//
you're reading...
legal issues

no offence under section 307 IPC is made out and further the trial Judge observed that no weapon was used and the allegation is made by the daughter of the defacto complainant. Further there is no reason why the person who intended to commit murder left the defacto complainant without doing away the same and the same is not properly explained and it is borne out from the record that the trial Judge has disbelieved the evidence of PW-1 and when two views are possible and on the basis of the evidence adduced and one view which is in favour of the accused has been considered by the trial and there is no need to interfere with the findings recorded by the learned trial Judge.

Srikakulam District mandals

Image via Wikipedia

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH

AT HYDERABAD

TUESDAY THE TWENTYEIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER

TWO THOUSAND AND TEN

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.  1303 OF 2010

Between:

State of Andhra Pradesh

Represented by its Public Prosecutor

High Court of Andhra Pradesh

Hyderabad                                                              …            Appellant

V/s.       

Vasupalli Nukaraju & Anr.                            …            Respondents

Counsel for the appellant            :            Addl.Public Prosecutor

Counsel for the Respondents           :           None appeared

The Court made the

following Judgment:             Judgment follows from 2nd page

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.  1303 of 2010

 

 

JUDGMENT :

                 This Criminal Appeal is filed by the State against the order of acquittal recorded by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Rajam, Srikakulam district, whereby and whereunder both the accused were found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 307 and 498-A of IPC and they were acquitted under section 235 (1) Cr.P.C.

            2.  The facts of the case are that one Yasupalli Bangarutalli PW-1 is the victim and legally wedded wife of A-1, who is no other than the son of her maternal aunt. Their marriage took place about ten years back according to their caste custom and Hindu rites. As A-1’s parents expired at his childhood, her parents grew him up. After their marriage, she led conjugal life with A-1 and blessed with a daughter, who is aged about nine years. Thereafter, A-1 developed illicit intimacy with A-2 and completely neglected PW-1 and her daughter and also enticed away A-2 and her two children.  He often used to come to her parents house and used to illtreat her both physically and mentally with a demand to bring Rs.10,000/- which was kept for construction of house and also sold away the marriage presentations viz., Hero Honda motor cycle. She enquired about A-1 and came to know that A-1 along with A-2 and her children were living at Rushingi village of Vangara Mandal.  On that she reported the matter to police of Rambilli who in turn summoned A-1 and warned him. Then A-1 made false promise that he will took her to Rushingi village on 05-2-2003. She led conjugal life with A-1 for few days at Rushingi village. Even then, A-1 did not discard his illegal intimacy with A-2.

            While so, on the night of 23-2-2005 at about 23:00 hours, when PW-1 and he daughter were sleeping in their house at Rushingi village then both the accused with an intention to kill her, entered into her house and A-1 restrained her movement by catching her both legs and hands and A-2 tried to kill her by squeezing her neck. When PW-1 tried to rescue herself, her daughter Nirmala Kumari woke up, noticed the offence and raised cries. Then S. Chinnappalanaidu and P.Somayya came there and witnessed the offence. Then both the accused ran away. PW-1 informed the said offence to Chapala Chittibabu, who in turn visited Rushingi village and took her to her native  place and she lodged a complaint at Vangara Police Station on 10-03-2005.

            On the basis of the complaint, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Vangara registered a case in Cr.No.5/05 under section 498-A and 307 IPC and investigated into. During the course of investigation, he examined the witnesses and recorded their statements, inspected the scene of offence in the presence of mediators and got drafted observation report, arrested A-1 on 14-3-2005 and sent him for judicial custody. A-2 got anticipatory bail. Hence, the charge sheet.

            3.  After filing of the final report by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Vangara, the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Palakonda committed PRC.No. 11 of 2005 to the Court of Session, Srikakulam under section 209 (a) Cr.P.C. after observing the formalities and also notified the fact of committal to the Addl. Public Prosecutor under section 209 (d) Cr.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge, Srikakulam took the case on file and made over the same to the Court of Assistant Sessions Judge for disposal in accordance with law.

            4.  On appearance of the accused, the learned trial Judge heard the counsel for the defence as well as the Additional Public Prosecutor with regard to the framing of charges. Charge under section 307 IPC was framed against both the accused and charge under section 498-A of IPC was framed against A-1 were read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they denied the substance of accusation and claimed to be tried.

            5.  To prove its case, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 7 and marked Exs.P1 to P6. On behalf of the accused, no oral and documentary evidence was adduced.

            6.  After closure of the prosecution evidence, both the accused were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. for the incriminating evidence appearing against them. Both the accused denied the same and reported no defence but marked Ex.D-1 on behalf of the accused.

            7.   The learned trial Judge after hearing both sides and on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence placed on record found both the accused not guilty for the offence punishable under section 307 and 498-A of IPC and they were acquitted under section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. Aggrieved by the same, the State preferred the present criminal appeal.

            8.  Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the oral and documentary evidence placed on record. None appeared on behalf of the respondents-accused.

            9.   As can be seen from the record, it appears that the learned trial Judge after evaluating the evidence acquitted both the accused. On perusal of the evidence, no offence under section 307 IPC is made out and further the trial Judge observed that no weapon was used and the allegation is made by the daughter of the defacto complainant. Further there is no reason why the person who intended to commit murder left the defacto complainant without doing away the same and the same is not properly explained and it is borne out from the record that the trial Judge has disbelieved the evidence of PW-1 and when two views are possible and on the basis of the evidence adduced and one view which is in favour of the accused has been considered by the trial and there is no need to interfere with the findings recorded by the learned trial Judge.

            10.    In the result, the Criminal Appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.

                                                ______________________

                                                                  JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO

28-12-2010

I s L

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1303 OF 2010

CIRCULATION NO.  36

Date:28-12-2010

Court Master: I s L

Computer No. 43

Advertisements

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Pingback: Indian courts can try offences committed by Indian in foreign country, rules Bench « THE LAWFILE - September 11, 2011

Blog Stats

  • 2,305,011 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,893 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com
Advertisements