Dismissed

Mohd Farhan, Hyd v. P.P., Hyd and Ano

Telangana HC14 Nov 2022CRLRC/2225/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal revision filed by an accused challenging his conviction and sentence under Section 411 IPC based on alleged groundless identification and delay in the parade. The High Court dismissed the revision, upholding the conviction by relying on confession and recovery evidence admitting the identification.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Revision Case dismissed; conviction and sentence confirmed; bail bonds cancelled; appellant to surrender forthwith.

Mohd Farhan, Hyd Vs P.P., Hyd and Ano — Cheating and Forgery | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

Bai lSlip:

¶2

The Petitioner/Appella nt/Accused has been released on bail vrde Court Order dated 30/0Bl'16 in Crl.R C l\4 P No 3347116 rn Crl R C No 2225116

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

IMONDAY. THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO IHOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI

¶7

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 2225 OF 2016

¶8

Criminal Revision case under Sections 397 & 401 of Crl.P.C against the Judgment in Crl.Appeal No 31 1\2016 on the file of the Court of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge. Hyderabad Preferred against the Order in CC. No.30 of 2016 on the file of the Court of the Vl Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

¶9

Between:

¶10

Mohd. Farhan, S/o Mohd Arif, Aged 22 years, Occ: Silver Staff Network TV Cable, Rio H No 13-1-1 17. Seetharambagh, Aeizbagh Lane, Hyderabad

¶11

.-.Petitioner/ AppellanU Accused.

¶12

AND

¶13

1 The State of Telangana, Rep by Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad ...Respondent

¶14

The Sub lnspector of Police, Langer House Police Station, Hyderabad ... Respondents/Complai nant

¶15

This Petitron coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Revision Case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri V.H.V.R.R. SWAMY, Advocate for the Petitioner and of the Public Prosecutor^(TG) on behalf of the Respondent No 1 & 2

¶16

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶17

TIIE IIOYBLI. Dr. JUS'IICE G. RADI{A RANI CIIIMIN \l- RIaVISION CASE No.2225 OF ;)016

¶18

ORDER:

¶19

This Crimii.ral Revision Case is filed by th: petitionerappeilant-accused aggrieved by the^judgment rlated 16.08.2016 passed il.l Crl.A. No.3 11 of 2016 on the file of t:re Court of Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad confirrning the orders dated 24.03.2016 passed in CC No.30 of 2016 on the file of the VI Additional Chief Ir,{etropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

¶20

The case of the petitioner was that the prosecutiorr filed charge sheet against him alleging that on 28.01.2015 at 10.30 hours while the complainant was proceeding to her office situatec. opposite to Swagath Grand Hotel and when she reached near l)illar No.93, P\NR Express \'ay, meantime, two unknown persons calne on a bike and snatchei irway her gold Mangalasutranr chirin weighing about four (4) tulas ;rrrd sped away towards ring road. Ilasing on the said complaint, Crime No.44 of 201 5 for the offences under Sections 379 and 356 IPC ?s registered. On27.02,2015 whle the crime staff were on patrolling dutv in Bapunagar Bus Stop, they found the

¶21

¶22

DtGRR.J (:rl.R(:ilo 2225 2Al6

¶23

petitioner-accused in suspicious manner. On seeing the patrolling party, the petitioner tried to escape. They caught hold him and on search, found in his possession two gold chains. As the accused failed to give satisfactory answer about his possessing the gold chains the Sub-lnspector of Police, Bapunagar recorded the confession and seizure panchanama of the accused and seized two gold chains weighing about three tulas and two tulas from the possession of the accused in the presence of panch witnesses. The accused on fuilher enquiry confessed that he committed the offences in Crime Nos.44 of 2015 and 56 of 2015 along with his associate Mohd. Yakub (absconding). The Sub-Inspector of Police affected the arrest of the accused and produced him before the coutt and gave a requisition to the concerned Magistrate for conducting Test Identihcation parade of the accused. The cornplainant identified the accused in the test identification^parade. As such,^{he filed} the charge sheet against the accused for the offences under Sections 379 and'356 IPC.

¶24

The case was taken cognizance by the^{VI AdditionalChief} Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad for the above^{offences. During}

¶25

I / rrtll^/ '^lt:',, :::)il

¶26

the course of triai, the prosecution examined PWs.l to 4 and got marked Exs.P 1 to P4 and MO I . On consider.ing the oral and documentary evidence on record, the trial court cor-rvicted the accused for the offence under Section 382 IPC and sentenced him to undelgo simple implisonment for a period of three yearr; and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment ol' fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month

¶27

Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the petitioneraccused prefered an appeal. The appeal was heard by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad vide Crl.A.No.3 l1 of 2016 and vide Judgmenl dated 16.08.2016 allowed the alpeal in pafi, modifliing the conviction from the offence under Section 382 IPC to Section 411 IPC but confirming the sentence imposed a1;ainst him.

¶28

Aggrieved lurther, the petitioner-accused prefened this revision contending that the^judgments of the courlr below were contrary to larv, ri'eight of evidence and probabilities of the case. The courts below erred in relying on the evidence of PV/s.1 to 4 and Exs.P1 to P4 and MO1. The courls below ought to have seen that no identiflcation parade was conducted immediately after the incident to

¶29

¶30

C .R{ No 222i ITARR,J^20t6

¶31

identi8, the accused and the poiice registered the crime against the

¶32

accused for statistical purpose. The prosecution failed to seize the vehicle used at the time of incident. The courrs below ought to have seen that except the confessional statement of the accused, there was no other reliable evidence to convict him. The modification of the charge without framing fresh charge was unsustainable. The sentence imposed was severe in nature and prayed to set aside the orders of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge in Crl.A. No.3 11 of 2016 dated 16.08.201 6.

¶33

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner-accused and tl-re leamed Assistant Publ ic Prosecutor.

¶34

The leamed counsel for the petitioner argued on the same lines as raised in the grounds of appeal.

¶35

The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor^{subn.rittedthat there} were concurrent findings of conviction^{recorded againstthe} petitioner-accused and there^was no need to interfere^{withthe same'}

¶36

Perused the record. The record would^{disclose that the date of} offence was on 28.01.2015 at 10.30 PM. PW'1 -^{complainantstated}

¶37

D. <iRR J 5 l'rl Rt l't) 222i :016

¶38

in her evidence that lwo unknown persons came on a bike in opposite direction and snatched awa1, her gold Mangalsutrarn^ch rin^rveighing iour tulas and sped away fi'om the spot in high speed towards ring road. No descripttve particulars of the persons who sratched arvay her gold chain u'ere grven by the complainant in tix.P.l " The petitioner-accused vras apprehended on 27.02.2015 and two goid chains were recoveled lionr his possession. The test dentification parade of the accrrsed u,as conducted on 17.03.2015 alter so many days afler the inciclent. The identification of the accused by the complainant in tire test identification parade is doubtful as the incident occurred in split seconds and the complainant ltad not given any descriptivc parliculars of the persons who snatched away her goid chain in her complaint. The possibility of id,:ntifying the accused person in such circumtances is suspicious. Hence, the trial coufi ought not to have believed the identification of the accused by the complainant.

¶39

i 0" The panch rvitness examined as PW.2 state,l about the confession of the accused and the recovery ofthe gold chain from the possession of the accused. Though the confession made before

¶40

<-.

¶41

¶42

DT.ARR.J Crt RC Na2225 2016

¶43

police is inadrnissible in evidence, the recovelies are adrnissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. Considering the evidence of PW.2 only, the lower appellate court modified the conviction of the accused fi'om the offence undcr Section 382 IPC to the one under Section 411 IPC. No separate charge is required to be framed for the offence under Section 41i IPC as it was a cognate and lesser offence to Section 382 IPC as observed by the lower appellate court. The lower appellate court rightly observed that the burden was shifted on the accused to account for the possession of the stolen articles and he failed to rebut the said presumption that could be taken against him under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act. Hence, this Court does not find any illegality or impropriety in the observations of the lower appellate court in affirming thc guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 411 IPC and confirming the sentence of imprisonment as imposed by the trial court.

¶44

1 1. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence^{imposed against} the petitioner - accused vide Judgment dated 16.08.2016^passed in Crl.A. No.31l of 2016 by the Metropolitan^{SessionsJudge,}

¶45

¶46

I{yderabad" The bail bonds of the petitioner are cancelled and he

¶47

shail stin ender befcire the trial couft forthwith. In case the petitioner failed to surrerrdei", the trial court shall take steps in accordance with law io take hirn in to custody.

¶48

Pending rnjs<'ellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶49

Sd/. CF. VENKATESWARLU t)EPUTYSEGISTRAR I/TRUE COPY// (.+t SECTION OFFICER

¶50

To,

¶51

The Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. (with rec,rrds)

¶52

2 The Vl Addrtronal Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

¶53

Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State rf Telangana at Hyderabad. (OUT)

¶54

4 One CC to l\4/s '.H V R R SWAMY, Advocate IOPUC]

¶55

5 The Station HoLlsr: Off icer, Langer House Police Station , Hyderabad.

¶56

6 The Superintendent, Central Prison, Chanchalguda, Hyrlerabad.

¶57

7 Two CD Copies

,r,r)"-

HIGH COURT

DT.GRR,J

DATED:1 411112022

l/ <?
,'i ..t A"
l,- ) .'..-
l! sr.,- 3)
$J
<br>c I
2

¶63

ORDER

¶64

CRLRC.No.222.5 of 2016

¶65

CRII,IIN,,\L RE '^{I SI} ON⁽ E I S DI S{ IS SEI) ",\S

¶66

\o
nv
<br>

Mohd Farhan, Hyd v. P.P., Hyd and Ano

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd Farhan, Hyd v. P.P., Hyd and Ano

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

K.Rajkumar Vs the State of A.P.

Chadrappa, Hyd and Anr., Vs State of Telangana, Rep Pp and Anr.

Eshwarlal, Hyderabad., Vs S.Gopal Reddy, R.R.Dt and Anr, Rep Pp.

Remma Kailas, Nizamabad Ts., Vs the State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

Smt.Sangeetha Agarwal, Hyd and Anr., Vs the State of Telangana, Rep Pp and Anr.

Julapelli Rajesh Kumar, Vs Julapelli Devender Rao