The High Court dismissed a criminal revision filed by a convicted accused under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC. The Court found no infirmity in the lower court's finding that abuse was not instigated due to caste and quashed the separate conviction for intimidation.
Criminal Revision Case dismissed; conviction for Section 506 IPC maintained.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
n
[3251 ]
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
TUESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1559 OF 2010
Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 and401 ofCr.P.C. against the Judgment dated 15.03.2010 in Spl. S.C.No.7 of2008 on the file of the Court of the Special Judge for Trial of Offences underSCs and STs (POA) Act-cum-Vl Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad.
Between:
G.Narayana Rao S/o G. Balakrishna Rao, LecturerGovt. DegreeCollege, Godavarikhani . Rl o 2-2-11 05180-4, Tilaknagar, Hyderabad.
...PETITIONERYAPPE LLAT/ACCUSED
AND
State of A.P., Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court,Hyderabad.
,..RESPONDENT/COM PLAINANT
Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri C. Sharan Reddy
Counsel for the Respondent: Public Prosecutor
The Court made the following: ORDER
I
r
ir
THEHONOURABLE SRI JUSTICEK.SURENDER CRIMINAL REVISION E No.1559 OF 2O1O
o RDER:
This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.f.C.') by the petitioner/accused to set aside the judgment dated 15.03.2010 passed by the learned Special J.rdge for trial of offences under S.Cs & S.Ts (POA) Art-cum-Vl Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secundr rabad in Spl.S.C.No.7 of 2008.
PWI alongwith PWs 2 and 3 went to the house of the accusedandaskedhimtoregistertheplot.Theaccused refused andabusedhim lnthe name of caste'
5 The learnedSessionsJudge havingconsideredthe evidenceplaced on record found that there was no intentiononthepartoftheappellant/accusedandthe said utteranceswere not fbr the reason of thePW1 belongingto the SC caste'
dismissed.
MiscellaneousaPPlicationsPending,ifanY' shall
standclosed'
\
Sd/- K. SAI SHI DEPUTY REGI \ ,TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER
To,
1 The Soecial vi ROtitional JudgeMetropolitan Sessions for Trialof Offences Judge, under SCs and STs (POA) Secunderabad.(withrecords, Act.cum-if any)
vH/gh (.'
I
(1
I
ll
HIGH COURT
DATED: 1310812024
'j lt r4:
+
-) (
L) 21 ft0ii 20a z ll
c) !l
Dc ]t
STJATc\r r-O
ORDER
CRLRC.No.1559 of 2010
DISMISSING THE CRL.R.C.
gr{dt
X@,
2 issues framed by the court
Whether there is any infirmity in the finding of the Sessions Judge regarding the appellant's motive for the utterances.
Whether the utterances amount to intimidation under Section 506 Part I IPC warranting maintenance of the conviction.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
G.Narayana Rao
State of A.P.
Justice K. Surender
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
