K. Govindappa, vs The State Of Ap Rep By Its Pp Hyd.,
2022 Latest Caselaw 884 AP

          HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY

                         CRL.R.C.1070 OF 2007
ORDER:-

        Questioning      the    judgment         passed    by     the     learned

Additional Sessions Judge, Hindupur, dated 13-07-2007 in

Crl.A.No.45 of 2005, the petitioner/accused filed the present

Criminal Revision Case.


2.      The case of the prosecution is as follows:-


        On    02-03-2003        at     about     6.00     A.M,    the     defacto

complainant-Pw.1 went to his hayrick and found missing of three

pigs. On 07-03-2003 at about 1.00 P.M the accused was found in

possession of the said three pigs. After seeing the same, Pw.1

gave a report to the police, which was registered as a case in

Cr.No.27 of 2003 under Section 379 IPC on the file of

Madakasira Police Station. After completion of investigation, the

police filed charge sheet.


3.      The case was numbered as CC.No.20 of 2003 on the file of

the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Madakasira. In

support of the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined

Pws.1 to 4 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-5 apart from exhibiting

Mo.1.


4.      After completion of trial, the trial Judge while acquitting

the petitioner under Section 379 IPC, convicted him under

Section      411   IPC    and        sentenced     him    to     suffer   simple

imprisonment for a period of four months and also to pay a fine

of Rs.200/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 10 days.
                                 2




Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner

filed the Criminal Appeal i.e., Crl.A.No.45 of 2005 before the

Court of I Additional Sessions Judge, Hindupur. The learned

appellate Judge, after thoroughly examining the entire evidence

on record, dismissed the appeal by confirming the conviction and

sentence imposed by the trial court. Aggrieved by the said

judgment, the present Criminal Revision Case is filed.


5.    Heard Sri N.Chandra Sekhar Reddy, learned counsel for

the petitioner/accused and Sri Soora Venkata Sainath, learned

Special Assistant Public Prosecutor.


6.    As seen from the entire evidence on record, it is the

specific case of the prosecution that the accused committed theft

of Mo.1 belonging to Pw.1. As the prosecution is not able to

establish the guilt of the petitioner/accused under Section 379

IPC, the trial Magistrate convicted him under Section 411 IPC on

the ground that Mo.1 belonging to Pw.1 were found in

possession of the petitioner.


7.    It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner

that the specific case of the prosecution is that the petitioner

committed theft of Mo.1 and as such the petitioner cannot be

convicted under Section 411 IPC. This court is not inclined to

accept such an argument as admittedly Mo.1 belonging to Pw.1

were found in possession of the petitioner, who is very well

aware that Mo.1 does not belong to him. Finally, the learned

counsel for the petitioner requested this court to take a lenient
                                     3




view with regard to sentence of imprisonment as the offence

took place in the year 2003 i.e. nearly 19 years back.


8.    Taking into consideration of the above aspect, as the

offence   took   place   in   the   year   2003,    the   sentence   of

imprisonment of four(4) months is hereby set aside, instead the

petitioner is directed to pay additional fine of Rs.1000/-.


9.    With the above modification with regard to sentence, the

Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.

      Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed

in consequence.


                                              __________________
                                                   K.SURESH REDDY,J
17-02-2022

.

TSNR