Dismissed

Sampangi Narsimlu, and 2 Others, v. the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd.

Telangana HC9 Dec 2024CRLRC/329/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision against conviction and one-year rigorous imprisonment under Section 392 IPC confirmed in appeal. Petitioners Nos.1 and 2 died; their case was dismissed as abated. Against petitioner No.3, the High Court upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence to imprisonment already undergone.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sampangi Narsimlu, and 2 Others, Vs the State of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

t^32se I

¶2

NOTE : The Petitioner/ Accused was directed to be released on bail by the order of the High Court dated 28-02-2012 in crt.R.c.M.p.No.522 0f 2012 in cit.R.c.t\o.ezg of 2012.

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

MONDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF DECEIMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶7

CRIMINAL REVI SION CAS E No:329 ol 2012

¶8

criminal Revision case filed under section 397 & 401 of crpc against the Judgment dated 25-01-20 12 passed in crl.A.No.61 ot 2011 on the file of the court of the Vl Additionat District & sessions Judge (Fast rrack court), Nizamabad at Kamareddy, preferred against the Judgment dated 29-06-2011 passed in c.c.No.215 of 2008 on the file of the court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kamareddy.

¶9

Between:

¶10

Sampangi Narsimlu, S/o Balaiah, Age:S1 years, Godown Road, Kamareddy, Nizamabad District.

¶11

Dhandla Sn'nu, S/o lgdqiah, Age:eO years, Ri/o Bathkammakunta, Kamareddy, Nizamabad District.

¶12

Makkala Narsimlu, S/o _Venkataiah, Age:34 years, Rl/o Bathkammakunta, Kamareddy, Nizamabad District.

¶13

...Revision Petitioners/Appellants/Accused

¶14

AND

¶15

The state of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its public prosecutor, Hiqh court Bldos. Hyderabad Through Circle lnspeitor'of police, Kamareddy.

¶16

...RespondenUComplainant

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr. Laxman Batchu

¶18

Counsel forthe Respondent: Mr. E. Ganesh,

¶19

Assistant Public Prosecutor

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.^VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.329 OF 2012

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

This Criminal ReviSion Case is filed by the petitioners/ acc,rsed Nos.1 to 3 against the .judgment dated 25.01.2012 in Criminal Appeal No.61 of 2011 on the i'iie of the learned VI Adrlitional District & Sessions Judge^(Fzrst Track Court), Nizamzrbad, at Kamareddy (for short. "the appellate Court") confirming the^judgment dated 29.06.2O11 in C.C.No.215 of 2008 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistratt: of First Class, Kamareddy (for short, "the trial Court")

¶27

Heard M.r.Laxman Batchu, learned counsel for the petitioner and IVlr.tr.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent- State.

¶28

The brief facts of the case are that on I4.O2.2OOB at 0B:OO hours, LW10 i.e., S.Janaki Reddy (S.I. of Police, Kamareddy) received a corrLplaint from LW l/Gopalaraogari Shyam Rao, in which he state C that he had been to Nizamab:rd to at-tend the d&th anniversilry of their relative and returned to Ka.mareddy bus stand; he took his motor bike bearing No.AP-25/K-4220 frorrr the scooter stand and came to NH-7. Meanwhile, an unknown

ll I

person stopped and asked him where he was going by tapping his shoulder; then, he was taken nea_r Arsha Gurukula Ashramam, towards thorny bushes where he became conscious ald noticed .two^{more persons. It is stated that one person threatened the} complainant on point of a Knife and snatched l. 1 tulas of Gold chain with locket, Vz tula gold ring and Rs. IZ,OOO/- from him on l3.O2.2OOa; then, they beat him with sticks and threatened him not to disclose the incident to alybody. Basing on the said facts, Crime No.55 of 2OO8 was registered against the petitioners/ accused Nos.1 to ! for the offence under Section 394 of I.P.C.

¶33

The trial Court vide judgment dated 29.06.2011 in C.C.No.215 of 20O8 found the petitioners/accused Nos. 1 to 3 guilty of the offence under Section 392 of I.p.C., convicted and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year ald to pay fine of Rs.SOO/- each, in default of payment of fine, the petitioners were directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month each. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners preferred an Appeai.

,/ /

The appellate Court,^{vide impugnedjudgment, dismissed} the Appeal confirming^{the judgmentpassed by the trial Court'} Assailing the same,^{the petitioners prelerred the present Revision.}

¶38

Learned^r:ounsel for^{the petitioners submitted that the trial} court as well zrs the^{appellate court failed to appreciate that the} prosecution di,l not^{prove the alleged Test IdentificaticnParade;} that the evidence of^{PW 1 and others is completelyvague and} unreliable; so in the^{absence of any corroborativepiece of} evidence, both the^{Courts ought nothave convicted the} petitioners for the offence under^{Section 394 o1'I'P C' 'Therefore,} he seeks to allorv this^Revision

¶39

Learnecl Assistant Public^{Prosecutor contended that the} trial Court as u,ell^as the^{appellate Court, upon appre(':iatingthe} evidence availal:le^{on recordin proper perspectiverightly passed} their respective^{judgments and interferenceof this court is not} warranted. Therefore,^{he seeksto dismiss the Revision'}

¶40

A peruszrl of the record^{showsthat the learnecl Principal} Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial^{Magistrate ofF i;:'st Class,} Kamareddy, vrde letter^{Dis.No. 1275 dated LL.71.2024 submitted} that petitioner^{No.1/accusedNo'1 died on 2l -O9 -2023;petitioner} No.2/accused No.2^{died on 14.11.201,6and to that} ':xtent^the

death certificates of petitioners/accused Nos. 1 and 2 are enclosed. In view of the same, this Criminal Revision Case agarnst petitioner Nos. 1 and 2/accused Nos.l ald 2 stands dismissed as abated.

¶45

On behalf of the prosecution, the trial Court examined PWs.1 to 7 arrd marked Exs.pl to pl2 and MOs. 1 and 2. On behalf of the defence, none were examined and no document was marked. Upon careful scrutiny of the oral and documentar5r evidence, the trial Court observed that the unchallenged testimony of PWl proves the incident as deposed by pW1. pwl identified accused Nos.1 to 3 in the Test Identification parade and PW1 also identified the accused persons in the Court. Therefore, the trial Court observed that there is no reason to doubt the veracity of PWI regarding the identification of accused Nos.1 to 3. PWI also identified the ornaments i.e., MOs.1 and 2 in the Test Identification Parade under Ex p6 and the same is corroborated by PW4. Therefore, the trial Court rendered its judgment.

¶46

iO. In the appeal, the appeilate Court, on re-appreciating the evidence of PWs. 1 and 7, found that the material objects were seized from the possession of accused Nos. 1 and 2; the unchallenged testimony of PWl goes to show that accused Nos. 1

t^*.7

\ t

to 3 have exto::tecl^{gold ornamentsand cash Stating thus' the} appeliate Court had^{rendered the impugnedjudgment'}

¶52

This Court vide order^{dated 28.02'2012suspendedthe} sentence of imprisonment^{imposed against the petitioners for the} offence under Slection^{392 of I.P.C. pending Revision an<1 released} them on bail on furnishing^{a personalbond for Rs.5,000/-each} with two sureties for a^{like sum each to the satisfaction of the} learned Judicial First Class^{Magistrate, Kamareddy' l'ater,the} matter underw,:t-tt^{severaladjournments.}

¶53

In thc present^{case on hand, both the Courts held that} petitioner No.li/accused No.3^{was guilty of the offence under} Section 392 of I.P.C.,^{whichfinding, in my considered} '"iew,^does not call for interference, in^{exercise of revisional jtlrisdiction} under Section 397 Cr.P.C.^{Hence, I find no reasont<r interfere} with the well considered^{judgmentpassedby the appellateCourt'}

¶54

Having rt:gard to the^{submissions made by both the learned} counsel and upon considering^{the fact thatpetitioner} No.3/accused No.3 underwent^{mentalagonyb1 roamirlg around} the trial Court as well as the^{appellate Court audas tivelve long} years have elapsed from the date of filing of thrs^{Revision, this} Court deems it appropriate to^{reducethe sentencerimposed}

I I

j, :l

against petitioner No.3/accused No.3 to the period of

¶62

imprisonment already undergone by him

¶63

Except the above modification, in all other aspects, the Criminal Revision Case as against petitioner No.3/accused No.3 stands dismissed. The Criminal Revision Case against petitioners Nos.1 and 2/accused Nos. 1 and 2 stands dismissed as abated.

¶64

Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shatt stand closed

¶65

Sd/- B. SAryAVATHI DEPUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

To,

SECTION OFFICER

'1. ' The Vl Additional District Nizamabad at Kamareddy &. t*iin S.essions i"Coio., Judge iir"r}l'"'(Fast Track Court),

¶70

The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kamareddy.

¶71

The Superintendent, Sub Jail, Nizamabad.

¶72

4' The station House officer, Kamareddy porice station, Nizamabad District 5' Two ccs to the pubric prosecutor, High court for the state of rerangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶73

One CC to. Mr. Laxman Batchu, Advocate tOpUCl

¶74

Two CD Copies

katn/va 2

HIGH COURT

DATED:0911212024

ORDER

CRLRC.No.329 ot²⁰¹²

zr.(\ <br>z
,1 ? 2 ttli\tt 2025
-t
t
Dfsrr,TcY\ 6O

¶82

THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE IS DISMISSED^{AGAINST P3} AND DISMISSED^{AS ABATED} AGAINST PI & P2

¶83

/o
4 /

¶84

Sampangi Narsimlu, and 2 Others, v. the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sampangi Narsimlu, and 2 Others, v. the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manjunath Vs S. Anusha @ Lahari

Pampari. Uday Kiran Vs The State of Telangana

V. Satyanarayana Goud Vs P.v.Ravi Shekar Reddy

Jenigala Mahesh Yadav Vs v Nikhila

Palavarapu Shailaja Vs The State of Telangana

Md.Ghouse Vs Zaheda Begum and the State of A.P. Rep., by Its Pp