1 SS, J Crl.R.C.No.969/2009 APHC010190322009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3560] WEDNESDAY, THE 5th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 969/2009 Between: 1. K.PRADEEP,, S/O. LATE K.PRATHAP KUMAR, R/O. KHANTHI NAGAR, NANDYAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF A P REP BY PP, rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the CriminalRevisionCase, the High Court may be pleased to file the against the Judgment and sentence passed by the Hon'ble VI ADdl. Sessions Judge, Ananthapur , gooty dated 12.6.2009 in Crl.A.No. 17/2005 IA NO: 1 OF 2009(CRLRCMP 1309 OF 2009 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitoner on bail by suspending the judgment of the learned VI ADdl. Sessions Judge, Ananthapur , gooty dated 12.6.2009 in Crl.A.No. 17/2005 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. G SRAVAN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent: 2 SS, J Crl.R.C.No.969/2009 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 3 SS, J Crl.R.C.No.969/2009 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.969 OF 2009 ORDER: This instant criminal revision case has been preferred against the Judgment and sentence dated 12.06.2009, in Criminal Appeal No.17 of 2005, passed by VI Additional Sessions Judge, Ananthapur, Gooty, wherein and whereunder, learned Sessions Judge, has confirmed the order of conviction and sentence of petitioner under Section 394 IPC recorded by learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gooty, in C.C.No.129 of 2004, dated 18.03.2005. 2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that, on the intervening night of 18/19-05-2004, at about 12.30 a.m., at N.T.P.C., near Gooty town, when PW.1 along with his cleaner was removing the punctured tyre of his lorry, accused A-1 to A-3 came there with sticks and beat PW.1, caused injuries to PW.1, and snatched away cash of Rs.7,500/- from him. Accordingly, a case was registered on the basis of the report given by PW.1. During trial, prosecution produced 9 witnesses, who were examined as PWs.1 to 9. Some documents were exhibited and some cash was also recovered. During the course of investigation, all the accused persons, A-1 to A-3, were identified during test identification parade by PW.1. 3. Learned Magistrate of First Class, Gooty, has recorded conviction of all the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 394 IPC and passed an order of conviction, directing them to undergo rigorous 4 SS, J Crl.R.C.No.969/2009 imprisonment for a period of two (02) years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for two (02) months. 4. In appeal, learned Appellate Court has scanned the evidence on record and is of the view that the order passed by learned trial Court suffers from no illegality, thereby confirming the order of conviction. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for both parties at length. 6. It appears that only A-2 is present before this Court to challenge the order of conviction. It further appears that during the course of investigation, all the accused persons were identified. The Appellate Court is also of the view that there is no doubt that PW.1 could not identify A-2 in this case. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that admittedly it was dark at midnight. At that time, it was not possible for PW.1 to identify A-2. 8. Having gone through the evidence on record, it appears that PW.1 was beaten by all the accused persons and they also snatched cash of Rs.7,500/- from the possession of PW.1. It is not a case that faces of Accused persons were covered with clothes or otherwise. Thereby, it is not difficult for PW.1 to identify any of the accused persons, who actually committed physical assault to PW.1. Moreover, the evidence of prosecution witnesses are corroborative and clinching in nature. 9. Thereby, I find no justification to interfere with the finding of learned trial Court or learned Appellate Court. 5 SS, J Crl.R.C.No.969/2009 10. Considering the same, there are no merits to entertain instant Criminal Revision Case. Thus, the order of conviction and sentence passed by learned trial Court, confirmed by learned Appellate Court, suffers no illegality. 11. It appears that the alleged incident happened in the year 2004, and already more than 20 years have elapsed. The petitioner, being A-2, is dealing with criminal trial for more than 20 years. Speedy trial is a demand of society, which for different reasons could not fulfilled. Considering the long pendency of the matter, substantive sentence of petitioner is hereby modified to one (01) year instead of two (02) years. 12. The remaining portion of the sentence shall remain intact. 13. This instant Criminal Revision Case is hereby dismissed as devoid of merits but for modification mentioned herein above; order of suspension of sentence passed by this Court during the pendency of this criminal revision is hereby vacated. Petitioner is directed to appear before jail authority or learned trial Court to serve out remaining portion of sentence within a period of six (06) weeks from the date of passing of order by this Court. Failing which, learned trial Court shall issue necessary warrant of arrest against petitioner to comply the order. 14. Let a copy of the order be served upon learned trial Court for ready references. 6 SS, J Crl.R.C.No.969/2009 15. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________________ JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA Dated: 05.08.2026 CVD