Sections 376 and 341 IPC - Trial court acquitted - High court acquitted under sec.376 but convicted under an attempt to commit rape under sec. 376 read with Section 511 IPC and also under Section 341 IPC -her age to be 60 years- nothing was found to show that the victim was subjected to sexual intercourse - the age of the accused to be 17-18 years -her sari was torn in the incident, said sari was not produced before the court,-she was trying to escape and had bitten the right hand of the appellant, the medical evidence did not support such assertions and that because of civil and criminal cases pending between the parties the possibility of false implication could not be ruled out.Apex court held that the reasons given by the trial court while acquitting the appellant, in our view, are quite sound and in any case, such view is definitely a possible view. The conclusions reached by the trial court cannot be said to be palpably wrong or based on erroneous view of the law, so as to call for interference by the High Court. In our considered view the High Court was not justified in converting the case to that of attempt to commit rape and recording order of conviction. We, therefore, set aside the judgment and order of conviction passed by the High Court and restore that of the trial court acquitting the accused-appellant of the offences with which he was charged.

Sections 376 and 341 IPC - Trial court acquitted - High court acquitted under sec.376 but convicted under an attempt to commit rape under sec. 376 read with Section 511 IPC and also under Section 341 IPC -her age to be 60 years- nothing was found to show that the victim was subjected to sexual intercourse - the age of the accused to be 17-18 years -her sari was torn in the incident, said sari was not produced before the court,-she was trying to escape and had bitten the right hand of the appellant, the medical evidence did not support such assertions and that because of civil and criminal cases pending between the parties the possibility of false implication could not be ruled out.Apex court held that the reasons given by the trial court while acquitting the appellant, in our view, are quite sound and in any case, such view is definitely a possible view. The conclusions reached by the trial court cannot be said to be palpably wrong or based on erroneous view of the law, so as to call for interference by the High Court. In our considered view the High Court was not justified in converting the case to that of attempt to commit rape and recording order of conviction. We, therefore, set aside the judgment and order of conviction passed by the High Court and restore that of the trial court acquitting the accused-appellant of the offences with which he was charged.

Popular posts from this blog

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

Section 5 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 read with Rule 9(1)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Rules of 1989. - Powers of Revenue Court - Petitioners are the legal heirs of Late Sri A. Penta Reddy and respondents 1 to 3 are the brothers of Penta Reddy - Petitioners claimed as Separate Property - Brothers/Respondents claimed as Joint family Property - MRO held summary enquiry and held that it is Joint family Property - No Appeal to RDO - after the lapse of 12 years filed Revision directly to Joint Collector - JC. dismissed the revision - this Writ - Their Lordships held that in the absence of any suit for Declaration of title after receiving Rule 9 notice with in 3 months, the MRO can decide the dispute summarily - since no appeal is filed nor any suit is filed in any court - the orders of MRO can not be challanged after the lapse of 12 years - dismissed the revision - -2015 Telangana & A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS

DVC CASE - Practice & Procedure - Magistrate shall issue a notice of the date of hearing fixed under Sec.12-the Magistrate need not, nay shall not issue warrant for securing presence of respondent - the Court need not insist for personal attendance of the parties for each adjournment like in criminal cases.-if the respondents failed to turn up after receiving notice and file their counter affidavit if any,pass an exparte order by virtue of the power conferred on him under Sec.23 of the D.V.Act.-only under exceptional circumstances, if the Magistrate feels required, he may issue warrants for securing the presence of the concerned party. -2015 A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS( Telegana)