Dismissed

The State of A.P. v. Ayyala Santosh Kumar

Telangana HC7 Apr 2021CRLA/1851/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against acquittal on charges of kidnapping for wedding (Section 366-A IPC). Trial Court acquitted due to contradictory witness evidence and lack of corroboration. High Court limited itself to checking for perversity, found none, held there were two possible views consistent with law, and dismissed the appeal, confirming the acquittal.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Appeal dismissed; conviction not drawn; judgment of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Sangareddy dated 04.02.2008 confirmed.

The State of A.P. Vs Ayyala Santosh Kumar — Telangana HC (2021) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G SRI DEVI

¶5

CRIMINA APPEAL NO: 1851 0F 2009

¶6

Criminal Appeal under Section^{37B (3) & (1) Crl.P.C against the Judgment dated} o4lo2tzoo| in sc No.35 0f 2007 0n^{the file of the court of the Assistant sessions} Judge, Sangareddy.

¶7

Between:

¶8

The State of A.P., rep.by the Public^{Prosecutor,HighCourt of A.P.,Hyderabad.}

¶9

...APPELLANT(ACCUSED),

¶10

AND

¶11

Ayyala Santosh Kumar, 2. Fakeer Jahangir, 3. Boini Rachaiah,

¶12

[,4unoor Bakkaiah,

¶13

.,.RESPONDENTS/ ACCUSED

¶14

For the Appellant : THE PUBLIC^PROSECUTOR

¶15

Forthe Respondents: SRI LAKSHMAIAH^{KANCHANI' Advocate}

¶16

The Court delivered the following:^JUDGN/ENT

¶17

HON 'BLE^{JUSTICE G.SRI DEVI}

¶18

CRI MIN^{AL APPEALNo. 1 851 of2009}

¶19

JUDGMENT:

¶20

This Criminat^{Appeatis fited under Section 378 (3) and} (1) of Cr.P.C.^{by the State' chaltenging the judgment'dated} 04.02.2008^{passedin S'C'No'35 of 2007 on the fite of the} Assistant^{SessionsJudge'Sangareddy' wherein the accused} were acquitted^{for the offence punishabte under Section366-} A of^l.P.C'

¶21

For the^{sake of convenience' the parties witl hereinafter} be referred^{to as arraYed in S'C'}

¶22

On 03.10'2006^{at about 2'30 P'M'' L'Ws'2 and 3 were} madetoboardanautobearingNo.AP-23.V.9632,whichwas driven^{by A'1, in order to go to their maternalgrandmother's} house at^{AtgotaVittage' Zaheerabad Mandat'On the way' A-2} to A-4^{boarded the auto and atl of themforcibty takenboth} L.Ws.2and3toMahanditemple,whereforc'ibtyhetdthe marriage^{of A-1 with L'W'2 and later' the accused brought} them^{on 06.10.2006'}

¶23

ThisCourtperusedtheentireimpugnedjudgmentand atso heard^{the arguments'}

¶24

)

¶25

ln view of the contradictory^{evidence of P'Ws'1 to 3} with each other^{and atso since the case of the prosecution} suffers from^l,ack of^{corroboration from independent evidence,} the [earned triat Judge^{acquittedthe accused persons' The} reasons assigned by the^{learnedtriat Judgeare wetl in} accordance with taw^{and the tria[ Court has appreciated the} entire evidence in^{proper perspective.}

¶26

Further, in an appeaI against acquittat,^{the scope of this} Court is very timited and if there^{is any perversity or ittegatity} appears on the face of the^record, then^{onty this Court can} interfere with the finding of the [ower Court.^{lt is wetl} settted that in an appeal against acquittat,^{the Appettate} Court can interfere onty when there is^possibitity of one view, which is pointing towards the guitt of the accused. When there is possibitity of two views and one view, which is in favour of the accused, is taken into account and the accused is acquitted by the competent Court, there is no need to interfere with the order passed by the triat Court.

¶27

Considering the above said proposition of law and after perusaI of the record and the judgment of the Court betow, this Court is of the view that there is no need to interfere with the order of acquittaL passed by the learned triat Judge.

¶28

¶29

Hence, the Criminal Appeat is dismissed, confirming^the judgment passed in S.C.No.35 of 7007 on the fite of the

¶30

Assistant Sessions Judge, Sangareddy.

¶31

Miscettaneous petitions^pending in this^{appeat, if any,}

¶32

shatI stand ctosed.

¶33

Sd/.CH.VENKATESWARLU DEPUTY REGISTRAR W.-

¶34

//TRUE COPY// SECTION^OFFICER

¶35

To 1ll,?t'slil3ii:?:,'iil"*:3!;3?,i9tf,^{H;y31i["'i'98'"lY:]ffi:lt)}

¶36

Hvderabad^(OUT)

¶37

Hvderabad^(OUT) 3. One CC^{to Sri Lakshmarah Kanchani' Advocate (OPUC)}

¶38

Two^{CD CoPies}

Kj.

HIGH COURT

DATED:0710412021

1 $8, Lt
e ( <br>q
7
oo-) 1 7 MAY 2{121
c) il
.t,
-/

¶43

JUDGMENT

¶44

CRLA.No.1851 of 2009

¶45

DlSMISSING THE APPEAL

¶46

The State of A.P. v. Ayyala Santosh Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of A.P. v. Ayyala Santosh Kumar

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

Chettupalli Muralidhar Vs The State of Telangana

Shasanka Danda Vs The State of Telangana

Bandaru Shivudu , Shiva Vs The State of Telangana

Kethavath Praveen Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

Smt.P.Satyavathi Vs D.John Vijay Kumar

M.a.Saleem Qureshi Vs The State of Telangana