Allowed

Pujari Guravaiah, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC9 Jul 2013CRLRC/1258/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision, the High Court confirmed the conviction of the petitioner for offences of voluntarily causing hurt, using criminal force to insult modesty, and criminal intimidation under the IPC. The court, noting the case was from 2002 and parties were living amicably, reduced the sentence to the period already served in prison.

What did the court decide?

Sentence modified to the period already undergone; conviction confirmed.

Pujari Guravaiah, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISIOIN CASE No.1258 OF 2006

¶3

Date: 09.07.2013

¶4

Between: Pujari Guravaiah

¶5

..... Petitioner AND The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Public Prosecutor High Court of A.P., Hyderabad

¶6

.....Respondent

¶7

The Court made the following:

¶8

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO

¶9

CRIMINAL REVISIOIN CASE No.1258 OF 2006

¶10

ORDER:

¶11

This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the judgment, dated 28.01.2006, rendered in Criminal Appeal No.5 of 2004 by the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Markapur.

¶12

2. Initially, the petitioner/Accused was tried in C.C.No.137 of 2002 for the offence punishable under Sections 325, 324 and 509 of Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’) wherein he was found guilty under Section 248 (2) Cr.P.C. and sentenced to undergo simple Imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence under Section 325 IPC, simple Imprisonment for a period of two months for the offence under Section

¶13

324 IPC and simple Imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence under Section 509 IPC. In appeal, the appellate Court vide impugned judgment confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court. Challenging the same, present revision is filed. 3. The brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of the present Criminal Revision Case are as follows:

¶14

The offence occurred at Sivaraja Nagar within the limits of Darsi Police Station. The accused erected a hut in the site of one Venkataswamy belongs to Erukula caste. PWs.1 and 2 who are wife and husband were engaged as coolies to erect the said hut. But subsequently on the representation of the said Venkataswamy M.R.O. got removed the said hut from the site of Venkataswamy and the accused raised another hut in the place shown by the M.R.O. The accused felt that there was hand of PW.1 behind the removal of his earlier hut from the site of Venkataswamy. On 13.06.2002, at 9.00 PM, the accused went upon the house of PWs.1 and 2, abused PW.2 in filthy language and uttered the word “Lanja” and thereby, insulted the modesty of PW.2 and further beat her with stick on her head and when PW.1 interfered, the accused also beat him on his right hand and caused injuries to PWs.1 and 2 turned up in the police station and PW.8 recorded the statement of PW.1 and registered the same as a case in Crime No.63 of 2002 under Sections 324, 509 IPC, and PWs.1 and 2 were referred to the hospital. On completion of investigation, S.I. of Police, Darsi Police station (LW.9) laid charge sheet.

¶15

4. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused for the offences under Sections 324, 326 and 509 IPC.

¶16

5. During the course of trial, PWs.1 to 8 were examined and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.8 on behalf of the prosecution. On behalf of the defence, none were examined and no documents were got marked. 6. The trial Court, after considering the evidence on record, convicted and sentenced the accused as stated above. In appeal also

¶17

the appellate Court confirmed the same. Challenging the same, the present Revision Case is filed.

¶18

7. In this case, PWs. 1, 2 and 5 supported the case of the prosecution while PWs.3 and 4 turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution. Relying on the evidence of PWs.1, 2 and 5, the trial Court as well as the appellate Court convicted the accused. 8. This Court also perused the record and heard the arguments. 9. This Court is of the view that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court appreciated the evidence in proper perspective and convicted the accused. As such, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of conviction recorded by the trial Court and confirmed by the appellate Court.

¶19

10. However, taking into consideration the occurrence took place in the year 2002 and it is also informed that the parties are living amicably in the same area, this Court is of the view that the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the revision petitioner can be reduced.

¶20

11. Therefore, while confirming the conviction imposed on the revision petitioner, the sentences of imprisonment imposed on the revision petitioner on all the three counts is hereby modified to that of the period already undergone by him in prison. Remaining portion of the impugned judgment holds good. 12. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of.

¶21

13. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Revision Case shall also stand closed.

¶22

Date: 09.07.2013 Ivd/Mva/sur

¶23

____________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO

Pujari Guravaiah, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pujari Guravaiah, 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

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

A.Prasad, Vs The State of A.P.

Chinthakayala Prabhakar, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

K.v.Virachary, Vs Smt.P.Pushpamma , Veeraiah Chary,.