Dismissed

The State of Andhra Pradesh, v. Thatipamula Sudharshan

Telangana HC13 Jul 2023CRLA/501/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal appeal filed by the State against an acquittal of the accused in a rape attempt and cheating case. The trial court had convicted the accused initially, but later acquitted him due to contradictory versions given by the victim and witnesses, lack of corroboration, and a two-day delay in filing the police complaint. The Appellate Court held the acquittal was not a

What did the court decide?

The criminal appeal was dismissed. The order of acquittal made by the Additional Sessions Judge was confirmed.

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Vs Thatipamula Sudharshan — Cheating and Forgery | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

i ,l

¶2

[^32s1 ]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶7

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 501 OF 2010

¶8

Appeal under Section 378(1) & (3) of Cr.P.C against the Judgment dated 20.02.2OO9 passed in S.C.No.287l2008 on the file of the Assislant Sessions Judge, Nalgonda.

¶9

Between:

¶10

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.

¶11

...APELLANT/PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

Thatipamula Sudharshan, S/o Janaiah, Aged 35 years, Caste lvladiga, Occ:Agriculture Rl/o ltukulapahad Village of Shaligowraram [r1andal, Nalgonda District.

¶14

...RESPONDENT/ACCUSED

¶15

Counsel for the Appellant: THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent: SRI VENKAT REDDY THIPPARTHI

¶17

The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

¶18

THE I I(}NOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SIJR EN DER

¶19

,:IIIMINAL APPE AL No.5O1 OF 2O10

¶20

JUDGMENT:

¶21

The stat< i; aggrieved by the order of ar;quittill for- the offences under Sections ]li4 and 506 of IPC.

¶22

The r.ase crf the orosecurtion is that on the irr:t:-verring night of 06.03.2008.,rvi l':: the victim along with her childrer ,ver,l sleeping in her room, ac,:u ;€rd ,:ntered into her room and tried tc, corlmit rape by sleeping on her When PW-1 srhouted for help, her f,ttlrer in-law/pW-2 entered into th,t room. Two days thereafter, a cor-plaint was filed before the polir :, 1'he police have registered the ccrrplaint and filed charge she,et fo the offence under Sections 354 and l>t)6 of IpC.

¶23

The learn rl l\dditional Siessions Judge frtuncl that evidence of PW1 and l)W2 ,vi:s contradictory, and there wils nr) c:orroboration to such evidence.^'i-hrtugh PW1 and PW2 claimed tlr;rt. witnesses who were listed as L'/:;.3 to 5 in the charge sheet we re ey: rvitnesses, they were not^,:xam rrld. The explanation given ty ther learned public Prosecutor was 11'at witnesses would turn hostile to t.he prosecution case and fc,r the ;irid reason the,y were given up.

{

1ai!t!!

It II I I I I I l

The learned Additional Sessions Judge found that two versions were given, firstly stating that accused having entered into the room, slept on her and tried to commit rape and other version given was that accused entered into the room and he dragged her by pulling her saree. Because of the two versions, learned Additional Sessions Judge found that until there was any independent corroboration to the evidence of victim/PW1 and PW2, neither of the versions can be believed. The other reason given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is that there is delay of two days in lodging the complaint. Though, the complaint was given at the instance of Sarpanch of the Village, the said Sarpanch was not examined. For the reason of contradictory versions and the delay in lodging the complaint was not convincing, the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the accused.

¶28

In cases of acquittal, the Appellate Court can only interfere in the event of any glaring mistake committed on face of record or unreasonable findings are given by the Trial Court. The reasons given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are convincing and probable. In the absence of any corroboration to the evidence of PW1 and PW2, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found that or1 the basis of contradictions and divergent versions/ no conviction can be recorded.

¶29

The :,air firdinq cann,rt be interFered witf . Ac:ordingly the

¶30

criminal appt:a i,; dismissed.

¶31

Misr:ellar )()u:; Petitions, pending if any, srall :;t;r'rd r;losed

¶32

To,

¶33

,TRUE COPY//

¶34

Sd/. K. SAILESHI Dl:FUTr REGISTRAR

¶35

-tb

¶36

Sl:Cl ION OFFICER

¶37

'l . The Assistant { er;sions ,Judge, l.Jalgonda (With Rec ords ir any)

¶38

The Judir:iai [r4i qistrate of Frrst class, Nakrekal.

¶39

The Station Ho s: Officer, Shaiigorarraram police Statior:, f tkre,kal

¶40

Two CCs to the F'ublic P.osecutc r, High Court for the St:rt,: ,:rf Tr:langana at

¶41

Hyderabad 1r)L l

¶42

One CC trr SRI v'3nkat Reddy Thipparthi, Advocate [OptJ:)

¶43

Two CD Two CD C)op es

¶44

Two CD Two CD

Dr .\ .\ V

_*' I

HIGH COUR-I

KS,J

DATED: 1310" 12023

., {,\ l- r: r}
)
/,'
/
Nt<br>t l \t-'
\ ( ,l
,,/
2

JUDGMENT

CRLA.No.SO1 rf 2010

DISMISSING

THE CRL.APP::,AL

..r<br>t^) {-<,.
3.,"'''

The State of Andhra Pradesh, v. Thatipamula Sudharshan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Andhra Pradesh, v. Thatipamula Sudharshan

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

Reguri Srinivas Vs Goparapu Satyanarayana and Another

Vanama Srinivasa Rao Vs the State of Telangana

K.Suvarna Vs M.Uma Devi

Mohd. Dastagir Quadri, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd.

M/S Deepika Chit Funds P. Ltd., Vs Syed Jaweed Iqbal Razvi, and Another

Smt.Duta Raju Vs The State of Telangana