Dismissed

Nagavasa Srinivasa Rao, v. The State of A.P.

Telangana HC8 Jul 2013CRLRC/1237/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision against conviction and sentence for snatching at the point of a knife, the High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the lower courts decision based on red-handed arrest, despite counsel conceding leniency on the term of imprisonment. The Court ordered the petitioner to surrender to serve the balance of the sentence and set off time already undergone.

What did the court decide?

Dismissal of criminal revision, confirmation of conviction and sentence, direction to surrender, and set off of time already undergone under Section 428 Cr.P.C.

Nagavasa Srinivasa Rao, Vs The State of A.P. — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1237 of 2006

¶2

JUDGMENT

¶3

This revision is directed against the judgment, dated 26.06.2006, passed by the learned Special Judge for trial of offences under SCs & STs(POA) Act-cum-VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-XX Additional Chief Judge, Secunderabad in Crl.A.No.31 of 2006 confirming the conviction and the sentence imposed by the learned X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad vide judgment dated 31.12.2005 in C.C.No.39 of 2002.

¶4

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows: On 19.01.2002 at about 6.00 AM., when P.W.1 was passing near Elephant Railway bridge, Chilkalguda crossroads, the accused posing himself as a police officer, snatched away his purse containing a sum of Rs.1,500/- at the point of knife. On hearing his cries, the patrolling van chased and apprehended the accused at Blue Sea Hotel, Secunderabad. On a report given by P.W.1, a case in Cr.No.15 of 2002 under Section 382 IPC was registered against the accused. After competition of investigation, the police concerned filed the charge sheet.

¶5

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 and no document was marked on behalf of the defence.

¶6

4. The learned Magistrate, after taking into consideration the

¶7

evidence of prosecution witnesses, found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 382 IPC and thereby convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/accused filed Crl.A.No.31 of 2006 and the lower appellate Court on reappreciation of the entire evidence dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and the sentence recorded by the trial Court. Challenging the same, the petitioner/accused filed the present revision.

¶8

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

¶9

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

¶10

7. P.W.1 narrated the incident with regard to snatching away his purse by the accused at the point of knife and P.Ws.3 and 5, the police officers, caught hold of the accused red-handedly and seized the purse and the knife from his possession. In Ex.P1complaint, the name of the accused and other particulars of the offence have been mentioned. Though P.Ws.2 and 3, the mediators, did not support the case of the prosecution, the accused was red-handedly caught by the patrolling police along with the purse and the knife. Since the material witnesses had

¶11

identified the accused and M.Os.1 and 2 were seized from the possession of the accused, both the Courts below have rightly imposed the conviction and the sentence against the accused as stated supra. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the nature of the offence committed by the petitioneraccused, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the judgments impugned.

¶12

8. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the conviction and the sentence recorded against the petitioner-accused by the Courts below for the offence under Section 382 IPC. The period already undergone by the petitioner shall be set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C.

¶13

The petitioner-accused is directed to surrender before the trial Court so as to serve the remaining sentence of imprisonment. Miscellaneous Petitions filed in this revision, if any, shall stand closed.

¶14

_____________________ RAJA ELANGO, J 8^th July, 2013 sj

Nagavasa Srinivasa Rao, v. The State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nagavasa Srinivasa Rao, 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

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

Chamala Gowri Sankara Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

S.Venkatasudharshan Reddy, Vs The State of A.P.

Sesetti Ramachandra Rao (A-1), Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Public Prosecutor