Partly allowed

Gandikota Pedda Narsimulu, v. the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd.

Telangana HC13 Mar 2024CRLRC/1480/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held that despite lack of representation, the revision was examined on merits citing Bani Singh. Conviction under Sections 307, 324, 504 r/w 34 IPC was confirmed as evidence was not discredited. However, respecting 14 years elapsed since 2010 offence, sentence reduced to time already undergone while maintaining fine.

What did the court decide?

Conviction confirmed; sentence of one year imprisonment under Section 324 IPC reduced to the period already undergone; fine maintained; criminal revision dismissed as modified.

Gandikota Pedda Narsimulu, Vs the State of Ap… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT^{FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD}

¶2

WEDNESDAY,^{THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH} TWO THOUSAND^{ANDTWENTY FOUR,}

¶3

:PRESENT:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICEE.V.VENUGOPAL}

¶5

CRIMINAL REVISIO^{N CASENO: '1480 OF 2013}

¶6

Criminal Revision^{Case under Section397 & 401 of Cr'P'C'aggrievedby trc} Judgment dated^{.11{7-2013 madein crl.A.No.S1of 2011 on the file of the court of} the Vl Addl.^{Dist. and SessionsJudge, Medak at Siddipet'}

¶7

Between:

¶8

Gandikota Pedda^{Narsimulu, S/o. Mrsaiah,} - -Occ: .^Stonecutter' Rl/o. Mlotrr^^ip"t-Vitlage,^H/o. leerareddipally^{of MordoddiMandal'} Medak District.

¶9

... Petitioner/AppellanUAccused^No'l

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of AP,^{Rep. by its Public Prosecut'or,High Court of AP-' at} Hyderabad.

¶12

... RespondenU^{RespondenUComplainant}

¶13

CRL.R.C .M^{.P.NO.22800F 2013}

¶14

Petition under section^{482 of cr.P.c.prayingthat in the circumstances stated} in the affidavit filed^{in support of the petition,the High Court maybe pleased to} suspend the sentence^{andconviction passed by the vl Addl. Dist. & sessionsJudge,} Medak at siddipetⁱⁿ crl.A.No.S1^{ot 2O11, dt.11-7 -2013and release the petitioner on} bail^pending disposal^{of the Crl.R.C.,, Pendingdisposal of CRLRC1480 of 2013, on} the file of the High^Court.

¶15

Sri. Palle SriharinathPalle SriharinathSriharinath

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner^: Sri. Palle SriharinathPalle SriharinathSriharinath Counsel for the Respondent^: Sri Khaja Vizarath Ali,^{Asst'Public Prosecutor}

¶17

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶18

THE HONOURABLE SRIIUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL

¶19

CRIMINAL REV ISION CASE No.1480 of 201.3

¶20

ORDER:

¶21

The present criminal revision case is filed seeking to call for the records and set aside the order of the leamed VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medak at Siddipet in Crl.A.No.51 of 2011, dated 11.07.2013 confirming the order of

¶22

the leamed Assistant Sessions fudge, Siddiept in S.C.No.392 of 2010, dated 23.08.2011.

¶23

There was no representation on behalf of the petitioner on 06.03.2024. Even today also there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner/accused No.1. Therefore, this Court is inclined to proceed with the matter on merits of the case as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in^,,Bani Singh and otherc Vs. State of llttm Pradeshl", wherein it was

¶24

categorically held that the High Court cannot dismiss any

¶25

\ ' 11990;^{a soprem.cb.qt} cases 720

¶26

¶27

appeal for non-prosecatton simplicifer without examining the merits.

¶28

The case of the prosecution is that on 11.10.2010 at about 5.00 PM, the Pw.1 lodged a complaint before the police, Bhoompally stating that on 10.10.2010 at about 05.00 plvl, her father-in-law/Mallaiah i.e., Pw.6 asked for due amount of Rs.8,000/- from accused No.1, on that accused No.1 because of his previous enmity beat Pw.6 with stick on his back and on his Ieft hand and abused him in filthy language. On seeing i! Lw.S/Chinna Narsimulu intervened. Then, accused No.1 beat him with an axe on his head and on his left hand and caused bleeding injuries. Pw.1. and her son Anil intervened. After that accused Nos.2 and 3 abused Pw.1, Pw.5 in filthy Ianguage and beat them with hands. Pws.3 and 4 witnessed the incident. On basis of the complaint, police registered FIR. After completion of investigation charge sheet was filed against the petitioner/accused No.1 for the offences punishable under

¶29

¶30

Sections 307,323 and 504 r/w 34 of IpC and he was tried for

¶31

the aforesaid offences.

¶32

4 In support of its case, the prosecution examined pWs.1 to

¶33

9 and got marked Exs.pL to p6 and MOs.1 and 2.

¶34

After appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned Magistrate found the accused No.L guilty of the offence punishable under Section 324 of IpC sentenced him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one (01) year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/_, in defaulgto suffer simple imprisonment for a period of thirty (30) days. Aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred Crl.A.No.51 of 2011 before the Court of the leamed vI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medak ar Siddipet. By its judgment dared 71.07.2013, the appellate Court confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court. Challenging the samgthe

¶35

phesent revision is filed. -r \

¶36

¶37

¶38

Heard tlre learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the

¶39

respondent-State and perused the record.

¶40

There is concurrent finding of both the Courts below with regard to guilt of the revision petitioner/accused and the leamed counsel for the revision petitioner/accused has also not shown me anything, which would discredit the evidence. Therefore, no interference is warranted as far as conviction is concerned, but with regard to the sentence, it may be mentioned that the offence took place in the year 2010 and almost 14 years have passed and during this period the revision petitioner/accused must have repented for what he did. In these circumstances and in the interest of justice, it is

¶41

expedient to reduce the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone by the revision petitioner,/accused,

¶42

while maintaining the fine imposed by the trial Court against

¶43

him.

¶44

¶45