Partly allowed

Kanjarla Satyanarayana , Sathi, v. the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd.

Telangana HC9 Feb 2023CRLRC/568/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a criminal revision challenging a conviction under Section 411 IPC for criminal mischief involving a stolen scooter. The Court upheld the conviction but modified the sentence, converting the imposed four-month term to the extent of the period already undergone by the appellant.

What did the court decide?

Conviction confirmed but imprisonment of four months modified to the extent of the period already undergone by the petitioner.

Kanjarla Satyanarayana , Sathi, Vs the State of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

BAIL SLIP : The Petitioner/ Accused was directed to be released on bail by the order of the High Court dated 11.O4.2008 in Crl.R.C.M.P.No. 783 of 2008 in Crl.R.C No. 568 of 2008.

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 568 OF 2008

¶7

Revision filed under Section 397 and 401 of CrPC aggrieved by the Judgment dated 19.03.2008 passed in Crl.A.No. 182 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the lV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar confirming the Judgment dated 11.12.2006 passed in C.C.No. 1769 of 2005 on the file of the Vlll Metropolitan Magistrate, Rajendranagar, Cyberabad, Rangareddy District.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Ka.njadlSatyanatayana @ Salh! S/o Kistaiah, Agriculture, R/o B-51, Narsingi Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy Dislrict.

¶10

...PETITIONER/APPELLANT/AGCUSED

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of A. P., P.S. Narsingh

¶13

...RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT

¶14

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRt. POTTIGARI SRIDHAR REDDy_

¶15

Counsel for the Respondent : Sri MUTHYALA MURALIDHAR (ADD|TIONAL PUBLTC PROSECUTOR)

¶16

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶17

HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE^D.NAGARJUN

¶18

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE^{No.568 of 2OO8}

¶19

ORDER:

¶20

This revision is filed aggrieved^{by the judgmentdated} 11.12.2006 passed b1' the VIII Metropolitan^Magistrate, Rajendranagar in C.C.No.1769 of 2005,^whichwas confirmed by the IV Additional District^{and Sessions} Judge, Fast Track Court, Ranga Reddy^{District in} Crl.A.No.182 of 2006 dated 19.03.2006.

¶21

The facts in brief as per the record are that^the petitioner/ accused u,as charged for the offence under Section 379 IPC alleging that he has committed theft^of Scooter bearing No.AP 13 V 7365 (milky white colour)^of the de-facto complainant/PW.1 when he parked his^vehicle near a temple. On the complaint filed by the de-facto complainant, police haws lsgislsred a case in Crime^No.16 of 2OO2 and during the course of investigation,^on 04.O4.2OO2, at 1 1.30 a. m., the petitioner was apprehended by the police when he r,vas found riding the stolen^Scooter belonging to the de-facto complainant/^PW.1 and^{he was}

¶22

¶23

brought to the pcrlce statio. aiong with the stolen Scooter. In the meanwhile, pW.3, the Investigating Ofhcer, has summoned the mediators and in their presence the said Scooter was seized under cover of panchanama. During the course of trial, the de-facto complainant was examined as PW. 1 and he \t,,as not cross_examined by the petitioner. LWs.2 and 3, the mediators, could not be examined as a memo is filed that their whet.eabouts are not knou,n. pW.2, the constable and pW.3, ASI of police ,,vere examine,i anri deposed their part of investigation, including seizure of Scooter from the petitioncr. On considering the entire material on record, both oral and docttmentary, the trial Court has fo r_r-nd 16" petitioner gr-riity for rhe ofience under Section 411 IpC instead of 329 IpC and sentenced him to suffer simpre imprisonment for a period of four months. Aggrieved by the salne, the petitioner has preferred Crl.A.No. lB2 of 2006 and the same was dismissed by r.r,ay of judgment dared 19.03.200g. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the revision case alleging that both the Courts have completel.y rnislead with the evidence ol pWs. I to 3 and the trial Court coulcl not considered the evidence

¶24

a .J

¶25

of PWs.2 and 3, as they are^{interested witnesses ald that} the erridence available before^{the Court is not sufficientto} prove the guilty against the petitioner^{for the offence under} Section 41 I IPC and therefore,^{prayedthe Court to allow} the revision.

¶26

Heard both sides and perused the^record

¶27

Now, the point for determination is whether^the judgment dated 19.03.2008 passed in Crl.A.No.182 of 2006 can be set aside?

¶28

On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the grounds of revision, including the judgments of the trial Court as well as the appellate Court, it is clear that the only ground raised by the petitioner is that though the independent mediators/ LWs.2 and 3 were not examined before the Court, basing on the interested witnesses/PWs.2 and 3 the trial Court has found the petitioner guilty and the same is erroneous.

¶29

It is true that nobodv has witnessed when the petitioner was comrnitting theft ol the Scoo"t6r of the de-

¶30

¶31

facto complaina,nt, thereby, a" rightiy observed by the learned appeliate Court, there is no material to hold that the petitioner has committed thc offence punishable under Section 379 IpC. Hou,evcr, the Scooter was stated to have beerr found in possession of the petitioner. The petitioner failed to produce any satisfactory reply when the police have questioned him as to how he is in possession of MO. 1/Scooter bearing No.Ap 13V 7365 belongrng to the de-facto complainant, who lost it on 12.A2.2AA2. Therefore, once the petitioner has failed to explain about his possessicn of the stolen Scooter, he comes square[,r,, under the definition of Section 411 IpC.

¶32

However, the question is whether basing on the evidence of PWs.2 and 3, who are the police officers, can the Court find the petitioner guilt5r in the absence of evidence of independent mediators. According to the version of the prosecution, on 04.04.2002 at 11 .30 a.m.. rvhen the petitioner was traveling with the stolen Scooter, he w,as apprehended and taken to the police station where

¶33

¶34

PW.3 has summoned LWs.2 and 3 and in their presence, the petitioner has confessed the offence.

¶35

It is to be noted that in order to constitute a valid confession by the petitioner/ accused, which can be admitted under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, the confession must be in the presence of mediators and not before the police officials, as the confession before the police officer is hit by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. But, not always the evidence of the investigating officer can be disbelieved on the ground that he is partisan witness and interested witness and that he himself has investigated the case. The evidence of the police officers can certainly be believed in case if the evidence is trustworthy. In case, in a given situation if the police had to apprehend an accused and recovered certain material objects and the place urhere the accused was found, there is no possibility of getting any independent evidence, then the investigating department is at liberty to seize the property even in the absence of mediators. However, it is a case where the seizure was conducted, recovery

¶36

¶37

panchanama was recorded in the police station and at that time two mediators were summoned. The reason for non_ examination of such t\ro mediators is that their whereabouts are not available. The police being the investigating department should have traced the whereabouts ol LWs.2 and 3. Recording the evidence of PWs.2 and 3 is very much impor-tant as the trial Court and the appellatc Court havc given a finding against the petitioner onlv basing on the evidence of pWs.2 and 3. Therefore, thc police should have rnade an honest effort to secure the prcsence of LWs.2 and 3.

¶38

In any t:ase, the pctitioner also could not place anv material creatins a doubl in respect of veracity of the police officers, who were examineci as pWs.2 and 3. Therefore, though it is not safe to relv on the evidence of pWs.2 and 3 finding the petitioncr guilty of the offence, still considering the fact that the petitioner has already undergone substantial period of sentence, as requested by the learned counsel for thc petitioner that whether any set-off can be done can be considered.

¶39

¶40

Considering the circumstances that the offence took place in the year 2OO2 i.e., about 21 years ago and the fact that the petitioner has undergone mental and physical trauma on account of the finding of both the Courts below that he is lound guilty for the offence under Section 379 IPC and that further on considering the fact that he was in judicial custody for substantial period, this Court is of the opinion that the conviction awarded by the trial Court and conf-rrmed by the appellate Court is proper and so far as the sentence is concerned, the sentence of four months imposed is converted to the extent of the period already undergone by the petitioner.

¶41

I 1. In the result, the criminal revision case is disposed ol u,hile confirming the conviction recorded by the trial Court and the appellate Court, the sentence of four months imposed against the petitioner is modified to the extent of the period already undergone by him.

¶42

Miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶43

To,

¶44

Sd/. K. SAILESHI DEPUXREGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// secfflr oFFtcER

¶45

The lV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.

¶46

The Vlll Metropolitan Magistrate, Rajendranagar, Cyberabad, Rangareddy District.

¶47

rr.Cor^id

¶48

One CC to Sri POTTIGARI SRIDHAR REDDY, Advocare tOpUCl

¶49

Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. (OUT)

¶50

Two CD Copies

Njb

kam

Jt,

HIGH COURT

DATED:0910212023

ORDER

CRLRC.No.568 of 2008

_,/ .')
-r'
A-..,:Y
,,
\\ :
(.>
-' .':
- \ ,c;
.-. ,.t. ,, /
\ -:...'.;;Fz'-"r r]t1l'\ - -i-

¶60

DISPOSING Ol.- TIIU CRL{tNAL RE/ISION CASU. 3

¶61

a a)

¶62

q3 9 c?

Kanjarla Satyanarayana , Sathi, v. the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanjarla Satyanarayana , Sathi, 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

A. Ramalingamma Vs T. Bheeema Goud and Another

S. Ganeshan Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd.

V.Raghuveer Reddy, Vs a.Prathap Reddy and Another

Tak Karan Singh , Kalu Singh and 2 Others Vs the State of A.P.

Mohammed Rafi Vs the State of A.P. and Another

B.Srinivasulu, Vs State of a.P., Rep by Pp and Another