Allowed

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

Andhra Pradesh HC23 Mar 2022CRLRC/1938/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision, the High Court examined a conviction for voluntarily causing grievous hurt and mischief. The Court noted corroborative evidence from injured coolies and modified the sentence to time already served while confirming the fine.

What did the court decide?

Conviction confirmed; imprisonment reduced to time already undergone; fine and bail cancellation upheld.

Cherukuri Venu, Vs State of a.P., Rep by Pp. — Cheating and Forgery | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1938 OF 2006

¶3

JUDGMENT:

¶4

Questioning the conviction and sentence passed by Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kavali (for short, 'the trial Court'), in C.C.No. 111 of 2000 dated 24-06-2004 which was confirmed by I Additional Sessions Judge, Nellore (for short, 'the appellate Court'), in Criminal Appeal No. 70 of 2004 dated 21-11-2006, the petitioneraccused filed the present revision before this Court.

¶5

Case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is a resident of Musunuru Village of Kavali Mandal. On 06-03-2000 morning, P.W.6, who is brother of P.W.1-de facto complainant, brought P.Ws.2 to 5 to his field for coolie work. Subsequently, P.W.6 went to get petrol from Kavali for the auto for dropping the coolies. While P.W.6 was going to Kavali, the petitioner boarded the auto to go to Kavali. After reaching Kavali, the petitioner picked up a quarrel with P.W.6 in connection with payment of fare. P.W.1 pacified the matter between his brother P.W.6 and the petitioner and both of them went away. Having bore grudge against P.W.1, on the same day i.e. on 06-03-2000 at about 6.30 p.m. while P.W.1 was coming to Kavali in his auto along with coolies for dropping them at Kavali, the petitioner came towards the auto near Brahmamgari Temple at Musunuru Village and broke the mirror of the auto with a cart stick available in

¶6

¶7

his hand and caused mischief to a tune of Rs.1,000/- and pushed the auto, as a result of which the auto turned turtle on its left side and P.Ws.2 to 5 received simple injuries. Thereafter, P.W.1 gave a report to police, on the basis of which a case in crime No. 7 of 2000 was registered under Sections 324 and 427 IPC against the petitioner and took up investigation. After completion of investigation, the police filed charge sheet.

¶8

In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and marked Exs.P1 to P12. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the defence, however Exs.D1 and D2 were marked.

¶9

After completion of trial, the trial Court convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months, for the offence under Section 324 IPC and simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence under Section 426 IPC. Both the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.

¶10

Questioning the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No. 70 of 2004 before the appellate Court. After considering the entire material on record, the appellate Court, by judgment dated 21-11-2006, dismissed the appeal by confirming the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present revision before this Court.

¶11

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner-accused contends that the evidence of P.W.1 is not convincing and the stick which was used by the petitioner was not seized. Learned counsel further contends that there is no motive for the petitioner to attack P.W.1 and the solitary testimony of P.W.1 cannot be relied upon.

¶13

This Court perused the entire material on record. Apart from the evidence of P.W.1, there are other witnesses i.e. P.Ws.2 to 5 who also received simple injuries in the same incident. As such, there is corroboration to the evidence of P.W.1 by the evidence of P.Ws.2 to 5 apart from the medical evidence of P.W.7 coupled with Exs.P3 to P9.

¶14

In that view of the matter, there are no grounds to interfere with the conviction recorded by both the Courts below. However, as the incident took place in the year 2000, this Court is inclined to take a lenient view with regard to sentence of imprisonment alone.

¶15

Accordingly, the conviction recorded by both the Courts below is confirmed. However, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of one year under Section 324 IPC and simple imprisonment for one month under Section 426 IPC is reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioner-accused under both the counts. Sentence of fine and default clause thereon shall remain intact. Bail bonds of the petitioner-accused shall stand cancelled.

¶16

¶17

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

¶18

_____________________

¶19

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

¶20

JSK

¶21

¶22

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY

¶23

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1938 OF 2006

¶24

DATE: 23^RD MARCH, 2022

¶25

JSK

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Cherukuri Venu, v. 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.

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

Vuyyuru Chandrasekhara Rao , Vs Kancherla Nageswara Rao and Another

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