Dismissed

Nalla Lakshmi v. State of A.P. Rep.by Pp and 2 Others

Telangana HC3 Feb 2023CRLRC/1258/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal revision filed by a victim challenging the trial Court's judgment acquitting accused persons of trespassing and abusing. The Court held that the revision was maintainable in law despite the acquittal, but found no illegalities or irregularities warranting interference. It reiterated that the trial Court's findings on insufficient evidence cannot be reappraised a

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Revision Case is dismissed; pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, stand closed.

Nalla Lakshmi Vs State of A.P. Rep.by Pp and 2… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32s9 ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1258 OF 2009

¶7

Criminal Revision Case under section 397&401 of Cr.P.C against lhe Judgment dated 28-4-2009 made in CC 257 ot 200'1 on the file of the Court of lhe Judicial Magistrate of First Class Jagityal Karimnagar District.

¶8

Between

¶9

NALLA LAKSHMI, Wo.Yella Reddy, aged 52 years, Occ: Agriculture R/o.Mallial Mandal, Karimnagar District.

¶10

..PETITIONER

¶11

ANO

¶12

The State Of A.P., Rep.by its Public Prosecutor High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.

¶13

Nalla Venkanna, S/o. Rajaiah, aged 52 years, Occ: Agriculture Ri/o.Mallial Mandal, Karimnagar Diskict.

¶14

Katipalli Srinivas, S/o.Nacha Reddy, aged 26 years, Occ: Agricullure Rio.tVlallial Mandal, Karimnagar District.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M W R JAYAKAR

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent No.'l: SRI MUTYALA MURALIDHAR, ADDL. PP

¶18

Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.2&3: SRI G. MADHUSUDHAN REDDY

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN

¶21

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1258 of 2OO9

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

The Cnmir ral Revision Case is filed aggrieved by the Judgment dated 28.04.20O9 in C.C. No.257 of 2O01 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jagtial lvherein the rcspondents No.2 and 3/accused No.4 to 5 u,ere found not gurlt-v for the oflences punishable under Section 448,5O4,506(ii) of the Inciizrn Penal Code and were acquitted under Section 248(l ) ol the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶24

The facts in brief as pt:r the record available before this Court are as under

¶25

(i) The petitioner has filed an application before the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, at Jagtial against the respondents No.2 and 3(accused Nos.4 and 5) and other five accused alleging that they have committed certain cognizable offences and the same was referred to Police for registration of the case and investigation. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Mallial has registered a case in F.l.R. No.128 of 2001 and filed charge sheet against the respondents No.2 and

¶26

¶27

3/accused Nos.4 and 5 b1'^{deleted the names of the other five} accused.

¶28

(ii) According to the complaint, respondents^{No.2 and} 3(accused Nos.4 and 5) and other five accused^have criminally trespassed into the house of^{petitioner and abused} her in filthy language and threatened her with^dire consequences to kill her. The trial Court has taken cognizance of the offences against respondents No.2 and 3(accused Nos.4 and 5).

¶29

The prosecution in order to prove the charges levelled against the respondents No.2 and 3(accused Nos.4 and 5) has examined PWsl to 5 and marked Exs Pl to P4. On hearing both sides, the trial Court has found respondents No.2 and 3(accused Nos.4 and 5) not guilty for the alleged offences.

¶30

Aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed by the petitioner on the following grounds:

¶31

a) The trial Court has failed to appreciate that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

¶32

b) The triarl Corrr-1 hrrs lailed to consider that there are

¶33

no^('ontrad ictior.t s itr rhe evidence of PW, 1 to pW-4.

¶34

Heard Sri M.W. R.Jzr,r.akar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri G. Madh r-r surdl-ran Reddy, leaned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 as rvell as Sri Muthyala Muralidhar, Iearned Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the record.

¶35

Nou. the point for consideration is

¶36

"Whether the Juclgrnent dated 2a.O4.2OO9 in C.C. No.257 of 20O 1 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of F-irst Class, Jagtial is liable to be set irside?"

¶37

POINT:

¶38

As seen from the record, the trial Court has concluded that case is made out against the respondents No.2 and 3/accused Nos.4 and 5, as both of them and other accused have criminally trespassed into the house of the petitioner ald abused her in filthy language and threatened with dire consequences

¶39

The learnerl coun sel for the petitioner has submitted that during the course of pendency of this petition, respondent No.2/Accused No.4 has passed away and thereby

¶40

¶41

the case is abated against^{respondent No.2/accusedNo 4} and the case is pending against^{respondent No.3/accused} No.S - Katipalli Srinivas.^{One of the contentionsraised bv} the learned counsel for the^petitioner is^{that there is delay in} filing the FIR and thereby submitted that the trial^{Court has} not properly verified the documents. The trial Court^has observed in its Judgment that there is delay of one month in lodging the complaint.

¶42

The petitioner/complainant has actually not filed any complaint before the police but she has filed the private complaint before the learned Judicia-l First Class Magistrate on which it was forwarded to the police for investigation under Section 156 (iii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In case, if there is any delay in registration of the FIR by the police, the said delay cannot be attributed to the complainant. On going through the Judgment of the trial Court, the trial Court is of the opinion that the de-facto complainant has gone to the police station and frled a complaint with the police concerned without explaining the reason as to why delay occurred.

¶43

I \

¶44

¶45

1O. On perusal o[ tlrc.lrr<lgrner-rt^{of thc trial c:ourt, it is also} observed that there is corroboration^{of the contents of the} complaint also. Nou, t1s^per the^{evidence of prosecution} u,itness, PW2 has deposed that on hearilrg of^some altercation he urent to the^{house of PW l.PW3alsodeposed} the same thing in his evidence.^{The evidence of PW1 shows} that there w:ts a^pancha-r'at in^{betu'een the PW1 and the} accused before the^{viil:rge elders and u'hen the accused} refused to cornpromise^{u'ith the matter,she approachedthe} police. Finallv, the trial Cottrt after^{going throughthe entire} material on rccord, has^{ollsen'ed that there are number of} contradictions in the^evidetrceof 'PWs.1^{to 3 and therefore} found them not^guiltY.

¶46

1 1. This Court having^{gonethrough the entire record, is of} the opinion that the finding^{recorded by the trial Court is not} inspiring conficlence of this^{Court to conclude that the offence} has been committed.

¶47

The scope of this criminal^{revisioncase is very limited.} This Court cannot re-appreciate or reappraise the evidence recorded by the trial Court. The petitioner is expected to

! 1 I I I

I I I I

place before the Court irrcgularil_r' and illegalit-v committed by the trial Court. Whiic considering the material placed before this Court, once there are no grounds to show any irregularities and illegalities in the Judgment of the trial Court, the same cannot be inte rfered.

¶53

In view of the above discussion, this Criminal Revision Case is liable to be dismissed.

¶54

Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.

¶55

As a sequel, pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any,

¶56

shall stand closed.

¶57

SD/. K. SAILESHI DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// qD

¶58

SECTION OFFICER

¶59

To,

¶60

1 The Judicial First Class Magistrate, Jagityal

¶61

2 One CC to SRI M W R JAYAKAR Advocate [OPUC] J One CC to SRI G. MADHUSUDHAN REDDY Advocate [OPUC]

¶62

4 Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] 5. Two CD Copies KKS 81t.

HIGH COURT

DATED:0310212023

ORDER

CRLRC.No.1258 of 2009

¶67

:1-<br>-'.:'
'/
"St .I,
)
s'
)li
t,., \
'1 i r',
: : !it-:-=;-l- '- .,-i + " t "-_ ''----

¶68

DISMISSING OF THE GRLRC

¶69

I
n't1t6-'

Nalla Lakshmi v. State of A.P. Rep.by Pp and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nalla Lakshmi v. State of A.P. Rep.by Pp and 2 Others

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

Ramesh Dusangu , Ramesh Kachru, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd., and Another

Sri G.Srinivas, Vs the State of a.P., Rep by Pp and 2 Others

P. Dharmendar, Hyderabad. Vs the State of a.P., Hyderabad.

Varala Naga Raju, Vs State of a.P., Rep by Its Pp., and Another

Kattangu Murali Mohan Rao, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd., and 2 Others

Vankar Raj Karan Vs the State of A.P. and Another