CRLA/855/2007 of Miriyala Sathish Kumar Vs The State of A.P. on 31 December 2013

JUDGMENT:

1. This appeal is filed by the appellant-A2 against the convictionand sentence imposed by the learned VI Additional Sessions Judge(FTC), Rajahmundry, in S.C.No.20 of 2006 vide judgment dated28.6.2007.

2. The case of the prosecution reads as follows:

On 14.5.2005 at about 14.00 hours, P.W.1 and the deceasedwent to Kirana Shop of P.W.16 and from there, they went toJaggampeta village. The deceased collected from P.Ws.17 to 19 anamount of Rs.5,65,000/-. P.W.1 and Ratnavathi and the deceased leftJaggampeta village in Maruthi car No.AP 5 AH 5825 at about 20.15hours to go to Peddapuram and A8, who knows about the collection ofdues from customers informed the same to A7 and A7 introduced A8 toA1 to A6 and hatched up a plan to commit theft of the collected cashfrom the deceased in any manner and A1 to A7 at the instigation of A8attempted to commit theft, but they failed to do so. On 14.4.2005, A8met A1 to A7 and planned to attack the deceased and steal the cash. Accordingly, A1 to A8 along with rods, sticks and knives proceededon an auto bearing No.AP 5V 3168 and AP 5 V 140, went toJaggampeta village and A3, A5, A7 and A8 went to Yeleswaram andshowed the Maruthi Zen and A3, A5 and A7 left A8 at Yeleswaram andreturned to Jaggampet and joined A1, A2, A4 and A6 and within ashort time P.W.1 along with deceased and Ratnavathi came toJaggampet village in the above said Maruthi Car and collected cashfrom P.Ws.17 to 19 and they were about to leave Jaggampet centre. A1 to A3 went away towards Peddapuram side in an auto of A5 inpursuance of their plan and at about 5 hours, P.W.1 and Ratnavathiand deceased left Jaggampeta centre in a car to go to Peddapuram and on seeing the same, A4 to A6 kept A7 at Jaggampeta centre towatch the movements of the police and when they reached outskirts ofSitharampuram village, A1 to A3 stopped their auto across the road tostop the car of P.W.1, tried to take away his car ahead and A2 and A3pelted stones on the front glass of the car and at the same time, A4 toA6 kept their auto at a distance and came there and pelted stones onthe rear side of the car and A1 stopped in front of the car and A3 brokethe glass of the driver side and A2 pulled the deceased from the carand took the iron rod from A3 beat, on the head of the deceased withthe iron rod and A3 brought a stick from the auto and beat on the headof the deceased and the deceased fell down on the road and whenP.W.1 tried to rescue the deceased, A6 threatened him with a knifeand stopped him and A1 snatched the dark green coloured cash bagcontaining cash of Rs.5,64,500/- from the deceased and A6 threatenedRatnavathi and pulled a plastic bag with clothes from her and gave it toA1 to A3 and A1 to A3 laid the iron rod, stick and two knives and asthere was mechanical defect to their auto, the accused fled away. Meanwhile, P.W.2 stopped his car at the scene of offence and shiftedthe deceased, P.W.1 and Ratnavathi to Peddapuram and renderedfirst aid to deceased and on his advice, they admitted the deceased inLife line hospital, Kakinada. P.Ws.32 and 33 on receiving telephonicinformation reached and registered the case and investigated into. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed.

3. The trial Court framed charges under Sections 396, 412 IPCagainst A1 to A7 and 396, 412 r/w 109 IPC against A8, read over andexplained to them, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to betried.

4. During the course of trial, P.Ws.1 to 33 were examined andExs.P1 to P31, Ex.X1, C1 to C3 and M.Os.1 to 11 were marked onbehalf of the prosecution. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf ofthe accused. Exs.D1 to D3 were marked on behalf of the accused.

5. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the trialCourt found A1 and A2 guilty for the offence under Section 411 IPC; A3 to A5 guilty for the offence under Sections 392 and 394 IPC.

Hence, the trial Court convicted and sentenced them as follows:

1) A1 and A2 are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period ofone year each for the offence under Section 411 IPC;one year each for the offence under Section 411 IPC;

2) A3 to A5 are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five yearseach and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- each in default to suffer simpleimprisonment for 15 days each for the offence under Section 392 IPC;each and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- each in default to suffer simpleimprisonment for 15 days each for the offence under Section 392 IPC;

3) A3 to A5 are further sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for fiveyears each and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- each in default to suffer simpleimprisonment for 15 days each for the offence under Section 394 IPC.years each and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- each in default to suffer simpleimprisonment for 15 days each for the offence under Section 394 IPC.

4) A8 is acquitted for the charges levelled against him.

5) A1 to A7 were acquitted for the offence under Sections 396 and 412IPC.IPC.

6. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed by the trialCourt against the appellant-A2 for the offence under Section 411 IPC,the present appeal is filed.

7. After arguing for some time, the learned Counsel for theappellant while confining his arguments with the regard to the quantumof sentence submitted that the appellant-A2 was in prison for a periodof nine months and therefore, a lenient view may be taken.

8. The material on record clearly establishes that A2 was found inpossession of the stolen property. In view of the consistent and cogentevidence on record establishing the guilt of the appellant-accused forthe offence under Section 411 IPC, this Court is not inclined tointerfere with the conviction recorded by the trial Court. But however,considering the submission made by the learned Counsel for theappellant-A2 that the appellant-accused was in prison for a period ofnine months, this Court is inclined to take a lenient view.

9. In the result, the conviction recorded by the learned VI AdditionalSessions Judge (FTC), Rajahmundry, against the appellant-A2 for theoffence under Section 411 IPC is confirmed. However, the sentence ofone year rigorous imprisonment imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is reduced to that of the period, which the appellant-A2 has already undergone.

10. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. Consequently, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall standclosed.

_________________

Justice Raja Elango

Dated: 31.12.2013nn

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.855 OF 2007

Nn

31.12.2013