ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
Choppari Sambaiah S/o Narsaiah – Appellant
Versus
State of A. P. – Respondent
ORDER :
1. This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the conviction and sentence imposed by learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal, vide judgment, dated 16.10.2007, in Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 2007 confirming the order of learned II Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Warangal in S.C. No. 137 of 2006, dated 21.07.2006, wherein the revision petitioner/ accused was convicted for the offence under Section 354 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of five (05) years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-.
2. Heard Shri V.S.M. Pritham Kanumuri, learned Legal Aid Counsel for revision petitioner/accused and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State.
3. Learned counsel for revision petitioner submitted that the Appellate Court erred in reaching the conclusion in convicting the revision petitioner/ accused under Section 354 of IPC on the testimony of PW3. It is further submitted that there was a delay in lodging the complaint and that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was at variance and not supportive to the case of prosecution. It is contended that no reasons are forthcoming for rejection of evide
B.G. Goswami vs. Delhi Administration
Deo Narain Mandal vs. State of U.P. (2004) 7 SCC 257
Guru Basavraj vs. State of Karnataka
Jammel vs. State of U.P. (2010) 12 SCC 532
Kokaiyabai Yadav vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Raja Bala vs. State of Haryana
Ravada Sasikala vs. State of A.P. (2017) 4 SCC 546
Shyam Narain vs. State (NCT of Delhi)
The judgement underscores the reformative approach to sentencing, emphasizing that punishment should balance deterrence with rehabilitation, and highlights the importance of corroborative evidence in....
In cases of alleged offenses under Section 354 IPC, the prosecution must establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt, and testimonies of victims carry significant weight, with delays in lodging FIR ....
The court upheld conviction under Section 354 IPC despite no specific charge, applying Section 222 Cr.P.C., given the proven facts of the case.
The conviction under Section 354 IPC was upheld based on the credible testimony of the victim, while the sentence was reduced from five to three years due to mitigating circumstances.
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.