CRIMINAL CASE
The Police have filed charge sheet against Prasada Rao, Sreenu and four others for the offence U/S 396 IPC read with Sections 111 and 112 IPC. The prosecution case is as follows:
Prasada Rao and Krishna Rao, who belong to the same village, are the landlords and the leaders of two rival political parties. In the elections concluded in the month of April, 2009 Prasada Rao lost the election to Krishna Rao. Prasada Rao wanted to eliminate Krishna Rao. He contacted Sreenu and Sreenu has agreed to kill Krishna Rao for an amount of Rs 10 lakh. Prasada Rao has paid the same to Sreenu.
On the night of 13-05-2009 at around 2 AM Sreenu and the four other accused attacked and killed Krishna Rao without much fuss, who was sleeping in the corridor of his house. Then the gang breaks open a door of the house, entered the house of Krishna Rao and looted a lot of gold, money and other valuables and in the process they have caused serious injuries to the wife and two minor children of Krishna Rao. Krishna Rao’s wife gave F.I.R. On the basis of FIR a case was registered against Prasad Rao and others and after conducting investigation a charge sheet was filed against all the accused.
The accused have denied the commission of the offence. Prasada Rao took the defence that the offence u/s 396 was not committed. Dacoity and murder did not go simultaneous and murder preceded dacoity.
The following maters are in evidence:
1. Krishna Rao’s wife and children identified all the five accused.
2. The looted property was found with Sreenu and it was identified by Krishna Rao’s wife.
3. The weapons used for the commission of murder were recovered by Police and the finger prints on the weapons and those that were found at the scene of offence were certified tallied by the finger print expert.
4. PW6 the Bank Manager has deposed that on 13-05-2009 an amount of Rs.10 lakh was deposited in Sreenu’s Account. The signature on the pay–in–slip was found to be that Prasada Rao’s Personal Assistant.
The matter is posted for arguments.
CIVIL CASE:
Rohini filed a petition before the Family Court, Guntur under Section 12 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for annulment of marriage.
According to the petition – Rohini married Harish on 19-7-2009. It was an arranged marriage. She lived just for a few days with Harish. In September, 2009 she filed a petition under Section 12 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 praying for annulment of marriage on the ground that the marriage has not been consummated owing to the impotence of the respondent.
The respondent contested the petition and claimed that the marriage was consummated and he was not impotent. He further applied for medical examination of the petitioner to prove that she was not a virgin.
The petitioner opposed the application. But, the court allowed the application.
Rohini preferred a Civil Revision petition before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh stating that the impugned order of the Family Court has interfered with her right to privacy guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The husband-respondent opposed revision on the ground that it was the only method of proving whether the marriage was consummated or not.
The revision petition is posted for arguments. The odd numbers in the List have to argue for Revision Petitioner and the even numbers for Respondent.
