[HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.411 OF 2007 Dated 17-7-2014 Between:
Raghumanda Pydinaidu.
...Petitioner.
And:
State of A.P., represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.
…Respondent.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.411 OF 2007 ORDER:
This revision is preferred against the judgment dated 8-3-2007 in Criminal Appeal No.124 of 2004 on the file of Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram whereunder judgment dated 12-8-2012 in C.C.No.564 of 2002 on the file of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vizianagaram is confirmed.
Brief facts leading to this revision are as follows:
Inspector of Police, Vizianagaram Town police filed charge sheet against the petitioner alleging that on interregnum night of 13/14-11-2002 at about 1-30 A.M., one Pnumatcha Vinaya Varma parked his Santro car bearing No.A.P.36 in front of his house and found it missing and on the report of said Varma, police registered Crime No.158 of 2002 and during investigation, it revealed that the accused fled away with the said car and dashed a culvert and that the accused was arrested and car was seized. On these allegations, ten witnesses are examined and 16 documents are marked besides three material objects on behalf of prosecution and no witness is examined and no document is 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 411 I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer one year imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/-. Aggrieved by the same, he preferred appeal to the court of Sessions and the learned Sessions Judge on reappraisal of the evidence confirmed both the conviction and sentence. Now aggrieved by the same, present revision is preferred.
Heard both sides.
Advocate for petitioner submitted that evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5 is not sufficient to prove guilty of the accused and the court below convicted the revision petitioner basing on the testimony of P.Ws.4 and 5 alone. He further submitted that both the courts have not considered the discrepancies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and that the offence under Section 411 I.P.C. is not at all attracted. Alternatively, he submitted that the revision petitioner is a young boy of 19 years as on the date of offence and he is not a habitual offender and due to passion of car, he committed this act and that he was in jail for 31 days during trial of this case and the same may be treated as punishment considering the age and gravity of offence.
On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 10 and Exs.P.1 to P.16 would clinchingly show that the revision petitioner was found in possession of stolen property and that the courts below rightly convicted him and that there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of both the courts.
With regard to sentence, he submitted that he would leave the matter to the discretion of the court and according to instructions he received, the revision petitioner is not involved in any other criminal cases of that police station.
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, on 13/14-11-2002, car belonging to P.W.1 was stolen from his house and that the same was recovered from the possession of the accused. To prove the same, ten witnesses are examined. P.W.1 is the de facto complainant and owner of the car, P.W.2 is his servant, P.Ws.4 and 5 are the persons in whose presence the accused was arrested when the car was seized. From the evidence of P.W.1, it is clear that he parked M.O.3 car on the intervening night of 13/14-11-2002. His evidence is supported and corroborated with the evidence of P.W.3. From the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5, it is clear that police arrested the accused in their presence and M.Os.1 to 3 were recovered from the possession of the accused. Though these two witnesses are cross-examined on behalf of accused, nothing could be elicited from them to discredit their testimony. Averments of mediator’s report, drafted at the time of arrest of the accused and seizure of the car, supported the version of P.ws.4 and 5 and there are absolutely no contradictions or omissions in the evidence of these two witnesses.
Considering the evidence of these witnesses, besides the official witnesses and the Finger Print Expert, the Sub-Inspector of Police, trial court found that offence of Section 411 is duly proved against the revision petitioner. Out of ten witnesses, only one witness has not supported the prosecution case i.e., P.W.10 and he is cross-examined on behalf of prosecution. So, the evidence of other witnesses is clinching and supporting with each other and the trial court rightly accepted them for convicting the revision petitioner.
I do not find any wrong appreciation of evidence either by trial court or by appellate court. Therefore, I am of the view that there are no grounds to interfere with the conviction recorded by trial court and upheld by the appellate court against the revision petitioner.
Now coming to the sentence part, trial court imposed one year imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/- and the same is confirmed by the appellate court.
As seen from the Charge Sheet and other material papers, the revision petitioner was 19 years old as on the date of offence. Admittedly, the offence was in the year 2002 i.e., nearly 12 years back. There is no allegation in the charge sheet or in the evidence of police officials that petitioner is a habitual offender nor he is involved in any other criminal cases of this nature at any point of time.
Now, according to the advocate for petitioner, subsequent to this case also, revision petitioner is not involved in any other criminal cases and he is not a habitual offender and only due to passion, he committed this act. He further submitted that he was in jail for 31 days and suffered mental agony all these years because of this criminal case.
Considering the plea of the accused, nature of offence, age of the revision petitioner and also the fact that incident was about 12 years back, I feel that the request of the advocate for petitioner to treat the period already undergone as punishment for the offence under Section 411 I.P.C. can be accepted.
For the above reasons, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the conviction but the sentence is modified from one year imprisonment to the period already undergone besides fine amount already paid.
As a sequel to the disposal of this Criminal Revision Case, the Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending, shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dated 17-7-2014.
Dvs.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.411 OF 2007 Dated 17-7-2014 Dvs