Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1261 (AP)

M. Pentu v. State OF A. P. Rep by its P. P.

2004-10-29

body2004
( 1 ) A3 and A4 preferred Criminal Appeal No. 1217 of 1999 as against the judgment dated 09-06-1999 in Sessions Case No. 5 of 1996 on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge at Warangal. Whereas, A2 and A3 preferred Criminal Appeal No. 1218 of 1999 as against the judgment dated 09-06-1999 in Sessions Case No. 12 of 1997 on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge at Warangal. As the appellants in both the criminal appeals are one and the same, both the matter are being disposed of by a common judgment. ( 2 ) THE appellants and two others were charged for the offence under Section 395 IPC in Sessions Case No. 5 of 1996 and were convicted under Section 412 IPC. The case of the prosecution is that on the intervening night of 30-4-1995/01-05-1995 at about 2 hours, at Pragathi Industrial Area in the outskirts of Sthambhampalli village, the accused gained entrance into the house of L. W. 1-Md. Sharif by removing the window and threatened the inmates with dire consequences at the point of deadly weapons and decamped with gold and silver ornaments and net cash, all worth Rs. 9,000/ -. On the complaint of L. W. 1-Md. Sharif before the Police, Geesgonda, L. W. 12-S. I. of Police of Geesgonda registered a case in Cr. No. 45 of 1995 for the offence under Section 395 IPC and investigated into the case. During the course of investigation, the scene of offence was visited, a panchanama was drafted in the presence of panchas, witnesses were examined and the scene of offence sketch was drafted. The accused were arrested on 07-09-1995 and in the presence of mediators they were interrogated and from their possession the valuables involved in this offence were seized and later the accused were subjected to test identification parade on 21-10-1995. The test identification of properties was held wherein the witnesses identified their respective properties. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed. ( 3 ) ON behalf of the prosecution, P. Ws. 1 to 10 were examined and Exs. P1 to P8 and M. Os. 1 to 4 were marked. On behalf of accused, D. W. 1 was examined and Exs. D1 to D4 were marked. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed. ( 3 ) ON behalf of the prosecution, P. Ws. 1 to 10 were examined and Exs. P1 to P8 and M. Os. 1 to 4 were marked. On behalf of accused, D. W. 1 was examined and Exs. D1 to D4 were marked. P. W. 1-the de facto complainant deposed that on the said night when all the family members were sleeping inside the house, about eight culprits gained entrance into his house by breaking open the grills of a window on the rear side of the house. On hearing the sound, they woke up. The culprits armed with sticks and knives threatened them with dire consequences The culprits seized one pearl necklace, a pair of god ear studs and wristwatch from his mother. They also seized a pair of gold ear studs, silver necklace from his wife. Then the culprits opened the almyrah and robbed five gold rings belonging to his children, cash of Rs. 2000/- and silver items. They spent about one hour in their house. On the next day morning he gave report Ex. P1 to the police. This witness also deposed about his identification of A1 and A2 and also M. O. 1. P. W. 2 is the wife of P. W. 1. , who had corroborated P. W. 1 in all material particulars. P. W. 3 is the witness in relation to the observation of scene of offence. Ex. P2 is the observation panchanama. ( 4 ) P. W. 4 is the then Sub-Inspector of Police, who had deposed about the details of the investigation. P. W. 5 is the panch witness. P. W. 6-the learned Magistrate, who conducted test identification parade on A1 to A4, deposed that P. W. 1 identified A1 and A2 in the test identification parade conducted by him. Ex. P5 is the test identification parade proceedings. P. W. 7 is the panch witness in relation to the confession and recovery panchanama. P. W. 8 is another panch witness. P. W. 9 is the Circle Inspector of Police, who deposed about the other details of investigation. The learned Judge after recording the findings and on appreciation of evidence, ultimately came to the conclusion that A1 and A2 are guilty for the offence under Section 395 IPC and A3 and A4 are guilty for the offence under Section 412 IPC. P. W. 9 is the Circle Inspector of Police, who deposed about the other details of investigation. The learned Judge after recording the findings and on appreciation of evidence, ultimately came to the conclusion that A1 and A2 are guilty for the offence under Section 395 IPC and A3 and A4 are guilty for the offence under Section 412 IPC. In the light of the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 5, Ex. P5-property identification panchanama and also Ex. P7- test identification parade proceedings, the conviction recorded by the learned Judge as against the appellants cannot be said to be unjustified. But, however, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the appellants had already suffered imprisonment for about one and half years. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel also placed reliance on a decision in Ram Kalyan v. State of Rajasthan (2000 Crl. L. J. 4670) wherein it was held that the alleged offence under Section 411 IPC had taken place almost 19 years back and the accused-appellant is only 27-28 years of age on the date of the alleged offence and had already suffered imprisonment for a period of about 9 months and was granted exemption from surrendering by order of Court and the sentence of rigorous imprisonment was reduced to the period already undergone. Taking the over all facts and circumstances of the case into consideration, this Court is of the considered opinion that it would be just to impose the sentence of imprisonment as against the appellants for the period, which they have already undergone in this regard. Subject to the above modification, in all other particulars, the findings recorded by the Court below are hereby confirmed. The criminal appeal shall stand dismissed subject to the above modification of sentence of imprisonment. ( 6 ) THE Case of the prosecution is that the accused along with others committed dacoity in the houses of L. W. 6-Chinthalapani Mahender Reddy, L. W. 7-Podisetti Venkataiah, L. W. 9-Chintyala Lingaiah, L. W. 1-Chintalapani Ratnakar Reddy and L. W. 13-Chityala Venkataiah at Devanur village on the intervening night of 6/7-4-1995, beat L. W. 1 and L. W. 2 Chintalapani Neeraja and decamped with gold jewellery and valuables. On the complaint of L. W. 1, L. W. 21- A. S. I. of Police, Dharmasagar, registered a case in Crime No. 25 of 1995 for the offence under Section 395 IPC and investigated into. During the course of investigation, the injured L. Ws. 1 and 2 were referred to hospital, the witnesses were examined and their statements were recorded, the scene of incident was visited and its panchanama was conducted in the presence of mediators. On 7-9-1995, the accused were arrested and on interrogation, in the presence of the mediators, the stolen property was recovered from them under a cover of panchanama. After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed. ( 7 ) ON behalf of the prosecution, P. Ws. 1 to 15 were examined and Exs. P1 to P6 and M. Os. 1 to 9 were marked. On behalf of the accused, D. W. 1 was examined and Exs. D1 to D4 were marked. On appreciation of evidence, the learned Judge found A1 to A3 guilty of an offence punishable under Section 412 I. P. C. P. W. 1 deposed that on the mid night of 6-5-1995, serious of dacoities occurred in their houses wherein about 10 culprits armed with deadly weapons seized gold and silver properties from their houses and also beat some of the inmates of their houses. The culprits committed theft of one gold chain, two pairs of gold ear studs and one gold earring from his house. On the next day morning, L. W. 1 gave report to the police. P. W. 2 also deposed the same as that of P. W. 1. P. W. 3 and P. W. 4 deposed about the incident of dacoities. P. W. 5 also deposed about the dacoities committed by unknown culprits and his identification of M. O. 6. P. W. 6- the Civil Assistant Surgeon, M. G. M. Hospital, Warangal deposed that he had examined one Niraja and her husband Rathnakar Reddy, who were produced by the police, Dharmasagar Police Station and issued Exs. P1 and P2-wound certificates. P. W. 7 is the panch witness in relation to Ex. P3-the scene of offence panchanama conducted in the houses of P. Ws. 1 to 4 by the police. P. W. 8 also deposed about the series of dacoities. P1 and P2-wound certificates. P. W. 7 is the panch witness in relation to Ex. P3-the scene of offence panchanama conducted in the houses of P. Ws. 1 to 4 by the police. P. W. 8 also deposed about the series of dacoities. P. W. 9 is the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, P. W. 10 is the Circle Inspector of Police and P. W. 13 is also the Circle Inspector of Police and they are all the investigating officers. P. W. 11 is the panch witness for the confession and recovery panchanama Ex. P6. P. W. 12 is the other panch witness in relation to Ex. P6. P. W. 15 simply deposed that at about 2-30 A. M. in the night, the mother of P. W. 8 came to their house and informed about the dacoity and this witness also deposed about the injuries sustained by those persons. ( 8 ) ON appreciation of the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 15 and also the evidence of D. W. 1, the learned Judge recorded the findings and ultimately, in view of the recoveries of M. Os. 1 to 9 and the identification, arrived at a conclusion that A1 to A3 are guilty of an offence under Section 412 IPC. Inasmuch as the learned Judge recorded the findings in detail in the light of the recovery proceedings, this Court does not see any reason to disturb the said findings and the same are hereby confirmed. However, in view of the long lapse of time and also in the light of the ratio laid down in Ram Kalyan s case (1 supra) it would be just, if the sentence is imposed for the period already undergone by the appellants. It is brought to the notice of this Court that for about one and half years, the appellants had already suffered imprisonment. Hence, though the conviction as such is confirmed, the sentence is modified to the period already undergone by the appellants in this regard. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal shall stand dismissed subject to the above modification of sentence.