Telangana High Court
G.Bhanu Prasad, Secunderabad., vs State Of Ap., Rep. Pp. Hyd., on 4 April, 2024
1
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.444 OF 2014
O R D E R:
The present Criminal Revision Case is filed against the judgment dated 27.01.2014 in Criminal Appeal No.430 of 2013 on the file of the learned Special Judge for Economic Offences- cum-VIII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, at Hyderabad (for short, "the appellate Court") in modifying the judgment dated 10.04.2013 in C.C.No.369 of 2007 on the file of the learned XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad (for short, "the trial Court").
2. No representation on behalf of the petitioner. Heard Mr. Vizarath Ali, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent State. Perused the record.
3. There was no representation on behalf of the petitioner on several occasions. Even today, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner inspite of listing the matter under the caption, "for dismissal". Therefore, this Court is inclined to proceed with the matter on merits of the case as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bani Singh and others Vs. State of 2 Uttar Pradesh 1, wherein it was categorically held that the High Court cannot dismiss any appeal for non-prosecution simpliciter without examining the merits.
4. The brief facts of the case are that on 15.12.2006, one A.Renuka (PW1) lodged a complaint stating that her daughter's marriage was performed on 14.12.2006, at Agarsen Bhavan Marriage Function hall, 149, Brig. Sayeed Road, Secunderabad and during the night hours, her bag containing cash of Rs.35,000/-, gold necklace set with ear studs weighing 20 gms, gold black beads set weighing 190 gms, gold ear rings weighing 4 gms, two gold chains weighing 4 gms, two gold chains weighing 25 gms, one gold ear ring set weighing 3 gms and one gold single bangle weighing 12 gms was stolen by an unknown offender. Basing on the said facts, the present crime is registered against an unknown offender for the offence under Section 380 of I.P.C.
5. PW3 had recorded the previous statement of PW1 and sent the information to all the police stations. While so, on 09.04.2007, at about 5:30 P.M., on receipt of credible information Ch. Kushalkar, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Begumpet (PW2) proceeded to Pot Market, Secunderabad near Gowtham 1 (1996) 4 Supreme Court Cases 720 3 Jewellers and noticed the accused moving in suspicious circumstances. PW2 had taken him into custody, secured the presence of two panch witnesses and recorded the confession of the accused and recovered cash of Rs.35,000/- and MOs.1 to 6.
6. The trial Court vide judgment dated 10.04.2013 in C.C.No.369 of 2007, sentenced the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was directed to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal.
7. The appellate Court vide impugned judgment partly allowed the appeal by setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed against the petitioner for the offence under Section 380 of I.P.C. and acquitted him for the said offence. However, the appellate Court convicted the accused for the offence under Section 411 of I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Assailing, the same, the present Revision.
8. As per the grounds raised in the Revision, the petitioner contended that the appellate Court without appreciating the 4 evidence available on record convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 411 of I.P.C. which is untenable. Therefore, the petitioner seeks to set aside the impugned judgment.
9. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that the appellate Court upon careful scrutiny of the material available on record, rightly passed the impugned judgment and the interference of this Court is unwarranted. Therefore, he seeks to dismiss the Revision.
10. On behalf of the prosecution, the trial Court examined PWs.1 to 4 and marked Exs.P1 to P4, MOs.1 to 6. On behalf of the defence, DWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.D1 to D12 were marked. Upon careful consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court observed that the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 clinchingly establishes that MOs.1 to 6 i.e., the stolen properties were recovered from the possession of the petitioner by PW2 in the presence of PW4 under the cover of Ex P2. The petitioner failed to provide any explanation as to how he came into the possession of the material objects. He failed to file any documentary proof to show that the said objects belonged to him. In the absence of any explanation, it has to be presumed that he is a thief as per Section 114(a) of the Indian Evidence Act. 5 Therefore, the trial Court held the petitioner guilty for the offence under Section 380 of I.P.C. and rendered the judgment dated 10.04.2013 in C.C.No.369 of 2007.
11. The appellate Court, upon re-appreciating the material available on record observed that the theft of the articles was occurred on 14.12.2006 and the articles were seized from the petitioner on 09.04.2007. There was a gap of nearly six months from the date of incident to the date of recovery. Though there is no explanation from the petitioner regarding the possession of the articles, but the appellate Court, upon considering the time gap between the date of offence and the date of recovery of articles, convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 411 of I.P.C. and rendered the impugned judgment.
12. A perusal of the record shows that this Court vide order dated 06.03.2014 suspended the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the petitioner, by the appellate Court pending the Revision by directing him to execute a bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of a like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court, subject to payment of fine if not paid already.
13. In the present case, the appellate Court held that the petitioner was found guilty of the offence punishable under 6 Section 411 of I.P.C., which finding, in my considered view, does not call for interference, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C.
14. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and upon considering the fact that the petitioner suffered mental agony and hardship during the course of litigation before the trial Court as well as the appellate Court and as eleven long years have already elapsed from the date of filing this Revision, this Court is inclined to take a lenient view in so far as the petitioner is concerned and reduce the sentence imposed against him to the period of imprisonment already undergone.
15. The petitioner is directed to deposit a fine of Rs.10,000/- to the credit of the trial Court within a period of three months from today.
16. If the petitioner fails to comply with the aforesaid direction, he shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two months.
17. Except the above modification, the Criminal Revision Case in all other aspects, stands dismissed.
7
Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ E.V. VENUGOPAL, J Date: 04.04.2024 ESP