Dismissed

Tak Ghagan Singh v. the State of A.P.

Telangana HC21 Feb 2023CRLRC/946/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Criminal Revision Case, the High Court examined grounds regarding lack of evidence and contradiction in witnesses. However, the Court observed that the petitioner had already served his seven-year sentence and was released, rendering the cause of action dormant. Consequently, the revision was dismissed as it could not survive.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Revision Case was dismissed as the petitioner had already served his sentence and the cause no longer survives.

Tak Ghagan Singh Vs the State of A.P. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32se l

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 946 OF 2009

¶7

Criminal Revision Case under Section 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C against the Judgment made in Crl.A.No.4s of 2008 dated^'14,05.09 on the file of the Court of the ll Addl. District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Adilabad, Preferred against the Order made in S.C.No.525 of 2006 dated 04.O1.2008 on the file of the Court of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Nirmal.

¶8

BetvYeen:

¶9

Tak Ghagan Singh, S/o Narsingh, aged 60 years, Occ: lron Work R/o Mancal Bazar, Jalna, Maharashtra State. Presently Fl/o Pamula Basti, Nizamabad (A-6)

¶10

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of A.P., Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.

¶13

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶14

l.A. NO: 2 OF ZXI9(CRLRCMP. NO: 1274 OF 2009)

¶15

Petition under Section 397 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail by suspending the conviction and sentence imposed in Crl.A.No. 4512008, dt.14.05.2009 by the Hon'ble ll Addl. District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Adilabad pending disosal of the Criminal Revision.

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI LAKKADI DAYAKAR REODY

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

¶20

¶21

THE HOIIOURABLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGAF:WN

¶22

CRIMI tAL REVISION CASE No.946 of :2Or09

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

The C:ri nrnal Revision Case is filed aggrie verl by the Judgment cta erl 04.O1.2008 in S.C: No.525 of 20Or> passed by the learner ./\ssistant Sessions Judge, Nirmal, "vh erein the petitioner/acc used u'as found guilty for the c ff,:n<:e under Section I]95 r errd with Section 397 and :198 of the Indian Penal Cotle ar d sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a perio<l rf seven years and to pay 1Rs.200,/- for each count, in de arrlt of payment of fine to q1,1..*,, simple imprisonrnent fc,r a period of one month for each c,)unt.

¶25

Heard Sri K.Madhusudan Reddy, learnec ,:otrnsel for the petitiont:^- arrd Sri Muthyala MuralidlLar, learned Additional Put lic Prosecutor for respondent-Statr:.

¶26

Aggrierre, I by the Judgment dated 04.01.11008 in S.C. No.525 <)f 2 )Ct6, the revision petitione'r hirs Frreferred Crl.A.No.03 of 2008. The learned II Additronal t,istrict and Sessions Jud ge (STC) at Adilabad vide Jtrd5;rrLent dated

¶27

¶28

14.05.2009 has allowed the appeal by confirming the sentence and conviction awa-rded by the trial Court,

¶29

Aggrieved by the same, the rerrision petitioner has liled tllis present reyision petition on following grounds:

¶30

1. The Judgment of the lower Appellate Court is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case, as such the same is to be set aside.

¶31

2l The Lower Appellate Court failed to appreciate the fact that there was no corroboration in evidence of pwl, Pw2, Pw3, pw4, pws and pw6.

¶32

1. The lower Appellate Court failed to see that there is contradiction in the e,ridence . given by each of the Prosecution witnesses.

¶33

1. The lower Appellate Court failed to see that pW3 and PW4 clearry deposed that they did not see the A2 to A6 Iooting the three shops in the said complex.

¶34

1. The courts below failed to see that the description of accused not stated by the witnesses during their examination under Section 16l of Cr.p.C. Non mentioning of the description of the accused at the hrme

I //

/ I

of exam niltion under Section 161 of Cr.P,C. ir; fatal to

¶40

the pros :cution case.

¶41

1. The Cor- rts below ought to have seen th€.t thr: alleged confessr, )n and alleged recovery frorn th: ac:used is grosslv irrsufficient to prove the case ;gainst the appellan ts.

¶42

1. The C,ru rts belou, failed to see the fact that asr per the evidenc,: of Fp9 to Pw1l, the accused corrfessed the offencr: lrelore the police. As per Section 2tr rf llvidence Act thr: r onfession before the police is inadln ssible.

¶43

1. The^(1,: urts belou, failed to see thzLt t.1e Test Identific:, Lt-on Parade conducted after long laps,: of time and r:r'dcnce of prosecution witnesses is totally worthles s.

¶44

1. The Cor: rts below failed to see that non suripects were not in<:lr ded in Test Identihcation Parade, as appellants belong tt, Siikh community.

¶45

1. 'l'h: Courts below ought to have s,:en that the MO's rec overed from the appetlhnts is a-fter iong lapse of timt:. Hlnce believing the prosecution ca,.,e on it is

¶46

improba rl,:.

¶47

¶48

1. That the courts below tailed to see that pw3 and

¶49

Pw4 have not stated at whose hands they received injuries on their bo{ies, which becomes fatal to the case of the prosecution.

¶50

I2l That the Court below ought to have seen that Pw16 in his evidence stated tl"at there was no specific mention in complaints that some of the accused were Sikhs and injured were present along with the complainants. But pw15 in his evidence says that injured were admitted in hospital at 3.OO a.m.

¶51

That the lower appellate Court while acquitting the A-8 held that there is no link between tle property belonging to pWs 1 and 2 with that of recovered property from pw8. This aspect shows that there is no link between alleged recoveries from the appellants ald dacoit in complainalt,s shop. Only for the purpose of statistics, the police have foisted false case against the appellants.

¶52

l4l The lower appellate court ought to have seen that when the charge against A_g is not proved, then the charge against the appellants also does not survive. ./.

Norv the point for consideration is

¶57

"Wrcthe r the Judgment dated. O4.O1.2OOg tn

¶58

S.C. Ncr 5.25 of 20O6 passed bg the learne<l Assis/ar f ,Sesslons Judge, Nirmal ts liable ttt be sel a: icte?"

¶59

\ \

¶60

During rh,3 course of submissions, learnt:d A,lditional Public Prosr:crrt,r rrled a letter dated rs.02.2023 arrdressed by the Supr:ri^-rtended of Jails, Central prison, V/arangal to the State Publ c Prosecutor Government of TelarLg;rlrzr stating that the re,ris ion petitioner herein by name le,k Ghagan Singh S/o. Na-singh was found guilty in S.C.No 525 of 2006 by the learnet. Assistant Sessions Judge, NirrrLa i u,ho was sentenced trt u ndergo seven years of impris,rr: mr:nt has completed his ;entence of seven years in the prir;on ernd was released from l rison on 13.01.2011.

¶61

Since, tht revision petitioner has alreacly ur:.d:rgone the sentence passe I by the trial Court, cause does not r;urvive for the petitione r o prosecute the case, therebl. thr: criminal revision case is ti:rble to be dismissed.

¶62

¶63

In view of the above facts and circumstances, the

¶64

Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.

¶65

As a sequel, pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶66

SD/.T.KRISHNA KUMAR DEPUW REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPYII

To,

SECTION OFFICER

The ll Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC) at Adilabad. (with records, if any)

¶71

The Assistant Sessions Judge at Nirmant.

¶72

One CC to Sri Lakkadi Dayakar Reddy, Advocate [OpUC]

¶73

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

¶74

Two CD Copies gbr,\y

HIGH COURT

DATED:21 10212023

ORDER

CRL.R.C.No.94 i of 2009

¶79

a7'
a1 aF- s,"4 14.
,.-l 4
/t.)
(1(
>;
ll 1 JU!|l 2m
a
{

¶80

DISMISSING TTIE CRL.R.C

¶81

Gr a\ uAk ,)r<br>

Tak Ghagan Singh v. the State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tak Ghagan Singh 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

Mekala Rajanna Vs the State of A.P. Rep. by P.P.

Murali Krishna Shinde , Vs the State of a.P., Rep by Pp.

Thummala Pavan Kumar, Madhira, Khammam Dist. Vs the State of a.P., Rep. by P.P., Hyderabad, and Anr.

Tak Ghagan Singh Vs the State of A.P.

A.v.Koti Reddy Vs Kunchela Venkateshwarlu and the State of A.P.

G.S. Ravinder Reddy and Another Vs State, Rep. by Pp.