ANTHATI PARAMESH Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner was convicted for the offence under Ss. 376 and 417 of the Indian Penal Code by the trial Court and confirmed in appeal by the Sessions Court. Aggrieved by the said confirmation of conviction, present revision is filed.

(2.) Briefly, the case of the victim girl-PW.2 is that she was aged around 14 years when the incident happened. The accused was residing adjacent to the house where PW.2 and her parents were residing. The accused used to go to the house of the victim frequently, in the absence of her mother, father and grand- mother, who used to go to coolie work. The accused used to convince her that he was loving her and he would marry her. On several occasions, the accused removed her clothes and laid on her and committed rape. Due to continued physical intimacy, her menstruation cycle stopped. When tested, she was pregnant. Even after becoming pregnant, the accused continued having intercourse with her. The accused promised to marry her. After PW.2 informed the accused about her pregnancy, he asked PW.2 not to disclose her pregnancy to anyone. Having come to know about the pregnancy, PW.1-father of the victim, mother of the victim and others called the accused for Panchayat with the village elders. Then the parents of the accused agreed to perform marriage of accused with PW.2, after delivery of the child. On 3/11/2004, PW.2 gave birth to a child in her seventh month of pregnancy and since it was a premature birth, the child died after 22 days. Thereafter, the issue was again taken up before the elders, but the accused refused to marry PW.2. Complaint was filed with the Police for the reason of having intercourse with PW.2 on the pretext of marriage and for making false promises from time to time.

(3.) On the basis of the complaint, police filed charge sheet for the said offences. Charges were framed against the accused by the learned trial Court. Having examined the father of the victim- PW.1, victim-PW.2 and other witnesses, the learned trial Judge recorded conviction. Though it was urged by the prosecution that the date of birth of the victim girl-PW.2 was 1/8/1991 and on the date of the offence, she was a minor, the Court did not place reliance on the bonafide certificate which was produced by the prosecution. However, for the reason of having intercourse with PW.2 which resulted in her pregnancy, both the Courts below found that the allegation of cheating for making false representation and committing rape under a false pretext of marriage were made out.