her parents. She approached
Dr.Sajaath, Devarakonda when she suffered from a fever. After examining her i.e., by conducting blood test and urine test and the doctor informed her that she is carrying. He did not inform her about the stage of pregnancy. The said test was conducted six months prior to Ex.P1. She did not inform about her pregnancy to her parents and relatives. She informed the same to A1 on phone. During the period of love with A1 there was no discussion about caste with A1. She did not take any preventive measures when they had sexual relationship to avoid pregnancy.
12e) She denied that she forced the A1 to fulfill her biological needs and there was no proposal of marriage from A1 except a love proposal and
Page 38 of 40
SESSIONS CASE SPL.No.197 of 2020
Dt:12.05.2026
she forced the A1 for physical relationship from the date of their acquaintance. She never offered liquor or toddy to A1. She conceived as she and A1 were in love and had sexual intercourse. She denied that A1 never proposed for marriage and A1 never promised to marry her and never cheated her on the pretext of marriage.
12f)She did not handover her pregnancy reports to the police at the time of lodging report before the police. The police referred her to the hospital for medical examination. She stated before the medical officer that A1 cheated her on the pretext of marriage. The police collected the medical reports from the medical officer. They met with each other in
Hyderabad and the love affair between them was also taken place in
Hyderabad.
12g) She denied that no panchayat convened at Dindi and nobody attended any panchayath and that A1 never admitted before the elders in the panchayath that he will marry and that the A2 never hold her tuft of hair and never abused as “niku na koduku kavalane madiga lanja dana” and dragged her and then, A1 also never abused her as “madiga lanja dana ninnu chesukunta nannu kulam vallu ranivvaru ninnu chesukonu” and never kicked her on her back. She filed report before the police on 05.12.2013 during evening time as A1 refused to marry her in the panchayath. Her statement was recorded on 06.12.2013.
12h) She filed a complaint against one Baddela Srinu and 9 others vide
SC No.104/2018 and the same was disposed off. She denied that that
Page 38 of 40
SESSIONS CASE SPL.No.197 of 2020
Dt:12.05.2026
she filed a complaint in P.S. Uppal against one Srishailam and one complaint against one Jangaiah and both complaints settled in the police station.
13a) The Pw2, who is the maternal aunt of the Pw1 also supported and corroborated the evidence of Pw1 in all aspects and deposed that at about 12 years ago she along with Pw.1 took the Lw.2 to Eye Hospital in
Hyderabad for treatment. The Pw.1 informed her about her relationship with A1 when she was pregnant. When the Pw.1 was carrying 04 months pregnancy A1 and A2 abused her as “madiga dana vellipo ma kulam vallu chesukunte urukoru” and kicked the Pw.1. The A1 kicked the Pw.1 and A2 beat the Pw.1. The A1 refused to marry the Pw.1 thereafter, A2 performed the marriage of A1 with another girl. The Pw.1 gave birth to a male child who is 10 years old at present. The Pw.1 field a report before the police.
13b) During the cross-examination nothing incriminating was elicited to impeach the credibility of witnesses and it was elicitedthat her statement was recorded by the police in Dindi. LW.8/Pasupulati Srinivas is resident of Gonaboinapally and he is not her relative.
14a) The Pw3, who is the mother of the Pw1 also supported and corroborated the evidence of Pws1 and 2 in all aspects and deposed that at about 12 years ago, the Pw.1 took her to an eye hospital, Nagole,
Hyderabad for her eye treatment. Thereafter, the Pw.1 conceived and she was 05 months pregnant. The A1 used to work in eye hospital, Nagole.
Page 38 of 40
SESSIONS CASE SPL.No.197 of 2020
Dt:12.05.2026
The A1 under the false promise of marriage kept the Pw.1 with him and had physical relationship as a result the Pw.1 conceived. When she was carrying 5th month pregnancy the A1 drove the Pw1 from his house and by refusing to marry her. The Pw.1 furnished the phone number of A1 to her elder brother. Then, the elder brother of the Pw.1 called A1 on phone and questioned the A1 stating that he will file complaint before the police. The A1 requested the elder brother of the Pw.1 stating that he will come along with his elders to their village and the matter will be discussed in the presence of both side elders. Accordingly, a panchayat was convened in Dindi. In the presence of the elders the A1 accepted to marry the Pw.1 and they both shook hands thereafter a document was executed by the A1. In the meanwhile A2 came to there and abused the
Pw.1 in the name of caste and threw her on the ground by pulling her hair. Then, A1 aslo beat the Pw.1 stating that Pw.1 belongs to Madiga caste and he belongs to Yadava caste and his community people will not allow him if he marry the Pw.1.
14b) During the cross-examination nothing incriminating was elicited to impeach the credibility of the witness and the witness stood unshaken to the line of the cross-examination. It was elicited that she does not know the educational qualifications of Pw.1. The Pw.1 resided with her after completion of her education. She along with her family members i.e., her two daughters and three sons and her husband was staying together.
There are two rooms in her house. Pw.1 did not work in Hyderabad. The
Page 38 of 40
SESSIONS CASE SPL.No.197 of 2020
Dt:12.05.2026
Pw.1 did not go to Hyderabad. She does not know the name of hospital and name of the doctor where she was treated for her eye problem in
Hyderabad. She does not remember the date of her eye treatment. The
Pw.1 informed her about the offence when she was carrying 05th month pregnancy. The Pw.1 gave birth to a male baby after 04 months of the present complaint. She signed on the document. She does not know where the document is at present. She does not know the name of the scribe. She does not know the names of attestors.
14c) She denied that there was no love affair between the Pw.1 and A1 and they had only sexual relationship to fulfill their biological needs. The
Pw.1 was not in her house till she was carrying 5 months pregnancy and she was with A1.
15a) The Pw4, who is the cousin of Pw1 also supported and corroborated the evidence of Pws1 to 3 in all aspects and deposed that at about 12 years ago on one day he received a phone call from Pw.1 and informed him that A1 loved her and she became pregnant and the A1 refused to marry her and requested him to attend panchayat going to be conducted in her village on 30.11.2013, accordingly he attended the panchayat. The elders of Gannerlapally, Gonaboinapally and the family members of A1 and Pw.1 were present in the panchayat. The elders convinced both parties and accordingly, A1 agreed to marry the Pw.1 and they both shook hand. A2 who is the junior paternal aunt of A1 came to there and abused the Pw.1 “madiga lanja dana niku na koduku
Page 38 of 40
SESSIONS CASE SPL.No.197 of 2020
Dt:12.05.2026
kavalsi occhindane na kodukunu nuv chesukunte ma kulam vally mammalni ranivvaru” and pulled the tuft of hair of the Pw.1. Then, A1 also abused the Pw.1 as “madiga lanja dana nenu ninnu chesukonu” and refused to marry the Pw.1 and kicked the Pw.1 on her back. Then he left from that place. He scribed Ex.P1 on the narration of Pw.1.
15b) During the Cross-Examination nothing incriminating was elicited to impeach the credibility of witness and he stood unshaken to the line of the cross-examination and deposed that he is not from the village of
Pw.1. He was working in CDW IKP, Chandampet. He used to attend twice or thrice in a week at Chandampet. In the year 2013 his wife worked as a village Sarapanch, Dindi. He is having cordial relationship with the police. He never deposed as a witness in any case and he is not an accused in any case and he was not sited as a witness in any case before this court. He acted as a elder in case vide SC No.157/2022 as Lw.6. The
Pw.1 called him on phone two days before panchayat. On the date of panchayat proceedings/resolution were drafted by the panchayat elders.
He does not know who is the scribe of the said panchayat proceedings/resolution. It was prepared on 30.11.2013. He did not sign as a witness. He does not know whether any other person signed on that resolution. He does not know whether the said document was handed over to the police. He came to know that Pw.1 was staying in Hyderabad and she was carrying five months pregnancy on the date of alleged panchayat. He does not know whether Pw.1 filed report on 30.11.2013.
Page 38 of 40
SESSIONS CASE SPL.No.197 of 2020
Dt:12.05.2026
He is the supporter of CPI political party. The brother of the Pw.1 and family members of the Pw.1 also supporters of CPI political party. Pw.1 is a good singer. He does not know whether Pw.1 participated in Dhoom
Dham programme during Telangana Agitation.
16a) The Pw5, who is the brother of Pw1 also supported and corroborated the evidence of Pws1 to 4 in all aspects and deposed that they are three brothers and two sisters. In the year 2013 the Pw.1 came to his house and informed him that A1 by promising to marry her had sexual intercourse thereafter he refused to marry her when she conceived. Then, he called A1 on phone and asked him to marry the
Pw.1 otherwise he will file a case against him. The A1 requested him not to file any case against him and informed him that he will come to his village along with elders for a discussion. Accordingly, a panchayat was convened in the presence of his village elders and also the village elders of A1. Both side elders convinced the A1 thereafter, the A1 agreed to marry the Pw.1 and they both gave shake hand to each other. In the meanwhile A2 came to there and abused the Pw.1 as “madiga lanja dana niku na koduku kavalsi ochindane ninnu chesukunte mammlni ma kulam vaallu ranivvaru” and pulled the tuft of hair of the Pw.1. then A1 abused the Pw.1 as “madiga lanja dana madiga danivi ninnu chesukunte ma kulam loki ranivvaru miru thakkuva jathi vaallu” and kicked the
Pw.1 on her neck.
Page 38 of 40
SESSIONS CASE SPL.No.197 of 2020
Dt:12.05.2026
16b) During the Cross-Examination nothing incriminating was elicited to impeach the credibility of the witness and he stood unshaken to the line of the cross-examination and deposed that he completed
Intermediate course. Pw.1 discontinued Intermediate. The Pw.1 did not attend any work in Hyderabad. In the year 2013, Pw.1 stayed in the house of Mangamma, elder sister at Hyderabad. Pw.1 was with A1. Pw.1 informed them that she was with A1 and she was carrying 5th month pregnancy when she was carrying 5th month pregnancy before filing the report. He is not aware about the health condition and pregnancy of
Pw.1 till the date of Ex.P1. Pw.1 did not come to their house during the said five months period. He did not go to Hyderabad to see the Pw.1 during the said five months period. He did not go to the house of A1 in
Hyderabad.
16c) It was further elicited that he can identify the scribe after seeing the document. The document is with the elders of the panchayat. They handed over the document to police. He is not the sympathizer of CPI party. The Pw.1 and his family members are also not sympathizers of CPI party. Pw.1 is not a singer. He does not know the date of birth of the son of the Pw.1. Pw.1 gave birth to her son after 04 months of Ex.P1. He does not know whether Pw.1 informed them about her pregnancy when the doctors refused to terminate her pregnancy and asked her come with her guardians as she was carrying 07 months pregnancy at that time. The
A1 and Pw.1 were in living in relationship in Hyderabad. They did not try
Page 38 of 40
SESSIONS CASE SPL.No.197 of 2020
Dt:12.05.2026
to beat A1 and A2 when they were beating the Pw.1 at the place of panchayat in Dindi. The elders of A1 warned the accused. They filed complaint before the police on the same day of panchayat.
17a) The Pw6, who is the aunt of the Pw1 also supported and corroborated the evidence of Pws1 to 5 in all aspects and deposed that
Pw.1 is the daughter of her sister in law. She used to come to her house whenever she visited Hyderabad. At about 12 years ago Pw.1 visited their house for the last time at about 06.00 pm. She left the house by informing that her friend called her on phone and she is going to watch a movie. She returned to her house at 12.00 in the midnight along with a male person. She can identify the said male person. She identified A1 as the same person who came to her house along with PW.1. On her enquiry, Pw.1 informed her that they are in love and she is going to marry A1 and they stayed in her house during that night. On the next day morning her husband asked them to leave her house stating that her parents and brothers scolded him for allowing them to stay in their house prior to marriage. On the next day they left from their house.
17b) During the Cross-Examination nothing incriminating was elicited to impeach the credibility of the witness and she stood unshaken to the line of the cross examination and deposed that her house was consisting of one small room and a hut and it was an open plot. She does not know the name of the owner of the plot. Her statement was recorded at
Devarakonda. She does not remember the date of her statement. She has
Page 38 of 40
SESSIONS CASE SPL.No.197 of 2020
Dt:12.05.2026
not seen the A1 after the above said alleged day. On the alleged day her husband was present at their house. She does not remember whether
Pw.1 and A1 slept inside the house or outside of the house. She does not remember whether she stated before the police that she can identify the
A1 if shown to her. She did not give any information to the mother and brothers or family members of Pw.1 about the stay of Pw.1 along with
A1 at their house for 02 days.
18a) The Pw7, who is the village elder also supported and corroborated the evidence of Pws1 to 6 and deposed that at about 12 years ago, Pw.1 approached him and asked him to convene panchayat as A1 refused to marry her after she became pregnant. Accordingly, on the same day he along with the family members of the Pw.1, Pw.1 and village elders went to Dindi and they convened a panchayat near to the police station under the trees. The accused, their family members and their village elders were also present in that panchayat. In that panchayat they convinced the A1, accordingly A1 agreed to marry Pw.1. then, A2 abused the Pw.1 as “madiga lanja dana mimmalni chesukunte ma kulamollu ranivvaru” and pulled the Pw.1 by holding her tuft of hair. Thereafter, A1 kicked the
Pw.1 stating that “madiga lanjadana em chesukuntavo chesuko”. The
Pw.1 gave birth to a baby boy.
18b) During the Cross-Examination nothing incriminating was elicited to impeach the credibility of the witness and he stood unshaken to the line of the cross-examination and deposed that the father of the Pw.1 is
Page 38 of 40
SESSIONS CASE SPL.No.197 of 2020
Dt:12.05.2026
alive. He does not know the date of panchayat. The panchayat proceedings were reduced into writing. He signed on that document along with other elders. He does not remember the names of others who signed on that document. The document was handed over to the Pw.1 by the elders. He did not interfere when the A1 and A2 assaulted on the
Pw.1. The other elders also did not interfere. The police record his statement on the day of panchayat in Dindi. The Pw.1 filed report on the same day and they all went to the police station.
19a) The Pw8, who is the medical officer deposed that she received requisition from SDPO, Devarakonda Police Station on 06.12.2013. On 07.12.2013 the police produced victim/Pw.1. On examination she found that victim is a pregnant with gestational age of 23 weeks. Ex.P2 is the opinion issued by herme, dated 07.12.2013.
19b) During the cross-examination it was elicited that there are over writings in respect of date in Ex.P2. She did not mention about the allegations against any person in Ex.P2. During the relevant period the scanning facilities were not available in their hospital. She has no idea whether she issued report by following the format prescribed by the
Health Department and Central government. She followed the protocol followed by her seniors. She did not mention the commencement of examination and conclusion of examination in Ex.P2. She did not remember whether the parents or guardians of victim came to the hospital at the time of examination of the victim.
Page 38 of 40
SESSIONS CASE SPL.No.197 of 2020
Dt:12.05.2026
20a) The Pw9, who is the village also supported and corroboratedthe evidence of Pws1 to 7 in all aspects and deposed that Pw.1 and Pw.5 who are sister and brother approached him at about 13 years ago i.e., on 30.11.2013, Pw.5 informed him that the accused on the pretext of marriage cheated the Pw.1 as a result, Pw.1 conceived. Thereafter the accused refused to marry the Pw.1 and they placed the matter before the elders and asked him to attend the panchayat. Accordingly, he attended the panchayat at Dindi on the same day i.e., on 30.11.2013 in between 11.00 am to 02.00 pm. In that panchayat Pw.1, Pw.5 and their family members, himself and other village elders attended on behalf of Pw.1.
The accused, his family members and the elders from the village of the accused also attended the panchayat. They convinced the both the parties and the accused agreed to marry the Pw.1 before the elders of the panchayat. Thereafter, A2 abused the Pw.1 as “madiga lanjadana ninnu chesukunte ma kulamloki ranivvaru” and pulled the Pw.1 by holding her tuft of hair. Then A1 also abused the Pw.1 by refusing to marry her as she belongs to SC madiga caste.
20b) During the cross-examination he stood unshaken to the line of the cross examination and deposed that the panchayat was convened on the back side of MRO office, Dindi i.e., in between the office of MRO and police station. The Police Dindi were not present in that panchayat. The panchayat proceedings were not reduced into writing.
Page 38 of 40
SESSIONS CASE SPL.No.197 of 2020
Dt:12.05.2026
21a) The Pw10, who is the panch witness for scene of offence panchanama deposed that at about 12 or 13 years ago, DSP called him and Lw.13 to Hyderabad, accordingly, he along with Lw.13, DSP and other police officials proceeded to Hayat nagar, Hyderabad. They observed one plot where the tin shed was erected. The police informed them that Pw.1 and Parvathalu stayed in that tin shed and had physical relationship. The DSP conducted scene of offence panchanama in their presence and also draftee a rough sketch. The contents in the panchanama were read over and explained to them. Ex.P3 is the scene of offence panchanama. Ex.P4 is the rough sketch.
21b) During the cross-examination it was elicited that he is running a hotel in Devarakonda which is in the Agriculture Market and it is a small hotel. The Police officials also used to come to his hotel. DSP/Manohar called him to Hyderabad. He traveled in a bus. The police officials came to Hyderabad in a police jeep. Lw.13/Madhusudhan Reddy also traveled in a bus along with him. They started at 08.00 am. It took 3-4 hours to reach the scene of offence. They met the police at Shalinagar,
Hayatnagar. The DSP along with 02 other police officials were present. 2- 3 persons were also present. He does not know their identity. He does not know the house number of the scene of offence. There was a tin shed. They reached by 11.00 am. He signed on two papers. He signed on the side of the paper but not at the bottom of the paper on both the papers. The police also prepared a map showing a road. The police
Page 38 of 40
SESSIONS CASE SPL.No.197 of 2020
Dt:12.05.2026
constable scribed the panchanama. He does not know the name of that police constable. He does not know whether any other person signed on the panchanama except him and Lw.13. He does not know whether the scribe signed on the panchanama.
22)The Pw11, who is the thasildhar deposed that he received a requisition from SDPO, Devarakonda, dt.16.12.2013. Accordingly, he furnished the caste particulars of A1 and A2 as they belongs BC-D (yadava)caste. Ex.P5 is the information furnished by him vide letter
dated 18.12.2013.
23a) The Pw12, who is the investigating officer deposed that he took up the investigation in Cr.No.151/2013 of PS Dindi on the proceedings of
SP, Nalgonda, dt.05.12.2013 by appointing him as investigation officer.
During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statement of Pw.1 and referred the Pw.1 to government hospital Nalgonda for medical examination. On the same day he visited Gonaboinapally village and examined and recorded the statements of Pw.2, Pw.3 and
Lw.4/Bolle Sailesh. On 08.12.2013, he went to Huda Sai nagar,
Hayatnagar, Hyderabad there he examined and recorded the statements of Pw.6 and Lw.5/K.Venkataiah. Thereafter, he conducted scene of offence panchanama and drafted a rough sketch in the presence of Pw.10 and Lw.13/Madhusudhan Reddy. On 11.12.2013, he visited
Gonaboinapally village and examined and recorded the statements of
Pw.5, Pw.7, Pw.9. On 13.12.2013, the A1 and A2 surrendered before
Page 38 of 40
SESSIONS CASE SPL.No.197 of 2020
Dt:12.05.2026
him then he arrested A1 and A2 and produced them before the court for judicial remand. On 15.12.2013, he visited Gannerlapally village there he examined and recorded the statements of Lw.10 and Lw.11. He filed a requisition before Tahsildar, Chandampet and Dindi with a request to furnish the caste particulars of accused and victim. On completion of investigation after collecting all the documents he filed charge sheet against the A1 and A2 by deleting the name of Nakka Sailamma as there was no case made out against Nakka Sailamma. Ex.P6 is the SP proceedings, dt.05.12.2013. Ex.P7 is the caste certificate of Pw.1 issued by Tahsildar, Gundlapally, stating that the Pw.1 belongs to SC Madiga caste. Ex.P8 is the FIR .
23b) During the Cross-Examination it was elicited that he took the CD file from Lw.17/SI of Police, Dindi on 06.12.2013. He did not receive any complaint from Pw.1 prior to 05.12.2013. As per Ex.P8 the place of occurrence as mentioned in column No.5 is Hyderabad. The signature of the Pw.1 was not obtained in column No.14 of FIR. The distance between
PS Dinid and court at Devarakonda is about 40 kilometers. His office is also situated in Devarakonda. The police officials from Dindi PS used to visit court at Devarakonda regularly. He does not know whether the FIR was dispatched on the same day. As per the record the FIR was dispatched on the same day. In column No.15 of FIR the date, time and dispatch of FIR to the court was not mentioned. As per the court record the FIR was received by the court on 10.12.2013 by post. He did not
Page 38 of 40
SESSIONS CASE SPL.No.197 of 2020
Dt:12.05.2026
mention in his charge sheet the reasons for the delay in dispatching the
FIR to the court. The date of quarrel, time and place of offence and the names of the witnesses were not mentioned in Ex.P1. The Pw.1 did not submit any medical record at the time of recording her statement under
Section 161 of Cr.PC and also to the SI of police. The Pw.1 did not mention the name of the accused before the medical officer when she was examined by the medical officer. In Ex.P1 the Pw.1 did not mention the place of offence. The Pw.1 did not mention in her statement under
Section 161 of Cr.P.C about the age of her pregnancy. The Pw.1 was residing in Hyderabad during her pregnancy and she was in Hyderabad till the date of Ex.P1.
23c) It was further elicited that the Pw.1 did not mention in Ex.P1 that on 05.12.2013 she took her mother to Hyderabad for treatment where A1 was working took her phone number and used to talk with her on phone and on one day he proposed love and promised that he will marry her and she accepted his proposal and on one day A1 took her to his house and she stayed there for 02-03 days from there she went to the house of
Lw.5/Kondrapally Venkataiah who is her maternal uncle and thereafter
A1 called her and asked her to come to a movie, accordingly she went to watch a movie along with A1 and returned at 12.00 in the midnight. The
Pw.1 did not mention in Ex.P1 that Lw.5 enquired her about A1 then she informed him that they were going to perform marriage and the A1 had physical contact with her several times.
Page 38 of 40
SESSIONS CASE SPL.No.197 of 2020
Dt:12.05.2026
23d) It was further elicited that the Pw.1 mentioned in Ex.P1 that the accused threatened to kill her and had physical contacts, as a result she become pregnant. The Pw.1 did not mention in Ex.P1 that A1 asked her brother to come with elders to his place accordingly, she along with her mother, her brother and village elders went to Dindi and A1 and his village elders also came to Dindi and in the presence of elders the A1 accepted to marry her. The Pw.1 did not mention in Ex.P1 that A2 by holding her tuft of hair abused her in the name of caste and dragged her specifically. Pw.2 did not state before him at about 12 years ago she along with Pw.1 and the mother of the Pw.1 went to eye hospital in
Hyderabad for treatment.
23e) The Pw.2 stated before him that Pw.1 informed her about her relationship with A1 and that she was carrying 04 months pregnancy and that A1 and A2 abused her in the name of caste and kicked her and
A2 beat her.
23f)The Pw.3 stated before him that A1 cheated the Pw1 and promised to marry her and had physical relationship with the Pw.1 as a result she conceived. Pw.4 stated before him that the village elders from both villages along with the family members of both parties were present during the panchayat.
23g) The SI of police secured the presence of panch witnesses and produced before him. He has no idea about the mode of securing the
Page 38 of 40
SESSIONS CASE SPL.No.197 of 2020
Dt:12.05.2026
presence of panch witnesses by the SI of police. There was no house number to the scene of offence.
24)In order to prove the offence under section3 (1) (x) and section 323,417,420,506 r/w 109 of IPCthe prosecution has to establish that:
The victim belongs to SC community i The accused belongs to other than SC community ii The place of offence is a public place iii ivthe offence was committed within public view. VThe accused No.1 on the false promise of marriage sexually exploited the Pw1 and thereafter refused to marry her and A1 and A2 abused the Pw1 in the name of caste and beat her and threatened her with dire consequences.
25)In order to establish the caste of the Pw1 and accused the prosecution examined Pws11 and 12 and exhibited Exs.P5 and P7. The evidence of Pw11 and Pw12 and the contents in Exs.P5 and P7 established that the Pw1 belongs to SC Madiga caste and A1 and A2 belongs to BC-D Yadava caste.
26)After meticulously scanning the entire evidence on the record found the following admitted facts:
i)The Pw1 and A1 lived together as wife and husband and they were in living in relationship for certain period. Accordingly, the Pw1 conceived and gave birth to a baby, who is 10 years old at present and under care and custody of Pw1.
ii)The A1 proposed love and A1 and Pw1 stayed in a house at Hastinapuram, L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad and had physical contacts for a period of 5 months and she did not return to her parents house during the said 5 months period.
iii)The Pw1 gave birth to a baby boy after 4 months of Ex.P1.
Page 38 of 40
SESSIONS CASE SPL.No.197 of 2020
Dt:12.05.2026
iv)The place of offence i.e., Pw1 and A1 living together hand having physical contacts in a tin shed house at Hayathnagar, Hyderabad. Pw10 is a panch witness to the scene of offence panchanama and Ex.P3 is the scene of offence panchanama and Ex.P4 is the rough sketch map.
v)On 13.12.2013 A1 and A2 surrendered before Pw10 and they were remanded to judicial custody.
vi)Pw2 is the material aunt of the Pw1, Pw3 is the mother of the Pw1. Pw4 is the cousin of the Pw1. Pw5 is the brother of the Pw1. Pw6 is the aunt of the Pw1. Pws.7 and 9 are the elders of the panchayath.
27)It is the contention of the accused that the A1 never promised to marry the Pw1 and it was only a consensual relationship and consensual sex between the Pw1 and A1 for there biological needs and the Pw1 is well aware that the A1 is the married person and having children by the time of their relationship and there was no panchayath convened at Dindi and it was created for the purpose of territorial jurisdiction of this court.
28)As seen from the evidence of Pw1, in the year 2013 she took her mother to eye hospital in Hyderabad where she met the A1 for the first time and thereafter out of acquaintance on one day the A1 proposed love and promised to marry her and by believing the A1, she joined A1 and had physical relationship and they both lived as wife and husband.
Accordingly, she conceived and informed the same to A1 then the A1 refused to marry as she belongs to lower caste.
Page 38 of 40
SESSIONS CASE SPL.No.197 of 2020
Dt:12.05.2026
29)The accused did not deny the case of the prosecution except on two points i.e., there was no promise of marriage and there was no panchayath at Dindi.
30)Admittedly, Pws2 to 12 are not eyewitnesses to the promise of marriage. As seen from the evidence of Pws2 to 6,7,9 they came to know through the Pw1 that the A1 promised to marry her accordingly, they both lived as wife and husband in Hayathnagar, Hyderabad for a period of 5 months. Accordingly, she conceived. It is also an undisputed fact that the Pw1 did not inform about her relationship with A1 to Pws2 to 6, 7 and 9 till she was carrying 5 months pregnancy and she was away from her parents during that period and was staying with the A1. One cannot expect eyewitnesses in respect of the promise of marriage made by the A1 to the Pw1 in order to have physical relationship with the Pw1.
No one will promise before another person and no one will propose love in the presence of another person and no one will ready to disclose the sexual relationships between two person in the absence of marital bond as such expecting a direct witness or eyewitness to the promise of marriage is not proper and it cannot be expected by any prudent person.
31)The testimony of the Pw1 is consistent, cogent, trustworthy and stood unshaken to the line of the cross-examination and her evidence disclosed that the A1 promised to marry her as such she gave consent for physical relationship accordingly they lived together as wife and husband for certain period which resulted into pregnancy. As seen from
Page 38 of 40
SESSIONS CASE SPL.No.197 of 2020
Dt:12.05.2026
the evidence of Pw1, the A1 proposed love and promised to marry her as such she gave consent to have sex. The evidence of the Pw1 clearly and clinchingly established the inducement from the date of inception as defined under section 415 of IPC which is punishable under section 417 of IPC and 420 of IPC. The evidence on the record established that the
A1 with his deceitful words and false promise of marriage made her to give consent as a result she conceived and gave birth to the male baby.
The accused No.1 did not deny his paternity as such the evidence on the record established that the A1 is the biological father and Pw1 is the biological mother of the boy to whom the Pw1 gave birth after 4 months of Ex.P1 report.
32)In order to establish the caste abuses, beatings and threatenings by A1 and A2, the prosecuting agency examined Pws2 to 7 and 9. The evidence of Pws2 to 7 and 9 supported and corroborated the evidence of the Pw1 that, the Pw1 approached the elders of the village and informed about her pregnancy and false promise of marriage made by the accused
No.1 and exploiting her sexually to Pws2 to 6 for which the brother of
Pw1 called the A1 on phone and at the request of A1 a panchayath was conceived at the place of the accused in Dindi in the presence of both side elders and family members. The evidence of Pws1 to 7 and 9 clearny and clinchingly established that the A1 and A2 abused the Pw1 in the name of caste and beat the Pw1 with hands and threatened her with dire consequences and the panchayath held in Dindi and the place of offence
Page 38 of 40
SESSIONS CASE SPL.No.197 of 2020
Dt:12.05.2026
in the public place and it was within public view. The evidence of Pws1 to 7 and 9 is also supported and corroborated by the evidence of Pw10, who is the panch witness, Pw7, who is a medical officer and Pw12 is an investigating officer.
33)On the other hand during the cross-examination of Pw1 it was elicited that in the year 2013 the A1 proposed love and took her in his room situated Hastinapuram and they stayed as wife and husband and the Pw1 consented for sex as the A1 promised to marry her. Thereafter they met frequently and she did not take any preventive measures when they had sex to avoid pregnancy. This itself established that the Pw1 believed the words of A1 that he will marry her accordingly, she participated in the sex without taking any preventive measures as such she conceived and she did not take any steps for termination of pregnancy as she was acting under the false promise of A1 by believing him that he will marry her.
34)The counsel for the accused vehemently argued that the evidence of the Pw1 is nothing but an improvement and Ex.P1 is silent in that regard. As seen from the evidence on the record i.e., evidence of Pw1 and
Pw12 that there is no whisper in Ex.P1 that she took her mother to eye hospital, Hyderabad and A1 was working in that hospital and Lw5 enquried her about A1 and she informed him that they are going to perform marriage and A1 asked her brother to come with elders to his place accordingly, they all went to Dindi.
Page 38 of 40
SESSIONS CASE SPL.No.197 of 2020
Dt:12.05.2026
35)It is well settled law that the FIR need not contain all the details it is a substantive piece of evidence and not a encyclopedia. Moreover the evidence of Pw1 supported and corroborated by Pws2 to 12 and Pws2 to 7 and 9 are eyewitnesses to the offence took place at Dindi. The omissions which were brought on the record are not material omissions and does not go to the root of the case.
36)The counsel for the accused placed reliance on the judgment between State of Andhra Pradesh v/s Chindurala Ramesh reported in 2021 (1) ALD Crl.72 (TS) the brief facts in the above said citation are that “The accused had sexual intercourse with the victim on a false promise that he would marry her and she became pregnant and it was got aborted there is no documentary evidence and the person who accompanied to the hospital was not examined. The elders of the panchayath in whose presence panchayath convened turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. The victim is a consentative party as such she kept quite from 2001 to 2004.” Under the above said circumstances and facts the Hon’ble High Court held that “Sec.417 of IPC is not made out against the accused and confirmed the acquittal.
37)The facts and circumstances mentioned in the above said citation are not at all applicable to the case in hand. Here in this case the evidence of Pw1 i.e., victim is supported and corroborated by the evidence of Pws2 to 10, who are eyewitnesses, circumstantial witnesses, elders of the panchayath and panch witness to the scene of offence
Page 38 of 40
SESSIONS CASE SPL.No.197 of 2020
Dt:12.05.2026
panchanama and the medical officer. Moreover the relationship between the Pw1 and A1 was started six months prior to filing of Ex.P1 in the year 2013 and the Pw1 filed report under Ex.P1 on 05.12.2013, A1 failed to fulfill his promise of marriage which was made by him, when they first met and by believing that the promise of marriage, the Pw1 had physical relationship and she conceived. It is an undisputed fact that the Pw1 and
A1 lived together in Hyderabad for a period more than 4 to 5 months and they had sexual intercourse and lived as a husband and wife and it was not known to the parents of the Pw1, as she went to Hyderabad on the pretext of search of a job. Admittedly, the Pw1 conceived and thereafter she gave birth to a baby who is ten years old. It is also an undisputed fact that the accused did not deny the paternity of the child of Pw1.
38)The counsel for the accused further placed reliance on the judgment between Tilak Raj v/s State of Himachal Pradesh reported in 2016 (1) ALD Crl.356 SC wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court in para
Nos.19 and 20 observed that “the prosecutrix is an adult and matured lady of 40 years at the time incident and she was in relationship with the appellant for last two years prior to the incident and there is no evidence to infer that there was fraudulent or dishonest inducement to constitute the offence under section 415 of IPC which is punishable under section 417 of
IPC.”
39)The facts and circumstances mentioned in the citation are not at all applicable to the case in hand. In the above case the accused was
Page 38 of 40
SESSIONS CASE SPL.No.197 of 2020
Dt:12.05.2026
charged under section 376 of IPC. Here in this case there is no charge against the accused for the offence under section 376 of IPC. It is the case of the prosecution that the victim i.e., Pw1 lived with A1 as wife and husband as A1 promised to marry her. Thereafter due to their physical relationship the Pw1 conceived and A1 refused to marry her for which she placed the matter before the elders. The A1 initially agreed before the elders to marry the Pw1 thereafter he refused to marry the Pw1 at the instance of A2 and they both abused the Pw1 in the name of caste and insulted her as she belongs to lower caste and beat her mercilessly in the presence of elders of the panchayath and others in the public place. As such the evidence on the record clearly and clinchingly established that the A1 under the false promise of marriage induced the Pw1 and accordingly she joined A1 in Hyderabad and they resided in a room and had consensual sex. At that time the victim/Pw1 was aged about 22 or 23 years and she is studied upto intermediate only and this itself shows her immaturity. On the other hand during the cross-examination of the
Pw1 it was elicited that they had consensual sex as A1 promised to marry her. The accused did not deny the relationship between him and
Pw1 and also the birth of child. The only contention of the accused is that he never promised to marry the Pw1 for which there is no supporting evidence.
40)Under section 106 of Indian Evidence Act who ever asserts any fact has to establish the said fact which is within his knowledge. Even
Page 38 of 40
SESSIONS CASE SPL.No.197 of 2020
Dt:12.05.2026
though the accused contended that he never promised to marry the Pw1 and it was only a consensual sex he did not choose to adduce any evidence in support of his defence place. On the other hand the evidence of Pws1 to 10 coupled with the evidence of Pws11 and 12 clearly and clinchingly established that the A1 proposed love in the year 2016 thereafter under the false promise of marriage he took her to his room situated in Hastinapuram, Hyderabad they lived as wife and husband as a result the Pw1 became pregnant thereafter he refused to marry her.
41)The counsel for the accused further placed reliance on the
Judgment between Jothiragawan v/s State reported in 2025 Live Law
SC 347 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court The breach of promise to marry
does not automatically amount to rape in order to establish Sec.376 of
IPC.” AND
42) In Biswajyoti Chatarjee for the State of West Bengal reported in 2025 Live Law SC 404 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that “The complainant knowingly entered a consensual sexual relationship with the accused for over a year aware of his subsisting marriage does not constitute rape.”
43)The facts and circumstances mentioned in the above citation are not at all applicable to the case in hand. There is no evidence on the record to show that A1 is a married person by that time.
44)The evidence of Pws1 to 12 are consistent, cogent and trustworthy and stood unshaken to the line of the cross examination. The evidence
Page 38 of 40
SESSIONS CASE SPL.No.197 of 2020
Dt:12.05.2026
on the record clearly and clinchingly established the ingredients of offence under section 323,417,420,506 of IPC and 3 (1) (x) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act-2015 against the accused No.1 and ingredients of offence under section 323 r/w 109 of IPC and Sec. 3 (1) (x) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act-2015 against accused No.2. The prosecution successfully proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts. Therefore, by considering the facts and circumstances and by placing reliance on the above judgments, this court came to a conclusion that the prosecution successfully proved its case against A1 for the offence under section 323,417,420,506 of IPC and 3 (1) (x) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act- 2015 and successfully proved its case against A2 for the offence under section 323 r/w 109 of IPC and Sec. 3 (1) (x) (va) of SC/ST (POA)
Amendment Act-2015.
45)In the result the accused No.1 is found guilty for the offence under section 323,417,420,506 of IPC and 3 (1) (x) of SC/ST (POA)
Amendment Act-2015 and accused No.2 is found guilty for the offence under section 323 r/w 109 of IPC and Sec. 3 (1) (x) of SC/ST (POA)
Amendment Act-2015. Accordingly, they are convicted under section 235 (2) of Cr.P.C.
Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Gr-III, corrected and
pronounced in the open court on this the 12 th day of May, 2026.
Special Sessions Judge for Trial of SCs/STs (POA) Act Cases-cum-II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Nalgonda
Page 38 of 40
SESSIONS CASE SPL.No.197 of 2020
Dt:12.05.2026
: Order on the plea of Sentence:
46)The accused Nos.1 and 2 are present. When the accused No.1 is questioned about the quantum of sentence that can be imposed against him and the accused No.1 submitted that he is having wife and children and his mother is suffering from cancer and his brother is mentally disabled person and Accused No.2 submitted that she is aged about 62 years old and suffering from old ailments including Diabetic, BP and having one daughter and they are only bread winners of their families and they are depending on them and prayed to take lenient view while passing the sentence.
47)Heard the learned counsel for the accused and the Public
Prosecutor. The Public Prosecutor sought to impose the maximum punishment provided under the provisions under which the accused
Nos.1 and 2 are convicted. The learned counsel for the accused prayed to take a lenient view in imposing a sentence considering the age, family, and economic background of the accused.
48)Upon hearing the plea submitted by the accused, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the factors expressed by the accused, the offences committed by them, including the seriousness and gravity of offence, this Court is of the view that sentencing the accused as under would meet the ends of justice.
Page 38 of 40
SESSIONS CASE SPL.No.197 of 2020
Dt:12.05.2026
The accused Nos.1 and 2 are not entitled for the benefit under section 360 of Cr.P.C or under provisions of P.O Act.
49)Hence, the accused Nos.1 and 2 are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years for the offence under section 3 (1)
(x) of SC/ST POA Act and shall pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) each in default of payment of fine amount they shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two months.
50)The accused No.1 sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 1 year for the offence under section 417 of IPC and shall pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) in default of payment of fine amount he shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two months.
51)The accused No.1 further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years for the offence under section 420 of
IPC and shall pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) in default of payment of fine amount he shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two months.
52)The accused Nos.1 and 2 are sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) each for the offence under section 323 of
IPC in default of payment of fine amount they shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two months
53)The accused Nos.1 and 2 are sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) each for the offence under section 506 of
Page 38 of 40
SESSIONS CASE SPL.No.197 of 2020
Dt:12.05.2026
IPC in default of payment of fine amount they shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two months. All sentences shall run concurrently.The Accused No.1 remand to judicial custody on 13.12.2013 and released on bail on 03.01.2014 and accused No.2 remanded to judicial custody on 13.12.2013 and released on 26.12.2013. The remand period of accused Nos.1 and 2 already undergone by them is set off under section 428 of Cr.P.C.Fine amount of
Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) for Accused No.1 and
Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) for Accused No.2. Total fine amount of Rs.8,000/- (Rupees Eight Thousand only)
54)The accused Nos.1 and 2 are informed about their right to prefer an appeal before the Hon’ble High Court against the judgment passed by this Court. A free copy of the Judgment is supplied to the accused under due acknowledgment.
Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Gr-III, corrected and
pronounced in the open court on this the 12 th day of May, 2026.
Special Sessions Judge for Trial of SCs/STs (POA) Act Cases-cum-II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Nalgonda
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
For Prosecution:- PW1B.SrideviComplainant and victim
PW2K.LaxmammaEyewitness
PW3B.LaxmammaMotherofPw1and circumstantial witness
Page 38 of 40
SESSIONS CASE SPL.No.197 of 2020
Dt:12.05.2026
PW4B.SaileshCousin of Pw1
PW5B.VenkataiahBrotherofLw1and circumstantial witness PW6K.NirmalaEyewitness
PW7A.BalaswamyCircumstantial witness
PW8Dr.G.Rathna PrabhaMedical officer
PW9P.SrinivasCircumstantial witness
PW10V.NarayanaPanch witness for scene of offence panchanama PW11D.GaneshThasildar
PW12K.ManoharInvestigating officer
EXHIBITS MARKED
For Prosecution
Ex.P1Report Ex.P2Opinion issued by Pw8, dated 07.12.2023 Ex.P3Scene of offence panchanama Ex.P4Rough sketch map Ex.P5Information furnished by Pw11 dated 18.12.2023 Ex.P6SP Proceedings Ex.P7Caste certificate of Pw1 Ex.P8First information report
For Defence :- Nil.
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED
NIL
Special Sessions Judge for Trial of SCs/STs (POA) Act Cases-cum-II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Nalgonda
Page 38 of 40