VUNNAM NARESH Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred by the appellants-Accused Nos.1 to 3 aggrieved by the conviction and sentence inflicted by the Special Sessions Judge for trial of Cases under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act cum Additional Sessions Judge, Khammam for the offences under Ss. 417, 313 506 IPC and Sec. 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'SC and ST Act') against A1 and for the offences under Ss. 313 read with 34 and 506 read with 34 IPC and Sec. 3 (1) (x) of the SC and ST Act against A2 and A3 vide judgment dtd. 31/12/2012 in SC No.6 of 2012.

(2.) The case of the prosecution in brief was that on 25/12/2010 at 6.00 PM, the de facto complainant came to Khammam III Town Police Station and lodged a Telugu written report stating that she was a resident of Vodduramavaram village H/o.Pusugudem, Mulkalapalli Mandal, Khammam District and she was working as a Teacher in Kinnera Public School, Dammaigudem Village, Tirumalayapalam Mandal since June, 2009. While she was working in the village, the 1st appellant " A1 used to follow her stating that he liked her and had sexual intercourse with her for about 1 1/2 years in a house at Saradhi Nagar, Khammam and impregnated her. When she insisted for marriage, the mother and brother of A1 i.e. A2 and A3 took her to an RMP Doctor by making her believe that they would get her marriage with A1 after getting abortion and administered some tablets. When there was heavy bleeding, she was taken to Dr. Swarna Kumari Mother and Child Hospital, Khammam and got her aborted. After termination of pregnancy, when she insisted about the marriage, A1 to A3 abused her and threatened to kill her by pouring Acid, if she turned up at their house and left her in the Bus Stand, Khammam. Basing on the said report, Khammam III Town Police registered a case vide Crime No.204 of 2010 under Ss. 417, 420, 313, 506 IPC and Sec. 3 (1) (xii) of SC and ST Act and issued FIR. On receipt of proceedings from the Superintendent of Police, Khammam, the SDPO Khammam took up investigation of the case, recorded the statements of witnesses, visited the scene of offence, drafted the crime detail form in the presence of the mediators and referred the victim to the Government Hospital for medical examination and report and sent requisition letters to the MRO of Thirumalayapalem and Mulakapalli for furnishing the caste particulars of the accused and the de facto complainant. He effected the arrest of A1 to A3 on 31/12/2010 and 8/2/2011 and produced them before the Court. He sent A1 to the Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Khammam and secured the potency report. After receiving the caste certificate of the victim and the accused, filed charge sheet against A1 to A3 for the offences under Ss. 417, 420, 313 and 506 IPC and Sec. 3 (1) (xii) of the SC and ST Act. The case was taken on file by the III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Khammam and committed to the Special Sessions Judge for trial of cases under SC and ST Act cum Additional Sessions Judge at Khammam by numbering it as PRC No.4 of 2011.

(3.) Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence inflicted by the trial Court, the accused preferred this appeal contending that the trial Court convicted the accused basing on surmises and assumptions. There were contradictions in the evidence of PW.1. The essential ingredients as to abusing the complainant in the name of her caste at any public place in public view were inherently and materially wanting in this case. The trial Judge went wrong in convicting the appellants for the said unfounded offence and Sec. 3 (1) (x) of the SC and ST Act had no applicability to the facts of the case. The trial Court ought not to have framed the charge or had taken cognizance against the appellants for the said offence. The complaint as well as the evidence of PW.1 spoke of her love bond with A1 and her voluntary submission to be in the sexual company of A1. She lived together with A1 for a long period of one and half year at Khammam in a rented house away from her native village. Only after her alleged pregnancy, she alleged to have insisted for marriage, which would nagate the element of cheating with a promise to marry as required to be established under Sec. 415 IPC. The Doctor (PW.4) and the RMP doctor (PW.6), who had caused mis-carriage or abortion were not shown as accused in the case. The evidence of PW.4 was suggestive of the fact that PW.1 was a consenting party for the alleged termination or abortion. The essential ingredients to constitute the offence under Sec. 313 read with 312 IPC were inherently and materially wanting in the case. The trial Judge went wrong in framing charge under Sec. 313 IPC or in convicting the 1st appellant-A1 in the said unfounded offence. The trial Judge ignored to look into the evidence of PW.4 which did not speak of the presence of appellants 2 and 3 at the time when PW.1 alleged to have approached PW.4 in the alleged termination of pregnancy. There was absolutely no evidence on record to substantiate that the appellants 2 and 3 had caused mis-carriage more so without the consent of PW.1. The trial Judge went wrong in convicting the appellants 2 and 3 for the offence under Sec. 313 read with 34 IPC. The trial Judge ought to have taken note of all the inconsistencies and embellishments. There was no proper appreciation of the facts on record in proper perspective. The conclusion arrived at as to the guilt of the appellants was haphazard, surmisical and erroneous both on law and facts. The judgment of the trial Court was not sustainable and prayed to allow the appeal by setting aside the judgment of conviction and sentence passed against the appellants in SC No.6 of 2012 dtd. 31/12/2012 on the file of Special Sessions Judge for trial of SC and ST Cases, Khammam.