Partly allowed

Palle Yadagiri, Medak Dt., v. State of Ap.,Thr Ps. Kuknurpally., Rep Pp.

Telangana HC19 Dec 2024CRLRC/204/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Accused convicted under Section 326 IPC for assaulting a witness with an axe; conviction upheld on appeal and revision. The High Court confirmed guilt but reduced the sentence from three years to one year already undergone, citing mental agony and lapse of ten years since filing the revision.

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced from three years to one year (including period undergone); fine of Rs.5000 unchanged; conviction confirmed; revision otherwise dismissed.

Palle Yadagiri, Medak Dt., Vs State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT FryDERABAD

¶2

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

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRIIUSTICE E.V. vENUGopAL

¶5

Criminal Revision Case No.204 of 2014

¶6

Criminal revision filed under Sections gg. Er^407 Cr.p.C., aggrieved by the order dated 17-09.2013 passed in Crr.A.No.3S of 2071. on the f,e of the vI Additional Disrrict & sessions Judge Medak atiiaaipet pr"r".."a ugli.it.," ora". 11'07.201r passed in S.C.No.245 itzoto on the file of the Court of the Assistant Sessions ludge ar Siddipet.

¶7

Between:

¶8

Palle Yadasiri, S,/o. Raiaiah, S! {{f.aaiqa1 Squq ?b:yr 4] years,Occ: Agricutrure, R/o. Duddeda Village, konoapaka Mandal, Medak District.

¶9

AND

¶10

...petitioner/Accused.

¶11

The State of AP., throushSHO, Kuknurpally police Station, rept. by the public Prosecutor, High Couriof a.p, UvJ"rrt'"Jl^' """

¶12

...Respondent/Complainant. I.A. NO 2 oF 2014(CR LRCMP. NO:3510F 2014)

¶13

Petition under section 3g7 (1) Cr.p.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fil:g in support of the'petition, the High Court may be pleased.to enlarge the peti^tioner on'bair by suspending the execution of sentence imposed in crt.A.No.3s/201r, dated 12.09.20-t3'-on the fite of lhe court of the VI Additional Districr as sessions ludge at siddipet, Medak district u, .o.,ii.Li",g tt " conviction and sentence passed i;S.C.No. iqs' of zoto, Dated 77.07.2011 on the Criminal file of the Revision court of Case.Assistant Sessions 1rag" ,aSiaaip"t, p".,ai.,g J*p.rrf "f ,n"

¶14

Counsel for the petifioner: Sri Mohd Asifuddin.

¶15

Counsel for the Respondent: The public prosecutor.

¶16

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶17

t".

¶18

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{E.V. VENUGOPAL} CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2O4 OF 2OL4

¶19

ORDER:

¶20

The present Criminal Revision Case is^{frled against the} judgment dal.ed 17.09.2O13 in Criminal Appeal^{No.35 of 2011} passed by the learned^VI Additional^{District and Sessions} Judge, Siddipet,^{Medak District, (for short, "the appellate} Court") in conhrming^{the judgment dated 1l.O7.2Ollrn} S.C.No.245 cf^{2OIO on the file of the learnedII Metropolitan} Magistrate,^{Oyberabad at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad, (for short,} "the trial^CouLrt").

¶21

Heard Mr.Asifuddin, learned counsel^representing petitioner and Mr.E.Ganesh,^{learnedAssistant Public} Prosecutor appearing for^{respondentState. Perusedthe} record.

¶22

The car;e of the prosecution in brief is that on 02-122009 around 6.O0^p.m. while^{PW2 was} at agricultural land^of PW3 in Ankireddipally village of Kondapak Mandal, accused yent^{there artd p*ked up quarrelwith PW2, threatened to kill} him ald^{bear- PW2} with^{axe on his two legs} and on hand^and

¶23

¶24

crLR.c.N".2o4 "JE2ylf,

¶25

l .'l

¶26

caused injuries. pW3 intervened and separated him. On the information given by pW6 over telephone, pWl rushed to the said spot, shifted^pW2 to Government HospitaJ, Siddipet. Basing on the complaint made by the pWl, a case was regrstered by the Station House Officer, Kuknoorpally police Station in Cr.No.22Z of 2OO9 for the offence punishable under Section 3O7 of IpC. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused.

¶27

The learned Additionai Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Siddipet, after complialce of provisions under Sectio n 2OZ Cr.p.C. committed the case under Section 209 Cr.p.C. to the learned Principat Sessions Court, Medak at Sangareddy and the^principal Sessions Court made over the case to the Asst. Sessions Court, Siddipet for disposal in accordance with law.

¶28

On receipt of case, the trial Court examined the accused under Section 22g of Cr.p.C and charge under Section 307 of IPC was framed, read over and explained to him, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

¶29

¶30

EWJ CiLR.C.No.2O4 ol2014

¶31

During the course^{of trial, PWs 1 to 1O were examined} and marked Exs.P1^{to Ex.P8 and MOl. On behalf of the} accused, no^{oral or documentaryevidence was adduced.}

¶32

7, After closure of the^{evidenceof the prosecution,the} appellant was^{examinedunderSection313 Cr.P.C' aldhe} denied the crese of^{the prosecutionand reported no defence} evidence.

¶33

E. After h,:aring the learned^{Additional Public Prosecutor} and learned counsel^{for the accusedand afterappreciating} the evidence, the^{learned Asst. SessionsJudge, Siddipet} found the^{pe.:itioner guilty of the offenceunderSection 326 of} IPC instead of^3O7 of^{IPC and accordingly,sentencedthe} petitioner to undergo Simple^{Imprisonmentfor a period of} three years for^{the offenceunder Section 326 of IPC and} directed to^pray a fine^{of Rs.SOOO/-(Rupees five thousands} only), in deftrult, simple imprisonment^{for a periodof thirty} days.

¶34

Aggrieved by the^judgment dated l7.O7.2Oll in S.C.No.245 c,f 2O1O the^{re'r"ision petitioner/accusedpreferred} arr appeal^:Ln Crl.A.No.35 of 201.1^{contending thatthe}

-!L

EWJ CrLR.C.No.2O4 ol2014

¶39

judgment under appeal was contrary to law arrd facts. The appellate Court vide judgment dated 17.09.2013 dismissed the appeal conlirming the judgment passed by the trial court. Assajling the same, the present Revision.

¶40

lO. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the trial Court as well as appellate Court have committed grave error in accepting the evidence being inadmissible in evidence and the conviction was utterly unsustainable and bad in the eye of law. The Courts below have committed grave error in accepting the evidence and there were several contradictions and omissions in the testimony. The prosecution has not fo110wed the procedure and the trial court has over looked the testimony of the witnesses. The doctor who has given treatment to pw2/victim was not examined but alother doctor was examined, which is fatal to the case of the prosecution, but the trial Court has not considered the same. He further contended that pW7 and pWg were panchas to the confession and recovery of axe (M.O.l) but the said witnesses neither stated about recovery of axe nor about confession by the accused and further stated that the police obtained signatures on blalk papers, in the absence of the

¶41

¶42

EWJ CiLR.C.No.2O4^{of 2014}

¶43

'1 I

¶44

recovery of material^{object,the accused deserves tobe} acquitted. Ex.PS^{confession and seizure panchanamashows} that at^{page No.7 more gap is visible in between each line ald} back side there^{was very less gap in between each line' which} is visible, which^{can be presumed that the police obtained} signatures of^{PW7 and PW8 on blank papers'hence benefit of} doubt to be^{given to the accused' Further,therewas no blood} strain on ttLe^{M.O.l axe and no thumb impression mark' a} new stick^{was kept to the axe in the police station'Hence' he} prayed to allow the^Revision.

¶45

Learned Assistant^{Public Prosecutoronbehalfof} respondent- State^{vehemently contended that the impugned} judgment and order of conviction^{passed by the trial Court} are based on^{proper appreciation of the evidenceand upon} consideratirtn of the^{legal position.Therefore,he seeks to} dismiss the^Revision.

¶46

L2. The main contention^{of the revisionpetitioner is that} M.O.1 does not^{have blood stains as such it is implanted to} support the^{case of the prosecution.Here, as seen from Ex'PS} Medical Oertif,rcate PW2^{sustained fracture injuries'}

¶47

¶48

¶49

EWJ CrLR.C.No.2O4 o.f 2014

¶50

Admittedly, the apprehension of the accused was taken place on 9.12.2009 one week after the incident. Admittedly, pW9 has not sent the axe to FSL in order to determine blood stains belongs to human origin to connect the same that the confession of the accused and the oral evidence of pW2 but it is one of the defects. Further, the doctor who rendered treatment to pW2 was not examined, pWlO gave evidence basing on the record, it appears that doctor who treated pw2 was not working in the said hospital which is a private one, therefore there would not be any possibility of securing the presence of medical officer who treated pW2 at the relevant point of time, so in such circumstances, the prosecution had placed the secondar5r evidence which is evidence of pwlo who clearly spoke about the injuries recorded in Ex. pg Medicai certificate. Moreover, non-examination of Doctor who rendered treatment to pW2 would not render entire process of treatment rendered to pW2 as false but the documentar5r evidence of pWlO with the oral evidence of PW2 clearly corroborates and established consistently that the accused attacked him and caused injury noted in Ex.pg with MOl axe. Therefore, the nature of the injury not changed, the nature of

¶51

'nl.
'?

¶52

¶53

EWJ crLR-c-No.2O4 o.J 2014

¶54

facts spoken to by PW2, PW1O and Ex.P8 is not^falsehood, therefore, the appellate Court opined that the^contention raised by the accused was not acceptable. The^prosecution succeeded in. proving the ingredients as required under Section 326 of IPC and the concurrent hnding of the guilt of the accused rrnder Section 326 of IPC by the tnal Court^as well as appellate Court is perfectly^justified and the same was arrived on proper appreciation of the evidence and^the sentence imposed by the trial Court artd confirmed by^the appellate CotLrt for the offence under Section 326 of IPC^is reasonable in the given facts ald circumstances of the^case.

¶55

Having regard to the submissions made by both the learned counsel and upon considering the fact that the petitioner sulTered mental agony and hardship during the course of litigation before the trial Court as well as the appellate Court and as ten long years have elapsed from the date of filing this Revision, this Court is inclined to take a lenient view and modify the sentence imposed against the petitioner, by the appellate Court, while confirming the guilt of the accuse d for the offences under Section 326 of I.P.C. Therefore, the quantum of sentence imposed against the

¶56

EWJ ciLR.c.rt,o.2o4 of 2014

¶57

petitioner by the trial Court confirmed by the appellate Court is reduced from three yea_rs to one yea_r including the period of imprisonment already undergone by him and the fine amount remains unchanged.

¶58

Except the above modification, the Crimina_l Revision

¶59

Case in all other aspects, stands dismissed.

¶60

Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stald

¶61

closed.

¶62

Sd/- T. VIJAY KUMAR DEPUry REGISTRAR / /TRUECOPY/ / SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The VI Additional District & Sessions Jud ge Meda at Siddipet. 2. The Assistant Sessions Judge at Siddipet 3. One , CC to SIi Mohd Asitud din, Advocate [OPUC] 4. eHe^T[JO 5. Two CClto CD Copies.the Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad. @l [gtit-J lcK/PSL w

¶63

¶64

./ '.'

¶65

...'. -u 'r l?:.4. .... ]xr-rt ,l

¶66

HIGH COURT

¶67

D ATED:l9 /^{1.2/ 202a}

¶68

ORDER

¶69

CRLRC.No.204^{of 201'L}

¶70

1....- - 5)"a,
:.);i
29[U8zffi
L)
0r. ,i

¶71

p9amilc(,r1^{*Lc- erl ' A'c}

¶72

sd*a Yt-_ 6tsb,

Palle Yadagiri, Medak Dt., v. State of Ap.,Thr Ps. Kuknurpally., Rep Pp.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Palle Yadagiri, Medak Dt., v. State of Ap.,Thr Ps. Kuknurpally., 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

Gujjula Mahipal Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Byagari Goreppa Vs the State of A.P. Rep., by Its Pp

K.Siddiramulu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Umesh Vyas, Hyd Vs P.P., Hyd

M.Malleshwari, Nalgonda Dt., Vs State of Ap., Rep. Pp. and 2 Otrs.

Mohd. Khaja Hussain, Hyd., Vs State of Telangana, Rep Pp.