Partly allowed

K. Govindappa, v. the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd.

Andhra Pradesh HC17 Feb 2022CRLRC/1070/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal revision challenging the conviction and sentence for possession of stolen property while acquitted of theft. The court reduced the imprisonment term upon raising an additional fine, dismissing the revision otherwise.

What did the court decide?

Set aside imprisonment of four months; ordered payment of additional fine of Rs.1000/-; dismissed criminal revision.

K. Govindappa, Vs the State of Ap Rep… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY

¶2

CRL.R.C.1070 OF 2007

¶3

ORDER :-

¶4

Questioning the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hindupur, dated 13-07-2007 in Crl.A.No.45 of 2005, the petitioner/accused filed the present Criminal Revision Case.

¶5

2 . The case of the prosecution is as follows:-

¶6

On 02-03-2003 at about 6.00 A.M, the defacto complainant-Pw.1 went to his hayrick and found missing of three pigs. On 07-03-2003 at about 1.00 P.M the accused was found in possession of the said three pigs. After seeing the same, Pw.1 gave a report to the police, which was registered as a case in Cr.No.27 of 2003 under Section 379 IPC on the file of Madakasira Police Station. After completion of investigation, the police filed charge sheet.

¶7

3 . The case was numbered as CC.No.20 of 2003 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Madakasira. In support of the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined Pws.1 to 4 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-5 apart from exhibiting Mo.1.

¶8

4 . After completion of trial, the trial Judge while acquitting the petitioner under Section 379 IPC, convicted him under Section 411 IPC and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of four months and also to pay a fine of Rs.200/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 10 days.

¶9

¶10

Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner filed the Criminal Appeal i.e., Crl.A.No.45 of 2005 before the Court of I Additional Sessions Judge, Hindupur. The learned appellate Judge, after thoroughly examining the entire evidence on record, dismissed the appeal by confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the present Criminal Revision Case is filed.

¶11

5 . Heard Sri N.Chandra Sekhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused and Sri Soora Venkata Sainath, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor.

¶12

6 . As seen from the entire evidence on record, it is the specific case of the prosecution that the accused committed theft of Mo.1 belonging to Pw.1. As the prosecution is not able to establish the guilt of the petitioner/accused under Section 379 IPC, the trial Magistrate convicted him under Section 411 IPC on the ground that Mo.1 belonging to Pw.1 were found in possession of the petitioner.

¶13

7 . It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the specific case of the prosecution is that the petitioner committed theft of Mo.1 and as such the petitioner cannot be convicted under Section 411 IPC. This court is not inclined to accept such an argument as admittedly Mo.1 belonging to Pw.1 were found in possession of the petitioner, who is very well aware that Mo.1 does not belong to him. Finally, the learned counsel for the petitioner requested this court to take a lenient

¶14

¶15

view with regard to sentence of imprisonment as the offence took place in the year 2003 i.e. nearly 19 years back.

¶16

8 . Taking into consideration of the above aspect, as the offence took place in the year 2003, the sentence of imprisonment of four(4) months is hereby set aside, instead the petitioner is directed to pay additional fine of Rs.1000/-.

¶17

9 . With the above modification with regard to sentence, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.

¶18

Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed

¶19

in consequence.

¶20

__________________ K.SURESH REDDY,J

¶21

17-02-2022. TSNR

K. Govindappa, v. the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Govindappa, v. the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Burgula Prasanna Kumar Vs the State of A.P.

Uba Soloman Raju Vs the State of A.P. and Another

M. Gopalu, and 21 Others, Vs the State Rep by Pp Hyd., and Another

C. Sreenivasa Reddy, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd.

Juthada Radhika and 2 Others Vs Juthada Apparao and Another

Donga Satyanarayana, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd.