Yeshwanth Reddy @ Yeswanth kumar vs State Rep. by Deputy Superintendent of Police

Leave granted.

The appeal arises out of the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 147 IPC read with Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'). The appellant was the first accused and the Sessions Court by judgment dated 22.03.2019 sentenced the appellant to simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 147 IPC and the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-each for the offence under Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Act. The appeal filed by the appellant having been dismissed by the High Court, the appellant is before us.

Fifteen witnesses were examined by the prosecution and the sixteen documents were marked as exhibits.

The de-facto complainant was examined as P.W-1 and his son-in-law was examined as P.W.-2. P.Ws 4 to 9 were examined to speak about the occurrence. However, P.Ws.7 to 9 turned hostile.

The High Court found that there was a previous occurrence on 25.04.2017 but no complaint was lodged. The second occurrence that allegedly happened on 26.06.2017 led to the complaint which resulted in the conviction.

The High Court found in paragraph 8 of its judgment that there was a defect in investigation. The alleged occurrence admittedly took place in a private land.

However, the trial court as well as the High Court found that the evidence of P.Ws 1, 2, 3, 6 and 12 were reliable and the conviction based upon their evidence could not be assailed.

In the light of the above factual findings, we are of the view that the conviction by both the courts below does not call for any interference, insofar as the appellant is concerned. But it is contended by Mr.S.Nagamuthu, learned senior counsel that the appellant has already undergone incarceration for nearly 7 months and 22 days. The Certificate issued by the Central Prison, Vellore shows that the appellant was admitted as a convict prisoner on 14.05.2019 and had undergone incarceration for 2 months and 12 days as on 05.07.2019. Therefore, out of the total sentence of one year, the appellant has completed as on date, seven and a half month of incarceration. The appellant is stated to be 22 years of age and hence it is pleaded that the appellant should be given a chance for redemption.

In the light of the above facts, and considering the fact that nearly 60% of the period of sentence has already been undergone, we are of the view that even while upholding the conviction, the sentence can be reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant.

Hence, the appeal is partly allowed by upholding the conviction but reducing the sentence to the period already undergone so far as the appellant is concerned. The appellant shall be released forthwith, if not required in connection with any other case.