Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Korukonda Satish, Rajahmundry, ... vs State Of Ap., Rep. By Pp., High Court, ... on 29 August, 2024
APHC010202152012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3367]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF AUGUST
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 395/2012
Between:
Korukonda Satish, Rajahmundry, E.g.district ...PETITIONER
AND
State Of Ap Rep By Pp High Court Hyderabad ...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Petitioner:
K SARVA BHOUMA RAO
Counsel for the Respondent:
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Assailing the judgment dated 30.12.2011 in Crl.A.No.314
of 2010 on the file of the Court of learned V Additional Sessions
Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry, confirming the
conviction and sentence passed against the accused by the
judgment dated 27.9.2010 in C.C.No.183 of 2010 on the file of
the Court of learned III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First
Class at Rajahmundry, for the offences under section 411 of
Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "IPC"), the
petitioner/accused No.1 filed the present criminal revision case
under Section 397 r/w.401 of the Criminal Procedure Code,
1973.
2. The revision case was admitted on 07.03.2012 and the
sentence of imprisonment imposed against the petitioner was
suspended, vide orders in Crl.R.C.M.P.No.626 of 2012.
3. The shorn of necessary facts are that:
i). On 29.03.2009 at about 06.00 a.m., while P.W.1 alone
in the house at Veerabhadrapuram, Rajahmundry, two
unknown persons entered into her house by tying
clothes to their faces, caught hold her, beat on her head
with an iron rod, thereby, caused bleeding injury,
snatched away her gold chain weighing about three
sovereigns worth of Rs.15,000/- and decamped with
booty.
ii). Basing on Ex.P.6 hospital intimation, P.W.5 recorded
the Ex.P.1 statement of P.W.1 and registered a case in
Cr.No.39 of 2009 of C.C.S. circle, Rajahmundry and
P.W.7-Inspector of Police investigated into. Then, P.W.7
arrested accused Nos.1 to 3, recovered the property and
conducted property identification parade.
4. After completion of investigation, P.W.7 laid charge sheet
and the same was numbered as C.C.No.183 of 2010 on the file
of the Court of learned III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First
Class at Rajahmundry, trial was conducted, found the accused
Nos.1 to 3 guilty of the offence under Section 411 of IPC,
sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment of three (3)
years each and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default to suffer
simple imprisonment of six (6) months each. Further, accused
No.2 also found guilty of the offence under Section 394 of IPC.
5. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/accused No.1
preferred an appeal, vide Crl.A.No.314 of 2010, before the Court
of learned V Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari at
Rajahmundry and the same was dismissed, vide judgment
dated 30.12.2011, by confirming the conviction and sentence
passed by the trial Court against the petitioner.
6. Against the said judgment of the first Appellate Court, the
present criminal revision case was preferred by the
petitioner/accused No.1.
7. Heard Sri K.Sarva Bhouma Rao, learned counsel for the
petitioner/accused No.1 and Sri S.Dheera Kanishk, learned
Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.
8. Now the point that arises for determination in this
revision is "whether there is any manifest error of law or flagrant
miscarriage of justice in the findings recorded by the Trial Court
as well first Appellate Court?"
9. Sri K.Sarva Bhouma Rao, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the accused No.1 was not identified by
P.W.1; that basing on the alleged confession only, the petitioner
was implicated, which is hit by Section 24 of Indian Evidence
Act; that no property said to have been recovered from the
petitioner; that the Trial Court as well Sessions Court failed to
appreciate the material on record in a proper perspective,
erroneously convicted the petitioner and the same is liable to be
set aside.
10. Against the same, Sri S.Dheera Kanishk, learned Special
Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State submits
that the testimony of P.W.1, who is victim/injured coupled with
P.W.3 mediator categorically proved the offence against the
petitioner; that basing on the confession of petitioner only,
M.O.1 property was recovered from his possession in the
presence of mediator/P.W.3; that the Courts below rightly
appreciated the evidence of on record and convicted the
petitioner for the said offence; that there are no ground urged by
the petitioner to interfere with the judgment of the Courts below
and thereby, prays to dismiss the revision.
11. In view of the above rival contentions, this Court perused
the material available on record. As per the testimony of P.W.1,
who is victim/injured, accused No.2 and another person
entered into her house, accused No.2 beating her with iron rod
on her head, caused injury and snatched her gold chain from
her neck. She identified her property under M.O.1. To fortify her
testimony, prosecution got examined P.W.4-medical officer, who
treated P.W.1 and issued Ex.P.5 would certificate.
12. It is also the testimony of P.W.3 mediator that on
11.10.2009, accused Nos.1 to 3 and other two persons were
detained by police, while they were trying to escape, they
admitted the commission of offence, police seized one gold ring
from accused No.3 as well seized gold chain from accused No.1
on his confession under the cover of Ex.P.3 mediators report.
The testimony of P.W.3 is supported by P.W.6, who is learned
Magistrate in whose presence the test identification of property
was conducted under Ex.P.8 proceedings as well P.W.7
investigating officer. Nothing was elicited during cross
examination to disbelieve the testimony of prosecution
witnesses, which is fully corroborated and consistent. It is
categorical that basing on the confession of accused only,
M.Os.1 and 2 were seized from their possession in the presence
of mediator. Thereby, the recovery of property from the
possession of accused can be taken into consideration. The
above all facts and circumstances clearly show that the offence
against the petitioner/accused No.2 was categorically
established by the prosecution beyond all doubt.
13. The trial Court as well Sessions Court categorically held
that the testimony of prosecution witnesses clearly goes to show
that the petitioner/accused No.1 found guilty of the offence
under Section 411 of IPC.
14. It is settled law that in view of the concurrent findings on
facts by the Trial Court as well Sessions Court, this Court being
Revisional Court is not expected to set aside the same without
any material of perversity or manifest error in the findings
arrived by both the Courts below. There is no material before
this Court to discard the trustworthiness of prosecution
witnesses.
15. All these facts go to show that both the Courts below
rightly came to conclusion that the accused found in possession
of stolen property by knowing very well that the same is a stolen
property and that there is no apparent failure in appreciating
the evidence on record on the part of the Trial Court as well
Sessions Court, or to arrive at a conclusion that prosecution
proved the guilt of the accused for the said offence. In these
circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that
there is no perversity or flaw in the findings recorded by both
the Courts below in convicting the accused No.1 for the said
offence.
16. However, while arguing the matter, learned counsel for
the petitioner/accused No.1 submits that the incident was
occurred on 23.03.2009, the petitioner was already undergone
imprisonment of one year one month four days and there are
mitigating circumstances to reduce the sentence imposed
against the petitioner by the trial Court, which was confirmed
by the Sessions Court to that of already undergone by him. He
also brought to the notice of this Court a judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nand Ballabh Pant v. State (Union
Territory of Delhi)1, wherein the APEX Court considered the
facts and reduced the period of sentence of imprisonment
imposed on the appellate from two (2) months to one (1) month
rigorous imprisonment.
1AIR 1977 SC 892
17. He also brought to the notice of this Court another
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagdish Chander v.
State of Delhi2, wherein also the APEX Court considered the
relevant circumstances and reduced the sentence of
imprisonment to that of already undergone but increased the
sentence of fine from Rs.500/- to Rs.700/-.
18. In this connection, it is relevant to make a mention a
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh v.
State of Haryana3, wherein it was held at paragraph No.2 that
"they are not inclined to interfere on the merits of the case and
at the same time, they cannot lose sight of fact that the
occurrence took place more than a quarter of century back and
to send the accused in prison after 25 years, would be travesty
of justice."
19. No doubt, in the present case also the incident was said
to be happened on 29.03.2009 and by this time fifteen (15)
years have already lapsed and the petitioner was already
undergone sentence of one year one month four days.
20. Having regard to the above discussion and in view of the
above pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this
Court is of the considered opinion that the conviction is upheld,
2AIR 1973 SC 2127
32019 (3) Crimes 89
however, to meet the ends of justice, the sentence of
imprisonment is reduced to that of already undergone by the
petitioner/accused No.2 for the offence under Section 411 of
IPC.
21. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed in
part, modifying the sentence of imprisonment imposed against
the petitioner/accused No.1 to that of that of already undergone
by him instead of three (3) years rigorous imprisonment for the
offence under Section 411 of IPC. The rest of the judgment
dated 27.09.2010 in C.C.No.183 of 2010 on the file of the Court
of learned III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at
Rajahmundry, shall stands confirmed.
Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any,
shall stand closed.
_______________________
JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS
Date: 29.08.2024
Krs
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.395 of 2012
DATE: 29.08.2024
Krs
