The appellant challenged a ten-year rigorous imprisonment sentence for house robbery having already served over seven years in jail. The single-judge court reduced the sentence to the period already undergone.
Sentence of rigorous imprisonment reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.321 OF 2011
JUDGMENT:
1 This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 09.01.2006 in S.C.No.841 of 2004 on the file of the court of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Huzurabad whereby the appellant herein along with others was tried for the offence punishable under section 397 of IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and also to pay a fine of Rs.200/-, in default of payment of fine he shall suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months.
2 Brief facts are that on 25.8.2003 at about 1.30 AM five unknown persons in the age group of 25 to 30 years broke open the lock and entered the house and woke up P.W.1 and his wife and posed themselves as Naxalites and threatened P.W.1 and his wife with sticks and knives and stabbed P.W.1 with knife on his left hand and caused bleeding injury and beat him with stick on his left arm and thereafter robbed gold and silver ornaments and other valuable articles from the house of P.W.1. In that connection a case in Cr.No.67 of 2003 under section 395 of IPC was registered by police Mulkanur and investigated into. During the course of investigation the appellant and others were arrested at Railway station Mandamarri on 07.10.2003 and the accused also confessed about the commission of the offence and part of the stolen property was also seized from them. After completion of investigation the police filed the charge sheet, which was taken on file as PRC No.64 of 2004 by the learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Huzurabad and after committal the same was numbered as S.C.No.841 of 2004. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 11 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P7 and M.Os.1 to 6.
3 When the matter is taken up for hearing, Smt. A. Gayathri Reddy, the learned counsel for the appellant fairly conceded that this is not a fit case for interference, but, however, requested this court to take a lenient
view having regard to the fact that the appellant is in jail for more than seven years as on today.
4 In the light of the said submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, this court looked into the record. Apparently the appellant was arrested on 07.10.2003 and every since he is in jail.
5 Having regard to the fact that the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the trial court on the appellant is rigorous imprisonment for ten years and the appellant has been in jail for the last more than seven years, this court is of the view that the said sentence of rigorous imprisonment of ten years imposed on the appellant by the court below can be reduced to that of the period already undergone by him.
6 Accordingly, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of ten years imposed on the appellant - A.3, by the court below in S.C.No.841 of 2004 is reduced to that of the period which the petitioner had already undergone.
7 Excepting the said modification in respect of imprisonment, in all other aspects, this appeal is dismissed.
----------------Sri T.G.K, J. 18.02.2011 Kvsn
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the sentence of rigorous imprisonment imposed by the trial court should be reduced in light of the appellant already serving a sentence for over seven years.
Whether the appeal is a fit case for interference regarding the sentence.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
A.3
Unidentified Victims
GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
