Dismissed

State of a.P., v. Mannepalli China Atchaiah

Telangana HC19 Aug 2011CRLA/1192/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal, the State challenged an order of acquittal under Section 354 of the IPC. The High Court examined the prosecution's evidence, noting inordinate delays and inconsistencies that undermined the complainant's credibility. The court affirmed the trial Court's decision, holding that the appellate court should not reverse findings unless they are perverse or devoid of evidence.

What did the court decide?

The order of acquittal passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge was confirmed and the criminal appeal was dismissed.

State of a.P., Vs Mannepalli China Atchaiah — Cheating and Forgery | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY THE NINETEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO

¶5

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1192 OF 2006

¶6

Between: The State of Andhra Pradesh Represented by its Public Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad. … Appellant V/s. Mannepalli Chinna Atchaiah … Respondent Counsel for the Appellant : Addl. Public Prosecutor Counsel for the Respondent : Sri C. Praveen Kumar

¶7

The Court made the following : (Judgment follows next page).

¶8

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R KANTHA RAO

¶9

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1192 OF 2006.

¶10

JUDGMENT :

¶11

This is an appeal filed by the State against the order of acquittal passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Darsi on 20-10-2005 in SC.No. 201 of 2003.

¶12

2. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State and Sri C.Praveen Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-accused.

¶13

3. The prosecution story, shortly stated, is that on 12-11-2002 at about 02:00 p.m. while PW-1 Chiruguri Kamalamma was proceeding through fields to meet her husband PW-2, who was grazing cattle in the fields, the respondent-accused Chinna Atchaiah stopped her at the redgram field, caught hold of her hands, pulled her saree, threw her on the ground and tried to commit rape on her. When she raised cries, PW-3 who

¶14

is no other than the wife of the respondent-accused came there and chastised and abused PW-1. In the evening both of them went to their

¶15

village Agraharam and informed the incident to the elders, who called the accused and chastised him. But as they failed to take any action against the respondent-accused. PWs 1 and 2 went to Marripudi Police Station on 14-11-2002 where PW-1 gave statement to the police. Basing on her statement, a case in Cr.No.17/2002 under section 354 of IPC was registered and was investigated into by the Sub-Inspector of Police Marripudi Police Station.

¶16

4. In the course of trial before the learned Assistant Sessions

¶17

Judge, the prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the respondent-accused examined PWs 1 to 3 and marked Exs.P1 to P3. The respondent-accused did not propose to examine any witness nor did he mark any document. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge on considering the entire evidence on record acquitted the respondent-accused for the offence under section 354 of IPC.

¶18

5. Now the point for determination in this appeal is whether there

¶19

are any valid grounds to interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the

¶20

learned Assistant Sessions Judge ?

¶21

6. Though PW-1 stated in her evidence about the respondent-

¶22

accused stopping her while she was passing through the fields to meet her husband, catching hold of her hands, pulling her saree, lying her down and trying to commit rape, her evidence does not inspire any confidence. It is not understandable as to why at the crucial time LW-3 wife of the accused

¶23

came there and abused PW-1. PW-1 in her examination in chief before the trial Court did not state about LW-3 abusing her. This was considered to be a material omission by the trial Court. Further it is also not understandable as to why PW-1 sought PW-2 to apologize her even though she did not commit any offence.

¶24

7. Further the incident took place during the agricultural season, the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 revealed that the agricultural operations i.e., transplantation of paddy crop was going on but the prosecution story appears to be that nobody came to the place of occurrence on hearing the cries of PW-1 except LW-3, who is no other than the wife of the respondent-accused. The defence theory is that there was a quarrel at the bore well in the village between the wife of the respondent-accused and PW-1 during the course of which it is said that PWs 1, 2 and the mother of PW-1 beat the wife of the respondent-accused. According to the defence regarding the said incident, the respondent-accused and his wife gave report to the police and this case is foisted as a counter-blast.

¶25

8. Further the incident took place on 12-11-2002 at about 2:00 p.m. and the report was lodged on 14-11-2002 and thus there is a delay of 2 days in lodging the report in the Police Station, which is near to the place of occurrence. As the prosecution sought to explain the delay through PWs 1 and 2 to the effect that the matter was placed before the elders and as the

¶26

elders did not take any action against the respondent-accused ultimately PWs 1 and 2 came to the police station where the statement of PW-1 was recorded. Curiously no elder of the village was examined and PWs 1 and 2 did not even state the names of the elders in their evidence. Therefore, the prosecution did not satisfactorily explain the delay in lodging the FIR.

¶27

9. The entire case rested on the evidence of PW-1. In view of the inordinate delay in lodging the FIR, her evidence require to be examined with great care and circumspection. The learned trial court considering the circumstances in which the incident supposed to have taken place and also the delay in lodging the FIR in my view rightly acquitted the respondentaccused. The findings recorded by the trial Court are based on evidence and hence this Court while dealing with appeal against acquittal is not supposed to reverse the findings of the trial Court unless they are perverse or not based on evidence.

¶28

10. For the foregoing reasons, the order of acquittal passed by the

¶29

learned trial Court is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed.

¶30

__________________________ JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO.

¶31

19-08-2011 I s L

¶32

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO

¶33

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1192 OF 2006

¶34

Circulation No. 18 Date:19-08-2011

¶35

Court Master: I s L Computer No. 43

State of a.P., v. Mannepalli China Atchaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of a.P., v. Mannepalli China Atchaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of a.P., Vs Mallela Vijaya Lakshmi

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Vs Bolisetti Nageswara Rao

Telugu Murali Vs Cmi Service Society, Bellampally, Adilabad District

Y.Eswrappa Vs v.Ramana and 5 Others

Surampally Prabhakar Vs State of a.P., rep by its Public Prosecutor

State of Andhra Pradesh, Vs Kasolla Srinivas