Allowed

G. Mallaiah, v. the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd.

Telangana HC3 Mar 2023CRLRC/274/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision, the High Court affirmed the conviction of the accused under Section 324 IPC but found the original six-month rigorous sentence excessive. The prosecution case survived scrutiny regarding the missing weapon and motive, leading the court to modify the sentence to one month simple imprisonment with a hike in fine.

What did the court decide?

Criminal revision allowed; conviction confirmed; sentence modified to simple imprisonment for one month with a fine of Rs. 25,000.

G. Mallaiah, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd. — Cheating and Forgery | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²⁰⁸ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD,.

¶3

FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWOTHOUSANDANDTWENTYTHREE -

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA .,

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No: 274 OF 2009 ,

¶7

Criminal Revision Case filed Under Sections 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C against the Order dated 12-12-2008 made in Crl.A.No. 92 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the lV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, confirming the order dated:02-08-2006 made in C.C.No.39 of 2001 on the file of the Court of the lV [t/etropolitan fVlagistrate, Cybera bad at I brahimpatan. -

¶8

Between:

¶9

G. iVALLAIAH,, S/o G.Jangaiah, Aged about 42 years, Occ: R/o Manneguda, Polkampally, lbrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District.,-

¶10

... Petitioner/AppellanUAccused

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Through P.S, lbrahimpatnam, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh,

¶13

...RespondenURespondenUComplainant

¶14

CRLRCMP. NO: 355 OF 2009

¶15

Petition under Section 397 (1) r/w Section 482 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 suspend the conviction and sentence imposed by the lV Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, lbrahimpatnam in CC.No. 39 of 2001, dt. 02-08-2006 which was confirmed by the Hon'ble lV Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, in Cil.A.No. 92 of 2006, dt. 12-12-2008 and release the petitioner on bail. ,-

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P.S.P. SURESH KUMAR"

¶17

Counsel forthe Respondent: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

¶20

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.274 of 2OO9

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the Judgment and decree dated f2.12.2OO8, passed by the learned IV-Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District in Crl.A.No.92 of 2OO8 confirming the Judgment and decree dated 02.O8.2O06, in C.C.No.39 oi 2OO 1 passed by the learned IV- Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Ibrahimpatnam.

¶23

Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of both the Courts, the petitioner/accused preferred the present Criminal Revision Case. He mainly contended that the Axe with handle with which caused injury over the body of the P.W.1 was not recovered as Material Object, but it was not considered by both the Courts. P.W.2 in his evidence admitted that previously accused initiated ciiminal proceedings against him and he was convicted by Criminal Court and paid fine amount, as such his wife P.W. 1 hled false complaint against accused as a counter case, but it was not considered by both the Courts. The prosecution has not examined the Investigation Officer who was hgured as L.W.5 in

¶24

)

¶25

the Chargc Shect and thus the Conviction and Sentence imposed by both the Courts is liable to be set aside.

¶26

The de-facto complainant/P.W. 1 gave complaint against the petitioner/ accused stating that on O4.01.2OO1 at about 11:0O a.m., the petitioner/ accused grazitg his sheeps in the field of P.W.1, when she questioned the same, accused beat her with the stick portion of the axe and caused simple injuries to the P.W. 1. Immediately, she went to hcr husband P.W.2 who was attending agricultural work at a distance of 2 kms and informed him about the incident. Both of them went to police station and gave compiaint which is marked under Ex.P1. She was also rcferred to the medical examination. P.W.3 is the doctor who examined P.W. I and issued Ex.P2 wound certificate. The petitioner/accused was arrested and after completion of investigation Charge Sheet was filed.

¶27

The trial Court examined P.Ws.l to 5 and marked Exs.Pl to P4 and there is no oral or documentaqr evidence on behalf of the petitioner/accused. Considering the entire evidence on record, the trial Court convicted the accused for an offence under Section 324 I.P.C and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months and to pay fine of

¶28

Rs.2,00O/- and in default he shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months. Aggrieved b1, the said Judgment, accused preferred an appeal in Crl.A.No.274 ol 2OO9 and the appellate Court confirmed the Judqment of the trial Court. Roth the Courts held that the evidence of P.W.1 was corroborated with the medical evidence of P.W.3 that the injuries were caused by blunt weapon and the injuries are simple and fresh i.e., within six hours from the time of examination and thus the age of the injuries mentioned in trx.P2 is corroborated to the time of incident mentioned in the Ex.P1. lt was su[J€lested to P.W.3 that whether the said injuries are caused by falling from the heights and he deposed that the said injuries are possible in that circumstances.

¶29

The learned Counsel for the petitioner/ accused also argued that the non-seizure of stick is fatal to the case of the prosecution. They further contended that P.W.2 is not the eye-witness and P.W.4 who was shown as eye-witness turned hostile. Except the sole testimony of^. P.W. 1 , there is no other evidence on record. Prosecution failed to examine the constable who registered the FIR. Moreover, admittedly accused is the brother-in-law of P.W. 1 i-e., elder brother P.W.2 and there was family disputes between both the parties regarding construction

¶30

¶31

of a compound u'all about one year back. At that time, P.W.2 be at accused and accuscd gave complaint against P.W.2 and P.W.2 was convicted u'ith a fine of 10O/-, as such P.W. 1 filed false complaint against petitioner/accused, but the motive for the offence is not considcred by both the Courts.

¶32

There is no dispute regarding the fact that the relationship betwcen P.W. 1 and the accused and also civil disputes betr,r,een thc parties, but the said incident of construction of a compound n'all rvas much prior to the incident in this case. When P.W. I questioned the accused that why he was allowing his shcep to graze in their field, he attacked her with the stick portion of the axe and caused simple injuries as shown in Ex.P2 in detail. It cannot be said that he caused injuries in a sudden provocation or in a fit of anger. Admittedly, injuries were caused to P.W.1 by the aicused. Immediately after the incident, she informed the same to her husband and both of them gave complaint on the same day. As the whereabouts of the constable who registered the FIR is not available it was vested with the Investigation Officer who conducted investigation and fiied Charge Sheet. Both the Courts concurrently gave conviction for causing injuries voluntarily with a dangerous weapon under Section 324 of I.P.C. This Court

¶33

¶34

finds no reason to interfere with the conviction imposed by both the Courts. However, considering the nature of the injuries sustained by P.W. 1, this Court finds that it is just and reasonable to modify the sentence into Simple Imprisonment for one month with fine of Rs.25,OOO/- and in default to pay, he shall sulfer simple imprisonment for 15 days.

¶35

In the result, Criminal Revision Case is allor.r,ed modifying the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court into simple imprisonment for a period of one month and hnc of Rs.2S,OOO/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days.

¶36

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand

¶37

closed.

¶38

Sd/. M. RAMANA KRISHNA DEPUTY GIS //TRUE COPY//

¶39

To,

¶40

SECTION OFFICER

¶41

1 The lV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District (with records, if any)

¶42

2 The lV Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at lbrahimpatan. House officer, potice Station tbr;h;r;;;rr, Ransa Reddy

¶43

#.ir,.a,1r,,".

¶44

4 Two CCs to the public prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.(OUT)

¶45

Two CD CopiesOne CC to SRt. p.S.p. SURESH KUMAR, Advocate [OPUC]

kam

HIGH COURT

DATED:0310312023

ORDER

CRLRC.No.274 ol 2009

1 H E 14
2i
/_a
oo 17 I <br>ti!AY 2tr9
!l

¶55

CRL.R.C IS ALLOWED
(a

G. Mallaiah, v. the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G. Mallaiah, v. the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd.

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

V. Janardhan Rao Vs The State of A.P.

Smt. Kyasaram Gangamani Vs Sri Kyasaram Balreddy

Chakinam Vishalakshi Vs Yeshwanth Pawar

Mr. Vasa Tulasidhar, Habsiguda, Hyderabad Vs State of a.P.,Rep.by P.P.,High Court, Hyderabad and 2 Others

Sri. Mohammed Tajaddin Hunani Vs Smt. Ruksar Fathima

Yedamakanti Laxma Reddy Vs The Nizam Sugars Limited (Nsl)