Telangana High Court
CRLRC/1528/2006 of Mohd.Baba, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, on 31 December 2013
SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1528 of 2006 JUDGMENT: This revision is preferred against judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 103 of 2006, dated 04.09.2006, on the file of the Special Judge for Trial of Offences under SC/ST (POA) Act – cum – V Additional
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1528 of 2006
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGMENT:
This revision is preferred against judgment in CriminalAppeal No. 103 of 2006, dated 04.09.2006, on the file of theSpecial Judge for Trial of Offences under SC/ST (POA) Act –cum – V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Medak atSangareddy, whereunder the learned Sessions Judge confirmedthe conviction and sentence imposed against the revisionpetitioner for an offence under Section 324 IPC in SessionsCase No. 241 of 2003, on the file of the Assistant SessionsJudge, Sangareddy.
2. Heard both sides.
3. Charge sheet is filed against the revision petitioner andtwo others for offence under Section 307 read with 34 IPC. But,on appreciation of evidence, the learned trial Judge found thatthe offence under Section 324 IPC is only made out and thatprosecution could not prove the offence under Section 307 IPC.
4. Considering the evidence, the learned trial Judgeconvicted the revision petitioner herein and two others for theoffence under Section 324 IPC and sentenced them to sufferrigorous imprisonment for one year each and to pay a fine ofRs.2,000/- each. A-3 preferred the appeal to the AppellateCourt and the learned Sessions Judge confirmed the convictionof the trial Court and dismissed the appeal.
5. Now, it is represented that the revision petitioner was in jail for about one month and he had paid fine amount also. It isrepresented that the injured persons are also butchers and theyhave side by side shops and the alleged incident took place inthe year 2003. Both the Courts on evidence concurrently heldthat the revision petitioner has committed the offence underSection 324 IPC. This Court is not inclined to interfere with thefindings of the Court below with regard to the conviction. But,with regard to the sentence, as the revision petitioner isconvicted for the offence under Section 324 IPC only and due topassage of time of 10 years, I feel that the sentence alreadyundergone by the revision petitioner with the fine already paidwould meet the ends of justice.
6. Therefore, the sentence of imprisonment is modified to theperiod of imprisonment already undergone by the petitioner,confirming the fine imposed by the Courts below.
7. With the above modification of sentence the CriminalRevision Case is dismissed.
8. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, filed in thisrevision, shall stand closed.
___________________________
JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR
31-12-2013vhb
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR
vhb
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1528 of 2006
Date : 31-12-2013