Allowed

G.Jagadishwar , Jagadish, v. State through Sho.,, of P.S.

Telangana HC7 Jul 2022CRLA/834/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against conviction and five-year rigorous imprisonment under Section 354 IPC, the High Court held that evidence of eyewitness P.W.1 was sufficient. Considering the offence was committed 15 years ago and the appellant had no antecedents, the conviction was set aside and he was ordered released on probation of good conduct.

What did the court decide?

Sentence set aside and appellant ordered to be released on probation of good conduct under Section 360 Cr.P.C.

G.Jagadishwar , Jagadish, Vs State through… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

Bail Slip: The Petitioner / Accused was directed to be released on bail by the order ofthe High Court dated 09-07-2008 in Crl.A.M.P. No. 1162 of2008 in Crl.A.No. 834 of 2008

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

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

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶7

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 834 OF 2008

¶8

Crl.Appeal Under Section 374 (2) ot Cr.P.C. against the^judgment dated 02-06-2008 in S.C.No. 165 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad .

¶9

Between:

¶10

G.Jagadishwar @ Jagadish, S/o. G.Shankaraiah, R/o. 2-1-362116, Yellammababda, ...APPELLANT/ Accused Kukatpally, Hyderabad AND

¶11

State through SHO., of P.S., Marredpally P.S., Secunderabad, through the Public Prosecutorm ..-RESPODENT/ Complainant

¶12

Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. VENUGOPAL JULAKANTI

¶13

Counsel forthe Respondent: THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶14

The Court delivered the following: Judgment

¶15

HON'BLE SRI JTISTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL APPEAL No.834 OF 2OO8

¶16

JUDGMENT:

¶17

Questioning the conviction of the appellant under Section 354 c,f IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonmen: lor a period of five years and to pay fine of Rs.S,OOO/-, ir default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of thrr:e months vide judgrnent dated 02.06.2008 in S.C.No.165 of 2007 passed by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, the present appeal is filed.

¶18

2 The case of the prosecution is that ttre defacto complainant. who was not examined in the court during trial liled <:omplaint stating that she came down to Hyderabad on tourist visa and she along with two others, who belong^r-o USA were going to office at Street No.7, West Marredpally. In the meantime, one person, later identified as the accu:;ed wearing yellol,v dress stretched his hand to shake hands and he trieci to kiss on her lips, but r.vhen she avoided, she kissed her on her cheek. Further, he has placed his hands on her chest and he also stretched his hands l.owards P.W. 1. Due to the said acts, the appellant

¶19

¶20

had outraged her modesty and insulted her. She inlormed the same to the Administrative Officcr of the institution at the West Marredpally, who apprehended the accused person namely Jagadish and he was tal<en to the police station and complaint was lodged.

¶21

In support of the prosecution case, though tllre defacto corrpiaint lailed to appeal' before the Court during the course of trial, her friend wiro was examined as P.W. 1 stated about the incident that took place on 13.O3.2OO7. P.W. 1 who was allegedly present at the scene had stated that the accused had in fact kissed her friend on her cheek and also placed his hands on her chest and a,lso he extended his hand to P.W. 1, but she refused. P.W.2 is the Administrative Manager in West Marredpally, the office where PW. 1 and her friend went and on complaining, the accused was apprehended by PW2 and others and handed over to the police.

¶22

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that it is highly improbable that a stranger was caught only on the basis of his shirt colour and there would be several persons wearing the said yellow shirt and the appellant has been \

¶23

¶24

falsely implicated. He further submits that since the defacto complainant v/as not examined, the evidence of P.W.1, who was allegedly present at the scene, cannot be considered^to convict the a,:cused for the offence under Section 354^of IPC.

¶25

Learnecl Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that in fact, after kissing the defacto complainant, the appellant also tried to lciss P.W. 1, for which reason, non examination of t!;-e defctc&r complainant cannot be considered as fatal to the prosecutron case. The evidence of P.W. 1 is clear and convincing and cannot be said that the appellant has been falsely impli,:ated. The evidence of P.W. 1 is corroborated with the evidence of P.W.2, who knowing about the incident, searched for the accused here in ar:rd after identification, he was apprehe nded and handed over to the police in the police station. At :he time of lodging complaint, the appellant was also taken to the police station, for which reason, there cannot be rrny element of doubt regarding the prosecution case and .alse implication of the appeliant cannot be believed.

¶26

¶27

¶28

Ttre alleged offence took place on 13.03.2007 and the

¶29

appellant was aged 23 yeals. The counsel for the appeiiant submits that the appeilant is now aged 38 years and his wife and two children are dependent on him and further itis parents a,lso depend on him. In the said circumstances, since the offence had taken place 15 years ago, and there are no other questionable antecedents as lar as the appellant is concerned, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant can be released on probation of good conduct under Section 360 of Cr.P.C.

¶30

In the result, the Criminal Appeat is disposed olf by invoking Section 360 of Cr.P.C and accordingly sentence is set aside in SC No.165 of 2007, dated 02.06.2008. Since the appellant is already on bail, the bail bonds sha,ll stand cancelled.

¶31

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, il any, pending, shall stands closed.

¶32

¶33

SD/.K.SRINIVAS RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// .*(>

¶34

SECTIO'N.OFFICER

¶35

¶36

The Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.⁽ with records ) 2. The X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court , Secunderabad. 3. The Station House Officer, Marredpally Police Station, Secunderabad. 4. The Superintendent Central Jail, Cherlapally, Ranga^{ReddyDistrict.} 5. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court at^{Hyderabadfor the State of} Telangana (OUT)

¶37

One Cc to SRl. VENUGOPAL JULAKANTI Advocate [oPucl

¶38

Two CD Copies

¶39

One Spare "oO,^{. p_} '/(

¶40

HIGH COURT

¶41

DATED:071ct712022

¶42

,/j:.
,/t'*estetg :{
01 2il?2

¶43

JUD(;NIENl-

¶44

CRLA.No.834 of 2008

¶45

DISPOSINC OF TIIE CRI,.APPF:T\L.

¶46

S56"

G.Jagadishwar , Jagadish, v. State through Sho.,, of P.S.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Jagadishwar , Jagadish, v. State through Sho.,, of P.S.

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

Chimala Jangaiah Yadav and 2 others Vs Mancharla Gopal and another

Vanthala Laiban Vs The State of Telangana

Rahul Godse Vs the State of Telangana

Smt. D.a.Deepa Vs the State of A.P. and 3 Others

Ganta Narender Vs the State of A.P. Rep. by P.P.

Brahmandlapally , Brahmanapally Bixapathi Vs The State of Telangana