Telangana High Court
Kyna Siddulu And 3 Others, vs The State Of A.P., Rep By Pp., on 14 July, 2022
Bench: K.Surender
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1697 of 2009
JUDGMENT:
1. The appellants/A1 to A4 were convicted for the offence
under Section 355 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay Rs.500/-, in
default, simple imprisonment for a period of one month and
appellants/A1 to A3 are further convicted and sentenced to
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months vide
judgment in S.C.No.378 of 2006 dated 09.11.2009 passed by
the V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court,
R.R.District, L.B.Nagar (for short 'the learned Sessions Judge').
Aggrieved by the same, present appeal is filed.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 22.12.2005 at
about 5.30 p.m, the appellants herein wrongfully confined
P.W.1 and tied her to electric pole, cut her tuft and also
tonsured her head, as such, charges under Sections 342, 324,
354 and 504 of IPC were framed by the trial Court. However,
the trial Court, after adducing evidence and having examined
P.Ws.1 to 8 and marking Exs.P1 to P11 convicted the
appellants as stated above.
3. The accused were found not guilty for the offence under
Sections 324 and 504 IPC.
4. P.W.1 stated that she is a coolie by profession and about
two years prior to her evidence in the Court, while she was
proceeding in front of A1, A1 caught hold of her and took her
inside the house and made her to take bath with cold water
and tied to an electric pole and tonsured. P.W.2, who is the
daughter of P.W.1, P.W.3, who is sister in law of P.W.1 also
stated the said fact of tying P.W.1 to the electric pole and
tonsuring her hair. P.Ws.4, 5 and 6, who are village elders
turned hostile to the prosecution case.
5. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that
P.Ws.1 to 3 are close relatives and interested witnesses.
Independent witnesses and village elders have not supported
the prosecution, as such, basing on the evidence of interested
witnesses, conviction cannot be sustained. Alternatively, he
submits that since the incident happened 17 years ago and
the trial Court has acquitted the accused for the offence under
Sections 324 and 504 of IPC, as such, lenient view may be
taken.
6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that though
the incident is of the year 2005, acts of these accused indicate
that they were practicing black magic, they were correctly
convicted by the trial Court.
7. As seen from the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 8, the allegation is
that P.W.1 was tied to electric pole, however, there is no
reason as to why she was tonsured.
8. By the time the police had reached the scene, certain hair
was available at the scene and the rope with which P.W.1 was
allegedly tied. P.W.7, the Doctor stated that she found small
abrasions over the head and neck of P.W.1,which could, in all
probability, the result of tonsuring the hair.
9. In the said circumstances, it cannot be said that P.W.1
was not tied to the police. The incident being occurred 17
years ago, since no reasons are given as to why the accused
acted in such a manner, in the absence of any allegation
under Section 354 of IPC, this Court deems it proper to reduce
the sentence already undergone.
10. In the result, the sentence of imprisonment under
Sections 355, 325 and 342 of IPC imposed by the learned
Sessions Judge are confirmed. However, the sentence of
imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone.
11. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. As a
sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any pending,
shall stand closed.
________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 14.07.2022
kvs
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
Criminal Appeal No.1697 OF 2009
Date:14.07.2022
kvs
