Partly allowed

Govindaram Kanakaiah, Siddipet Town., v. the State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

Telangana HC21 Nov 2024CRLA/1315/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal appeal partly. It held that the Sessions Judge erred in applying Section 3(2)(v) of the POA Act because the underlying IPC Section 304-II offence attracts only ten years imprisonment, not a minimum of ten years required for the enhancement to life imprisonment. The POA conviction and life sentence were set aside, but the Section 304-II conviction was confirmed.

What did the court decide?

Sentence of life imprisonment under Section 3(2)(v) of POA Act set aside; conviction under Section 304-II IPC confirmed; bail bonds cancelled.

Govindaram Kanakaiah, Siddipet Town., Vs the State of… — Caste Atrocities | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

BAIL SLIP: The Appellant / Accused was directed to be released on bail by the Order of the High Court dated 02-01-20 17 made in Crl.A.tvl. P. No. 2402 of 2016 in Crl.A, No. l3'15 of 2016

¶2

[^341e ]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI

¶8

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1315 OF 2016

¶9

Appeal under Section 374 (2) o'f Cr.P.C. against the Conviction and Sentence dated 16-12-2016 made in SC/ST/SC No. 14 of 2016 on the file of the Court of the Special Judge for SC/ST (POA) Act-cum-V Additional Sessions Judge, lvledak at Sangareddy District.

¶10

Between:

¶11

Govindaram Kanakaiah, S/o. Narsaiah, Aged 40 years Caste Kurnari, Occ lvlason, R/o. Rajagopalpet Village of Nangnur Mandal, now at Kallakunta Colony, Siddipet town

¶12

...Appellant / Accused

¶13

AND

¶14

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

¶15

...Respondent / Complainant

¶16

Counsel for the Appellant Sri Venkat Reddy Kodumury Legal Aid

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent Sri Arun Kumar Doddla Additional Public Prosecutor

¶18

The Court delivered the following Judgment :

¶19

¶20

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE J.ANIL KUMAR

¶21

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1315 OF 2016

¶22

JUDGMENT:^(per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Surender)

¶23

The appellalrt was tried for the offence under Section 302 of IPC for committing murder of his wife. However, since the learned Sessions Judge found that the offence fails within Section 304-ll of IPC, he has sentenced the appellant to undergo 10 years imprisonment for the said offence. Frrrther, the appellant was also convicted for the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Pre'" ention of Atrocities) r\ct, 1989 (for short 'the Act') and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment.

¶24

Heard learned lega1 aid counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent-State .

¶25

The facts of the case are that the appellant has poured kerosene on the deceased, who is his wife, belonging to SC community, on 07.08.2015, in the evening, when she refused to prepare Upmrr. She was set on fire and then taken to hospital. Initialh,, the case was registered under Section 307

¶26

¶27

-. :::rl'iari,::

¶28

of IPC. Thereafter, she died on the next day i.e., on 08.08.2015. Accordingly, Section of law was altered to 3O2 of IPC

¶29

Having gone through the record, we do not find aly reasons to interfere with the finding of the learned Sessions Judge, in convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 3O4-II of IPC. The prosecution also did not prefer any appeal against the acquittal of the appeliant under Section 302 of IPC.

¶30

Imprisonment for life was inflicted on the basis of Section 3(2)(v) of the Act, which reads as under:

¶31

Punishments lor offences of atrocities ---

¶32

(2) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe ---

¶33

(v) commits any offence under the Indian penal Code (45 of 1860) punishable with imprisonment for a term of ten years of more against a person or property [knowing that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to such member], shall be punishable with imprisonment for life and with fine.

¶34

The provision enables the Court to punish the person with imprisonment for iife, when he commits any offence punishable under IPC with imprisonment for a term of 10

, I

t I

) I

I ,

)

years or more, itgainst the person or property, knowing that such person belongs to SC or ST caste.

¶41

7 . The words used in the provision^,,punishable with the imprisonment fc,r a term of 10 years or more,, woulc imply that any offen<:e committed and punishable under IpC, should be punishable with minimum of 10 years or nrore, it does not imply that offence which is punishable up to l0 years, u.ould fall under the said provision of 3(2)(v) of the Act.

¶42

Section 304-ll of IPC is punishable up to 10 verars or hne. Unless an1. offence under IpC is punishable trpto a minimum sentence of 10 years or above, the provision under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act, cannot be invoked.

¶43

Learned S<:ssions Judge had committed an error in concluding that appellant could be punished under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act, when he had recorded sentence of imprisonment of maximum 1O years under Section 304 II of IPC.

¶44

For the aforesaid reasons, the hnding of the learned Sessions Judge is erroneous and accordingly, the sentence of life imprisonmernt imposed against the accused for the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act, is hereby set aside. Insolar as

¶45

¶46

the punishment under Section 304-ll is conhrmed. Since it is brought to the notice of this Court that the appellant has already served the sentence, the baii bonds against him shall stand cancelled.

¶47

Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.

¶48

sd/- K. sRtNtvASA/R AO JorNr REGrS/tRAR //TRUE COPY/ I ,9il

¶49

SECTION OFFICER

¶50

One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble Sri Justice K. Surender (For His Lordship's Kind Perusal)

¶51

One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble Sri Justice J. Anil Kumar (For His Lordship's Kind Perusal)

¶52

To,

¶53

1 The Special Judge for SC/ST (POA) Act-cum-V Additional Sessions Judge, It/ledak, Sanga Reddy District

¶54

2 The Judicial First Class lvlagistrate, Siddipet, It/edak District a The Superintendent, Central Prison, Cherlapally, Ranga Reddy District 4 .1 'l LR Copies

¶55

¶56

4 The Undei Secretary, Union of India tVlinistry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi

¶57

u The Secretary, Advocates Association Library, High Court for the State of Telangana, High Court Buildings at Hyderabad

¶58

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

¶59

o_ One CC to Sri Venkat Reddy Kodumury, Advocate [OPUC] 9. Two CD Copies

VA/DL

HIGH COURT

DATED:21 11112024

JUDGMENT

.--
4,i
I :;' r
1f [Jri, 1,J14 t'
',).
\ *
\r - .'!AT':1',,\ c0

¶67

CRLA.No.1315 of 2016

¶68

PARTLY ALLOWING THE CRLA

¶69

o1 d6, I I

Govindaram Kanakaiah, Siddipet Town., v. the State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Govindaram Kanakaiah, Siddipet Town., v. the State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

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

Golla Meddileti, Mahabubnagar Dt., Vs the State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

Godugu Bixapathi, Medak Dt. and 2 Othrs Vs State of Telangana, Rep. by P.P., Hyd

Nallagandla Venkat Reddy, Medak Dt., Vs the State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

Mesram Amruth , Amruth Rao Vs State of Telangana

Patharla Ramu and Another Vs the State of Ts., Rep. by P.P.

Mirza Zakki Baig, Nirmal Dt., Vs the State of Telangana, Rep Pp.