Dismissed

Kunuru Veeraswamy s/o Mallaiah v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC3 Nov 2017CRLA/1248/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal filed by the de facto complainant under Section 372 CrPC, the High Court dismissed the appeal against the acquittal of the accused for offences under Sections 497 and 306 IPC due to lack of direct witness and failure of prosecution to prove the case.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Appeal dismissed; miscellaneous petitions pending in the appeal stand dismissed.

Kunuru Veeraswamy s/o Mallaiah Vs The State… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1248 OF 2016

¶2

JUDGMENT :

¶3

This Criminal Appeal, under Section 372 of Cr.P.C., is filed by the de facto complainant aggrieved by the acquittal of the accusedrespondent No.2 herein vide judgment dated 24.09.2014 in Sessions Case No.502 of 2012 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge at Bhongir, Nalgonda District (for short, ‘the trial Court’), for the offences under Sections 497 and 306 I.P.C.

¶4

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant- de facto complainant, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1^st respondent-State, and perused the material available on record.

¶5

Learned counsel for the appellant- de facto complainant would submit that there are direct witnesses to the alleged offence; the trial Court erred in acquitting the accused for the offences under Sections 497 and 306 I.P.C.

¶6

As per the impugned judgment dated 24.09.2014 passed in Sessions Case No.502 of 2012 by the trial Court, there is no mention of dying declaration of the deceased. P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 supported the case of the prosecution. The evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 is that the deceased-Parijatha eloped with the accused and committed suicide one month thereafter. The husband of the deceased stated that the accused is responsible for the death of his wife, who consumed poison and died on 08.08.2011. P.W.2-mother of the deceased supported the same. P.W.3 corroborated the evidence of P.W.2. No other witnesses supported the prosecution. The charges framed against the accused are for the offences under Sections 497 and 306 I.P.C. There is no direct witness to

¶7

Dr.SA, J Crl.A.No.1248/2016

¶8

¶9

the alleged offences. P.W.9-investigating officer conducted scene of offence panchanama in Ex.P.8 at the agricultural fields of one Gorige Somaiah, nearer to Ramannapet Railway Station. The alleged illegal intimacy and the abetment to the death in this case has not been proved by the prosecution. Therefore, there are no justifiable grounds to entertain the appeal.

¶10

In the result, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed.

¶11

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this

¶12

Criminal Appeal shall also stand dismissed.

¶13

_____________________________
Dr. SHAMEEM AKTHER, J
Date: 03-11-2017.
siva

¶14

Dr.SA, J Crl.A.No.1248/2016

¶15

¶16

HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER

¶17

Crl.A. No. 1248 OF 2016

¶18

Date. 03-11-2017

¶19

siva

Kunuru Veeraswamy s/o Mallaiah v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kunuru Veeraswamy s/o Mallaiah v. The State of Telangana

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

Ramachandraiah Goud Vs State of Telangana

Ramachandraiah Goud Vs State of Telangana

Nakka Gangaraju Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Chinnakka Mule Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Shivanadhuni Vijayalaxmi Vs M/s. Venkateshwara Parboiled Modern Rice Mill

Salma, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh