Dismissed

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

Telangana HC21 Feb 2023CRLRC/947/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal revision petition filed under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC challenging a conviction and sentence. The Court held that the cause for prosecution was extinguished because the petitioner had already completed his seven-year rigorous imprisonment.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Revision Case is dismissed with directions that the case stands disposed of.

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

¶1

[^32se ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

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

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO:947 OF 2009

¶7

Criminal Revision filed under Section 397 and 401 of CrPC against the sentence and conviction Dated 14-5-2009 made in Crl.A.No. 47 of 2008 on the file of the ll Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC) Adilabad

¶8

Between:

¶9

Tak Ghagan Singh, S/o. Narsingh, Occ: lron Work, Rl/o. Mancal Bazar, Jalna, Maharashtra State,^presently Rl/o. Pamula Basti, Niazamabad^(A-6)

¶10

...PETTTTONER(S)

¶11

AND

¶12

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

¶13

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶14

CRLRCMP. NO: 1275 OF 2009

¶15

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 pleasedto} enlarge the^petitioner on bail by suspending the^conviction and^sentence imposed in Crl.Apeal No. 47 of 2008 dated 14-5-2009 by the^{Hon'ble ll Additional} District Judge (FTC), Adilabad,^pending disposal of the Criminal^Revision

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. K. MADHUSUDHAN REDDY

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent: SRI MUTHYALA MURALIDHAR,

¶18

ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

¶21

THE HOITOURABLE^{DR. JUSTICE D.NA(}I\R.,UN}

¶22

CRIMI {AL REVISION^{CASE No.947 o1'2!,OCt9}

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

Thr: Ori ninal^{Revision Case is filed aggrievec by the} Judgment da.ed^{04.01.2O08in S.C' No.527 of 1Zr)O(rpassed} by the learrtt: I {ssistant^{SessionsJudge, Nirmal , 'vh':rein the} petitioner/at:^{:rtsed was found guilty for the c fl':nr e utlder} Section 3cJ5^rc ati^{q'ith Section 397 and 398} ';f^{the Indian} Penal Code^{a r<l sentenced to undergo rigor-ouslrnprisonment} for a pe'nod ol^{seven years and to pay Rs.2()0/ for each} count,^'n cl'firult of^{payment of fine tounclt:rg'l simple} imprisonmer- t bl^{a period of one month for eactt r' ount'}

¶25

02 . Hc ar,,l Sr-i I(.^{Madl-rusudan Reddy,lt'arne Ico rnsel for} the petitior er and^{SriMuthyalaMrrralidlt;rr,learned} Additional^{Pr Lblic: Prosecutorfor responden t-Stat€'.}

¶26

Aggrierc<l by^{the..ludgment dated 04.01.20011in S'C'} No.527 oi 2r)06,^{therevision petitiotrer ll:rspreferred} Crl.A.No.05 rf 2008.^{The learned II AddLtionzLlDir;trict and} Sessions^{.Jr dqe (FTC) atAdilabad vidt: .h-rlpmcntdated}

¶27

¶28

¶29

14.05.2009 has a,llowed the appeal by confirming the sentence and conviction awarded by the trial Court.

¶30

Aggrieved by the same, the rerrision petitioner has filed this present revision petition on following grounds:

¶31

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.

¶32

2l The lower Appellate Court failed to see that there is contradiction in the evidence given by each of the Prosecution witnesses.

¶33

1. The lower Appellate Court failed to see that PW3 and PW4 clearly deposed that they did not see the A2 to A6 looting 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 161 of Cr.P.C. Non mentioning of the description of the accused at the time of examination under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. is fatal to the prosecution case.

¶35

1. The Courts below ought to have seen that the alleged confession and alleged recovery from the accused is

¶36

.,)

¶37

grossl\r irrsufficient to prove the^,tase zrgainst^the

¶38

appellar tsr.

¶39

1. Thc Cor rt.s beiou, failed to^see the^{fact that as per the} eviclenclrf Prvl0 to Pw12, the accusecl^{cotlferssed the} offence refore the police. As per Section 2(r^{,rf IDvidence} Act the ;onfession before the police is inadrnissible.

¶40

1. The C' )urts below failed to see thtLt the Test Identific ation Parade conducted after long iapst: of^time an<l er idence of prosecution u,itttesses is totally 'worthle, ;s

¶41

1. The Cor rr,s belo-"v failed to see that non^{sltr;pectswere} not inc[ rcled in Test Identification Parade, a.' al)pellants belong 1c Sikh community.

¶42

1. The Oo rrts below ought to have seen that the^MO's recover( d from the appellants is after long lapst' of time. Hencr: believing the prosecution cas,j oll it is improbi ble.

¶43

1. Tl a: the collrts below failed to see that there is lot of ,:ontr a<liction in the evidence of PW3, P',V'l,^{])W5 and} P./v'6.

¶44

¶45

¶46

That the Court below ought to have seen that Pw17 in his evidence stated that there was no specific mention in complaints that some of the accused were Sikhs and injured were present along with the complainants. But Pw16 in his evidence says that injured were admitted in hospital at 3.OO a.m.

¶47

l2l That the lower appellate Court while acquitting the A-8 held that there is no link between the property belonging to PWs 1 and 2 with that of recovered property from PwS. This aspect shows that there is no link between alleged recoveries from the appellants and dacoit in complainant's shop. Only for the purpose of statistics, the police have foisted false case against the appellants.

¶48

1. The lower app,ellate court ought to have seen that when the charge against A-8 is not proved, then the charge against the appellants also does not survive.

¶49

o5. Now the point for consideration is

¶50

"Wlether the Judgment doted O4.O1.20O8 in

¶51

S.C. No.527 of 2OO6 passed bg the learned

¶52

Assisfanf Sessions Judge, Nirmal is liable to

¶53

be set aside?" - -- \

¶54

¶55

[)rrring t re course of submissions, lezrrrr:rl ,a.dditional Pr-rbhc I'rosr::r tor filed a letter dated 15.t)2.2C11.1 addressed b]' tl-re Sup,:'intended of Jai1s, Central Prison J/arangal to the State Plr rl c Prosecutor Government ol Telan.larLa stating that thi: r'e, ision petitioner herein by name^'l'ak Ghagan Singh S/o I arsingh u'as found guilty in S.C.No.52'z of 2006 b], the learr erl Assistant Sessions Judgt', Nrrrral u,ho was sentenccd t r undergo seven years of impr sonnent has completed h s sentence of seven years in 'he pril;on and u,as releascrl frorr ,rrison on 13.01.2011.

¶56

07 . Since, .he revision petitioner has alrr:adv .r; rdergone the sentcnce par sr:d by the trial Court, cause ,lor:s tr,t survive for the petition, r to prosecute the case, therebl -he crirninal revision cas< i; liable to be dismissed.

¶57

In vie.r, ol the above facts and r:ircurnl;ta:-rces, the Criminarl Re''is.ion Case is dismissed.

¶58

As a st q,rel, pendir-ig Miscellaneous ,\pplir:aLions, if any, shifll strlnd r lc,sed

¶59

Sid,- B.^SATYAVATHI DEPUTY^REGISTRAR //TRUE^COPY// lt'

¶60

S;ECTION^OFFICER

¶61

To,

¶62

1 The ll Additior^{ral District and Sessions Judge (FT{l)Adilrkrad} 2. The^{Judicial t ir{;t Class Magistrate'Bhainsa, Adilabadf tis:rict}

¶63

¶64

¶65

4 Two ccs to the Public Prosecutor, High court for the State of rerangana at Hyderabad.[OUT]

¶66

One CC to SRt. K. MADHUSUDHAN REDDY, Advocate tOpUCl

¶67

one CC to PUBLTC PRoSECUTOR tOpUCl

¶68

Two CD Copies

¶69

¶70

kam ,N"..-

!i i I, I

HIGH COURT

DNR, J

DATED: 2110i112023

) \

/_ - - ---<br>,-- ,, i - '''i , .- -" '1.
'i-

¶77

ORDER

¶78

CRLRC.N o.9,17 of 2009

¶79

DISMISS!NG THE CRIMINAL

¶80

REVISION CIrSE

¶81

(r,
N'
,/>

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.