Partly allowed

Syed Wajid, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC10 Oct 2022CRLA/589/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Justice K.Surender disposed of two criminal appeals challenging conviction for snatching under IPC 382. Court upheld conviction but reduced sentence to time already undergone due to passage of fourteen years since the incident.

What did the court decide?

Sentence of imprisonment of the appellants reduced to the period already undergone; miscellaneous applications closed.

Syed Wajid, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

Note: The accused was released on bail vide Co. Dl. 22.Q4.2Q1O in Crl.A.M.P.No.931 of 2010

¶2

[3251 ]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶7

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 589 AND CRIMINAL APPEAL 620 OF 2010

¶8

CRL.A. No. 589 of 2010:-

¶9

Criminal Appeal Under Section 374(2) OF Crl.P.C against the Judgment dated 30.03.3010 in S.C.No. 544 of 2009. On the file of the Court of the lll Additional Itletropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

¶10

Between:

¶11

Syed Wajid, S/o Syed Babumiya.

¶12

...APELLANT/ACCUSED No.1.

¶13

AND

¶14

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad.

¶15

..RESPODENTS/COMPLAINANT

¶16

Note: The accused was released on bail vide Co. Dt. 29.04.2010 in Crl.A.M.P.No.990 of 201 0

¶17

CRL.A. No. 620 of 2010:-

¶18

Between:

¶19

Mirza Zaheer Baig, S/o Mirza Khamar Baig.

¶20

,..APELLANT/ ...ACCUSED No.2.

¶21

AND

¶22

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad.

¶23

..-RESPODENTS/COMPLAINANT

¶24

Criminal Appr ai Under Section 374(2) OF Crl.P.C agairrst the Judgment dated 30 03 3010 in S C N:. 544 of 2009. On the file of the Court,:rf the lll Additional Ivletropolitan Sessions J rrdge, Hyderabad.

¶25

Counsel fcr the App< llirnts in both: M/s. C. VIJAYA LAXMI, ADVOCATE

¶26

Counsel for the Resp cndr-'nt in both: PUBLIC PROSECTJTOR

¶27

The Court Delivcred thc: following Common Judgment:

¶28

¶29

¶30

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.589 AND 620 OF 2010

¶31

COMMON JUDGMENT:

¶32

These two Criminal Appeals are filed under Section 374(2) ot Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "Cr.P.C.') by the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2 aggrieved by the conviction recorded by the learned IlI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in Sessions Case No.544 of 2009 dated 30.03.2010 convicting the accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 382 of Indian Penal Code and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months each.

¶33

Since the appellants are Accused Nos.1 and 2 in the same Sessions Case No.544 of 2009, both the criminal appeals are heard together and disposed off by this common^judgment.

¶34

The case of the prosecution is that Accused Nos.1 and 2 on 10"02.2009 allegedly snatched the hand bag of lhe de facto complainant namely Divya. In the said hand bag there was an amount of Rs.200/-. When the appellants snatched the bag and were trying to flee in the auto, the persons on the road caught hold of the appellants and handed over in the^police station

¶35

¶36

-----....r.r--

¶37

Learned Sr:ssions Judge having examined tae^tn'i ttr:ssr:s PWs¹ to 3, marking E;s.P1 to P4 on behalf of the^prosecLr:i tr and^MOs1 and 2, found the appellants/Accused Nos.1 and 2^{gultl ,:'the} offence under Section 38 2 cf IPC.

¶38

The victi ! de facto complainant namely L)ivva v,/as not examined befor,: the Court, however, the leartecl 5e:;sions Judge came to the con :lusion that the appellants were rluilil [,::- tl-e offence under Section 3 i2 of IPC for the reason of they being r:auqht at the scene and were handed over to the police on the: vr:r^y s,rr.nr: day. In the said circum;tances, the learned Sessions JLrdge ound that the evidence of b' 'stander PWl was consistent wrtlr the case of prosecution anc the evidence of PW1 that th,lse ap,l:)ellants were caught after the z snatched hand bag of the complainart ranrely Divya cannot be suspe:ted.

¶39

The learn:d Sessions Judge having gone throuqir thc evidence on record and t re way in which the incident occllrred, trund that the appellants were not guilty for the offence under Sectior :i54 of IPC.

¶40

As seen f om the evidence on record, no grouncs are made out to find fault w [h the order of acquittal under S€cti,)rr 354 of IPC.

¶41

¶42

Further, the prosecution has not preferred any appeal against the acquittal oF the appellant under Section 354 of IPC.

¶43

Admittedly there was an incident which occurred on the said date and the appellants were caught lvhile trying to flee from the scene, after snatching the bag from the complainant namely Divya.

¶44

For the said reasons, I do not find any illegality in the order of the learned Sessions Judge convicting the appellants for the offence under Section 382 of IPC. However, the incident is of the year 2009, nearly fourteen (14) years have elapsed since the date of incident. The police seized Rs.100/- as the amount which was allegedly committed theft by the appellants. However, keeping in view the distance of time since the date of incident and the appellants underwent imprisonment during the course of investigation, this Court deems it appropriate to reduce the sentence of imprisonment of the appellants to the period already undergone.

¶45

Accordingly, both the Criminal Appeals are^partly allowed reducing the sentence of imprisonment of the appellants^to the^period already undergone.

¶46

¶47

Miscellane ous^{applications,if any pendingitr '' tes': crinrinal}

¶48

appeals, shall^{stlnd closed.}

¶49

IJ D/.I:I. S.^(]HIRANJEEVI JOIN.. REGISTRAR

¶50

,TRUE COPY// I ll, 'It; CTION OFFICER

¶51

To, 1 The lllAddition tl lt4etropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderaba^j witlr recordsl

¶52

2 The Vll Additiot al Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. 3 The Station Horrse Officer, Malakpet Police Station, HyCerat:ad 4 Two CC's to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the Stat: ,:f Telangana, at Hyderabad [{^)UT]

¶53

5 One CC to M/s. C VIJAYA LAXMI, Advocate [OPUC]

¶54

6 Two CD Copies 7 One Spare Cop 7

¶55

BB /')

¶56

CY\L

¶57

HIGH COUR--

¶58

DATED: 1A11012022

¶59

JUDGMENT CRLA.No.58t of 2010 AND

¶60

,a-
/a ,,.,tE firlrG:
o!
:.</
)
)
) 1 tt Ltl'l 'fl3 !
\it, \ :!: SI\TC

¶61

CRLA.No.62( of 2010

¶62

ALLOWING E OTH CRIMINAL APPEAL,S IIhI PART

¶63

@r*ern1,J"

Syed Wajid, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syed Wajid, 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

Sri Rajashekar Reddy , Rajashekar, Vs State of a.P., Rep by Spl.Pp.

The State of A.P. Vs Seshabhattar (Yadagiri), Laxmi Narsimha Chary

The State of A.P. Vs Nayakuni Bal Raj

Syed Wajid, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Amhed Bin Jabeer, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Ms/. Hazarimal Ram Prasad Vyas, Vs R.Laxman Babu and Another