Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Korada Govind vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 27 September, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANOHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER
TAD THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO
(PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
iA No. 2 OF 2022
iN
CRLA NO: 183 OF 2022
Between:
Korada Govind, Sfo Apparac, aged about 40 years, Yadava by Caste, ec.
Driver by profession Rat industrial Area, Navabharat Junctlon Kusalapuram
Vilage, Etchearla Mandal, Kotabammali Mandal, Srikakulam District
AppeliantvAccused Nove
paar
_ AND
The Slate of Andhra Pradesh, rap. by lis Public Prosecutor, High Court of ALP.
Amaravat.
Respondent
Petiiion under Section 389C)) Cr F.C is Hed praying that in the circumstances
stated in the memorandum of grounds fied in Criminal Appeal, the High Gourl may
be pleased fo ers args ihe Petitioner on ball by suspending the conviction and
senience imposed in S.C.No.1 of 2021 dated 19.04.2022 on the fie of HN Ariditional
istrict & Sessions "Judge-Curm Judge Family Court, Srikakulam FAC for Special
Judge for Thal of Cases Under the Protection of Chikiren from Sexual Offences Act,
2072, Srikakulam on such terms and candHions, pending disposal of CRLA No. 18s
of 2022, on fhe fle of the High Court.
The petifion corning on for hearing, upon perusing the Pellian and ihe
EMan andu: mi of crouris fled In support theracf and upon hearing the arqumaenis o
Sri P Ratkumar, Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri Sravan Kumar Naidana, Asst at
Public P Froseoutar for the Respondent, the court made following:
ORDER:
"Weard Sri P. Raikumar, learned counsel for the petitionerfappallant! A-z,
and Sri Sravan Kumar Naidana, laarned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the
respondentState.
The petitioner was convicted for the offence punishable under Section
2f8(2HF}) of the indian Penal Code and he is convicted to underge Rigorous
unprisonment for a period of ten (10) years and also fo pay fine of Re.5,000)-
{Rupees five thousand only} and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment
for two years by the learned Hi Additions! Sessions Judge --cum- Family
Judge, Srikakulam in Seasions Case No.t of 2027 vide its judgment dated
79.04, 2022.
The learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration, contended that
the petitioner! anpellant/ Ad was convicted without there being any evidence in
support of the version of the prosecution. The isarned counsel has drawn the
atiention of this Court fo para-S3 of the ludgmeant and cantended that the
evidence of the prosecution witnesses suffers from contradictions and
omissions and that there is Ac medical, avidance to show that the deceased
had sexual intercourse before her death and desohe ali these lacunae, the
Court below has sanvicted the petitioner appellantiAs. Ne further contended
that the petitioner has fair chances of sucsesding the appeal and since
disposal of the appsal would take sufficient firme and W the petitioner is
continued in jal, the petitioner would be put to immense loss and hardshis. He
further contended that the petitioner will abide by any conditions imposed by
this Court and prayed fo enlarge the petitioner on ball pending disposal of the
criminal appeal.
Gn the other Rand, the learned 'Special Assistant Public Prosacutar
contended that though there ars certain omissions and contradictions in the
eviiance of the prosecution withasses, they are not aufficient fo HK the Anding
of guilt, hence prayed to dismiss the petition, since the offence commitiad by
the petitionar appellant AS ia Asinous In nature.
The learned counsel far the petitioner contended that the petitioner haa
paid the fine amount imposed on him by the Court below and he is on ball
during trial. . _
Upon considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
nettioner anppeliantiAd, thie Court holds that prima facie a valid ground is
made out for determination in this appeal and since final disposal of this
appeal would take considerable time, the execution of substantive sentence of
imprisonment iniposed against the petitioner in SO.No.? of 2021 on the fle of
the Court of the isarned 1) Additional Sessions Judge-cum---Judge, Family
Gourt, Srikakulam is hereby suspended 1 diaponal of thia Criminal Anpeal,
The petitioner shall be released on ball on execution of self band for
Re.26,000/- (Rupess twanty five thousand only} with Ovo sureties for a the sum
each to the satisisction of the Additional Judicial Firat Class Magistrate,
Srikakulam. The petitioner shall not sentact the de facts compiaginant,
The petitioner shall appear before this Court at the time of final hearing
of the appeal, as observed in the decision made by the High Court of
Composite state of Andhra Pradesh in Batchu Ranga Rao and others vs. State
of Andhra Pradesh (2016(3) ALT (Crij 805 DB (A.P.}" --
Sd/- 8. CHITTI JOSEPH
: ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
. TRUE COPYH | ger
~~ 7 re 'SECTION OFFICER
1. The Hi Additional District & Sessions Judge-Cum-Judge Famiy Court,
Srikakulam FAC for Special Jucige for Trial of Cases Under the Protection of
Ghidren from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Srikakwiam.
zs. The Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Clags, Srikakularn.
3. The Superintendent, Central Jai. Visakhapatnam.
4. One CC to Sri. P Rajkumar, Advocate [OPUC])
5. Two COs fo Sr Sravan Kumar Naicana, Asst. Public Prosecufor, High Court
of AP POUTI ae
6. Gne spare copy.
MSS
HGH COURT
RG
BATE 2 OG e022
ORDER
IA NO.2 OF 2022
iN
GRLA No 8d of 2028
ALLOWED
