Telangana High Court
Kyna Siddulu And 3 Others, vs The State Of A.P., Rep By Pp., on 14 July, 2022
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1697 of 2009
JUDGMENT:
1. The appellants/A1 to A4 were convicted for the offence under Section 355 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay Rs.500/-, in default, simple imprisonment for a period of one month and appellants/A1 to A3 are further convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months vide judgment in S.C.No.378 of 2006 dated 09.11.2009 passed by the V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, R.R.District, L.B.Nagar (for short 'the learned Sessions Judge'). Aggrieved by the same, present appeal is filed.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 22.12.2005 at about 5.30 p.m, the appellants herein wrongfully confined P.W.1 and tied her to electric pole, cut her tuft and also tonsured her head, as such, charges under Sections 342, 324, 354 and 504 of IPC were framed by the trial Court. However, the trial Court, after adducing evidence and having examined 2 P.Ws.1 to 8 and marking Exs.P1 to P11 convicted the appellants as stated above.
3. The accused were found not guilty for the offence under Sections 324 and 504 IPC.
4. P.W.1 stated that she is a coolie by profession and about two years prior to her evidence in the Court, while she was proceeding in front of A1, A1 caught hold of her and took her inside the house and made her to take bath with cold water and tied to an electric pole and tonsured. P.W.2, who is the daughter of P.W.1, P.W.3, who is sister in law of P.W.1 also stated the said fact of tying P.W.1 to the electric pole and tonsuring her hair. P.Ws.4, 5 and 6, who are village elders turned hostile to the prosecution case.
5. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that P.Ws.1 to 3 are close relatives and interested witnesses. Independent witnesses and village elders have not supported the prosecution, as such, basing on the evidence of interested witnesses, conviction cannot be sustained. Alternatively, he submits that since the incident happened 17 years ago and 3 the trial Court has acquitted the accused for the offence under Sections 324 and 504 of IPC, as such, lenient view may be taken.
6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that though the incident is of the year 2005, acts of these accused indicate that they were practicing black magic, they were correctly convicted by the trial Court.
7. As seen from the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 8, the allegation is that P.W.1 was tied to electric pole, however, there is no reason as to why she was tonsured.
8. By the time the police had reached the scene, certain hair was available at the scene and the rope with which P.W.1 was allegedly tied. P.W.7, the Doctor stated that she found small abrasions over the head and neck of P.W.1,which could, in all probability, the result of tonsuring the hair.
9. In the said circumstances, it cannot be said that P.W.1 was not tied to the police. The incident being occurred 17 years ago, since no reasons are given as to why the accused acted in such a manner, in the absence of any allegation 4 under Section 354 of IPC, this Court deems it proper to reduce the sentence already undergone.
10. In the result, the sentence of imprisonment under Sections 355, 325 and 342 of IPC imposed by the learned Sessions Judge are confirmed. However, the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone.
11. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 14.07.2022 kvs 5 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER Criminal Appeal No.1697 OF 2009 Date:14.07.2022 kvs