Telangana High Court
Munaganti Prakash, Khammam District vs The State Of A.P., Rep. By Pp., High Court ... on 26 March, 2024
1
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1367 OF 2012
O R D E R:
The present Criminal Revision Case is filed against the judgment dated 30.07.2012 in Criminal Appeal No.95 of 2010 on the file of the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional Sessions Judge, at Khammam (for short, "the appellate Court") in modifying the judgment dated 31.05.2010 in C.C.No.2217 of 2008 on the file of the learned III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, at Kothagudem (for short, "the trial Court").
2. Heard Mr. G. Madhusudhan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Vizarath Ali, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 State. Perused the record.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the on 24.11.2007 at about 12 noon, respondent No.2/complainant started from his village Reddigudem of Palvancha Mandal on his Boxer Motorcycle bearing No.AP-20/J-5337 to go to the house of his in-laws at Kambalapally. When PW1 crossed Yellandu cross roads, near Railway bridge, he stopped the motorcycle by the side of the road to attend natural call. In the meanwhile, two strangers 2 approached him, dragged him into the nearby forest posing themselves as Police on the plea that they have to check him, threatened him with knife and robbed gold ornaments viz., one chandraharam weighing 2 tulas, one small chandraharam weighing 1 tula, necklace weighing about 2 tulas, one finger ring and one Nokia Cell Phone worth Rs.40,000/-, caused injury on his left hand and disappeared in the forest. Basing on the report lodged by the complainant, Police, III Town Police Station, Kothagudem registered a case in Crime No.219 of 2007 under Section 394 of I.P.C.
4. The trial Court found accused Nos.1 and 2 guilty for the offence under Sections 394 r/w 109 of I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. However, trial Court, found accused Nos.3 and 4 not guilty for the offence under Sections 394 r/w 109 of I.P.C. and acquitted them. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal.
5. The appellate Court vide judgment cited supra modified the sentenced imposed against the petitioner and directed him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to 3 pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. Assailing the same, the present Revision.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court failed to appreciate the evidence available on record in proper perspective and concurrently found the petitioner guilty for the offence under Sections 394 r/w 109 of I.P.C. Therefore, he seeks to set aside the impugned judgment.
7. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that the both the Courts upon careful scrutiny of the evidence available on record rightly passed their respective judgments and the interference of this Court is unwarranted. Therefore, he seeks to dismiss the Revision.
8. On behalf of the prosecution, the trial Court examined PWs.1 to 7 and marked Exs.P1 to P13, MOs.1 to 5. On behalf of the defence, none were examined and no document was marked. Upon careful scrutiny of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court observed that PW1, in his evidence, deposed that accused No.1 threatened him with knife, whereas accused No.2 held him firmly on the day of incident and took MOs.1 to 5 from him. PW1, in the test identification parade also identified accused 4 Nos.1 and 2 as that of the culprits who alleged to have committed robbery. The version of PWs.4 to 7 and contents of Ex P1 corroborated with the version of PW1 on all aspects. Through the evidence of PWs.1 and 4 to 7, the prosecution established the guilt of accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence under Section 394 of I.P.C. No incriminating evidence is elicited against accused No.3 from whom MO5 was said to have been recovered. So also against accused No.4, who alleged to have purchased MOs.1 to 4. PWs.2 and 3 who are cited as panch witnesses for seizure turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. Therefore, the trial Court rendered the judgment cited supra. The appellate Court upon re- appreciating the evidence available on record, also found accused No.2 guilty for the offence under Section 394 of I.P.C., but modified the sentence imposed against him by the trial Court.
9. A perusal of the record shows that this Court vide order dated 13.08.2012 suspended the sentence alone imposed against the petitioner/accused No.2 for the offence under Section 394 I.P.C. pending Revision and released him on bail on furnishing a personal bond by him for Rs.5,000/- with two sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the II Judicial First Class 5 Magistrate, Kothagudem, Khammam District. Thereafter, the matter underwent several adjournments.
10. In the case on hand, both the Courts have concurrently held that the petitioner was guilty of the offence punishable under Section 394 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., in view of the evidence available on record.
11. Having regard to the submissions made by both the learned counsel, 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 twelve long years have elapsed from the date of filing this Revision, this Court in inclined to take a lenient view and reduce the sentence imposed against the petitioner to the period of imprisonment already undergone by them.
12. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. However, the petitioner is directed to deposit an amount of Rs.50,000/- to the credit of the trial Court within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 6
13. Upon such deposit, respondent No.2 is directed to withdraw the said amount, on filing appropriate application before the trial Court.
14. If the petitioner fails to comply the aforesaid order, the petitioner is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.
Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ E.V. VENUGOPAL, J Date: 26.03.2024 ESP 7 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL 244 CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1367 OF 2012 Dated: 26.03.2024 ESP