IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1814 OF 2008 Revision filed under Section 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C. against the Judgment of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Amalapuram, in CrI.A.No. 178 of 2007, dated 5/12/2008. Between; 1. Paliprolu Pothu Raju (A-1), S/o. Subbarao, Age: 35 years, R/o. Uppalaguptam Mandal, East Godavari District. 2. Lanke Sahadevarao @ Sahedevudu, (A-2), S/o. Veeraju, Age; 45 years, R/o. Uppalaguptam Mandal, East Godavari District. 3. Lanke Venkatarao, (A-5), S/o. Subbarao, Age: 35 years, R/o. Uppalaguptam Mandal, East Godavari District. ...PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/ACCUSED Nos. 1, 2 & 5 AND State of A.P., Rep.by Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT I.A. NO: 1 OF 2008fCRLRCMP. NO: 2491 OF 2008) Petition under Section 398(1) Cr.PC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the execution of sentence and release the petitioners on bail, pending disposal of CrI.R.C. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI. C. SHARAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following ORDER: APHC010152292008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] MONDAY. THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1814/2008 Between: Paliprolu Pothu Raju And 2 Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND State Of A P Rep By Pp ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1.CSHARAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘the Cr.P.C’) challenging the Judgment dated 05.12.2008 passed in CrI.A. No.178 of 2007, on the file of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, East Godavari District at Amalapuram, confirming the guilty for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘the I.P.C.’) instead of Sections 324 read with 149 of ‘the I.P.C.’ against the petitioners/A1, A2 and A5 by confirming the sentence imposed by the learned trial Court against accused 2 Dr.YLR, J ^ Crl.R.C.No.l814of 2008 Dated: 24.03.2025 No.1/petitioner No.1 and sentencing the petitioner No.2 and 3/A2 and A5 reducing to three months Rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/- each. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 3. Mr.lsmail, learned counsel representing Smt.D.Sangeetha Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the leaned Trial Court was erred in placing the reliance on the interested witnesses testimony; evidence of Doctor is inconsistent with the prosecution’s case; there was no blood noticed at the scene of offence and the incident had not happened in the manner narrated by the prosecution; there was no common object for the unlawful assembly conviction by invoking Section 149; the learned Trial Court should have seen that P.W.1 developed grudge against accused No.6 as he became the President of Society in the year 2004; P.W.4 was not even examined by the Doctor and his presence at the scene was doubtful; P.W.1 did not speak about injury sustained on himself so no reliance can be placed on the evidence of P.W.1 and requested to allow this Criminal Revision case. Alternatively, it is submitted that the alleged offence occurred in the year 4. 2005 and nearly 20 years have passed by Section 324 of ‘the I.P.C.’ gives discretion to this Court either to impose sentence of imprisonment or any amount of fine. Lenience may be shown to the petitioners in imposing fines on the petitioners and volunteered that an amount of Rs.5,000/- each may be ordered as fine towards penance. 3 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.l814 of 2008 Dated: 24.03.2025 Per Contra, Ms.Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor 5. argued that the prosecution had proved the guilty of the petitioners beyond ail reasonable doubt. The grounds alleged in the revision case are not sustainable and appreciation of evidence is permissible under Sections 397 read with 401 of ‘the Cr.P.C.’; there was no misreading of evidence and material irregularities committed either by the learned trial Court or by the learned Appellate Court and urged to dismiss the Criminal Revision Case. 6. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 7. Now the point for consideration is: “Whether the judgment in Crl.A.No.178 of 2007, passed by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Amalapuram, is correct, legal, and proper with respect to its finding, or judgment, and there are any material irregularities? And to what relief?” 8. It is apposite to refer to the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v State of Bihar^ wherein at Paragraph Nos. 12 & 13 it is held as under: “12. ...We have carefully considered the material on record and we are satisfied that the High Court was not justified In re- appreciating the evidence on record and coming to a different conclusion in a revision preferred by the information under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Sub-section (3) of Section 401 in terms provides that nothing in Section 401 shall be deemed to authorize a High Court to convert a finding of acquittal Into one of conviction. The aforesaid sub-section, which places a limitation on the powers of the revisional Court, prohibiting it from convert a \ (2002) 6 see 650 4 9^ Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.l814 of 2008 Dated: 24.03.2025 finding of acquittal into one of conviction, Is Itself Indicative of the nature and extent of the revisionat power conferred by Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If the High Court could not convert a finding of acquittal into one of the conviction directly, it could not do so indirectly by the method of ordering a re-trial. It is well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court that the High Court will ordinarily not interfere in revision with an order of acquittal except in exceptional cases where the interest of public justice requires interference for the correction of a manifest illeqality or the prevention of gross miscarriape of justice. The High Court will not be justified in interfering with an order of acquittal merely because the trial Court has taken a wrong view of the law or has erred in appreciation of evidence. It is neither possible nor advisable to make an exhaustive list of circumstances in which exercise of revisionat jurisdiction may be Justified, but decisions of this Court have laid down the parameters of exercise of revisionat jurisdiction by the High Court under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in an appeal against acquittal by a private party. 13. ... In the absence of any legal infirmity either in the procedure or in the conduct of the trial, there was no justification for the High Court to interfere in exercise of its revisionat jurisdiction. It has repeatedly been held that the High Court should not re appreciate the evidence to reach a finding different from the trial Court. In the absence of manifest lllegalitv resulting In grave miscarriape of justice, exercise of revisionat jurisdiction in such cases is not warranted. ” 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in D Stephens v Nosibolla^ at Paragraph No.10 held as under; “The revisionat jurisdiction conferred on the High Court under S. 439, Cr.P.C., is not to be lightly exercised, when it is invoked by a private complainant against an order of acquittal, against which the Govt, has no right of appeal under S. 417. It could be exercised only in exceptional cases where the Interests of public justice require interference for the correction of a manifest illegality, or the prevention of a gross miscarriage of justice. This jurisdiction is not ordinarily invoked or used merely because the lower court has taken a wrong view of the law or mis-appreciated the evidence on record. ” ^AIR 1951 SC 196 5 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.l814 of 2008 Dated; 24.03.2025 ' 10. The Hon’ble Apex Court in K Chinnaswamy Reddy v State of AF^, at Paragraph No.7 held as under: “7. It is true that it is open to a High Court in revision to set aside an order of acquittal even at the instance of private parties, though the State may not have thought fit to appeal; but this jurisdiction should in our opinion be exercised by the High Court only in exceptional cases, when there is some glaring defect in the procedure or there is a manifest error on a point of law and consequently there has been a flagrant miscarriage ofjustice. Sub section (4) of S. 439 forbids a High Court from converting a finding of acquittal into one of conviction and that makes it all the more incumbent on the High Court to see that it does not, convert the finding of acquittal into one of conviction by the indirect method of ordering retrial when it cannot itself directly convert a finding of acquittal Into a finding of conviction. This places limitations on the power of the High Court to set aside a finding of acquittal in revision and it is only in exceptional cases that this power should be exercised. It is not possible to lay down the criteria for determining such exceptional cases which would cover all contingencies. We may, however, indicate some cases of this kind which would in our opinion justify the High Court in interfering with a finding of acquittal in revision. These cases may be: where the trial court has no jurisdiction to try the case but has still acquitted the accused, or where the trial court has wrongly shut out evidence which the prosecution wished to produce, or where the appeal court has wrongly held evidence which was admitted by the trial court to be inadmissible, or where material evidence has been overlooked either by the trial court or by the appeal court, or where the acquittal is based on a compounding of the offence, which is invalid under the law. These and other cases of similar nature can properly be held to be cases of exceptional nature, where the High Court can justifiably interfere with an order of acquittal; an In such a case it is obvious that It cannot be said that the High Court was doing indirectly what it could not do directly in view of the provisions of S. 439 (4). We have, therefore, to see whether the order of the High Court setting aside the order of acquittal in this case can be upheld on these principles. ” \ 'air 1962 SC 1788 \ 6 Dr.YLR, J Cri.R.C.No.l814 of 2008 Dated: 24.03.2025 The learned Trial Court examined P.Ws 1 to 9 and marked Ex.P1 to P8 and Ex.D1 to D3 and M.Os.1 to 4 to know whether the petitioners had committed any offence. The learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence of the prosecution found the petitioners guilty of the offence under Section 324 read with 149 of ‘the I.P.C.’ and sentenced them. Whereas the learned Appellate Court after analyzing the evidence of the prosecution came to the conclusion that the petitioners found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 324 of ‘the I.P.C.’ instead of 324 read with 149 of ‘the I.P.C.’ and convicted them accordingly. The petitioner No.1 was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- as imposed by the learned trial Court, the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay fine of Rs.3000/- each. 11. were 12. I have carefully gone through the evidence of the witnesses of the prosecution. There is no material irregularity committed either by the learned Trial Court or by the learned Appellate Court. There was no misreading of evidence. The learned Appellate Court rightly found the petitioners guilty of the offence under Section 324 of ‘the I.P.C.’. There are no grounds much less the valid grounds to interfere with the conviction. Therefore conviction under Section 324 of ‘the I.P.C.’ shall be maintained inasmuch as this Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence of the witnesses of the prosecution as per the 7 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.l814 of 2008 Dated: 24.03.2025 Judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh, D Stephens and K Chinnaswamy Reddy. In regard to the sentence of imprisonment and fine imposed on the 13. petitioners, the offence was taken place in the year 2005 nearly 20 years have passed by, and the petitioners are aged about 55 years, 65 years and 55 years respectively suffering from severe ailments. In this connection, it is relevant to mention here regarding the 14. Judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in Hussainara Khatoon (IV) v. Home Secretary State of Bihar*, wherein, it is held that right to speedy trial which includes hearing of the Appeal and Revision is part of a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. In addition to the appeals the right to a speedy trial also includes criminal revisions as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajdeo Sharma v. State of Bihar^. Ends of justice would be met, if the petitioners are sentenced to the imprisonment which the petitioners are already undergone inasmuch as Section 324 of ‘the I.P.C.’, gives discretion to the Court either to impose imprisonment or fine or both. Records reveals that there were either no prior or subsequent adverse antecedents I against the petitioners. In view of the same, the conviction for the offence | under Section 324 of ‘the I.P.C.’ shall be maintained, but sentencing the petitioners to the period which they had already undergone, while imposing fine as volunteered by the Counsel for the Petitioners. '’air 1979 sc 1360 ^(1999) 7 see 604 8 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.IMo.l814 of 2008 Dated; 24.03.2025 In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of while maintaining the conviction under Section 324 of/the I.P.C.’, the petitioners sentenced to the period of imprisonment which they had already undergone, while enhancing the payment of fine which includes payment of Rs. 1,000/- paid before the learned Trial Court as under. The Petitioner No.1/accused No.1 is directed to pay an amount of Rs.7,000/- which includes the amount of Rs. 1,000/- paid before the learned Trial Court and petitioner No.2/Accused No.2 and Petitioner No.3/Accused No.5 are directed to pay amount of Rs.5,000/- which includes payment of Rs. 1,000/- paid before the learned Trial Court within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which they shall suffer three (03) months rigorous imprisonment. 15. are 16. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Amalapuram, is directed to take necessary follow up steps. No order as to costs. As a sequel miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Interim orders granted earlier, if any, shall stand vacated. SD/- V. DIWAKAR DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The II Additional District and Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Amalapuram. (BY RPAD) 2. One CC to SRI. C. SHARAN REDDY Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CC to Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. [OUT] 4. The Assistant Sessions Judge, Amalapuram, East Godavari District.(By rxn /^L/ j 5. The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 6. Three CD Copies Chp AL HIGH COURT DATED;24/03/2025 ORDER CRLRC.No.1814 of 2008 g 2 5 APR 2025 n ^ . Current Section DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE