Mohd. Jaffar vs The State Of A.P.
2022 Latest Caselaw 6241 Tel

             HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

          CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1378 OF 2008
JUDGMENT:

1. This Criminal Revision Case is filed questioning the

correctness of the judgment of the Metropolitan Sessions

Judge, Hyderabad in Crl.A.No.112 of 2008 dated 21.08.2008,

wherein the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal by

confirming the judgment of the learned VIII Additional Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate in CC No.1415 of 2007, dated

08.04.2008, whereby, the petitioner/accused No.2 and other

accused were convicted and sentenced to undergo two years

rigorous imprisonment each for the offence under Section 394

of IPC.

2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that on 10.08.2007,

complaint was lodged by P.W.1 stating that on 09.08.2007,

PW.1 received an amount of Rs.1,60,000/- from P.W.5 in his

house and while he along with PW2 were walking in front of

Muslim Minority Hospital, Osmanpura to go to bus station,

this petitioner and two others tried to snatch the cash bag

from P.W.1. P.W.1 ran towards the house of P.W.5 and on

seeing the other locality persons, the accused left. 15 minutes

thereafter, when P.Ws.1 and 2 were again going by walk, A1

beat PW.1 on his head with stone and A2/petitioner closed the

mouth of P.W.2 with cloth and A3 was keeping watch of the

public and A1 snatched the cash bag from P.W.1. Thereafter,

the amount was distributed among themselves. On the basis

of the complaint, police filed charge sheet for the offence under

Section 394 of IPC.

3. Learned Magistrate, having examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and

marking Exs.P1 to P9, found this petitioner and two others

guilty of the offence under Section 394 of IPC and sentenced to

undergo two years rigorous imprisonment.

4. Both the courts below based their findings on the

evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 5 to conclude that this petitioner

and two others have in fact committed the said offence and

amount was also seized from A1 and A3. No seizures were

effected from this petitioner.

5. The concurrent findings of the courts below are based on

record and needs no interference. Since no amount was

recovered from this petitioner and according to the

investigation, the amount was with A1 and A3, and also for

the reason of this petitioner not being involved in any other

criminal offence, and that too, the offence is of the year 2007

and 16 years have lapsed, this Court deems it appropriate to

reduce the sentence of imprisonment to the period of six

months.

6. The trial Court is directed to cause the appearance of the

petitioner/accused and sent him to prison to serve out the

remaining part of sentence.

7. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed off.

8. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any,

pending, shall stands closed.

__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 29.11.2022 kvs

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1378 OF 2008

Date: 29.11.2022.

kvs