S.C No.26 of 2017
IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF
CASES RELATING TO ATROCITIES AGAINST WOMENCUMX
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAHABUBNAGAR.
Tuesday, the 20th day of April, 2021
Present: Smt. P. Annie Rose Christian, Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases relating to Atrocities against WomencumX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar.
S.C No.26 of 2017
Between:
The State of Telangana through Police, Kothur Police Station.
… Complainant
And
1. Chandrashekar Chennuri S/o ch Ramalingaiah, Age.28 years, Private Service, H.No.156151/7, Chilkalaguda, Padmarao Nagar, secunderabad.
2. Rajashekhar Chennuri, S/o Ramalingaiah, Age.28 years, Private Service, H.No.20596/A, Contractors colony, New Palvancha village of Khammam District.
3. Ramalingaiah Chennuri S/o Mallikarjun, Age.55 years, R/o H.No.20596/A, Contractors colony, New Palvancha village of Khammam District.
4. Sinoj Anthony, S/o Late Kunjappa, Age.35 years, Caste: Christian, Occ: Clinical Health Supervisor in Mithra & Company Ltd., Flat No. 505, Kanchanganga Apartments, King Koti, Hyderabad, H.No.631149/A/1, JS Mastan Begumpet Post, Hyderabad.
… Accused 1 to 4
Nature of Offences:376 IPC, 506 (ii) IPC, 500 IPC, 118 IPC, 120 (B) IPC and 386 IPC against A1 500 IPC, 118 IPC, 120 (B) IPC and 386
IPC against A2 and A3 506(ii) IPC, 500 IPC, 118 IPC, 120 (B)
IPC and 386 IPC against A4
Plea of the Accused:Pleaded not guilty
Finding of the Court:Found not guilty
S.C No.26 of 2017 2
Sentence or Order:A1 is found not guilty for the offences under sections 376 IPC, 506(ii) IPC, 500 IPC, 118 IPC, 120 (B) IPC and 386
IPC and A2 and A3 are found not guilty for the offences under sections 500 IPC, 118 IPC, 120 (B) IPC and 386
IPC and A4 is found not guilty for the offences under sections 506(ii) IPC, 500 IPC, 118 IPC, 120 (B) IPC and 386
IPC and accordingly, A1 is acquitted under section 235 (1) Cr.P.C for the offences under sections 376 IPC, 506(ii) IPC, 500 IPC, 118 IPC, 120 (B)
IPC and 386 IPC. A2 and A3 are acquitted under section 235 (1) Cr.P.C for the offences under sections 500
IPC, 118 IPC, 120 (B) IPC and 386 IPC.
A4 is acquitted under section 235 (1)
Cr.P.C for the offences under sections 506(ii) IPC, 500 IPC, 118 IPC, 120 (B)
IPC and 386 IPC. The bail bonds of A1 to A4 shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. The unmarked non valuable case property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.
* * *
This case is coming up before me for hearing on 0804 2021 in the presence of Sri.Vikram Dev, Special Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri.M.Raja Goverdhan Reddy and Sri.R.Vijaya
Bhasker Reddy, Advocates for the accused and upon perusing the material on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:
S.C No.26 of 2017 3
J U D G M E N T
1. This case is tried against A1 for the offence under sections 376 IPC, 506II IPC, 500 IPC, 118 IPC, 120 (B) IPC and 386
IPC, against A2 and A3 for the offences under sections 500 IPC, 118
IPC, 120 (B) IPC and 386 IPC and against A4 for the offences under sections 506II IPC, 500 IPC, 118 IPC, 120 (B) IPC and 386 IPC.
2. Prayer of the Prosecution: The prayer of the prosecution is that on 13062012 A1 and victim went to resort, A1 forced the victim to have physical relationship and to have sex with him as they were going to get married. Believing his false promises that A1 would lawfully marry her, obtained her consent for sex by playing fraud. On several occasion accused asked the victim to send money as he was in dire need of money.
3. Later victim came to know that A1 was going to marry with another women. When the victim questioned A1 about his marriage with another women, A2 to A6 threatened her with dire consequences. Later A1 along with his friends A4 to A6 started blackmailing the victim that they would upload her nude photographs in the internet to defame the reputation of the victim.
Under the threat of uploading the nude photographs of victim in the internet on several occasions A1 took money from the victim.
4. A4 to A6 also threatened the victim to fulfill the demands of A1. Hence A1 is liable for punishment under Sections 376 IPC, 506 (ii) IPC, 500 IPC, 118 IPC, 120 (B) IPC and 386 IPC, A2 to A4 are liable for punishment under Sections 506 (ii) IPC, 500 IPC, 118 IPC, 120 (B) IPC and 386 IPC. (The name of the victim is not disclosed
as barred under section 228(A) of IPC and as per the directions
of Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case Nipun Saxena and another
Vs Union of India Ministry of Home Affairs” vide Writ Petition
(Civil) No.565 of 2012 dated 11122018 reported in (2019) 2
S.C No.26 of 2017 4
SCC 703 at paragraphs 11 and 24).
5. The facts of the prosecution case in a nut shall are as follows.
A1 was working as District Sales Manager in M/s Mithra
Industries Private Limited Bangalore. The victim was also working in the same firm. The accused developed intimacy with the victim through social media, face book. A1 proposed to marry the victim and the victim agreed his proposal as their ideas were identify and as such they became very close and started moving together. A1 made a proposal that they can share their ideas regarding the marriage and took her to a resort on 13062012.
6.On 13062012 A1 and victim spent time in the resort booked by A1 in the name of the victim. A1 forced the victim to have physical relationship and to have sex with him, as they were going to marry. Believing the promises of A1 regarding their marriage and believing that he would lawfully marry her, A1 obtained consent from the victim for sex by playing fraud. A1 and victim stayed together in the resort on 13th and 14th of June 2012.
7.Later A1 left for Bangalore saying he had some urgent work. A1 on several occasions took money from the victim and A1 also executed a promissory note in favour of the victim for
Rs.2,40,000/ and A4 signed on the said promissory note as a witness. After A1’s desire was fulfilled, he avoided the victim and married another women. When the victim along with her brother questioned A1, A2, A3 and A1’s friends A4 to A6 started threatening her with direconsequences.
8.A1 with the help of his friends A4 to A6 started blackmailing the victim that he had captured nude photographs of the victim without her knowledge and would upload in the internet to defame the reputation of the victim and among the people known
S.C No.26 of 2017 5 to her. A1 threatening the victim again and again on the pretext of exposing her nude photographs started extracted money from the victim and has sent A4 to A6 to the victim on several occasions for money. A4 to A6 also threatened the victim to fulfill the demands of
A1 otherwise they would expose her nude photographs to her friends and relatives. Hence the case.
9.A case was registered in Cr.No.184/2013 under sections 376 IPC, 386, 506ii, 500, 118, 129B IPC. WPC CCS DD Hyderabad and the same was received by Kothur police station on point of jurisdiction A.Surya Naik, S.I of Police, Kothur police station re registered a case in Cr.No.23/2015 under sections 376 IPC, 386 IPC, 506II IPC, 500 IPC, 118 IPC and 120B IPC and issued First
Information Report, B.Gangadhar, C.I of Police investigated into the case.
10. This case was taken on file for the offence under sections 376 IPC, 386 IPC, 506 (ii) IPC, 500 IPC, 118 IPC and 120B IPC against A1 to A4 by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Shadnagar.
11.On the appearance of A1 to A4 before that Court, the copies of the documents were furnished to them in compliance of
Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.
12.Based upon the primafacie case for the offence under section 376 IPC, which is exclusively triable by the Court of
Sessions, besides the other offences under sections 386 IPC, 506 (ii)
IPC, 500 IPC, 118 IPC and 120B IPC the case was committed under section 209 Cr.P.C to the Sessions Court, Sessions Division,
Mahabubnagar.
13.Thereafter, the Session Court took the cognizance of the
S.C No.26 of 2017 6 offences under sections 376 IPC, 386 IPC, 506 (ii) IPC, 500 IPC, 118
IPC and 120B IPC against the accused and, on assigning the case number by the Sessions Court, the case was made over to this Court being the designated Court to try the cases relating to Atrocities against women.
14. On the appearance of A1 to A4 before the Court and after hearing the learned Special Public Prosecutor representing the State and the learned defence counsel appearing for the accused, and upon the consideration of all the material placed by the prosecution, this Court framed the charges under sections 376 IPC, 386 IPC, 506(ii) IPC, 500 IPC, 118 IPC and 120B IPC against A1 and under sections 500 IPC, 118 IPC, 120B IPC and 386 IPC against A2 and
A3 and under sections 506(ii) IPC, 500 IPC, 118 IPC, 120B IPC and 386 IPC against A4 and the said charges were read over and explained to the accused under section 228 (2) of Cr.P.C and they having understood the same, denied the offence, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The A1 to A4 are defended by their advocate.
15. In order to bring home the guilt of A1 to A4 for the offences arraigned against them, the prosecution examined Pws.1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P1 to P8 on the prosecution side. After completion of the prosecution evidence, A1 to A4 were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C with regard to the incriminating material appearing against A1 to A4 in evidence of the prosecution witness to which they denied and reported no defence evidence.
16. The learned Special Public Prosecutor filed written arguments and submitted that the prosecution witnesses supported the case of prosecution and he prayed the Hon’ble Court to convict
A1 to A4 as per law.
17. The learned defence counsel submitted the following points for consideration:
S.C No.26 of 2017 7
(i)There is no evidence on the record to show that A1 and the victim visited the resort on 13th and 14th June 2012 and A1 forcibly committed rape on the victim.
(ii)There is no evidence on the record to show that A1 to
A4 conspired and blackmailed the victim that her nude photographs would be uploaded in the internet to defame her reputation.
(iii)There is no evidence on the record to show that A1 committed extortion.
(iv) The alleged incident occurred on 13th and 14th June 2012 but the private complaint was lodged ten months after the alleged incident, hence there is a delay in lodging the complaint by the victim.
Hence he prayed the Hon’ble Court to acquit the A1 to
A4.
18.The learned defence counsel in support of his contention filed following case laws of Hon’ble Supreme Court:
(i)Uday Vs. State of Karnataka
reported in 2003 (1) A.L.T (Crl.) 326 S.C
The learned defence counsel relied on the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court at second paragraph of the Judgment.
(ii) Tilak Raj … Appellant
Vs.
The State of Himachal Pradesh … Respondent
reported in Criminal Appeal No.13 of 2016
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.4896 of 2015
Decided on 06012016
The learned defence counsel relied on the observations of theHon’ble Supreme Court at 14th paragraph of the Judgment.
S.C No.26 of 2017 8
19.Hence the case is coming for judgment.
20. Points for determination.
(i)Whether the prosecution proved that A1 forcibly committed rape on the victim on 13062012.
(ii)Whether the prosecution proved that A1 blackmailed the victim saying that her nude photographs captured by him would be uploaded in the internet to defame her reputation.
(iii)Whether the prosecution proved that A1 committed criminal intimidation by threatening the victim that A1would ruin her life. At the instance of A1, A4 also threatened the victim to put an end to her life.
(iv)Whether the prosecution proved that A1 to A4 concealed photographs of the victim captured by the A1.
(v)Whether the prosecution proved that all the accused i.e. A1 to A4 conspired and blackmailed the victim that her nude photographs which A1 has captured would be published to defame the reputation of the victim.
(vi)Whether the prosecution proved that A1 committed extortion of an amount of Rs.60,000/ on 05092012 from the victim through A4. A1 also committed extortion of an amount of Rs.1,50,000/ by threatening the victim that he would publish and disclose her photographs in the company where she was working and also that A1 would upload her nude photographs in the internet.
21. Point No.(i):
Whether the prosecution proved that A1 forcibly committed rape on the victim on 13062012
On behalf of the prosecution the following witnesses were examined.
Pw.1 Victim (The name of the victim is not disclosed as barred under
S.C No.26 of 2017 9 section 228 (A) IPC and as per the directions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case Nipun Saxena and another Vs Union of India Ministry of Home Affairs” vide Writ Petition (Civil) No.565 of 2012 dated 11122018 reported in (2019) 2 SCC 703 at paragraphs 11 and 24).
Pw.2 Mother of the victim
Pw.3 D.S.N. Vikranth/circumstantial witness
Pw.4 Yaspula Sudhakar/circumstantial witness
Pw.5 Kethavath Ravi/panch for scene of offence
Pw.6 Dr.S.Yashovardhini/Assistant Professor
Pw.7P.Janakamma/Inspector of Police
Pw.8 B.Gangadhar/C.I of Police
Pw.9 S.Madhusudhan/C.I of Police
22.To appreciate the evidence of the victim, this Court would like to discuss the evidence of the victim deposed before the Court and the statement of the victim made before police and the contents of the complaint.
23.The victim deposed before Court as follows:
– The accused no.1 himself came from Bangolore to
Hyderabad to meet me. In the first instance we planned have discussions about our marriage in the house of accused no.4.
However, the accused no.1 by saying that he is tired and if we both go to resort it would be more comfortable for both of us and that we may not have privacy in the house of accused no.4. I also agreed for it and we both went to (name of the resort is not mention to protect the privacy of the victim) resort, which is situated in Kothur and
Bangalore Highway. After reaching the resort I came to know that it was booked in my name when the receptionist asked my details and documents relating to my identity. I then questioned accused no.1 and he replied because I am leaving India within two days for
S.C No.26 of 2017 10
Australia, he booked the resort in my name and there would not be any problems for me. After discussing the marriage for some time accused no.1 saying that it we both become more close then there would not be much resistance from our families for our marriage, participated in sexual intercourse with me. After the sexual intercourse when I asked him as to the marriage, he replied he would definitely marry me, and that his brother/Raja Shekar/A2 knows everything. He also requested me to give him some time by saying that because as he is a Hindu and I am a Christian by religion, it would take some time for him to convince his family. He also made me to pay resort bill. In addition to that he also took Rs.10,000/ towards expenses for his return journey.
24.The victim stated before police as follows:
– At that time Chandra Shekar was working in
Bangalore. I suggested to discuss about the marriage at the house of
Sinoj Anthony. As there would not be privacy, he booked resort. We both went to resort and discussed about marriage. He informed that he is getting alliances offering Rs.15,00,000/ cash and
Rs.10,00,000/ gold and Adapadachu katnam. I informed him that I would make arrangements about all those things, if we agree to marry, then he said okay. I told him that we will go, upon that he informed that he did not get bus ticket and later slowly started to touch physically, so I objected and when I told him that we will go, he said that if we meet, then only our marriage will be performed and blackmailed. My brother also knows about us. Saying that I will marry you forcibly became close sexually. In one way, he threatened me and made me to pay the hotel bill and also took Rs.10,000/ for his expenses. –
25.The contents of the complaint are as follows:
Then the 1st Accused informed to the complainant that he will come to Hyderabad from Bangalore to meet the
S.C No.26 of 2017 11 complainant on 13062012. The 1st Accused came to Hyderabad on 13062012 and met the complainant at Hyderabad. 1st Accused made a proposal that they can share their ideas regarding the marriage and asked the complainant to have a stay at a Resort and informed that he booked accommodation in the resort. Initially the complainant hesitated the idea of the 1st Accused to stay in a Resort with the 1st Accused. Due to pressure made by the 1st Accused that the same is for further fortifying the marriage, the complainant agreed for staying with 1st Accused in the Resort. On 13062012 the complainant and 1st Accused spent their time in the (name of the Resort is not mention to protect the privacy of the victim) Resort booked by 1st Accused in the name of the complainant. The 1st
Accused forced the complainant to had physical relationship with him. The 1st Accused forced the complainant to had sex with him as they are going to marry with each other. The complainant gave her consent for having physical relationship with 1st Accused as she blindly believed the 1st Accused and his promises regarding their marriage. The complainant gave her consent as she believed the 1st
Accused is going to marry her. The 1st Accused gave the clear impression that they are going to marry each other shortly. The consent of the complainant to have a physical relationship with 1st
Accused was obtained by made believing the complainant that he will lawfully marry the complainant. Otherwise, the complainant ought not have gave her consent to have sex with the 1st Accused.
The consent of the complainant to have sex with the 1st Accused was obtained by the 1st Accused by playing fraud on the complainant. The complainant and 1st Accused resided together in the said Resort on 13th and 14th of June 2012. Later the 1st Accused left Bangalore saying that he is having urgent work at Bangalore. The 1st Accused even took Rs.10,000/ from the complainant while leaving to Bangalore. The complainant left from Hyderabad on 1606 2012 and reached Australia on 17062012.
26.The definition of rape is having sexual intercourse with a
S.C No.26 of 2017 12 woman without her consent. The consent or compulsion is to be
judged on a careful consideration and scrutiny of the evidence of the
victim and from other corroborative evidence if any available on the record. In the present case the victim is an educated person who had pursued her education in Australia and worked in Australia for some time.
27. The victim must have had sufficient knowledge to understand the significance of the act she was consenting to. As A1 is a Hindu and she being a Christian she also might have had the knowledge of difficulty in getting married to A1 convincing members of his family. The evidence of victim goes to show that due to fear she did not tell her mother about the sexual intercourse that took place between herself and A1.
28. The mother of the victim in the crossexamination by the learned defence counsel admitted that she came to know about the incident in the resort, only when the victim telephoned from
Ramgopalpet police station. The mother of the victim also admitted in the crossexamination by the learned defence counsel that herself or her daughter/victim did not give complaint or any statement to the Ramgopalpet police alleging that A1 committed rape on her daughter/victim and also cheated her.
29.Based on the evidence on the record this court relies on the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court the following case law.
The Honourable Supreme Court in a case
Tahsildar Singh And Another vs The State
Of Uttar Pradesh
reported in 1959 SCR supl.(2) 875
at pages 902 to 905 observed as follows:
902 are expected to be included in the statement
before the police by a person who is giving a
S.C No.26 of 2017 13 narrative of what 'he saw, on the ground that they relate to important features of the incident about which the deposition is made." A similar view was expressed in Mohinder Singh v. Emperor (1), Yusuf Mia v. Emperor (2), and State of M.P. v. Banshilal Behari (3).
Reliance is placed by the learned Counsel for the appellants on a statement of law found in " Wigmore on Evidence ", Vol. III, 3rd Edn., at p.
725. In discussing under the head " what amounts to a Selfcontradiction ", the learned author tersely describes a selfcontradiction in the following terms:
"............ it is not a mere difference of statement that suffices; nor yet is an absolute oppositeness essential; it is an inconsistency that is required."
The learned author further states, at p. 733 : " A failure to assert a fact, when it would have been natural to assert it, amounts in effect to an assertion of the nonexistence of the fact."
The said statement is no doubt instructive, but it cannot be pressed into service to interpret the provisions of s.162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In America, there is no provision similar to s. 162 of the Code. It is not, therefore, permissible, or even possible, to interpret the provisions of a particular Act, having regard to stray observations in a textbook made in a different context. It is not necessary to multiply cases. The two conflicting views may be briefly stated thus: (i) omissions, unless by necessary implication be deemed to be part of the statement, cannot be used to contradict the statement made in the witnessbox; and (ii) they must be in regard to important features of the incident which are expected to be included in the statement made beforethe police. The first proposition not only carries out the intention of the legislature but is also in accord with the plain meaning of the words used in the section. The second proposition not only stretches (1) A.I.R. 1932 Lah. 103. (2) A.I.R. 1938 Pat.
579. (3) A.I.R. 1936 M.P. 13.
903 the meaning of the word " statement " to a
S.C No.26 of 2017 14 breaking point, but also introduces an uncertain element, namely, ascertainment of what a particular witness would have stated in the circumstances of a particular case and what the police officer should have recorded. When the section says that the statement is to be used to contradict the subsequent version in the witnessbox, the proposition brings in, by construction, what he would have stated to the police within the meaning of the word " statement ". Such a construction is not permissible.
From the foregoing discussion the following propositions emerge: (1) A. statement in writing made by a witness before a police officer in the course of investigation can be used only to contradict his statement in the witnessbox and for no other purpose; (2) statements not reduced to writing by the police officer cannot be used for contradiction; (3) though a particular statement is not expressly recorded, a statement that can be deemed to be part of that expressly recorded can be used for contradiction, not because it is an omission strictly socalled but because it is deemed to form part of the recorded statement; (4) such a fiction is permissible by construction only in the following three cases: (i) when a recital is necessarily implied from the recital or recitals found in the statement ; illustration: in the recorded statement before the police the witness states that he saw A stabbing B at a particular point of time, but in the witnessbox he says that he saw A and C stabbing B at the same point of time; in the statement before the police the word " only " can be implied,i.e., the witness saw A only stabbing B; (ii) a negative aspect of a positive recital in a statement; illustration: in the recorded statement before the police the witness says that a dark man stabbed B, but in the witnessbox he says that a fair man stabbed B; the earlier statement must be deemed to contain the recital not only that the culprit was a dark complexioned man but also that be was not of fair complexion; and (iii) when the statement before the police and that before the Court cannot stand together; illustration: the witness says in the recorded 904
S.C No.26 of 2017 15 statement before the police that A after stabbing B ran away by a northern lane, but in the Court he says that immediately after stabbing he ran away towards the southern lane; as he could not have run away immediately after the stabbing, i.e., at the same point of time, towards the northern lane as well as towards the southern lane, if one statement is true, the other must necessarily be false. The aforesaid examples are not intended to be exhaustive but only illustrative. The same instance may fall under one or more heads. It is for the trial Judge to decide in each case' after comparing the part or parts of the statement recorded by the police with that made in the witnessbox, to give a ruling, having regard to the aforesaid principles, whether the recital intended to be used for contradiction satisfies the requirements of law.
The next point is what are the omissions in the statement before the police which the learned
Sessions Judge did not allow the accused to put
to the witnesses for contradicting their present version. The learned Counsel for the appellants contends that the accused intended to put to the witnesses the following omissions, but they did not do so as the learned Sessions Judge disallowed the two questions put to P. W. 30 and made a considered order giving his reasons for doing so, and that the learned Counsel thought it proper not to put the same questions or other questions in regard to omissions to P. W. 30 or to the other witnesses that followed him. The said omissions are: (1) The warning by the members of the gang on their arrival to the audience at the music party not to stir from their places; (2) the presence of a gas lantern;(3) the chase of Bharat Singh by the assailants; (4) the scrutiny of the dead bodies by the gang; and (5) the return of the gang in front of thehouse of Bankey. The learned Counsel for the respondent contests this fact and argues that only two omissions, namely, the presence of a gaslantern and the scrutiny of the dead bodies by the gang, were put in the crossexamination of P. W. 30 and no other omissions were put to him or any other witness, and that indeed the order 905 of the learned Sessions Judge did not preclude him from putting all the omissions to the
S.C No.26 of 2017 16 witnesses and taking the decision of the Judge on the question of their admissibility.
30.As discussed above the evidence of the victim is self contradictory. When the victim did not speak on the oath before
Court, the allegations in the Complaint/First Information Report, the
First Information Report becomes otiose. The testimony of victim is highly disputed and unreliable. When the victim omitted to depose the details of the allegations mentioned in the complaint, the statement of the omission is of substantial nature and it is fatal to the case of prosecution.
31. On the other hand it is the version of the victim that A1 booked resort in her name. Pw.4 also deposed that about eight years ago A1 along with a girl stayed in the resort for two days and the then Resource Manager issued Ex.P3/Receipt. But in the cross examination by the learned defence counsel he deposed that he do not know on which date Ex.P3/Receipt was issued.
32. In the crossexamination by the learned defence counsel,
Pw.4 admitted that the date on Ex.P3/Receipt is manually mentioned. He also admitted that surname of Chandra Shekar (A1) is not mentioned in Ex.P3/Receipt. He also admitted that
Ex.P3/Receipt was generated on 10092015. Hence the evidentiary value of Ex.P3/Receipt is also in question.
33.As discussed above the observations of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court cited above are aptly applicable in the case on hand.
Hence this point is accordingly answered.
34.Point No.(ii):
Whether the prosecution proved that A1 blackmailed the victim saying that her nude photographs captured by him would be uploaded in the internet to defame her reputation.
S.C No.26 of 2017 17
The evidence of victim goes to show that she came to know that the marriage of A1 was solemnized. Later on one day she received call from A1 who informed her that he is in possession of her nude photographs captured by him, when they were in the resort and demanded to give Rs.60,000/. Due to fear she gave the amount to A6, who was sent by him to receive said amount.
35. The evidence of the victim further goes to show that after some days again A1 called her and asked her to come to necklace road with the promissory note given by him and take back all her nude photographs but instead of returning her nude photographs he asked that the victim should go to the person as directed by him.
As the victim opposed for the same A1 beat her.
36. Police petrolling party inquired her and took her to police station and assured that they would solve the problem. After returning from police station A1 again called victim through phone and asked Rs.35,000/. Having no other go she gave the said amount to A5. Except the oral evidence, no material was placed
before the Court regarding any imputation made by A1 against
victim.
37. On the other hand though the evidence of victim goes to show that when A1 blackmailed the victim that he would upload her nude photographs in the internet, she gave Rs.60,000/ to A6 on one occasion and Rs.35,000/ another occasion to A5, but no documentary evidence was produced before the Court in support of her contention.
38. The essence of the offence of defamation consists its tendency to cause that description of pain which is felt by a person who knows himself to be the object of unfavourable sentiments of the fellowcreatures, and those inconveniences to which a person who is the object of such unfavourable sentiment is exposed. As discussed above the evidence of the victim does not disclose any
S.C No.26 of 2017 18 imputation, so as to defame in the reputation of the victim. Hence this point is accordingly answered.
39. Point No.(iii):
Whether the prosecution proved that on 07082012, A1 committed criminal intimidation by threatening the victim that A1 would ruin her life. At the instance of A1, A4 also threatened the victim to put an end to her life.
The evidence of the victim goes to show that when the victim questioned A1 about the marriage engagement and also about the date of marriage with some other woman, he threatened her that if she raise any dispute both herself and her brother would never return their place. The victim stated before police that when she came to know about the marriage of A1, she informed A1 and A2 that she would bring her parents, upon that A1 and A2 called her and threatened her that if they come there, they would kill all of them and they also informed that they know police and they spoke to her in a vulgar language.
40.The victim also stated before police that herself and her brother went to Palavancha, they called her into their house, and they took her brother out side. They threatened that if she informs about the issue to their parents, her brother will not come to their house. Hence the evidence of the victim is in contradiction to the statement made before police. The evidence of victim also does not disclose the date on which A1 threatened her.
41On the other hand the evidence of the victim does not disclose that A4 at the instance of A1 also threatened the victim to put an end to her life. Though the evidence of victim goes to show that A1 threatened her, but her evidence does not disclose the harm caused to her. Hence the prosecution failed to prove that on 07082012, A1 committed criminal intimidation by threatening the
S.C No.26 of 2017 19 victim that A1 would ruin her life. At the instance of A1, A4 also threatened the victim to put an end to her life. Hence this point is answered accordingly.
42.Point No.(iv):
Whether the prosecution proved that A1 to A4 concealed photographs of the victim captured by the A1.
As discussed in point no.2, the evidence of victim goes to show that A1 threatened the victim that he would upload her nude photographs in the internet. But there is no evidence on the record to show that all the accused concealed the nude photographs of the victim captured by A1 to facilitate the commission of offence. Hence this point is accordingly answered.
43.Point No.(v):
Whether the prosecution proved that all the accused i.e. A1 to A4 conspired and blackmailed the victim that her nude photographs which A1 has captured would be published to defame the reputation of the victim.
To prove the offence of conspiracy, detailed and specific proof against each of the accused, that each accused individually participated in particular design to do a particular criminal thing, need to be proved. There is no evidence on the record to show that all the accused i.e. A1 to A4 agreed to upload the nude photographs of the victim and has done some overt act in the pursuance of said agreement.
44.The gist of the offence is the agreement itself. There is no evidence to prove that A1 to A4 conspired and blackmailed and also threatened the victim that her nude photographs which A1 captured would be published to defame the reputation of the victim. Hence this point is accordingly answered.
S.C No.26 of 2017 20
45.Point No.(vi):
Whether the prosecution proved that A1 committed extortion of an amount of Rs.60,000/ on 05092012 from the victim through A4. A1 also committed extortion of an amount of Rs.1,50,000/ by threatening the victim that he would publish and disclose her photographs in the company where she was working and also that A1 would upload her nude photographs in the internet.
As discussed above in point nos.2, the victim deposed that she received call from A1 who informed her that he is in possession of her nude photographs captured by him, when they were in the resort and demanded to give Rs.60,000/. Due to fear she gave the amount to A6 who was sent by him to receive said amount. But her evidence does not disclose that she received call from A1 on 05092012.
46. On the other hand there is absolutely no evidence on the record to show that A1 also demanded Rs.1,50,000/ from the victim under the threat of uploading the nude photographs in the internet.
Though the evidence of the victim goes to show that on the demand of the A1 she gave Rs.60,000/ and Rs.35,000/, but except oral evidence there is no documentary evidence to show that the above said amounts were delivered to A1. Furthermore, there is no evidence on the record to show that the intention of A1 was to cause alarm to the victim, as to force her to pay hush money.
47. The essence of offence of extortion is in the actual delivery of possession of the property by the person put in fear, and the offence is not complete before such delivery. On the other hand the evidence of the victim does not disclose that A1 induced her to give the amounts dishonestly. As the chief element of the offence of extortion is that the inducement must be dishonest. Hence this point is answered accordingly.
48.On the other hand the alleged offence occurred on 13th
S.C No.26 of 2017 21 and 14th of June, 2012, as per the prosecution version and as deposed by the victim in the crossexamination by the learned defence counsel. The private complaint was lodged ten moths after the alleged incident. The victim also admitted that she has filed a private complaint ten moths after her meeting with A1 in the resort.
49. Hence there is inordinate delay in lodging the complaint.
The evidence of victim and the contents of the complaint does not disclose the reasons for lodging the complaint ten months after the alleged offence, as such the prosecution failed to explain the delay in lodging the complaint. If the prosecution fails to satisfactorily explain the delay, there is a possibility of embellishment or exaggeration in the prosecution version on the account of such delay.
50.As discussed above, the observations of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case laws cited by the defence counsel are aptly applicable to the case on hand. Therefore, I opine that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the A1 to A4 beyond all reasonable, doubt and doubt if any should be given in favour of the
A1 to A4.
51. In the result, A1 is found not guilty for the offences under sections 376 IPC, 506(ii) IPC, 500 IPC, 118 IPC, 120 (B) IPC and 386
IPC and A2 and A3 are found not guilty for the offences under sections 500 IPC, 118 IPC, 120 (B) IPC and 386 IPC and A4 is found not guilty for the offences under sections 506(ii) IPC, 500 IPC, 118
IPC, 120 (B) IPC and 386 IPC and accordingly, A1 is acquitted under section 235 (1) Cr.P.C for the offences under sections 376 IPC, 506(ii) IPC, 500 IPC, 118 IPC, 120 (B) IPC and 386 IPC. A2 and A3 are acquitted under section 235 (1) Cr.P.C for the offences under sections 500 IPC, 118 IPC, 120 (B) IPC and 386 IPC. A4 is acquitted under section 235 (1) Cr.P.C for the offences under sections 506(ii)
IPC, 500 IPC, 118 IPC, 120 (B) IPC and 386 IPC. The bail bonds of
A1 to A4 shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. The
S.C No.26 of 2017 22 unmarked nonvaluable case property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.
Partly typed to my dictation, Partly dictated to the
Stenographer, transcribed by her and corrected and pronounced by me through video conferencing, on this the 20th day of April, 2021.
Digitally signed P ANNIEby P ANNIE ROSE
ROSECHRISTIAN
CHRISTIANDate: 2021.08.21 Special Sessions Judge for Trial of13:35:01 +0530 cases relating to Atrocities against Women cum X Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar.
A ppendix of Evidence
(Witnesses examined)
On behalf of Prosecution:
Pw.1 Victim (The name of the victim is not disclosed as barred under section 228 (A) IPC and as per the directions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case Nipun Saxena and another Vs Union of India Ministry of Home Affairs” vide Writ Petition (Civil) No.565 of 2012 dated 11122018 reported in (2019) 2 SCC 703 at paragraphs 11 and 24).
Pw.2 Mother of the victim
Pw.3 D.S.N. Vikranth/circumstantial witness
Pw.4 Yaspula Sudhakar/circumstantial witness
Pw.5 Kethavath Ravi/panch for scene of offence
Pw.6 Dr.S.Yashovardhini/Assistant Professor
Pw.7P.Janakamma/Inspector of Police
Pw.8 B.Gangadhar/C.I of Police
Pw.9 S.Madhusudhan/C.I of Police
S.C No.26 of 2017 23
On behalf of Defence:
Nil
Exhibits marked for
On behalf of Prosecution:
Ex.P1Private Complaintdt.25022013
Ex.P2Promissory Notedt.07082012
Ex.P3Receipt dt.10092015
Ex.P4 Scene of offence panchanama along dt.10092015 with rough sketch
Ex.P5Medical Examination Report dt.09092015
Ex.P6Forensic Science Laboratory Report dt.26082013
Ex.P7 First Information Report dt.25042013
Ex.P8 First Information Report dt.22012015
On behalf of Defence:
Nil
Material Objects marked
Nil
Digitally signed P ANNIEby P ANNIE ROSE
ROSECHRISTIAN
CHRISTIANDate: 2021.08.21 13:35:15 +0530 Special Sessions Judge for Trial of cases relating to Atrocities against Women cum X Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar.