Partly allowed

Ulvakani Mahesh, Adilabad Dt., v. State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

Telangana HC3 Dec 2024CRLRC/579/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the criminal revision filed by a convicted appellant. The court found the trial court's finding of guilty for attempt to murder well-founded but, considering the long pendency and lack of antecedents, reduced the sentence from three years to one year.

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced from three years to one year; revision dismissed; all other concurrent findings upheld.

Ulvakani Mahesh, Adilabad Dt., Vs State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

Bail Slip: The Petitioner/Accused was directed to be r€reased on bair by the order of High court dated 12.02.2016 in ca.n.c.rt,'.p.zis or zors in crr.R.c.579 ot 2016.

¶2

[^32se ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THESTATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶6

CRIMINA L REVISION CASE NO: 579 0F 2016

¶7

criminal Revision case fired under sections 397(i ) & 401 of crpc against the order dated 10.02.2016 passed in crl.A.No,ga iizots on the frle of the court of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Adilabad pr"f""uO against the Judgment dated 07 08 2013 passed in S.c.No.469 of 201'1 on tn" rir6 or tne couiiii ttre Assistant Sessions Judge, Nirmal.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Ulvakani_Mahesh, S/o. Raghavulu, aged 25 years, Occ.Agriculture, R/o pandavapur Village, Kadam Mandal, Adilabad District.

¶10

AND

¶11

...APPELLANT/ACCUSED

¶12

State Of Telangana, through SHO, pS., Kadam, Adilabad District, rep. by its pubtic Prosecutor, High court at Hyderabad, for the state oir"Lngrn" and for the state of AP

¶13

.,.RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶14

Counsel for the petitioner: SRI S. SURENDER REDDY

¶15

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. E. GANESH,

¶16

ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶17

The Court made the fo owing: ORDER

¶18

I t i i i

¶19

i i I I I I i

¶20

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUCiOPAL

¶21

CRIMINAL R-EVISION CASE No.579 OF 2016

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

I I I I a I I I It I I tIi !i I t l I l l :

¶24

This Criminal Revision Case, under Section s 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C., is filed by the appellant-accused, agg4ier ed by the order passed by the learned I Additional Sessions Ju<1ge, Adilabad in Criminal Appeal No.94 of 2013, dated 10.02.2016 modifying the ..yuclgment^{passeclby the learned Assistant S.""io.r". tudge, Nirmal,in} S.C.No.469 oi 20 t 1, dated O7-08.2O13.

¶25

Heard Sri S.Surender Reddy, [earned counse for the revision petitioner and Sri E.Ganesh, Iearned Assistant Pubiic Prosecutor for the respondent - State. Perused the record.

¶26

The brief lacts o[ the case are that on O2.O7.2O11 at about 6.30 PM, u'hile Gopathi Manjula and her Gran dfather Gopathi Ch:rnclr-iah :Lnd her mother Gopathi Sathawa werc returning from agricultur:il l'ields to thcir house by bullock cart and when they reached in [ront of housc of Regunta Narayana s, rddenly accused attackcd on^(iop:rthi Chandraiah with a big sic kle and causerl injrrries to right earr ancl throal by suspecting him as sorcerer. As such, a report !,as locigcd belbre the police, which lras registered as a c:rse in Cr.No.S0 of 201 t lor the offence under section 307 ol IPC and lrxtk up invcstigalion. After completion of inve;tigation, chargc i'iit'et^,,r, as lilecl arrd r\as assignccl S.C.No.469 of 201 I .

¶27

¶28

During the^{courseof trial on behalfof tfie prosecution'P'W's' 1} to 12 were^{examinedand Ex's Pl to 14 and MO's I to 4 werc marked} on behalf of^{defactocomplainant On behalfof the accused' no} evidence was^adduced.

¶29

On appreciation^{of the oral and documentaryevidencc} availablc^{on rccord,the trial Court found the accusedguilty for thc} offence under^{Section3O7IPC and sentencedto undergorigorous} imprisonment^{for a period of seven years and to pay a fine ol} Rs. l,OOt)/-^{for the offenceunder section3O7of IPC and in dcfault o[} paymcnt of hne,^{he has to furtherundergo simple impnsonment for} a perrod o[^{threemonths and the remand period undergone b1" Lhe} accuscd shall^{be set off under section 428 of Cr'P C' Aggricved} thcrcb-v, thc^{petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No 94 o[ 2O L4 otr} the lilc of^{the Court of the learned I Additional Sessions Judge'} Adilabad'^{u,hereinthe first appellate Court, after re-appreciatingthc} matcrial on^{rccord,by judgment dated |O'O2'2O16 has rcduccdthe} sentencc ol^{rigorous imprisonmentof sevenyears to threc vcars'} Hcnce, thc^{prcsentcriminal revisioncaseis filed'}

¶30

fi. Lcarncd counsel^{for the petitioner contendcd that [)ot[r thc} courts belorv^{failcd to appreciatethe evidence in a right perspccttve} :rnd crrccl in^{convicting the petitionerand imposedsubslantial} punishmcnt^{u'ithoutthere being any cogentevidence-}

I t. :

I i

On the other^{hand,learnedAssistant Pu blic Prosecutor} vehemently contended^{that there is no error apparel)t on the faceof} record and also^{the findingsof both the Courts br:low and hence'} there is no necessity^{for interferenceof this Court'}

¶35

On perusal^{of the evidence on record, it is a1)parentfromthe} evidenceofPW,slto5thattheaccusedattackedttreinjuredwitha sickle, while^{PW's Ito 3 were returninghomefror n theirfields on} bullock cart^{and caused grievousinjuryto PW2, rlue to whichhe} received a fracture^{on the head of right mandibleThe nature and} place of injuries clearly^{showthat the accused caust:d the above said} injuries to the^{injured with an intention to kill him'}

¶36

Therefore,^{this Court does not see any reasorto interferewith} the reasoned^{orderpassedby thc trial Court held by tJ:e appellate} Court. However,^{keeping in view of the long pendercy of the matter'} this Court is oi the^{view that the revisionpetit:oner musthave} repented for the^{act and that therenot being any l:revious criminal} antecedents^{againsthim, deems itappropriat€r toreduce the} sentence from three^{years to one} -vear.^{lt is needlessto mentionthat} the sentencc already^{undergoneby him shall stzrndset off under} section 428 of Cr.P.C.^{Except the modihcationof 1''sri64 of sentence} all other aspects of^{the concurrent findings shall hotd good'}

¶37

¶38

l I ii ri

¶39

Except the above modification from reducing the conviction sentence from three years to one year, t]:e other aspects of the appellate Court Judgment remains same.

¶40

ln the result, the criminal revision case is dismissed.

¶41

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this criminal

¶42

revision case shall also stand dismissed

%ii'A#['A'jil

,ffRUE^COPY'/

SECTION^OFFICER

To,

The Judicial^{First Class Magistrate'Nirmal,Adilab} District The Assistant^{SessionsJudge, Nirm al, MilabadDistrict}

¶49

¶50

2.3. The^{I AdditionalSe} nt,^{ssions Judge,} Central^{Prison'Adilabad District'Warangal} 4 The^SuPerintende ublic^{Prosecutor'State of Telangana, High Court Buildings}

¶51

5 Two^{CCsto the P} rl at HYderabad[OU e Office^{r. Kadam PoliceStation,Adilabad District}

¶52

6 The Station^Hous Surende^{r ReddY, Advocate [oPUCl} 7 One CC^{to Sri S} B Two^{CD CoPies} Plp/gh

t d i I I I l I i

I I

HIGH COURT

DATED:0311212024

ORDER

GRLRC.No.579^{of 2016}

¶59

G l HE S t7
e o
J iflr
1
N2M
o
alt
\.\ .1' z.''
:-",r. ^ ',.
-7

¶60

DTSMISSING^{THE CRL.R.C.}

¶61

Ulvakani Mahesh, Adilabad Dt., v. State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ulvakani Mahesh, Adilabad Dt., v. State of Telangana, 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

Ambeer Purnachandra Rao Vs the State of A.P.

Chiluveru Swarajyam Vs The State of Telangana

Smt Mehraj Begum, Vs The State of Telangana

G.Sandhya Rani , M.Sandhya Rani Vs the State of Ap., and 3 Others

Parpalli Mallaiah @ Mallesh, Vs Sri. Nvk Srinivas

Sardar Jasbeer Singh, Karimnagar., Vs State, Thrkarimnagar Ps. and 2 Othrs, Rep Pp.