Partly allowed

Marsukolla Ramu v. The State of Telangana Rep by its P.P

Telangana HC5 Jun 2023CRLRC/54/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision, the High Court partially allowed the petition. The Court held that given the lack of specific dates regarding threats to a witness, the sentence of imprisonment could be reduced to the period already undergone for the offenses committed.

What did the court decide?

The sentence of imprisonment was reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioners; bail bonds stand discharged.

Marsukolla Ramu Vs The State of Telangana Rep by… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

BAIL SLIP: The Petrtioners^{were releasedon bail vide court order dated05.01.2018} passed in l.A.No.1 ot 2O18 in Crl,RC.No. 54 of 2O18

¶2

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

¶3

IVONDAY ,THE FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 54OF 2018

¶7

Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C. against the Order dated 06.11.2017 made in Crl.A.No. 33 of 2016 on the file of the lV Additional Sessions cum Judge Family Court at Adilabad confirming the Orders dated 28.01.2016 passed in C.C.No. 233 of 2015 on the file of the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Adilabad

¶8

Between:

¶9

1 Marsukolla Ramu, S/o. Jangu, Age:46 years, Occ - Coolie, R/o. Panuguda of Gundala Village, Thiryani, Adilabad District.

¶10

2 KumramChandu, S/o. Lingu, Age: 45 years, F/o. Panuguda of Gundala Village, Thiryani, Adilabad District.

¶11

...PETITIONERS

¶12

AND

¶13

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad.

¶14

...RESPONDENT

¶15

l.A. NO: 1OF 2018

¶16

Petition under Section 397(1) 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 sentence imposed in Crl.A.No. 33 of 2016 dated 06-11-2017 confirming C.C.No. 233 ot 2015 dated 28-01-2016 on the fite of the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Adilabad, Pending disposal of the Crl. Revision Case.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri R. MANGULAL

¶18

Counsel forthe Respondent : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

I l,

¶21

l'HI} ] {C)NOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T:.SUF E)NDER

¶22

CR r MINAL REVISION CASE No.5,1 oI'21)1tt

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

1'lte;rcrlt r:rcr-s zrrt aqgr-ir:rccl 111' 111. <:or-r,itt;crr rrrclcr Scction 5Otr ilr(l^, irl,:^'unrinal i\l)l)ciii \o.33 ol 20 l6 ).tz s i(_'c l)1. the IV AdditiorLal l) s;t ir:t itncl Scssiot'ts ,ludgc-cum- Ju,lljc. Iramily Court, Adrlabircl.^r liLte',: 06. I l.'-2.A)'/ .

¶25

'lltc Ire I -'r u:-L crrnvictccl tlre petitioner:; lir:. -irc saicl Oflence having i1c(llri-r : .1 them fur the oflences unde- Scc:1 rr-r 290 of IPC and Sccrio r 7(lr r.f I)rotc'crion of Clivil Rights Ac t.

¶26

l3r'ieflr'. r ,,' cilse rigiiinst Lhe petitioner; rs^.1- :rt susper:ting P.W.1 tL: bL pr i cricing sor(--(,r,. thev havc threarr,ne, I her tc leave lhe r.illeige. larli rs; r','hir:lr. slre uoulcl be kil1e,1. 3c.h .he Courts beloq' havr foLr rc t hat tl'rc petitroners \/ere lurlly , ,l the offence under Sectron : i(i of ll)C for threatening P.W 1, I ([(, n()t find any infirmitl u'rth tlt r lndinqs cf the Courts belorv.

¶27

I t

¶28

Leanrtcl^{( (} LLr.lsel apltcarring lor the petitiJnr)rs^..r,otLlcl submit that thc ll( titt()l ct's arc coolie s iLnd have bee I la s r:lr, intpleaded. Horver.t'r. prrrr :rl t:) redrr('c llte sa,ntct.'tce of impris(rnnl( nt.

¶29

KcePing^{ln vLe\that there arel-to specific dates givenby lhe} are threatencd,^hou'ever' witness on^{whichdates the petltloners} threatened^withdire has vaguell'^{stated thatP'W' 1\ras} consequences^{on thc betief that she u'as practicingsorcery'}

¶30

6 . ln vietv^{of nature of allegations} '^{Lhis Court is of the vieu'} sentence^{of imprisonmentcan be reducedto the periodalready} undergone

¶31

partly allowed 7. Accordingly,^{the CriminalRevision Case is} reducing^{the sentenceof imprisonmentto the} period alreadY Bail bonds^{shall standdischarged'} und ergone

¶32

Sd/.I.NAGALAKSHMI DEPUW^REGISTRAR //TRUE^COPY// q

¶33

SECTION^OFFICER

¶34

To 1. The^{rV AdditionarSessions cum JudgeFamiry courtat Adilabad.[drrH ekoRos]'} ;. inl^{iil;tri;naiiuolciatrtluoittt't"o-f First Class at Adilabad'}

¶35

The^{SpecialJudicial rvragisir;ie or rirst.class,(PCR),Adilabad.}

¶36

+. on" ic^{to sti R. MANGULAL' Advocate lut'uul..} 5. Two^{ccs to the Public pi*Jili"i' iisn iourt toi tne state of relangana at} Hyderabad^(OUT)

¶37

Two^{CD CoPies}

Njb

wv-

HIGH COURT

DATED:0510612)123

ORDER

CRLRC.No.S4^{rf 2018}

¶44

.,4, HE S I4r C
',)Y
/, .:
( tz
,i I JUL ?u] a)
<br>t
irri,t 1/r ft tt;o

¶45

PARTLY ALLOWING^{THE CRIMINAL REVISIONCASE.}

¶46

q
-1i"'
u5p

Marsukolla Ramu v. The State of Telangana Rep by its P.P

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Marsukolla Ramu v. The State of Telangana Rep by its P.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

Mala Choudhary Vs State of Telangana

C.D.Ravindernath Vs Srilatha

C.D.Ravindernath Vs Srilatha

The Food Inspector, Rep.by P.P., Hyderabad. Vs G. Ramesh, Hyderabad, and 7 Otrs.

Y.Sudharashan Vs The Collector (Cs)

M/S. Shakthi Bio Science Ltd., Vs The State of Telanagana