Partly allowed

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

Telangana HC24 Feb 2012CRLRC/1662/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this revision case, the High Court held that while the conviction for grievous hurt maintained, the imprisonment term was reduced to time already undergone and the fine was enhanced, considering the family relationship.

What did the court decide?

Sentence of imprisonment reduced to time undergone; fine enhanced to Rs. 5,000/- payable within two weeks.

Kotipalli Mallikarjuna Rao Vs The State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR

¶2

Crl.R.C. No. 1662 of 2004

¶3

DATED: 24.02.2012

¶4

Between:

¶5

Kotipalli Mallikarjuna Rao Petitioner And State of A.P. .. Respondent

¶6

JUDGMENT:-

¶7

1) The petitioner herein is A1 in C.C. No. 34 of 2003. He was tried on a charge under Section 325 IPC along with A2 to A4 who were charged under Section 325 read with 34 IPC for causing grievous hurt to his mother i.e. PW1 – K. Seetharavamma in the aforesaid case. The trial Court i.e. the Court of VI Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur, by its judgment dated 20.11.2003, acquitted A2 to A4 but convicted the petitioner under Section 325 IPC and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for six months and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/- with a default clause of prison sentence for non-payment of fine. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of the trial Court, the petitioner filed Crl.A.No.456 of 2003. The appellate Court i.e. I Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, by its judgment dated 27.09.2004, dismissed that appeal confirming the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court. Questioning the judgment of the appellate Court, the petitioner came up with this revision case.

¶8

2) Admittedly, A1 is the son of PW1 – K. Seetaravamma while A2 to A4 are the wife and daughters of A1, and of course, they were

¶9

acquitted and I am not concerned with them in this revision. The prosecution version is that on 23.09.2002, during night time at about 8’ O clock, PW1, after attending annual death ceremony of her husband i.e. father of the petitioner, advised the petitioner to give some portion of land which he got from his father to her daughters i.e. sisters of A1. It is alleged that on that advise or request of PW1, the petitioner got enraged and assaulted PW1 by pushing her away and in that incident, PW1 suffered fracture in her left lower limb i.e. on the thigh region. Thereafter, the police concerned having received the case about the incident and after completion of investigation, charge-sheeted the petitioner and A2 to A4 in the case for the aforesaid offences.

¶10

3) Assailing the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial

¶11

Court and confirmed by the appellate Court, Sri K. Mahadeva, learned counsel for the petitioner, pointed that there was a delay of nearly six days in taking the report from PW1 and registering the case by the police and this apart, there are material discrepancies in the evidence of PW1 and the other witnesses and both the Courts below failed to look into the same and consequently, this Court should now interfere with the matter.

¶12

4) The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand,

¶13

pointed that there are no discrepancies in the evidence and further the

¶14

delay has also been properly explained as held by the trial Court and appellate Court and consequently there is no ground to interfere as the judgments in question do not suffer from any infirmity or illegality.

¶15

5) It may be noted that this is a case where PW1 is no other than the mother of A1 and her evidence would clearly show that she gave a very consistent and convincing account about the occurrence. Both the Courts below considered her evidence in detail and concluded that the charge brought against the petitioner must be upheld. It should also be noted that a mother will not come forward to give evidence against her son in an assault or hurt case like this unless there is truth in it. Nothing is brought to my notice to show that PW1 has any motive to falsely implicate the petitioner. In these circumstances, having regard to the merits of the matter and the assault or hurt caused by the petitioner to PW1, I am of the opinion that the judgments of the Courts below do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity in appreciation of evidence or in any other aspect.

¶16

6) Then coming to the delay in giving the F.I.R., it is true that the incident is said to have occurred on 23.09.2002 in the night whereas the police have registered the case on 29.09.2002 i.e. with a delay of six days. It is seen that the delay has been considered by both the Courts below and they found that the delay has been properly explained. Now, in this revision, I do not see any ground to interfere

¶17

with the above conclusion.

¶18

7) For the aforesaid reasons, it follows that the conviction of the petitioner recorded by the trial Court and confirmed by the appellate Court for the charge under Section 325 IPC has to be confirmed.

¶19

8) Then, coming to the question of sentences it may be noted that the offence under Section 325 IPC is compulsorily punishable with imprisonment and fine. It appears that in this view of the matter, the trial Court as well as the appellate Court thought it fit to impose sentence of imprisonment for six months. It may however be noted that this is a case where A1 is no other than the son of PW1, the later being his mother. It is also seen from the evidence that the incident broke out because of sharing of land belonging to the father of A1 among himself and his sisters. It is seen that there is no other dispute between the parties and it is also seen that in the incident, A1 pushed away PW1 while carrying out a simple assault and unfortunately it resulted in fracture of her left lower limb. It is brought to my notice that now A1 has got daughters of marriageable age who are the other accused in the case and who were acquitted. It is also represented that at the time of investigation, the petitioner has been in judicial custody for a period of four days and subsequently after the conviction was confirmed in appeal, he was in jail for four days. In these circumstances and having

¶20

regard to the relationship between A1 and PW1 who are the son and the mother and the dispute being a family dispute, I am of the opinion that ends of justice would be met if the petitioner so far as sentence of imprisonment is concerned, is punished with imprisonment already undergone by him while enhancing the fine amount.

¶21

9) Accordingly, the substantive sentence of imprisonment confirmed by the appellate Court i.e. for six months is reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by the petitioner while the fine amount is increased to Rs.5000/-. The petitioner shall pay this enhanced fine amount within two weeks from today in the trial Court, in default, he is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. Out of the fine amount deposited, a sum of Rs.3,000/- shall be paid as compensation to the mother after the expiry of time available for prosecution for pursuing its further remedies against this judgment. The fine amount already paid by the petitioner either in the trial Court or in the appellate Court shall be given credit and the petitioner shall be liable only to pay the balance amount of fine now enhanced.

¶22

10) With the above modification of sentences, this Criminal

¶23

Revision Case is disposed of.

¶24

N. RAVI SHANKAR, J 24.02.2012

¶25

bcj

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotipalli Mallikarjuna Rao v. The State Rep.by its 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

Gorantla Bhaskara Rao, Vs The State of a.P., through Si of Police, P.S. Narsaraopet

Bathala Venkata Sivudu, Vs Gunireddy Srinivasulu Reddy

Rasheed Ahmed Junaid Vs Bombay Mercantile Co.Op Bank Ltd.

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

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

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