Telangana High Court
M. Rahul vs The State Of Telangana on 25 August, 2022
Bench: Chillakur Sumalatha
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO. 535 OF 2022
ORDER:
Heard the submission of learned counsel for the
petitioner as well as the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.
2. Challenge in this Criminal Revision Case is the
judgment that is rendered by the Court of Special Judge for
Trial of Offences under SCs & STs (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act-cum-VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge,
Secunderabad, in Criminal Appeal No.103 of 2020, dated
08.07.2022.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is arrayed as accused in S.T.C.No.8030 of 2019
that stood pending on the file of the Court of XV Special
Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad. The petitioner was
charged for the offence punishable under Section 323 I.P.C.
The petitioner, under an impression that he would be
sentenced to pay fine, voluntarily admitted the guilt, however,
the Court below sentenced the petitioner on his plea of guilty
to undergo Simple Imprisonment for five days and to pay a
Dr.CSL, J
Crl.R.C.No. 535 of 2022
fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section
323 I.P.C. and further he was sentenced to pay a fine of
Rs.50/- for the offence punishable under Section 70-B of the
City Police Act.
4. Learned counsel further submits that challenging the
quantum of sentence imposed against him, the petitioner
preferred appeal, but the appeal was also dismissed and,
therefore, the petitioner is before this Court. Learned counsel
states that the sentence imposed has to be reduced.
5. The submission of the learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor is that basing on the facts and circumstances of
the case, the trial Court sentenced the petitioner and the
same is confirmed by the appellate Court.
6. The crux of the prosecution case is, that on 29.12.2019,
while the de facto complainant was proceeding in a vehicle,
the petitioner stopped the said vehicle, abused the de facto
complainant and hit him on his face, due to which the
de facto complainant received injury. As per the Wound
Certificate issued by Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad, the
de facto complainant sustained an abrasion on the face.
Dr.CSL, J
Crl.R.C.No. 535 of 2022
7. Section 323 I.P.C., prescribed punishment for
voluntarily causing hurt. The punishment prescribed is
imprisonment of either description for a term, which may
extend to one year, or with fine, which may extend to one
thousand rupees, or with both.
8. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is
that the petitioner was under an impression that he would be
sentenced to pay fine, but he was sentenced to undergo
Simple Imprisonment for a period of five days, which is most
unjustifiable.
9. Law does not make any distinguishment in passing of
sentence in cases where the guilt of the accused is proved by
the prosecution after trial or where the accused pleads guilty.
However, due to advancement of time, the concept of plea
bargaining is introduced and the said concept has gained a
place in the Code of Criminal Procedure.
10. Having regard to the allegations laid and the nature of
the case, this Court is of the view that the sentence can be
reduced restricting the same to payment of fine of Rs.1,000/-
Dr.CSL, J
Crl.R.C.No. 535 of 2022
for the offence punishable under Section 323 I.P.C., and
without disturbing fine imposed for the offence punishable
under Section 70-B of the City Police Act.
11. Resultantly, the Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in
part. The sentence that was imposed upon the petitioner
through the judgment rendered by the Court of XV Special
Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, in S.T.C.No. 8030 of
2019, dated 31.12.2019, which was confirmed by the Court of
Special Judge for Trial of Offences under SCs & STs
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act-cum-VI Additional Metropolitan
Sessions Judge, Secunderabad, in Criminal Appeal No.103 of
2020, dated 08.07.2022, is modified. The petitioner is
sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable
under Section 323 I.P.C., and in default of payment of fine to
undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of five days. The
sentence imposed for the offence punishable under Section
70-B of the City Police Act, i.e. payment of fine of Rs.50/-
remains disturbed.
12. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner has wasted
the time of the trial Court, appellate Court and this Court,
Dr.CSL, J
Crl.R.C.No. 535 of 2022
having pleaded guilty for the offence punishable under
Section 323 I.P.C., and thereafter challenging the sentence
imposed, the petitioner is directed to pay costs of Rs.10,000/-
(Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the High Court Bar
Association, within a period of three days. On such payment,
this order of modification of sentence would come into effect.
13. As a sequel, pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any,
shall stand closed.
__________________________________________
DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
Date: 25.08.2022
svl
