Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Supreme Court - Daily Orders

Mancham Venkateswara Rao vs The State Of Telangana on 28 March, 2022

Bench: Dinesh Maheshwari, Aniruddha Bose

                                                          1

     ITEM NO.21                     Court 14 (Video Conferencing)                        SECTION II

                                    S U P R E M E C O U R T O F            I N D I A
                                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

     Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)                          No. 2060/2022

     (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 13-06-2017
     in CRLA No. 12/2011 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
     Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra
     Pradesh)

     MANCHAM VENKATESWARA RAO                                                      Petitioner(s)

                                                        VERSUS

     STATE OF TELANGANA                                                            Respondent(s)

     Date : 28-03-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today.

     CORAM :
                             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI
                             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA BOSE


     For Petitioner(s)                    Mr. Praveen Chaturvedi, AOR

     For Respondent(s)


                              UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
                                                 O R D E R

Despite service of show cause notice, nobody has chosen to appear for the respondent-State.

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have examined the material placed on record.

Leave granted.

It is submitted in challenge to the impugned judgment and order Signature Not Verified dated 13.06.2017 that so far as the present appeal is Digitally signed by Rajni Mukhi Date: 2022.03.28 concerned, 17:53:22 IST Reason: the case had been based on rather incoherent circumstantial evidence on which, the only conclusion of guilt of the appellant could not have been reached. It is further submitted 2 that in any case, looking to the nature of allegations, which are predominantly directed against accused No. 1 (father of the appellant), the appellant could not have been held guilty of abatement of killing of his own mother. It is submitted that the story of the prosecution carries inherent improbabilities when it is alleged that the accused No. 1 was having illicit relations with the wife of the present appellant and the appellant abated killing of his own mother by his own father (accused No. 1). Having regard to the circumstances of the case, it appears just and appropriate and hence ordered that further execution of the sentence awarded to the appellant shall remain suspended until final disposal of this appeal; and he may be released on bail on such terms and conditions as may be imposed by the Trial Court.

(SHRADDHA MISHRA)                                          (RANJANA SHAILEY)
SENIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT                                 COURT MASTER (NSH)