Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Katta Dhanalakshmi 2 Others vs State Of Ap., on 30 March, 2022
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
Crl.R.C.No.215 of 2013
ORDER:-
The Sub-Inspector of Police, Mogalthur Police Station filed
charge sheet against the accused/A1 to A2 in Crime No.91 of 2006 of
Mogaltur Police Station for the offences under Sections.498A, 109
r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short, "I.P.C.")
2. The Court of learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate,
Narsapur as per judgment dated 02.07.2012 in C.C.No.150 of 2007
found A2 to A4 guilty for the offence under Section. 498A I.P.C. and
sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four
(4) months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each.
3. Aggrieved by the same A2 to A4 preferred appeal before the
Court of learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Narsapur. The
lower appellate Court in judgment dated 01.02.2013 dismissed the
appeal and confirmed the conviction passed by the trial Court.
4. Aggrieved by the judgment of the lower appellate Court, A2 to
A4 filed a Criminal Revision Case before this Court.
5. The contention of the petitioners herein is that the Courts
below convicted the accused and failed to see that the evidence of
PW1 is not corroborated and no independent witnesses have been
examined by the prosecution to support their case. Thus, the Courts
below erroneously convicted the A2 to A4 for the offence under
Section 498A I.P.C.
6. Heard both sides.
7. On a perusal of the evidences of PW1 and PW2, admittedly, it
is found that there are discrepancies in their evidence which goes to
the root of the case. Both the Courts below have failed to discuss the
evidence in its proper perspective and no independent witnesses
have been examined by the prosecution to support their case.
8. In the present case, it can also be noted that PW1 and PW2 are
interested witnesses. Their evidence cannot be considered for the
purpose of convicting the accused by relying on the judgment of the
Hon‟ble Apex Court in, "Angadi Srinivasa Rao and others V. State of
Andhra Pradesh rep. by Public Prosecutor 1," wherein it is held that it
is not safe to convict the accused on the interested testimonies of
witnesses and acquitted the accused on the said ground.
9. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and taking
into consideration the afore mentioned judgments, this Court feels
that when there is no independent witness examined, the case of the
prosecution cannot be relied upon basing only on the evidence of
PW1 and PW2, who are not independent witnesses. Hence, the
prosecution failed to prove the case in non-examining the
independent witness.
10. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed. The
conviction and sentence recorded against the Revision petitioners/A2
to A4 in the Judgment dated 02.07.2012 in C.C.No.150 of 2007 on
the file of Court of learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate,
Narsapur, which was confirmed in the judgment dated 01.02.2013 in
Criminal Appeal No.205 of 2012 on the file of the Court of learned
Additional District & Sessions Judge, Narsapur, is set aside.
2010 (3) ALT (CRI.) 242 (S.B.)
Consequently, the petitioners/A2 to A4 shall be set at liberty,
forthwith, if they are not required in any other case or crime.
Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________________________
JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
Date: 30-03-2022
EPS
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
Crl.R.C.No.215 OF 2013
Date: 30-03-2022
EPS
In, "State of Rajasthan Vs. Iqbal Hussen2" the Hon‟ble Apex Court has
decided the case basing on the two judgments of the Hon‟ble Apex
Court, i.e., "P.Ramachandra Rao Vs. State of Karnataka3" and "Abdul
Rehman Antulay Vs. R.S. Nayak4" wherein it had formulated several
guidelines for disposal of the criminal case.
10. In P. Ramchandra Rao case, the Supreme Court held that it is
neither advisable, nor feasible, nor judicially permissible to draw or
prescribe an outer limit for conclusion of all criminal proceedings. The
criminal Courts are not obliged to terminate trial or criminal
proceedings merely on account of lapse of time. Such time limits
cannot and will not by themselves be treated by any court as a bar to
further continuance of the trial or proceedings and as mandatorily
obliging the Court to terminate the same and acquit or discharge the
accused. The criminal courts should exercise their available powers
such as those under Sections.309, 311 and 258 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure to effectuate the right to speedy trial.
In Abdul Rehman Antulay's case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
framed several guidelines, some are extracted below:
"Article 21 cannot be construed as to make mockery of directive principles and
another even more fundamental right i.e., the right of equality in Article 14.
The concept of delay must be totally different depending on the class and
character of the accused and the nature of his offence, the difficulties of the private
prosecutor and the leanings of the Government. Statutes of limitation, limited though
they are criminal side did not apply to:
(a) serious offences punishable with more than three years imprisonment;
(b) all economic offences.
(2004) 12 SCC 499
(2002) 4 SCC 578
(1992) 1 SCC 225
Corruption by high public servants is not protected for both these reasons.
Right to speedy trial is not a right to be tried. Secondly, it only creates an
obligation on the prosecutor to be ready to proceed to trial within a reasonable time; It
is neither permissible nor possible nor desirable to lay down an outer limit of time.
It also stated that the following kinds of delay are to be totally ignored in giving
effect to the plea of denial of speedy trial.
The delay caused by legitimate actions of the prosecutor e.g. getting a key
witness who is kept out of the way or otherwise avoids process or appearance or
tracing a key document or securing evidence from abroad.
The core of „speedy trial‟ is protection against incarceration. An accused who
was never been incarcerated can hardly complain. At any rate, he must show some
other very strong prejudice. The right does not protect an accused from all prejudicial
effects caused by delay. Its core concern is impairment of liberty.
Possibility of prejudice is not enough. Actual prejudice has to be proved. The
plea is inexorable and inextricably mixed up with the merits of the case. No finding of
prejudice is possible without full knowledge of the facts. The plea must first be
evaluated by the trial Court".
On the aforesaid background, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has set
aside the acquittal and remanded the case to the trial Court for trial.
