Avula Bhagyalakshmi v. The State of A.P.

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2026 of 2010 JUDGMENT:

This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the judgment, dated 10.08.2010, passed by the XIII Additional Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet, in Crl.A.No.266 of 2009, whereby the judgment, dated 18.08.2009, rendered in S.C.No.402 of 2007 on the file of the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet, was modified and the conviction and sentence imposed on accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC is set aside; that further conviction and sentence passed against accused Nos.1 to 7 for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC is also set aside; and that accused Nos.1 to 4, 6 and 7 are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 323 IPC and were sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month each.

The brief facts of the case are that on the basis of a report given by the petitioner herein who was examined as P.W-1, the Police registered a case in Crime No.8 of 2007 against respondents 2 to 7 herein for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 354 and 324 read with 34 IPC. After investigation, a detailed charge sheet was filed and after committal, the same was numbered as S.C.No.402 of 2007 on the file of the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 7 and exhibited Exs.P-1 to P-7. On behalf of defence, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. The trial Court having analysed the entire evidence on record, came to the conclusion that accused

No.1 is guilty of the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months and further held that accused Nos.2 to 7 are guilty of the offence punishable under Section 324 and accordingly, convicted and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month each. The same was challenged by the accused by filing the Criminal Appeal and the same was allowed in part, modifying the judgment of the trial Court, as stated supra. The same is questioned in this Criminal Revision Case.