Telangana High Court
The State Of Telangana vs Md.Imran Qureshi And 4 Others on 29 June, 2022
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.105 of 2020
JUDGMENT:
1. This Criminal Appeal is filed by the State for the reason of not finding the respondents 1 to 4/A1,A3,A5 and A6 guilty for the offences under Section 341 and 342 of IPC though the trial Court convicted the respondents for the offence under Section 395 of IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three years each and also to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to pay fine amount, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month each. The respondents were convicted by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Bodhan in SC No.88 of 2019 vide judgment dated 05.11.2019.
2. The appeal against said conviction under Section 395 of IPC by the respondents would lie to the District and Sessions Court, however, the prosecution has filed the present appeal before this court and the learned Public Prosecutor failed to provide the details of the appeals filed by the respondents herein.
2
3. Learned Assistant Sessions Judge found that ingredients of Sections 341 and 342 of IPC are included in the offences under Section 395 of IPC, for which reason, there was no necessity to convict the appellants under Sections 341 and 342 of IPC. For the sake of convenience, they are extracted hereunder:
"341. Punishment for wrongful restraint.--Whoever wrongfully restrains any person shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.
342. Punishment for wrongful confinement.--Whoever wrongfully confines any person shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both."
4. The acts of wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement are punishable under Sections 341 and 342 of IPC respectively. However, it is apparent from the evidence on record that the learned Assistant Sessions Judge has taken into consideration the acts of the accused involving wrongful confinement and restraint while the accused committed the offence of robbery. The finding of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge cannot be found fault with. Further, if the State is aggrieved by such acquittal, the same has to be made before the Sessions Court, where the 3 respondents filed appeals questioning their conviction. On both the grounds, the appeal filed by the State fails.
5. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 29.6.2022 kvs 4 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER Criminal Appeal No.105 of 2020 Date:29.06.2022 kvs 5