Allowed

Shaik Khadeer v. the State of A.P.

Telangana HC11 Sept 2023CRLRC/43/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Revision petitioner questioned conviction and sentence under Sections 338 and 279 IPC. Court found concurrent evidence and no ground to interfere with conviction. Sentence reduced to time already undergone, fine maintained.

What did the court decide?

Sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three months modified; reduced to period already undergone by accused. Fine of Rs. 1,000/- maintained.

Shaik Khadeer Vs the State of A.P. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶2

AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY ,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER

¶4

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 43 OF 2011

¶7

Revision filed under Section 397 & 401 of CrPC against the Judgment dated 06.0'1 .2011 in Crl.A.No.67 of 2010 on the file of the I Addl. Dist. Judge, Nizamabad.

¶8

Between:

¶9

SHAIK KHADEER, S/o Shaik Ahmed, Driver of Trolly auto bearing No.AP 25U 2896 R/o H.No.3-12, Mupkal Village of Balkonda (M), Nizamabad Dist. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED/APPELLANT AND

¶10

THE STATE OF A.P., Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.

¶11

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT.

¶12

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2011(CRLRCMP. NO: 65 OF 2011 )

¶13

Petition under Section 151 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 execution of sentence passed in C.C.No. 795 of 2008 on the file of the Judl. First Class Magistrate, Armoor, as confirmed in Crl.A.No.67 of 2010, dated 06.01.2011 on the file of the lAddl. Dist. Judge, Nizamabad, and release the petitioner on bail in pending disposal of the Crl.R.C., before this Hon'ble Court.

¶14

Counsel for the Petitioner :SRI. D SANGEETHA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent : ASST. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶15

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶16

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL

¶17

CRIMINAL R EVISION CASE No.43 20tt

¶18

ORDER:

¶19

. The prcscnt criminal revision case is filed against thc Judgmcnt in Crl.A. No.67 of 201O, dated 06.01 .20 1 1 passed by the learnerl I Aclclirional District Judge, at Nizamabacl.

¶20

A chargc shcet camc to I;e filed against the petitioner herein for thc offcnccs purnishitble under Sections 339 ancl 279 IPC and lre^,vvas tried for the aforesaid offences. The case of thc pt'osecution is that on 22.04.2008 at 9:30 a.m. the complainaltt Malepu Arunkumar went to poli<:e station and given $,ritren complaint stating that on 2l.Otl.2OOB at about 9:3O p.m. while he q,as passing through marble shop situated on NH 16 on his Ranger Cycle, auto be:rring No. AP 25 U 2896 carne in opposite direction and dashed to his cycle clue to s,l-rich hc fell dou,n and received injuries. On seeking the incident, one pedestrian came and shifted to MJ Hospital Armoor for treatment.

¶21

Based on the said complaint, the ASI has regislered the case and investigated the mat ter. During the c<turse of

I I I I

ffi 1. - -Jrl]

investigation, has examine d PWs I to 3 and erlso visited t hc scenc of ol'l'ence ancl conductcd sccnc ltanchn:rrna and drznr rr rorrgl'r skctch . On 26 .O4.2008 at I 2 noou, thc accrllse d rr cnt to police station and voluntarilt, surrendered and la(er produced belore the Court and aftcr completion ol irrvcstigatiot.r, the Sub Inspector has filed charge sl-reet whicl-r u,as t:rlcen on file zrs C.C.No-795 of 2008.

¶26

In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs. I to 7 and got markecl trxs.P1 to P5

¶27

After closure of the prosecution evidencc, the accuscd was examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C. u,herein he denied the evidence on rccord

¶28

Afte r appreciating the oral-and documentary eviderrce on lecord, the learned Magistrate found the accused guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 338 ar-d 279 IPC and he u.as convicted under Section 255 (iil Cr.P.C. The accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for thrcc months and to pay fine of Rs. 1,O00/- for the offence undcr Section 338 IPC. The accused is also sentenced to pay finc of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence under Section 279 lPC. [n

¶29

¶30

f I t

¶31

defar-rlt of ltnr-ment oI fine, thc act:usccl sha]l sufh,r simplc Imprisonmc.nt lor one rnonllt urrder.eaclt count,

¶32

7 Aggricvecl by u.hic:h, thc l)etitioncr/appellzurt preferrecl Criminarl Appeili No_67 ol )O l O belore rhc learned I Additior-ral District ,ludge ar Nizzrmzrbad (ior short ,the appellate Cour-['), the lcarrrecl :rppellatc Courrt after examinrng the rnaterial l:rc1s bcfclrc it ar-rd urpon considering the trierl court juclgerncnt in C.C.No.795 oi 2008 has dismissed the Criminat Appeitl stating that the sentence imposed by the trial Court is reclurcccl from rhree months to two months, and pre-trial and post trial detention if any shall be set off and in othcr aspects, the judgment of trial Court holds good. Challengir-rg the same the present revision is filed.

¶33

Heard learned counscl lor the revision petitioner/ accused, the learnecl Assistant public prosecutor appearing for respondent-State emd pemsed the record.

¶34

There is concurrent finding of both the Courts below with regard to guilty of the revision pe ti tion er/ a cctrsecl and the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused did .,1 ,.

¶35

¶36

not placc anything bcforc this Court, u,hich rvor-rld discreclit thc evidcncc. Thcrcfore, thcre is no intcrlercncc u,iirrtlrlted as far as conviction is concerned, br-rt witl-r regard to the scntence, it mal bc mcntioned that the olfence took place in thc ycar- 20OB anci alnrost l5 I cars have passed arnd dLlring this period thc revisron pel itioner/accused rnust ha.ve repentcd lor r.r:h erl he did. In thesc circumstances ar-rd in tlte interest of justrcc, it is cxpedient to reduce the sentencc of imprisonment to tl-re pcriocl already undergol-re b1, the revlsl0n pctitio n er/ accuscd r.vhile maintaining the fine imposed bl, the trial Cor-rrt

¶37

The Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the conviction imposed by the trial Court, which was confirmed by the appellatc Court. However, the sentence imposed by the trial Court to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three months and to pay fir-r e of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to undergo Simple imprisonment for a period of one month, which uras modified by the appellate Court to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of tu,o months is set off to thc period already undergone by the revision pe titione r/ accused,

¶38

\'hile nlaintaining the line intposcd b-r' thc trial Cr)Llr-t .rlaainst

¶39

tl're pctitioner/ appellant/ accuserl

¶40

Pcncling miscellaneous applications, if- an,v, shall stand

¶41

closed

¶42

¶43

SdA M. RAMANA KRISHNA DEPUTY REGTSTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

.<u//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Judicial Magistrate of First^ClassArmoor.

¶49

The I Additional District Judge, at^Nizamabad.

¶50

One CC to SRl. D SANGEETHA^{REDDYAdvocate} [OPUC]

¶51

Two CCs to the PUBLIC^{PROSECUTOR,High Courtfor the State} of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶52

Two CD Copies

kam

HIGH COURT

i I t i -

DATED:11109/2023

I
- r,,r,lt
i 2'1 $!,t ;;i"

¶60

ORDER

¶61

CRLRC.No.43 ot 2011

¶62

DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL R.C.

Shaik Khadeer v. the State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaik Khadeer v. the State of A.P.

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

B.Srinivasulu, Mahaboobnagar and 2 Otrs., Vs State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

Shaik Adil Pasha Vs Seema Anjum Divorcee and Another

Manthri Lingam Vs the State of A.P. Rep., by Its Pp

Mohd. Abdul Samad Vs Smt. Tarannum Fatima

Yane Venkata Narayana Vs the State of Telangana

U.Vijay Krishna , Raju, Mahabubnagar and Anr., Vs State, Si of Police, 1 Town Ps., Rep Pp and Anr.