Telangana High Court
Munaganti Prakash, Khammam District vs The State Of A.P., Rep. By Pp., High Court ... on 26 March, 2024
1
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1367 OF 2012
O R D E R:
The present Criminal Revision Case is filed against the
judgment dated 30.07.2012 in Criminal Appeal No.95 of 2010 on
the file of the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional
Sessions Judge, at Khammam (for short, "the appellate Court") in
modifying the judgment dated 31.05.2010 in C.C.No.2217 of
2008 on the file of the learned III Additional Judicial Magistrate of
First Class, at Kothagudem (for short, "the trial Court").
2. Heard Mr. G. Madhusudhan Reddy, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Vizarath Ali, learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 State. Perused the
record.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the on 24.11.2007 at
about 12 noon, respondent No.2/complainant started from his
village Reddigudem of Palvancha Mandal on his Boxer Motorcycle
bearing No.AP-20/J-5337 to go to the house of his in-laws at
Kambalapally. When PW1 crossed Yellandu cross roads, near
Railway bridge, he stopped the motorcycle by the side of the road
to attend natural call. In the meanwhile, two strangers
approached him, dragged him into the nearby forest posing
themselves as Police on the plea that they have to check him,
threatened him with knife and robbed gold ornaments viz., one
chandraharam weighing 2 tulas, one small chandraharam
weighing 1 tula, necklace weighing about 2 tulas, one finger ring
and one Nokia Cell Phone worth Rs.40,000/-, caused injury on
his left hand and disappeared in the forest. Basing on the report
lodged by the complainant, Police, III Town Police Station,
Kothagudem registered a case in Crime No.219 of 2007 under
Section 394 of I.P.C.
4. The trial Court found accused Nos.1 and 2 guilty for the
offence under Sections 394 r/w 109 of I.P.C. and sentenced them
to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine
of Rs.1,000/- each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for
one month. However, trial Court, found accused Nos.3 and 4 not
guilty for the offence under Sections 394 r/w 109 of I.P.C. and
acquitted them. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an
appeal.
5. The appellate Court vide judgment cited supra modified the
sentenced imposed against the petitioner and directed him to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to
pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment
for one month. Assailing the same, the present Revision.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the trial
Court as well as the appellate Court failed to appreciate the
evidence available on record in proper perspective and
concurrently found the petitioner guilty for the offence under
Sections 394 r/w 109 of I.P.C. Therefore, he seeks to set aside
the impugned judgment.
7. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that the
both the Courts upon careful scrutiny of the evidence available
on record rightly passed their respective judgments and the
interference of this Court is unwarranted. Therefore, he seeks to
dismiss the Revision.
8. On behalf of the prosecution, the trial Court examined
PWs.1 to 7 and marked Exs.P1 to P13, MOs.1 to 5. On behalf of
the defence, none were examined and no document was marked.
Upon careful scrutiny of the oral and documentary evidence, the
trial Court observed that PW1, in his evidence, deposed that
accused No.1 threatened him with knife, whereas accused No.2
held him firmly on the day of incident and took MOs.1 to 5 from
him. PW1, in the test identification parade also identified accused
Nos.1 and 2 as that of the culprits who alleged to have committed
robbery. The version of PWs.4 to 7 and contents of Ex P1
corroborated with the version of PW1 on all aspects. Through the
evidence of PWs.1 and 4 to 7, the prosecution established the
guilt of accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence under Section 394 of
I.P.C. No incriminating evidence is elicited against accused No.3
from whom MO5 was said to have been recovered. So also
against accused No.4, who alleged to have purchased MOs.1 to 4.
PWs.2 and 3 who are cited as panch witnesses for seizure turned
hostile to the case of the prosecution. Therefore, the trial Court
rendered the judgment cited supra. The appellate Court upon re-
appreciating the evidence available on record, also found accused
No.2 guilty for the offence under Section 394 of I.P.C., but
modified the sentence imposed against him by the trial Court.
9. A perusal of the record shows that this Court vide order
dated 13.08.2012 suspended the sentence alone imposed against
the petitioner/accused No.2 for the offence under Section 394
I.P.C. pending Revision and released him on bail on furnishing a
personal bond by him for Rs.5,000/- with two sureties each for
the like sum to the satisfaction of the II Judicial First Class
Magistrate, Kothagudem, Khammam District. Thereafter, the
matter underwent several adjournments.
10. In the case on hand, both the Courts have concurrently
held that the petitioner was guilty of the offence punishable
under Section 394 of I.P.C., which finding, in my considered view,
does not call for interference, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction
under Section 397 Cr.P.C., in view of the evidence available on
record.
11. Having regard to the submissions made by both the learned
counsel, upon considering the fact that the petitioner suffered
mental agony and hardship during the course of litigation before
the trial Court as well as the appellate Court and as twelve long
years have elapsed from the date of filing this Revision, this Court
in inclined to take a lenient view and reduce the sentence
imposed against the petitioner to the period of imprisonment
already undergone by them.
12. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.
However, the petitioner is directed to deposit an amount of
Rs.50,000/- to the credit of the trial Court within one month
from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
13. Upon such deposit, respondent No.2 is directed to withdraw
the said amount, on filing appropriate application before the trial
Court.
14. If the petitioner fails to comply the aforesaid order, the
petitioner is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period
of three months.
Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________
E.V. VENUGOPAL, J
Date: 26.03.2024
ESP
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1367 OF 2012
Dated: 26.03.2024
ESP
