Allowed

Boya Venkappa, (a 1) v. State of a.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor

Telangana HC22 Nov 2012CRLA/1505/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal, the High Court allowed the appeal regarding non-compoundable offences under the SC/ST Act. The Court confirmed convictions but reduced imprisonment to time already served. For compoundable offences, the Court acquitted the accused due to a settled compromise and ordered a refund of fines.

What did the court decide?

Conviction confirmed, imprisonment reduced to period undergone; petitioners acquitted of compoundable offences; fines refunded.

Boya Venkappa, (a 1) Vs State of a.P., rep. by Public… — Caste Atrocities | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRL.A.M.P.NO.2449 OF 2012

¶2

¶3

CRIMINAL APPEAL No:1505 OF 2005

¶4

JUDGMENT:

¶5

Aggrieved by the judgment dated 16.9.2005 passed in SC/ST S.C.No.6 of 2005 by the learned Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under SC & ST (POA) Act, Kurnool, the present appeal is preferred by the appellants-accused.

¶6

The petitioners-accused were tried for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(x) of SC & ST (POA) Act, Sections 149, 323, 324, 355 and 147 IPC and they were convicted and sentenced by the learned Special Judge as follows:

¶7

A1 to A4 are convicted and sentenced to suffer R.I. for six months each and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each in default to suffer S.I. for two months each for the offence under Section 3 (1)(x) of SC & ST (POA) Act;

¶8

A5 and A6 are convicted and sentenced to suffer R.I. for six months each and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each in default to suffer S.I. for two months each for the offence under Section 3 (1)(x) of SC & ST (POA) Act r/w 149 IPC.

¶9

A1 and A2 are convicted and sentenced to suffer R.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each in default to suffer S.I. for two months each for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of SC & ST (POA) Act;

¶10

A3 to A6 are convicted and sentenced to suffer R.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each in default to suffer S.I. for two months each for the offence under Section 3 (1)(x) of SC & ST (POA) Act r/w 149 IPC;

¶11

A1 to A6 are convicted and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/- each in default to suffer S.I. for two months each for the offence under Section 323 IPC;

¶12

A 5 is convicted and sentenced to suffer R.I. for four months l;and to pay fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer S.I. for two months for the offence under Section 324 IPC;

¶13

A1 to A4 and A6 are convicted and sentenced to suffer R.I. for four months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each in default to suffer S.I. for two months each for the offence under Section 324 r/w 149 IPC;

¶14

A2 is convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of

¶15

Rs.500/- in default to suffer S.I. for two months for the offence under Section 355 IPC.

¶16

A1 and A3 to A6 are convicted and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/- each in default to suffer S.I. for two months each for the offence under Section 355 r/w 149 IPC;

¶17

A1 to A6 are convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default to suffer S.I. for three months each for the offence under Section 147 IPC.

¶18

When the matter has come up for hearing, both the Counsel filed the above application viz., Crl.A.M.P.No.2449 of 2012 stating that the parties entered into compromise and the matter was settled on the intervention of elders and therefore, they prayed to grant permission to compound the offences and to set aside the conviction and sentences imposed against the petitioners-accused for the aforesaid offences.

¶19

Both the parties as well as their Counsel have signed on the memorandum of compromise. A perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the petition goes to show that the matter was settled and thereby, it is requested to set aside the judgment passed in SC/ST S.C.No.6 of 2005 and to acquit the petitioners.

¶20

It is to be noticed that the offence viz., Section 3(1) (x) of SC & ST Act, for which the petitioners-accused were convicted and sentenced, is non-compoundable and it cannot be allowed to be compounded. In a case of this nature, when the parties entered into compromise during the course of pendency of the trial, the continuation of the such proceedings against accused after the compromise arrived at between the parties would be the exercise in futility and therefore, the Courts would be justified in invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quash the proceedings.

¶21

In the instant case, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the Court below found the petitioners-accused guilty of the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of SC & ST (POA) Act, which is noncompoundable. In case of such convicts, the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be exercised. But however, the fact that the

¶22

complainant and the accused entered into compromise to maintain good relation between them, can be a ground for reduction of sentence. The petitioners have already undergone incarceration for some period. The affidavit filed by the parties proves the factum of compromise.

¶23

In the present set of circumstances, the conviction recorded and the sentences of fine imposed by the Court below for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of SC & ST Act, which is not compoundable, stand confirmed, but however, the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the Court below for such non-compoundable offence, is reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioners-accused. For rest of the offences, which are compoundable, the compromise is recorded and the petitioners are acquitted and the Crl.A.M.P No.2449 of 2012 is ordered accordingly.

¶24

With the above observations, this Criminal Appeal is allowed. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, stand closed. It is made clear that the fine amount, if any paid for the offences compounded, shall be refunded to the petitioners-accused.

¶25

____________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO

¶26

Dated: 22.11.2012 Nn

¶27

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO

¶28

CRL.A.M.P.NO.2449 OF 2012 &

¶29

CRIMINAL APPEAL No:1505 OF 2005

¶30

22.11.2012

¶31

Nn.

Boya Venkappa, (a 1) v. State of a.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Boya Venkappa, (a 1) v. State of a.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor

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

Puruluri Prasad, (a 2) Vs State of a.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor

Mohd. Yousuf, (a 1) Vs State of a.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor

Sunkara Venkata Bulli Sudhir, Vs M.Srinivasa Rao

Kumure Anjaneyulu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Public Prosecutor

Ramesh Kumar Asawa Vs M/S Chandra Bhusha Designers

C.R.Sridhar, Vs The State rep.by its S.I., of Police, Yadamari P.S.,Chittoor