Quashed

Devireddy Jayaramudu, v. The State of A.P.

Telangana HC13 Aug 2014CRLRC/1084/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision regarding an attempt to commit rape under Section 354 IPC, the High Court upheld the conviction despite objections about the victim's non-examination and witness discrepancies. The court held that non-examination was not fatal given the unchallenged complaint and corroborating evidence. The conviction was confirmed, but the sentence was reduced from five to two years.

What did the court decide?

Revision dismissed; conviction confirmed; sentence reduced to two years imprisonment.

Devireddy Jayaramudu, Vs The State of A.P. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

[HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1084 OF 2007 Dated 13-8-2014

¶2

Between:

¶3

Devireddy Jayaramudu.

¶4

..Petitioner.

¶5

And:

¶6

The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its . Public prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad

¶7

…Respondent.

¶8

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1084 OF 2007 ORDER:

¶9

This revision is against judgment dated 27-6-2007 in Criminal Appeal No.86 of 2004 on the file of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kadapa whereunder judgment dated 6-8-2004 in S.C.No.194 of 2003 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Badvel is confirmed.

¶10

Brief facts leading to this revision are as follows: Inspector of Police, Porumamilla filed charge sheet against revision petitioner alleging that on 18-4-2003 at about 4-30 P.M., while Sunnapu Venkata Rangamma was grazing rams in her fields, the accused came behind her and pulled her upper wear and expressed his desire and later pulled her and made an attempt to commit rape on her and when she raised cries, P.Ws.1 to 3 came there and on seeing them, accused ran away and on the report of Venkata Rangamma, F.I.R. is registered and investigation revealed that the accused is liable for punishment under Section 354 I.P.C. On these allegations, trial court examined four witnesses and marked three documents on behalf of prosecution and no

¶11

witness is examined and no document is marked on behalf of accused. On an overall consideration of oral and documentary evidence, trial court found the accused guilty for the offence under Section 354 I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for five years, with a fine of Rs.200/-. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, he preferred appeal to the court of Sessions, Kadapa and IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kadapa on a reappraisal of evidence confirmed the conviction and sentence and aggrieved by which, present revision is preferred.

¶12

Heard both sides.

¶13

Advocate for revision petitioner submitted that there are several discrepancies in the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 which create a doubt as to their presence and witnessing the incident. He further submitted that the victim complainant is not examined and her nonexamination is fatal. He further submitted that there is no corroboration for the version that was narrated in the complaint Ex.P.1. He further submitted that according to P.Ws.1 to 3, they were sitting under a mango tree nearby the place of incident, but the Investigating Officer has not shown any existence of such mango tree in the rough sketch and both the courts have ignored these discrepancies and contradictions and not extended benefit of doubt to the accused, therefore, conviction imposed by the trial court and confirmed by appellate court are liable to be set aside.

¶14

On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the very same objections are raised before the trial court and appellate court and both courts overruled objections on the ground that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is trustworthy and nonexamination of victim is not fatal as she was out of country at the time of trial of the case and that the contents of Ex.P.1 were not at all disputed by the accused during

¶15

cross-examination of Investigating Officer. It is submitted that there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings.

¶16

Now the point that would arise for my consideration in this revision is whether the Judgments of the courts below are legal, correct and proper?

¶17

POINT:

¶18

According to prosecution, on 18-4-2003, at about 4- 30 P.M., the victim Sunnapu Venkata Rangamma while grazing the rams in her field, the accused went there, pulled her upper wear and made an attempt to commit rape on her and on hearing the cries of victim, P.Ws.1 to 3 went there and on seeing them, he ran away.

¶19

The main argument of the advocate for revision petitioner is that non-examination of victim is fatal to the prosecution case. As rightly pointed out by learned Public Prosecutor, this objection was raised before the trial court and appellate court and both courts, considering the fact that examination of victim was dispensed with as she was out of country and the report of the victim marked as Ex.P.1 has remained unchallenged which is supported and corroborated with the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, convicted the accused.

¶20

Criminal law was set into motion on the report of victim which is marked as Ex.P.1. This document is marked through the Investigating Officer who received this document which is basis for registration of F.I.R. No objection is raised on behalf of petitioner-accused when this document is marked. Even during crossexamination, nothing was elicited from P.W.4 with reference to this document. In fact, this document was not at all touched during the cross-examination of P.W.4. The version that was mentioned in Ex.P.1 is fully supported and corroborated with the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 who arrived at the scene on hearing the cries of the victim. Both courts observed that nothing was brought on record

¶21

to show as to how the non-examination of complainant is fatal when the averments in Ex.P.1 are not disputed.

¶22

I do not find any wrong in the findings of trial court and appellate court with reference to non-examination of complainant.

¶23

The other objection of advocate for revision petitioner is that there are discrepancies in the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and those contradictions would create a doubt as to the presence of these three near the scene of offence. Advocate for revision petitioner submitted that according to prosecution, these three were sitting under a mango tree which is nearer to the scene of offence but in the rough sketch, Investigating Officer has not shown any mango tree and therefore, this would throw any amount of doubt as to the correctness of their version. This objection was also raised before the trial court and appellate court and both courts discarded this objection on the ground that P.Ws.1 to 3 are rustic villagers and small discrepancies are bound to occur and the discrepancies pointed out are not material. It is also observed by the trial court and appellate court that the mango tree referred to by P.Ws.1 to 3 was 100 yards away from the scene of offence and therefore, not showing it in the rough sketch is not at all fatal.

¶24

I have perused evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 who categorically deposed as to how they rushed towards scene of offence on hearing cries of victim and out of these witnesses, P.W.1 is no other than the mother of the victim.

¶25

Though the advocate for revision petitioner contended that there are contradictions in the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, no such contradictions or omissions are brought on record during the cross- examination of these three witnesses.

¶26

On a scrutiny of material on record, I do not find any illegality committed by the courts below and there are no

¶27

incorrect findings in the judgments of both the courts.

¶28

For these reasons, I am of the view that both the courts rightly convicted the accused and that there are no grounds to interfere with the same.

¶29

Now coming to sentence part, trial court imposed five years imprisonment with fine of Rs.200/- for the offence under Section 354 I.P.C. and the same is confirmed by appellate court.

¶30

According to Section 354 I.P.C., as applicable to the State of Andhra Pradesh, a minimum sentence of five years is prescribed for the offence under Section 354 I.P.C. but it can be reduced by recording reasons which shall not be less than two years.

¶31

Here the accused is aged about 30 years as on the date of offence and there is no material to show that he is involved in any other criminal cases of similar nature.

¶32

Considering the facts of the case and nature of allegations and the evidence of prosecution witnesses, I feel that the sentence of five years imprisonment can be reduced to two years and with this modification regarding sentence, this revision is liable to be dismissed.

¶33

In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the conviction but the sentence of five years imprisonment is reduced to two years. The trial Court shall take steps to apprehend the accused to undergo the unexpired portion of the sentence.

¶34

As a sequel to the disposal of this revision, the Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending, shall stand dismissed.

¶35

____________________ JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR

¶36

Dated 13-8-2014. Dvs.

¶37

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR

¶38

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1084 OF 2007 Dated 13-8-2014

¶39

Dvs

Devireddy Jayaramudu, v. The State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devireddy Jayaramudu, 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

Padakanti Venkateshwarlu, Vs The State of Telangana

Anaparthi Rama Krishna, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt U.Padma Vs State of Telangana Through Si of Police

Mrs. Ravinder Kaur, Vs M/s. Kamala Computers (p) Ltd., rep by its managing

Champa Lal Rawal, Vs State of Telangana through Ccs Hyderabad Ps

Burremolla Kumar, Vs Burremilla Dayanand died per L.Rs