THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1776 of 2007 Date:03.09.2014 Between:
Kodaparthy Venkataiah . Petitioner.
AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.
. Respondent.
The Court made the following :
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1776 of 2007 ORDER:
This revision is preferred against judgment dated 14-12-2007 in Crl.A.No.171/2007 on the file of IV Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Mahabubnagar whereunder judgment dated 29-10-2007 in C.C.No.320/2005 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nagarkurnool confirmed conviction against A1 but set aside the conviction of A3. Aggrieved by which, A1 preferred present revision.
2. Brief facts leading to filing of this revision are as follows:-
Circle Inspector of Police, Nagarkurnool filed charge sheet alleging that petitioner and two others committed robbery on M. Suraiah while he was returning to his village on his motor cycle, with bag containing cash of Rs.10,000/-. On these allegations, 10 witnesses are examined and 11 documents are marked on behalf of prosecution besides two material objects and no witness is examined and no documents are marked on behalf of accused. On an over all consideration of oral and documentary evidence, trial Court found A1 & A3 guilty for the offence under Section 392 IPC and sentenced them to suffer three years imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000/- each. Aggrieved by which, they preferred appeal to the Court of Session and IV Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC) at Mahabubnagar allowed appeal of A3, but dismissed appeal of A1 confirming conviction. Aggrieved by which, present revision is preferred by A1.
3. Heard both sides.
4. Advocate for revision petitioner submitted that there is a delay in lodging complaint. He submitted as per complaint, A1 to A3 beat P.W.1 with stick on his right hand, but there is no medical evidence to that effect and the stick was not recovered and no independent witnesses were examined. He submitted that identification parade was not conducted by the prosecution. He further submitted that denomination of the notes was not explained by the prosecution and even complainant has also not spoken about the denomination. He further submitted that offence took place on 24-01-2005 and accused were arrested on 14-07-2005, after lapse of five months 20 days. He further submitted that P.W.6 deposed in his evidence that amount was recovered only from one person and even he did not mention the name of the said person. On the other hand learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner is involved in grave offence of robbery and both the Courts have rightly convicted the revision petitioner and that there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings.
5. Now the point that would arise for my consideration in this revision is whether judgments of the Courts below are legal, proper and correct?
6. Point:- According to prosecution, on 24-01-2005, while P.W.1 was proceeding on a motor cycle, he was robbed at Anathasagar gate and to prove the same, he was examined as P.W.1 and he supported his Ex.P1 statement and identified A1 i.e., revision petitioner herein in the Court during trial. The main contention of the advocate for revision petitioner is that there was no test identification parade during investigation and P.W.1 directly identified the accused i.e., revision petitioner herein in the Court and therefore, that cannot be accepted. This contention was raised before the appellate Court and considering the evidence on record, his objection was negatived. As rightly observed by the appellate Court, simply because, there was no test identification parade and the accused was identified for the first time in the Court, the same cannot be discarded, unless there is some glaring motive for the witness to implicate or speak any falsehood against the accused. Admittedly, A1 is unknown person to P.W.1 and there is no reason for P.W.1 to speak anything against this revision petitioner. Further, part of stolen property was recovered from the possession of revision petitioner. It is contended that since no denomination is mentioned in the complaint, the money recovered from the revision petitioner cannot be connected to P.W.1. Here, as seen from the material, revision petitioner has not claimed this money as that of him. When P.W.1 deposed that M.O.1 is the bag belonging to him, that aspect was not touched in the cross-examination. There is no material to show that P.W.1 wrongly claimed M.O.1. Both the trial Court and appellate Court have discussed the evidence of all the prosecution witnesses and they rightly appreciated their evidence. There are no contradictions or omissions in the evidence of any of the material witnesses on any of the aspects supporting the grounds urged on behalf of the revision petitioner. On a scrutiny of the material, I am of the view that both trial Court and appellate Court have rightly appreciated evidence on record and came to a right conclusion and that there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below with regard to conviction.
7. Now coming to sentence part, trial Court imposed three years imprisonment for the offence under Section 392 IPC and the same was confirmed by the appellate Court. Advocate for revision petitioner submitted that petitioner is not a habitual offender and some lenient view may be taken with regard to sentence. As seen from the record, the offence was nearly about 10 years back and at that time, the petitioner was 40 years old. Now considering the facts of the case, gravity of the offence and the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, I feel that three years imprisonment can be reduced to one year, as there is no minimum punishment.
8. Accordingly, revision is dismissed confining conviction, but the sentence of three years imprisonment for the offence under Section 392 IPC is modified and reduced to one year.
9. Trial Court shall take steps for apprehension of accused for undergoing unexpired portion of sentence.
10. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Revision Case, shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR
Date:03.09.2014 mrb