THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.464 OF 2002 JUDGMENT: 1. This appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) is directed against the judgment dated 20.03.2002 made in Sessions Case No.321 of 2001 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Tadepalligudem, whereunder and whereby, the appellant/sole accused was found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 313 of the Indian Penal Code {IPC}, accordingly, convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. 2. The case of the prosecution is as under. P.W.2 is the mother and P.W.5 is the maternal uncle, of P.W.1, who is the alleged victim in the case. The accused, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were living in Badampudi Village, Ungutur Mandal, whereas P.W.5 was living at Vizag. The house of the accused is just opposite to the house of P.W.1. Accused made P.W.1 to believe that he would marry her. P.W.1 had sexual intercourse with him from 1998 onwards. In April 1999, she became pregnant and she informed the same to the accused and requested him to marry her. He postponed the marriage. In June 1999, the accused gave some tablets and she consumed the same, due to which abortion of pregnancy took place. Then P.W.1 informed the entire incident to her parents. They placed the matter before the Caste elders. The accused again met her and had sexual intercourse by promising that he would marry her, and as a result, she became pregnant second time. Abortion took place for second time in natural course. Thereafter P.W.1 joined in Vizag College by staying in the house of her maternal uncle. The accused also went to Vizag in October, 2000 and promised to marry her and had sexual intercourse with her. In December 2000, P.W.5 came to know about their affair and he took them to Kumanapalem Police Station. Then accused gave undertaking to the police to the effect that he would marry her. On 07.12.2000 the accused married P.W.1 in the Church of Rehbat at Vizag with her consent. P.W.5 and his friends only attended the marriage. On 10.12.2000 accused took P.W.1 to their village and left her near her parents house. After 15 days, the accused came to his house and P.W.1 requested him to take her to his house. The accused refused to take her and also declared that she is not his wife. On 22.02.2001, P.W.1 and her parents placed the matter before the elders and the accused accepted their marriage but he refused to lead marital life with her. On the advice of elders, P.W.1 gave written report to police as in Ex.P1. On 27.02.2001 at about 5 am, M.J.V.Bhaskara Rao, SI of Police, who received Ex.P1, registered a case in Cr.No.16 of 2001 under Sections 376, 417 and 313 IPC and issued FIR Ex.P8. On 27.02.2001 P.W.12, Inspector of Police, took up the investigation, examined and recorded the statements of P.Ws.1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and others. On the same day at about 7 pm, P.W.12 arrested the accused and sent him for medical examination. P.W.6 examined the accused and issued the certificate as Ex.P4. Later P.W.12 sent the accused for judicial custody. Ex.P5 is the study certificate issued by P.W.7, Ex.P6 is the marriage certificate issued by P.W.9 and Ex.P7 is the wound certificate of P.W.1 issued by P.W.10. 3. When charges under Sections 498-A, 417 and 313 IPC were framed, read over and explained to him, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 12 and got marked Exs.P1 to P8. The accused did not choose to examine any witness nor mark any document on his behalf. 5. Accepting the evidence of P.W.1, the trial Court found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 313 IPC, convicted and sentenced as stated above, while acquitting him of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 417 IPC. Challenging the conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 313 IPC, the present appeal is filed. 6. Now, the point for determination is whether the prosecution has proved its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. 7. The entire case rests on the evidence of P.W.1. Her evidence would disclose that the accused was residing in the house opposite to her house. The accused stated to her that he fell in love with her and promised to marry her. Believing his representation, P.W.1 had with him sexual intercourse from the year 1998 onwards. In April 1999, she became pregnant and when the same was informed to the accused, he postponed marrying P.W.1. In the month of June 1999, he gave some tablets and P.W.1 consumed the same, as a result of which abortion of pregnancy took place. Thereafter, P.W.1 informed the entire incident to her parents, who raised panchayathi before elders, P.Ws.3 and 4. Though P.Ws.3 and 4 were examined, they did not support the case of the prosecution with regard to raising of the dispute for accused causing pregnancy to P.W.1 and causing abortion by giving some tablets to her. On the other hand, they stated that the dispute raised by the elders of P.W.1 is with regard to the accused addressing letters to P.W.1 but not with regard to illegal contacts with P.W.1, due to which P.W.1 became pregnant. 8. P.W.10 is the doctor, who examined P.W.1 and issued Ex.P7- medical certificate opining that no external or internal injuries are found. 9. Section 313 IPC reads as under. Causing miscarriage without woman’s consent: - Whoever, commits the offence defined in the last preceding section without the consent of the woman, whether the woman, is quick with child or not, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extent to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. Therefore, it is clear from the above provision that one of the ingredients of the offence under Section 313 IPC is without woman’s consent, miscarriage has been effected. It is not the case of P.W.1 that she consumed some tablets given by the accused against her will. She voluntarily consumed the tablets, which resulted in abortion of pregnancy. Therefore, it is not a case where miscarriage was done by the accused without the consent of P.W.1. As rightly contended by the learned Senior Counsel Sri C.Padmanabha Reddy, the prosecution has not proved one of the necessary ingredients of Section 313 IPC. Therefore, the accused is entitled to acquittal. 10. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed setting aside the impugned judgment and the accused is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 313 IPC. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled and the fine amount, if any, paid by the accused shall be refunded to him. _____________ (K.C.BHANU, J) 3rd February 2010 RRB