Partly allowed

Gudipally Chandrashekar Reddy , Chandu, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC7 Nov 2012CRLRC/2352/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this revision against an appellate judgment, the High Court upheld the conviction of the accused under Section 366 IPC but commuted the remaining sentence of rigorous imprisonment to the period already undergone while maintaining the fine.

What did the court decide?

The sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone; the fine is maintained; the accused is released if not required in any other crime.

Gudipally Chandrashekar Reddy , Chandu, Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO

¶2

Crl.R.C.No.2352 of 2012

¶3

JUDGMENT

¶4

This revision is directed against the judgment, dated 15.10.2012, passed by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Gadwal, in Crl.A.No.51 of 2012, wherein the conviction and sentence imposed against the petitioner/accused by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Gadwal, vide judgment dated 17.04.2012 in S.C.No.104 of 2011, was confirmed and modified.

¶5

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:

¶6

The petitioner/accused got acquainted with the victim girlP.W.2 when she was working as a private Teacher at Akshara Techno School, Gadwal, and he also developed intimacy with her with a promise to marry her at Hyderabad and insisted her to get gold ornaments and cash from the house. Accordingly, the victim took the gold ornaments. On 06.02.2010 the accused kidnapped the victim with the gold ornaments to Hyderabad and thereafter he took away the gold ornaments and left her at Hyderabad bus-stand and fled away. On the basis of the complaint given by the father of the victim i.e., P.W.1., a case in Cr.No.39 of 2010 of Gadwal Town Police Station was registered against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 366-A, 276 IPC and under Section 3(1) (x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The police recorded the statements of witnesses concerned and produced the accused under PT warrant

¶7

on 03.03.2010. After completion of investigation, police filed the charge sheet.

¶8

3. During the course of trial, P.Ws.1 to 13 were examined and Exs.P1 to P8 were marked on behalf of the prosecution and M.Os.1 to 5 were also marked. No evidence was adduced and no document was marked on behalf of defence.

¶9

4. The learned Sessions Judge after taking into consideration the evidence of prosecution witnesses, found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 366 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. Questioning the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner/accused filed Crl.A.No.51 of 2012 and the lower appellate Court on re-appreciation of the entire evidence, dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction, but reduced the sentence of imprisonment of five years to three years rigorous imprisonment while maintaining the fine as it is. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/accused filed the present revision.

¶10

5. Heard both sides and perused the material on record.

¶11

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as the petitioner was in jail for a period of two years six months, lenient view can be taken in his case.

¶12

7. From the record, it appears that the petitioner was in jail for a substantial period. In the facts and circumstances of the case

¶13

and in view of the nature of the offence committed by the petitioner-accused, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the judgments impugned. But however, in view of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has already undergone two years six months imprisonment, the sentence of imprisonment imposed on him by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Gadwal, for the offence under Section 366 IPC in Crl.A.No.51 of 2012 by judgment dated 15.10.2012, is reduced to the period already undergone, while maintaining the sentence of fine imposed by the said Court. The petitioner shall be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other crime.

¶14

8. Except the said modification, in all other aspects, this revision is dismissed. Miscellaneous Petitions filed in this revision, if any, shall stand closed.

¶15

__________________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO

¶16

7^th November, 2012 sj

Gudipally Chandrashekar Reddy , Chandu, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gudipally Chandrashekar Reddy , Chandu, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

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

Samarthi Rambabu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Repaka Sathyaprakash, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Chilukri Venkanna Vs The State of Ap.

V.Venkataram Sandeep, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Sanka Srinivasa Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Satyaveti Venkata Ramanaiah (A1) Vs The State of A.P.