Allowed

Smt.Yedla Hemalatha , Yellamma and Anr. v. the State of a.P., Rep. by P.P., H.C., Hyd.

Telangana HC16 Dec 2024CRLRC/267/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the conviction under Sections 419, 420 and 468 IPC against the petitioners who were accused of cheating railway authorities to claim a deceased employee's pension. The Court acquitted the accused, holding that the prosecution failed to prove dishonest concealment or forgery beyond reasonable doubt, and the lower courts ignored defense evidence.

What did the court decide?

Conviction and sentences set aside; petitioners acquitted and released; fine amount to be returned.

Smt.Yedla Hemalatha , Yellamma and Anr. Vs the State of… — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

Bail Slip: The Petitioners / Accused Nos. 1 & 2 were released^{on bail by the} order of the High Court dated 16-2-2012 in Crl'R.C.M.P.No.^{4{9 ol 2012 in} Crl.RC. No. 267 ot 2012.

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶6

CRIM INAL REVISION CASE NO: 267 OF 2012

¶7

Crl.Revision Case Under Section 397 and 40'l^of Cr.P'C.^againstthe Judgment in Crl.A.No. 12 oI 2007 daled 13-O2-2012^{on the file of the Court of} the lV Additional Sessions Judge, Ranga^{ReddyDistrict confirming the} judgment daled 11-12-2006 made in CC No. 1773 ol 2005 on the file of the Court of the X Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad^{at Malkajgiri}

¶8

Between:

¶9

'1 . Smt..Yedla Hemalatha @ Yellamma @ Malathi Wo.Late Satyanarayana R/o.Gandlagudem Village, Alair Mandal,^{Nalgonda District}

¶10

Yedla Mallaiah, S/o.Shiva Rajaiah^{R/o.13-1 70, MadhusudhanNagar,} Malkajgiri, R.R.District.

¶11

...PETITIONERS/ Appellants /Accused

¶12

AND

¶13

The State of A.P. rep. by Public Prosecutor,^{HighCourtof A.P. Hyderabad.}

¶14

...RESPONDENT

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. B. P.^RAJU

¶16

Counset forthe Respondent: Sri^{E. Ganesh ASST.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR} The Court made the following ORDER:

¶17

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶18

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.267 OF 2Ot2

¶19

ORDER:

¶20

This CrirrLinal Revision Case is filed by the petitioners seeking to set aside the judgment dated 13.02.2012 in Criminal Appeal No.12 cf 2OO7 on the Iile of the learned IV Additional Sessions Judgr:, Ranga Reddy District (for short, "th,: ,rp"r.,. Court") confirrning the judgment dated ll.1r,,.2006 in C.C.No. i 773 o^' 2005 on the hle of the learned X Metropolitan Magistrate, Cvtrt:rabad, at Malkajgiri (for short, "the trizrl Court,,).

¶21

Heard lr'lr.B.P.Raju, learned counsel for the petitioners/ acc : sed Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr.E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Publir: Pro secutor appearing for respondent-State

¶22

The brief facts of the case are that LWl/ ShyarrLala Bai is the legally nedcbd wife of Late Sat5ranarayala and their marriage was performed on 07.O5.1980 in the presence of their caste elders at Malk eggiri. It is stated that Satyanarayana was a Railway employee. He worked as a Painter and died intestate while in servicr: leaving LW1 ald her children as le,ga1 heirs. Petitioner No.2/zrccused No.2 is the father-in_law of co:nplainant .. and petitioner Xo.1/accused No.1 claims to be the second wife of

¶23

/-)-'=g

¶24

¶25

Satyanarayana,^{Duringhis life time Satyanarayanaand LWI} lived for some time at^{Madhusudhanagar. Later, he left LW1 and} joined the company of accused No.1'^{It is stated that after the} death of Sat5ranarayana,^{accused Nos' 1 and 2 colludedwith each} other to obtain the^{pensionof Late Satyanarayana'It is alleged} that accused^{No.2,being the fatherof the deceased, preparedthe} forged document by^{affixingthe photographof accused No' 1 and} submitted the^{same in the RailwayDepartment claiming that she} is the wife of^{deceased' Basing on the said facts' the Sub-} Inspector of^{Police, Malkajgiri laidchargesheet against} petitioners/ accused^{Nos.1 and 2 for the offencesunder Sections} 4lg,42oand'468ofI.P.C.inCrimeNo.206of2oo2allegingthat accused No.2 opened^{a Bank Account in Bankof India, Malkajgiri} Branch introducing^{that accusedNo'1 is the legally wedded wife} of his deceased^{son Satyanarayanaald the accusedwithdrewthe} pension and service^{benefitsof the deceased Thus' accused} Nos.l and 2^{impersonated, cheated the Bank and railway} authorities and^{misappropriated themoney' The learned} Magistrate took^{cognizanceof the offences underSections 419'} 42oand'468ofI.P.C.ThetrialCourtvidejudgmentdated ll.12.2006 in^{C.C.No.1773 of 2OO5found accused Nos'1 and 2}

¶26

¶27

guilty of the c,ffences punishable under Sections 4 19, 42O and. 468 of I.P.C. and rendered the following judgment:_

¶28

"A1 ar,. d 1,,.2 were sentenced to suffer simple impnsonment fo1^{a frericcLof one year for the offenceunier} Section + tq of I.P.C. They were further sentenced to suffer simple . imprisonnurnt for two years and a frne of Rs.SOO/_ each, in default orLt: month simple i-p.isonmeni lo=r Ure off.rrc. to sufk:r under Sec tion 42O l.p.C. A f and A2 were ir.th". ""rt"rr,,"d ^s^{rnple imprisonmentfor a period of two years and} 1_I:^{.tF:s s,ooo/- each, in def;lto;;-monthsimple} rmpnsonment for the offence under Section 46g I.p.C. All sentences shall run concurrently. Al and ,{'2 a-re entitled ior set off if ar1. U /s.428 Cr.p.C.,,

¶29

Aggrieved by the sarne, petitioners/ accused Nos.1 and 2 preferred the Criminal Appeal.

¶30

The appe.late Court vide impugned judgment dismissed the appeal, confirnr ing the judgment passed by the trial Court in convicting and sentencing accused Nos. 1 and 2. Assailing the same, the petitirners preferred the present Rerrision.

¶31

Learnecl c()unsel for the petitioneri contended that both the Courts failed to assign cogent reason for not consiclering the erridence of DWs. I to 4 and the exhibits marked on behalf of the petitioners to srrbstantiate that accused No.I Shyamzila Bai is none other thar. the legally wedded wife of Satyanarayana and that the said Shlramala Bai was seen with her husband in all the functions and telebrations as the wife of deceaserl in the ,^{photgraphs andirideosfiled} by the petitioners herein. He further I

¶32

¶33

stated that^{except hling ExP5/wedding card andEx} P7 / succession^{certifrcateissuedby AdministratorGeneral'the} complainant failed^{to file other evid'ence to show that she is the} legally wedded^{wife of Satyalarayana'Therefore' he seeks to set} aside the^{imPugnedjudgment'}

¶34

Learned Assistant^{PublicProsecutor contended that the} trial Court^{as well as the appellate Court, upon careful scrutiny} of the material^{available on record, rightty passedtheir respective} judgments and interference^{of this Court, at thisstage} '^{is not} warranted.Therefore,heseekstosetasidetheimpugned judgment.

¶35

It is pertinent^{to note that thoughPW'S-Sub Inspector of} Police had^{examinedPWs. I to 3 and laid charge sheet' but in his} cross-examination,^{hestated that he did not examinethe} neighbours of^{the accused' Dw'l-Subba Rao' neighbourof the} accused,^{categoricallydeposedthat he got acquaintancewith ttre} family affairs^{of the accused and that accused No' 1 is the wife of} the deceased^{Satyanarayana and they lived together as wife and} husband. To^{prove that the marriage of PW'1 was performedwith} the deceased^{Satyanarayala,PW' 1 filed} Ex.P5/wedding^card' and it cannot^{be the} However, it can^{be printed at any time}

¶36

¶37

reliable docurrLt-'nt to establish the marital relationstLip between the de facto complainant and the deceased. Further, zr perusal of Ex.P5 discloser; that the marriage of Shyamala ,,vas performed on 07.05.1980 at lO.0O A.M in the house of accused No.2. But, as per the petitioners, caste and custom, marriages are pe.rformed at the house of parents of the bride, but not at the house of the parents of the trridegroom. Except filing Ex.p5/weddinlJ card and Ex'P7/successi.r certirrcate dated 05.06.2015, pw. 1 cid not rrle a single photogra,ph to show that she is the legalty wedrled wife of the deceased

¶38

Coming tc the aspect of cheating under Section 4j20 IpC, to prove the sam.e, there should be dishonest concealment cf fact. In the case on hancl, accused No.2 categorically deposed as DW.4 that accused No. 1 is the wife of his deceased son. No evidence is produced before :he trial Court to show that accused No. 1 is Hema-latha, but rLot Shyamala Bai ald that accused Nos.l arld 2 cheated the railway and bank authorities. Thus, in the absence of any proof to s -:pport the case of pW1 that she is the legally wedded wife of the deceased and that the accused concea_led the said fact to deceivt: pWI, the question of convicting the accused for the alleged offence does not arise.

¶39

.,\

¶40

¶41

Insofar as the release of death benefits of the^deceasedis concerned, after the death of Sat5ranarayana, PWl^{filedCA.No.89} of 2QO2 before the Administrator^{General for release of death} benefits of the deceased in her^{favour, whereinaccused No.1 did} not hle any counter and no evidence^{was let in by her and the} said C.A.No.89 of 2OO2^was ultimately^{allowedafter hearing PWl} which is marked as Ex P7 in^{C.C.No.1773 of 2005 before the trial} Court. However, after conviction^of the^{accused by the trial Court,} accused No.l preferred^{W.P.No. 14383 of 2OO7agatnst Ex.P7.} This Court, having held that the^{AdministratorGeneralis not} conferred with the^powers to^{decide the disputeof that'nature} and that it is only a civil^{Court that can decide such questionsin} a succession O.P. filed under^{Section372 of Indian Successions} Act (for short, 'the ActJ, allowed^{the writ petition.Thereafter,} accused No.1 filed O.P.No.27 of^{2O1Oon the file of the Principal} Senior Civil Judge,^{L.B.Nagar,under Section 372 of the Act'} against PW. I and others^and the^{sameis pending. Therefore, the} question of release of death benefits^{of the deceasedcannot be} decided in the present Revision.

¶42

Moreover, the trial Court^{as well as the appellate Court} fajled to give any^{cogent reasonfor not considering the evidence}

.!:

t I

\ \

of DWs.l to^,1 and the exhibits marked on behalf of the petitioners hert:in to substantiate their case. Therelbre, in the absence of zrny clinching evidence to prove that the accused have committed the alleged offences, this Court is not convinced to presume th.at the accused are guilty of the offerrces under Sections 479, +2O and 468 of I.P.C. Hence, the impugned judgment is nc,t sustainable under law and the same is liable to be set aside.

¶48

I 1 . In the re sult, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the judgment dated 13.O2.2OI2 in Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 20O7 on the file of 1 he learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District. conf,irming the judgment dated Il.)2.2006 in C.C.No.1773 o| 2005 on the file of the learned X Metropolitan Magistrate, Cy:erabad, at Malkajgiri is herebv set aside. The conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioners / accused Nos. 1 and 2 art: hereby set aside and they are found n,:t guilty of the said offenc':s and therefore, acquitted of the charges. The fine amount. if any, paid by the accused shall be rt:turned to them. The bail lrrtnds of the petitioners shall stand cancelled.

¶49

¶50

¶51

Miscellaneous Petitions,^{pendingif any, sha1l stand closed'}

¶52

SD/- K SAILESHI DEPUry REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

lV Additional^{Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District(with records)}

¶57

The X Metropolitan^{Magistrate, Cyberabad at Malkajgiri, Ranga Reddy}

¶58

District

¶59

The Superintendent,^{Women's Jail, Chenchalguda, Hyderabad'}

¶60

4.TheSuperintendent,CentralPrison,Cherlapalli,RangaReddyDistrict'

¶61

5.TwoCCstoPublicProsecutor,HighCourtfortheStateofTelanganaat

¶62

Hyderabad.^(OUT)

¶63

One CC to^{SRl. B. P. RAJU,Advocate} [OPUC]

¶64

Two CD CoPies

psl w

HIGH COURT

DATED:16t12t2024

ra'
(.^tt:* r;i';
0
Y
lo 2/ fiAn zffi PP
o
* *

¶69

ORDER

¶70

CRLRC.No.26t ot 2O111

¶71

¶72

ALLOWING THE C,RL.R.C.

¶73

¶74

L-

Smt.Yedla Hemalatha , Yellamma and Anr. v. the State of a.P., Rep. by P.P., H.C., Hyd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Yedla Hemalatha , Yellamma and Anr. v. the State of a.P., Rep. by P.P., H.C., 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

Sri.M.K.Venu Murali Vs The State of Telangana and 3 Others

Nanavath Rangamma, Saleem Nagar Colony, Hyderabad Vs the State of a.P.,Rep.by Its Public Prosecutor, High Court

Smt. Tallpragada Lalitha Rau alias Lalitha Kumari Rau Vs The State of Telangana

Veerupaka Bhagya Laxmi Vs State of Telangana

B.Pruthvi Raj Vs K.Suresh

P.Nanda Kishore Padakal, Gowlipura, Hyderabad Vs the State of a.P.,Rep.by P.P.,High Court, Hyderabad and Anr.