THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.779 AND 1481 OF 2009 AND 1405 OF 2010 24-04-2014 CRIMINAL APPEAL No.779 of 2009 BETWEEN:
Sukkur Ganga Raju …..Appellant/Accused AND State of A.P., Rep. By the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.
…..Respondent CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1481 of 2009 BETWEEN:
Sukkur Ganga Raju …..Appellant/Accused AND State of A.P., Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.
…..Respondent CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1405 of 2010 BETWEEN:
Sukkur Ganga Raju …..Appellant/Accused AND State of A.P., Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.
…..Respondent THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENT:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.779 AND 1481 OF 2009 AND 1405 OF 2010 COMMON JUDGMENT:
Since the above three appeals are arising out of the common Judgment and the appellant/accused is one and the same in all the three appeals, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common Judgment.
The Criminal Appeal No.779 of 2009 is filed by the learned counsel Sri A.Ravi Kiran Rao, representing the appellant/accused. The Criminal Appeal Nos.1481 of 2009 and 1405 of 2010 are filed through legal aid counsel Sri A.Yadagiri Reddy and Smt D.S.Laxmi respectively representing the appellant/accused. All the three appeals are filed challenging the Judgment dated 23.09.2008 passed in S.C.No.105 of 2008 by the Hon’ble Assistant Sessions Judge, Nizamabad, at Armoor.
The case of the prosecution is as follows:
That P.W.1, complainant, and the accused are wife and husband, that they are living separately due to differences arose between them and that their son, P.W.2, is staying with the appellant/accused. It is alleged that the appellant/accused thrown her son, P.W.2, from Boregaon bridge and he sustained injuries. The boy was admitted in the Government Hospital, Nizamabad. On enquiry, P.W.1, complainant, came to know that her husband, appellant/accused with an intention to kill her son, thrown him from the bridge as the boy became an obstruction for the appellant/accused to go for second marriage. Basing on the complaint given by P.W.1, a case was registered and was investigated into. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant/accused for an offence under Section 307 IPC.
To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 10 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.6. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused.
On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the appellant/accused guilty for the offence under Section 307 IPC and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only), in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant/accused has preferred the present appeals.
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/accused and the learned Public Prosecutor, and perused the records.
After evaluating and examining the material available on record, and considering the respective submissions of the learned counsel for both the 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. The Judgment passed by the trial Court is in accordance with law and needs no interference.
At this stage, the learned counsel for the appellant/accused Sri V.Ravi Kiran Rao, confines his argument with regard to quantum of sentence, and submits that the appellant is aged 27 years at the time of commission of offence, and he is the only breadwinner to look after his family, and as such, lenient view may be taken.
Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant/accused Sri V.Ravi Kiran Rao, and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to take a lenient view while imposing sentence.
In the result, the conviction recorded by the trial Court against the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC is hereby confirmed. However, the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the trial Court is modified and reduced to the period, which the appellant/accused has already undergone. The fine amount and default condition are not interfered with.
The criminal appeals are accordingly partly allowed. Consequently, the miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in the appeals, shall stand closed.
JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO 24.04.2014 pln