Partly allowed

Danthamsetty Basava Reddy , Basavaiah, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC21 Feb 2011CRLRC/384/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal against conviction and sentence for robbery and cheating, the Court held that although the lower court judgment warranted no interference on merits, the appellant's over-four-year detention justified a lenient view by reducing the imprisonment term to the period already undergone while retaining the fine.

What did the court decide?

Sentence of imprisonment for offences under Sections 395 and 412 IPC reduced to the period already undergone; fine maintained.

Danthamsetty Basava Reddy , Basavaiah, Vs The State of… — Money Laundering | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL APPEAL No.384 of 2011

¶2

JUDGMENT:

¶3

This Criminal appeal is filed by the petitioner-A2 against the judgment, dated 6.11.2009 made by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Markapuram, in S.C.No.45 of 2008.

¶4

The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:

¶5

Onteddu Pedda Pitchiranga Reddy (P.W.1) and Onteddu Chinna Pitchi Ranga Reddy (P.W.2) are brothers, Onteddu Sivaravamma is the wife of P.W.1 and Onteddu Kalavathi-P.W.3 is the wife of P.W.2. Irugula Anjaneya Reddy(P.W.4) and Irugula Govindamma ((P.W.5) are brother-in-law and sister of P.Ws. 1 and 2. Sanikommu Venkateswara Reddy (P.W.6), Sanikommu Audilakshmi (L.w.8), Chintham Peda Kondaiah (P.W.7), Chintham Sukkamma (P.W8), Chintham Nagaraju (L.W.12) are the workers of P.Ws.1 and 2. About five years prior to the incident, P.Ws.1, 2 and 4 shifted their families to Markapur from Gottipadia and purchased Ac.14.00 of land and raised the Butavia garden, Mango garden, lemon as well as coconut groves and also constructed their respective houses in that land and residing with their families and workers and calling that garden as Reddy Gardens.

¶6

On 25.1.2003 during night time, the petitioner-A2 along with other accused came to the Reddy Gardens. A1, A2, A7 and A8 went into the garden and the remaining accused stood outside for watching purpose. The above said accused armed with toy pistol, knife and bomb and they first woke up P.W.6 and L.w.8 and informed them that they are naxalites and later they woke up Chintham Pedda Kondaiah, Chintham Sukkamma, Chintham Nagaraju, Chintham Audilakshmi with the assistance of Sanikommu Venkateswara Reddy. They also

¶7

woke up Irugula Anjaneya Reddy, Irugula Govindamma and with their assistance, they woke up the families of P.Ws 1 and 2 and threatened them as they are naxalites and they stated that they arranged bombs around the house and kept them under fear of death and demanded for an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- for which Onteddu Pedda Pitchi Ranga Reddy expressed his inability to fulfill their demand. They threatened with dire consequences and made him to agree to fulfill their demand and made him to open his almyrah, extorted gold ornaments and also cash of Rs.8,500/- from him and later, they went to Irugula Anjaneya Reddy (P.W.4) house and made him to pen almyrah and extorted gold ornaments and cash of Rs.16,000/- and informed them that they will return extorted gold ornaments after paying cash of Rs.1,50,000/- and threatened not to inform about the incident to anybody or to police. Saying so, they left the place in an auto.

¶8

Again on 27.1.2003 at about 8 a.m., all the accused came to Reddy gardens, A1, A2 and A8 went to P.W.1 and instructed to bring agreed amount to cumbum railway station at 12 noon and threatened to kill if any change in their attitude. Then, P.W.1 sent cash of Rs.1,00,000/- through Chintham Pedda Kondaiah to cumbum railway station, there they took cash from him but did not return the gold ornaments and told that their Peddakka did not come and they would return the gold ornaments, after payment of the remaining balance of Rs.50,000/- only. The same was informed by Chintham Pedda Kondaiah to his master. Later on 9.2.2003 at 3.00 pm., accused again threatened P.W.1 to send the balance amount through Irugula Govindamma and Onteddu Pedda Pitchi Ranga Reddy and they took the said amount at Srimannarayana factory at Markapur by showing one house to them as that of Peddakka and further informed that they will return the ornaments. Saying so they went away without complying their promise in returning extorted gold ornaments. Due to fear of the accused, P.W.2 did not report the matter but on enquiry, he came to know that the accused are psuedo naxalites and threatened

¶9

them with toy pistol and duplicate bombs and gave a report on 9.3.2003 to S.A. Thomas, who registered the same as a case in Cr.No.13 of 2003 for the offences under sections 452, 386, 506 r/w 34 IPC.

¶10

After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed and the same was taken cognizance by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Markapur and numbered as PRC No.50 of 2007. After following the procedure, the learned Magistrate committed the same to the Court of Sessions, Ongole and the learned Sessions Judge made over the same to the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Markapur.

¶11

During the trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 21 and got marked Exs.P1 to P24 and Exs.M.O1. to M.O.20 marked. On behalf of the accused no oral evidence was adduced, but Exs.D1 to D7 were marked.

¶12

On appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the accused guilty for the following offences and accordingly, sentenced them.

¶13

A1 to A8 are found guilty for the offence under Section 457 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years each and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- each in default to undergo S.I. for three months;

¶14

A1, A2, A7 and A8 are found guilty for the offence under section 395 IPC and A3 to A6 are found guilty for the offence under section 395 r/w 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years each and to pay a fine of Rs.300/- each in default to undergo S.I. for six months each;

¶15

A1, A2, A7 and A8 are found guilty for the offence under section 506 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years each;

¶16

A1 to A7 are found guilty for the offence under section 412 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years each and to pay a fine of Rs.300/- each in default to undergo S.I. for six months each.

¶17

All the sentences shall run concurrently.

¶18

Questioning the above judgment, the petitioners-A2 filed the present appeal.

¶19

Learned Counsel for the petitioner-A2 fairly conceded that this is not a fit case for interference, but having regard to the fact that the petitioner-A2 has been in jail for a period of more than four years, a lenient view may be taken.

¶20

Heard and perused the material available on record.

¶21

In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the nature of the offence committed by the petitioner-A2, I feel that the judgment of the lower Court does not warrant any interference. But however, having regard to the fact that the petitioner-A2 is wandering around the Courts since 2003 and the petitioner has been in jail for more than four years, this Court is of the view that this is a fit case where a lenient view can be taken.

¶22

In view of the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has already undergone four years imprisonment, the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner-A2 by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Markapur, for the offences under Sections 395 and 412 IPC in S.C.No.45 of 2008 by judgment dated 6.11.2009 is reduced to the period already undergone, while maintaining the sentence of fine for the offences under Sections 457, 395 and 412 IPC. The petitioner shall be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other crime.

¶23

Excepting the said modification, in all other aspects, this appeal is dismissed.

¶24

_______________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J

¶25

8^th April, 2011 Nn/rkk

¶26

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA

¶27

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.384 of 2011

¶28

8.4.2011

Danthamsetty Basava Reddy , Basavaiah, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Danthamsetty Basava Reddy , Basavaiah, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

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

Smt. Tatineni Suneeta Vs The Assistant Graing Purchasing Officer

Baireni Ravi (A-3) Vs The State of A.P.

Sri Kommisetti Venkata Satyanarayana, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Vungarala Satyanarayana Murthy Naidu, Vs Vungarala Narayana Murthy Naidu

Sk.MAdar Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise

Tatikonda Satish, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh