THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.1532 of 2007 and 187 of 2008 28-04-2014 BETWEEN:
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1532 OF 2007 Pennaboina Sri Ramulu …..Appellant/A.1 AND State of A.P., Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.
…..Respondent CRIMINAL APPEAL No.187 OF 2008 Vallepu Srinivasulu @ Srinu …..Appellant/A2 AND State of A.P., Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.
…..Respondent THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.1532 of 2007 and 187 of 2008 COMMON JUDGMENT:
The Criminal Appeal No.1532 of 2007 is preferred by appellant/A.1 and Criminal Appeal No.187 of 2008 is preferred by A2 against the Judgment dated 01.11.2007 passed in S.C. No.305 of 2005, by the Court of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore, whereby the learned Judge convicted the appellants/A.1 and A.2 for the offence under Section 363 IPC and accordingly sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years each and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- (Rupees two hundred only) each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two months each.
The case of the prosecution, as recorded by the Court below, is as follows:
P.Ws. 1 and 2 are parents of the victim and they have stated that their son was kidnapped and the matter was reported to police and the accused have kidnapped their son for money and later their son was traced. P.W.3 is one of the neighbours and he supported the stand of the prosecution and corroborated the version of P.Ws.1 and 2. P.Ws.4 and 5 denied the prosecution case in toto and they were treated as hostile. It is the evidence of P.W.6 that A-1 has telephoned from his S.T.D. Booth, later he handedover M.O.3. P.W.7 is the owner of the cycle shop and it is his version that A-1 took the cycle from his shop on hire and M.O.1 is the cycle taken by A-1. P.Ws.8 and 9 never supported the prosecution stand. P.W.10 is the victim and he stated that by force he was taken away by the accused and the accused kept him in a forest area, nearby bushes. P.Ws.11 and 12 are mediators for the confession and recovery of the property and the recovery of the victim. They partly supported the prosecution stand. P.Ws.13 and 14 are the police officers and it is their evidence that P.W.1 reported the matter. They took up investigation, visited the scene of offence and examined the witnesses. Later, the accused were apprehended and the victim was released from the accused and after completion of investigation, charge sheet is filed.
To substantiate the case of the prosecution, during the course of trial, P.Ws.1 to 14 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.17 and M.Os.1 to 3 were marked. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused but Ex.D.1 was marked.
On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the appellants/A.1 and A.2 guilty for the offence under Section 363 IPC and convicted and sentenced them as stated above. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeals are preferred by A1 and A2.
Heard and perused the material available on record.
After evaluating and examining the material available on record and considering the submissions of the learned counsel for both the parties, this Court is of the view that there are no special or adequate reasons, warranting interference by this Court with the Judgment passed by the trial Court.
At this stage, the learned counsel for the appellants/A.1 and A.2 confined their arguments with regard to quantum of sentence, and submits that as the appellants/A.1 and A.2 are married and having children and they are the only breadwinners in their respective families, lenient view may be taken by this Court while imposing sentence of imprisonment.
Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants/A.1 and A.2 and the nature of offence, and also in view of long lapse of time, this Court is inclined to take a lenient view.
In the result, the conviction recorded against the appellants/accused by the Hon’ble III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Nellore, in S.C.No.305 of 2005 for the offence under Section 363 IPC is hereby confirmed, but the sentence of imprisonment of five years imposed by the Court below is hereby modified and reduced to six (6) months. The sentence of fine is not interfered with. The period of imprisonment already suffered by the petitioners-accused is directed to be given set off.
The appellants/accused are directed to surrender before the Court concerned on or before 10th June, 2014. In default, the Court concerned is at liberty to take appropriate steps in accordance with law.
The Criminal Appeals are accordingly partly allowed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these appeals shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO 28.04.2014 pln