Dismissed

Ambati Venkateshwar Reddy, v. the State of A.P. Rep., by Its Pp

Telangana HC5 Sept 2023CRLRC/2424/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Criminal Revision filed by the accused aggrieved by an appellate order dismissing his appeal. The High Court dismissed the revision, confirming the conviction but reduced the imprisonment sentence to the period already undergone, citing the lapse of years.

What did the court decide?

Conviction confirmed; sentence of imprisonment reduced to time already undergone; fine maintained.

Ambati Venkateshwar Reddy, Vs the State of A.P. Rep., by… — Money Laundering | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT^{FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD}

¶2

TUESDAY, THE FIFTH^{DAY OF SEPTEMBER} TWO THOUSAND AND^{TWENTY THREE}

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE^SRI JUSTICE^{E.V. VENUGOPAL}

¶5

Criminal Revision C^{ase No. 2424of2011}

¶6

Criminal Revision^{filed underSections 397 & 407 Cr'P'C'aggrievedby} the order dated^{24.11,.2011passedin Cr1.A.No.78 of 2010 on the file of the} Special Sessions Judge^{for SC/ST cases-cum-VllAdditionalSessionsJudge at} Warangal.

¶7

Between: Ambati Venkateshwar^{Reddy, S/o.Subba Reddy,aged} 32 years, Occ: Labourer, R/o. Devagiripatnam^{village, MuluguMandal, Wa} rangal. ..Petitioner

¶8

AND

¶9

The State of A.P., rep.,by^{its Public Prosecutor,High Court Buildings,High} Court of Andhra Pradesh,^Hyderabad.

¶10

...Respondent.

¶11

I.A. NO:1OF 2011(CRLRC^{MP. NO: 3665 OF 2011)}

¶12

Petition under section^{397 Cr.P.C. praying that in the circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed^{in support of the petition, the High Court rnay} be pleased to suspend^{the operationof the orders dated 24-11-201L, in} Crl.Appeal No.78 of^{2010, on the file of the spl.sessions for sc/sT Cases-} Cum-VII Additional^Sessions Judge,^{Warangal, pending disposal of the} Criminal Revision^case.

¶13

Counsel for the Petitioner:^{Sri T.Damodar.}

¶14

Counsel for the Respondent:^{The Public Prosecutor}

¶15

The Court made the following:^ORDER

I I

is riy ;in iesthe

i l 1 /

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL

¶21

CRIMINAL REVIS TON CA SE No. 242 42 olr

¶22

ORD ER:

¶23

The present criminal revision case is filed aggrieved by the order passed in Criminat Appeal No.7g of 2010 dateci 24.11.2011 on the file of the Speciai Sessions Judge _ curn _ VII Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal.

¶24

A charge sheet came to be filed against the petitioner herein for the offences punishable under Section 3O4_A artd 332 of Indian penal Code, 19OB (I.p.C.) and he rvas tried for the aforesaid offences. The case of the prosecution is that on 20.O2.2OOB night the deceased and complainant left Madikonda on Hero Honda Splendour motor cycle bearing No.Ap 2g AF 273 and were proceeding towards Hanumakonda. At about 10.1S pM u,hile they urere proceeding on Railway Over Bridge, Fathimana ga, Kazipet, the accused / driver of the lorry bearing No.Apl6 TT 3Zg7 proceeding in the opposite direction along with cotton seecl load dr:ove the vehiclr: rn a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motor cycle as a result the deceased and the complainant had received injuries and later after shifting to

I I I

E!@qE*q

\ '"1

hospital deceased^{declared asbrought dead andthe} complainant^{suffered simpleinjuries'Aftercompletionof the} investigation, the^{policeliled charge sheet which was taken} on file as C.C.No.34^{of 2008.}

¶30

After taking^{cognizance of the case, complying with} the mandatory^{provisionsand on appearance of the accused'} the Special Judicial^{First Class Magistrate,Warangal} examined the^{accused uncler section 251 Cr'P'C and 'r'hen} the accusations^{constituting offences punishable under} Section 304-A and^{337 I.P.C. u'as put to him, he denied the} same and claimed^{to be tried.}

¶31

In support of its^{case, the prosecutionexamined} P.Ws.1 to 5 and^{got marked Exs'P. l to P'4'}

¶32

After closure of^{the prosecution. evidence'the}

¶33

accused was examined^{under section313 Cr'P'C''wherein} he denied the^{evidence on record' However,no oral evidence} was adduced.

¶34

¶35

i i IJ I

¶36

Aftcr 'appreciating the oral ancl docltrnentaw

¶37

evidence on record, the Magistrate found the^{accuseclg.tiltv} of the charges under Sections 304 A and 377 l.P.C., ancl convicted the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and imposed a fine of Rs.SOO/ ert'rd one month simple imprisonment respectively.

¶38

Aggrieved by the same, accttsed^prcferred

¶39

Crl.A.No.78 of 2O 10 before the Special Sessions^{.Judge lor} SC/ST cases^.cum VII Additional Sessions Judge at Warangal. By its^judgment dated 24.11.2011, the appellate Court dismissed the appeal by reducing the sentence imposed under Section 304-4. for a period of three months and confirmed the sentence imposed for the offence under Section 377 l.P.C. Challenging the same the present revision is filed

¶40

Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner/ accused and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State and perused the record.

¶41

¶42

=.;--1:_{4=E{\ f, ,-l
.-

¶43

There is concurrent finding of both the Courts below with regard to guilty of tl're revision^{petitioner/accused} and the learned counsel for^{the revision petitioner/accused has} also not proven anything,^{which would discredit the} evidence. Therefore, there^is no interference^warrantedas far as conviction is^concerned, but "vith regard to^the sentence, it may^be mentioned that the^{offence took place} in the year 2008 and almost^{15 years have passed} and during this period the revision^petitioner/ accused must have repented for what^he did. ln^these circumstances and in^the interest of^justice, it is^expedient to reduce the sentence of imprisonment to the^period already undergone by the revlslon petitioner/ accused while maintaining the line imposed by the triat Court.

¶44

1O. The Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the conviction^imposed by the trial Court, which was confirmed by^{the appellateCourt.However,} the sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence under Sections 304-,{ I.P.C., and sentence of simple imprisonmgrt^{for a period} of one month for the offence under

ffi 5'

Section 377 I.p.C., is reduced to the period alread,y undergone b1, the revision petitioner/ acc ur secl r,vl_rile maintaining thc sentence of fine imposecl b_t, the tri:rl Court

¶49

against the petitioner/ appellant/ accused.

¶50

Pending m.iscellaneous applications, il any, shall stand

¶51

closed

¶52

sd/- T. sRrNrvAS DEPUTY REGISTRAR /ITRUECoPY// &

¶53

SECTTON OFFICER

¶54

'[o,

¶55

The Special^Sessions fudge^{for SC/STcases-cum-VllAdd itional}

¶56

Sessions Judge^{at Warangal.}

¶57

The Station^{HouseOfficer, Kazipet Police Station, Waranllal.}

¶58

One CC to^{Sri T.Damodar, Advocate} [OPUC]

¶59

CC to the^{Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad.} [OPUC]

¶60

Two CD^Copies

JCK/SP

HIGH GOURT

DATED:0510912023

ORDER

CRLRC.N o.2424 of 2011

¶68

1 Hr: sTA 16,
(
q
+
co i c ii[i] ?i?1 o
"A
i.* .
..3r' ()
j/, fr
_.r7i.-a,
--t- - _

¶69

DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL REVISION. @q, 9o t\as

Ambati Venkateshwar Reddy, v. the State of A.P. Rep., by Its Pp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ambati Venkateshwar Reddy, v. the State of A.P. Rep., by Its Pp

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

Dr.K.Rajeswar Rao,Hyd and 2 Otrs Vs Public Prosecutor,Hyd and Another

G.Rajendra Kumar Vs M.Durga Malleshwari and 3 Others

A.Ananda Reddy Vs the State of a.P., and Another

Gundelly Mallesh Vs the State of A.P

Madini Philips , Philip Vs the State of A.P.

Sri G.Yesupadam Vs the State of Ap., Rep.by Its P.P and Anohters