Gudala Rambabu Sriram Abbas Sai ... vs The State Of A.P., Rep By Pp.,
2022 Latest Caselaw 9699 AP

          HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.RAVINDRA BABU

         CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1134 OF 2008

ORDER:

This Criminal Revision Case came to be filed, under Sections

397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1972 (for short,

'the Cr.P.C.), by the petitioner herein, who was the unsuccessful

appellant in Criminal Appeal No.115 of 2005, on the file of the

Court of IV Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari District,

Kakinada (for short, 'the learned Additional Sessions Judge'),

challenging the judgment, dated 26.06.2008, whereunder the

learned Additional Sessions Judge, dismissed the Criminal Appeal

confirming the conviction and sentence imposed against the

petitioner in C.C. No.523 of 2003, dated 09.06.2005, by the

learned IV Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada

(for short, 'the trial Court').

2. The parties to this Criminal Revision Case will hereinafter be

referred to as arrayed before the trial Court, for the sake of

convenience.

3. The Sub-Inspector of Police, II Town Police Station,

Kakinada, filed charge sheet in Crime Nos.40x16/2003,

29x46/2003 and 105/51/2003 alleging in substance that on

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1134/2008

11.02.2003 at 11:00 AM unknown offenders committed theft of

Hero Honda Passion Motorcycle bearing No.AP5 AD 4467 of

Gunnam Dorayya (PW.1). The Police registered the FIR in Crime

No.40x16/2003 for the offence under Section 379 IPC and

investigated into. On 19.04.2003 at Dantuvari Veedhi at the house

of Nagadevara Nagababu (PW.2), unknown offenders committed

theft of Hero Honda Passion motorcycle bearing No.AP 5G 9385

and basing on the report, FIR in Crime No.92x46/2003 for the

offence under Section 379 IPC was registered and investigated

into. On 06.05.2003 between 04:00 to 05:00 PM, unknown

offenders committed theft of Hero Honda Passion motorcycle

bearing No.AP5AA 7349 of K.V. Ramesh (PW.3) and basing on the

report, FIR in Crime No.105x51/2003 for the offence under

Section 379 IPC was registered and investigated into.

4. On 14.07.2003, during investigation in the presence of the

mediators, the Police arrested the accused and recovered stolen

property i.e., Hero Honda Splendor motorcycle No.AP5P 511

relating to Crime No.108 of 2003 of Pithapuram Police Station. On

interrogation, the accused confessed about the subject matter of

three crimes and in pursuance of the confession made by the

accused, Police recovered the three motorcycles at his house

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1134/2008

under the cover of mahazar. So, the Police arrested the accused

and sent him for remand and the de-facto complainants in the

three crimes identified the stolen property. Hence, the charge

sheet.

5. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the case under

Sections 379 and 411 IPC and after appearance of the accused,

copies of the case documents were furnished and after framing

necessary charges, trial was conducted.

6. During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution,

PWs.1 to 6 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-8 and MOs.1 to 3 were

marked.

7. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused

denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against him

during the course of 313 Cr.P.C examination and reported no

defence.

8. The learned Magistrate, on hearing both sides and on

considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, found

the accused guilty of the charge under Section 411 IPC and

sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for six months

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1134/2008

and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer Simple

Imprisonment for two months.

9. Challenging the same, accused preferred an Appeal before

the Appellate Court, which came to be dismissed on merits.

10. Challenging the judgment of the learned IV Additional

Sessions Judge, the unsuccessful appellant filed the present

Criminal Revision Case.

11. Now the point that arises for consideration is as to whether

the judgment in Criminal Appeal No.115 of 2005, dated

26.06.2008, suffers with any illegality, irregularity and impropriety

and whether there are any grounds to interfere with such an

order?

12. Sri Ch. Vijay Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for the

petitioner, would contend that the Court below basing on the

evidence of PWs.4 to 6 recorded conviction. PWs.1 to 3 did not

depose anything against the accused. The evidence of PWs.4 to 6

is not at all convincing. The seizure is stage managed as such

Criminal Revision Case is liable to be allowed.

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1134/2008

13. Sri Y. Jagadeeswara Rao, learned counsel, representing

learned Public prosecutor, sought to support the judgment of the

trial Court by contending that both the Courts below rightly

convicted the accused and as such the judgment of the appellate

Court does not need any interference.

14. As seen from the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 they are the de-facto

complainants with regard to the respective FIRs and they have

spoken to the fact that some unknown offenders committed theft

of their respective motorcycles. According to them, during

investigation, they identified their motorcycles which are MOs.1 to

3. PWs.1 to 3 testified the fact that they reported the matter to the

Police. So, there is no dispute with regard to the commission of the

theft of motorcycles of PWs.1 to 3 by unknown offenders. Accused

got reported nil cross-examination. So, he did not challenge the

testimony of PWs.1 to 3.

15. Coming to the evidence of PW.4, he is the mahazar witness

and his evidence is that on 14.07.2003 he along with the Police

reached bypass road at Pithapuram at 03:00 or 3:30 PM. At that

time, Circle Inspector and Sub-Inspector of Police were conducting

search of motorcycles. They arrested the accused, on suspicion,

and seized Hero Honda motorcycle which is relating to one Crime.

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1134/2008

Accused further confessed that he committed theft of three other

motorcycles and kept them at his house. A mahazar was drafted to

that effect, which is Ex.P-4. In pursuance of the confession,

accused led the Police party to one thatched house and shown

three motorcycles. Police seized the same. Ex.P-5 is the copy of

mediators report.

16. PW.5 is the Sub-Inspector of Police, who registered the FIRs

basing on the reports of PWs.1 to 3.

17. PW.6 is the then Inspector of Police, who has spoken to the

effect that he arrested the accused and identified the property

from his possession as that of Crime No.108 of 2003 of

Pithapuram Police Station and he further confessed about the

commission of offence of motorcycles relating to this case and in

pursuance of the confession the accused led the Police party to a

thatched house and shown the motorcycles.

18. As seen from the cross-examination part of PW.4, there

remains nothing to disbelieve his testimony. He denied that

nothing is happened and he is deposing false. Absolutely, PW.4,

who is a responsible Panchayat Secretary and who is bound to

assist the Police in a case of this nature, has no reason to depose

false. Similarly, the evidence of PW.6 is not at all shaked.

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1134/2008

Virtually, this Court has no reason to disbelieve the evidence of

PWs.4 to 6. There are no discrepancies or contradictions. Both the

Courts below i.e., IV Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Kakinada and the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Kakinada have

rightly appreciated the evidence on record. Apart from this, the

Courts below took a lenient view against the accused and imposed

Rigorous Imprisonment for six months. Having regard to the over

all facts and circumstances, I see no reason to interfere with the

order as such the Criminal Revision Case is liable to be dismissed.

19. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.

20. The Registry is directed to take steps immediately under

Section 388 Cr.P.C. to certify the order of this Court along with the

lower Court record, if any, to the Court below on or before

19.12.2022 and on such certification, the trial Court shall take

necessary steps to carry out the sentence imposed against the

petitioner in C.C. No.523 of 2003, dated 09.06.2005, and report

compliance to this Court. A copy of this order be placed before the

Registrar (Judicial), forthwith, for giving necessary instructions to

the concerned Officers in the Registry.

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1134/2008

Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any,

shall stand closed.

________________________________ JUSTICE A.V.RAVINDRA BABU Date: 16.12.2022 DSH