Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
A.Ramakrishna, vs The State Of A.P., Rep By Pp., on 13 February, 2020
Author: C. Praveen Kumar
Bench: C.Praveen Kumar
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR
Crl.R.C. No. 169 of 2008
O R D E R:-
Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.
The present Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 read with 401 Cr.P.C. assailing the conviction and sentence imposed by lower appellate Court in Crl.A. No. 229 of 2006, dated 30.01.2008, on the file of the Court of II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Amalapuram, East Godavari District confirming the judgment dated 25.09.2006 in C.C.No. 311 of 2003 on the file of the Court of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kothapeta.
The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 12.09.2002 a theft took place in the house of PW1, wherein a silver plate weighing 70 tulas was stolen and a case in Cr.No.122 of 2002 was registered at kothapeta police station. On 20.02.2003, another theft took place in the house of PW2 wherein gold and silver articles were stolen. On a report given by PW2, a case in crime No.17 of 2003 was registered at Kothapeta police station. During the course of investigation, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Ravulapalem arrested the accused, who, on 11.06.2003, led him to the shop of PW7 from where the police seized theft articles in the presence of mediators, and therefore, the accused was found to be in possession of stolen items. After completing the investigation, 2 CPK,J CrlRC_169_2008 charge sheet was filed which was taken on file as C.C.No. 311 of 2003.
On appearance, copies of documents as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C., came to be furnished, and thereafter, the accused was examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C. to which he denied the offence and claimed to be tried.
In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P1 to Ex.P16 and M.Os.1 to 13. After the closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, to which he denied, but however, did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence.
Relying upon the evidence of PWs. 4 and 6, the trial Court convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 411 IPC and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year, and in appeal, the same were confirmed.
The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly submits that the evidence of PWs.4 and 6 is inconsistent with each other with regard to the arrest of the accused and seizure of material objects.
The same is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor. It is to be noted that though crime was registered against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 454 and 380 IPC, the trial Court convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 411 IPC. To establish the above charge, PW4, a Village Assistant, Palivela, was examined as an independent 3 CPK,J CrlRC_169_2008 mediator, stated in his evidence that pursuant to the arrest the accused admitted the offence and led them to different places where articles were pledged. Initially the accused led them to the shop of PW7 from where the police recovered some gold and silver articles. The evidence of PW4 gets corroboration from the evidence of PW7. The fact that he had pledged the articles, gets support from Exs.P15 and 16 - receipts of pledged articles. Further PW8 - Circle Inspector of Police, in his evidence categorically states that he seized articles from the shop of PW7 under Exs.P15 and P16. The evidence of PWs.4, 7 and 8 categorically establish that it was the accused who pledged gold and silver articles at the shop of PW7 which were identified by PWs.1 and 2.
At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is any amount of doubt that these articles were seized on 11.06.2003. According to the counsel, when the accused was arrested on 11.06.2003 at 03:00 a.m., the question of seizing the articles at 08:00 a.m. on the very same day does not arise. In my view the same appears to be incorrect for the reason that when the evidence of PW4 clearly shows that the accused was apprehended on 11.06.2003 at 08:00 a.m. only and not at 03:00 a.m. Having regard to the above, this Court is of the opinion that the conviction imposed by the trial Court warrants no interference. However, having regard to the fact that the incident is of the year 2002 and taking into consideration the lapse of time, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year is hereby reduced to three 4 CPK,J CrlRC_169_2008 months and the period of sentence already undergone by the accused shall be given set off.
With the above modification of the impugned judgement, the Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed.
As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
________________________ C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J 13.02.2020 bcj