Dismissed

Sama Vema Reddy, R.R.Dt., v. State of Ap. Rep. Pp. Hyd.

Telangana HC12 Dec 2024CRLRC/171/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging appellate and trial court convictions. Upholding the courts' findings of theft under Section 379 IPC, the Court reduced the sentence to the period already undergone. Bail bonds were cancelled and the revision otherwise dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone; bail bonds cancelled; revision otherwise dismissed.

Sama Vema Reddy, R.R.Dt., Vs State of Ap… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

BAIL SLIP : The Appellant / Accused was directed to be released on bail by the Order of the High Court dated O4-O2-2O14 made in Crl.R.C.M.P.No.302 of 2014 in Crl.R.C.No.'171 of 2014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

N THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 171 OF 2014

¶7

Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C. against the Judgment dated 22.01 .2014 made in Crl.A. No.^'1 5 of 2012 on the file of the Court of the Additional Diskict & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Vikarabad, preferred against the Judgment passed rn C.C.No.3'18 of 2009 dated 15-03-2012 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chevella, Ranga Reddy District.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Sama Vema Reddy, S/o. Narayan Reddy, Aged 35 years, Occ. Labour, R/o. lbrahimpally Village, Chevella Mandal, Ranga Reddy District

¶10

...Petitioner

¶11

AND

¶12

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

¶13

...Respondent

¶14

Counsel for the Petitioner Mr Sridhar Rep. Mr Arun Kumar Ooddla

¶15

Counsel for the Respondent Mr E Ganesh Assistant Public Prosecutor

¶16

The Court made the following Order :

¶17

¶18

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL CRTMINAL REVISION CASENo.171 OF 2Ol4

¶19

ORDER:

¶20

This Criminal Rerrision Case is filed by the petitioner/acr:used aggrieved by the judgment dated 22.O1.2OI4 in Criminal .Appeal No.15 of 2Ol2 on the file of lhe learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at Vikarabad (f,tr short, "the appellate Court,,) confirming the judgment dated 15.03.2012 in C.C.No.31B of.2009 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chevella, R. R. District (f,rr short, "the trial Court,,).

¶21

Heard I\4r. Sridhar, learned counsel representing Mr.Arun Kumar Dodd la, learned counsel for the petitioner (presently appointed as learned Assistant public prosecutor^'before this Court) and lVlr.E.Ganesh, learned Assistant pnblic prosecutor appearing for .respondent-State

¶22

The briel facts of the case are that the Sub_Irrspector of Police, Chevella had filed charge sheet agzrinst the petitioner/ accr:sed under Section 379 of I.p.C alleging that he has committed theft of Motor Cycle bearing No.Ap 2U AS gg56 from the house of PWl, located at Teacher Colonv. durinI the

¶23

¶24

intervening night of 19.11.2009 and 20.ll.2OO9; that the accused sold it to pW2; the police apprehended pW2 on 23.11.2009 and took him to the police Station; that on the information given by pW2, police arrested the accused, whar confessed that he had committed theft of the Motor Cvcle of pWj and Bajaj Pulsar Motor Cycle bearing No.Ap 09 AZ IOSS at Mahatma Gandhi Bus Station. Basing on the said facts, the present crime is registered

¶25

The trial Court vide judgment dated lS.O3.2Ol2 in C.C.No.318 of 2OO9 found the petitioner/accused guilty of the offence under Section 329 of I.p.C. and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay Iine of Rs.500/_, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred all Appeat.

¶26

The appellate Court, vide impugned judgment, dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment passed by the trial Court. Assailing the same, the petitioner preferred the present Revision.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the tria,l Court as well as the appellate Court, failed to appreciate the evidence available on record in proper perspective and

\ \

-=ry

erroneollsl5/, passed their respective judgmertts. Th erefore, he seeks to allou, this Revision.

¶32

7 . Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitterl that the trial Court as u,ell as the appellate Court, upon carel-ul scrutiny of the materizrl available on record, rightly passed their respective judgments ald interference of this Court, r s not warrantedTherefore, he seeks to dismiss this Revision

¶33

On behalf ol the prosecution, the trial Courl examined PWs. 1 to 4 a.ncl marked Exs.Pl to P5, MO 1. On behalf of the defence, none were examined and no docurrLcnt r,r..a s marked. Upon careful scrutiny of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court observed that theft had occurred at the hoLrse of pWl on the intenvening night of tS.tt.ZOOS and 20.ll.2OO9; immediately the Motor Cycle was recovered from the possession of the accused: further the accused himself had admitted before PW3 that he had committed theft of Motor Cycle. I)W2 is the purchaser of l'lotor Cycle of PWl and he categorically rstated that he had purchased Motor Cycle of PWl from the accused. pWs.2 and 4 are rrot cross-examined and as such thei r evidence remained unirrpeached. Therefore, the trial Court, invoking the presumption under Section 114(a) of the Indian Evidence Act -oot'

¶34

¶35

¶36

held that the prosecution had proved that the accused^had committed the theft of Motor Cycle and rendered its^judgment

¶37

¶38

In the appeal, the appellate Court upon re=appreciating^the ewidence avaiiable on record found that all the witnesses^had supported the case of the prosecution and such^evidence corroborates with each other. Therefore, the appellate^Court, dismissed the Appeal confirming the^{judgment passedby the trial} Court.

¶39

This Court wide order dated 04.O2.2014^suspendedthe sentence of imprisonment imposed on the^{petitioner,by the} appellate Court, pending Revision, on^{executing abond of} Rs.10,0OO/- with two sureties in a like sum^{to the satisfaction of} the trial Court subj.ect to^payment. of^{fine, if not already paid'} Later, the matter underwent several^{adjournments.}

¶40

In the present case on hand, both^{the Courts held that the} petitioner was guilty of the offence under^{Section 379 of I.P.C.,} which finding, in my considered^{view, does not callfor} interference, in exercise of^{revisionaljurisdiction underSection} 397 Cr.P.C. Hence, I find no^{reason to interferewith the well} considered^judgments passed^{by both the Courts.}

¶41

) \

¶42

¶43

Having regard to the submissions ol both t he learned counsei and upon considering the fact that tl-re, petitioner underwent rrrental agony by roaming around the tri;,rl Court as well as the appellate Court .and as ten long I.ears have elapsed from the dal e of filing of this Revision, this Court deems it appropriate to reduce the sentence imposed aga.inst thr: ps1i1i.... to the period of imprisonment already undergone b1. hirn.

¶44

Except the above modification, in all other aspects, this Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed. The bail bonds of the petitioner shall stand cancelled.

¶45

Miscellaneous fltillons, pending if any, sha1l stand closed.

¶46

Sd/. N. CHANORA SEKHAR RAO DEPUTY' REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

,[ ON OFFICER

To,

1' The Additionar District & sessions Judge, Ranga Redd'v Dishict ilt vikarabad (with records, if anv)

¶51

2 The Judicial Maglsiiate of First Class, Chevella, Ranga Reddy Drstrict 3. The Station House officer, cn"r"ii, ps, nangl R';o;i oi.tri.t 4 rhe s_uperintendent, Cherlaparry .tiil, n-j.gl'R"jd;DLtr.i"t ' Iy.""r[::",ffiPubric Prosecuio; iish d;'i-i'n""d,r," or reransana,

¶52

9 9"" 99^{to tilr RrunKumar Doddta,} Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CD Copries

,./, - ft2.

HIGH COURT

DATED:12t1212024

ORDER

CRLRC.No,171 of 2014^'

¶59

1trf,. STAT^ (i
ii:c 1 g ilAn 2825 ., l,
\li:l . ,-. ,r, f C?trro .t/

¶60

DlSMISSING THE CRLRC

¶61

Sama Vema Reddy, R.R.Dt., v. State of Ap. Rep. Pp. Hyd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sama Vema Reddy, R.R.Dt., v. State of Ap. Rep. Pp. 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

Y.Rama Krishna, Nizamabad Dt., Vs State of Ap., Rep. Pp. Hyd.

Smt. Md.Chathabee, Vs Md.Yakub

P.Ananda Rao Vs the State of A.P. Rep., by Its Pp and Another

Satla Sri Sri Vs State of Telangana

Vema Kalpana Vs The State of Telangana and another

Rajnikanth Reddy Siddenki, Usa, Rep by Father, R.R.Dt., Vs the State of Ap., through Pp., and 2 Others.