Dismissed

The Public Prosecutor v. D.Manjunath , Manju

Telangana HC27 Feb 2012CRLA/2041/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The appellate court dismissed the criminal appeal filed by the State against the acquittal of the accused in a rape-attempt case under Section 354 IPC. The court held that the prosecution evidence was not corroborative and contained material omissions regarding the manner of the incident, warranting the benefit of doubt to the accused.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Appeal filed by the State was dismissed, and the order of acquittal was upheld.

The Public Prosecutor Vs D.Manjunath , Manju — Telangana HC (2012) — LawSathi Research

¶1

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

¶2

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2041 OF 2004

¶3

JUDGMENT:-

¶4

The appeal is filed against the acquittal of the accused in Sessions Case No.396 of 2001 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Hindupur.

¶5

2. According to the case of the prosecution, on 13.02.2001 the accused is said to have been to the house of PW.1 and when she was alone caught hold of her hand and dragged her inside forcibly and outraged her modesty. On hearing the cries, PW.2-neighbour, thereafter her brother-PW.3 came there. Then, the accused left the scene. On a complaint given by PW.1, a case was registered and investigated into and the accused was charged for the offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC').

¶6

3. The point for consideration is whether the order of acquittal recorded by the Court below is just and legal?

¶7

4. POINT:

¶8

In support of the prosecution case, PWs.1 to 4 were examined and according to the evidence of PW.2, she went to the scene on hearing the cries of PW.1 and PW.3 is no other than the brother of PW.1, who claims to have come to the scene. The Court below has not inclined to accept the evidence of PW.1 or PW.2 as the manner in which the incident is said to have been committed by the accused is a development. According to the evidence of PW.1, which is repeated by PW.2, the accused is said to have entered into her house, dragged her and sat on her after falling her down. This particular part of the evidence was not mentioned in the Ex.P.1 or in the statement recorded

¶9

by the police. In fact, PW.2 also did not support the same. This is the material overt act to attract an offence punishable under Section 354 IPC. When a serious material omission is there as noticed by the lower Court, naturally the benefit of doubt has to be extended to the accused. Apart from it, one Thimmappa is said to have proposed the marriage of PW.1 with the accused and he has refused and PW.1 is not said to be having lower lip and consequently the case is foisted. Whatever may be the reason, the fact remains that the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 is an improvement and is not corroborative and the Court below has given sufficient reasons to give the benefit of doubt to the accused. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of acquittal recorded by the Court below.

¶10

Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.

¶11

___________________________ JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO

¶12

Date:27-02-2012 INL

The Public Prosecutor v. D.Manjunath , Manju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Public Prosecutor v. D.Manjunath , Manju

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

C. Hanumanmtha Rao Vs K. Koteswara RAo

The Public Prosecutor, Vs Gubbala Narendrakumar

M/s Apple Credit Corporation Ltd.,(a Company incorporated Vs M/s Zental Drugs Ltd.,Rep.J.Sanjeeva Rao

The Public Prosecutor, Vs Talla Shankar Reddy

The State through Inspector of police Ad Cell, Cid, Vs T.Shanker reddy, , Shiva reddy , Siva

M/s. Thermopads (P) Ltd., a company incorporated under Vs M/s. Thermopads (P) Ltd., a company incorporated under