Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(AP) 2401
APHC010665052010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)
[ 3367 ]
WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 436 OF 2010 Between:
1. MARUBOINA SRINU @ MADDU SRINU,, S/o Subbaiah, R/o Prathipadu, Guntur District.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. THE STATE OF AP REP BY ITS PP HYD TRGH SHO VATTICHERUKUR, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., at Hyderabad, through SHO., Vatticherukuru PS., Vatticherukuru, Guntur District.
...RESPONDENTS Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the CriminalRevisionCase, the High Court may be pleased toto present this Memorandum of Crl.R.C., questioning the Judgment in Crl.A.No. 268 of 2009, dt. 04-02-2010 on the file of the Court of the VIII Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, (FTC), Guntur, Guntur District, in Confirming the Judgment in CC.No. 120 of 2008, dt. 23-7-2008 on the file of the Court of the VI Addl. Jr. Civil Judge, Guntur District.
I.A. NO: 1 OF 2010(CRLRCMP. NO: 634 OF 2010)
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail by suspending the operation of the Judgment passed in Crl.A.No. 268 of 2009, dt. 04-02-2010 on the file of the Court of the VIII Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, (FTC) Guntur District, in confirming the Judgment in CC.No. 120 of 2008, dt. 23-7-2008 on the file of the Court of the VI Addl. Jur. Civil Judge, Guntur District, pending disposal of the above Crl.R.C., Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRI. TURAGA SAI SURYA Counsel for the Respondents: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Assailing the judgment dated 04.02.2010 in Crl.A.No.268 of 2009 on the file of the Court of learned VIII Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Guntur, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the judgment dated 23.07.2008 in C.C.No.120 of 2008 on the file of the Court of learned VI Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Guntur, for the offence under section 411 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”), the petitioner/accused No.1 filed the present criminal revision case under Section
397 r/w.401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
2. The revision case was admitted on 04.03.2010 and the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the petitioner was suspended in Crl.R.C.M.P.No.634 of 2010.
3. The shorn of prosecution case is that:
i). On the intervening night of 10/11.06.2007, some unknown offenders entered into the Malleswara Swamy temple premises and removed the latches of the lock and committed theft of silver ‘satari’ weighing about 750 grams, one silver ‘vaddanam’ weighing about 250 grams, two gold ‘mangalasutrams’ weighing 20 grams, besides one mike amplifier and all worth about Rs.20,000/- and escaped with booty.
ii). Basing on the report of P.W.1-Manager of Pedaparimi and Katrapadu group of temple, Vatticherukuru Police registered a case in Cr.No.32 of 2007 under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC and investigated into.
iii). During the Court of investigation, on 13.09.2007, P.W.7 arrested the accused and basing on their confessions, seized two gold Mangals Sutrams along with other materials under the cover of mediators report.
4. After completion of investigation, police laid a charge sheet against the accused and the same was taken on file and numbered as C.C.No.120 of 2008 on the file of the Court of learned VI Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Guntur. After full-fledged trial, Trial Court found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 411 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of eight (8) months each.
5. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/accused No.1 preferred an appeal, vide Crl.A.No.268 of 2009, before the Court of learned VIII Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Guntur and the same was dismissed by confirming the judgment of the Trial Court.
6. Against the said judgment of the first Appellate Court, the present criminal revision case was preferred by the petitioner/accused No.1. 7. Heard Sri T.Sai Surya, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.1 and Sri S.Dheera Kanishk, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent.
8. Now the point that arises for determination in this revision is “whether there is any manifest error of law or flagrant miscarriage of justice in the findings recorded by the Trial Court as well first Appellate Court?”
9. Sri T.Sai Surya, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the Courts below erred in convicting the petitioner under Section 411 of IPC; the evidence of the mediators is not reliable with regard to the recovery of the property; that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the said offence; that a presumption cannot be drawn under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act and prays to consider the present revision.
10. Per contra, Sri S.Dheera Kanishk, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent, submits that the part of the stolen property was recovered from the possession of the accused under the cover of Ex.P.4 mediators report by P.W.7-investigaging officer in the presence of P.W.5 mediator; the stolen property was identified by P.Ws.1 and 2 in the presence of P.Ws.3 and 4 mediators; that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is corroborated with each other; that the presumption under Section 114(a) of Indian Evidence Act shall be drawn against him; that there are concurrent findings of fact by the Trial Court as well Sessions Court and thereby, the present revision has no legs to stand.
11. In view of the above contentions, this Court pe
