M JIGNESH Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A-2 in Sessions Case No. 244 of 1998 on the file of the Court of the Special Judge for trial of offences under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act-cum-VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad, is the appellant.

(2.) Appellant and four others were charge-sheeted for offences under Sections 376, 384, 506, 509, 109 and 120-A read with Section 34, I.P.C. Since A-3 in the crime was absconding, the case against him was split up and appellant and three others were committed to take therein trial in a Court of Session. The learned VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, to whom the case was made over, framed charges under Sections 120-B, 109, 376, 384, I.P.C. read with Section 34, I.P.C., Section 506 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. and Section 509 I.P.C. read with Section 34, I.P.C. against the appellant and the other accused. The appellant and the three other accused not pleaded guilty of the offences charged against them. In support of its case the prosecution examined eight witnesses and marked Exs. P1 to P5 and M.Os. 1 to 13. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, the appellant and the other accused were examined under Section 313, Cr.P.C. None of the accused adduced oral or documentary evidence. The learned VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge holding that charges against A1 and the appellant are proved, convicted them for the offences charged and holding that the charges against A5 and A6 are not proved against them, acquitted them of all the charges framed against them and sentenced the appellant to Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 376 read with Section 120-B, I.P.C., rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default simple imprisonment for two months for the offence under Section 292(A), I.P.C., Rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 384 read with Section 511, I.P.C., simple imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 506 read with Section 34 I.P.C., simple imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs. 500/- in default simple imprisonment for 15 days for the offence under Section 509 read with Section 34, I.P.C., and directed the sentences of imprisonment to run concurrently. Hence this appeal by A2, questioning his conviction and sentences imposed.

(3.) It is sated that A-1 also preferred an appeal against the conviction and sentences imposed against him. At the time of admission of this appeal, the learned Judge while admitting the appeal refused to grant bail to the petitioner and dismissed Criminal M. P. No. 4621 of 2002 filed by the appellant seeking bail during the pendency of the appeal. Subsequently the petitioner filed another bail application. When that petition came up before my learned brother T. Ch. Surya Rao, J., he while observing that it is not proper to consider bail application, because the earlier bail application was dismissed, directed the appeal to be posted for final hearing. When the appeal came up for hearing before him, he directed the appeal being posted before another Bench. So, as per the directions of My Lord the Chief Justice, the appeal came up before me for hearing.