The Apex Court dismissed the criminal appeal against conviction for snatching under Section 382 IPC but reduced the sentence to the period already undergone, considering the length of delay since the incident.
Criminal Appeal partly allowed; sentence of imprisonment reduced to the period already undergone.
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.
[32s1 ]
Note: The Accused/Appellant was released on bail vide court order dated: 22.04.2010 in CRL.AMP No. 932 OF 2010.
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
MONDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINA L APPEAL NO: 590 OF 2010
Criminal Appeal under Section 37 4(2) of Cr.P.C against the Judgment, dt. 30-3-2010 in SC.No. 545 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the lll Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.
Between:
Syed Wajid,, S/o Syed Babumiya, Auto Driver, Fl/o H.No. 2-3-6031711381A, Near Bilala Mazeed, Patelnagar,
...APELLANT/ACCUSED
AND
...RESPODENT/COMPLAINT
Counsel for the Appellant: Ms. C. VIJAYA LAXMI, Advocate
Counsel forthe Respondents: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Court made the following: Judgment
Crl.Appeal N0.590 of 2010
1
THE HONOURABLE SRI ]USTICE K.SURENDER
_c8J.lIINAL APPEAL NOS.59O OF 2010
JUDGMENT:
This Crimir,rl Appeal is flled under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal F)rocedure (for short "Cr.P.C.') by the appellant/accused aggrieved by the conviction recorded by the learned III Additional Metropolitan Sess ons Judge, Hyderabad in Sessions Case No.545 of 2009 dat:d 3C.l)3.2010 convicting the accused for the offence punishabk: underr Section 382 of Indian Penal Code and sentence of rigorous irnprison nent for a period of six months.
crl.Appeal No.590 of 2010
2
evidence on record and the way in which the incident occurred, found that the appellant was not Ouilty for the offence under Section 354 of IPC
Crl.Appeal No.590 of 2010
3
I
I
Miscellaneols applications, if any pending in this criminal
appeal, shall starrr closed.
SD/. B,S. CHIRANJEEVI JOINT REGISTRAR |/TRUE COPY// qt)
SECTION OFFICER
To,
BN
K sd
HIGH COURT
DATED:1 C 110,"2)22
JUDGMENT
CRLA.No.590r>f 2010
1tr E STAT €'
q
13 JAll 2ffI3 yc2
oJ()
,.:
<:
D619c.4-iC!i
PARTLY ALT.()WING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL
v'
rk
\v x<br>
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Criminal Appeal against conviction for snatching and attempted theft should be dismissed or sentence reduced.
Whether the delay of 14 years in the incident warrants reduction of the sentence to the period already undergone.
Whether the acquitted charge under Section 354 IPC prevents conviction under Section 382 IPC.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Syed Wajid
The State of Andhra Pradesh
K. SURENDER
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
