THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1815 of 2007 04-08-2014 BETWEEN:
Samrath Rao Bhosle …..Appellant AND The State of A.P., Represented by its Public Prosecutor High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh …..Respondent THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENT:
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1815 of 2007 JUDGMENT:
The Criminal Appeal is preferred by the appellant/A.5 challenging the Judgment, dated 12.02.2004, in S.C. No.980 of 2002 passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, whereby the learned Judge convicted A.6 and A.7 for the offence under Section 395 IPC and convicted A.2 to A.5 for the offence under Section 411 IPC and accordingly sentenced A.6 and A.7 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two months each and sentenced A.2 to A.5 to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month each.
The case of the prosecution is as follows:-
That on the intervening night of 20/21-03-2001 when the family members of P.W.1 were sleeping in their house, P.W.1 went outside his house for attending calls of nature, six unknown persons armed with axes, knifes and sticks went to them and represented themselves as ‘Annalu’ and asked for drinking water, and when P.W.1 went inside the house for bringing drinking water, five of them followed and one of them axed on his right leg and snatched away his gold chain. On hearing the noise, the other family members woke up, the offenders also snatched away the gold ornaments from the inmates of the house. They beat the father and younger brother of P.W.1 with sticks 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 8 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.13 and M.Os.1 to 4. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused.
On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court convicted.A.2 to A.5 guilty for the offence under Section 411 IPC and A.6 and A.7 for the offence under Section 395 IPC, and sentenced them as stated above. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant/A.5 has preferred the present criminal appeal.
Heard 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.5 confines his argument with regard to quantum of sentence, and submits that as the accused is the only bread winner in his family and he has to lookafter his wife and children, 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.5, 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/A.5 by the Court below for the offence under Section 411 IPC is hereby confirmed. However, the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the Court below against the appellant/A.5 is modified and reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant/A.5. The amount of fine and default condition, imposed by the Court below is not interfered with.
The Criminal Appeal is accordingly partly allowed. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, stand dismissed.
JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO 04.08.2014 pln