THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1927 of 2007 Date:13.08.2014 Between:
Pinjari Akbar . 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.1927 of 2007 ORDER:
This revision is preferred against judgment dated 27-08-2007 in Crl.A.No.65/2005 on the file of Principal District & Sessions Judge, Kurnool whereunder judgment dated 11-07-2005 in S.C.No.111/2005 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge, Nandikotkur was confirmed in respect of conviction for the offence under Section 376 read with 511 IPC, but modified the conviction and sentence of Section 307 IPC into 324 IPC and acquitted of the charges under Sections 354 & 307 IPC.
2. Brief facts leading to filing of this revision are as follows:-
Sub-Inspector of Police, Nandikotkur filed charge sheet against the revision petitioner alleging that on 17-07-2004, at about 10:30 P.M., in front of B.C. Hostel, Byreddy Nagar, Nandikotkur, accused way laid and caught hold of complainant by dragging her into thorny bushes and made an attempt to commit rape on her and on the complaint, police registered Crime No.84/2004 and investigation revealed that the accused has committed offences under Sections 354, 307, 376 read with 511 IPC. On these allegations, trial Court examined seven witnesses and marked seven documents on behalf of prosecution and no witness is examined and no document is marked on behalf of prosecution. On an over all consideration of oral and documentary evidence, trial Court found accused guilty for all the offences charged with and sentenced him to suffer six years imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 354 IPC, six years imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Sections 307 IPC and also five years imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 376 read with 511 IPC and directed that all the sentences shall run concurrently. Aggrieved by the same, he preferred appeal to the Court of Session, Kurnool and learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Kurnool, on a reappraisal of evidence, confirmed conviction and sentence under Section 376 read with 511 IPC, but set aside the conviction under Section 354 IPC and modified the conviction under Section 307 IPC into 324 IPC and sentenced one year imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 324 IPC. Now aggrieved by the same, present revision is preferred.
3. Heard both sides.
4. Advocate for petitioner submitted that there is nothing survives, because the petitioner was not on bail and has completed the sentence and already released after completion of the sentence. He submitted that since the accused is now released after undergoing the sentence of imprisonment, he would leave the matter to discretion of the Court.
5. I have perused the material papers filed along with the revision petition and also the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 7. The charge against the petitioner is that he made an attempt to commit rape on P.W.1 and the trial Court convicted both for the offence under Sections 376 read with 511 IPC and also 354 IPC in respect of the same incident, which the appellate Court found wrong and modified and set aside the conviction under Section 354 IPC but confirmed the conviction under Section 376 IPC read with 511 IPC so also the appellate Court found that there is no evidence to show that accused made an attempt on the life of victim and as the victim received only simple injuries, the conviction under Section 307 IPC is converted into 324 IPC. The learned appellate Court Judge has elaborately discussed entire evidence of prosecution witnesses with reference to objections raised on behalf of the accused and negatived all the objections. I do not find any wrong appreciation of evidence or incorrect findings in the judgment of the appellate Court. On the other hand, findings are based on sound reasoning and therefore, I do not find any grounds to interfere with the findings of the appellate Court. Further since the petitioner is already undergone the sentence as rightly submitted by the Advocate for revision petitioner nothing survives.
6. For these reasons, Criminal Revision is dismissed.
7. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Revision Case, shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR
Date:13.08.2014 mrb