Dismissed

Chennuboyina Gangaiah, v. The State Sho., Kanigiri P.S.

Telangana HC13 Mar 2012CRLRC/1654/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision against confirmation of conviction for voluntary causing hurt by dangerous weapons. Court upheld conviction distinguishing petitioner from acquitted co-accused based on medical evidence. Sentences modified by immunizing imprisonment and increasing fine.

What did the court decide?

Imprisonment sentence immunized; fine increased to Rs.7,000/- with default clause of six months.

Chennuboyina Gangaiah, Vs The State Sho… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1654 of 2004

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

Heard Sri N.Srirama Murthy, the learned counsel for petitioner, and Sri K.Venkateswara Rao, the learned counsel representing the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶5

2. Petitioner is the first accused in C.C.No.79 of 1998 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate at Kanigiri (trial court). He was tried on a charge under Section 324 IPC read with Section 149 IPC along with six others i.e. A-2 to A-7. The trial court by its judgment dated 9^th August 2001 convicted all the seven accused including the petitioner of the above charge and sentenced each of them to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- with default clause prison sentence for non-payment of fine.

¶6

3. All the accused filed Crl.A.No.173 of 2001 questioning the above convictions and sentences. The appellate court i.e. the Court of the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Ongole, by its judgment dated 20^th September 2004 acquitted A-2 to A-6, altered the conviction of A-7 into Section 323 IPC and let him off with fine, but it has confirmed the conviction and sentence of the petitioner as recorded by the trial court. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come up with this revision.

¶7

4. The sum and substance of the charge brought against the petitioner is that on the morning of 22^nd August 1998 at about 8'O clock near Ramalayam in Peramgunta Kothapalli village he along

¶8

with other accused attacked the injured i.e. P.W.1 N.Shavasu with axes, sticks and other deadly weapons and caused simple hurt to him. The overt act attributed to the petitioner is that he assaulted P.W.1 with an axe and gave blows on his head while the other accused attacked him with other weapons.

¶9

5. The main contention of the petitioner’s counsel is that the appellate court disbelieved the case against A-2 to A-6 on the very same evidence and therefore it ought to have recorded an acquittal even as against the petitioner. His second contention is that the evidence of P.W.1 and the overt acts attributed to him also do not tally with the medical evidence in many respects and consequently he is also entitled to acquittal. The appellate court has rejected these two contentions.

¶10

6. It may be noted that P.W.1 in his evidence stated that the petitioner gave blows on his head with an axe and the medical evidence consisting of the oral testimony of P.W.7 Dr. M.Venkateswarlu and Ex.P.5 wound certificate given by him for P.W.1 would show that many of the injuries found in it tally with the overt acts attributed to the petitioner. The trial court and as well as the appellate court considered these aspects and concluded that the prosecution has been able to establish the guilt of the petitioner in a convincing manner beyond any reasonable doubt. A perusal of the evidence of P.W.1 and also the medical evidence would show that the findings recorded by both the courts below cannot be said to be against the evidence. Regarding the contention that A-2 to A-6 were acquitted on the same evidence, it may be noted that the appellate court discussed this aspect in detail and concluded that the medical evidence does not support the overt acts attributed to them and there are also discrepancies

¶11

in the eye witness account and medical evidence regarding their participation in the incident. Thus the contention that since the appellate court rejected the case against A-2 to A-6, the same principle is to be applied to the petitioner cannot be accepted in the circumstances of this case. Accordingly, the conviction of the petitioner under Section 324 IPC is confirmed.

¶12

7. Coming to the sentences, the learned counsel for petitioner says that the case in the trial court is of 1998 and the incident occurred because of a petty quarrel in the village regarding grazing of sheep and that more than 12 years have passed from the date of the incident and that the petitioner also now aged around 40 years, having grown up children whose marriages he has to perform and therefore keeping in view these circumstances and also having regard to the fact that the petitioner has spent 15 days in jail after his conviction, the petitioner may be let off with the sentence of imprisonment already undergone. However, having regard to the circumstances of this case, I am of the opinion that though the above plea of the petitioner’s counsel can be accepted the same can be done only by correspondingly increasing the fine so as to compensate the victim i.e. P.W.1.

¶13

8. Accordingly, the sentence of substantive sentence of imprisonment is modified into one of imprisonment already undergone and the fine is increased to Rs.7,000/- (Rupees seven thousand only) with a default clause prison sentence of six months for its non-payment. The petitioner shall deposit the fine amount of Rs.7,000/- in the trial court within one month from today and the fine amount already deposited by the petitioner shall be given credit by the trial court in collecting this fine. On such deposit, a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) shall be paid as

¶14

compensation to P.W.1 after expiry of time for the prosecution or the de facto complainant/victim to pursue their remedies against this judgment. With the above modifications in sentence this criminal revision case is dismissed.

¶15

______________________ N.RAVI SHANKAR, J 13^th March 2012 CVRK Note: Office to issue copy as soon as possible. B/o CVRK

Chennuboyina Gangaiah, v. The State Sho., Kanigiri P.S.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chennuboyina Gangaiah, v. The State Sho., Kanigiri P.S.

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

V.Marthand Goud Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep.by Public Prosecutor

P. Uma Maheswar, Vs State, through Govt. of India

Kotipalli Mallikarjuna Rao Vs The State Rep.by its Public Prosecutor

Mandala Balraj, Vs The State of a.P., through Sho.

Mohd. Siddiq, Vs State of a.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor

Dulla Venugopal, Vs Aradyula Pothuraju , Sivarama Raju