Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: section 338 in Marella Koteswara Rao, vs The State Of Ap Rep By Its Pp Hyd., on 14 August, 2025Matching Fragments
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. MD SALEEM Counsel for the Respondent:
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The court made the following ORDER:
1. The present Criminal Revision Case, filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity, 'Cr.P.C.'), is preferred by the petitioner/accused, challenging the judgment dated 13.10.2009 passed in Crl.A.No.344 of 2008 by the learned VIII Additional District Judge, Guntur (for short, the '1st Appellate Court'). By the said judgment, the 1st Appellate Court partly allowed the appeal and modified the conviction recorded by the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet (for short, the 'Trial Court') in C.C.No.149 of 2008 dated 05.11.2008. Specifically, the conviction for the offence under Section 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC') was altered to one under Section 337 IPC.
4. The learned Trial Court took cognizance under Sections 337 and 338 of the IPC against the accused. Upon the accused's appearance, copies of relevant documents were provided as required under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C. The accused was then examined under Section 251 of the Cr.P.C., where the substance of the accusation was explained to him in Telugu regarding the offences under Sections 337 and 338 of the IPC. The accused denied the allegations and pleaded not guilty, claiming his innocence.
5. During the course of the trial, on behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 4 and documents Exs.P1 to P6 were marked. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating evidence deposed by prosecution witnesses to the accused in Telugu, on that the accused denied the incriminating evidence and stated that he had no defence evidence. Hence, the defence evidence was closed.
6. The Trial Court on hearing both sides and on considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under section 338 of IPC as stated supra vide its judgment, dated 05.11.2008 in C.C.No.149 of 2008 and convicted the petitioner/accused and sentenced him to suffer Simple Imprisonment for four (04) months for the offence under Section 338 of IPC and also to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for one month.
7. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court, the unsuccessful accused filed Criminal Appeal No.344 of 2008 before the 1 st Appellate Court. The 1st Appellate Court partly allowed the appeal, modifying the conviction for the offence under Section 338 of the IPC in C.C.No.149 of 2008 to Section 337 of the IPC. However, the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the Trial Court for the offence under Section 338 of the IPC was upheld for the offence under Section 337 of the IPC. Dissatisfied with the same, the appellant has filed the present Criminal Revision Case, challenging the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No.344 of 2008.