Partly allowed

Bezwada Gopi , v. The State of A.P.

Telangana HC5 Jul 2013CRLA/490/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the conviction under Section 506 IPC but allowed the appeal regarding Section 354 IPC by reducing the imprisonment sentence from six years to two years, observing the appellant had undergone substantial imprisonment.

What did the court decide?

Conviction under Section 354 IPC confirmed; sentence reduced from six years to two years rigorous imprisonment; sentence under Section 506 IPC confirmed; both sentences to run concurrently; period und

Bezwada Gopi , Vs The State of A.P. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO

¶2

CRl.A.No.490 of 2006

¶3

JUDGMENT

¶4

This appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 21.03.2006, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Vijayawada, in S.C.No.190 of 2004.

¶5

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

¶6

One week prior to the date of incident, P.W.1-victim, her mother-P.W.2, their relative-P.W.3 and other mutha coolies went to Vijayawada to do earth work and raised tents to stay. On the intervening night of 19/20.03.2004, the accused entered into the tent, caught hold of the hand of P.W.1 when she was sleeping with her family members, inserted his hand in her blouse, and when she woke up and questioned him, proclaiming himself to be a rowdy, he threatened to cut her with a blade. On a report given by P.W.1, a case in Cr.No.145 of 2004 under Sections 354 and 506 IPC was registered against the accused. After recording the statements of witnesses concerned and after completion of investigation, the police laid the charge sheet.

¶7

3. To substantiate the case of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.P1 and P2 were marked. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the defence except marking of Exs.D1 and D2.

¶8

4. The learned Sessions Judge after taking into consideration

¶9

the evidence of prosecution witnesses, found the accused guilty of the charges under Sections 354 and 506 IPC and thereby convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 354 IPC; and further convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.4,000/-in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 506 IPC. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant/accused filed the present appeal.

¶10

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

¶11

6. Learned Counsel for the appellant/accused fairly conceded that this is not a fit case for interference, but having regard to the fact that the appellant has undergone imprisonment for a substantial period, a lenient view may be taken insofar as the sentence of imprisonment is concerned.

¶12

7. P.W.1 deposed that on the date of incident, while she was sleeping with her mother in an improvised tent, the accused caught hold of her hand, placed his hand in her jacket and when she woke up and questioned, proclaiming himself to be a rowdy sheeter he threatened to cut her with blade, then he was caught hold of by the collies, who were present there, then all of them went to the police station and submitted a report. The evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 is corroborated with the evidence of P.W.1. P.W.4 is the Investigating Officer. As per the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, they

¶13

came to Vijayawada to eke out their livelihood as such there was no previous enmity with the accused. Since the accused was caught red handed by the witnesses at the scene of offence and handed over to the police and the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is credible and trustworthy, the trial Court found the accused guilty of the charges framed against him and recorded the conviction and the sentence as stated supra. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the nature of the offence committed by the accused, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the conviction recorded by the trial Court. But however, in view of the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant-accused that the accused has undergone imprisonment for a substantial period and also the lapse of 9 years period from the date of occurrence, this Court is inclined to take a lenient view by reducing the sentence of imprisonment from six years to two years rigorous imprisonment, while maintaining the sentence of fine imposed by the trial Court for the offence under Section 354 IPC. The conviction and the sentence recorded against the appellant by the trial Court for the offence under Section 506 IPC are confirmed.

¶14

8. In the result, the conviction recorded against the appellantaccused by the trial Court for the offence under Section 354 IPC is confirmed, but the sentence of imprisonment imposed for the said offence is reduced from six years rigorous imprisonment to two years rigorous imprisonment while maintaining the sentence of fine. The conviction and the sentence recorded against the appellant by the trial Court for the offence under Section 506 IPC are confirmed. Both the sentences of imprisonment shall run

¶15

concurrently. The period already undergone shall be set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C.

¶16

The appellant-accused is directed to surrender before the trial Court so as to serve the remaining sentence of imprisonment. With the above modification, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. Miscellaneous Petitions filed in this appeal, if any, shall stand closed.

¶17

_______________ RAJA ELANGO, J

¶18

5^th July, 2013 sj

Bezwada Gopi , v. The State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bezwada Gopi , v. The State of A.P.

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

Kodi Mallaiah , Prem, Vs State of A.P.

Mudavath Venkataiah, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Mudavath Bhasya , Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Koppaka Sanjeevarao (A1) Vs The State of A.P.

K.Sampathkumar, Vs The State ,through S.H.O P.S., Ramadugum

Gurram Koti Reddy, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Station House Officer