Partly allowed

Kotbi Komutsish, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, through Public Prosecutor

Telangana HC23 Nov 2012CRLRC/1609/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision, the Single Judge confirmed the conviction of the petitioner-accused under Section 325 IPC for voluntary culpable hurt but commuted the imprisonment sentence to the period already undergone, considering the accused was in jail for some time, while also confirming the fine.

What did the court decide?

The conviction is confirmed but the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone; the fine is confirmed.

Kotbi Komutsish, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1609 of 2005

¶2

JUDGMENT:

¶3

This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner-accused No.1 against the judgment, dated 13.9.2005 passed by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar in Crl.A.No.19 of 2005 confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Husnabad, vide judgment dated 25.1.2005 in C.C.No.213 of 2001.

¶4

The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:

¶5

On 27.5.2001, the complainant lodged a report stating that he is a resident of Gunukula Kondapur village and eking out his livelihood on agriculture and as village sunkari and on 27.5.2001 when he was attending to his duties in front of the house of Patwari, the petitionerA1, and A2 to A4 came there and fell on him and beat him with hands and pushed his cycle and caused injuries to him. On the basis of the complaint, a case was registered against the petitioner and other accused for the offence punishable under Section 325 r/w 34 IPC. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed.

¶6

In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and got Exs.P-1 to P4 marked. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused.

¶7

On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the petitioner-A1 guilty for the offence under Section 325 IPC and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.250/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days. The trial Court found A2 to A4 guilty for the offence under Section 323 IPC and accordingly

¶8

convicted and sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs.250/- each and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days each. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence recorded against the petitioner-A1, he filed Crl.A.No.19 of 2005 and the said appeal was dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court against the petitioner-A1. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is filed by the petitioner-accused No.1.

¶9

Heard and perused the material available on record.

¶10

The learned Counsel for the petitioner-accused fairly submitted that it is not a fit case for interference, but however, in view of the fact that the petitioner was in jail for some period, a lenient view may be taken insofar as the sentence of imprisonment is concerned.

¶11

In the circumstances of the case and in view of the concurrent findings of both the Courts below, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the conviction and sentence recorded by the Courts below against the petitioner-accused No.1. But however, in view of the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner-accused was in jail for some period, this Court is of the view that this is a fit case wherein a lenient view can be taken and the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the Courts below against the petitioner-accused can be reduced to the period already undergone.

¶12

In the result, the conviction recorded by the Courts below for the offence under Section 325 IPC is confirmed and the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the Courts below against the petitioneraccused for the said offence is reduced to that of the period already undergone. The sentence of fine imposed by the Courts below for the above offence is confirmed.

¶13

Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed.

¶14

RAJA ELANGO, J

¶15

23^rd November, 2012

¶16

¶17

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO

¶18

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1609 of 2005

¶19

23.11.2012

¶20

Kotbi Komutsish, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, through Public Prosecutor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotbi Komutsish, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, through 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

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

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

Uppu Venkata Rao, Vs The State o Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Public Prosecutor

Ballem Venkateswarlu, Vs State of A.P.