Allowed

Polkanti Eshwar Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC3 Jul 2023CRLA/290/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In criminal appeal regarding conviction under IPC and SC/ST POA Act, the High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the lower court judgment following a judicial settlement between the accused and the complainant, conditioned on payment of compensation to Sainik Welfare.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Appeal allowed and judgment in S.C. No. 98 of 2013 set aside, subject to payment of Rs. 10,000 to Sainik Welfare.

Polkanti Eshwar Reddy Vs The State of Telangana — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

13251 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶6

l.A.NOs.2 AND 3 OF 2023

¶7

¶8

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 290 OF 2016

¶9

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 290 OF 2016

¶10

Appeal under Section 374(2) ol Cr.P.C against the^judgment Dt. 16-032016 passed in SC. 98 o't 2013 on the file of the Court of the Special Sessions Judge -CUM-Vll Additional District and Sessions Judge at Mahabubnagar.

¶11

Betwqen:

¶12

)

¶13

Polkanti Eshwar Reddy, S/o. Hanmanthu Reddy, aged about 55 years, Occ: Agriculture.

¶14

Gali Raja Reddy, S/o. Ram Reddy, Occ: Agriculture,

¶15

Both are Rl/o. Gotoor Village, Dhanwada Mandal, Mahabubnagar District

¶16

...APPELLANTS/A.1 & 2

¶17

AND

¶18

The State of Telangana, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court At Hyderabad.

¶19

Peddamanisholla Ashappa @ Mala Ashanna, S/o Buchanna, Aged 63 years, Occ: Agriculture, Fl/o H.No.4-98, Gotoor Village, Dhanwada Mandal, Narayanapet District, Telangana State.

¶20

...RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT

¶21

CRLAMP. NO: 470 OF 2016

¶22

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be^pleased to release the petitioners on bail by suspending the Sentence^passed in S.C. No. 98 of 2013 on the file of The Special Sessions Judge^-CUM-Vll Addl. Sessions Judge at Mahabubnagar, Dt. 16-03-2016,^pending disposal of the Criminal Appeal before this Hon'ble Court, in the interest of^justice.

¶23

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶24

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the cirr ums1rn.". .,r,"0 in the affidavit filed r support of the petition, the High Court ray be pleased to implead the proposr d respondent who is Pw-1(the defactr, ::on plaint) as 2nd respondent in Crl.A. lC.29012016 on the file of this Hon'blt: :c,urt which is being filed against the .ur grnent and sentence passed by the court of the Special Sessions Judge-CU 1-Vll Additional Sessions Judge at lVle hrrbubnagar, Dated '16-03-2016 in S.C N . 98 of 2013

¶25

lA NO: 2 OF 2023

¶26

Between

¶27

Peddamanisho af.shqnOa @ Mala Ashanna, S/o Eiuchanna, Aged 63 years, Occ: Agricqltur r, Vo H.No.4-98, Gotoor Village, Df anwarj€ tt/andal, Narayanapet D strict, Telangana State.

¶28

AP PE LLANT/DEFACTO.CI)[{ PI-,AI NANT/PW.1

¶29

AND

¶30

1 Polkanti Eshw: lleddy. Sio Hanmanthu Reddy, irged i b:rut 55 years, Occ: Agriculture. Ryc^(;otoor Village. Dhanwada Mandal^{-Mahirn,rbnagar} District.

¶31

2 Gali Raja BgO y .S.lS Ram Reddy. Occ: Agncutture. R,c (lotoor Village, Dhanwada Mar d;rl, Mahabubnagar District.

¶32

RESPOND EI!T/ APPE LLANTS

¶33

The State crf fe,langana. Rep by its Public Prosecltc,., lligh Court At Hyderabad

¶34

...RESPONDE t\ t/ FIESPONDENT

¶35

Petition under^riection 320 of Cr.P.C Read with 482 of Ct.p.C praying that in the circumstances s ated in the affidavit filed in sucport o, thr: petition, the High court may be rkrased to grant permission to f le co^-nyrou nd petition to compound the offenc r with the respo nd ents/accused rvho a'e ther Appellatents herein/A-'l & A-2 in I 11.A.29012016 before this Hon'ble, court ,vhir:h fited to set aside the^judgment e rc sentence passed by the court of th,: Spe,cial sessions Judge-CUM-Vll Acdl .Sessions Judge at Mahabubnagar t)t 16-03-2016 in S.C.No. 98 of 2013

¶36

NO: 3 OF 20

¶37

Between:

¶38

PeddamanishollaAshappa @ tt/ala Ashanna, S/o Buchanna, Aged 63 years, Occ: Agriculture, Ryo H.No.4-98, Gotoor Village, Dhanwada Maidal, Narayanapet District, Telangana State.

¶39

APPELLANT/DEFACTO-COMPLAINANT/PW.1

¶40

AND

¶41

1.^'Polkanti Eshwar feddy, S/o. Hanmanthu Reddy, aged about 55 years, Occ: Agriculture, Fl/o. Gotoor Village, Dhanwada Mandal, Mahabubnagai District.

¶42

Gali Raja fgOOy,.S-19. Ram Reddy_. Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Gotoor Viilage, Dhanwada Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.

¶43

RESPONDENT/APPELLANTS

¶44

The State of Telangana, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court At Hyderabad.

¶45

, )

¶46

...RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT

¶47

Petition under Section 320 of Cr.P.C Read with 4g2 of Cr.p.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the.petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the AppellanUDefacto Complaint to compound the offence with the accused who are the Appellatents herein/A-1 & A-2 in crl.A.No.29012016 before this Hon'ble court which filed to set aside the judgment and sentence passed by the court of the Special Sessions Judge-CUMVll Addl. Sessions Judge at Mahabubnagar, Dt 16-03-20j6 in S.C.N-o.98 of 2013.

¶48

Counsel for the Appellant in Crl.A And Respondent No.1 & 2 in l.A.Nos. 2 and 3 ot 2023

¶49

: SRl. Dr. CHALLA SRINIVASA REDDY

¶50

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 in Crl.A And Respondent No.3 in l.A.Nos. 2 and 3 oi 2023

¶51

: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶52

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 in Crl.A and Petitioner in l.A.Nos. 2and3ol 2023

¶53

: SRI CHENNAKESAVULU KOTTE

¶54

The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

¶55

THE HC IYOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. |SURE;IiDER

¶56

I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2O23

¶57

in lriminal Appeal No.29O of 2016 & C UMINAL APPEAL No.29O OF 2016

¶58

JUDGMENT:

¶59

The appr:[1 Li-ts were convicted and sentenccc tc, undergo rigorous impriso rrnent for a period of one ye3.r, sjx mr>nths and three vears^,.': c l-r irr the charges under Section 321, tt¹⁶ of IPC and Section 3(1 )(xl rf SCs/STs (POA) Act, 198,) re:;1-:r:tively vide judgment u S.( No.9B of 2013 dated 16.03.iO16 p rss:d bv the Special Judqe c t n' -'ll Adclitior-ral l)istrict and Sest ;r. n s J uclge at Mahabubnaqar. )trestioning the said convir:tiorr. t1-rr. present appeal is hlccl . 2. Durin;, thcp,:ndencl' of the present appeal, th r: pa rties have compromised^',h matter and, accordingly, resl)c)lrc enr No.2-de /acto^complain;tr t filed LA.Nos.2 and 3 of )O'2'.2 o :ermit to compound tJr r: of :nces and to compromise the rnatte'. 3. Vide o-cle r k:ted 19.06.2023, this Court, aftcr r'-'ccrding the submissions rnac : by the learned counsel for the appcllzlrts as u,e1l as respondr-,:-rt I c 2, directed the parties to apl)e .u before the Secretary,^'l-cLrr l.!r1a^High Court Legal Sr.rvtce; Comrr,ittee,

¶60

r':

¶61

¶62

Hyderabad for their identilication and also directed the Secretary to submit a report by O3.O7.2023. In compliance with the said order, the Secretar5r has submitted his report dated 30.06.2O23.

¶63

In the report of the Secretary, Telangana High Court Legal Services Committee, Hyderabad, it is stated that in obedience of the orders dated 19.06.2023, the appellants and the 2na respondent have appeared before him along with their counsel and on examination and verihcation of their particulars from their Aadhar Cards, they were tallied. Thus the identification of both the parties has been established.

¶64

) 5. The parties herein have frled a joint memo of compromise stating that at the intervention of the elders, they have settled the disputes between them amicably. The said joint memo of compromise and the report of the Secretary are placed on record.

¶65

In view of the said report and also in view of the compromise entered between the appellants and respondent No.2, I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 202il are allowed.

¶66

Consequently, the Criminal Appeal is allowed and the judgment in S.C.No.98 of 2013 dated 16.03.2016, is hereby set aside, subject to payment of an amount of Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand Only) in favour of Director, Sainik Wetfare, Hyderabad, (Savings

¶67

¶68

A/c.No.5218892^t2,79, State^{Bank of India,ShttntirriLg,rr3ranch &} 2OO7O, IFSC: Co< e: SBINO020070,^{MICRNo. 5i000C4()5r') w.ithin}

¶69

four (4) we<'I.:s f om today, and file^{proof of ther;a me into the} Registry. This C 'u rt deems it^{appropriate to p3rmit t,le parties to} compromise at tI^,r stage of appcal.^{Both parties belongl1o the same} village, the sr:ttlt I ent o[^{issuesr,,'ould bring peace z,nd harmony} amongst the villa 1e rs.

¶70

As a st:c1ueJ the: miscellar-reous Petitions, Jrendillg if^{an1', shall}

¶71

stand closecl^.

¶72

Sd/. Ii. SI1INIVASA RAO .IOIIIT REGISTRAR

To,

/iTRUE COPY//

SiECIION OFFICER

'1 . The Special Jr 1-cre-cum-Vll Additional District and ilessicn,, Judge at Mahabubnar;a ( With Records if any)

¶78

The Station Hc tse Officer, C.C. Kunta police Station, [r/la h,,rbu bnaga r District

¶79

Two ccs to th, F'ubric^prosecutor, High court for flre srate of --erangana at Hyderabacl (Ol rT)

¶80

One CC to SR I)T.CHALLA SR|N|VASA REDDY, ,\dvoc:te tCpUCl

¶81

Two CD Cofrie

¶82

¶83

Along with a copy 01 J,rint Memo of Compromise

¶84

Note :

¶85

Amount paid by S i Dr. CHALLA sRrNrvASA REDD'Y, co.rnser for the Petitioner towards ir rposed by cost of Rs. 10,000 r ( RLrlre,:s Ten thousand only) directed by th r lon'bre court dated 03.o7.2023 to hr: Sainik werfare, Hyderabad, (Saving, r/c.No.521B8926279, State Bank of lndia, Shantinagar Branch & 20070, I^:sic code: sBrN0020o7o, Mrc.R lrr. r;oo3gr0;r) fired [\4emo of Prool .f c, ,nrpliance USR No.67572 ot 2023 dakrd 24.07-202'3 .

.H?

HIGH COURT

KS, J

DATED: 03/0i 12023

JUDGMENT I.A.NOS.2 AN ) 3 0F 2023 IN

¶91

-==--
/'"
tt l-- '' :.iri o
,4,
/,,. +
i/t.a
9/
la) il I [\lE 2$8
'_.
t,:)

¶92

CRLA.No.29O OF 2016

¶93

ALLOWING T {E CRL.APPEAL

¶94

AND I.A.NO.2 AND 3 OF 2023

¶95

Aref'

Polkanti Eshwar Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Polkanti Eshwar Reddy v. The State of Telangana

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

Choppari Narsaiah, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd.

Gudupally Jagadeshwar, Venkatapur [v], Medak District. Vs the State of a.P., Rep. by P.P., Hyderabad.

Mohd Irhad , Vs State of a.P., Rep by Pp.

M.Venkatesh Yadav Vs G.Babu Rao

Kasam Lingiah Vs the State of Telangana

Sirugumalle Prakash , Adla Prakash Vs the State of Telangana