High Court allowed criminal revision setting aside conviction for mischief (Section 427 IPC) for insufficient evidence regarding damage value, but confirmed conviction for criminal trespass (Section 447 IPC).
Conviction and sentence for Section 427 IPC set aside; conviction and sentence for Section 447 IPC confirmed.
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.
[32se ]
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR, JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1588 OF 2009
Criminal Revision filed under Sections 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 18-09-2009 made in Crl.A.No.308 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, preferred against the order dated 29-08-2008 made in C.C.No.1251 of 2004 on the file of the Court of the ll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad
Between:
P. Dharmendar,, S/o. Late Pandu Rangam, Occ: Business R/o. H,No. 15-5808, Gurudwara, Afzalgunj, Hyderabad
... PETITION ERYAPPE LLANT/ACC USED
AND
The State of A.P., Rep. by Public Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT
CRLRCMP. NO: 2199 OF 2009
Petition under Section 397(1) CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the sentence of imprisonment made in Judgment dated 18.09.2009 in Crl.A.No. 308 of 2008 on the file of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad which was confirmed the conviction as well as sentence of imprisonment made in Judgment dated 29-08-2008 in C.C.No. 1251 o'f 2OO4 on the file of ll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, and may release the petitioner on bail, pending disposal of the Crl.R.C.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K. SAIBABU
Counsel for the Respondent: SRI MUTHYALA MURALIDHAR
ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Court made the following: ORDER
THE HONOURABLE DR, JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1588 of 2OO9
ORDER:
This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner under Section 397 and 4O1 of the Criminal Procedure Code, aggrieved by the Judgment dated 18.09.2009 in Crl.A.No.308 of 2008 passed by the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, HJ,derabad, confirming the Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 29.08.2008 passed in C.C.No.1251 of 2OO4 by the learned II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, for the offences under Sections 427 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code, rvherein the appellant/ accused was sentenced to undergo Simple lmprisonment for a period of six months for the oflence under Section 427 of the Indian Penal Code and further sentenced to pay fine of Rs.2,OOO/- lor the offence under Section 447 of the indian Penal Code and in default to pay fine, the accused shall undergo Simple Imprisonment lor a period of one month.
l
Additional Public Proseclr.tor fcr the State/ Respondent and perused the record.
The triai Court has taken the sarne on lile and numbered as C.C.No.l25I of 2OO4.
i. Both the Courts have not corisidered tl-re evidence in proper prospective arld recorded the finding in mechanical way.
11 Both the Courts failed to considcr the fact that there is no corroboration in ti-i e evirlence of orosecution r,r,itnesses-
iii. Both the Courts la ilecl to con sicler that the fact that PWI to PW6 are interestcd rvitnesscs ar-rd inimical to the prosecution case.
Whether the Judgment dated 18.09.2009 in Crl.A.No.3O8 of 2008 passed b_v the learned Metropolitan Session s .-;udge, H-tdcrabaci, is liable to be set side ?
POINT:
r
on account of which gross injustice was done, the Revisional Courts are not normally expected to interfere and reassess the evidence as if the Appellate Court.
1 l. It is submitted b.v the learned counsel for the petitioner that the revision petitioner has already deposited fine of Rs.2,OOO/- imposed for the offence under Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code. However, so far as offence under Section 427 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the revision petitioner was sentenced to undergo Simple
(t
lmprisonment for a ps1i6d of six months for the offence under Section 422 of the Indian pena.l Code.
1
that on A I .O6.2CO4 the accused criminally trespassed and broke open the wooden door and stair case leading to the first floor and damaged the propert-v u,orth of Rs. 15,OOO/-. In so far as this aspect is concerned, during the course of investigation the Police shall pre pare a panchanama showing the worth of damage caused by the accused is Rs.50/- or more. None of the r,r,itnesses have dcposed about the cost of the damage caused. Merell, darnaging the property belonging to the de-lacto complainant does not serve the purpose. Therefore, since there is no rirateriai to that effect, the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court in so far as offence under Section 427 ol the Indian Penal Code is liable to be set aside.
8
Indian Penar code, is held giiod and the same rs conrirmed. There shall be no order as to .osts.
As a sequel, pending M;scellaneous Apptic:atiorrs in this
matter, if any, shall stard closed.
Sd/.M.RAMANA KRISHNA DEPUry REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SECTI OFFICER
To,
plp
q
HIGH COURT
DATED:0210212023
TTEINEE' \Jt\lJt-l\
\tt Nll
t
ti; ** 1
V
<br>
CRLRC.No.1588 of 2009
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CRL,RC.
@q',| C,ar) .\4s
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the conviction and sentence for mischief under Section 427 IPC should be set aside due to lack of evidence proving damage worth 50 rupees.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
P. Dharmendar
The State of A.P.
D. Nagarjun
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
