THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.930 OF 2004 Dated: 29-06-2011 Between: Syed Hussain @ Magbool Basha and Four others. - - - Petitioners/ Appellants/ Accused. And The State of A.P., Rep. By its Public Prosecutor., High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. - - - Respondent/ Respondent/ Complainant. This Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.930 OF 2004 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is preferred by the Petitioners- Accused against judgment, dated 17-05-2004, rendered in Criminal Appeal No.66 of 2004 on the file of III Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, preferred against conviction and sentences imposed in S.C. No.346 of 2002 on the file of the Court of Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Guntur. 2. The Petitioners-Accused (for short, ‘the accused) were prosecuted in S.C. No.346 of 2002 for offences punishable under Sections 395 and 420 of I.P.C. on the file of the Court of Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Guntur and before the trial Court for the prosecution PWs. 1 to 10 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-14 were marked and for the Accused none were examined and no documents were marked. After due trial, the learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Guntur convicted the accused for the offences punishable under sections 395 of and 420 of I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of the fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for two years each for the offence punishable under Section 395 of IPC and further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of the fine to suffer Simple Imprisonment for two years each for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC, vide judgement dated 02-12-2003, whereas against the said conviction, the accused filed the Criminal Appeal No.66 of 2004 on the file of III Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, having gone through both oral and documentary evidence adduced, partly allowed the Criminal Appeal, confirming the sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for five years but modifying the sentence of payment of fine of Rs.5,000/- to Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of the fine amount to suffer simple imprisonment for six months in respect of the offence punishable under Section 395 IPC and further modifying the sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment of five years to three years and further modifying the fine of Rs.1,000/- to fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of that amount to suffer simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC against which the present Revision Petition has been preferred. Both the Courts below directed that the sentences of imprisonment should run concurrently. 3. The prosecution version is that A-1 and A-2 are brothers and A- 3 is the wife of A-1 and A-4 sand A-5 are the sons of A-1 and A-3 being members of one family and they are habituated to commit property offences and on 30-06-2001 at about 08-00 a.m. all the accused approached one Shaik Kalesha Vali owner of ambassador car AP.7- T/4558 and engaged the car for hire for the purpose of dropping them at Banaganapalli, Kurnool District at a charge of Rs.5/- per kilometre and the de-facto complainant Shaik Baji, the driver of the car accompanied them accordingly and at about 02-00 a.m. during the intervening night of 30-06-2001/01-07-2001 all the accused tied the de-facto complainant and threw him in a field and took away the car following which subsequently the de-facto complainant gave a report about the incident in the police station at Pyapili, but no action was taken consequently and therefore on 02-11-2001 the de- facto complainant gave report in old Guntur police station following which the Sub-Inspector of police there registered the case in crime No.530/2001 under Section 395 and 420 of IPC on his file and the Inspector of Police concerned conducted the investigation of the case. Further, on 10-11-2001 at 03-00 p.m. the Inspector of Police, Crime Control Squad Ananthapur District arrested the accused and seized the property in the presence of mediators in the outskirts of Kadiri Town Ananthapur District and accordingly a report was drafted and further prior to that the accused got changed the number plate of the car and further got removed the original engine and chasis of the car also. Further, the VII Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur conducted test identification parade of the accused in which the de-facto complainant identified the accused as the persons concerned. 4. The claim of the defence is that the accused did not commit any offence. 5. No representation is made on behalf of the Accused and hence their arguments are closed. 6. It is contended in the memorandum of grounds of Criminal Revision Case that PW.1 identified only A-1, A-4 and A-5 in the identification parade conducted and hence the conviction and sentence imposed against A-2 and A-3 is not tenable and even otherwise the prosecution failed to establish the charges levelled against A-1 to A-5. 7. Therefore, the points for consideration are : 1) Whether the prosecution placed sufficient evidence to substantiate the charges framed by the trial Court? 2) Whether both the Courts below examined the matter properly and arrived at correct conclusions? And 3) Whether the conviction and sentences imposed by the lower Courts are tenable or not? 8. It is important that mainly the findings arrived at against A-2 and A-3 are attacked by the learned counsel for the accused on the ground that in the identification parade conducted PW.1 failed to identify A-2 and A-3 with reference to this case. In fact in the identification A-2 and A-3 were not identified by PW.1 as the persons involved in the crime. But, an offence can be established on the basis of circumstantial evidence also. It is clearly deposed by PW.6 in the case that on 04-07- 2001 four male persons and one female person met him at his shop having come by a car and requested him to change the number plate of the crime vehicle from AP7T – 4558 to KA-0/1/N – 8910 at Anantapur. Further, according to PW.9 the investigating officer in the case he arrested all the accused and seized the vehicle at the outskirts of Kadiri Town in the presence of PW.3 namely B. Srinivasulu, Junior Assistant, Municipal Office Ananthapur whereas PW.2 corroborated his evidence. I have examined the evidence of PW.s 1, 6 3 and 9 and I do not find any reason to doubt their evidence. Ultimately, their evidence is accepted which establishes the complicity of all the accused in the case. 9. Both the courts below appreciated the matter properly and arrived at correct conclusions and there is no reason to interfere with the findings of the Courts below. Further, so far as the sentences are concerned, because it is a case of 2002 from, which period the accused might have suffered a lot by way of attending various Courts and facing the trial consequently and also facing the ordeal of conviction and sentences imposed as a result of which, they might have lost valuable part of their life and lot of money. I feel it advisable to reduce the sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment from five years to two years for the offence punishable under Section 395 of IPC and reduce the sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment from three years to two years for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC keeping the fine clauses intact. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Both the sentences are ordered to be run concurrently. The sentences of imprisonment undergone by the accused, if any, shall be set off under section 428 Cr.P.C. ___________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J. 29th June, 2011 Dsh. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY 242 CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.930 OF 2004 Date:29.06.2011 Dsh.