Telangana High Court
Ganapatlal Joshi , Ganesh , Ganapath, vs The State Of Ap Rep By Its Pp Hyd., on 19 June, 2024
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1525 OF 2009
ORDER:
1. The revision petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 382 IPC and sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- vide judgment in CC No.1765 of 2005 dated 03.11.2008 passed by the IX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad.
2. Briefly, the case against the revision petitioner/accused is that on 01.03.2004 when P.W.1, who is the victim, was going near Harihara Kala Kshetram, the accused wearing a monkey cap, came on scooter and snatched the magala sutram from the neck of P.W.1. Immediately, P.W.1 caught hold of the collar of the accused, for which reason, he fell on the road. P.W.2 is another eye witness to the incident. When the accused fell down from the scooter, other persons on the road gathered and caught the accused and then informed the police. Police came there and took accused to the police station.
3. Ex.P1 report was given by P.W.1/victim. On the basis of the complaint, police investigated the case and filed charge sheet under Section 382 IPC. Learned Magistrate, having framed the charge, 2 examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and marked Exs.P1 to P8. The gold chain which was pulled from the neck of P.W.1 is marked as MO1.
4. Learned Magistrate, having considered the evidence on record and the eye witnesses account of P.W.1/victim and P.W.2 found that the accused snatched the gold chain from the neck of P.W.1. Accordingly, conviction was recorded.
5. The said conviction was questioned in appeal before the learned Sessions Court. The learned Sessions Judge also found that the evidence of witnesses was convincing and accordingly confirmed the conviction vide judgment in Crl.A.No.344 of 2008 dated 31.08.2009.
6. The grounds raised by the accused are that P.W.1 did not mention about the identity of the accused nor descriptive particulars were given but he was identified for the first time in the Court. Since identification cannot be accepted since the accused was a stranger. Further, the very narration of P.W.1 that when the monkey cap was pulled, accused falling down, is highly improbable.
7. Having gone through the record, P.W.6 is the learned Magistrate, who conducted test identification parade of the accused on 27.03.2004 3 at Central Prison, Chanchalguda. Both P.Ws.1 and 2 identified the accused in the Test Identification proceedings. As seen from the incident, the accused was apprehended at scene and taken to police station. For the said reason also the identification can be believed. The ground that though the accused was arrested on the date of incident, but arrest was shown on the next day, cannot be a ground to interfere with the concurrent findings by the Courts below.
8. It appears that the accused was also involved in other cases of chain snatching. In the said circumstance, no lenient view can be taken regarding the sentence that was imposed by the Courts below. [
9. Accordingly, revision case fails and dismissed. The trial Court shall cause the appearance of the accused and send him to prison to serve out the remaining part of sentence.
__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 19.06.2024 kvs