The High Court dismissed the State's criminal appeal against an acquittal. The lower court acquitted the accused for kidnapping for marriage due to failure to prove the victim's age and lack of corroboration.
The Criminal Appeal filed by the State was dismissed, upholding the acquittal of the accused.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[3251 ]
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K"SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No: 1578 of2010
Criminal Appeal Under Section 378 (1) & (3) of Cr.P.C. against the Judgment daled 24-O7-2O09 in S.C.No.'10 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the Assistant Sessions Judge, at Nalgonda.
Between:
The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.
...Appel lanUPetltioner
AND
Budr'ge Lingaiah, S/o Maisaiah, aged 30 years, Caste:SC, Occ:Coolie, R:/o Cheemalagadda, Nakrekal, Nalgonda District.
... RespondenUAccused
Counsel for the Appellant: ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Counsel for the Respondent: SRI K. RAJITHA
The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT
------------7
THE H()NOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K,SURE]{DER
CIIIMINAL APPEAL No.1578 OF 20 1.0
JUDGMENT:
prosecution ha s failed to produce aly evidelrce to pro ve that P.W.2 was a rr inor. Further. the Police cit( d tw,) witncsses who had see n the accused. taking P.\V.2/r ictinr girl. However, the : aid two r.l,itnesses were not (]xam n:d before the Court. On the basis of solitary tes tirn o n_y of
I
l
P.W.2/victim, the Court found that the evidence placed before the Court by the prosecution cannot be considered to record a conviction, accordingly, acquitteci the appeliarrt.
SD/- CH. VENKATESWARLU DEPUTY REGISTRAR q
//TRUECOPY//
SECTIONOFFICER
To,
HIGH COUITT
DATED:21 l)712023
JUDGMEN"I'
CRLA.No.1,i78 of 2010
1E
Z' x<br>t+
a.v .S
?) \" t
.5- ll
Frw
, t )
t-o
FT
(.
;v.c"
3 . r ort-?
::
THE CR!M!IIAL APPEAL IS DISMISSED
7
I*,n
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the acquittal of the accused under Section 366 IPC due to lack of evidence regarding age of victim was unreasonable to interfere with on appeal.
Whether the appellate court is justified in upholding the acquittal where the prosecution failed to prove the age of the victim with independent corroboration.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
BUDRUGE LINGAIYAH
SURENDER
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
