CrPC Section 482 — Inherent powers of the High Court

Judgments citing CrPC Section 482

1. B. Ramana Rao vs The State of Telangana on 29 August, 2023

   High Court of High Court for State of Telangana29 Aug 2023

   Case Name: Court: Date of Judgment: Bench: Subject: Key Legal Propositions 1. A petition under Section 482 CrPC can be withdrawn if the cause for adjudication no longer survives. 2. Courts have the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings that have become infructuous. 3. Dismissal of a criminal petition as infructuous results in the closure of any pending miscellaneous petitions related to it. Judgment Summary Background: The petitioner filed a Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) seeking to quash C.C.No.808 of 2013 pending before the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. Held: A. On Section 482 Cr.P.C. and Infructuousness of Petition: Majority View: The Court held that the petition had become infructuous as the cause for adjudication no longer existed. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as infructuous. Dissenting View: None. B. On Pending Miscellaneous Petitions: Majority View: Any miscellaneous petitions pending in connection with the criminal petition were directed to be closed. Dissenting View: None. C. On Adjudication of Criminal Proceedings: Majority View: The Court exercised its po

2. Environmental Engineer, Telangana State Pollution Control Board Regional Office vs The State of Telangana & Anr. on 06 November, 2023

   High Court of High Court for State of Telangana6 Nov 2023

   Case Name: Environmental Engineer, Telangana State Pollution Control Board Regional Office vs The State of Telangana & Anr. on 06 November, 2023 Court: High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 06 November, 2023 Bench: Sri Justice K. Surender Subject: Criminal Appeal – Dismissal of Complaint for Non-Prosecution – Environmental Law Key Legal Propositions 1. A complaint can be dismissed for non-prosecution after repeated adjournments granted to the complainant, even if the matter involves environmental concerns. 2. The principles laid down in *Mohd. Azeem vs. A. Venkatesh* regarding dismissal of complaints for default of appearance on a solitary instance are distinguishable when the complainant fails to diligently prosecute the case over an extended period. 3. Courts are justified in dismissing complaints when the complainant and counsel fail to appear despite conditional orders, as allowing continued delays would amount to wasting judicial time. Judgment Summary Background: This Criminal Appeal arises from the dismissal of a complaint (C.C.No. 2492 of 2016) by the XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, for non-prosecution. The com

3. Ambati Vtlaya vs The State of Telangana on 10 February, 2023

   High Court of High Court for State of Telangana10 Feb 2023

   Case Name: Court: Date of Judgment: Bench: Subject: Key Legal Propositions 1. A protest petition seeking the addition of accused and reinvestigation can be dismissed if no specific role is attributed to the proposed accused and the complainant fails to provide evidence supporting their involvement. 2. The trial court retains the discretion to consider a request to include additional accused under Section 319 of the CrPC based on evidence presented during trial. 3. Directions for further investigation or denovo investigation are contingent upon the presentation of evidence establishing a prima facie case against the individuals sought to be implicated. Judgment Summary Background: The Criminal Revision Case challenges the order of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narsampet, dismissing a protest petition seeking the addition of accused (A4 & A5) and a reinvestigation into Crime No. 149 of 2019. The Magistrate dismissed the petition due to the lack of specific allegations against A4 and A5 and the complainant’s failure to present evidence. Held: A. On Dismissal of Protest Petition & Reinvestigation Request: Majority View: The Court upheld the Magistrate’s decision, finding

4. M/s. Amoda Publications Pvt. Ltd. & Mr. Vemuri Radha Krishna vs The State of Telangana & Sri A. Goutham Reddy on 14 June, 2023

   High Court of High Court for State of Telangana14 Jun 2023

   Case Name: M/s. Amoda Publications Pvt. Ltd. & Mr. Vemuri Radha Krishna vs The State of Telangana & Sri A. Goutham Reddy on 14 June, 2023 Court: High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 14 June, 2023 Bench: Sri Justice M. Laxman Subject: Criminal Procedure Code - Section 482 - Quashing of Criminal Proceedings - Withdrawal of Petition Key Legal Propositions 1. A petitioner may withdraw a criminal petition before the High Court. 2. Upon withdrawal of a petition, the Court may dismiss the same. 3. Any pending miscellaneous petitions related to the withdrawn petition shall also stand closed. Judgment Summary Background: The Petitioners/Accused filed a Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking to stay further proceedings and subsequently to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 659/2015. A further miscellaneous petition (CRLPMP No. 744 of 2017) was filed seeking expedited hearing of the main petition. Held: A. On Withdrawal of Petition: Majority View: The Court granted permission to the Petitioner’s counsel to withdraw the Criminal Petition. Dissenting View: None. B. On Dismissal of Petition: Majority View: The Court dismissed the Crimina

5. Dharmaiah Thati vs The State of Telangana on 26 July, 2023

   High Court of High Court for State of Telangana26 Jul 2023

   Case Name: Dharmaiah Thati vs The State of Telangana on 26 July, 2023 Court: High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 26 July, 2023 Bench: Sri Justice K. Surender Subject: Criminal Law – Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Investigation – Civil Dispute Key Legal Propositions 1. Where the alleged offence arises from a civil dispute, particularly concerning property rights amongst partners, and the prescribed punishment is relatively minor, the Court may direct the Investigating Officer to adhere to procedural safeguards under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. and Supreme Court guidelines to ensure due process. 2. The High Court, exercising its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., can intervene to prevent unnecessary arrest and ensure a fair investigation, especially when the dispute appears predominantly civil in nature. 3. Cooperation with the Investigating Officer, including providing necessary information and documents, is a reasonable expectation from the petitioner to facilitate a proper investigation. Judgment Summary Background: The Criminal Petition was filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of Crime No. 121 of 2023 registered at Mariped

6. Shaik Abusad vs The State of Telangana on 18 July, 2023

   High Court of High Court for State of Telangana18 Jul 2023

   Case Name: Shaik Abusad vs The State of Telangana on 18 July, 2023 Court: High Court of Telangana Date of Judgment: 18 July, 2023 Bench: Smt. Justice G. Anupama Chakravarthy Subject: Criminal Law – Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Section 482 CrPC – Offences under Sections 324 and 504 IPC. Key Legal Propositions 1. The veracity of allegations in a criminal case can only be determined after a full trial. 2. General allegations against accused persons may warrant dispensing with their personal appearance before the trial court, unless specifically required. 3. Accused persons have the right to apply for discharge before the trial court, and such applications must be considered on their merits, independent of observations made by higher courts. Judgment Summary Background: The petitioners filed a Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) seeking quashing of proceedings in S.C. No. 1245 of 2021, pending before the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Additional Sessions Judge, Malkajgiri, registered for offences under Sections 324 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The case arose from a private complaint. Held: A. On Petition for Quash

7. Vorsu Venkataiah vs The State of Telangana on 12 July, 2023

   High Court of High Court for State of Telangana12 Jul 2023

   Case Name: Court: Date of Judgment: Bench: Subject: Key Legal Propositions 1. Quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC is not permissible when the truthfulness of allegations needs to be determined after trial. 2. Accused persons cannot be exempted from appearing before the trial court unless their presence is specifically required for recording statements under Section 313 CrPC or at the time of judgment. 3. Trial Courts are empowered to consider discharge petitions independently, without being influenced by High Court orders directing appearance unless specifically requested. Judgment Summary Background: This Criminal Petition was filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) seeking to quash criminal proceedings against eleven petitioners/accused in C.C.No.01 of 2017, registered for offences under Sections 498-A, 347 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The petitioners argued that a false complaint had been filed and the case had been pending for six years without progress. Held: A. On Quashing of Proceedings: Majority View: The Court refused to quash the proceedings, holding that the truth or falsity of

8. Saidulu Devanaboin & Ors. vs The State of Telangana & Anr. on 12 July, 2023

   High Court of High Court for State of Telangana12 Jul 2023

   Case Name: Saidulu Devanaboin & Ors. vs The State of Telangana & Anr. on 12 July, 2023 Court: High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 12 July, 2023 Bench: Smt. Justice G. Anupama Chakravarty Subject: Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Key Legal Propositions 1. Where the punishment prescribed for the alleged offences is less than seven years, the High Court may direct the accused to appear before the Investigating Officer. 2. The Investigating Officer must adhere to Section 41-A of the Cr.P.C. and the guidelines laid down in *Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar* while dealing with the accused. 3. Accused persons are expected to cooperate with the investigation and provide necessary information/documents. Judgment Summary Background: The Petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 to 3 filed a Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the proceedings in FIR No. 109 of 2023 registered against them for offences under Sections 324, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tr

9. Padakanti Krishnaiah vs The State of T.S. on 12 July, 2023

   High Court of High Court for State of Telangana12 Jul 2023

   Case Name: Court: Date of Judgment: Bench: Subject: Key Legal Propositions 1. Where the punishment prescribed for alleged offences is less than seven years, the accused may be directed to appear before the Investigating Officer subject to compliance with Section 41-A Cr.P.C. and guidelines laid down in *Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar*. 2. The High Court, exercising its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., can quash criminal proceedings, but may instead direct appearance before the Investigating Officer with safeguards. 3. Accused persons are obligated to cooperate with the investigation and provide necessary information and documents. Judgment Summary Background: This Criminal Petition was filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash proceedings in FIR No. 92 of 2023 registered for offences under Section 505(2) read with 34 IPC and Section 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015. A connected petition sought a stay of arrest. Held: A. On Quashing of FIR/Section 482 Cr.P.C.: Majority View: The Court did not quash the FIR but directed the petitioner/accused No. 2 to appear before the Investigating Officer. Dissenting View: None. B

10. Yelle Venkateshwarlu & Anr. vs The State of Telangana & Anr. on 04 July, 2023

    High Court of High Court for State of Telangana4 Jul 2023

    Case Name: Yelle Venkateshwarlu & Anr. vs The State of Telangana & Anr. on 04 July, 2023 Court: High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 04 July, 2023 Bench: Smt. Justice G. Anupama Chakravarthy Subject: Criminal Procedure - Quashing of Criminal Proceedings - Section 482 CrPC Key Legal Propositions 1. Where no specific allegations or overt acts are attributed to accused persons, it may be appropriate to dispense with their presence during trial. 2. High Courts have the power under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings, particularly when the continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of process. 3. Disposal of a criminal petition at the stage of admission is permissible, especially when the issue is limited and can be decided without extensive evidence. Judgment Summary Background: This Criminal Petition was filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) seeking quashing of proceedings in C.C. No. 1522 of 2020 before the V Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad. The case was registered for offences under Sections 498A, 323 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The Petitioners, accused Nos

11. Shanker Reddy Nimmala & Ors. vs State Of Telangana & Anr. on 21 August, 2023

    High Court of High Court for State of Telangana21 Aug 2023

    Case Name: Shanker Reddy Nimmala & Ors. vs State Of Telangana & Anr. on 21 August, 2023 Court: High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 21 August, 2023 Bench: Justice K. Surender Subject: Criminal Law – Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Section 482 CrPC – Domestic Violence – Cheating – Infructuous Petition Key Legal Propositions 1. Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 can be invoked to quash criminal proceedings. 2. A criminal petition becomes infructuous when the underlying cause of action no longer exists. 3. The Court may dismiss a petition as infructuous based on the submission of the prosecution that no further adjudication is required. Judgment Summary Background: The Petitioners filed a Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of proceedings in Crime No. 222 of 2016 registered against them for offences under Sections 498-A, 415, and 418 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. A connected Miscellaneous Petition sought a stay of investigation. Held: A. On Quashing of Proceedings/Issue of Survival of Cause of Action: Majority View: The Court dismissed the petition as infructuous, recording the submission of

12. Chennoju Sudharshana Chary & Ors. vs The State of Telangana & Anr. on 22 June, 2023

    High Court of High Court for State of Telangana22 Jun 2023

    Case Name: Chennoju Sudharshana Chary & Ors. vs The State of Telangana & Anr. on 22 June, 2023 Court: High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 22 June, 2023 Bench: Smt Justice G. Anupama Chakravarthy Subject: Criminal Law – Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Civil Dispute Key Legal Propositions 1. Applications under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be used to determine the merits of a case or to consider defenses that are more appropriately addressed during trial. 2. The Court will not interfere with ongoing criminal proceedings simply because they stem from a civil dispute. 3. While dispensing with the attendance of accused persons, the Court retains the right to require their presence for specific purposes like Section 313 Cr.P.C. examination or judgment pronouncement. Judgment Summary Background: This Criminal Petition was filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking to quash proceedings in C.C.No.2022 of 2022 before the III Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-III Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, for offences under Sections 447 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners alleged that the crim

13. Sri S..B.G.V.Pra9a! Rao vs The State of Telangana on 04 July, 2023 & T.Yadamma vs The State of Telangana on 19 June, 2023

    High Court of High Court for State of Telangana19 Jun 2023

    Case Name: Sri S..B.G.V.Pra9a! Rao vs The State of Telangana on 04 July, 2023 & T.Yadamma vs The State of Telangana on 19 June, 2023 Court: High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 04 July, 2023 & 19 June, 2023 Bench: Justice G. Anupama Chakravarthy Subject: Criminal Procedure – Quashing of FIR/Criminal Proceedings – Section 482 CrPC – Investigation Guidelines Key Legal Propositions 1. Where the punishment prescribed for the alleged offences is less than seven years, it is appropriate to direct the accused to appear before the Investigating Officer. 2. The Investigating Officer must adhere to Section 41-A CrPC and the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar. 3. In cases involving allegations under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC, the Court may not interfere with ongoing proceedings but may dispense with the accused’s personal appearance unless specifically required by the trial court. Judgment Summary Background: Criminal Petition No. 5921 of 2023 arises from an FIR registered under Sections 447, 427, 506 r/w 34 IPC. The petitioner sought quashing of the FIR. Criminal Petition No. 5357 of 2023 seeks quashing of proce

14. J,BgkJhavltlrsal^Igd9v vs The State of Telangana on 15 June, 2023

    High Court of High Court for State of Telangana15 Jun 2023

    Case Name: Court: Date of Judgment: Bench: Subject: Key Legal Propositions 1. A petition under Section 482 of CrPC can be withdrawn with the permission of the Court. 2. Upon withdrawal of a Criminal Petition, any pending miscellaneous petitions are also closed. 3. The High Court has the power to stay further proceedings in a criminal case, pending disposal of a petition, but this power is contingent on the petition not being withdrawn. Judgment Summary Background: The Petitioner, J. BgkJhavltlrsal^Igd9v, filed a Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the CrPC seeking to stay further proceedings in Crime No. 157 of 2021, registered at Maheshwaram Police Station, and ultimately seeking quashing of the proceedings. Held: A. On Withdrawal of Petition: Majority View: The Court granted permission to the Petitioner to withdraw the Criminal Petition. Dissenting View: None. B. On Quashing of Proceedings: Majority View: As the petition was withdrawn, the issue of quashing the proceedings was not addressed. Dissenting View: None. C. On Pending Miscellaneous Petitions: Majority View: Any pending miscellaneous petitions related to the Criminal Petition were directed to be closed. Dissentin

15. R. Sudheer Mohan vs Smt. M.R. Swetha and The State of Telangana on 05 January, 2023

    High Court of High Court for State of Telangana5 Jan 2023

    Case Name: Court: Date of Judgment: Bench: Subject: Key Legal Propositions 1. A party may withdraw a revision petition with liberty to file a fresh petition before the appropriate forum. 2. Courts may grant permission for withdrawal of petitions based on requests from counsel. 3. Upon withdrawal, the court directs the return of certified copies and closure of pending miscellaneous applications. Judgment Summary Background: The petitioner sought suspension of an order dated 20.04.2018 passed by the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge in a matter related to the Jubilee Hills Car Bomb Blast case, through a Criminal Revision Case under Sections 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C. and Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Held: A. On Petition Withdrawal: Majority View: The Court granted the petitioner's request to withdraw the revision petition with liberty to file a fresh petition before the appropriate forum. Dissenting View: None. B. On Miscellaneous Applications: Majority View: All pending miscellaneous applications were directed to be closed. Dissenting View: None. C. On Certified Copies: Majority View: The Registry was directed to return the certified copies to the petitioner's counsel. Dissenting View

16. Palle @ Mallala Rajeshwari vs The State of Telangana & Anr. on 20 June, 2023

    High Court of High Court for State of Telangana20 Jun 2023

    Case Name: Palle @ Mallala Rajeshwari vs The State of Telangana & Anr. on 20 June, 2023 Court: High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 20 June, 2023 Bench: Justice G. Anupama Chakravarthy Subject: Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Anticipatory Relief Key Legal Propositions 1. Where the punishment prescribed for the alleged offences is less than seven years, the High Court may direct the petitioner/accused to appear before the Investigating Officer. 2. The Investigating Officer must adhere to the procedure outlined in Section 41A Cr.P.C. and the guidelines laid down in *Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar*. 3. The petitioner/accused is obligated to cooperate with the Investigating Officer and provide necessary information and documents to facilitate the completion of the investigation. Judgment Summary Background: The petitioner/accused filed a Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No. 64 of 2023 registered at Ramakrishnapur Police Station, Mancherial District, for offences punishable under Sections 447, 427, 448, and 506 IPC. A separate petition sought a stay of further proceedings in the aforementioned case. Held

17. R. Rama Chary vs G. Srinivas and The State of Telangana on 10 August, 2023

    High Court of High Court for State of Telangana10 Aug 2023

    Case Name: R. Rama Chary vs G. Srinivas and The State of Telangana on 10 August, 2023 Court: High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 10 August, 2023 Bench: Sri Justice K. Surender Subject: Criminal Appeal – Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act – Dismissal of Complaint – Restoration of Complaint Key Legal Propositions 1. A complainant’s absence or failure to take necessary steps for the appearance of an accused, particularly when the accused is in jail, can lead to the dismissal of a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. Courts must consider the totality of circumstances before dismissing a complaint for a complainant’s lack of diligence, and should not acquit the accused *invictum* solely on that basis. 3. High Courts have the power to restore a dismissed complaint, even when the dismissal was based on the complainant’s inaction, by imposing costs to ensure diligence and prevent dilatory tactics. Judgment Summary Background: The appellant (complainant) filed a criminal appeal under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) against the dismissal of their complaint (C.C. No. 187 of 2021) under Section 1

18. Syed Hamed vs State of Telangana on 28 April, 2023

    High Court of High Court for State of Telangana28 Apr 2023

    Case Name: Court: Date of Judgment: Bench: Subject: Key Legal Propositions 1. Quashing of criminal proceedings is not permissible where allegations of fabrication of documents exist. 2. Courts may grant interim protection from coercive action for a limited period, pending investigation. 3. Section 482 CrPC allows for the quashing of criminal proceedings in appropriate cases. Judgment Summary Background: The petitioner sought quashing of FIR No. 29 of 2022 registered with Lalaguda Police Station, Hyderabad, alleging offences under Sections 467, 468, 471, 474, 420, and 406 of the Indian Penal Code. The petition was filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). Held: A. On Quashing of FIR: Majority View: The Court declined to quash the proceedings due to the serious allegations of document fabrication. However, it directed the police not to take coercive steps against the petitioner for four weeks from the date of the order. Dissenting View: None apparent in the provided text. B. On Interim Relief: Majority View: The Court granted a temporary stay of coercive action for four weeks to allow for investigation to proceed without immediate arrest. Dissenting

19. J. Jangam Suresh vs The State of Telangana & Anr. on 28 February, 2023

    High Court of High Court for State of Telangana28 Feb 2023

    Case Name: J. Jangam Suresh vs The State of Telangana & Anr. on 28 February, 2023 Court: High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 28 February, 2023 Bench: Justice K. Surender Subject: Criminal Revision – Discharge Application – Section 482 CrPC – Attendance Exemption Key Legal Propositions 1. A revisional court generally refrains from interfering with a lower court’s order dismissing a discharge application unless compelling reasons exist. 2. Courts may dispense with the attendance of an accused during trial upon specific conditions, ensuring the proceedings are not disputed later. 3. The dispensation of attendance is contingent upon the accused’s willingness to abide by the court’s directions and appear when specifically required. Judgment Summary Background: This Criminal Revision Case challenges the order of the III Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Medchal, dismissing a discharge application (Crl.M.P.No.2113 of 2017) filed by the petitioner/accused No.5 in C.C.No.32 of 2015, concerning offences under Sections 420, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner sought to be discharged and, concu

20. Gundagallan Narender @ Kiran vs State of Telangana on 28 March, 2023

    High Court of High Court for State of Telangana28 Mar 2023

    Case Name: Gundagallan Narender @ Kiran vs State of Telangana on 28 March, 2023 Court: High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 28 March, 2023 Bench: Sri Justice M. Laxman and Smt Justice G. Anupama Chakravarthy Subject: Criminal Appeal – Rape, Outrage of Modesty, Amendment of Penal Code Key Legal Propositions 1. Retrospective application of amended Section 375(b) IPC is not permissible; the original charge must prevail. 2. Acts constituting penetration with a finger fall within the definition of ‘rape’ under Section 375 IPC, specifically Section 375(b) as amended. 3. The Probation of Offenders Act can be invoked considering the accused’s age, the influence of media, and the duration of imprisonment already served. Judgment Summary Background: The appeal arose from a judgment dated 26.06.2020, convicting the appellant/accused under Sections 376 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for offences committed in 2012. The trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine for the offence under Section 376 IPC, and five years imprisonment and a fine for the offence under Section 354 IPC. The appellant challenged the conviction and sentence. The c