Partly allowed

Thakur Rajender Singh, Nizamabad Dist. v. P.P., Hyd

Telangana HC15 Oct 2024CRLRC/1505/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Accused convicted under Sections 452 and 354 IPC for house-trespass and outraging a woman's modesty, leading to her suicide; convictions upheld in appeal. In revision, the High Court reduced the Section 354 sentence to one year already undergone, upheld the fine for Section 452, and set off the period served.

What did the court decide?

Sentence under Section 354 IPC reduced to one year (already undergone); fine under Section 452 upheld; set-off under Section 428 Cr.P.C.; sentences to run concurrently.

Thakur Rajender Singh, Nizamabad Dist. Vs P.P… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

NOTE: - The Accused was directed to be rereased on bair by the order of the High Court dated 23.07.20.t4 in Crt R C.M.p. No. 2465 o,t 2014; ;;;;_;,';';;'" 2014.

¶2

[^32se J

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR o""otJ*toBHE^{oF rELA NG ANA}

¶4

TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER rwo rHousAND AND TwENTy Foui--..

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶7

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO : 1505 oF 2014

¶8

criminar Revision case fired under Section 3g7 & 401 0f crpc against the judgment dated 16.07.2014 in criminar Appear No.48 of 2012on the fire of the court of Honble Vll Add. gs55ien5 Judge at Bodhan, preferred against the judgment dared 12 07 20'r 2 in s c.No.1 72 0f 20110n the fire of the court of the Assistant Sessions Judge at Bodhan.

¶9

Between:

¶10

salvanaravana sinsh, jJft[i"#?s:ifi L:,i:i;f 3. RJo. Khandeballur Village

¶11

AND

¶12

...Petitioner

¶13

state of rerangna, rep. through pubric prosecutor, Hlgh court at Hyderabad

¶14

Counsel for the petitioner : Sri T. Sujan Kumar

¶15

...Respondent

¶16

counser for the Respondent : sri E. Ganesh Assistant pubric prosecutor The Court made the foltowing: ORDER

¶17

THE TION'BLE SRI .TUSTICE E.V. VEITUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE ITo .15O5 of 2Ol4

¶18

ORDER:

¶19

This Criminal Revision Case is irled by the revision petitioner/accused aggrieved by the judgment dated 16.07.2014 in Crl.A.No.48 of 2Ol2 passed by leamed VII Additional Sessions Judge, Bodhan (for short, .the appellate Court"), confirming the judgment dated 12.07.2012 in S.C.No.t72 of 2Ol1 passed by the learned Assistant Session Judge, at Bodhan.

¶20

2- Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner/ accused and learned Assistant public prosecutor appearing for respondent-State. perused the record.

¶21

The brief facts of the case are that on 13.O1.2O11 at about^'04:O0 p.m., when the deceased was alone at her house, the accused trespassed into her house, caught hold of her from her behind and tried to outrage her modest5r and by the time when pWl entered into the house and witnessed the accused, the accused pushed him and. fled away from the spot. Due to the insult made !y tt e

¶22

¶23

accused, the^{deceasedconsumed pesticide withan} intentiontoendherlifeandvrhileundergoingtreatment, she died.^{Ba.sing on the complaint given by P'W'i'a case} in Cr.No.2/2011^{was registered for the offence punishable} under Sections^{452, 354 and 306 IPC againstthe accused'} Later-, on completion^{of investigation,on 25'O 1 201 1 the} accused was^{arrestedat his house and he ruas produced} before the learned^{Judicial FirstClassMagistrate'} Bichkunda and^{after collectingautopsy report and FSL} report, charge^{sheet was hled' Cognizalce of the case was} taken by the^{learned Judicial Magistrateof Fist Class vide} P.R.C.No.6 of 2O11.^{C)n appearanceof the accused'copies} of case documents^{werefurnished to him as contemplated} under Sectiot^{2OT C:.P.C., and the case was committed to} learned District and^{SessionsJudge,Nizamabad and the} sarne was registered^{as S.C.No.172 of 2Oll'}

¶24

During the course of^{trial,PWs' 1 to1l.i were} examined ald Exs.Pl^{to P8 were marked' In defence' none} were exarnined and no^{documents were marked} The trial Court after appreciation^{of oral and documentary}

¶25

¶26

evidence available on record, vide judgment dated 12.07.2OI2 in S.C.No. 172 of 2oll found the accused not guilty for the offence under Section 3O6 IpC. However, found him guilty for the offence under Sections 452 and 354 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous .^Imprisonment for a period of 1 (one) year for ttre oflence punishable under Section 452 of IpC and to pay frne of Rs.SOO/- (rupees five hundred only) and in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for 3 (three) months and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,OOO/- (rupees one thousand only) in default, to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of 6 (six) months for the offence under Section 354 IpC. Both the sentences shall run concurrently and the remand period of the accused from 2S.Ol.2Oll to 19.02.2011 shall be set of under Section 428 of Cr.p.C.

¶27

Aggrieved by the said judgment dated L2.OZ.2OL2 1n S.C.No.172 of 2OII, the petitioner/accused prefered Crl.A.No.48 of 2Ol2 on the file of learned VII Additional Sessions Judge, Bodhan. After hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties and on consideration of oral and

¶28

¶29

documenta4r^{evidence available on record,the appellate} Court vide^{judgment dated16.07} '2Ot4^{in Crl'A'No 48 of} 2012, dismissed the^{appea'lby confirmingthe conviction} and senten<:e dated^{12.07-2012inS'C'No l72 of 2Oll} passed by ttre learned^{AssistantSessionJudge, at goahan'} Assailing th e same,^{the revision petitionerlaccusedhas} Iiled the present Criminal^{Revision Case'}

¶30

During the course^{of hearing, learned counsel lbr the} revision peti.tioner/accused^{contendedthat both the Courts} below erred in convicting^{the revision petitioner/a<:cused} for the offence punishable^{underSections 452 and 354of} IPC in the absence of any^{cogentand reliable evtcience'} He further^{,sontended that both the Courts belowought to} have seen that the^{evidenceon record is not sufficientto} convict the revision^{petitioner underSections452 al-rd354} of IPC as the evidence on^{record consists contradictions} and omissions. He further^{contendedthat both the Courts} below ougtLt to have^{seen that only interestedwitnesses} were examined and no independent^{witness was examined} to prove the guilt of the^accused.

¶31

¶32

On the other^{hand, the learned AssistaltPublic} Prosecutor submits that^{the trial Courtas well as the} appellate Court, after^{appreciatingthe oraland} revision docrrmentar5r evidence,^{found the} petitioner/accused guilty^{for the offencespunishableunder} Section 452 atd^{354 of IPC and sought for dismissaiof the} Criminal Revision^Case.

¶33

Having regard to the^{facts and circumstancesof the} case, as the revision^{petitioner/ accused sufferedmental} agony and hardship^{during the cor.rrseof litigationbefore} the trial Court as^{well as the appellate Court ald as rightly} contended by the^{learned counsel for therevision} petitioner/accused that^{ten long years have alreadybeen} elapsed from the^{date of filingof this Revision, this Court is} inclined to take^{a lenient yiew in favour of the revision} petitioner/ accused by^{reducing thesentenceof} imprisonment^{imposedagainst him' Record goes to show} that the petitioner^{had alreadysuft-eredimprisonment in} two spells i.e.^{from 25.01.2011tol9'O2'2O11and from}

¶34

I \

¶35

¶36

16.07.2OI,1 till tlle bail has been granted b;r this Court on 23.O7.2ot,t

¶37

Accordingly, the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the petitioner/accused by the trial Court and confirmed by the appellate Court for the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC is reduced to one yea,.. while upholding the fine amount and sentence imposed against the petition.er for the offence punishable under Section 452 IPC. The period of sentence which the petitionr:r had already un<lergone shall be given set of under Section 42g Cr.P.C. The substantive sentences awarded against the petitioner shall run concurrently.

¶38

In the result, with the above observations, this Criminal Revision Case is disposed of.

¶39

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this r:riminal revision case shall also stald dismissed.

¶40

To,

¶41

The Vll Additional Sessions Judge at Bodhan, Nizamabad Distrrct.

¶42

The Assistant Sessions Judge at Bodhan, Nizamabad District.

¶43

The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bichkunda, Nizamabad District. 4. The Superintendent, District Jail, Nizamabad.

¶44

5- Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. (OLIT)

¶45

1. One CC to Sri T. Sujan Kumar, Advocate [OpUC] 7. Two CD Copies

¶46

HIGH COURT

¶47

DATED:1511012024

¶48

sl r, r'€
1,v,
fzo
)q -b
!'J 22 ttt ?[[5 I >

I
OE SP

¶49

ORDER

¶50

frE l \rl\r-I\rr.IlLr. E rr t!^ ,l I EnE ^t tllA t\r,, lJl 4f, a.+

¶51

Crl.R.C. lS DISPOSED OF

¶52

Thakur Rajender Singh, Nizamabad Dist. v. P.P., Hyd

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thakur Rajender Singh, Nizamabad Dist. v. P.P., Hyd

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

V Narayana Reddy (Died) Vs The State of Telangana

Mohammed Sadiq Vs The State of Telangana

Mr.Peddadoddi Shankar Vs The State of Telangana

M.Naresh Kumar Vs The State of A.P.

B.Shiva Ramakrishna, Visakhapatnam., Vs the State of Telangana, Rep Pp and Anr.

B. Rameshwar Reddy Vs The State of Telangana