Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : CH.S.R.K.PRASAD
R.Laxman - Appellant
Versus
State OF A.P. - Respondent
Decided On : 08-05-03
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 276 and 277 – Indian Penal Code Section 395 – Appellant – Rigorous imprisonment – Simple imprisonment – Criminal appeals arise against the judgment in Sessions case rendered by Assistant sessions Judge, Jagtial convicting Al, A2 and A4 and sentencing them to rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine in default simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 395 IPC case of the prosecution is that PW1- collected due amount Grain Market of Metpally towards turmeric, which he sold earlier and returned to his house in Raghavapet by evening. He kept the amount in his house in almirah and locked it. He slept with his family members in the front Varandha, while his son slept in the rear yard main doors were only bolted from out side. At about mid-night some unknown offenders entered into Varandha of his house by scaling over the front compound wall woke him up and threatened by saying annalu and questioned him ate to why he was selling wine –Held, Procedure adopted by the Sessions Court and the identification conducted does not inspire confidence to believe it. Taking up trial even in the absence of the accused and even without his production shall be deprecated unless his presence is dispensed with as per Section 317 of Cr. P. C. procedure to be adopted regarding the conduction of trial and recording of evidence is mentioned under section 276 of Cr. P. C. procedure that has to be followed and the method of recording that has to be adopted in sessions cases has also been adumbrated in sections 276 and 277 of Cr. P. C. It is also stated under Section 278 of Cr. P. C. that when the evidence of each witness under section 275 or 276 is completed it shall be read over to him in the presence of the accused, if in attendance, or of his pleader, if he appears through pleader, and shall, if necessary, be corrected is clear that in a criminal trial the evidence has to be recorded in the presence of the accused or in the presence of the Counsel when the presence of the accused is dispensed with. It is a case of non-production of witness by the Jail authorities Court hastily proceeded with the examination of the witnesses and the recording of the evidence also affects the trial – Criminal appeals are allowed.
( 1 ) THESE three criminal appeals arise against the judgment in Sessions case No. 452/1998 rendered by Assistant sessions Judge, Jagtial on 16-4-1999 convicting Al, A2 and A4 and sentencing them to rigorous imprisonment for 8 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 50. 00 in default simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 395 IPC.
( 2 ) THE case of the prosecution is that on 13-4-1997, PW1- Gurijala Chinnarajam went to Metpally, collected due amount of rs. 20,000/- from Grain Market of Metpally towards turmeric, which he sold earlier and returned to his house in Raghavapet by evening. He kept the amount in his house in almirah and locked it. He slept with his family members in the front Varandha, while his son slept in the rear yard. The main doors were only bolted from out side. At about mid-night some unknown offenders entered into Varandha of his house by scaling over the front compound wall. They woke him up and threatened by saying annalu and questioned him ate to why he was selling wine. They took him into the house, got opened the doors and searched the house and got opened almirah and stole rs. 20,000/- from it and took him up to 200 yards towards Mallapur side on pretext of meeting dalam leader. On 14-4-1997 at 4. p. m. a report was received from PW1, which was registered by the S. H. O. P. S. Mallapur. On the same day PW4 took up investigation of the case. On 6-6-1997 Al to a5 were arrested at Yousufnagar cross roads and Gundampally Village and were interrogated and stolen cash of Rs. 15,000. 00 was recovered. Rs. 10,000. 00 was recovered from A2 and Rs. 5,000. 00 was recovered from a5. P. W. 5 conducted test identification parade on Al to A5 on 5-7-1997 at District jail, Karimnagar where PW1 identified Al to a5. Thereafter accused have been charge- sheeted for the offence under Section 395 ipc. The accused pleaded not guilty for the charge under Section 395 IPC. Prosecution in all examined nine witnesses.
( 3 ) PW1 is the complainant who spoke about the incident, which occurred during the summer of 1997 around midnight. Five dacoits entered forcibly into his house by jumping over the compound wall claiming to be the extremists and taken away cash of Rs. 20,000. 00 from his house, which was kept in almirah. He also deposes that accused searched for whisky bottle and picked up the money from the almirah. He further stated that his wife saw the culprits taking the money. The culprits did not touch the jewellery of his wife. He also speaks about his participation in the test identification parade and identifying Al to a5. He states that A3 now present in the Court was among the culprits who committed the offence. He also identified a2 present in the Court who committed the offence, and whom he identified in the test identification parade conducted at the district Jail, Karimnagar.
( 4 ) PW2 is the wife of PW1. She deposes that five culprits armed with axes and sticks forcibly entered into their house and snatched away Rs. 20,000. 00 kept in the almirah. Her husband lodged police complaint. Police recorded her statement. She also deposes that she did not see the culprits.
( 5 ) PW3 deposes that after the culprits left the house he woke up by his parents.
( 6 ) PW4 deposes that on 14-4-1997 at 4 p. m. PW1 came to Police Station and presented a report-Ex. PI. Sri G. Hariprasad, the Sub-Inspector of Police registered the crime and issued printed FIR-Ex. P2. PW4 also deposes that he visited scene of offence on 14-4-1997 at about 5. 30 p. m. Then he examined PWs. l to 3 and conducted panchanama Ex. P3 and drew a rough sketch for the scene under Ex. P4. According to him on 6-6-1997 at 3. 30 p. m. he arrested al and A2 at Yousufnagar Cross road and interrogated them in the presence of panch witnesses Thotal Chinnaiah Cinna Reddy and Gurijala Rajam covered by Ex. PS relating to Al and Ex. P6 relating to A2.
( 7 ) PW5 speaks about conduction of test identification parade choosing suspects and
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.