Partly allowed

Jangam Yellavva , Lachavva and 2 Others v. the State of A.P.

Telangana HC19 Mar 2024CRLRC/470/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court in criminal revision held proceedings against deceased accused abated. Acquitted remaining accused of rape charge but upheld conviction for assault and intimidation, enhancing fine and allowing set-off for time served.

What did the court decide?

Accused Nos.2 and 4 acquitted of Section 354 IPC; fine under Sections 324 and 341 IPC enhanced from Rs.100 to Rs.1,000; sentence set-off allowed.

Jangam Yellavva , Lachavva and 2 Others Vs the… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

:PRESENT:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶5

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 470 0F 2011

¶6

Cnminal Revision Case under Section 397 & 401of Cr.p.C. aggrieved by the Order dated 28.02.2011 made in Crl.A.No.1 12 of 2OOg on the file of the Court of the lll Addl. Dist. and Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, Preferred against the Order passed in S.C.No.220 of 2009 dated 1 2.10.2009 on the file of the Court of the Asst. Sessions Judge, Siricilla

¶7

Between:

¶8

Jangam Yellawa @ Lachavva, W/o. Balaiah, Aged 62 years, Occ: Household R/o. Pochammawada, Vemulawada, Karimnagai OistriCt.

¶9

Thippari Pochavva, (A2), Dlo Rajaiah, Aged 42 years, Occ: Household, R/o. Baddi Pochammawada, Vemulawada, Karimnagbr District.

¶10

Bandj,ri Deadasu, (A4), S/o. Bondaiah, Aged 49 years, Masngali, R/o. Bagavanth araonagat, Vemulawada, Karimnagar Districi.

¶11

... Petitioners/Appellants/Accused Nos.1,2 & 4 AND

¶12

The State of A.P., Through the S.l. of Potice, Vemulawada, Karimnagar Dist_, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.

¶13

... RespondenU RespondenUComplainant lA NO: 2 OF 2011 ICRL.R.C. M.P.No. 711 ot 2011)

¶14

Petition under Section 482 of CrP.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the atfidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to release the petrtioners on bail by suspending the sentence imposed upon the petitioners by the learned Asst. Sessions Judge, Siricilla, dated 1 2.1 0.2009 in S.C.No.220 of 2009 which was confirmed by the learned lll Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, dated 28.O2.2O11 in Crl.A.No.112 of 2009.

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri. P Devender

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent : Sri Khaja Vizarath AIi, Asst. Public^prosecutor The Court made the following: ORDER

¶17

¶18

\ I

¶19

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENIJGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.47O of 20tL

¶20

ORDER:

¶21

The present crimina-l revision case is^f iled under Sections 397 and 4Ol Cr.P.C aggrieved by the Judgment dated 28.02.2011 passed in Crl.A.No.l12 of^2OO9 on the^lile of the learned IlI Additional District and Sessions Judge^at Karimnagar (for short 'the appellate Court) con iirming^the judgment dated I2.10.2009 passed in S.C.No.22O of 2009 on the file of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge at Siricilla (for short 'the trial Court').

¶22

The petitioners herein are accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4.^For the sake of convenience hereinafter parties are relerred to^as the accused Nos.1, 2 and 4.

¶23

The brief facts of the case are that oo 17.07 .2OO8^at about 4:00 PM PW. I Chandrakala lodged a report in^the police station stating that above five vears bacl: she along with her husband PW.2, Shivaiah carne down to

¶24

¶25

Vemulawada ald eking out their livelihood by begging in front of Baddi Pochamma temple and staying in Sri Raja Rajeshwara Swamy Satram, that about 15 days back accused Nos.l and 2 demanded her a sum of^{Rs.2,OOO/-for} allegedly letting her and her husband PW.2 to continue begging by sitting in front of Baddi Pochamma temple^but she refused to give money to them. On 16.07.2008^{at about} 9:00 AM accused Nos.1 and 2 came and^{alleged that PWs.1} and 2 are doing witchcraft on them ald that is why^accused No.l is suffering from ill-hea-lth and that PW. 1 replied that she does not know witchcraft but they denied ald^took PWs.l and 2 to temple v"'ith wetted clothes and swear^an oath in the temple and again in the same night at^12:30AM accused Nos.1 and 2 ald others catne to Raja^Rajeshwara Swamy Satram, woke up PWs.1 and 2 ald assaulted them with sticks, beat PW. 1 on her private parts, tried to remove her clothes and insulted her as a result she sustained injuries, when PW.2 tried to rescue PW. 1 the accused^also

¶26

¶27

¶28

beat him indiscriminateiy. On 17.O7.2008 at about 7:30 AM when PWs. I and 2 were going to Police Station to report the matter, accused Nos. 1 and 2 carne and restrained them at Baddi Pochamma temple and dragged them to ne arby street where they shaved her- head through accused No.4 and warned PWs. I and 2 to kill them by show.ing knife if they practice witchcraft on them and at that time one Jagan Singh and his wife rescued them. The sub-lrrspector of Police PW. 10 Vemulawada registered a case in Crime No.256 of 2008 under Sections 324, 354, 34t and 505 IpC and investigated into. During the course of invesl.igation he examined and recorded the statements of witnesst:s, referred PWs. 1 and 2 to the Government Hospital, Siricilla for treatment that he visited the scene of olfence anrl prepared crime details form in the presence of panch witnesses. On 18.07.2008 at about 1:30 PM he arrested accused Nos.1 to 4 near Baddi Pochamma temple, Vemulawada and accused No.4 produced the knife that was used by him irL removing

¶29

¶30

the hairs of PW. 1 on her head arld PW. 10 seized the same under the cover of seizure report in the presence of panch witnesses, that after completion of his investigation PW. 10 frled charge sheet.

¶31

To prove the guilt of the accused, the^prosecution examined PWs.l to 10 and got marked Exs.Pl to P6^and M.O.1 on its beha-lf.

¶32

The trial Court after hearing the arguments on both sides and upon perusing the material available on record^has passed the judgment in S.C.No.22O of 2OO9 which reads as under:

¶33

"11. In the result, I find the acansed Nos.l and 2 are guiltg of the offences under Sections 324, 341 and 354 IPC ond accused No.4 for the offenie under Section 354 IPC accordinglg I conuict them under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C for the said offences.

¶34

I find accused Nos.7, 2 and 4 are not guiltg of tte offence under Section 506 IPC and accused.lVo.3 rb^{not guiltg} oJ the offences under Section 324, 341, 354 and 5O6^{IPC and} accordinglg, I acquit them under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C for^the said offences.

¶35

¶36

Accordinglg, accused l{os. l, 2 and4 each are sentenced to undergo igorous impisonment for a period, of tLUo Aears and to pag fine of Rs.LOO/- for the o-ffence under Section 354 IPC, in default of pagment of fi.ne omount they haue to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.

¶37

Accused Nos.l and 2 each are further s:entenced to undergo igorous impisonment for a period of one gear and. to pay fine of Rs.100/ - each for the offence under Section 324 IPC, in default of pagment of fine amount tL,-eg haue to undergo simple impisonment for three months.

¶38

Acansed Nos.l and 2 each are further sentenced to undergo simple impisonment for a peiod of one month and to pag ftne of Rs. 1O0/ - each for the offence under Section 34 I IPC, in default of paym.ent of fine amount theg haue to undergo simple impisonment for one ueek. Ail the aboue sentences of acansed Nos.l and 2 shall run concurentlg. "

¶39

6 Aggrieved by the judgment passed by the trial Court, the appellants/accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 has preferred Crl.A.No.112 of 2OO9 before the appellate Oourt, the appellate after appreciating the oral and do,:umentaqr evidence on record has dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment passed by the tria_l Court in S.C.No.22O of 2OO9, dated L2.10.2OO9. Challenging the same, the present criminal revision case has been preferred.

¶40

¶41

Heard Sri P.Devender, learned counsel for the petitioners/ accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4 as^w'ell as the^learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing^{for respondent-State} and perused the^record.

¶42

Learned counsel for the^{petitioners/accused Nos.1, 2} and 4 submitted that^{petitioner/ accused No.1 is no more} a-nd therefore,^{proceedings against the petitioner/ accused} No.1 in this criminal revision^{case stards abated.}

¶43

Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the trial Court as well as^{the appellate Court failedto} appreciate the evidence^available on^{record inproper} perspective and passed their^{respectivej udgments.} Therefore, he seeks to^{set asidethe impugned judgment.}

¶44

lO. Learned Assistant Public^{Prosecutoropposedthe same} and contended that both^{the Courts, upon appreciatingthe} oral and documentary^{evidence available on record in right} perspective, passed their respective^{judgments and the}

\ \

\ \

interference^{ol this Court isunwarranted. There[ore,I-re} seeks^{to dismiss the present CriminalRevisionCase}

¶49

1 1. Taking^{on recordthe submissions made by tht: learned} counsel for^{the petitioner/ accusedNos'1} '^{2 an| 4the} proceedings^{initiated against the petitioner/ accur;edNo ' I} stands^{abated.As seen from the material placed on record'} the allegations^{levelled against accused Nos'2 and 4 would} not constitute^{the offence underSection 354 IPC' Ltence this} Court deems^{it appropriate to acquitaccused'Nos'I) and 4 of} the said^{offence.Accordingly' accused Nos'2 and 4 are} acquitted^{of the offence under Section 354 IPC' However'no} interference^{is warranted so far as the convictiorL recorded} against accused^{No'2 for the offencesunderSe<:tions 324} and 34 1^{of IPC, but with regard to the senterrce in the} interest^{of justice, this Court deems it appropriat.:to set off} theSentencetotheperiodalreadyundergollebythe petitioner/^{accusedNo'2 and also to enhancethe f'ne amount}

\ \

{

from Rs.100/- to^{Rs.1,O0O/-each for the oflences under} Sections 324 and^{341 of IPC.}

¶54

Except the^{above modihcationof the sentence, no} further interference^{of this Court is warranted with respectto} the^{judgment passed by the learned appellate Court'} Accordingly, the^{present criminalrevision case is partly} a,llowed.

¶55

Pending miscellaneous^{applications, if any, shall stand}

¶56

closed

¶57

sd/^- M.^MANJULA DEPUTY^REGI

//TRUE^COPY//

SECTION^OFFICER

To,

1 . The^{lll Addl. Dist' and Sessions Judge' Karimnagar'}

¶62

The^{Asst. SessionsJudge' Siricilla'}

¶63

One^{CC to Sri' P Devender Advocate [OPUC]}

¶64

Two^{ccs to pubric prosecutor, Highcourt for the State of rerangana[oUT]}

¶65

Two^{CD Copies}

YIR/sh

HIGH COURT

DATED:1910312024

ORDER

CRLRC.No.470 of 2011

'Iti
6F
.( <br>F.
Jq .s..
o,.'* s +
lJ-
"P /
f,9ttt *

¶73

DISMISSING/MODIFYING OF THE CRL. RC

¶74

.d4 g ^c-,4t'tx

Jangam Yellavva , Lachavva and 2 Others v. the State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jangam Yellavva , Lachavva and 2 Others v. the State of A.P.

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

Chennaram Niranjan Reddy , Raghavender Reddy Vs the State of A.P.

Dubbaka Venkataiah Vs the State of A.P.

Smt P.Swarna Latha Vs Smt Chandrakala and Another

K.Malla Reddy Vs the State of a.P., Rep. by P.P., H.C., Hyd. and Anr.

M.S.Malik and 3 Others Vs the State of A.P. and Another

Reddipally Srinu, Nalgonda District and 2 Others Vs the State of a.P.,Rep.by P.P.,High Court of a.P.,Hyderabad