ADDEPALLI SETTIBABU Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision case is filed against the judgment of the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry in Criminal Appeal No. 292 of 1991, modifying the Judgment of the learned Assistance Sessions Judge, Ramachandrapuram in Sessions Case No. 331 of 1990.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that the accused was working as 'Saruku Master' in a hotel by name 'Sri Kanya Hotel' at Mandapeta. He was unmarried. One Gubbala Manga-PW 1 joined in the said hotel along with Gubbala Durga-PW 4 as cleaner. The accused, who was already working by then in the said hotel, developed intimacy with PW 1 and he used to give lift to her on his cycle from the hotel to her house now and then. PW 2, the mother of PW 1 also knew it. The accused promised PW 1 to marry her. Two or three days later, the accused took her to the rear side of the hotel at about 9.00 p.m. and taking advantage of the absence of anybody in the hotel by that time, the accused had sexual intercourse with PW 1. When PW 1 informed the same to PW 2, she asked PW 1 to bring the accused to their house, and when the accused went to the house of PW 1, he also promised PW 2 that he would marry PW 1 Later, he shifted his residence to the house of PW 1 and stayed there for about 15 days and he used to sleep along with PW 1 separately in one room, for which PW 2 also did not object. The accused enjoyed all these days with PW 1. He also decided to marry PW 1 in Registrar's Office. The accused and PW 1 slept on that night also inside the room as usual and had intercourse on that night also along with PW 1. On the next day, when all of them started to got to Kakinada, the father and brother of the accused came to the house of PW 1 at 9.00 or 10.00 a.m., and took away the accused, on the pretext that his mother was seriously ill. The accused promised to come again and left the house of PW 1. But he did not return, and later when the mother of PW 1 went to the house of the accused and asked him, the accused stated that he had no connection with her daughter-PW 1 and that he did not even know her daughter. Thereupon, PW 2 filed a complaint before police, which was investigated by the police and charge sheet was filed against the accused.

(3.) The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, on consideration of the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution to prove the charge under section 376, IPC, and under section 417, IPC, held that the prosecution failed to prove the charge under section 417, IPC and acquitted the accused under the said charge. But he found the accused guilty for the offence under section 376, IPC, and sentenced him to undergo RI for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000.00.