Partly allowed

Mohd.Anwar Ali, v. The State of A.P.

Telangana HC4 Jul 2013CRLRC/1184/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a revision against conviction and sentence by courts below, the court maintained the conviction for assault but reduced the sentence of imprisonment since the petitioners had been imprisoned for a substantial period over a ten-year lapse. The order imposed a total of Rs.3,000 fine to be paid as compensation to the injured party.

What did the court decide?

Sentence of imprisonment reduced to period undergone; total fine of Rs.3,000 each fixed as compensation to injured party; default imprisonment of three months for non-payment.

Mohd.Anwar Ali, Vs The State of A.P. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO

¶2

Crl.R.C.No.1184 of 2006

¶3

JUDGMENT

¶4

This revision is directed against the judgment, dated 07.07.2006, passed by the learned Special Judge for trial of offences under SCs/STs(POA) Act-cum-V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy in Crl.A.No.20 of 2005 confirming the conviction and the sentence imposed against the petitioners/accused by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Sangareddy vide judgment dated 06.01.2005 in S.C.No.255 of 2003.

¶5

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

¶6

On 04.03.2003 at about 4.30 PM., while P.W.1-de facto complainant and his brother-in-law-P.W.2 were standing near by a newly constructed wall, on the ground that P.W.2 had encroached into their site, A1 and A2 started demolishing the wall with a crowbar and spade, respectively and when P.W.2 tried to intervene, A2 beat on his head with a spade and A1 beat with a crowbar on his back causing bleeding injuries. On a report given by P.W.1, a case in Cr.No.36 of 2003 under Section 307 IPC was registered against the accused. On completion of investigation, the police concerned laid the charge sheet.

¶7

3. To substantiate the case of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 6 were examined and Exs.P1 to P5 and M.Os.1 and 2 were marked. No evidence was adduced on behalf of defence, but Exs.D1 and D2 were marked.

¶8

4. The learned Sessions Judge after taking into consideration the evidence of prosecution witnesses, found A1 and A2 not guilty of the offence under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC, but found them guilty of the offence under Section 324 IPC and thereby convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-in default to undergo three months simple imprisonment each. Questioning the said conviction and the sentence, the petitioners/accused filed Crl.A.No.20 of 2005 and the lower appellate Court on re-appreciation of the entire evidence, dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and the sentence imposed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners/accused filed the present revision.

¶9

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

¶10

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioners/A1 and A2 fairly conceded that this is not a fit case for interference, but having regard to the fact that the petitioners have undergone imprisonment for a substantial period, a lenient view may be taken insofar as the sentence of imprisonment is concerned.

¶11

7. From the record, it appears that the petitioners/A1 and A2 were in jail for a substantial period. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the nature of the offence committed by the petitioners-accused, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the conviction recorded by the Courts below. But however, in view of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the

¶12

petitioners have already undergone imprisonment for a considerable period and also the lapse of 10 years period from the date of occurrence, the sentence of imprisonment imposed on them by the Courts below is reduced to the period already undergone while maintaining the sentence of fine imposed by the Courts below. The petitioners/A1 and A2 are directed to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-(Rupees three thousand only) each apart from the fine already paid by them, before the trial Court on or before 31.08.2013, in default they shall undergo three months simple imprisonment each. On such payment, the entire amount shall be paid to P.W.2-injured as compensation. If the fine amount is paid after the stipulated time and while the petitioners are undergoing the default sentence, they shall be released.

¶13

8. With the aforesaid modification, the Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed. Miscellaneous Petitions filed in this revision, if any, shall stand closed.

¶14

_________________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO

¶15

4^th July, 2013 sj

Mohd.Anwar Ali, v. The State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd.Anwar Ali, 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tejavath Nagamani Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M.Padmanabha Naidu Vs State of a.P., rep. by its P.P.

Vinod Yadhav, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

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

Mudavath Venkataiah, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Mudavath Bhasya , Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh