Supreme Court - Daily Orders
A. Venkatesh vs The State Of A.P. (Now State Of ... on 25 January, 2023
Bench: A.S. Bopanna, Hima Kohli
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 638 OF 2022
A. VENKATESH ..... APPELLANT
VERSUS
THE STATE OF A.P. (NOW STATE OF
TELANGANA) ..... RESPONDENT
O R D E R
Heard the learned senior counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the respondent State and perused the appeal papers.
2. The appellant herein was charged for the offence alleged to have been committed under Section 417 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”) and Section 3(1)(xii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (“SC & ST Act”).
3. The trial court through its judgment dated 28.08.2012 had convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 417 IPC and acquitted under Section 3(1)(xii) of the SC & ST Act. In respect of conviction under Section 417 IPC, the trial court sentenced him to six months simple imprisonment. The appeal filed by the appellant herein before the High Court was dismissed through the judgment dated 07.01.2022. It is in that light, the appellant is before this Court.
Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by NIRMALA NEGI Date: 2023.01.28 10:53:29 IST Reason:
4. The learned senior counsel for the appellant while seeking to 1 contend that the ingredients of Section 417 IPC with which he was charged is not made out in the instant case has pointedly referred us to the evidence of the complainant who was examined as PW-2 in the trial in S.C. No. 63 of 2010. We note that in the evidence, the complainant has referred to the nature of the relationship that had developed between the parties and in the circumstance, where they had shared the common roof and had lived like husband and wife initially at one place and thereafter they had shifted from Amberpet to Vanasthalipuram. In that light, it is noted that the complainant herself has deposed with regard to her having carried on the physical relationship by living like a wife to the appellant herein. She has also stated that the said relationship was brought to the notice of her mother. She was also aware of his married status and she being mentally ill and died later. The only grievance that is putforth by her is that subsequently the appellant had married some other lady. In that regard, at this stage itself, we note that no charge is made out against the appellant on that count.
5. The learned senior counsel, to point out that such evidence as tendered by the complainant would not constitute an offence has relied on the decision of this Court in the case of Mandar Deepak Pawar Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr., decided in Criminal Appeal No. 442 of 2022 on 27.07.2022. Though, in the said case, there was also a charge under Section 376 IPC, it was with the charge under Section 420 IPC. In that circumstance, having taken note of the similar facts, the relationship, as was stated in the 2 instant case, has arrived at the conclusion through judgment dated 27.07.2022 that no charge was made out.
6. In yet another judgment of this Court in the case of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., (2019) 9 SCC 608, this Court has adverted to a similar situation and has held that no charge was made out.
7. In that view, having taken note of the evidence, we see that, in the instant case, the charge as alleged against the appellant in fact was not made out and the trial court had erroneously arrived at the conclusion to convict the appellant. The High Court had also not properly re-appreciated the evidence to arrive at its conclusion.
8. In that view, the judgment dated 28.08.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge and the judgment dated 07.01.2022 passed by the High Court are set aside. The conviction recorded therein is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charge alleged against him under Section 417 IPC. Since the appellant is stated to be on bail, the bail bonds stand cancelled and he is ordered to be set at liberty. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
..................J. (A.S. BOPANNA) ..................J. (HIMA KOHLI) NEW DELHI;
JANUARY 25, 2023.
3
ITEM NO.101 COURT NO.12 SECTION II
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Criminal Appeal No. 638/2022
A. VENKATESH Appellant
VERSUS
THE STATE OF A.P. (NOW STATE OF TELANGANA) Respondent
(IA No. 24637/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Date : 25-01-2023 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI For Appellant(s) Mr. S. Naga Muthu, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Kasoju Mahesh Chary, Adv.
Kesana Vishnu Vardhan Goud, Adv.
Lewish Edward, Adv.
Chembugari Abheeshna M. Venkatesulu, Adv.
Ravi Teja Mothkuri, Adv.
Mr. R. Sathish, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, AOR Ms. Bina Madhavan, Adv.
Mr. Lakshay Saini, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order. The operative part of the order reads thus:
“8. In that view, the judgment dated 28.08.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge and the judgment dated 07.01.2022 passed by the High Court are set aside. The conviction recorded therein is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charge alleged against him under Section 417 IPC. Since the appellant is stated to be on bail, the bail bonds 4 stand cancelled and he is ordered to be set at liberty. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed.” Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(NITIN TALREJA) (DIPTI KHURANA)
COURT MASTER (SH) ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(Signed order is placed on the file)
5