Allowed

Kollu Naresh v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC6 Jul 2023CRLRC/1563/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal revision, setting aside the conviction of the petitioner for the offence under Section 354 IPC, due to lack of independent evidence, contradictions in prosecution witness statements, and failure of prosecution witnesses to corroborate the version of the first witness. Benefit of doubt was granted.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision case allowed. Judgment confirming conviction dated 21.06.2018 is set aside. Petitioner acquitted.

Kollu Naresh Vs State of Telangana — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

BAIL SLIP : The Petitioner/ Accused was directed to be released on bail by the order of the High Court dated 22-06-2018 in LA.No 2 of 2018 in Crl.R C No. 1563 of 2018.

¶2

[³²⁵¹ ]

¶3

IN HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

THURSDAY THE SIXTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶7

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1563 OF 2018

¶8

Criminal Revision Case under Section 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C. against the Judgment dated2l-06-2018, made in Crl. A. No 13/2016 on the file of the Court of the .Principal Sessions Judge, Khammam, Khammam District, Preferred against the Order passed in S.C. No. 38 of 2014 dated 21-06-2016, on the file of the Court of the Assistant Sessions Judqe, Khammam, Khammam District.

¶9

Between:

¶10

Kollu Naresh, S/o- Lakshmaiah, Aged 30 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Nachepally Village, Nelakondapally Mandal, Khammam Dist.

¶11

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶12

AND

¶13

The State of Telangana, rep by its PP, High Court at rO"ruO1L=apONDENT

¶14

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRl. M. M. M. SRINIVASA RAO Counsel for the Respondent : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶15

The Court made the following:

¶16

THE IION'BLE SRI JUSTICE^K.SfIREND]ER CRIM] N AL REVISION^{CASE No. 1563 of 201i3}

¶17

ORDER:

¶18

The Rcv ';ion petitioner is aggrieved^{by t.lLr: ccncurrent} Iindings of tl e guilt under Section 35'l^{of L.rdi;ln Penal} Code (for sho: t'IPC')

¶19

Brielly t re case of the^{prosecution is that th<: PW-l is} the wife ol )\l{-2. 1O days prior to th,3 :ncident on 12.09.2013, he petitioner was following^{her and saying} that she^.,1,'ra s beautiful '*,oman having ir^{lean p(:rsonality} and asked 1.o sirtisfy his lust PW-1 told^the 1'6:iticner^that she was havir rg husband and two children an,l^{shr: was not} a \romarr c,1' oose character. While^{sh e u'zLs, birthing at} about 7.llC, ) M in her bathroom on 12.J).2013, the petitioner en :r-ed into the bathroom, clug.ht hold of her hand ancl pur hed her towards him and asked her to satisfy his lust. [t ir; further stated that shtt clos,,,d the door without iockr 113 it since the bolt was not rrc,rking. She shouted fcl re:lp. PW-2 ancl 3 starte<l coln'ng torvards bathroom ar d Lried to catch the pr'titiorrt'r, but the

¶20

¶21

petitioner fled away. The next day trx.pl report was lodged against the petitioner

¶22

The learned Magistrate having examined pW-1 to 7 found that version of the PW- 1 is convincing and attracting ingredients of Section 354 of IPC, accordingly, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of five (O5) years. Aggrieved by the said conviction, an appeal was filed before the learned Sessions Judge and on 2I .06.20IA, the learned Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction, however, reduced the Imprisonment to a period of Six (06) months. The present revision case is questioning the judgment confirming the conviction of the learned Magistrate.

¶23

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the version given by PW- 1 cannot be believed and PW-4 to 6 who are independent witnesses, turned hostile to the prosecution case. It is not probable that the petitioner entered into the house when three other male members of the family were already present in the house and entered into the bathroom while PW-1 was

¶24

taking a bath.

¶25

¶26

The L:a r'.ed counsel lurther sub;rrittecl ttrat PW-2 admitted d'u ng the course of his cross exar ina.tion that the petitioner \vas partner in business u'ith I'\t/-2 and due to dispul.es < 'rt:r the tractor Lrsage, a false cotnplaint was filed. Since r false complaint is filed tl s€:r:1.: vengeance, the learrrr:cl , ounsel prayed to a-llow th,: re'"ir,iorL petition and acquit th : petitioner.

¶27

On 1.he other hand, the learned PuL,lic Prosecutor would sul>rni that PW- 1's evidence is consir;t,:nt and the Court belorv rzrd rightly believed the ver-sion <.f ['W-1 ald convicterI a,-'c rr dingly.

¶28

The nar ation of PW 1 is that sinc,: I O c.ayr; prior to the incidenl rn 12.09.201.3, thLe petitioner vVilS following her saying tl at she was a beautiful w{)mari ha",ing lean personality a C asked to satisfy his lust. Thr: said version is doubtful fo .:eason of PW-2 who is the husbrrncl of PW-1 stated that h ) was a business partner u.ith itte ltetit.ioner till the year '2 t13.

¶29

Accrtrclir q to PW-1, three male merrLbers r.f tee familv were preslelrt in the house. However, a- ab,c'ut 7'.30 P.M,

¶30

¶31

petitioner entered into the house and went into the bathroom, which was unlocked. The said version also creates any amount of doubt. It is not stated as to how the petitioner would know that there was no bolt to the bathroom and it was kept open while PW-1 was taking a bath at 7.30 P.M. Further, PW-1 says that when she shouted for help, PW-2 and 3 started coming towards the bathroom and tried to catch the petitioner. However, during the examination of the PW-3, he stated that when he came to house of his father and was about to enter the hciuse, he found the petitioner fleeing from the place. The same is the evidence of PW-2.

¶32

However in the background of there being differences between the version of PW1, PW-2, and PW3, the evidence of neighbours would gain importance. The shop holders who are the neighbours have turned hostile to the prosecution case and stated that no such incident had taken place.

¶33

In the peculiar circumstances of the present case, for the reasons of there being no independent evidence and in the background of there being differences between the

¶34

)

¶35

¶36

versioll of I R'1, PW2 and PW3, this Corlt deems it

¶37

appropriate l r set aside the conviction of the 1: etitioner for the offence r:rler Section 354 of IPC e>rtendirLg benefit of doubt.

¶38

Accorrlir gly, the Criminal Revision CeLr;e is allowed. Judgmer-rt pa ;sed in Crl.A.No.13 of 2016 date d 2l .06.2018 on the file of earned Principal Sessions.ludgr:, KtLammam, Khammam D s -rict is hereby set aside

¶39

As a se 1tre1, the miscellaneous Petitior s pending if

¶40

any, shall sta rr1 closed

¶41

Sd/- K. SAILESHI [)EPUTY REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY// (r L'

¶42

SECTION OFFICER

¶43

To,

¶44

The F'nncip rl Sessions Judge, Khammam, Kha rmanr t.)istr ict.(with records, if any)

¶45

The Assista^,t Sessions Judge, Khammam, Kharnman [. istrict.

¶46

The Judicial 'nagistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Oourt, Khammam.

¶47

One CC t,: t t/s. [n. tM. Vl. SRINIVASA RAO, r\dvor:irtr,,[OpUCl

¶48

Two CCs tc tl-e Public Prosecutor, Htgh Courl fr>r the 31 rte of Telangana, at Hyderabad( )LrT).

¶49

Two CD C;ot es DL -+---

HIGH COURT

DATED: OGl07l2O'3

ORDER

CRLRC.No.1563 ( f :1018

¶55

,,,-'17a;; E o
.1' c.
//. )
i :,-
1 F\ls ?sn
,il
'l

¶56

ALLOWING THE C rl.R.C.

¶57

)^v'C .}) -b⁶

Kollu Naresh v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kollu Naresh v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Jagmohanlal , Vs the State of a.P.,. Rep by Spl. Pp.

Kumbham Suresh Reddy (A1) Vs the State of A.P. Rep., by Its Pp

Andhra Bank, Hyderabad, Rep by Chief Manager., Vs State of Telangana, Rep Pp and 8 Otrs.

Avisetti Prasada Rao, (A9) Vs The State of A.P.

Mohd. Atheeq Khan Vs Sahera Begum

Putta Krishnaiah, Vs The State of Telangana