PICHIKUNTLA SUBBARAYDUDU Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision has been preferred under Ss. 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for brevity 'the Cr.P.C.') against the judgment in Crl.A.No.97 of 2006, dtd. 22/6/2009, whereunder the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Anatapur, while partly allowing the appeal in favour of A4, confirmed the conviction against the petitioner Nos.1 to 3, who are A1 to A3, for the offence punishable under Sec. 3(a) of the Railway Properties (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 (for short 'the Act') and reduced the substantive sentence of simple imprisonment for one year to simple imprisonment for six months.

(2.) The learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Railways, Guntakal, after elaborate trial found the petitioner Nos.1 to 3 guilty for the offence charged.

(3.) Sri M. Ramalingeswara Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioners, while reiterating the grounds of the revision, submitted that the learned Courts below failed to appreciate the evidence on correct prospective; independent witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution; the findings are on assumptions or presumptions; grossly erred in relying on the confessional statements made by the petitioners before the Railway Protection Force (RPF) Police; the property seized was not at all the railway property; the testimonies of P.Ws.3 and 4 being railway employees and interested witnesses is not sustainable; failure to secure and examine independent witnesses went to the root of the case; the seizer was not in accordance with the procedure contemplated under Sec. 100(4) of 'the Cr.P.C'; and urged to allow the revision. Alternatively, it is submitted that the petitioner No.3 has been suffering from Paralysis and to that effect medical certificates are also filed. The petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are Coolies and they have unmarried daughters; the petitioner No.2 is suffering from night blindness. Nearly 23 years have passed by from the date of commission of the alleged offence; protracted litigation had caused a lot of metal agony to the petitioners and requested to modify to the sentence already undergone by the petitioners.