Single panel judge allowed partial revision by reducing the fine and sentence to the period already undergone by the accused while confirming the conviction.
Sentence of imprisonment reduced to period already undergone; fine imposed by lower appellate court maintained.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO
CRL.R.C.No. 876 of 2006
JUDGMENT:
This revision is directed against the judgment, dated 18.05.2006 passed by the learned IX Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Visakhapatnam in Criminal Appeal No.20 of 2006, wherein the conviction and the sentence imposed against the petitioner/accused by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Narsipatnam vide judgment dated 25.01.2006 in C.C.No.324 of 2001 was confirmed and modified.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:
On 12.08.2001 at 9.00 a.m. PW-1-de facto complainant slapped the father of the accused in the coffee hotel of Alanki Demulu on the ground that he made comments about his changing of party in the ensuing panchayat elections. Keeping the same in mind, the accused bore grudge against PW-1. On 13.08.2001 at 1.15 p.m. the accused way laid PW-1 near the rice mill of Adari Dakshinamruthy and while PW-1 and PW-2 were proceeding from Bank to their houses for lunch on a cycle, the accused beat PW-1 with a casuarina stick on his hands and on body and causing
grievous and simple injuries. PWs.3 and 4, who witnessed the incident, shifted PW-1 to the Government Hospital, Narsipatnam. Basing on the statement of PW-1, a case in Cr.No.51 of 2001 under Sections 326 and 324 I.P.C. was registered. On completion of investigation, the police laid the charge sheet against the accused.
3. To substantiate the case of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 7 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-4 and M.O.1 were marked. No evidence was adduced on behalf of defence, but Exs.D-1 and D-2 were marked.
4. The learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Narsipatnam after taking into consideration the evidence of prosecution witnesses, found the accused not guilty of the offence under Section 326 I.P.C. and acquitted him of the said offence, but found him guilty of the offence punishable under Section 324 I.P.C. and thereby convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.20 of 2006 and the learned Sessions Judge after re-appreciation of the entire evidence and the material on record dismissed the appeal with the following modifications:
Challenging the same, the petitioner/accused filed the present revision.
5. Heard both sides and perused the material on record.
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 has undergone imprisonment for a substantial period, a lenient view may be taken insofar as the sentence of imprisonment is concerned.
7. From the record, it appears that the petitioner/accused was 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 petitioner/accused, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the conviction recorded by the lower appellate Court. But however, in view of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has already undergone imprisonment for a considerable period and also the lapse
of 12 years period from the date of occurrence, the sentence of imprisonment imposed on him by the Courts below is reduced to the period already undergone while maintaining the sentence of fine imposed by the lower appellate Court.
8. With the aforesaid modification, the Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this revision shall stand closed.
________________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO
10th July 2013 mar/sj
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the conviction and sentence imposed by the lower courts be modified in the vent of substantial time already undergone by the accused.
Whether the revision filed by the accused is maintainable.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Accused
De facto complainant
Raja Elango
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
