Partly allowed

Dhwarangula Ramesh , Burka, (A-1), v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC17 Dec 2014CRLRC/367/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision regarding theft, the High Court upheld the conviction based on the recovery of a duplicate key from the petitioner's possession following a disclosure statement, finding lower courts' judgments sound on evidence sufficiency.

What did the court decide?

The sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year is reduced to one already undergone. Bail bonds are cancelled as the fine is paid.

Dhwarangula Ramesh , Burka, (A-1), Vs The State of… — Cheating and Forgery | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SEETHARAMA MURTI

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 367 OF 2008

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘the CrPC’) by the petitioner/A1 is directed against the judgment dated 18.02.2008 of the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Adilabad passed in Crl.A.No.26/2006 whereby the learned Judge while dismissing the appeal had confirmed the conviction and sentence against the petitioner/A1 for the offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘the IPC’) vide judgment dated 27.02.2006 of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Adilabad in C.C.No.451/2005.

¶5

2. I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner/A1 and of the learned Public Prosecutor. I have carefully perused the material record.

¶6

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner/A1 had forcefully contended that there is no credible, much less, legal evidence for proving the case against the accused and that A1 is implicated in this case only because of the alleged confessions of A2 and A3 and that there is no legal evidence against him and that the case was foisted against him and that he is innocent and is not involved in any crime.

¶7

4. The learned Public Prosecutor having placed reliance on the evidence of PWs1 and 2 and that of the Investigating officer had supported the Judgements of the Courts below stating that the well considered and well reasoned judgments of the Courts below do not call for any interference and that there is no merit in the contentions of the revision petitioner.

¶8

5. Now the points for determination in the Criminal Revision

¶9

Case are -

¶10

(i) Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of A1 beyond reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under Section 379 of the IPC?

¶11

(ii) Whether A1 has made out valid and sufficient grounds for his acquittal? And, if so, whether the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside?

¶12

6. POINTS:

¶13

6. (a) The substance of the prosecution case is as follows: “On 17.08.2005 at about 10.00 AM PW1 came to the police station and lodged a report. In that report he had stated to the following effect: ‘He is the resident of Cinema Road of Adilabad. On 14.08.2005 at about 9.00 PM he had parked his motor cycle bearing registration No.AP-1-D-7921 in front of his house. When he came out after completing his supper, he had found that his said vehicle is missing. After searching at various places for his motor cycle he had finally come to the conclusion that some unknown offenders might have committed theft of his vehicle. Therefore, he is lodging the report-exhibit P1.’ Basing on the said report the subject crime was registered and was investigated into. During the course of investigation A2 and A3 were apprehended. They had confessed that they have committed theft of the motor cycle. At their instance and pursuant to their discovery statements the motor cycle was recovered. Further, on their confessions showing the complicity of A1, A1 was interrogated, and at his instance and pursuant to his disclosure statement the duplicate key of the motor cycle, with the help of which the motor cycle was committed theft of, was recovered. After the completion of investigation the charge sheet was laid.”

¶14

6. (b) To substantiate the charge, the prosecution had examined PW1, the owner of motor cycle, who spoke about his

¶15

ownership of the motor cycle and the theft of his motor cycle when it remained parked in front of his house on the date of the incident. In his evidence, exhibit P1 report was exhibited. Coming to the complicity of A1, PW2, who is the businessman of Adilabad had testified that on 07.10.2005 at about 9.00 AM the police had called him and another panch witness to the house of A1 to act as panch witnesses/mediators and that at that time when they went to the house of A1 they had found A1 and that when A1 was interrogated he had confessed that he had committed theft of MO1 (Motor Cycle) from the Cinema Road with a duplicate key and that the duplicate key, which was available with A1 has been seized from the possession of A1 under the cover of exhibit P2-panchanama. In his cross examination, it was elicited that he was running a TV showroom at a place adjacent to Anand Bhavan Lodge at Bhoktapur of Adilabad and that he does not know the house number of A1. However, he had stated that the house of A1 is situated opposite to ASRA Lodge, Adilabad. When it was suggested to him that he was related to PW1, he had denied the said suggestion. When it was further suggested to him that he was deposing falsehood, he had denied the said suggestion also as ‘not true’. The duplicate key recovered from A1 was exhibited as MO2. The Investigating Officer had also testified on the same lines and to the effect that on 07.10.2005 he had apprehended A1 at his house and that on interrogation A1 had confessed the commission of the offence and that A1 had further stated that he had committed the offence along with A2 and A3 and that on the disclosure statement of A1, the MO2, the duplicate key of the motor cycle, which was in the possession of A1, was recovered by him from A1 in the presence of PW2 and another witness. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the confession made to the police officer showing the complicity of A1 is inadmissible. However, the confession, which lead to the recovery of MO2, the duplicate key of the motor cycle, is admissible in evidence is not in dispute. Where the recovery was made from

¶16

possession of the accused in consequence of the disclosure statement of the accused, and when there are no circumstances to doubt the testimony of the PW2, the evidence in regard to the fact of discovery, which is admissible in evidence, in view of the provision of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, cannot be disbelieved. Therefore, the evidence of PW2 coupled with the evidence of Investigating Officer is sufficient, in the well considered view of this Court, to come to a safe conclusion that the charge against A1 was brought home as required under the facts and the law. Be it noted that the learned counsel for the petitioner had vehemently contended that the complicity of A1 in this case is only because of the confessions of A2 and A3 and that there is no legal evidence against him. However, as already noted A1’s complicity is established in view of the recovery of MO2, the duplicate key of motor cycle from his possession on his arrest and pursuant to his disclosure statement in the presence of panchas. Therefore, this Court finds no merit in the revision case.

¶17

6. (c) Coming to the quantum of sentence, the learned counsel for the petitioner/A1 had submitted that A1 is not an habitual offender and that A1 has no criminal antecedents and that A1 is a very young person of 20 years of age as on the date of the alleged offence and that he has got bright future and that subsequent to the offence he was not involved in any other offence and that therefore, a lenient view may be taken. He had also submitted that his case stands on a different footing than that of A2 and A3. The prosecution did not dispute the submissions that the accused had no criminal antecedents and that he is not involved in any other offence. Having regard to the extenuating and mitigating circumstances and the explanatory statement, this Court is of the considered view that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year can be modified and reduced to one already undergone.

¶18

7. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. However, the substantive sentence of imprisonment is modified and is reduced to one already undergone in so far as A1 is concerned. It is represented that the fine amount is already paid. If that is so, the bail bonds of A1 shall stand cancelled after the further appeal or the revision time, if any, is over.

¶19

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Criminal Revision Case shall stand closed.

¶20

____________________________ M.SEETHARAMA MURTI, J

¶21

Date: 17.12.2014 MVA

Dhwarangula Ramesh , Burka, (A-1), v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhwarangula Ramesh , Burka, (A-1), 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

P.Chandra, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

S.Srinivas Reddy, Vs a.Swaroopa Rani

G.Hanumanth , Hanumanth Rao Vs The State.,Sho.

Kothapalli Prabhakar, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Mohd.Abdul Rasheed, Vs Asiya Sultana

N. Ravindranath Reddy, Vs The State of Telangana