Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J
Darapu Veerababu @ Srinu, S/o. Appanna – Appellant
Versus
State of A.P., Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad – Respondent
ORDER :
The Revision Petition has been filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘the Cr.P.C.,’) against the judgment in Crl.A.No.49 of 2010 passed by the learned II Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Srikakulam confirming the conviction against Revisionist for the offence under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘the I.P.C’) while reducing the simple imprisonment from six months to one month against the judgment passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class (Prohibition and Excise), Srikakulam in C.C.No.343 of 2008 whereunder the Revisionist was convicted for the offence under Section 411 of ‘the I.P.C’ and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six month.
2. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.
3. Sri Deepak Misra, learned Counsel for the Revisionist argued that there was no direct evidence about the identity of the Revisionist as thief; there was no recovery of goods from the Revisionist; evidence of P.W.5 was inconsistent and P.W.3 did not support the version of the prosecution in total. Ther
Possession of stolen property shortly after theft creates a presumption of guilt, requiring the accused to explain such possession.
The court affirmed that minor discrepancies in evidence do not invalidate a conviction under Section 498-A IPC, emphasizing the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction.
The High Court's revisional jurisdiction is limited and not to be exercised lightly; it will not intervene unless clear errors in the law or significant injustices are evident.
The court confirmed the conviction for negligence under Section 304-A IPC but reduced the sentence from one year rigorous imprisonment to three months simple imprisonment due to the Revisionist's age....
Possession of stolen property requires knowledge of its stolen nature; conviction upheld with modified sentence to fine.
The court upheld the conviction for possession of stolen property, affirming the sufficiency of evidence while modifying the sentence to a fine of Rs.9,000.
The trial court's acquittal based on technicalities disregarded substantial eyewitness and medical evidence, necessitating a retrial.
Revisional jurisdiction should be exercised cautiously, limiting interference to exceptional cases only where manifest injustice or procedural errors exist, emphasizing the importance of the trial co....
The court affirmed the conviction under Section 411 IPC, establishing that possession of stolen property with knowledge constitutes guilt, and revisional powers do not allow re-examination of evidenc....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
