HC allowed the revision petition partly, quashing the conviction for theft with multiple punishablt elements and reducing sentence from rigorous to simple imprisonment of six months.
Sentence reduced from rigorous imprisonment of three years to simple imprisonment for six months. Remand period set off allowed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[3206 ]
I i : i I I I I I I I I i I
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO:820 OF 2009
Criminal Revision Case under Sections 397 of Cr.PC against the Judgment in Crl.A.No.364 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad daled 121O212009 prefened against the Order in CC No.180 of 2008, dated 171O612009 on the file of the Court of the Xl Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad.
Between:
G.Laxmi, D/o. Maisaiah,
...REVISION PETITIONER/ ACCUSED
AND
The State of A.P., rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad.
,,.RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT
This petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of grounds of Crrminal Revision Case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri.A.Ramesh Babu, Advocate for the appellant and of the Public Prosecutor (TG/AP) on behalf of the sole Respondent.
The Court made the following: ORDER
II 1 I Ii I I
THE HOI.IOURABLE SMT.IUSTICE P.SREI] SUDHA
CRL.R.C.No. 820 of 2009
ORDER:
This('rimir.ral Revision Case is dir<,cted a;1ai rst the judgmerrt c f tlrt, leamcrl \Ictropolitan Sessiorrs Judge, H)'deraba,-1, tn Crl.A No 36-t of 2008, dated I 2.02.2009, corrfirminll thc cortr iction and sentcllce cf ri 3orous imprisorrnre tt for a 1reriod o[ [[ree 1,s215 for tfre gffence punishabkt r nde.r Scctiorr 3ti0 of l.P.C. imposed a1;ai:rst the revision pr:ti:ioner/r-I bv the lcarned XI z\dditional Chief Metropol i tar trlali is tra tc, Sr.cr-r rrcl t r.i bacl, I It C.C .lJo.180 of 2008 datecl I'.06.2008
2
on verification they found trreft of gord and severar sirvor arlicles wcighing about 1000 grams and also g wrist watches and basirrg orr his cornplaint, police registercd a case in Crime No.21 1 of 2007 and took up investigation. It is further stated thar on72.72.2007 at about 20.00 hours, p.W.2 Iodged a complaint stating that on 30.11.2007he along with his family left for Delhi on official work after duly ls6k;., the house at plot No.g, Banjara Nagar. Trimlgherry and that on 01 .12.2007 he received a telephonic call from his housekeeping lady about the theft in the house after breaking oper.r lock of the house and that on 77.72.2007 he came to the house and found gold ornaments weighing about 150 to 200 grams were stolen away and that basing on his rqps11, police registered a case in Crime No.225 of 2007. Durirrg the course of investigation, p.W.6/Sub Inspector of Police, Kulsurnpul2 police Station arrested the accused on 30.12.2007 and that in pursuance of statement given by A_1, some of the stolen properties in the aforesaid two crimes
I
3
were recov,red at her instance. Subsequt'ntl1', A-1was produced b rf<>re the Court forjudiciat custoclyt.nd 1r.-2 ra'as ptoduced t efore the Juvenile Court as he is ttjrrvenile. Previousl'y, A-1 was convictecl andset t t,:nced ln C.C.Nos.3,0l of 1999,501 ot 2000, 1658 of 2001,1646 of2003 and 2705 ol 2003 bt' the II and VIIIN{t tropolitan Magistrates I{yderabatl, antl therebv the accu:;,:l i;liable for the ofl'er ces punishabk, untier Sections-15,1 an,l 330 read with Sectior 75 I.P.C
the accuserd
4
petitioner/A-l guilty of the offence punishable under Section 380 or 411 of I.p.C and accordingly convicted and sentenced her to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years for the said offence.
I
5
Section 41.[ r,f LP.C. Accordirrgly, the [ea1nc'd _udgr: held
that the pros tcution has proved guilt of A- I rrrxle'r Section 380 of I.P.C and thereby confirmecl the convi,: tion and
sentence reco :ded by the trial Court for the s.ritl o lt'nc:.
imposed .rgair st the revisior.t petitiouer/-,- I
7 Heard t cth sides arrcl pt,rtrsccl thc t,ntrr,: rnaterial ar.ailable on re :ord
6
t
7
1
said asp€'ct was already observed by the app,:tlate Court, ihis Court is not inclirred to go into thc clt,tarls ol tht same. l-here is u r oncurrent finding of both the Courts rerlarding ihe offerrce under Section 380 of I.P.C. No ,.lor- bt, the IEVISION pct itioner/A-1 is a woman aged aborrt .i7' t.ears, but she has t ol rtrnibted theft in several houses a r rl h;is been involved in several criminal cases. The appellat-,'loi rrt aiso I l'. 1"1 hc'ld that )'1 the panch witnesses turned ho;t le to the prosecution ,and if it results in dismissal of tht, .:asrt itsclf, tiren it gi're; a \vrong signal to the socictr arrtrl lrcr.ri-t: tht.r, cannot be, , [ecisive persons to direct finai ie.rrlt irr ti-re criminai cas:s. Thus, the said aspect of p-r311,;i1 r,v i .ncsscs turning iros ile was already dealt r.t,ith l,r. th., apircllate Court. Thc,re [ore, there is no interferencc hrrrrr.lnl(,.1 a.; far .rs r:orrvictiorr is concerned, but with regarcl tc' tlrt, ;r,ntt ncc itf tnrPrisourlcrrt inrposed against the rcvisior.. [.ct tl-rt1(,r/ A-1 br' the Cou'ts below for the offer.rcc' pr-rnislr,rL,le r.rnt{,:r Sr'c tiorr 3tlt) r f I.P.C., this Court finds it just nrrtl r.,,.rs,rnatrle
8
to reduce the sentcnce of rigorous imprisonment of three years to simple imprisonment for a period of Six months. 9. The Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed and the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of tluee years imposed against the revision petitioner/A_l bv the Courts below is reduced to simple imprisonment for a preriod of Six months. The remand period, if any, shail be given set off Under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stand
closed.
Sd/-I.NAGA LAKSHMI DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY'
To
SECTION OFFICER
Kt
\
HIGH COURT
DATED:06/04/20. t3
ORDER
CRLRC.No.820 of i 009
.. ,, .-.
-' '.al,.'.
,
t
l,'i ?tB
It,
CRL.R.C. IS PARTI.Y ALLOWED,
(i, \ r--''t
.. :;
' \d,,
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the conviction under Section 380 of IPC should be maintained given the lack of evidence for Section 411.
4 provisions across 3 enactments
G.Laxmi
The State of A.P.
P. Sree Sudha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
