Petitioner challenged conviction for armed robbery via criminal revision, citing delays and evidence contradictions. High Court held below courts reasoned well, dismissing the revision and cancelling bail.
Revision dismissed, conviction and sentence confirmed, bail cancelled, petitioner directed to surrender.
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.
Bail Slip: The Petitioner/Accused was directed to be released on bail by the order of the High Court dated 0810212013 in Crl.R.C.M.P.No.380 of 2013 in Crl.RC No.252 ot 2013
]N THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
MONDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 2s2OF 2013
Cdminal Revision Case filed Under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C aggrieved by the Judgment da1ed.21.12.20'12 passed in Crl.A.No.20 ol 2012 on the file of the Court of the Principal Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy confirming the Judgment dated.'10.07.20'12 passed in S.C.No.76 of 2012 on the file of the Court of the Assistant Sessions Judge, at Sangareddy
Between:
Vadde Mallesham, S/o. Mal6sham, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Maddikunta Village, Sadasivpet Mandal, Medak District.
...Petitioner/Appellant No.1/Accused No.1
AND
The State of Andhra Pradesh,. re_presented by State Public Prosecutor, High Couit of Andhra Pradesh, at Hyderabad.
...RESPONDENT
l.A.No.1 OF 2012(CRL .R.C.MP.No.380 of 201 3l
Petition under Section 397 (1) of Cr.P.C praying that for the reasons stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Revision, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the sentence and conviction passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy in Crh.No.20 ot 2012 dated 21.12-2012 and release the petitioner/Accused No.1 on bail pending disposal of the criminal revision case.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI PALLE SRIHARINATH
Counsel for the Respondent: THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (TG)
The Court made the following: ORDER
/
THE HON'BLE DT. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.252 OF 2013
ORDER:
This Crirninal Revision case is filedagainstthe judgment passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddyin Crl.A. No.20 ol 2012 dated21.12.2012 confirming the judgmentof the Assistant Sessions Judge, Sangareddyin SC No.76 of 2012 dated lO.O7.2Ol2 convicting the petitioner-Al toundergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for theoffence punishable under Section 324 IPC and to pay a fine ofRs.500/- and in default of payment of fine amount, to undergo simple imprisonmentfor one month for the offence under Section 448 IPC.
2
DT.GRT.J Crlrc No 252 of 2020tl
when the gate of the said function hall was locked, Al replied that he came from backside fencing and asked him to come outside the function hall to take alcohol. On that the complainant refused to come out to take the drink. On that A1 asked the complainant to arrange for some amount and when he refused for the same, a quarrel took place and thereafter, Al went out and the complainant also went inside his house bolted the door and slept. After half an hour, Al again came there and knocked the door calling him by name. when he opened the door, Al attacked him with a knife and stabbed him on his shoulder and neck. On hearing his hue and cries, when his wife came there to rescue him, the other accused persons A2 and, ,43 also attacked her with knives and stabbed on her head, shoulder and hands. They were both taken to the hospital and thereafter, he hled the repon.
Dr.CR&J Cdrc No.252 of 2020 t l
3
certificate of the injured, the rnvestigating oflicer filed charge sheet against the accused under Sections 44g and,307 read with 34 IpC.
DLGRRJ Cdrc No 2i2 ol 2020t )
4
21.12.2012, the Principal Sessions Judge, upheld the conviction and sentence imposed against A1 for the offence punishable under Sections 448 and 324 IPC, but set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the A,2 and ,A.3 for the charges under Sections 448 and324 read with 34 IPC.
Df,GRRJ 5 CrtrcNo.252 of 2020t3
PW.5, ASI of Police, Patancheru PS, he scribed Ex.P,l, hence, genuinity of the complaint ExP.l itself was doubtful. There were no eye witnesses to the incident. As per PW3, the owner of the function hall, he came to the hospital on coming to know about the injuries sustained by PWs. I and 2, but he had not taken any steps to lodge the complaint. It would clearly show that Ex.P.l was brought into existence for the purpose of the case. A1 was falsely implicated in the case due to enmity between hirn and PW.1. The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 324 IPC were not made out. MOs I to 3 knives were not shown to the rnedical ofhcer and the prosecution failed to elicit from the medical officer whether the injuries could have been caused by the said weapons. The courts below failed to note that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. There were material contradictions and omissions in the evidence of witnesses and on the said ground, the petitioner ought to have been acquitted. The findings of the courts below were based on assumptions and presumptions without properly scrutinizing the evidence and prayed to set aside the judgment of sentence and conviction passed by the principal Sessions Judge, Medak at
DrGkki Crtrc No-252 of )020t l
6
Sangareddy in Crl.A. No.20 of 2012 dated 2l.lZ.ZOlZ and to acquit
the petitoner-A I .
Jathavedan Namboodiril. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that:
"Ordinarily,therefore, it would not be appropriate for the High Court to re-appreciate tlre evidence and come to its own conclusion on the same when the evidence has already been appreciated by the Magistrate as well as the Sessions Judge in appeal, unless any glaring feature is brought to the notice of the High Court which would otherwise tentamount to gross miscarriage ofj ustice."
'oes 1z1scc+sz
\
\
7
Dt_GRRJ C..No.252of2DllS
11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan
v. Dattatray Gulabrao phalke & Anr.2 held that:
"Unless the order passed by the Magistrate is pen'erse or the view taken by the court is wholly unreasonable or there is non-consideration of any relevant material or there is palpable misreading of records, the Revisional Court is not justified in setting aside the order, merely because another view is possible. The Revisional Court is not meant to act as an appellate courl. The whole purpose of the revisional jurisdiction is to preserve the power in the court to do justice in accordance with the principles of criminal jurisprudcnce. The revisional powei of the court under Sections 397 to 401 CrpC is not to be equated with that ofan appeal. Unless the finding ofthe court, whose decision is sought to be revised, is shown to be perverse or untenable in law or is grossly erroneous or glaringly unreasonable or where the decision is based on no material or where the material facts are who y ignored or where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously, the courts may not interfere with decision in exercise of rheir revisional jurisdiction."
were that the trial court and the appellate court had not appreciated the evidence properly. There were material contradictions and omissions in the evidence of the witnesses and there was also delay in lodging the FIR, which were not considered.
l3' But, a perusar of the.iudgments of the triar court as weil as
the appellate court would disclose that both the courts examined the '2015 (3) scc 123
8 DT-GRRJ Crl.c No-252 o1202013
facts and the evidence of the witnesses in detail and came to a conclusion about the guilt of the petitioner-Al for the offences under Sections 448 and 324 IPC. The trial court considered that the complainant-injured, examined as pW.l, was working as Manager in Vedika Function Hall, Patancheru and he along with his wife were residing in the said premises in a two room house and both of them stated about the trespass cornmitted by Al and also attacking them with a knife on 10.10.2011 ar about 10.30 pM. As the incident occurred inside the function hall and there are no houses nearby, as such, there can be no chance for any other independent witness to observe the incident. PWs.r and 2 had stated that Al was a known person to them. PW. I also stated the name of Al in Ex.p.l complaint. The evidence of PWs.l and 2 was corroborated with the evidence of the doctor with regard to the injuries sustained by them. The recovery of weapon (knife) was spoken by the panch witness pW.6.
9
D.GRRJ C.trc No 252 of)020tJ
admitted in the hospital and on his discharge from the hospital only, he lodged the report. The reason for delay was also stated in Ex.pl and by the Investigating Officer pW.g in his evidence.
[.
t0
DT.ARN Crtrc No 252 of2020tl
him. Both the courts below held that the injuries were proved beyond doubt. Al was the person who was very well known to PW.l. No reasons were extracted to show that the complainant had falsely implicated A1, and upheld the conviction and sentence of Al for the offences under Sections 448 and 324 IPC.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, ifany, shall stand closed.
"''itBr"i9=*gLid+[XA /rrRUE coPY// (y *r\r,.\r,
SECTION OFFICER
To,
-uu. TwoCD CoPtes
I
HIGH COURT
DATED:19/09/2022
c-' Cr
a<br>r'!1 1{B
\1
...,
'!.
ORDER
CRLRC.No.252 of 2013
DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE
t
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction should interfere with the finding of the trial and appellate courts regarding guilt amidst contradictions and delay in FIR.
Whether the delay in lodging the complaint is fatal to the prosecution's case given the injury to the complainant.
Whether the conviction for armed robbery (Section 324 IPC) is sustainable after exclusion of attempted murder (Section 307 IPC).
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Kerala v. Puttumana Jathavedan NamboodiripadReferred¶48
State of Kerala v. puttumana Jathavedan Namboodiripad
Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan v. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke & Anr.Referred¶56
Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan v. Dattatray Gulabrao phalke & Anr.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Vadde Mallesham
The State of Andhra Pradesh
G. RADHA RANI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
