Order High Court · 2025

THE HONoURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1095 OF 2014 ORDER: The Crinrinal Revision Case is filed aggrieved by the judgment date<1 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 Distrir:t (for short, 'the appellate Court") ln modifying the judgment dated lO.l2.2O1O in C.C.No.253 of 2009 passed by the Court of the Additional Junior Civil Judge Cum XVII N{etropolitan 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-acctrsed No.1 and Sri E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Proseclrtor appearing for respondent- State. Perused the record.

3. The brief lacts 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.l and 2 gained entry into ti-re house of the complainant/ Sudhalar, aftqr 2 EW,J CRLRC_I095 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-2S-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 fiied 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 documentarSz evidence available on record, uide judgment dated lO'12'2OOg found accused guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 457 and, 380 r/w 511 IPC, ald accordingly, convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two I I I I a -) EW,J CRLRC 1095 2014 years and to pay fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment lor 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.1OO/- and, in default, to sufler 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. I 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 uide jwdgment dated 19.05.2O14 in Crl.A.No. 176 of 201O 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 LPC 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 1 EW,J CRLRC,1095 2014 was reduced from two years to one year, while maintaining the Iine amount imposed on him. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/ accused No. t 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'l to 8 were examined and got marked Exs.Pl 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 -4,3', t I f EW,J .RLRC 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 botl'r of them started running. Then he raised cries. In the meanwhrle neighbours woke up and chased them for about one kilometer :rnd 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 carrght the petitioner and handed over him to Police. PW-3 deposed that on hearing the cries of pW-1 at mid-night he u'oke 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 dict not support the case of the prosecution. PW-5 deposed that l-re was present when S.I inspected the scene and found lock of the door of PW-l was broken and other articles were scattered and prepared Ex.P2 panchananna. PW-6 did not support the case of the prosecution. pW-7 was cited to prove the confession of accused No. 1.

4... 6 EUv,J .RLRC lO95 2014

11. Investigating Officer deposed that on 25.08'2003 at 2.OO A.M. he received a complaint from PW-l 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 fo 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.l did not claim to have recovered it. Though he claimed to have recorded confession of accused No.l, except ascertaining the name of accused No.2, nothing was recovered from accused No.l. Except putting the suggestions, nothing was I elicited in the cross examination of PW-8 and it is suggested to PW-B that police beat accused No.l and sent him to hospital, which is fa.lsified by suggesting to PW-B that police beat accused No.1 and sent him to hospital, which is falsified by the evidence of PWs-l and 3 that they hurled stones against accused to chase them. L2. 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 7 EW,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 founcl in a pelmel condition. But the S.l did not seize the broken lock. Except that the appellate Court did not Iind 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 ald 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 discrepalcy pointed out by learned counsel for appellant between report given to police and evidence I 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-I, with a view commit theft. So the conviction of appeliant for offence under Section 457 I.P.C was sustainable.

13. This Cou;:t vide interim order dated 22.05.2014 suspended the sentence of imprisonment pending disposal of the Rgvision I I I I 'I tJ E\ry,J CRLRC_1095 2014 t 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 XVil Metropolital Magistrate, Raj endranagar. L4. 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 aly interference, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C.

15. This Court does not lind 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 9 EWJ 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. //TRUE COPYi/ SD/. MOHD. ISMAIL . dEpurv REGTsTRAR -l SE:CTION OFFICER

1. The Vlll Metropolitan Magistrate, Rajendranagar, R.R. District. 2. The Chairman, N,4otor Accident Tribunal cum Xl Additional District Judge (FTC) R.R. District.

3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Cherlapally, R.R. District. 4. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad

5. One CC to SRl. PARSA ANANTH NAGESWAR RAO Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CD Copies To, N. PM/gh (our) ( oR 1HE S r-4 2 o ,tult 6 6 I ,! -,i/ ;/ HIGH COURT DArED:051O2t2025 (J ORDER CRLRC.No.1095 of ;1014 DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE, c) 6