HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.22 OF 2008 Dated 19-9-2014 Between:
Pesari Sampath.
..Petitioner.
And:
The State of A.P., represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.
…Respondent.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.22 OF 2008 ORDER:
This revision is against judgment dated 26-11- 2007 in Criminal Appeal No.114 of 2007 on the file of Sessions Judge, Karimnagar whereunder judgment dated 4-10-2007 in C.C.No.119 of 2006 on the file of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Karimnagar, is confirmed.
Brief facts leading to this revision are as follows:
Sub-Inspector of Police, Karimnagar filed charge sheet against revision petitioner and another alleging that on 6-9-2005 at about 8-30 P.M., revision petitioner went to the shop of P.W.1 and asked her for Simla Gutkha and while she was giving the same, he snatched away her gold pusthelathadu of three tulas worth about Rs.20,000/- from her neck and on the report of P.W.1, Crime No.311 of 2005 was registered and that during investigation, on 10-9-2005 at about 5 P.M., A.1 was apprehended and on his confession, stolen property was recovered from A.2 and investigation revealed that revision petitioner is liable for offence under Section 379 I.P.C.
On these allegations, three witnesses were examined and five documents were marked on behalf of prosecution and no witness was examined and no document was marked on behalf of accused.
On an overall consideration of oral and documentary evidence, trial court found the accused guilty for the offence under Section 379 I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer one year imprisonment with Rs.1,000/- and aggrieved by which, he preferred appeal to the court of Sessions, Karimnagar, and Sessions Judge, Karimnagar confirmed the conviction and sentence. Now, aggrieved by the same, present revision is preferred.
Heard both sides.
Advocate for revision petitioners submitted that property was not recovered from the petitioner and it was only recovered from A.2 and trial court wrongly convicted the revision petitioner and the same is upheld by the appellate court.
It is further submitted that there is no supporting and corroborating evidence to P.W.1, but the trial court without any corroboration, accepted the evidence of P.W.1 and therefore, conviction based on the evidence of P.W.1 is liable to be set aside. It is also submitted that petitioner is not a habitual offender and he is not involved in any other cases.
On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that P.W.1 is a stranger to the accused and she clearly identified the accused and deposed that M.O.1 was snatched from her neck and that evidence on record is sufficient to prove the guilt of accused and that both trial court and appellate court have rightly convicted revision petitioner and that there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings.
Now the point that would arise for my consideration in this revision is whether the Judgments of the courts below are legal, correct and proper?
POINT:
According to prosecution, offence was on 6-9- 2005 at about 8-30 P.M., According to prosecution on that day, A.1 went to the shop of P.W.1 and asked for one Simla Gutkha and when she was giving that, revision petitioner snatched away her gold chain from her neck. P.W.1 clearly deposed in her evidence the way in which M.O.1 gold chain was snatched away. Her evidence is fully supported and corroborated with the contents of Ex.P.1 on the basis of which F.I.R. is registered. Though P.W.1 was cross-examined, nothing could be elicited from her to discard her testimony. There are no omissions or contradictions in the evidence of P.W.1.
Admittedly, P.W.1 is a stranger to the accused and if really, revision petitioner is not responsible and he is not the person who committed theft of gold chain from her neck, she cannot have any reason to speak falsehood against revision petitioner.
As seen from the evidence of Investigating Officer, accused was arrested on 10-9-2005 and on his confession, the stolen property was recovered from A.2. According to prosecution, both A.1 and A.2 are friends and as per plan, this offence was committed. Both trial court and appellate court have thoroughly scanned the evidence of P.W.1 and came to a right conclusion and I do not find any grounds to interfere with the findings of the trial court and appellate court.
For these reasons, I am of the view that there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below and both courts have rightly convicted the revision petitioner.
Now coming to the sentence part, petitioner is sentenced to suffer one year imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000/-.
Advocate for revision petitioner submitted that petitioner is not a habitual offender and he is not involved in any other case and requested this court to take a lenient view.
As seen from the material, accused was 32 years as on the date of offence and the offence was about nine years ago.
Considering the nature of offence and age of the petitioner, I feel that one year imprisonment can be reduced to four months.
Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the conviction but the sentence of one year imprisonment is reduced to four months while confirming the fine amount.
The trial Court shall take steps to apprehend the accused to undergo the unexpired portion of the sentence, if any.
As a sequel to the disposal of this revision, the Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending, shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dated 19-9-2014.
Dvs.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dvs CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.22 OF 2008 Dated 19-9-2014