Monday, 13, Apr, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Gandikota Pedda Narsimulu, vs The State Of Ap Rep By Its Pp Hyd.,
2024 Latest Caselaw 1077 Tel

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 1077 Tel
Judgement Date : 13 March, 2024

Telangana High Court

Gandikota Pedda Narsimulu, vs The State Of Ap Rep By Its Pp Hyd., on 13 March, 2024

      THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL

         CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1480 of 2013

ORDER:

The present criminal revision case is filed seeking to call

for the records and set aside the order of the learned VI

Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medak at Siddipet in

Crl.A.No.51 of 2011, dated 11.07.2013 confirming the order of

the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Siddiept in S.C.No.392 of

2010, dated 23.08.2011.

2. There was no representation on behalf of the petitioner

on 06.03.2024. Even today also there is no representation on

behalf of the petitioner/accused No.1. Therefore, this Court is

inclined to proceed with the matter on merits of the case as per

the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in "Bani Singh and

others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 1", wherein it was

categorically held that the High Court cannot dismiss any

(1996) 4 Supreme Court Cases 720

appeal for non-prosecution simpliciter without examining the

merits.

3. The case of the prosecution is that on 11.10.2010 at about

5.00 PM, the Pw.1 lodged a complaint before the police,

Bhoompally stating that on 10.10.2010 at about 05.00 PM, her

father-in-law/Mallaiah i.e., Pw.6 asked for due amount of

Rs.8,000/- from accused No.1, on that accused No.1 because of

his previous enmity beat Pw.6 with stick on his back and on

his left hand and abused him in filthy language. On seeing it,

Lw.5/Chinna Narsimulu intervened. Then, accused No.1 beat

him with an axe on his head and on his left hand and caused

bleeding injuries. Pw.1 and her son Anil intervened. After that

accused Nos.2 and 3 abused Pw.1, Pw.5 in filthy language and

beat them with hands. Pws.3 and 4 witnessed the incident. On

basis of the complaint, police registered FIR. After completion

of investigation charge sheet was filed against the

petitioner/accused No.1 for the offences punishable under

Sections 307, 323 and 504 r/w 34 of IPC and he was tried for

the aforesaid offences.

4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to

9 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6 and MOs.1 and 2.

5. After appreciating the oral and documentary evidence

on record, the learned Magistrate found the accused No.1

guilty of the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC

sentenced him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period

of one (01) year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to

suffer simple imprisonment for a period of thirty (30) days.

Aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred Crl.A.No.51 of

2011 before the Court of the learned VI Additional District and

Sessions Judge, Medak at Siddipet. By its judgment dated

11.07.2013, the appellate Court confirmed the conviction and

sentence imposed by the trial Court. Challenging the same the

present revision is filed.

6. Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the

respondent-State and perused the record.

7. There is concurrent finding of both the Courts below

with regard to guilt of the revision petitioner/accused and the

learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused has also

not shown me anything, which would discredit the evidence.

Therefore, no interference is warranted as far as conviction is

concerned, but with regard to the sentence, it may be

mentioned that the offence took place in the year 2010 and

almost 14 years have passed and during this period the

revision petitioner/accused must have repented for what he

did. In these circumstances and in the interest of justice, it is

expedient to reduce the sentence of imprisonment to the

period already undergone by the revision petitioner/accused,

while maintaining the fine imposed by the trial Court against

him.

8. The Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the

conviction imposed by the trial Court, which was confirmed

by the appellate Court. However, the sentence of simple

imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence under

Section 324 IPC is reduced to the period already undergone by

the revision petitioner/accused.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed.

____________________________ JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL Dated: 13.03.2024 mmr/gvl

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IDRC

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter