Ganapatlal Joshi , Ganesh , Ganapath, vs The State Of Ap Rep By Its Pp Hyd.,
2024 Latest Caselaw 2293 Tel

Telangana High Court

Ganapatlal Joshi , Ganesh , Ganapath, vs The State Of Ap Rep By Its Pp Hyd., on 19 June, 2024

                 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

             CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1525 OF 2009


ORDER:

1. The revision petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section

382 IPC and sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment and to pay

fine of Rs.2,000/- vide judgment in CC No.1765 of 2005 dated

03.11.2008 passed by the IX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at

Hyderabad.

2. Briefly, the case against the revision petitioner/accused is that on

01.03.2004 when P.W.1, who is the victim, was going near Harihara Kala

Kshetram, the accused wearing a monkey cap, came on scooter and

snatched the magala sutram from the neck of P.W.1. Immediately, P.W.1

caught hold of the collar of the accused, for which reason, he fell on the

road. P.W.2 is another eye witness to the incident. When the accused fell

down from the scooter, other persons on the road gathered and caught

the accused and then informed the police. Police came there and took

accused to the police station.

3. Ex.P1 report was given by P.W.1/victim. On the basis of the

complaint, police investigated the case and filed charge sheet under

Section 382 IPC. Learned Magistrate, having framed the charge,

examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and marked Exs.P1 to P8. The gold chain which

was pulled from the neck of P.W.1 is marked as MO1.

4. Learned Magistrate, having considered the evidence on record and

the eye witnesses account of P.W.1/victim and P.W.2 found that the

accused snatched the gold chain from the neck of P.W.1. Accordingly,

conviction was recorded.

5. The said conviction was questioned in appeal before the learned

Sessions Court. The learned Sessions Judge also found that the evidence

of witnesses was convincing and accordingly confirmed the conviction

vide judgment in Crl.A.No.344 of 2008 dated 31.08.2009.

6. The grounds raised by the accused are that P.W.1 did not mention

about the identity of the accused nor descriptive particulars were given

but he was identified for the first time in the Court. Since identification

cannot be accepted since the accused was a stranger. Further, the very

narration of P.W.1 that when the monkey cap was pulled, accused

falling down, is highly improbable.

7. Having gone through the record, P.W.6 is the learned Magistrate,

who conducted test identification parade of the accused on 27.03.2004

at Central Prison, Chanchalguda. Both P.Ws.1 and 2 identified the

accused in the Test Identification proceedings. As seen from the incident,

the accused was apprehended at scene and taken to police station. For

the said reason also the identification can be believed. The ground that

though the accused was arrested on the date of incident, but arrest was

shown on the next day, cannot be a ground to interfere with the

concurrent findings by the Courts below.

8. It appears that the accused was also involved in other cases of

chain snatching. In the said circumstance, no lenient view can be taken

regarding the sentence that was imposed by the Courts below.

[

9. Accordingly, revision case fails and dismissed. The trial Court shall

cause the appearance of the accused and send him to prison to serve out

the remaining part of sentence.

__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 19.06.2024 kvs