Allowed¶7

Parvatham Pentaiah, Nalgonda Dt. v. State of Telangana, Rep. by P.P

Telangana HC22 Jan 2025CRLA/611/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal appeal acquittal; robbery of dwelling house; Sections 394 and 397 IPC; total failure of identification of accused by eyewitnesses PWs.1-3; conviction on recovery unsustainable; M.Os.1 to 3; panchanama Ex.P4 dated 03.11.2011; FIR Ex.P1 dated 29.06.2010; Indiramma Colony, Suryapet, Nalgonda District; Assistant Sessions Judge conviction set aside; bail bonds discharged; Telangana High Court; decided 22-01-2025.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Appeal allowed; appellant (A2) acquitted; conviction recorded by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Suryapet, in S.C.No.597 of 2012 dated 21-04-2014 set aside against A2; bail bonds of the appellant stand discharged. ¶7

Parvatham Pentaiah, Nalgonda Dt. Vs State of Telangana, Rep. by P.P — Telangana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶7

Issue for consideration

Whether the conviction of the appellant (A2) could be sustained when none of the eyewitnesses PWs.1 to 3, who were present at the time of the incident, identified him as one of the perpetrators. +1 more

¶5

Court's answer

None of the eyewitnesses identified the appellant (A2): PW.1 specifically stated that A2 was not the person present when the incident took place, PW.3 likewise stated A2 was not present, and PW.2, though she spoke of two persons, did not identify A2 as one of them.

¶5

Ratio / Principle

Since none of PWs.1 to 3 identified the appellant, the question of convicting him under Section 397 IPC on the basis of recovery does not arise; M.Os.1 to 3 were seized (panchanama Ex.P4 dated 03.11.2011, panch PW.11) from a shop, and the witness connected with those M.Os. also did not identify A2.

¶5

Key takeaways

There being absolutely no evidence insofar as the appellant is concerned, the conviction cannot sustain.ratio¶6

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (K. Surender, J.), by judgment dated 22-01-2025, allowed Criminal Appeal No.611 of 2014 under Section 374(2) CrPC and acquitted the appellant (Accused No.2, Parvatham Pentaiah), setting aside his conviction by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Suryapet, in S.C.No.597 of 2012 (dated 21-04-2014) under Sections 394 and 397 IPC for a house-robbery at Indiramma Colony on 28.06.2010. The Court found that none of the occurrence witnesses PWs.1 to 3 identified the appellant - PW.1 and PW.3 expressly stated A2 was not the person present, and PW.2 did not identify him - and that, there being absolutely no evidence against the appellant, the conviction could not sustain; conviction under Section 397 IPC on the basis of recovery of M.Os.1 to 3 (seized under panchanama Ex.P4 dated 03.11.2011) also did not arise. Bail bonds of the appellant were ordered discharged.

¶1

¶2

I ; , I i i i

¶3

Bail Slip: The Appellant^{/ Accused was directed to be released on bail by the} "rd"i "i^it "^{High Courtdated23-o8-2016 in Crl'A'M'P'No'842 of 20,|6 in} Crl.A.No. 611 ot^201.4

¶4

IN THE HIGH^{COURT FORTHE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶5

WEDNESDAY ,THE^{TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JANUARY} TWO THOUSAND^{ANDTWENTYFIVE}

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER}

¶8

CRIMINAL APPEAL^{NO: 611 OF 2014}

¶9

Crl. Appeal Under Section^{374 (21 ot Cr'P'C'againstthe- Judgment in} S.C.No.597of2012dated21-04-2014onthefileofthecourtoftheAssistant Sessions Judge at^{Suryapet, NalgondaDistrict}

¶10

Between:

¶11

Viirrs", ParvathamPentaiah,S/oChinnaNarsaiah,Aged40years,occ:CoolieR/oVemula^{-ko"JiGkr' trlanJat, Med.afDi'strictat !resent Cherukupally_Vill.a,e,} APPELLANT/ x"u,rtE"riv-rritr"hil of^{Nalgondi District.} Accused -2

¶12

AND

¶13

reo. bv its Public Prosecutor.^{High Courtof Judicature at} The State of Telangana, ...RESPONDENT/ ComPlainant Hyderabad^.

¶14

CounselfortheAppellant:SRl.N'PARAMESWARAREDDY,LegalAidCounsel CounselfortheRespondent:SRIM.VIVEKANANDAREDDY'ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶15

The Court delivered^{the followingJudgment:}

¶16

¶17

¶18

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶19

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 611 oF 2014

¶20

JUDGMENT:

¶21

The appellarltlA2 f1led the appea_l aggrieved by the conviction recorded by the Assistant Sessions Judge at Suryapet, in S.C.No.597 of 2012, dt.2l.O4.2Ol4, for the offences uncler Sections 394 and 397 of the Indian penal Code.

¶22

Heard learned counsel for the appellant anrd learned Assistant Pubhc Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

¶23

The case of the prosecution is that pWs.l to 3 and 5 belong to the same family. PWs.5 and 2 are husband and wife and pW. 1 is the brother of PW.5. On 28.06.2O10, pW.s went to Hyderabad and instructed his brother pw. r to sleep in his house for that night as the house is situated in a, isorated area at Indiramrna corony. Accordingiy PW'. I went to pW.5,s house. pW.2, her chilclren, pW.3_ son of elder brother of pW. 1, slept inside the house and pW. 1 slept outside of the house. On the same day at about 2.00 a.m. (mid night), the appellant a,long with another accused went to the house of PW.S with an intention to commit theft. They beat pW. 1 who was sleeping outside the house and tied his legs arrd hands with 1ungi, broke open the doors and entered inside the house and beat pw.2 with toddy (Mujakathi knife) and thereby caused injury on her left

¶24

IiI

¶25

¶26

'::a*xi,t
'.i:::t:tt
- - ' .aa.lla

¶27

hand. Accused took one pair of ear studs, one pair of gold matties and gold Nanuthadu. At the time of the accused leaving the house, PW.2 beat one of the accused with a crow bar. The accused broke open the doors and entered another room with the help of crowbar and took away Rs.2O,OOO/- ald one pair of silver leg chains. One of the accused had caused bleeding injury to PW.2 on her head, back side of shoulder and right hand by beating with knife and fled. Thereafter, PWs. 1 to 3 went to the house of PW.4 which is at a distance of 2OO meters and called PW.5 and other relatives. After some time, their relatives Pathulu and others came and shifted them in an auto to Government Area Hospital, Suryapet. After getting first aid, PW. 1 lodged report Ex.P1 on 29.06.2O1O.

¶28

The Police during the course of investigation identified A1 and A2 (appellant herein) as the persons who committed robbery and injured PWs. I and 2.

¶29

Having gone through the record, PW. 1 specihcally stated that A2 was not the person who was present when the incident had taken place. PW.2 also did not identify A2. Though, PW.2 stated that there were two persons, she did not identify A2 as one of the person who was present at the time of incident. PW.3 specifically stated that ,\2 was not the person who was^present when^the incident had taken place. Apa-rt from the^{evidenceof PWs. 1} to^3,

¶30

¶31

.,/ there is no othr:r evidence to speak about the incident Since none of the witnesses PWs.l to 3 who were present when the incident had happened have identified the appellant, the question of convicting the appellant under Section 397 ol IPC, on the basis of recovery, does not arise. M.Os.1 to 3 were seized in the presence of PW. 11 who r'vas a panch witness, by the Police. Ex.P4 is the panchanama that u,as drafted on O3.1l.2OIl. The said M.Os.1 to 3 were seized lrom the shop of one Saeianarayanachar5z-pW.7. However, PW.iz also did not identify A2.

¶32

In the sard circumstances, when there is absolutely no evidence insofar as appellalt is concerned, the conviction cannot sustain.

¶33

7 Accordingl1,, Criminal Appeal is allowed and the appellantlA2 IS acquitted.^'Il-re conviction recorded by the Assistaret Sessions Judge at Su4'apet, in S.C.No.597 of 2012, dt.21.O4.2).O14, is set aside against -A2. Since the appellant is on bai1, his bail bonds shall stand discharged

¶34

A.V.S.S.C.S.M.^SRMA JOINT REGI TRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION^OFFICER

The^{Assistant sessions Judge at suryapet, NalgondaDistrict ( with} records,^{if anY} )

¶39

2.TheJudicialMagistrateofFirstClass,suryapet,NalgondaDistrict' ;. iil siJti""^{ir"rl" offi;;; , survapet-(R)P;lic.e Station' Survapet'} ;. iil; sil;;intendent,^{c;;;;ii;i*;",chi:rlapalli' Ransa Reddv District'.} i. irir"LT.^{t" Pubticproslcuior,!-righ Courtfor the state of Telangana at} Hyderabad^(OtjTl

¶40

''.a:};!,.aa ,ta .i.t

¶41