Partly allowed

Gorle Trinadhu, v. the State of a.P., Rep by Pp.

Andhra Pradesh HC23 Mar 2022CRLRC/1345/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision, the petitioner challenged the conviction and sentence for burning a house under Section 436 IPC. The Single Judge upheld the conviction but held that, due to the incident occurring nearly 18 years ago and the petitioner's advanced age, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment should be reduced to one year while maintaining the fine.

What did the court decide?

Conviction maintained; sentence of rigorous imprisonment reduced from seven years to one year; fine maintained; petitioner directed to surrender.

Gorle Trinadhu, Vs the State of a.P., Rep by Pp. — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1345 OF 2008

¶3

JUDGMENT:

¶4

Questioning the judgment dated 07-08-2008 in Criminal Appeal No. 43 of 2006 passed by II Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Tract Court), Srikakulam (for short, 'the appellate Court'), the petitioner-accused preferred the present revision before this Court. 2. Heard Sri A.Ravi Shankar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused, and learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.

¶5

Case of the prosecution is that on the early hours of 13/14-05-2004, the petitioner-accused set fire to rear side thatched roof of house of de facto complainant-P.W.1. The fire was spread out and burnt the entire house of P.W.1. P.W.1 woke up and immediately raised cries. On hearing the cries, the petitioner ran away from the scene. Simultaneously, P.Ws.2 and 3, who are wife and daughter of P.W.1 respectively, woke up and witnessed the incident and the petitioner while fleeing away from the scene. P.Ws.2 and 3 also raised cries. On hearing the same, P.Ws.4 and 5 rushed to the spot and extinguished the fire. But by that time, the entire house was damaged. At about 11 a.m., P.W.1 gave report, on the basis of which P.W.8-Sub Inspector of Police, Vajrapukotturu Police Station, registered a case in crime No. 31 of 2004 for the

¶6

¶7

punishable under Section 436 IPC and investigated into. After completion of investigation, P.W.8 filed charge sheet.

¶8

The case was taken on file as P.R.C.No. 10 of 2004 by Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Palasa, and committed to Sessions Division, Srikakulam. Later, the case was made over to the Court of Assistant Sessions Judge, Sompeta (for short, 'the trial Court') and numbered as S.C.No. 37 of 2005.

¶9

In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and marked Exs.P1 to P14 and M.Os.1 to 3. When the petitioneraccused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the incriminating material. None were examined on behalf of the petitioner but Ex.D1 was marked.

¶10

After completion of trial, the trial Court convicted the petitioner under Section 436 IPC and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and also to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two years.

¶11

Questioning the said conviction and sentence, the petitioneraccused filed Criminal Appeal No. 43 of 2006 on the file of the appellate Court. The appellate Court, by the impugned judgment, dismissed the appeal by confirming the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court.

¶12

Feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioner-accused preferred the present revision before this Court.

¶13

¶14

This Court perused the entire material on record. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is crystal clear with regard to the alleged incident. They also witnessed the petitioner while setting fire to the house of P.W.1. Their evidence was also corroborated by the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5. As such, there are no grounds to interfere with the conviction recorded by both the Courts below. However, as the incident took place in the year 2004 i.e. nearly 18 years back and the petitioner has already reached the age of 65 years, this Court is inclined to take a lenient view with regard to sentence of imprisonment alone.

¶15

Accordingly, the conviction recorded by the trial Court by judgment dated 04-04-2006 in S.C.No. 37 of 2005, which was confirmed by the appellate Court by judgment dated 07-08-2008 in Criminal Appeal No. 43 of 2006, is maintained. However, sentence of imprisonment alone is modified and substantive sentence of rigorous imprisonment for seven years awarded to the petitioner is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for one year. Sentence of fine and default clause are, however, maintained. Consequently, the petitioneraccused, who is on bail as per the orders of this Court in Criminal M.P.No. 1818 of 2008 dated 06-09-2008, is directed to surrender himself forthwith before the trial Court to serve the remaining part of sentence of imprisonment.

¶16

¶17

With the aforesaid modification in the order of sentence, this criminal revision case fails and is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand dismissed in consequence. No costs.

¶18

_____________________

¶19

Date: 23-03-2022. JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY JSK

¶20

¶21

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY

¶22

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1345 OF 2008

¶23

DATE: 23^RD MARCH, 2022

¶24

JSK

Gorle Trinadhu, v. the State of a.P., Rep by Pp.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gorle Trinadhu, v. the State of a.P., Rep by Pp.

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

Kondaganti Mahabub Basha, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd.

K. Pushpalatha, W/o C.S. Raja Vs The Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams

Parasa Sekhar at Yerrodu, Vs the State of a.P., Rep by Pp.

Cherukuri Venu, Vs State of a.P., Rep by Pp.

Garbhapu Pydayya Vs Avasarala Sreenivasarao and the State of A.P.

Vuyyuru Chandrasekhara Rao , Vs Kancherla Nageswara Rao and Another