The State Of Telangana vs Md.Imran Qureshi And 4 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 3146 Tel

       HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

           CRIMINAL APPEAL No.105 of 2020
JUDGMENT:

1. This Criminal Appeal is filed by the State for the

reason of not finding the respondents 1 to 4/A1,A3,A5 and

A6 guilty for the offences under Section 341 and 342 of IPC

though the trial Court convicted the respondents for the

offence under Section 395 of IPC and sentenced to undergo

simple imprisonment for a period of three years each and

also to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to pay fine

amount, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one

month each. The respondents were convicted by the

Assistant Sessions Judge, Bodhan in SC No.88 of 2019 vide

judgment dated 05.11.2019.

2. The appeal against said conviction under Section 395

of IPC by the respondents would lie to the District and

Sessions Court, however, the prosecution has filed the

present appeal before this court and the learned Public

Prosecutor failed to provide the details of the appeals filed

by the respondents herein.

3. Learned Assistant Sessions Judge found that

ingredients of Sections 341 and 342 of IPC are included in

the offences under Section 395 of IPC, for which reason,

there was no necessity to convict the appellants under

Sections 341 and 342 of IPC. For the sake of convenience,

they are extracted hereunder:

"341. Punishment for wrongful restraint.--Whoever wrongfully restrains any person shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.

342. Punishment for wrongful confinement.--Whoever wrongfully confines any person shall be punished with 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."

4. The acts of wrongful restraint and wrongful

confinement are punishable under Sections 341 and 342 of

IPC respectively. However, it is apparent from the evidence

on record that the learned Assistant Sessions Judge has

taken into consideration the acts of the accused involving

wrongful confinement and restraint while the accused

committed the offence of robbery. The finding of the learned

Assistant Sessions Judge cannot be found fault with.

Further, if the State is aggrieved by such acquittal, the same

has to be made before the Sessions Court, where the

respondents filed appeals questioning their conviction. On

both the grounds, the appeal filed by the State fails.

5. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. As a

sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, shall

stand closed.

__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 29.6.2022 kvs

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

Criminal Appeal No.105 of 2020

Date:29.06.2022

kvs