Telangana High Court
CRLA/1843/2007 of The State of Andhra Pradesh, Vs Mallela Chitti Babum, on 28 December 2007
SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1843 of 2007 24-04-2014 BETWEEN: The State of A.P., rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. …..Appellant AND Mallela Chitti Babu and Another …..Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENT: THE
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1843 of 2007
24-04-2014
BETWEEN:
The State of A.P., rep. by the Public Prosecutor,High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.
…..Appellant
AND
Mallela Chitti Babu and Another
…..Respondents
THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENT:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1843 of 2007
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGMENT:
This Criminal Appeal is preferred by the State challenging theJudgment dated 04.04.2006 passed in C.C.No.238 of 2005 by the JudicialMagistrate of First Class, Puttur, whereby the learned Judge acquitted theaccused for the offences under Sections 379 and 411 IPC.
The case of the prosecution is as follows:
That in the month of March, 2005 while PW.2 was proceeding to herhouse, two persons who were proceeding on a motor cycle committed theoffence of snatching P.W.2’s gold chain weighing 24 grams. P.W.2 did notchoose to lodge complaint in the month of March due to some sentiments. After securing the accused in the month of August, 2005, P.W.1 lodgedcomplaint on behalf of P.W.2. Basing on the complaint lodged by P.W.1, a case was registered against the accused for the offences under Sections379 and 411 IPC and the matter was investigated. After completion of theinvestigation, charge sheet was filed.
To prove the case of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 7 were examinedand Exs.P.1 to P.8 were marked. No oral or documentary evidence wasadduced on behalf of the accused.
On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Courtacquitted the accused mainly on the following grounds:
There is an inordinate delay in lodging the complaint. There is noidentification parade to substantiate the fact that the persons, who arealleged as accused, have committed the offence of chain snatching in themonth of March, 2005. Even though the gold chain was recovered from theshop of a pawn broker, he was not examined before the Court to establishthat the persons, who are alleged to have committed the offence, havepledged the said gold chain which was snatched by them from P.W.2. Though it is evident from the record that the crime is established, theprosecution has miserably failed to connect the accused with the said crime and as such the accused are entitled for acquittal of the charges levelledagainst them.
Heard the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the materialavailable on record.
On perusing the evidence available on record and the Judgment ofthe Court below, this Court is of the view that the trial Court has rightlyobserved that prosecution has failed to prove the case against therespondents herein. The Judgment of the trial Court is in accordance withlaw and it does not suffer from any perverse findings and the acquittalrecorded by the trial Court needs no interference by this Court.
The Criminal Appeal is accordingly dismissed. Miscellaneousapplications, if any pending in this appeal, shall stand dismissed.
24.04.2014pln
_____________________
JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO