Partly allowed

Putta Krishnaiah, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC6 Jul 2023CRLRC/1653/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court partly allowed a criminal revision. It set aside convictions for Sections 307 and 354 IPC due to insufficient evidence and witness inconsistencies but upheld convictions for Sections 509 and 323 IPC regarding privacy and assault.

What did the court decide?

Conviction under Sections 307 and 354 IPC set aside. Conviction confirmed under Section 323 and 509 IPC. Petitioner to undergo balance of sentence.

Putta Krishnaiah, Vs The State of Telangana — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR^{THESTATE OF TELANGANA}

¶2

AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY ,THE^{SIXTH DAY OF JULY}

¶4

TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTY THREE}

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI^{JUSTICEK.SURENDER}

¶7

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE^{NO: 1653 OF 2018}

¶8

Revision filed under Sections 397^{and 401 of CrPC against the} Judgment dated 26-06-2018^{in Crl.A.No. 79 of 2O17 on the file of the} Principal Sessions Judge at^{tr/ahabubnagarconfirming the judgment} dated 21-08-2017 in S.C.No. 163 of^{2010 on the file of} Principal Assistant Sessions Judge,^{Mahabubnagar.}

¶9

Between:

¶10

Prltta Krishnaiah, SiO Yellaiah, 33^{years, Occ. Labour, R/o.Silarpally,} R/o. Kalwakurthy Village and Mandal,^{Nagarkurnool District.}

¶11

... PETIT!ON ER/APPE LLANT/ACCU^SED.

¶12

AND

¶13

The State of Telangana,, rep by^{its Public Prosecutor, High Court of} Judicature at Hyderabad For^{the State of Telangana and the} State^of AP.

¶14

...RESPONDENT/COM PLAINANT.

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner^{:SRl. C SHARANREDDY}

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent:^{PUBLICPROSECUTOR(TG)}

¶17

The Court made the^{following:ORDER}

¶18

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶19

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1653 of 2O18

¶20

ORDER:

¶21

The Revision Petitioner was convicted bv the learned Sessions Judge for the olfences under Sections^{448, 354} and 307 of Inlian Penal Code (for short'IPO').

¶22

Briefly the case ol the prosecution is that the PW1 and the petitroner are relatives. PWl and the^petitioner consumed alcohol on 16.10.2008. PW2 daughter^{went out} for watching^'I.V. and she came back around 10-00^p.m. and found that the petitioner was sitting on PW9 and pressing her reck. PW2 shouted for help anrl rushed otrt of the house. PWs 3, 4 and 5 who are the neighbours, came into the house of PW1 and founcl ttre petitioner fleeing from the^place

¶23

On the basis ol' the information given by PW2, complaint was lodged on the next day. The wife of PW1, who is the victim, is deaf and dumb. On the basis of the evidence gatht,red, the lcarned Sessions Juclge found that

¶24

¶25

the petitioner committed offences under Sections 354, 3O7 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for five (05) years under both counts. He was also sentenced to undergo R.I of six (06) months for the offence under Section 448 of IPC for trespassing into the house.

¶26

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the version given by the witnesses cannot be believed. The case of PWl is that the petitioner and pW1 cohsumed alcohol and PWl was sleeping outside the house. However PWl was not having knowledge about such incident. According to PWl, he came to know about the incident from PW2 and others the next day which is highly improbable. The doctor PW10 did not speak of any injuries being found on victim. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge found that since he was sitting on the victim and pressing her neck, accused tried to kilt her Such opinion of the Colrrt cannot form basis for the offence under Section 3O7 of IPC making an attempt to murder

¶27

PW9 victim. In the sairl circumstances, the^{convictionhas} to be set asid,.r.

¶28

On the other harrd, the^{learnedPr.rblic Prosecutor} submits that the evidence of^{PWl, 2 arj9 is consistent} regarding the acts of assault^{by the petitionerby pressing} her neck. P<sup>/3, 4 and 5^{rvho are the neighbourshave seen} the petitioncl running a\vay^{from the house,when PW2} shouted for trelp. No^{error is committed by the Court} below in convicting thc^{petitioner.As sr-rchthe present} criminal revrsron case dcseles^{to be dismissecl.}

¶29

Admittertly, PW1 and the^{petitionerconsumed alcohol} in the house of PW1. Since^{PWl had invited the petitioner} into his hous,', the^{question of trespassing does not arise.}

¶30

The evirlence of PW9,^who is^{the victim has to be} looked into, l.o ascertain the events,^{since the narration} given by PW!) creates any arnount of doubt^{regarding the} C SC. PW9 rv,ls examincd before the Court below by taking assistance ol one Sri T. Pranesh, who was inclusive education resour.ce person, Primary School Gajulapeta, for the purpose of translatir-ig the signs and the words spoken /

¶31

¶32

by the victim. In the chief examination, PW9 stated that the petitioner gagged her mouth by putting some cloths into her mouth, caught hold of her tuft, lifted up her saree and also twisted her right wrist and right leg. The said version was not stated by PW2.

¶33

Further during the Cross examination for the accused by Sri G.S., Advocate, PW9 stated as follows:

¶34

Q:^{The accusedhas not done angthing} against^gou. What do gou sag?

¶35

Ans: The accused has beat on ,ng eges, closed. mg eges and gagged the cloths in mg mouth.

¶36

Q.^{Where are gou right now?}

¶37

Ans: Court.

¶38

Q.^{You are d.eposing} Jalse as^per the instructions of gour husband. What do gou sag?

¶39

Ans: He d.id not sag angthing, but closed. mg mouth. He dld not do anuthino aoojnst tne.

¶40

Q.^{Irue to gour illhealth, you became} like this. What do gou sag?

¶41

Ans: Vaal aochlndhi.

¶42

It is tt-ue thaf only due to fits, I became like this. On account of mg legs and hands not being in a position to rnoue, I became restricted to utheel chair, It is true that none have remoued mu cloths on that daa.

¶43

¶44

As seen from the cross exarnination, pW9 victim has given different versions. Initially, she said that her mouth was gagged and the petitioner had lifted her saree Hourever, in t.re cross examination she stated that she was beaten on the ey'e and her mouth was gagged. On further questioning s;he stated 1.hat the petitioner did not do anything against her and her clothes were also not removed on tlrat day

¶45

PW9 u,al; examinecl by doctor, who did not find aly external injuries.

¶46

PW9 u,asr brought to the Court on ltl.O1.2ol2. The counsel objected to her examination since her mental condition was not stable and had to be certified by a doctor. Howcver the lcarned Assistant Sessions Judge refused and p,ermitted Chief examination on the ground that she was examined under Section 161 of Cr.P.C by police. The said approach of the Assistant Sessions Judge is incorrect. Section 161 of Cr.p.C statement cannot form basis to deterrnine the mental condition of witness. The witness was .sent back by Court as she was not \ I

¶47

a:l'.i

¶48

¶49

understanding the proceedings. Thereafter she was on examined on L9.O6.2OI3, 09.02.2016 and finally O8.O6.2OL7. Nearly five years was wasted by the Court. As seen from deposition every time the witness was brought she could not understand the proceedings and gave contradictory statement. The Court ought to have taken decision regarding her mental condition immediately or sent her to a qualihed doctor. Case was adjourned for 5 years without any useful purpose being served. Courts should be more vigilant and take decision immediately in such cases.

¶50

The evidence of PW2 and 9 is discrepant regarding the exact sequence of how the incident had taken place. However from the evidence, it cannot be ruled out that the petitioner was present at the scene. This Court deems it appropriate to set aside the conviction for the offence under Section 307 and 354 of IPC since none of the ingredients are made out. The petitioner is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 509 of IPC for intruding upon the privacy of a woman. Further, the

¶51

¶52

petitioner is also convicted for the oflence under Section 323 of IPC zrnd sentenced to six (06) months of lmprlsonment

¶53

Accordinglv, the Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed. The trial court is directed to cause appearance of the petitioner and send him to the jail to :lerye out for the remainir-rg pa:'t of the selltence.

¶54

As a set1uel, the rniscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall sta:rd closed.

¶55

/iTRUE COPY//

¶56

Sd/- B. SATYAVATHI DEPUTY REGISTRAR 'C)o

¶57

SECTION OFFICER

¶58

To,

¶59

The Princip,al^{Sessions Judge, at Mahabubnagar'}

¶60

The Principral^{Assistant SessionsJudge, tvlahabubnagar'}

¶61

One CC to^{SRl. C SHARAN REDDY Advocate [OPUC]}

¶62

4.TwoCCslothePUBLICPROSECUTOR,HighCourtfortheState of Telangarra, at^HYderabad. [OUT]

¶63

Two CD Copies

-*"-

HIGH COURT

DATED:06/07/2023

oRDER

//:'
,
,,,, ','
<br>,, ,'
t. t,' .; :.: c;.i -
a.
.)

¶71

CRLRC.No.1653 of 2018

¶72

PARTLY ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL R.C.

¶73

'>9

Putta Krishnaiah, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Putta Krishnaiah, 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

M.Jagmohanlal , Vs the State of a.P.,. Rep by Spl. Pp.

Kumbham Suresh Reddy (A1) Vs the State of A.P. Rep., by Its Pp

Andhra Bank, Hyderabad, Rep by Chief Manager., Vs State of Telangana, Rep Pp and 8 Otrs.

Avisetti Prasada Rao, (A9) Vs The State of A.P.

Kollu Naresh Vs State of Telangana

Mohd. Atheeq Khan Vs Sahera Begum