Dismissed

The State of Andhra Pradesh, v. Jarupla Krishna

Telangana HC22 Oct 2009CRLA/1646/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal under Section 378 Cr.P.C. against an acquittal for rape and kidnapping, the High Court found the prosecution failed to prove its case due to hostile witnesses and insufficient evidence. It upheld the trial Court's order acquitting the accused.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Appeal is dismissed, confirming the judgment of acquittal dated 10.04.2008.

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Vs Jarupla Krishna — Telangana HC (2009) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1646 OF 2009

¶7

Between:

¶8

The Sate of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.

¶9

..... Appellant/Petitioner

¶10

AND

¶11

1. Jarupla Krishna

¶12

2. Bhukya Bhaskar

¶13

3. Jarupla Srinu

¶14

..... Respondents/Accused

¶15

The Court made the following:

¶16

JUDGMENT:

¶17

The Criminal Appeal, under Section 378 (1) & (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed by the State against the Judgment, dated 10.04.2008, in S.C.No.514 of 2007, on the file of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Miryalguda, whereunder and whereby Accused No.1 was found not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 366-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “I.P.C.”) and Accused Nos.2 & 3 were found not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 366-A read with 109 I.P.C. and accordingly they were acquitted.

¶18

2. Brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present criminal appeal may be stated as follows:

¶19

On 30.04.2006 at about 6.30 p.m., P.W.1 went to the fields and his daughter Sarada, aged 16 years, was in the house. Accused No.1 kidnapped the daughter of P.W.1 forcibly in an auto with the help of Accused Nos.2 & 3 and inspite of search made by P.W.1, he could not find them and therefore, he lodged a complaint with the police. The police registered a case. During the course of investigation, the victim girl came to the Police Station and complained that Accused No.1 committed rape on her. After completion of investigation, the police filed the charge sheet.

¶20

3. When the charges under Sections 376 and 366-A I.P.C.

¶21

against Accused No.1 and Sections 376 and 366-A read with 109 I.P.C. against Accused Nos.2 & 3 were framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

¶22

4. To substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5.

¶23

5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating material found against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. They denied the same. On behalf of the accused, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced.

¶24

6. The trial Court, after considering the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that there is no evidence to show that Accused No.1 committed the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 366-A I.P.C. and similarly there is no evidence to show that Accused Nos.2 & 3 have committed the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 366-A read with 109 I.P.C. and accordingly acquitted them. Aggrieved thereby, the State preferred this Criminal Appeal.

¶25

7. Heard the counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the impugned judgment. 8. Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution proved its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt of the offences with which they were charged?

¶26

9. P.Ws.3 to 6 did not support the case of the prosecution. They were declared hostile by the prosecution.

¶27

Except marking their statements recorded under Exs.P2 to P5, nothing has been elicited so as to connect the accused with the crime.

¶28

10. There cannot be any dispute that the statements recorded by the police during the course of investigation cannot be used for any other purpose except contradicting the witnesses in the manner as provided under Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The only evidence remains on record, is the evidence of P.Ws.1 & 2 who are the parents of P.W.5-Victim girl. Admittedly, they were not present at the time of incident or when Accused No.1 allegedly kidnapped their daughter.

¶29

11. P.W.5, who is the victim girl in this case, categorically stated that Accused Nos.1 to 3 never kidnapped her and that Accused No.1 never committed rape on her. In view of the fact that there is no legal evidence to show that the accused committed the offences with which they were charged, the trial Court rightly acquitted the accused. There are absolutely no grounds to interfere with the same. The Criminal Appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

¶30

10. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission confirming the Judgment, dated 10.04.2008, in S.C.No.514 of 2007, on the file of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Miryalguda.

¶31

________________ (K.C. BHANU, J)

¶32

Date: 22^nd October, 2009

¶33

The State of Andhra Pradesh, v. Jarupla Krishna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Andhra Pradesh, v. Jarupla Krishna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Khantamananeni Basava Purramma Vs Sk.Khasimbee

The State of a.P., Through the Food Inspector, Gram Vs Siram Rammohana Rao

Penchala Mallaiah Vs Ramidi Shanker Reddy

L.Pandari Rao Vs The State of a.P., rep by its Public Prosecutor

Sujit KUmar Mahanthi , Tiku Mahanthi (A_1) Vs The State of a.P.Rep. by its Public Prosecutor

R. Vijay Paul Vs the State of Ap Rer by Pp