Partly allowed

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

Telangana HC18 Dec 2024CRLRC/2363/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal revision filed five years after conviction for an offence under Section 394 IPC. While confirming the conviction, the Court reduced the sentence to the remand period already undergone and directed the petitioner to deposit the fine.

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced to remand period already undergone; petitioner directed to deposit Rs. 25,000 as fine; default imprisonment reduced to two months.

Byagari Goreppa Vs the State of A.P. Rep., by… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRIIUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶5

Criminal Revision Case No.2363 of 201J

¶6

Criminal revision filed under Sections 397 &. 401 Cr.p.C. aggrieved by the Judgment^{dated 16.08.2013} passed in Crl.A.No.21 of 2008 on the file of the Additional District & sessions Judge, vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District preferred against the order dated 30.07.2008 passed in C.C.No.108 of 2005 on the file of the ludicial^{First Class Magistrate,} Tandur, Ranga Reddy District.

¶7

Between:

¶8

PyugSri^{Goreppa,S/,o.Sayappa,aged 39 years, R/o.Buddaram Vilatge, peddamul} Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶9

AND

¶10

...Petitioner/ Accused.

¶11

The State of A.P. Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesfu Hyderabad.

¶12

...Respondent

¶13

LA. NO: 2 OF 2013(CRLRCMP. NO 3591 0F 2013)

¶14

Petition under Section 397 r /w . 482 Cr.P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the I{igh Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the Judgment passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District in Cr1.A.No.21 of 2008 wherein the sentence of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tandur, R.R.District CC.No.10B of 2005, Dt.30.07.2008 is confirmed and release the petitioner on bail.

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri B.Bal Reddy.

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent: The Public Prosecutor

¶17

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶18

-7

¶19

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2363 OF 2013

¶20

ORDER:

¶21

The present Criminal Revision Case is fi1ed aggrieved by the judgment dated 16.08.2O13 in Criminzrl Appera.l No.21 of 2008 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy Dis,trict (fcrr short, "the appellate Court"), confirming the^judgment dated 3O.O7.2OO8 in C.C.No.1O8 of 2005 passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrte, Tandur, Ranga Redcly District (for short, "the trial Court").

¶22

Heard Sri B. Bal Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, ancl Sri tr. Ganesh, learned Asisistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent - State. Perused the record.

¶23

The brief lacts of the case are that the Station House Officer of Peddemul Police Station filed charge sheet ag4lnsl the petitioner for the offence punishable under

¶24

EW,J CRLRL 2363 2013

¶25

Section 394 of I.P.C alleging that on 21.10.2004 at about 10.O0 am while the de facto cornplainant (Buggamma) was proceeding by walk to look after her cotton crop near Bandepally village and when she was passing near the f,relds of Gopal Reddy, the petitioner/accused attacked her from behind and robbed her gold ear studs and ran away, due to which she received injuries. Hence, the present complaint

¶26

On behalf of the prosecution, PWs. 1 to 8 were examined and got marked trxs.Pl to Ex.P7. In defence, none were examined and no documents were marked. After appreciation of evidence, both oral and documentar5r available on record, the trial Court vide^judgment dated 3O.O7.2OOB found the petitioner/accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 394 of I.P.C and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,0OO/-, in default of payment of fine amount, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months,

¶27

EVV,J CRLRL 2363 2013

¶28

while giving set off the remand period^{alread'12undergone by} the petitioner,/ accused.

¶29

Aggrieved by the said^judgment dated 30.07.2008 in C.C.No.108 of 2005, the petitioner/appellant^preferred Criminal Appeal No.21 of 2008 before the^{appellateCourt.} The learned appellate Court after re-appreciation^{of ,:vidence} and the material facts placed before it and^{upon considering} the trial Court^judgment in C.C.No.108 of 2005^uide judgment dated 16.O8.2013 in Crl.A.No.21 of 2008 dismissed the criminal appeal, while confirming^the conviction and sentence imposed against^{petitionerby the} trial Court. Assailing the same, the petitioner/accr.Lsed^has filed the present Revisron.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court^J.ailedto appreciate the evidence available on record in^proper perspective and passed the respectiv'e^judgments. Therefore, he seeks to set aside the impugnecl^judgment

¶31

EVV,J CRLRL 2363 2013

¶32

On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the same and contended that both the Court, upon appreciating the oral and documentar5r evidence available on record in right perspective, passed their respective judgments and the interference of this Court with the well considered judgments of both the Courts below is unwarranted. He, therefore, he seeks to dismiss the Revision.

¶33

A perusal of the evidence ald the materia-l available on record revea,ls that there is a concurrent hnding of both the Courts below with regard to the offence committed by the revision petitioner/accused. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that no interference is warranted as far as conviction recorded against the petitioner/accused. But with regard to the sentence, it is to be seen that the offence took place in the year, 2008 and this revision was filed in the year 2013 i.e. after a lapse of 5 years. Therefore, taking into consideration the mental agony and hardship suffered by the petitioner/accused for all

¶34

¶35

EVV,J CRLRL 2363 2013

¶36

these years, this Court is inclined to^{take a l,:nient} 'dew^and reduce the sentence of imprisonment to the^{periocl already} undergone by the revision^{petitioner/ accus;ed duringthis} period the revision petitioner/accused must^{have .repented} for what he rljd. In my considered^{view, does not call for} interference, in the exercise of revisional^{jurisdictionunder} Section 397 Cr.P.C

¶37

In view of the above, this Criminat Revislon^Case is dismissed, confirming the conviction imposed by^{the trial} Court. However, the sentence imposed by ttre trial Court^to \ undergo rigorous imprisonment for a periocl of thl^{ee years} and in default of payment of fine shall undergo imprisonrnent, for a period of upto six months, wlrich^was confirmed by the appellate Court, is set^olT to the^period already undergone by the appellant/accused. Thercfore,^the petitioner is directed to deposit the fi::re amount of Rs.25,0oo/- to the credit of C.C.No.108 of 21005 orr the file of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate at Tandur, Ranga Reddy District, within a period of three (03) months

¶38

{ /

¶39

¶40

EVV,J CRLRL 2363 2013

¶41

from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon such deposit, the victim is granted liberty to withdraw the sum of Rs.2O,00O/- with immediate effect under proper proof and acknowledgment and Rs.5,000/- would go to the State.

¶42

If the petitioner fails to comply with the aforesaid direction, he will have to sulfer simple imprisonment for a period of two (02) months.

¶43

Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand

¶44

closed.

¶45

sdl- r'ii. ci-rAtiDRA sERiIaR nAo DEPUTY REGISTRA //TRUECOPY//

N OFFIc6n

To,

The Additional District & Sessions Judge, Vikarabad,^{Ranga ReddyDistrict.} 2. The file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tandur,^{Ranga ReddyDistrict.} 3. One CC to Sri B.Bal Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to the Public Prosecutor,^{High Court Buildings,Hyderabad} [OPUC]

¶50

Two CD Copies.

JCK/gh

I I

i t i i !

HIGH COURT

DATED:18/12/2024

ORDER

CRT-RC No.2363 of 2r)13

¶59

I 1 6E IiTAI ('
t'/,-
iJ
\ ;-) 17t 7'il75 vza
t
'. o.
. {^
f
: '''-'.s I
-

¶60

Dismissing the Criminal Revision case

¶61

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Abdul Hafeez Vs the State of A.P.

Sri Chetan Prakash Bung Vs M/s. Bhagyanagar India Limtied

Azharuddin Ahmed Vs Zeesha Anjum

Gujjula Mahipal Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

K.Siddiramulu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt.R.Radha Rani, Kukatpally, Hyd., Vs State of Ap., Rep. Pp. Hyd.