KAADASHI MALLESH Vs. STATE OF A.P.
LAWS(APH)-2016-3-8
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on
March 09,2016
Kaadashi Mallesh
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF A.P.
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
RAMESHWAR S O KALYAN SINGH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]K CHINNASWAMY REDDY VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
AMAR CHAND AGARWALLA VS. SHANTI BOSE [REFERRED TO]
BHAGWAN SINGH VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
RABINDRA KUMAR DEY VS. STATE OF ORISSA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA STREE ATYACHAR VIRODHI PARISHAD MAHARASHTRA STATE VS. CHANDRA PRAKASH KEWAL CHAND JAIN:CHANDRA PRAKASH KEWAL CHAND JAIN POLICE SUB INSPECTOR POLICE STATION SITABULDI NAGPUR TEHSIL AND DISTRICT NAGPUR [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. RAGHUBIR SINGH [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF PUNJAB VS. GURMITSINGH [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF PUNJAB VS. GURMITSINGH [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH VS. PITUHUK SREENVANASA RAO [REFERRED TO]
GURA SINGH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ORISSA VS. THAKARA BESRA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF U P VS. PAPPU alias YUNUS [REFERRED TO]
WAHID KHAN VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY ALIAS CHINEE VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HARYANA VS. RAJMAL [REFERRED TO]
DEEPAK VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
T. Sunil Chowdary, J. -
(1.)This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sec. 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. assailing the judgment dated 21.11.2007 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 36 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the District and Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, wherein and whereby the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Peddapalli in S.C. No. 918 of 2001, dated 16.02.2006, was confirmed.
(2.)The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is three fold. 1) The Courts below failed to appreciate the delay in lodging the complaint which is fatal to the case of prosecution, 2) The Courts below ought not to have convicted the petitioner basing on the sole testimony of P.W.2 who is an interested witness, and 3) The findings recorded by the Courts below are perverse as the same are based on material which is not legally admissible.
(3.)Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the Court can convict a person basing on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix if the same inspires the confidence of the court. She further submitted that the prosecution has assigned cogent and valid reasons for the delay in lodging the complaint. She further submitted that the findings recorded by the Courts below are fully supported by oral and documentary evidence available on record.
(2.)The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is three fold. 1) The Courts below failed to appreciate the delay in lodging the complaint which is fatal to the case of prosecution, 2) The Courts below ought not to have convicted the petitioner basing on the sole testimony of P.W.2 who is an interested witness, and 3) The findings recorded by the Courts below are perverse as the same are based on material which is not legally admissible.
(3.)Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the Court can convict a person basing on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix if the same inspires the confidence of the court. She further submitted that the prosecution has assigned cogent and valid reasons for the delay in lodging the complaint. She further submitted that the findings recorded by the Courts below are fully supported by oral and documentary evidence available on record.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.