The High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati has dismissed an appeal filed by the State, upholding the acquittal of a man charged with fraudulent marriage and cohabitation (Sections 493 and 496 IPC) and causing miscarriage without consent (Section 313 IPC). Justice T Mallikarjuna Rao, in the judgment dated October 31, 2025, held that the prosecution failed to establish the essential ingredients of “deceit” or “fraudulent intention” at the time of the marriage, even if the accused subsequently denied the relationship due to family opposition.
The appeal, Criminal Appeal No: 1157/2009, was filed by the State of A.P. against the judgment of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram, dated 08.10.2007, which acquitted the accused (A1) in Sessions Case No. 119 of 2003.
Background of the Case
According to the prosecution, the de facto complainant (PW.1) and the accused (A1) developed an intimate relationship based on a promise of marriage. On 25.07.2001, A1 allegedly took PW.1 to Simhachalam Devasthanam and married her in Room No. 14 of Gajapathi Choudhary, in the presence of witnesses (PW.3, A1’s aunt, and PW.4, A1’s friend).
The prosecution case further stated that PW.1 subsequently conceived. It was alleged that A1, stating it was “not convenient to have a child at that time,” took her to a nursing home, where her pregnancy was terminated by a doctor (PW.9) in August 2001.
After their relationship became known to their families, A1 allegedly, with the support of other accused (A2-A5), “denied his marital relationship with the complainant and attempted to settle the matter by offering her money, which she refused.” This led to the filing of a police report on 15.02.2003.
Arguments Before the High Court
The State, represented by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, contended that the prosecution had successfully established the ingredients of the offences under Sections 493, 496, and 313 of the IPC. It was argued that the trial court ought to have accepted the “solitary testimony of PW.1” as it “carries a ring of truth” and that conviction can be based on such reliable evidence.
Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondent (accused) supported the findings and conclusions recorded by the Sessions Court.
High Court’s Analysis and Findings
The High Court, presided by Justice T Mallikarjuna Rao, first examined the limited scope of an appeal against acquittal, citing State of Goa V. Sanjay Thakran & Anr. (2007) to affirm that an appellate court should not interfere “Merely because two views are possible” unless the trial court’s view is “perverse.”
On the Charge of Miscarriage (Section 313 IPC):
The Court analyzed the acquittal under Section 313 IPC (Causing miscarriage without woman’s consent). It noted two key points from the trial record:
- The doctor (PW.9), alleged to have performed the abortion, “did not support the version of PW.1” and “categorically denied having done so.”
- Even accepting PW.1’s testimony, she stated that although she “initially refused, she eventually consented” to the abortion.
The judgment stated: “The Sessions Court further observed that even if the statement of PW.1 was accepted that she had undergone an abortion, the provisions of Section 313 of the IPC would not be attracted, as the act was with her consent.” The High Court concluded that the Sessions Court “rightly acquitted” the accused of this charge.
On Fraudulent Marriage Charges (Section 493 & 496 IPC):
The central issue was whether the accused acted with “deceit” (Sec 493) or “fraudulent intention” (Sec 496). The Court noted that the trial court, after analyzing the evidence of PW.1, PW.3, PW.4, and PW.5, as well as a room receipt (Ex.P5) confirmed by a Devasthanam employee (PW.11), reached a “categorical finding that the accused had married PW.1 and that the marriage ceremony was performed by a Purohit.”
The High Court defined the legal test, citing Arun Singh v. State of U.P. (2020), stating, “The essence of an offence under Section 493 IPC is, therefore, the practice of deception… as a consequence of which the woman is led to believe that she is lawfully married to him”.
Applying this test, the Court found the prosecution’s case lacking. It observed that PW.1’s own complaint (Ex.P1) indicated that the accused was “willing to live with her and lead a family life, but was prevented from doing so by his elder brother.”
The Court held that the subsequent denial of the marriage was “attributable to the opposition of his family members” rather than an indicator of initial fraud.
In a key observation, Justice Rao stated: “Had the accused been having any dishonest or fraudulent intention, he would not have gone to the extent of marrying PW.1 in the presence of others, thereby making the marriage publicly known.”
The judgment emphasized that the fraudulent intent must exist at the inception of the marriage: “To establish an offence under Sections 493 and 496 of the IPC, it is essential to demonstrate that deceit and fraudulent intention, as contemplated by these provisions, existed at the time of the marriage. In the present case, the evidence does not demonstrate the existence of these essential ingredients.”
The Court explicitly held: “Any subsequent disclaimer or later assertion cannot be taken into consideration in determining the commission of the offence…”
The Decision
In confirming the acquittal, the High Court reiterated that “suspicion, however grave, cannot take the place of proof” and that “if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case… the view that is favourable to the accused should be adopted.”
Finding that the “view taken by the Trial Court is a plausible one,” the High Court concluded that the prosecution “had failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offences under sections 493 and 496 of the IPC beyond a reasonable doubt.”
The appeal filed by the State was, accordingly, dismissed, and the 2007 judgment of acquittal was confirmed.
