AKSHAY SHARMA JABBAR Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In Crl.R.C.No.2668 of 2018 the two petitioners are 1)Akshay Sharma @ Jabbar and 2) Sumeet Kumar Jah @ Sumit who are A.1 and A.2 in C.C.No.125 of 2016 on the file VI Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, outcome of Cr.No.133 of 2015 of Tappachabutra taken cognizance for the offences punishable u/sec.382 of IPC, against the three accused including A.3 Syed Abdul Hai Azeem Mendi @ Zingada and the trial Court after framing charges for said offence u/Sec.382IPC put to trial and in the course of trial on behalf of the prosecution besides examining the victim-P.W.2 panch witness-P.W.1, the VII Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate(ACMM) Hyderabad-P.W.3, two Investigating Officers-P.Ws.4 and 5 with reference to Exs.P.1 to P.13 including the disclosure cum-recovery panchanama, TIP of accused persons conducted by the P.W.3 supra, and the seizure reports consequent to the disclosure or otherwise and the M.O.1- gold chain of P.W.2 with no independent evidence of accused, the trial Court, having held the accused is not entitled to the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act(for short, 'the P.O.Act') or under Section 360CrPC, sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment (RI) for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- with default sentence of RI for 15days for the offence u/sec.382 IPC. Impugning the same, the A.1 and A.2/revision petitioners maintained Crl.A.No.1171 of 2016 on the file of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad and the same was ended in dismissal by its Judgment dt.16.08.2018 confirming the judgment of the trial Court dated 06.12.2016 in C.C.No.125 of 2016 supra. Now impugning the lower appellate Court judgment, the present revision case is filed.

(2.) In Crl.R.C.No.2669 of 2018 the sole petitioner is Akshay Sharma @ Jabbar supra who is A.2 in C.C.No.122 of 2016 on the file III ACMM, Hyderabad, outcome of Cr.No.188 of 2015 of Sultan Bazar Police Station taken cognizance for the offence punishable u/sec.382 read with 75 of IPC against A.1-Syed Abdul Hai Azeem Nehdi @ Zingada and Sec.382 read with 34IPC against A.2-the petitioner herein and A.3-Sumit Kumar Jha @ Sumit, and the trial Court after framing charges for the said offence u/sec.382IPC put to trial and in the course of trial the trial Court, on behalf of the prosecution examined P.W.1-the informant, P.W.2-panch witness and the police officials-P.Ws.3 and 4 and the III Addl.CMM who conducted Test Identification Parade were examined with reference to Exs.P.1 to P.8 which include the TIP proceedings, seizure report, FIR and panchanama besides M.O.1-gold chain and the trial Court from said evidence with no independent evidence of accused, having held that not a fit case to apply the provisions of the P.O.Act, or under Section 360 CrPC, convicted the revision petitioner-A.2 for said offence to undergo R.I for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- with default sentence of SI for three months and against which judgment when he went unsuccessful in Crl.A.No.464 of 2017 by the judgment of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge,dt.16.08.2018 confirming the trial Court's judgment in C.C.No.122 of 2016 dt.16.01.2017, the present revision is preferred impugning the same.

(3.) In Crl.R.C.No.2670 of 2018 the two petitioners are 1)Akshay Sharma @ Jabbar and 2) Sumeet Kumar Jah @ Sumit who are A.2 and A.3 among 4 accused including Syed Abdul Hai Azeem mendi @ Zingada and Vairal Datta hari Dass in C.C.No.127 of 2016 on the file VI Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, outcome of Cr.No.70 of 2015 of Narayanaguda Police Station taken cognizance for the offence punishable u/sec.382 of IPC, against A.1 to A.3 and u/Sec.411 of IPC against A.4 and after framing of charge, the accused were put to trial and in the course of trial, the trial Court, on behalf of the prosecution examined the victimP.W.5, informant- P.W.4, the VII ACMM-P.W.2, who conducted TIP proceedings, panch witness-P.W.1 and the Investigating Officers-P.Ws.3 and 6 respectively with reference to Exs.P.1 to P.14 which include disclosure statements of A.1 to A.3, seizure reports, seizure panchanamas and TIP proceedings besides M.O.1-gold chain of victim supra and the trial Court, from said evidence having held not a fit case to apply benefit of P.O.Act or u/Sec.360 CrPC, sentenced the A.1 to A.3 (including the petitioners A.2 and A.3 herein) for the offence u/sec.382 IPC to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- with default sentence of RI for 15days and so far as the A.4 for the offence u/sec.411IPC to undergo two yeas RI with a fine of Rs.200/- with default sentence of R.I. for 15days and it is observed that in the present case so also in C.C.No.125 of 2016 referred supra, both the sentences to run concurrently. Impugning the same, the A.2 and A.3/revision petitioners maintained Appeal vide Crl.A.No.1170 of 2016 on the file of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad and the same was ended in dismissal confirming the judgment of the trial Court dated 06.12.2016 in C.C.No.127 of 2016 supra and said appeal, the present revision case is filed.