Dismissed

Tholem Sambaiah v. the State of A.P. and 54 Others

Telangana HC19 Jan 2023CRLRC/165/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner in criminal revision challenging acquittal of 53 respondents for murder under Section 302 IPC. Revisional Court found evidence insufficient due to hostile prosecution witnesses. Dismissed revision holding jurisdiction does not permit converting acquittal into conviction.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Revision Case dismissed. All pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

Tholem Sambaiah Vs the State of A.P. and 54… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶5

CRIMINAL REVISI ON CASE NO: 165 OF 2008

¶6

criminal Revision case under Section 397 & 401 of cr.p.c aggrieved by the Judgment Dated.21.04.06 made in s.c.No.545/05 on the file ot ti6 court oi tne Vl Addl. Sessions Judge, (lll FTC), Warangal at Mahabubabad.

¶7

Between:

¶8

Tholem sambaiah, s/o Laxmaiah, Agriculture R/o Thativari Venpally Village, Kothaguda Mandal, Warangal Dist.

¶9

...PETITIONERYPW9

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The state of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its public prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. RESPONDENT

¶12

1. Thati Nagaiah, S/o Narsaiah, aged 30 years. 3. Erupa Chinna Venkataiah, S/o Muthaiah, aged 35 years. 4. Vrlaya Ellaiah, S/o Bhadraiah, aged 45 years. 5. Thati Laxmaiah, S/o Kannaiah, aged 45 years. 6. Erupa Narsaiah S/o Pedda Veeraiah, aged 48 years 7 . Erupa Narayana, S/o Pedda Veeraiah, aged 33 years. 8. Jogu Ramaiah, S/o Ellaiah, aged 45 years. 9. Easam Laxmaiah, S/o Veeraiah, aged 35 years. 10. Erupa Thirupathi, S/o Pedda Veeraiah, aged 30 years. 1 1 . Thursa Sudharshan, S/o Nagaiah, aged 45 years. 12.Thati Buchaiamma, Wo Papaiah, aged 45 years. 13.Thati Anitha, Wo Veerabhadraiah, aged?S years. 14.Thati Veera Laxmi, Wo Bixamaiah, aged 27 years. 15. Thati Veerabadhru, S/o Papaiah, aged 30 years. 16.Thati Bixamaiah, S/o Papaiah, aged 36 years.

¶13

17.Erupa Manjul: , Wo Narayana, aged 30 years.

¶14

Solem Venkar na, S/o Bhadraiah, aged 27 years.

¶15

'19. Solem Venkat rmma, Wo Venkanna, aged 25 years.

¶16

20.Vr1ja Vajjaiah, i/o Ellaiah, aged 30 years.

¶17

21.Jogi Laxmaiah S/o Jogaiah, aged 40 years.

¶18

22.fhail Kommal; h, S/o Ramaiah, aged 30 years.

¶19

Thati Papaiah, S/o Muthaiah, aged 30 years.

¶20

24.Thati Venkann,r, S/o Laxmaiah, aged 30 years 25.Suncha Laxma ah, S/o Narsaiah, aged 35 years. 26. Erupa Suramm a, Wo Buchiramulu, aged 2g years.

¶21

27.Erupa Nagamn a. Wo Buchiramulu, aged 28 years.

¶22

Erupa Rama, V 7o Buchiramulu, aged 25 years.

¶23

Erupa Buchiran rulu, S/o Papaiah, aged 40 years.

¶24

30.Thati Laxmi, Wc Bixamaiah, aged 25 years.

¶25

3'1. Rasuri Nagamn ra. Wo Veeraiah, aged 2g years.

¶26

Rallabandi Easr uaramma, W/o Sambaiah, aged 40 years

¶27

Thati Buchamm r, Wo Narsaiah, aged 40 years.

¶28

34.Sanupa Bhadra ah,, S/o Narsaiah, aged 35 years.

¶29

35.Jogu Poolamme, Wo Laxmaiah, aged 35 years.

¶30

Thati Poolamme , Wo Papaiah aged 35 years.

¶31

Erupa Narsamm a, Wo Veeraiah, aged 45 years.

¶32

38.Thati Kommakka , Wo Muthaiah, aged 40 yeais.

¶33

Easam Summak <a, Wo Yakaiah, aged 35 years.

¶34

Rasuri Venkatan rma, Wo Suraiah, aged 35 years.

¶35

41 . Thati Laxmaiah, S/o Veeraiah, aged 40 years.

¶36

42.Thali Narsaiah, t,/o Chinna Ramaiah, aged 60 years.

¶37

Erupa Papaiah, {;/o Lachaiah, aged 45 years

¶38

Jogu Jogaiah, S/ I Laxmaiah, aged 45 years

¶39

45.Md.Basheer, S/o Ramzan, aged 40 years.

¶40

Thati Laxmi, Wo Veeraswamy, aged 45 years.

¶41

47.Thati Papamma, ff/o Laxmaiah, aged 5E years.

¶42

48.Yajja Veeramma, Wo Ellaiah, aged 40 years.

¶43

i I

¶44

Thati paidamma, Wo papaiah, aged 35 years.

¶45

Thati papamma, Wo Bhadraiah, aged 25 years. 51.Thati Saramma, Wo Laxmaiah, aged S0 years. 52.Beeram Ramchandram, S/o papaiah, aged 40 years. 53. Rasuri Saravaiah, S/o Buchaiah, agecl 40 years 54. Thati Sammaiah, S/o lvluthaiah, aged 35 years. 55.Jogi Ramkka, W/o Ramaiah, aged 40 years . All are Resident of w"i";g;ii;;:'''.,'^{fhativarivempalli, H/o Bathutapafli,} Kothaguda Mandat,

¶46

RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED NO.i to 54 Counset for the petitioner: SRl. A PRABHAKAR RAO Counse! for the Respondent No.1 : pUBl-lG pROSECUTOR Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : None Appeared Counsel for the Respondent No. 3 to 55 : SRl. G ANANDAM The Court made the following: ORDER

¶47

THE H('NoURABLE SRI JuSTICE K.SURI;NDER CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 165 OF,lg_O8

¶48

JUDGMENT:

¶49

This revision is filed by the petitionr.r challerLging the Judgment dt.2l.O4.2006 of the VI Additional Ses,sions Judge, (III F*IC), Wara;rgal at trriahaUulabad, whereby the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the respondents 2 to S5,/Al to AS4 of the offences punishable under Sections l4i , I4g, 452, 323,324,302 rerd with 149, 3O2 r/w.2O1of the lndia,n penal Code.

¶50

¶51

Heard.^perused the record.

¶52

3 The petitione r is pw9 and injured witness. The cas. of the prosecution is thr t a,ll the respondents 2 to 55 a tt acl:ed the deceased Dl and I)2 who are husband and wife, sus;tecting that they were practicir: g sorcery on the villagers. When the villagers who are responden .s 2 to 5s attacked the deceased, t,ws. r , 2, 4, 6, 9 and 1O tried t,r interfere and rescue the deceaserl Hor.l,ever, they were also beatt n. The prosecution examined them as injured witnesses' However' PWs.4, I 0 who were injurea rver e decrared hostile to the prosec.rtion case.

¶53

¶54

karned Sessions Judge elaborately^{discussed the evidence} -I which was forthcoming from the^{*it.t"""."and found that their} evidence was not sufficient to^{determinethatthese} respondents/accused had in^{fact committed the murderof D 1 and} D2. In the said case even the^{investigating Officer was declared} hostile.

¶55

Sri A.Prabhakar Rao, learned^{counsel appearing for the} petitioner would submit that the^{Sessions Judge committederror} in not believing the version^{ofPWs.4and 9who partially} supported the case of the^{prosecutionthat the villagers/accused} were responsible for causing^{death of .D1 and D2 by beating them'}

¶56

This Court under revisional^{jurisdictioncan only look into as} to whether there is any illegality^{to test the correctnessor legality} or propriety of any finding,^{judgment of the lowerCourt. On the} basis of the hostility of^{witnesses,the learned Sessions Judge} found that the evidence^{was not sufficient to convict the accused} for the offence under Section 3O2^{of the Indian PenalCode'} Though, the death is not in^{dispute,since the prosecution failedto} specifically make out^{any case against these petitioners that they} were responsible for causing^{death of the deceased 1 and 2, this} Court under Section 401^{of Cr.P.C. is not inclined to remand the}

¶57

¶58

case back to th : Sessions Court for re-tria I . ln i,ierr ol the Prohibition unde r 401(3) of Cr.P.C. r,,r-herein trnc r:.- revisional jurisdiction, this Court cannot convert a casr) of r<:qu ttal into conviction. Ther: are no grounds to interfere with r.he order of acquittal.

¶59

7 . Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dism is sec[.

¶60

Miscellaneor rs Petitions, if any, pending. shat also stand

closed.

//TRUE COPY//

I;d/- K. SAILESHI I]E 'I,ITY REGISTRAR

¶65

¶66

T,I:3TION OFFICER

¶67

To, 1. TheVl Addition'rl^{Sessions Judge (lll Fast TrackCourt),\Aarangalat} Mahabubabad.

¶68

i*J-CCi to the^{Public Prosecutor,High Court for the state} 'r''^{T€langana at} Hyderabad^(OU D J oir" Cc to bnt R PRABHAKAR^{RAo, Advocate} [oPUC] 4. One CC to SRl.^{G ANANDAM, Advocate} IOPUC]

¶69

Two CD Copies

¶70

PR "u"-

PSR

I i I

HIGH COURT

KS,J

DATED:1910112023

ORDER

CRLRC.No.165 of 2008

g- STAIF i.:
,4 )
,' <:,,*
l.::
:)
I (-) 14 ttB ?rT
,)
\4\ 1t )
,i:

¶79

DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL REVISION

¶80

a<br>

Tholem Sambaiah v. the State of A.P. and 54 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tholem Sambaiah v. the State of A.P. and 54 Others

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

Syed Jaffar, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd.

Md.Ghouse , Vs State of a.P., Rep by Pp.

Manusaran Reddy Vs Smt. Battu Vasantha

Panjala Rajeshwari Vs The State of Telangana

Gunti Revathi Vs The State of Telangana and another

Chine Balakrishna Vs The State of Telangana