Dismissed

The State of A.P. rep by Pp v. Duggirala Gopalakrishna , Gopi

Telangana HC14 Feb 2012CRLA/1747/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Appeal No. 1747 of 2004, the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the State challenging the acquittal of an accused of attempted outrage of modesty. The court found the lower court's decision to give the benefit of doubt was reasonable and upheld the acquittal.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Appeal was dismissed, upholding the acquittal of the accused.

The State of A.P. rep by Pp Vs Duggirala… — Cheating and Forgery | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1747 of 2004

¶2

JUDGMENT:

¶3

The appeal is filed against the acquittal of the accused in S.C.No.453 of 2000 on the file of the Additional Assistant Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Gudivada on 06.11.2002.

¶4

The prosecution case is that on 18.05.2000 at about 3.00 p.m. when P.W.1 was in the house, in the absence of her husband, the accused went there and misbehaved with her and tried to outrage her modesty. After return of the husband and also the mother-in-law, P.W.1 informed the same and P.W.3 is also said to be an eye witness to the incident. On 22.05.2000 the complaint was presented to the police and the police after due investigation prosecuted the accused.

¶5

The accused pleaded not guilty and on behalf of the prosecution P.Ws.1 to 6 were examined and marked Exs.P-1 to P-3.

¶6

After considering the evidence on record, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge found the accused not guilty and acquitted. Aggrieved by the said acquittal, the present appeal is filed.

¶7

The point for consideration is whether the acquittal recorded by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge is legal and sustainable? POINT:

¶8

There is no dispute about the fact that the complaint Ex.P-1 does not disclose the date of offence and they are only general allegations of the accused teasing P.W.1. The incident, according to P.W.1, is said to have been happened on 18.05.2000 and the complaint was presented under Ex.P-1 on 22.05.2000. There is evidently delay of nearly five days. The delay is sought to be explained by saying that the matter is placed before the elders as can be covered from the evidence of P.W.2, the husband of P.W.1. But no elder was examined to prove that the matter was referred to them. Therefore, apart from the fact that the complaint is vague and the delay is not explained. P.W.3 claims to have

¶9

gone to the scene immediately and no information was given to the witness about the acts of the accused. Even the evidence of P.W.1 shows that the incident happened at about 3.00 p.m. and she raised cries and P.W.3 is said to have come there. This fact was also not mentioned in Ex.P-1. The father of the accused is said to have been called for which there is also no material. Therefore, when the incident is said to have been taken place in the residential area during day time i.e. at 3.00 p.m., it is reasonable time that the neighbours will be present. But no neighbour was examined and P.W.3 is not the immediate neighbour of P.W.1.

¶10

Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, the lower Court has given a reasonable benefit of doubt and I do not find any compelling reasons to interfere with the acquittal of the accused and there are no merits in the appeal.

¶11

Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.

¶12

________________________ N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO, J

¶13

Date: 14-02-2012 MR

¶14

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO

¶15

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1747 of 2004

¶16

DATE: 14-02-2012

¶17

The State of A.P. rep by Pp v. Duggirala Gopalakrishna , Gopi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of A.P. rep by Pp v. Duggirala Gopalakrishna , Gopi

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 Agriculture Market Committee, Kovur, Vs Balaji Rice Traders, rep. by Gattu Vani

M/s. Saluja Traders, rep. by Managing Partner, Vs M/s. Muniraabad Chemicals Co., rep. by Managing Partner

The Agriculture Market Committee, Kovur, Vs Balaji Rice Traders, rep. by Gattu Vani

The Agricultural Market Committee Vs M/s.Gonuguntla Singaiah Cotton Trading Co,.

Drugs Inspector,Chirala Rep. by Public Prosecutor, Vs P.Purnachandra Rao,Proprietor, Lister Pharmaceuticals

Can Fin Homes Ltd., Regd Office Vs Sri Jayachand Korra