Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Kallepalli Apparao, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 1 July, 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVAT
MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JULY,
© THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
SPRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A ¥ RAVINDRA BARU
IA No, 7 OF 2024
iN
CRLA NO: 322 OF 2024
Between:
Kallepalli Apparac, S/o Narayana @ Narayana Rao, Aged about SO years,
Occ security guard, R/o. Dwarapudl Village, Vizianagaram Mandal & District.
_ Petitions
(Patitioner in CRLA 322 OF 2024
on the fie of High Court}
AND
The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Its Public Prosecutor High Court of

Andhra Pradesh at Amaravall.
Respondent

{Respondents in-do-}
Petition under Section 389(1) of Cr P.C is filed praying that in the
circumstances stated in rmamorandum of grounds of Criminal Appeal, the High
Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner on ball by su igpending the
judgment of the Special Judge for trial of under POCSO Sessions Judge,
Vizianagaram passed in P.O.C.8.Q Sessions Case No. 76/2021 dated
08.05.2024, pending disposal of CRLA No. 322 of 2024, on the fe of the High
Court, |
The petition coming an for hearing, upon perusing the Pe fiion and
memorandum of grounds of criminal petition and upon hearing the arguments
of Sri Taddi Nageswara Rao, Advocate for the Appellant and PUDHe

Prosecutor for the Respondent, the Court made the following;



ORDER:

"Neard Mis. Tacidi Sounya Naidu, learned counsel, representing Sr Taddl Nageswara Rao, learned counsel for the appellant and Wis. Dheera Kanishka, learned counsel, representing learned Public Prosecutar.

This application is Sled on behalf of the appellant under Section #89(4} CrP.G. with a prayer to Suspend the sentence of imprisonment imposed against him, pending disposal of the appeal,

Yhe case of the prosecution before the trial Court is that the accused whe was in the age group of 56 years, committed rape against the victim, who was studying U.K.G. in Gayatri schoal, near Railway station, Gotlam Village. Prosecution aleged that the victim was a child. Basing on the raport lodged by the mother of the victim, a case was registered Sections 242, 378-A8 IPC and Section Sim) read with 6 of POCSO Act and investigated into. .

The substance of allegation against the present petitioner/accused is that, on the pretext of providing biscuit, he took the victim inte bis house laid her on the cot, removed her underwear and committed rape. Yhe learned Special Judge, after conclusion of the trial, found the petitionerlaccused guilty of the charge under Sections S42, 378-AB IPC and Section S{m)} read with 6 of POCSO Act and took inte the gravity of the offence and sentenced him fo suffer Rigorous imprisonment for a period of twenty (20) years and to pay @ fine of Rs. 200Q/-, In default, to suffer simple imprisanment for one month, for the offence under Section Sim) read with 8 of POCSNO &st and further sentenced Aim to suffer ane year and to pay a fine of Rs. 800/-, In default, to suffer simpis imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 942 IPC.

Now, the simple question that falls for consideration is as to "whether the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the

appellantpetitionerfaccused can be suspended?"

_earmed Public Prosecutor filed counter opposing the prayer of the petitionerfaccuses.

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused [s

that the present petitioner/faccused is faisely implicated in the case and that he has good grounds to succeed,

it is to be noted that the petifionerlaccused | ig Imposed with byenty i206) years of Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence alleged 1e., aggravated form of penetrative sexual assault against the victim.

Having regard to the gravity of the offence the position of the vielim and considering the age of the petitionerfaccused and further looking into the magnitude ef the allegations against the present petitioner/accused that he committed rape of a child by taking her into

the house, taking advantage of the fact that she being & child cannot

rasist his cruel act, this Court is of the considered view that absolutely f

ig not a fit case fc suspend the sentence af imprisonment imposed

against the accused.

in the result, this petition is dismissed."

sol. K SRINIVASA RAJU GISTRAR

HTRUE COPY! SECT ION M OFFICER For 4.

Te,

4. The Special Judge for tral of under POCSO Sessions Judges, Virianagaram 2 The Superintendent, Central Prisan, Visakhapatnam 2 One CC to Sri. Tadd Nageswara Rao, Advocate fOPUC)

4. Two COs to Public Prosecutor, High Court af AP [OUT]

5 One spare capy

DATED OVOT/2024 lA.No.1 OF 2024

HIGH COURT iN

AYRE .J ORDER

+ yftereeg eeesapg

DISNISSED