Telangana High Court
V.Krishna vs The State Of Ap., on 5 February, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1095 OF 2014
O R D E R:
The Criminal Revision Case is filed aggrieved by the
judgment dated 19.05.2014 in Crl.A.No.176 of 2010 passed by
the Court of Motor Vehicle Accident Tribunal - Cum - XI
Additional District Judge (FTC) Ranga Reddy District (for short,
"the appellate Court") in modifying the judgment dated
10.12.2010 in C.C.No.253 of 2009 passed by the Court of the
Additional Junior Civil Judge - Cum - XVII Metropolitan
Magistrate, Rajendranagar (for short, "the trial Court").
[[ 2. Heard Sri Muralidhar, learned counsel representing
Sri Parsa Ananth Nageswar Rao, learned counsel for the revision
petitioner-accused No.1 and Sri E.Ganesh, learned Assistant
Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State. Perused the
record.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the Sub-Inspector of
Police, Shamshabad, filed charge sheet stating that on
24.02.2003, at about 11:00 P.M. Accused Nos.1 and 2 gained
entry into the house of the complainant/Sudhakar, after
EVV,J
CRLRC_1095_2014
breaking open the lock and while attempting to commit theft and
scattering the articles, the complainant heard the noise and
arrived at the scene. Upon seeing him, accused No.2 escaped on
his scooter, bearing No.AP-28-AC-2137, while accused No.1
threatened the villagers with a knife but the villagers caught hold
of him, and handed him over to the Police. Accused No. 1 was
admitted to the Government Civil Hospital, Shamshabad, and
later shifted to Osmania General Hospital. The confessional
statement of accused No. 1 was recorded in the presence of
P. Narasimha Goud and G. Siddilu. Thereafter, a case was filed
for offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 read with
Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code. Accused No. 2 admitted his
guilt in the Jail Adalath and was convicted and sentenced. Upon
completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the
accused for the offences punishable under sections 457 and 380
read with Section 511 of the I.P.C. Hence, the present complaint.
4. The trial Court after appreciation of oral and documentary
evidence available on record, vide judgment dated 10.12.2009
found accused guilty for the offences punishable under Sections
457 and 380 r/w 511 IPC, and accordingly, convicted and
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two
EVV,J
CRLRC_1095_2014
years and to pay fine of Rs.100/-, in default to suffer simple
imprisonment for two months, for offence punishable under
Section 457 I.P.C and further sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- and, in
default, to suffer simple imprisonment for two months for the
offence punishable under Section 380 r/w 511 I.P.C. The
substantial sentences of rigorous imprisonment were ordered to
run concurrently. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/accused
No.1 preferred Crl.A.No.176 of 2010 on the file of Court of Motor
Vehicle Accident Tribunal - Cum - XI Additional District Judge
(FTC), Ranga Reddy.
5. The appellate Court vide judgment dated 19.05.2014 in
Crl.A.No.176 of 2010 allowed the appeal in part under Section
386(b)(i) to (iii) Cr.P.C., setting aside the conviction and sentences
passed against the petitioner for the offence punishable under
Section 380 r/w 511 I.PC and acquitted him of the said charge.
So far as the conviction of the petitioner for the offence under
Section 457 I.P.C was concerned, it was confirmed and
considering the facts and circumstances of the case and
pendency of the case for more than one decade, the sentence of
rigorous imprisonment imposed on the petitioner/accused No.1
EVV,J
CRLRC_1095_2014
was reduced from two years to one year, while maintaining the
fine amount imposed on him. Aggrieved by the same, the
petitioner/accused No.1 has preferred the present Criminal
Revision Case.
6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that
the trial Court as well as the appellate Court failed to appreciate
the evidence available on record in proper perspective and
erroneously passed their respective judgments. Therefore, he
seeks to set aside the impugned judgment .
7. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
contended that both the Courts upon careful scrutiny of the
evidence available on record rightly passed their respective
judgments and hence, interference of this Court with the well
considered judgments of both the Courts below is unwarranted.
Therefore, he seeks to dismiss the Crl.R.C.
8. On behalf of the complainant, P.Ws.1 to 8 were examined
and got marked Exs.P1 to P7. In defence, none were examined
and no documents were marked. PW.1, whose house was broken
to commit theft, deposed that while he was sleeping in the house
along with family members, at about 11.00 P.M, he heard noise
EVV,J
CRLRC_1095_2014
from the kitchen, he went and found the lock of the kitchen was
broken and both the accused were there in the room and on
seeing him both of them started running. Then he raised cries.
In the meanwhile neighbours woke up and chased them for about
one kilometer and caught hold of accused No.1 and handed him
over to Police and on the next day compliant was given to the
Police.
9. PW.2 deposed that he saw PWs.1 and 3 chasing the
accused and going in front of his house and then he woke up and
he also chased them and caught the petitioner and handed over
him to Police. PW-3 deposed that on hearing the cries of PW-1 at
mid-night he woke up and saw PW-1 chasing two persons and he
also followed PW-1 chased them and found the
petitioner/accused No.1.
10. PW-4 did not support the case of the prosecution. PW-5
deposed that he was present when S.I inspected the scene and
found lock of the door of PW-1 was broken and other articles
were scattered and prepared Ex.P2 panchanama. PW-6 did not
support the case of the prosecution. PW-7 was cited to prove the
confession of accused No.1.
EVV,J
CRLRC_1095_2014
11. Investigating Officer deposed that on 25.08.2003 at 2.00
A.M. he received a complaint from PW-1 and issued FIR and he
took up investigation, that accused was having injuries and so he
was sent to hospital for treatment. PW.s 1 to 3 stated that they
pelted stones on the persons running away, so both accused
must have sustained injuries, but accused No.2 escaped.
Though PWs. 1 to 3 deposed that accused No.1 was holding
knife, PW-8 S.I did not claim to have recovered it. Though he
claimed to have recorded confession of accused No.1, except
ascertaining the name of accused No.2, nothing was recovered
from accused No.1. Except putting the suggestions, nothing was
elicited in the cross examination of PW-8 and it is suggested to
PW-8 that police beat accused No.1 and sent him to hospital,
which is falsified by suggesting to PW-8 that police beat accused
No.1 and sent him to hospital, which is falsified by the evidence
of PWs-1 and 3 that they hurled stones against accused to chase
them.
12. The appellate Court, upon re-appreciating the evidence
available on record, observed that Investigation Officer did not
seized the lock said to be broken by the accused. In Ex.P2 scene
EVV,J
CRLRC_1095_2014
of offence observation report, it was mentioned that the lock was
found broken and the latch was removed and thrown aside and
articles were found in a pelmel condition. But the S.I did not
seize the broken lock. Except that the appellate Court did not
find any defect in the case of the prosecution. The evidence of
PWs-1 to 3 consistently establishes that two persons broke open
the house of PW-1 during night with a view to commit theft and
entered into the house and when chased one of them escaped
and accused No.1 was caught after chase of one kilo meter. As
already stated since they were not cross-examined, their evidence
stood unchallenged. Except discrepancy pointed out by learned
counsel for appellant between report given to police and evidence
of PW-1, which is also not confronted to PW-1, there is nothing to
discredit the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 which is consistent and
corroborating with each other and it clinchingly establishes and
that accused No.1 and another have broken the house of P.W-1,
with a view commit theft. So the conviction of appellant for
offence under Section 457 I.P.C was sustainable.
13. This Court vide interim order dated 22.05.2014 suspended
the sentence of imprisonment pending disposal of the Revision
EVV,J
CRLRC_1095_2014
and the petitioner directed to be released on bail on his executing
a personal bond for Rs.10,000/- with two sureties for a like sum
each to the satisfaction of the XVII Metropolitan Magistrate,
Rajendranagar.
14. In the case on hand, the appellate Court held that the
petitioner was guilty of the offence punishable under Section 457
of IPC, which finding, in my considered view, does not call for any
interference, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section
397 Cr.P.C.
15. This Court does not find any illegality or irregularity in the
judgment passed by the learned trial Court modifying the
sentenced passed by the learned trial Court by reducing the
sentence of imprisonment from two years to one year, while
maintaining the fine amount imposed against the revision
petitioner. However, as seen from the record, almost 14 years
have been elapsed from the date of registration of crime and there
is no past criminal history of the petitioner.
16. Therefore, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.
However, having regard to the submission made by learned
counsel for the respective parties and upon considering the fact
EVV,J
CRLRC_1095_2014
that the petitioner/accused suffered a lot of mental agony for all
these years, this Court is inclined to take a lenient view by
reducing the period of sentence from one year to the period
already undergone by the petitioner/accused.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed.
_____________________
E.V. VENUGOPAL, J
Date:05.02.2025
fm
