the appeal is dismissed for non-compliance of the order by nor furnishing correct address of accuse = The Public Prosecutor is not able to say as to whether they could furnish the correct address of the accused. Having regard to the same and as the accused is already convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC, the appeal is dismissed for non-compliance of the order dated 27.01.2015. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed

CRLA 428 / 2016CRLASR 22325 / 2007CASE IS:DISPOSED
PETITIONERRESPONDENT
THE STATE OF A.P.  VSGUNTU RAJU @ JOHN



SUBJECT: U/s.376 I.P.C Acquittal - RapeDISTRICT:  EAST GODAVARI


DISPOSED ON  04-04-2016 DISMISSED

 ---------


HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.428 of 2016
JUDGMENT:
This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 378 (3) & (c) Cr.P.C. by the State, challenging the judgment dated 23.09.2006 passed in S.C.No.194 of 2006 on the file of the II Additional Assistant Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), East Godavari, Rajahmundry, seeking enhancement of sentence awarded to the accused.
For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed in S.C. The facts in issue are as under: On 12.11.2005 at about 8.00 p.m. PW.1 after providing dinner to her husband and mother, PW.1 went to the back side of her house and removed her cloths for taking bath behind a fence. At that time, accused, who is passing by the side of the house, with an evil desire to enjoy PW.1 went near her, and touched her back with his hands. When PW.1 turned back, he caught hold of her hands, dragged into her room, made her fell on the cotton heap, pounced upon her, closed her mouth and had forcible sexual intercourse without her consent and also threatened her with dire consequences.
Basing on those allegations a charge sheet came to be filed, which was taken on file as P.R.C.No.5 of 2006 and on committal it was numbered as S.C.No.194 of 2006. On appearance of the accused, the material was perused and on being satisfied, charge under Section 376 IPC was framed, read over and explained to the accused in telugu, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P1 to P12 and M.O.s1 to 4. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/s. 313 Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating material available on record, but the same was denied by the accused. On behalf of the accused, DW.1 was examined. After analyzing the evidence available on record, the trial Court found the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC and was convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of RS.3,000/- in default of payment of fine he shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months.
Challenging the same the State preferred the appeal seeking enhancement of sentence. On 27.01.2015 this Court while posting the matter after four weeks directed the Public Prosecutor to ascertain the correct address of the accused and furnish the same to the Court within a period of four weeks. Till date neither the prosecution was able to serve notice on the accused nor furnished the correct address of the accused. The Public Prosecutor is not able to say as to whether they could furnish the correct address of the accused. Having regard to the same and as the accused is already convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC, the appeal is dismissed for non-compliance of the order dated 27.01.2015. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. As a sequel thereto, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. _____________________ C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J 04.04.2016 gkv

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.

cancellation of the sale deeds = Under the Registration Act, 1908 and the Rules framed thereunder, which provide that registration/cancellation of document is only with reference to the executant and the claimant under a document, which is already registered. Petitioner, being a third party, is, therefore, not entitled to approach the registering authority and seek cancellation of the documents executed by third party in favour of any other party. Petitioner’s reliance upon Rule 26 of the Rules framed under the Registration Act is also misconceived inasmuch as Rule 26(k)(i) of the Rules specifically refer to the duty of the registering authority to ensure that the deed of cancellation is executed by all the executants and the claimants, who are parties to previously registered document and only on mutual consent a deed of cancellation can be registered. Since petitioner is not a party to the impugned sale transactions between two different individuals, he is not entitled to seek cancellation thereof and in any case, the petitioner does not satisfy even the requirement of Rule 26, referred to above.