THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL APPEAL No.396 of 2009 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 13.04.2009 in S.C.No.255 of 2007 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Machilipatnam, whereby the appellant-accused No.1 was convicted for the offence under Section 366 of I.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The appellant- Accused No.1 was further convicted for the offence under Section 376 of I.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that P.W.3 - victim girl by name Lakshmi Bhavani fell in love with the appellant and habituated to sexual intercourse on the pretext that they would be getting marriage very soon. It is alleged that A-1 by taking advantage of tender age of P.W.3-victim, induced her and started enjoying her sexually for a period of about six months, as a result, the victim girl conceived pregnancy and thereafter took her from the custody of her parents on the false promise of getting marriage. Thereupon, A-2, who is the father of A-1, abetted A-1 to marry the victim girl as the parents of the victim girl would not agree to perform their marriage. Accordingly A-1 tied thali around the neck of victim girl on 08.04.2006 and returned to Hyderabad. On 10.04.2006 at about 10 A.M. P.W.1-mother of P.W.3-victim gave a report to the Sub Inspector of Police, Pedana, who in turn, registered a case in Crime No.37 of 2006 under Sections 366-A, 376 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. Subsequently Inspector of police, Bandar Rural Circle took up investigation and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 363, 366, 366- A, 376 and 109 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution in all examined P.W.1 to P.W.12 and got marked Exs.P1 to P16. On behalf of the accused, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.D1 to D8 were marked. The trial Court on appraisal of entire evidence, both oral and documentary, while acquitting A-2 for the offences with which he was charged, found the appellant-A1 guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 366 and 376 of I.P.C. and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as stated supra. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the appellant-A1 preferred this criminal appeal. This Court, on 15.04.2009, while suspending the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the trial Court against the appellant-A1, released him on bail. It appears subsequent to the filing of the appeal, the appellant-A1 married P.W.3-victim girl and out of their wedlock a child was also born. Having regard to the fact that the marriage was performed between the appellant-A1 and P.W.3-victim girl, this Court directed the learned Counsel for the appellant-A1 to produce the appellant- A1 as well as P.W.3-victim and accordingly they both appeared before this Court on 25.02.2011. When questioned P.W.3-victim by name Lakshmi Bhavani, she stated that the appellant-A1 married her on 12.04.2010 and a child also was born on 05.01.2011. The offences for which the appellant-A1 was convicted and sentenced are not compoundable and therefore, it is not a fit case to take a lenient view. However, having regard to the fact that the appellant-A1 married P.W.3-victim and they are living happily as per the statement of the victim, this Court is of the view that the inherent powers conferred under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. can be invoked in this case. After all, the Courts shall look at the interest of justice, but it shall not strictly adhere to the provisions of various enactments made by the legislature. If ultimately, this Court decides the appeal and holds that the conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant-A1 is justified, the very purpose of marriage would be defeated and the victim again becomes an orphan for the reason that her husband i.e., the appellant herein has to be sent to jail. Learned Counsel for the appellant during the course of arguments has drawn my attention to a decision of the apex Court reported in FAZLE GAFFAR KHAN AND OTHERS V. STATE OF W.B AND ANOTHER[1], wherein the Supreme Court has expressed its view that in certain circumstances the Courts can invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction conferred under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. In my considered view, the case on hand is one of such rarest of rare cases, where the extraordinary jurisdiction conferred under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has to be invoked in the interest of parties particularly P.W.3-victim. As stated supra, though the offences under Sections 366 and 376 of I.P.C. charged against the appellant-A1 are not compoundable, this Court is of the view that the same can be compounded for the reasons stated supra. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the judgment of conviction and sentence passed against the appellant-A1 by the trial Court for the offences punishable under Sections 366 I.P.C. and 376 of I.P.C. are hereby set aside and he is acquitted of the said charges. Fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant-A1 shall be refunded to him. However, subsequent to this judgment, if any untoward incident happens and P.W.3-victim by name Lakshmi Bhavani has any grievance against the appellant-A1, she can as well bring it to the notice of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Machilipatnam, so that proper action shall be initiated against the appellant-A1. __________________________ (GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J) 09-03-2011 Gsn. [1] (2000) 10 SUPREME COURT CASES 10