Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 31351
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K. LAKSHMAN, J
Accused No.1 and 2 – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
S.C. No.533 of 2010
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Garlapati Jithendar Reddy
For the Respondents: Mr. T.V. Ramana Rao
The conviction for dacoity under Section 395 IPC was upheld based on sufficient evidence, and the sentence was modified from life imprisonment to ten years due to the accused's conduct during incarceration.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 395 - Arms Act, 1959 - Section 25(1A) - Conviction of accused Nos.1 and 2 for dacoity resulting in life imprisonment - Trial Court found that the appellants were part of a gang that committed a dacoity at a jewellery shop, seizing valuables worth approximately Rs.1.5 Crores - The prosecution proved the guilt beyond reasonable doubt through testimonies and evidence, while the defense raised issues regarding delays in investigation and identification of the accused - The trial Court acquitted the accused of the Arms Act charge - Conviction upheld but sentence modified from life imprisonment to ten years based on conduct during incarceration. (Paras 5, 39, 46, 48)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conviction of accused for dacoity. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. details of prosecution's case and trial. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. arguments by appellants and prosecution. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 4. court's analysis of evidence and witness statements. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 5. prosecution's burden of proof and witness credibility. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 6. recovery of stolen property and witness testimonies. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 7. court's findings on identification and discrepancies. (Para 35 , 36 , 37) |
| 8. legal principles regarding sentencing. (Para 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44) |
| 9. final judgment and modification of sentence. (Para 45 , 46 , 47 , 48) |
COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K. Lakshman)
Heard Mr. Garlapati Jithendar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants - accused Nos.1 and 2 and Mr. T.V. Ramana Rao, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent.
2. Both the appeals are filed by accused Nos.1 and 2 separately challenging the judgment dated 09.03.2015 in S.C. No.533 of 2010 passed by learned Special Judge for Economic Offences - cum - VIII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Hyderabad.
3. The appellants herein are arraigned as accused Nos.1 and 2 in the aforesaid S.C. No.533 of 2010. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed in S.C. No.533 of 2010.
4. Vide the aforesaid judgment, the trial Court convicted the appellants - accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence under Section - 395 of IPC and accordingly imposed life imprisonment.
5. The case of the prosecution is as follows:
i) Accused No.1 planned the dacoity and formed a gang with active association of accused Nos.2 to 9 and another person. As per their plan, they all came to Hyderabad on 26.12.2003.
ii) On the same day in the night around 9.10 P.M., they went to M/s. Rajlakshmi Jewellers, Abids, Hyderabad in a Qualis Car, which was stolen and entered into the jewellery shop armed with dagger and revolvers.
iii) They have threatened PW.1 and his staff with dire consequences and one among them beat PW.1 with dagger and took away his cell phone as well as customer (PW.4). PW.1 and his staff including the customer were confined in a room situated on the top (inside corner) of the showroom and bolted from outside.
iv) Within fifteen (15) minutes, they have collected gold and diamond ornaments worth about Rs.1.5 Crores and fled away in the same Qualis Car. Later, all the accused went to Mumbai and shared the booty at Mumbai. Thus, accused Nos.1 and 2 herein and other accused committed the aforesaid offence by threatening PW.1 - jewellery shop-keeper and his staff with dagger and revolvers.
v) On receipt of Ex.P1 - complaint from PW.1, the Police of Abids, Hyderabad, registered a case in Crime No.577 of 2003 under Section - 395 of IPC and Section - 25 (1A) of the Arms Act, 1959 (for short ‘Act, 1959’) and took up investigation.
vi) During investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded the statements of witnesses. On completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer had laid charge sheet and the same was committed to the Sessions Judge which was numbered as Sessions Case No.533 of 2010.
6. The trial Court, after framing the charge for the offences under Section - 395 of IPC and Section - 25 (1A) of the Act, 1959 proceeded with trial. During trial, PWs.1 to 28 were examined, Exs.P1 to P26 were marked and MOs.1 to 64 were exhibited. On behalf of the accused, Exs.D1 to D6, relevant portions of the statements recorded under Section1 - 161 and 164 of the Cr.P.C. and final report were marked.
7. After hearing both sides and perusing the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, the trial Court recorded conviction against the appellants herein for the offence under Section - 395 of IPC and accordingly imposed life imprisonment on them, however, acquitted them for the offence under Section - 25 (1A) of the Act, 1959.
8. Challe
