Telangana High Court
E.Sivarami Reddy vs The State Of A.P., Rep By Pp on 3 January, 2023
Bench: K.Surender
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.292 of 2006
JUDGMENT:
1. This revision petition is filed by the petitioner/A2
aggrieved by conviction in S.C.No.87 of 2001, dated
08.04.2003 passed by the I Additional Assistant Sessions
Judge, Ranga Reddy District and confirmed by the III
Additional District & Sessions Judge, vide Criminal Appeal
No.54 of 2003, dated 03.02.2006.
2. The revision petitioner is accused No.2. He along with
another accused/A1 were tried for the offence under Sections
341, 342, 366, 392, 307 IPC and Section 27 of the Indian
Arms Act.
3. The case of the prosecution is that on 14.01.1999 while
P.W.1 was returning from Bhongir to Hyderabad in his white
Maruthi Car, around 5.00 p.m when he reached the outskirts
of Gharkesar village, two persons on a motor cycle intercepted
him and one of them forcibly occupied the driver seat by
pushing P.W.1 aside and drove the car towards Hyderabad.
The other person was following the car on the motor cycle.
After reaching Uppal, the 2nd person left the motor cycle near
Krishna Nursing Home and got into the car. Both the accused
took P.W.1 to Malakpet area and at Gun Point, demanded an
amount of Rs.2.00 lakhs towards party fund claiming
themselves to be red tigers. However, an amount of Rs.7,000/-
cash was given and a cheque for Rs.10,000/-. P.W.1 was
taken to a house in Chaderghat area and confined him for half
an hour and from there he was taken to Medchal Area. The
accused stopped the car for food near a hotel and P.W.1
stepped out of the car and ran towards the hotel shouting for
help. The persons there surrounded the car and the accused
fired in air disbursing the public and went away.
4. Both the accused were apprehended on 31.03.1999 and
an amount of Rs.1900/- and a country made revolver with 4
live cartridges were seized from A1 and A2.
5. Learned Assistant Sessions Judge having examined
P.Ws.1 to 11 and marking Exs.P1 to P20 and defence Exs.D1
to D4 found that this petitioner/A2 and also A1 guilty.
6. Learned Sessions Judge before whom the appeal was
filed also concurred with the findings of the learned Assistant
Sessions Judge and confirmed the conviction.
7. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner,
petitioner/A2 was identified during Test Identification
proceeding and it was admitted by PW.1 that the police had
shown this petitioner/A2 to P.W.1 prior to TI parade, for which
reason no credibility can be attached to TI parade and identity
cannot be said to have been established. P.W.2 is another
witness who was not part of identification parade, however, he
admitted that the police had shown him the accused on the
previous day on which day, the case was posted in the court
and for the said reason on the date of deposition before the
Court, the witness identified the accused.
8. The other ground urged by the petitioner is that there is
any amount of inconsistency regarding the seizures that were
affected from this petitioner. The seizures were already
affected, as such the said seizure is inadmissible under
Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
9. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the
State submits that the concurrent findings of fact cannot be
interfered by this Court in Revisional jurisdiction. Since both
the Courts having discussed the evidence in detail, concluded
that this petitioner and another had committed the acts of
abduction and robbery, the Revision filed by the petitioner has
to be dismissed.
10. The concurrent findings of fact in the cases can only be
interfered by this Court in Revision only in the event of there
being any patent illegality on the face of the findings. In the
present case, when the victim identified both the accused and
also seizure of country made revolver and live cartridges were
effected from this petitioner, there are no grounds to interfere
with the findings of the courts below. However, according to
the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner/A2 has
served part of the sentence during the pendency of the appeal
and also revision as he was arrested during Revision
proceedings.
11. There are no other criminal cases which are pending
against this petitioner/A2. Further, as far as this petitioner is
concerned, no specific overt acts are attributed except stating
that he was following the directions of A1. In the said
circumstances, this Court deems it appropriate to reduce the
sentence to the imprisonment of the period already undergone
while confirming the conviction.
12. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed in
part. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any,
shall stand closed.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 03.01.2023
kvs
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.292 OF 2006
Dt. 03.01.2023
kvs
