Partly allowed

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

Telangana HC23 Nov 2012CRLRC/1624/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision under CrPC Sections 397-401 challenging a conviction for Section 304A IPC, the High Court held that the conviction must be upheld but reduced the prison term to the period already undergone, imposed a higher fine, and dismissed the main challenge to the impugned judgment on merits due to counsel's concession.

What did the court decide?

Conviction confirmed; sentence of imprisonment reduced to period undergone; fresh fine of Rs. 5,000 imposed; case allowed in part.

C.R.Sridhar, Vs The State rep.by its S.I., of… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1624 OF 2005

¶2

DATED 23^rd NOVEMBER, 2012.

¶3

BETWEEN :

¶4

C.R.Sridhar .. Petitioner-accused

and

State of A.P.

..Respondent

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1624 OF 2005

¶9

ORDER:

¶10

Petitioner-accused filed this Criminal Revision Case by invoking the provision under Sections 397 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code being aggrieved by the judgment dated 26.09.2005 rendered in Criminal Appeal No.240 of 2005 whereby and whereunder the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor, confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner by the V Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chittoor, for the offence punishable under Section 304A of Indian Penal Code sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- vide judgment dated 07.10.2002.

¶11

Heard.

¶12

After arguing for sometime, the learned counsel for the petitioner by not pressing the main prayer confined his arguments to the extent of imposition of sentence and requested the Court to show some indulgence on the petitioner.

¶13

In view of the said submission, this Court is of the view that merits of the Prosecution case and impugned judgment need not be adjudicated.

¶14

Admittedly, the crime occurred in the year 2001 and for all these years the petitioner suffered humiliation and also stigma in the society. It is also represented that the petitioner is the sole breadwinner of his family. This Court is of the view that after this long lapse of time there is no need to send the petitioner to prison.

¶15

Accordingly, the conviction imposed by the trial Court and confirmed by the Appellate Court is hereby confirmed. However, the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner is hereby reduced to that of the period already undergone by him in prison. Further, the petitioner shall pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, apart from the fine amount already paid by him earlier, on or before 15.12.2012 before the trial Court, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months.

¶16

The remaining portion of the impugned judgment shall stand unchanged.

¶17

Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed in part. Miscellaneous petitions filed in this revision, if any, shall stand closed.

¶18

________________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO

¶19

Date : 23.11.2012 sur

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

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

Kotbi Komutsish, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, through Public Prosecutor

Ballem Venkateswarlu, Vs State of A.P.