SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2019 Supreme(Telangana) 352

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN, A. ABHISHEK REDDY, JJ.
Polepaka Praveen @ Pawan – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana, rep. by its Public Prosecutor – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.685 of 2019 and Referred Trial No.1 of 2019
Decided On : 12-11-2019

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Dominic Fernandes
For the respondent: Mr. C. Pratap Reddy, Public Prosecutor Amicus Curiae : Mr. T. Niranjan Reddy, Senior Counsel

Point of Law :
it may be beneficial for the criminal justice system to select the middle path between life and death, and to incarcerate the accused either for thirty years without parole, or for the rest of his life without remission. By selecting such a middle path, the criminal justice system acknowledges both the significance of a life, and simultaneously protects the society from volatile and dangerous persons. Moreover, it gives a chance to the society and the State to try to reform an accused to the best of the ability of the society, and the State. Neither the society, nor the State should readily admit that it has failed to reform a person

Headnote:

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Section 5(i) r/w 6 - Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 302, 449, 376-AB, 363, 379 - Offence of Murder - Death sentence - (L.W. 3), his wife, (P.W. 2) along with their nine month old daughter visited his in-laws place - After dropping his wife and daughter off, in the morning (L.W. 3) left for Hyderabad - around 11:30 p.m., all the family members of (P.W. 2) including her father (L.W. 4), and brothers, (P.W. 1), and (L.W. 6), along with the deceased child, and the tenants of the family, (P.W. 8) and (L.W. 15), after closing the doors, went to the terrace of the house to sleep. Around 1:30 a.m., (P.W. 2) woke up, and found her daughter, who was sleeping by her side, missing. She not only woke up all her family members, but also woke up the tenants - Said tenants also found their mobile phones missing. Immediately, the maternal uncle of the deceased child (P.W. 1) informed the Police Control Room about his missing niece. During the course of search (P.W. 1) found one person carrying an infant, wrapped in a towel, on his shoulder, in the lane between Congress Bhavan and Budha Bhavan. When (P.W. 1) intercepted him, the person dropped the infant on the ground, and tried to escape -

Finding of the Court:

State should be to recondition the psychology of an accused, and to make him a productive member of the society at large. Even while a prisoner is incarcerated, he can be reformed to the extent that he can be employed within the jail administration, and that he becomes a role model for the other under-trial convicted prisoners, as a person who has taken on a new avatar - Middle path also permits the court to balance the twin aspects of Article 21 of the Constitution of India; while it limits the personal liberty of the accused, it does not deprive the accused of his life - Such a term of punishment would, indeed, be in consonance with Article 21 of the Constitution of India — an Article which has been held to be the heart and sole of the Constitution of India - Court upholds the conviction of the appellant for offences under Sections 302, 449, 376A, 376AB, 363, 379 of IPC, and under Sections 5(i) r/w Section 6 and 5(m) r/w Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 but reduces the sentence for the offence under Section 302 IPC from one of capital punishment to life sentence with the rider that the appellant shall not be granted any remission and shall not be released till his last breath - Fine amount imposed for the offence under Section 302 IPC is hereby confirmed - Other sentences imposed by the learned trial court for the other offences mentioned hereinabove are also confirmed - Sentences shall run concurrently -

Result: Criminal Appeal is partly allowed

JUDGMENT :

Raghvendra Singh Chauhan, J.

1. Both these cases, namely Criminal Appeal No.685 of 2019, filed by Polepaka Praveen @ Pawan, the accused, and reference proceedings in R.T. No. 1 of 2019 for confirmation of the death sentence, emanate from the same impugned judgment, namely judgment dated 08.08.2019, passed by the Special Judge for Trial of Cases under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act-cum-I Additional Sessions Judge at Wanaparthy, in Special Sessions Case No. 95 of 2019. By the said judgment, the learned trial court has convicted and sentenced the appellant as under:

Offence convicted for

Sentence imposed

Section 302 IPC

Death sentence, and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, and suffer simple imprisonment for three months in default thereof.

Section 449 IPC

Undergo imprisonment for life, to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, and to suffer simple imprisonment for three months in default thereof.

Section 376-A IPC

Undergo rigorous imprisonment for twenty years.

Section 376-AB IPC

Undergo rigorous imprisonment for twenty years, to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, and to suffer simple imprisonment for three months in default thereof.

Section 363 IPC

Undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years, to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and to suffer simple imprisonment for three months in default thereof.

Section 379 IPC

Undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years.

Section 5(i) r/w 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012

Undergo imprisonment for life, to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, and to suffer simple imprisonment for three months in default thereof.

 

Section 5(m) r/w 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012

Undergo imprisonment for life, to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, and to suffer simple imprisonment for three months in default thereof.

2. All the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. Since both the criminal appeal and the referred trial arise out of the same judgment, they are being heard together, and are being decided by this common judgment.

3. Briefly the facts of the case are that on 17.06.2019, K. Jangaiah (L.W. 3), his wife, K. Rachana (P.W. 2) along with their nine month old daughter (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased child’) visited his in-laws place at Kumarpally, Hanamkonda. After dropping his wife and daughter off, in the morning of 18.06.2019, K. Jangaiah (L.W. 3) left for Hyderabad. On 18.06.2019, around 11:30 p.m., all the family members of K. Rachana (P.W. 2) including her father, J. Yadagiri (L.W. 4), and brothers, J. Bharath Kumar (P.W. 1), and J. Narsimha Raju @ Raju (L.W. 6), along with the deceased child, and the tenants of the family, namely E. Anusha (P.W. 8) and E. Mounika (L.W. 15), after closing the doors, went to the terrace of the house to sleep. Around 1:30 a.m., K. Rachana (P.W. 2) woke up, and found her daughter, who was sleeping by her side, missing. She not only woke up all her family members, but also woke up the tenants. The said tenants also found their mobile phones missing. Immediately, the maternal uncle of the deceased child, J. Bharath Kumar (P.W. 1) informed the Police Control Room about his missing niece. During the course of search, J. Bharath Kumar (P.W. 1) found one person carrying an infant, wrapped in a towel, on his shoulder, in the lane between Congress Bhavan and Budha Bhavan. When J. Bharath Kumar (P.W. 1) intercepted him, the person dropped the infant on the ground, and tried to escape. However, J. Bharath Kumar (P.W. 1) managed to catch hold of the person. On being questioned, the person revealed his name as Praveen. Furthermore, J. Bharath Kumar (P.W. 1) discovered that the baby dropped on the ground, by the accused, is none other than his niece. Meanwhile, his friends, and his bro

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top