THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.567 of 2008 17-10-2014 BETWEEN:
Lingampally Venkanna @ Venkati …..Appellant AND The State of A.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.
…..Respondent THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENT:
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.567 of 2008 JUDGMENT:
The Criminal Appeal is preferred by the appellant/A.1 challenging the Judgment, dated 11.01.2008, in S.C. No.345 of 2007 passed by the Hon’ble I Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Warangal, whereby the learned Judge convicted the appellant/A.1 for the offence under Section 395 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only), in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.
The case of the prosecution is as follows:-
That on 03.11.2005, at about 9.00 p.m., near Under bridge, Warangal, A.1 to A.5 waylaid the injured, P.W.2, who is the driver of P.W.1, and that A.5 beat him with beer bottle on the head due to which it was broken and the culprit also beat on the right chest and left shoulder with the said broken bottle while the remaining accused persons caught hold of the injured and robbed net cash of Rs.13,000/- (Rupees thirteen thousand only) and fled away. Basing on the complaint of P.W.1, a case was registered and was investigated into. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused for the offence under Section 395 IPC.
To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 6 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.10. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused but the statement of P.W.2 under Section 161 Cr.P.C., was marked as Ex.D.1.
On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the appellant/A.1 guilty for the offence under Section 395 IPC and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as stated above. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant/A.1 has preferred the present criminal appeal.
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/A.1 and the learned Public Prosecutor, and perused the record.
After evaluating and examining the material available on record and considering the respective submissions of the learned counsel for both 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 appellant/A.1 confines his argument with regard to quantum of sentence, and submits that as the accused is the only bread winner in his family, a lenient view may be taken by this Court while imposing sentence of imprisonment.
Considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant/A.1, 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 appellant/accused by the Court of the I Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Warangal, in S.C.No.345 of 2007, by Judgment dated 11.01.2008, for the offence under Section 395 IPC is hereby confirmed. However, the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the Court below is modified and reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant/accused. The amount of fine and default condition, imposed by the Court below is not interfered with.
The appellant/accused shall be released from the prison immediately if he is not required in any other crime.
The Criminal Appeal is accordingly partly allowed. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, stand dismissed.
JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO 17.10.2014 pln