Partly allowed

Kyna Siddulu and 3 Others, v. the State of a.P., Rep by Pp.

Telangana HC14 Jul 2022CRLA/1697/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court reduced the sentence already undergone by appellants convicted for Indian Penal Code offences, leaving the sentence confirmed for the period served. The criminal appeal was partly allowed with orders to close pending miscellaneous applications.

What did the court decide?

Sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone; criminal appeal partly allowed; pending miscellaneous applications closed.

Kyna Siddulu and 3 Others, Vs the State of a.P… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSiTICE K.SURENDER

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL N O: 1697 OF 2009

¶7

Petition under Section 324 (2) Cr.p.C aggrieved by the Judgment dated. 09-'11-2009 passed in S.C.No.37B of 2006 on the file of the Court of the V Additional District and sessions Judge, Fast rrack court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.

¶8

Between:

¶9

, . .!!'a:)tl

¶10

'.frgfVna^{Siddulu,(A-1)S/o. t\ilailaiah,Agricutture, R/o.Thondupaili Village} ir':2#kyma Mallamma,(A-2), Wo. IMallaiah, Agriculture, Rl/o. Thondupalli Village . :#:[y..r,^{Mallaiah, (A-3), S/o. Late peddabeerappa, LabourerFlio. Thondupalli} ' Village , ;4;'-.Akula Papaiah,(A-4), S/o. Butchaiah, Barber, Rl/o. Thondupalli Village

¶11

...PETITIONERS/APELLANT No.1 to 4

¶12

AND

¶13

The State.pf A.P-, Represented by the public prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.

¶14

...RESPODENT/COMPLAINANT

¶15

Counsel for the Appeltants : SMT. D. SANGEETHA REDDY ..ii{l,

¶16

.,9gH,*1f.r the Respondent : ASS|STANT^{pUBLICpRoSEcUToR} (TG) :fhelCgurt delivered the following: JUDGMENT '^' ."d5-'( . qtv i, ,':r.

:.:

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶21

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1697 oi 2OO9

¶22

JUDG]VIENT:

¶23

The appeliants/Al to A'4 were convicted for the offence under Section 355 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay Rs.5O0/-, in defauit, simple imprisonment for a period of one month and appeilants/Al to A.3 are further convicted and sentenced to under;go simple imprisonment for a period of six months vide judgment in S.C.No.378 of 2006 dated 09.11.2009 passed by the V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast'lrack Court, R.R.District, L.B.Nagar (for short the learned Sessions Judge'). Aggrieved by the sarne, present appeal is filed.

¶24

It is the case of the prosecution that on 22.12.2005 at about 5.30 p.m, the appellants herein wrongfuliy conlined P.W. 1 and tied her to electric pole, cut her tuft and also tonsured hcr head, as such, charges under Sections 342,824, 354 and 504 ol IPC u,ere framed by the trial Court. However, the triai Court, alter adducing gyidence and having examined

¶25

¶26

P.I[/s.1 to 8 and marking trxs.pl to p1 1 convicted the appellants as stated above.

¶27

The accused r.vere found not guilty for the offence under Sections 324 and 504 IPC.

¶28

P.W. 1 stated that slie is a coolie by profession and about two years prior to her evid.ence in the Court, whiie she was proceeding in front of A1, A1 caught hold of her and took her inside the house and made her to take bath with cold water and tied to a.n eiectric pole and tonsured. p.W.2, u,ho is the da'.rghter of P.W. 1, P.W.3, who is sister in law of p.W. 1 also stated the said fact of tying P.W. 1 to the electric pole and tonsuring her hair. P.Ws.4, 5 and 6, who are village elders turned hostiie to the prosecution case.

¶29

The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that P.Ws. 1 to 3 are ciose reiatives and interested witnesses. Independent u.itnesses and village elders have not supported the prosecution, as such, basing on the evidence of interested witnesses, conviction cannot be sustained. Aiternatively, he submits that since the incident happened 17 years ago and

/,, ',

\ \

I t

the triaL Court has acquitted the accused lor the oflence under Secticrns 324 and 504 of IPC, as such, lenient view may be taken.

¶35

.-earned Assistalt Public Prosecutor submits that Lhough the incident is of the year 2005, acts of these accused indicate that they were practicing black magic, they were correctly convi,:ted by the trial Court.

¶36

,\s seen from the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 8. the allegation is that P.W.1 was tied to electric pole, hor,r,ever, there is no reason as to why she was tonsured.

¶37

.3y the time the police had reached the scene, certain hair u'as available at the scene and the rope,,r'ith nhich P.W.1 was aliegedly tied. P.W.7, the Doctor stated that she lound sma_ll abrasions over the head and neck of P.W.1,rvl-rich could, in a_11 probability, the result of tonsuring the hair.

¶38

,n.the said circumstances, it cannot bc said that P.W.1

¶39

u'zrs not tied to the police. The incident bcing occurred 17 vcnrs ago, since no reasons are given as to \,hy the accused acted in such a marrner, in the^abscnce of any allegation

under Section 354 of IpC, ihis Court deenrs it proper to reduce the sentence already undergone.

¶44

iO. In the result, the sentence of imprisonment under Sections 355, 325 and 312 of IpC imposcd by the iearned Sessions Judge are conlirmed. However, the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone.

¶45

Accordingly, the Cr.iminal Appeal is partl.y allowed. As a sequel therelo, miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shail stand closed.

¶46

SD/.K.SRINIVASA RAO JO INT ISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

The V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.

¶51

The Station House Officer, Shamshabad Police Station , Hyderabad.

¶52

Two CCs to Assistant Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of

¶53

d..^{Telangana, at Hyderabad} [OUT]

¶54

One CC to Smt. D. Sangeetha Reddy, Advocate [OPUC]

¶55

Two CD Copies

¶56

One Spare Copy CDL gbr w

I , I

I I ,' I

i il,l .iil

HIGH COURT

DATED: 1410712022

'- ,t.
//.."
; tt .tt N1:L
,),
a
*
P ,f1
"ttl

¶63

JUDGiMENT

¶64

CRLlt.No.1697 of 2009

¶65

PARTL'' ALLOWINC] THE

¶66

CRIMN.IAL APPEAI,.

Kyna Siddulu and 3 Others, v. the State of a.P., Rep by Pp.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kyna Siddulu and 3 Others, v. the State of a.P., Rep by Pp.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mirza Mujaheed Baig Vs The State of Telangana

AbimanKalyan Powar Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Aruna Bai , Angoori Bai Vs The State of Telangana

Tatiparthi Sri Rama Srinivas Prasad and 2 Others, Vs the State of a.P., Rep by Pp.

State Rep. by Insp of Police Acb Adilabad, Rep. by Spl. Pp H Vs K. Anantha Padmanabha Rao, and Another

Smt. Tachadishetty Vijayalaxmi, Vs the State of a.P., Rep by Pp.