THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1739 OF 2003 & CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1934 OF 2004 COMMON ORDER: 1 As both the matters arise out of a common judgment passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Ramachandrapuram in East Godavari District in SC No.39 of 2001 these two matters are being disposed of by way of this common order. 2 Brief facts are that about one year prior to the date of giving the report, the accused got acquaintance with the victim girl Kambala Bujji @ Varalakshmi and made false promises that he is loving her and he will marry her. The victim believed his words and the accused taking advantage of the innocence of the victim under that false promise of love and marriage, sexually enjoyed her. The accused also expressed the same version before the village elders when he along with the victim was seen in cattle shed by the village elders. Subsequently when the victim revealed the matter to her parents, they raised a dispute before the village elders where the accused refused to marry her. On that the village elders demanded the accused to pay an amount of Rs.3,000/- towards compensation to the victim, but, however, the victim did not receive the said amount and insisted the accused to marry her. The parents of the victim girl waited for some time, but, as the accused did not come forward to marry the victim girl, she gave a complaint to the Police, basing on which a case in Cr.No.119 of 1999 was registered by the Police Alamuru P.S. for the offence punishable under sections 419 and 493 of IPC and investigated into. During the course of investigation the victim was sent to the Forensic Medicine, Kakinada for determination of her age and she was also referred to the Government hospital for examination whether she had any sexual intercourse. Dr.T.Ramarao who examined the victim opined that as on the date of his examination the victim was aged about 16 years. Dr.P.Srinivas who examined the victim opined that the victim is habituated to sexual intercourse. Later the accused was arrested and was sent to the government hospital for the purpose of determination of his potency. Dr.P.Srinivas who also examined the accused opined that the accused is potent and able to perform sexual intercourse. After completion of the entire investigation the charge sheet was filed for the offence punishable under sections 417 and 376 of IPC. 3 The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, after appreciating the entire evidence available on record came to the conclusion that the accused is not guilty of the offences for which he was tried and accordingly acquitted him of the said offences. As stated supra, aggrieved by the said acquittal, the de facto complainant in the said Sessions Case filed Criminal Revision Case No.1739 of 2003 and aggrieved by the very same acquittal, the State preferred the Criminal Appeal No. 1934 of 2004. 4 Heard both sides. 5 Apparently there is a doubt with regard to the age of the victim girl i.e. P.W.1. According to her own evidence she was aged 19 years, whereas the evidence of her parents who were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 is to the effect that she was aged 16 years. When once the victim herself asserts that she was aged 19 years, in my considered view, the said aspect alone has to be taken into consideration but not the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3. When the other evidence is also taken, it cannot be said that the victim was a minor. Another aspect is that the doctor who examined the victim and gave certificate Ex.P.6 opined that the private part of the victim is admitting two fingers and according to him the victim is habituated sexual intercourse. From the above, it is clear that the victim is a consenting party and she has an affair with the accused. These aspects were taken into consideration by the court below in coming to the conclusion that the prosecution miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under sections 417 and 376 of IPC, which view appears to be correct. 6 Hence I see no merits in this revision as well as the appeal and accordingly both the Criminal Revision Case and the Criminal Appeal are dismissed. -------------- Kvsn 03.03.2010