Dismissed

The State of a.P., v. Jaggu , Kona Sarojini

Telangana HC8 Dec 2009CRLA/1751/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal against an acquittal in a murder case, the High Court found no merit in challenging the trial Court's decision. The appeal was dismissed because the chain of circumstances was incomplete, consisting solely of an uncorroborated extra-judicial confession, thus justifying the benefit of doubt.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Appeal dismissed; acquittal of the accused upheld; benefit of doubt applied.

The State of a.P., Vs Jaggu , Kona Sarojini — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Telangana HC (2009)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO

¶2

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1751 of 2009

¶3

ORAL JUDGMENT: (per the HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA)

¶4

Heard learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for the appellant-State as well as learned counsel appearing for the respondent-accused.

¶5

2. The respondent is sole accused in Sessions Case No.204 of 2007.

¶6

3. This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 21.09.2007, passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru, in S.C.No.204 of 2007, acquitting the accused of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (for brevity “I.P.C.,”).

¶7

4. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the accused married one Jaggu Nageswara Rao and subsequently, discarded him about ten years back. Later, the deceased by name Venkateswara Rao developed illicit intimacy with the accused and both were living together as husband and wife. The deceased while continuing the intimacy with the accused, continued his marital life with his two wives, due to which disputes arose between the accused and the deceased. While so, on 12.12.2005, when the deceased was sleeping, the accused, due to grouse against him, dealt severe blows on his head with the forest stem, which was available in the fire wood fuel stock, and caused severe injuries, and then went away to her residence.

¶8

5. When the charges framed against the accused for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C., were read over and explained to her in Telugu, she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

¶9

6. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 22 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-47, besides M.Os.1 to 14, on its behalf. On behalf of

¶10

defence, neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced.

¶11

7. The Court below, having appreciated the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, available on record, found the accused not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C., and accordingly, acquitted her.

¶12

8. The only question that arises for consideration, in this Criminal Appeal, is -- as to whether the Court below had properly appreciated the evidence on record in order to arrive at the conclusion that the accused had not committed the offences under Section 302 and 201 I.P.C?

¶13

9. The only evidence available on record in support of the case of the prosecution is the evidence of P.W-1 regarding the extra-judicial confession allegedly made by the accused in his presence. In this regard, it has been pointed out by the trial Court that the said confession was made by the accused after eight days from the date of commission of the offence. So, this is a doubtful circumstance.

¶14

10. That apart, the extra-judicial confession by itself is not a substantive piece of evidence, inasmuch as this is a case where circumstantial evidence alone is available. Hence, the said extra-judicial confession allegedly made by the accused before P.W-1, who is the Panchayat Secretary, has got to be corroborated by other piece of evidence. But, unfortunately, there is no other material on record in support of the case of the prosecution.

¶15

11. Therefore, having regard to the over all facts and circumstances, the trial Court appears to have entertained a serious doubt about the guilt of the accused. The chain of circumstances are not capable of pointing out the guilt towards the accused, as such, she is entitled to the benefit of doubt.

¶16

12. For the foregoing, we do not find any irregularity or illegality in the reasoning recorded by the trial Court in acquitting the accused.

¶17

13. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.

¶18

_____________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA

¶19

_______________________ JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO

¶20

08^th December 2009 dr

The State of a.P., v. Jaggu , Kona Sarojini

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of a.P., v. Jaggu , Kona Sarojini

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

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by the Public Prosecutor, Vs Bathini Sadanandam

Vasana Srinivasa Rao, Vs Yerramsetti Nagu Babu

The State of a.P., Vs Chereddy Ajay , Ajay Kumar

The State of a.P., Vs K. Kala Thirupaiah

K. Purushothamaiah Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt. Uduthala Yadamma W/o Uduthala Narasimha Vs The State of a.P., rep by the Director General of Police