Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Shanmugam Venkateswara Rao @ Ramana vs State Of A.P on 31 March, 2014
Î"
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.726 OF 2014
(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.1969 of 2014)
SHANMUGAM VENKATESWARA RAO @ RAMANA .....APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF A.P ....RESPONDENT
O R D E R
The petitioner was held guilty for offence punishable under section 354, 506 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code (for short the ’IPC’) and section 3(1) (x) and (xi) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short the ’Act’) and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment and fine under those offences by the Special Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry, Andhra Pradesh.
On appeal by the petitioner, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh set aside the conviction of the petitioner under all other offences but maintained the conviction of the petitioner for offence under section 323 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for one year and pay fine of Rs.500/-. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred this special leave petition.
By order dated 24.02.2014, we have issued notice limited to the question of sentence.
Delay condoned.
Leave granted limited to the question of sentence. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the occurrence had taken place a decade ago and the appellant is in custody since 26.11.2013 and hence the ends of justice shall be met by reducing the sentence to the period already undergone by him.
Despite service of notice, nobody has chosen to appear on behalf of the respondent.
Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the ends of justice shall be met in case the substantive sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant.
We order accordingly.
In the result, we partly allow this appeal, maintain the conviction under section 323 IPC and fine but reduce the sentence to the period already undergone by the appellant. .........................J [Chandramauli Kr. Prasad] ........................J [Pinaki Chandra Ghose] New Delhi;
March 31, 2014.
ITEM NO.9 COURT NO.7 SECTION II
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No(s).1969/2014 (From the judgement and order dated 10/07/2013 in CRLA No.444/2006, of The HIGH COURT OF A.P AT HYDERABAD) SHANMUGAM VENKATESWARA RAO @ RAMANA Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF A.P Respondent(s) (With appln(s) for bail,c/delay in filing SLP and office report) Date: 31/03/2014 This Petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE For Petitioner(s) Mr. Sarvpreet Singh, Adv.
Mr. Rajesh Inamdar, Adv.
For Mr. Rauf Rahim,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. D. Mahesh Babu,Adv. (Not Present) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned.
Leave granted limited to the question of sentence. This appeal is partly allowed in terms of the signed order.
| (Sanjay Kumar) Court Master| (Indu Satija) |
| |Assistant Registrar |
(Signed order is placed on the file)