Kotla Narsimlu A1, Tandur, ... vs The State Of A.P., Rep. By Spl. P.P., ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 2291 Tel

Telangana High Court

Kotla Narsimlu A1, Tandur, ... vs The State Of A.P., Rep. By Spl. P.P., ... on 19 June, 2024

           THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO

         CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.779 AND 1481 OF 2009
                    AND 1405 OF 2010

                              24-04-2014


CRIMINAL APPEAL No.779 of 2009

BETWEEN:

Sukkur Ganga Raju
                                                .....Appellant/Accused

                                 AND

State of A.P., Rep. By the Public Prosecutor,
High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.

                                                     .....Respondent


CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1481 of 2009


BETWEEN:

Sukkur Ganga Raju
                                                .....Appellant/Accused

                                 AND

State of A.P., Rep. by the Public Prosecutor,
High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.

                                                     .....Respondent

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1405 of 2010


BETWEEN:

Sukkur Ganga Raju
                                                .....Appellant/Accused
                                    AND

State of A.P., Rep. by the Public Prosecutor,
High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.

                                                         .....Respondent

THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENT:

             THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO

           CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.779 AND 1481 OF 2009
                      AND 1405 OF 2010

COMMON JUDGMENT:

Since the above three appeals are arising out of the common

Judgment and the appellant/accused is one and the same in all the

three appeals, they are heard together and are being disposed of by

this common Judgment.

The Criminal Appeal No.779 of 2009 is filed by the learned

counsel Sri A.Ravi Kiran Rao, representing the appellant/accused.

The Criminal Appeal Nos.1481 of 2009 and 1405 of 2010 are filed

through legal aid counsel Sri A.Yadagiri Reddy and Smt D.S.Laxmi respectively representing the appellant/accused. All the three appeals

are filed challenging the Judgment dated 23.09.2008 passed in

S.C.No.105 of 2008 by the Hon'ble Assistant Sessions Judge,

Nizamabad, at Armoor.

The case of the prosecution is as follows:

That P.W.1, complainant, and the accused are wife and

husband, that they are living separately due to differences arose between them and that their son, P.W.2, is staying with the

appellant/accused. It is alleged that the appellant/accused thrown her

son, P.W.2, from Boregaon bridge and he sustained injuries. The boy

was admitted in the Government Hospital, Nizamabad. On enquiry,

P.W.1, complainant, came to know that her husband, appellant/accused with an intention to kill her son, thrown him from the

bridge as the boy became an obstruction for the appellant/accused to

go for second marriage. Basing on the complaint given by P.W.1, a

case was registered and was investigated into. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant/accused for

an offence under Section 307 IPC.

To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined

P.Ws.1 to 10 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.6. No oral or documentary

evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused.

On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the trial

Court found the appellant/accused guilty for the offence under Section 307 IPC and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to suffer

rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of

Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only), in default, to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for a period of one year. Aggrieved by the same, the

appellant/accused has preferred the present appeals.

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/accused and the

learned Public Prosecutor, and perused the records.

After evaluating and examining the material available on record,

and considering the respective submissions of the learned counsel for

both the parties, this Court is of the view that there are no special or

adequate reasons warranting interference by this Court with the

Judgment passed by the trial Court. The Judgment passed by the trial Court is in accordance with law and needs no interference.

At this stage, the learned counsel for the appellant/accused Sri V.Ravi Kiran Rao, confines his argument with regard to quantum of

sentence, and submits that the appellant is aged 27 years at the time of commission of offence, and he is the only breadwinner to look after

his family, and as such, lenient view may be taken.

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant/accused Sri V.Ravi Kiran Rao, and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to take a lenient view while imposing sentence.

In the result, the conviction recorded by the trial Court against the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under Section 307

IPC is hereby confirmed. However, the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the trial Court is modified and reduced to the period, which the appellant/accused has already undergone. The fine amount and

default condition are not interfered with.

The criminal appeals are accordingly partly allowed.

Consequently, the miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in the appeals, shall stand closed.

_____________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO 24.04.2014 pln