Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The State Of A.P., Rep. By The P.P. vs P.Chandrasekhar Reddy on 18 September, 2019
Author: C. Praveen Kumar
Bench: C.Praveen Kumar, M.Satyanarayana Murthy
1
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 492 of 2015
JUDGMENT:(Per Hon'ble The Acting Chief Justice C. Praveen Kumar) The present appeal, under Section 377(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed by the State, against the judgment dated 18.12.2012 passed in Sessions Case No.566 of 2012 by the VI Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Anantapur at Gooty, on the ground that the sentence imposed upon the respondent-accused is inadequate and as such seeks enhancement of sentence to imprisonment for life.
2. As seen from the record, the sole accused was tried for the offences punishable under Sections 447 and 302 IPC. Vide Judgement impugned, the learned Sessions Judge, while acquitting the accused for the offence punishable under section 302 I.P.C., convicted him for the offences punishable under sections 447 and 326 I.P.C, and sentenced the accused to undergo imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 447 I.P.C. and for a period of three years and pay a fine of Rs.500/- in 2 default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under section 326 I.P.C.
3. The learned Public Prosecutor, on verification of record, states that no appeal has been preferred by the accused questioning his conviction under Sections 326 and 447 I.P.C.
4. Having regard to the fact that the appeal vide Crl.A.No.171 of 2013 filed by the informant against the acquittal of the accused for the offence punishable under section 302 I.P.C. came to be withdrawn, the question of enhancing the sentence to imprisonment for life may not be proper.
5. Even on merits, a perusal of the judgment under appeal would show that the trial court, having regard to the manner in which the incident happened and taking into consideration the plea of the accused that he has no intention to kill the deceased, who is no other than his senior paternal uncle, and that the deceased succumbed to injuries due to his old age and that nobody is there to look after his wife and two sons, aged 8 and 4 years, took a lenient view and imposed sentence of three 3 months for the offence punishable under section 447 of I.P.C. and simple imprisonment for a period of three years for the offence punishable under section 326 IPC as stated above.
6. Viewed from any angle, the request of the State, for enhancement of sentence, at this length of time, cannot be accepted.
7. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
___________________________ C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, ACJ _________________________________ M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY,J Dt. 18-09-2019 RRR 4 HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 492 of 2015 DATE: 18.09.2019 5 RRR