Telangana High Court
Telugu Ramesh Thokala Ramesh And ... vs The State Of A.P., Rep By P., on 16 March, 2022
Author: G.Sri Devi
Bench: G.Sri Devi
HONOURABLE JUSTICE G.SRI DEVI
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1639 of 2008
JUDGMENT:
The present Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C., aggrieved by the judgment dated 04.10.2008 passed in Crl. A. No. 79 of 2006. By the said judgment, the learned IV Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) at Mahabubnagar, dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence recorded against the revision petitioners-A1 & A2 in C.C. No.259 of 2005, dated 12.06.2006. By the said judgment, the petitioners-A1 & A2 were convicted for the offence under Section 379 I.P.C. and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month each.
The accusation against the petitioners-accused is that on the night of 10.03.2005, both the accused committed theft of Current Pump set of 5HP, make of Suguna Company, at Muthyalavanibavi apart from one Current Motor Pump set of 12.5 HP, make of Suguna Company, that were kept in front of the house of P.W.1-compalinant, worth of Rs.10,000/- and sold the same to P.Ws.2 and 6. Basing on the report of P.W.1 on 23.03.2005, P.W.5, the Sub-Inspector of Police, registered a case, commenced investigation, arrested the accused on 24.03.2005, recorded their confessional statements in the presence of mediators under Panchanama, recovered the theft 2 items from P.Ws.2 and 6, and after completion of investigation, laid the charge sheet against the accused for the said offence.
The learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence brought on record i.e., PWs. 1 to 6 and Exs.P.1 to P.9, found the accused guilty for the offence under Section 379 I.P.C. and sentenced them as indicated above. Aggrieved thereby, the accused preferred the appeal being Crl.A. No. 79 of 2006. The lower appellate Court, on re- appreciation of the entire evidence, dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
The lower appellate Court, at para No. 13, observed as under:-
"13. The evidence of PW-4, PW-5 is that PW-6 purchased the said electric motor pump from A-1 and A-2 and they went to PW-6 along with A-1 and A-2 and PW-4 and seized the motor pump from his shop under cover of panchanama. Though, no license to do the same business by PW-6 was not produced, it will not cause any prejudice to the case of the accused. The entire oral evidence available, supported the version of the prosecution. A-1 and A-2 were also identified by the panch witnesses PW-6. Therefore, it is concluded that the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. ....In this case, PW-6, who is the purchaser, identified the pump set that was purchased by him from A-1 and A-2. The other pump set was recovered from PW-2 in the presence of PW-4 and others at the instance of A-1 and A-2. It is the case of the prosecution that the motor pump sets were purchased by PW-2 and PW-6 from A-1 and A-2. In this case, there are no other claimants of the motor pump sets. A-1 and A-2 also in their 313 3 Cr.P.C. examination did not deny the offence nor state anything as to why they were implicated in this case. It is true that no test identification of motor pump sets was conducted, but the available evidence is clear regarding PW-1 loosing his pump sets and the same were recovered at the instance of A-1 and A-2 in the presence of mediators. Therefore, recovery of property is not in dispute and so also their identity."
As rightly observed by the trial Court, although P.W.2, one of the purchasers of stolen pump sets, did not support the prosecution case about his purchasing the stolen property, the evidence of P.W.4, who is one of the panch witnesses to the recovery of stolen properties, is consistent and convincing. Thus, the prosecution was able to establish the recovery of stolen properties at the instance of the accused from the possession of P.W.2 and P.W.6. Thus, as seen from the evidence brought on record, there are no contradictions or omissions in the evidence adduced by the prosecution. Therefore, the concurrent findings arrived at by both the courts below are on appreciation of entire evidence in proper perspective. Absolutely, no interference is warranted as far as conviction is concerned. But with regard to the sentence of imprisonment, the offence took place on 10.03.2005 and almost 17 years have passed, and during this period, the accused might have repented for what they did and that they had also undergone imprisonment for a period of 14 days during investigation, trial and after conviction. In these circumstances and in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate to reduce the sentence of imprisonment to the period already 4 undergone by the petitioners-accused, while maintaining the sentence of fine amount.
In the aforesaid circumstances, while maintaining the conviction recorded by the trial Court as affirmed by the lower appellate Court for the offence under Section 379 IPC, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of one year imposed on the petitioners- accused is modified to that of the period already undergone by them. The sentence of fine amount is not interfered with.
With the above modification in the sentence of imprisonment, the criminal revision case stands disposed of.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
____________________ JUSTICE G.SRI DEVI 16.03.2022 tsr 5 HONOURABLE JUSTICE G.SRI DEVI CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1639 of 2006 DATE: 16-03-2022