APHC010183402012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1299/2012 Between: 1. K.SRINIVASA REDDY, S/O LATE BHEEMALINGA REDDY, OCC: CULTIVATION, R/O GAJJEHALLI VILLAGE, HOLAGONDA MANDAL, KURNOOL DIST. 1. THE STATE OF A P, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. Through the S.H.O., Holagonda P.S., Kurnool Dist. Revision filed under Section 397/401 of circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Case, the High Court may be pleased to allow the Crl.R.C., by setting aside the Judgment passed in Crl.A.No.12 of 2011, dated 03.08.2012 on the file of the II Addl. Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Adoni, confirming the Judgment, conviction and sentence imposed on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Aluru, Kurnool Dist. IA NO: 1 OF 2012(CRLRCMP 2034 OF 2012 Petition under Section 151 CPC in the affidavit filed in suppor enlarge the petitioner herein on bail by suspending the Judgment, conviction and sentence imposed in C.C.No.353 of 2009, dated 10.01.2011, on the file of the Judl. First Class Magistrate, Aluru, Kurnool D 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1299/2012 K.SRINIVASA REDDY, S/O LATE BHEEMALINGA REDDY, OCC: CULTIVATION, R/O GAJJEHALLI VILLAGE, HOLAGONDA MANDAL, ...PETITIONER AND THE STATE OF A P, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. Through the S.H.O., Holagonda P.S., ...RESPONDENT Revision filed under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C., praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Case, the High Court may be pleased to allow the Crl.R.C., by setting aside the Judgment passed in Crl.A.No.12 of 2011, dated 03.08.2012 on the file of the II Addl. Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Adoni, confirming the Judgment, conviction and sentence imposed in C.C.No.353 of 2009, dated 10.01.2011, First Class Magistrate, Aluru, Kurnool Dist. IA NO: 1 OF 2012(CRLRCMP 2034 OF 2012 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 petitioner herein on bail by suspending the Judgment, conviction and sentence imposed in C.C.No.353 of 2009, dated 10.01.2011, on the file of the Judl. First Class Magistrate, Aluru, Kurnool District, as confirmed in IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3369] DAY OF SEPTEMBER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO K.SRINIVASA REDDY, S/O LATE BHEEMALINGA REDDY, OCC: CULTIVATION, R/O GAJJEHALLI VILLAGE, HOLAGONDA MANDAL, ...PETITIONER THE STATE OF A P, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. Through the S.H.O., Holagonda P.S., ...RESPONDENT praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to allow the Crl.R.C., by setting aside the Judgment passed in Crl.A.No.12 of 2011, dated 03.08.2012 on the file of the II Addl. Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Adoni, confirming the Judgment, in C.C.No.353 of 2009, dated 10.01.2011, First Class Magistrate, Aluru, Kurnool Dist. praying that in the circumstances stated t of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner herein on bail by suspending the Judgment, conviction and sentence imposed in C.C.No.353 of 2009, dated 10.01.2011, on the file of istrict, as confirmed in 2 Crl.A.No.12 of 2011, dated 03.08.2012, on the file of the II Additional. Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Adoni, pending disposal of the Crl.R.C. IA NO: 2 OF 2012(CRLRCMP 2924 OF 2012 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 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. J JANAKIRAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following ORDER: 1. The present Criminal Revision Case, filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity, ‘Cr.P.C.'), is preferred by the petitioner/accused, challenging the Judgment dated 03.08.2012 passed in Crl.A.No.12 of 2011 by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Adoni (for short, ‘the 1st Appellate Court’). By the said Judgment, the 1st Appellate Court dismissed the appeal, confirming the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Alur (for short, the ‘Trial Court’) in C.C.No.353 of 2009 dated 10.01.2011. 2. The parties to this Criminal Revision Case will hereinafter be referred to as described before the Trial Court for the sake of convenience. 3. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that: On 14.10.2009, at approximately 7:30 p.m., PW.1, the Village Revenue Officer (V.R.O.) of Holagunda village and Mandal, proceeded to Gajjahalli village along with PW.2 and PW.3 to serve a land ceiling notice on the accused. Upon service of the notice, the accused became agitated, slapped PW.1 on the left cheek, and obstructed him from discharging his official duties. As a result of the assault, PW.1 temporarily lost consciousness. Upon regaining 3 consciousness, he observed that blood was oozing from his left ear, allegedly due to the assault by the accused. The incident was witnessed by PW.2, PW.3, and PW.5. PW.4, the medical officer who examined PW.1, issued a wound certificate stating that the injuries sustained were simple in nature. Based on a report lodged by PW.1, PW.6 registered a case in Crime No.127/09. Upon completion of the investigation, E. Chandrasekhar Goud, Sub- Inspector of Police, Holagunda, filed a charge sheet against the accused. 4. The learned Trial Court took cognizance under Sections 323 and 353 of the IPC against the accused. Upon the accused's appearance, copies of relevant documents were provided as required under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C. The accused was then examined under Section 251 of the Cr.P.C., where the substance of the accusation was explained to him in Telugu regarding the offences under Section 353 and 323 of the IPC. The accused denied the allegations and pleaded not guilty, claiming his innocence. 5. During the course of the trial, on behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 6 and documents Exs.P1 to P6 were marked. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating evidence deposed by prosecution witnesses against the accused in Telugu. The accused denied the incriminating evidence and stated that he had no defence evidence. Hence, the defence evidence was closed. 6. The Trial Court on hearing both sides and on considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under section 323 of IPC as stated supra vide its Judgment, dated 10.01.2011 in C.C.No.353 of 2009 and convicted the petitioner/accused and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for three (03) months for the 4 offence under Section 323 of IPC and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for one month. 7. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.12 of 2011 before the 1st Appellate Court. The 1st Appellate Court dismissed the appeal, confirming the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court. Dissatisfied with the same, the appellant has filed the present Criminal Revision Case, challenging the Judgment of the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No.12 of 2011. 8. Heard Sri Janakirami Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused, and Sri K. Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing for the Respondent/State. 9. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the revision petition is pressed only to the extent of the sentence imposed by the Trial Court, and not against the conviction under Section 323 IPC. He requested modification of the sentence, contending that the petitioner is the sole breadwinner of his family and has no prior criminal antecedents. 10. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State has, while supporting the impugned judgments of conviction and sentence passed by both Courts, submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt. 11. A perusal of the record reveals that the testimony of PW.1 (the victim), corroborated by the evidence of PW.3 (an eyewitness), clearly establishes the occurrence of the incident in question. Their version is further supported by the PW.4, the medical officer. The prosecution has successfully demonstrated that the accused assaulted the complainant, giving a blow to the left cheek, which resulted in bleeding from the left ear. Both the trial court and the 1st appellate Court have concurrently held that the medical evidence of PW.4 5 substantiates the version of events provided by PW.1 and PW.3. Both courts found no reason to doubt the credibility of these witnesses, particularly given that PW.1 is the de facto complainant and the injured. The defence has not suggested the existence of any prior enmity between PW.1 and the accused that could have led to a false implication in the case. 12. It is settled law as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra V. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Sing Anand1, that “in exercise of revisional powers, this Court need not undertaken in-depth and minutest reexamination of entire evidence, when there is no error in the findings arrived by the Trial Court as well 1st Appellate Court”. 13. While exercising revisional jurisdiction, this Court is to examine the correctness, legality, and propriety of the judgment/order passed by the trial Court as well as the 1st Appellate Court. This Court is not ordinarily required to re-examine and re-appreciate the evidence which is already appreciated by the trial Court and the appellate Court unless it is found that there is clear non- appreciation of the evidence already on record or appreciation of inadmissible evidence, or that finding has been recorded without any evidence on record. If there is evidence on record on the point of decision formulated by the Courts below for arriving at a conclusion of guilt, this Court is not required to enter into the records again to substitute its view in place of the view taken by the trial Court and the appellate Court. 14. Upon considering the judgments of the Trial Court as well as the 1st Appellate Court, this Court finds that both courts, after recording cogent reasons, concurrently held that the accused was found guilty of the offence under Section 323 of the IPC. In view of the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that the 1st Appellate Court has rightly appreciated the evidence and assessed the material placed before it in a proper and correct perspective. 1 (2004) 7 SCC 659 6 15. Upon considering the submissions of learned counsel on both sides, I see no illegality, error, or perversity in the findings of the Courts below regarding the conviction of the accused for the offence under Section 323 of the IPC. 16. Now, the point that arises for consideration is: Does the sentence passed by the 1st Appellate Court warrant any interference? POINT: 17. As reflected in the record, the Trial Court sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, with a default sentence of one month of simple imprisonment, for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the IPC. The 1st Appellate Court upheld the Trial Court’s findings. 18. It is a well-established principle of sentencing policy that the punishment imposed must be proportionate to the gravity of the proven offence. The sentence should be neither nominal nor excessive. What constitutes a proportionate sentence must be determined on a case-by-case basis, having due regard to the specific facts and circumstances of each matter. 19. While ordering the sentence, the facts and circumstances of each of the case before the Court has to be appreciated on its own merits and the circumstances in one criminal case cannot be taken as a binding precedent in so far as the order on sentence in another case, unless the facts and circumstances of each of the instances corresponds to each other or exactly tallies. But always, the Court must bear in mind the cardinal principle that the sentence ordered must be proportionate to the gravity of the proven guilt, and it should not be excessive or exorbitant. 20. In Hazara Singh V. Raj Kumar2, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that: 2 (2013) 9 SCC 516 7 "10. … it is the duty of the courts to consider all the relevant factors to impose an appropriate sentence. The legislature has bestowed upon the judiciary this enormous discretion in the sentencing policy, which must be exercised with utmost care and caution. The punishment awarded should be directly proportionate to the nature and the magnitude of the offence. The benchmark of proportionate sentencing can assist the Judges in arriving at a fair and impartial verdict." "11. The cardinal principle of sentencing policy is that the sentence imposed on an offender should reflect the crime he has committed and it should be proportionate to the gravity of the offence. This Court has repeatedly stressed the central role of proportionality in sentencing of offenders in numerous cases." 21. When questioned by the Trial Court regarding the quantum of sentence, the petitioner/accused submitted that he has a one-year-old son, two daughters, and a mother who depends on him, while his father is deceased. 22. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that neither the Judgment of the Trial Court nor that of the 1st Appellate Court reflects any consideration of the petitioner's antecedents. It is contended that both Courts failed to call for a report from the Probation Officer to examine the possibility of extending the benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. 23. As seen from the record, the offence in question occurred on 14.10.2009, nearly 16 years ago, and the petitioner was approximately 35 years old at the time of the incident. There is nothing on record to indicate that the petitioner has any criminal antecedents subsequent to his involvement in the present case. Given these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that both the Trial Court and the 1st Appellate Court ought to have called for a report from the Probation Officer to assess the suitability of extending the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, to the petitioner/accused. The failure to consider this statutory safeguard, along with the absence of any prior or subsequent criminal conduct, constitutes a material irregularity. 8 24. It is established that the punishment for an offence under Section 323 of the IPC may consist of imprisonment for a term of up to one year, or a fine, or both, with the extent of the sentence left to the Court's discretion. However, in 1973, the Indian Parliament introduced a limitation on this judicial discretion by inserting sub-section (4) into Section 354 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This provision mandates that when a court imposes a sentence of imprisonment for less than three months for an offence punishable with imprisonment of one year or more, the Court must record its reasons for such a sentence. This amendment clarifies that imprisonment should be the norm, while imposing only a fine should be the exception in such cases. When Parliament enacted this subsection, it would have certainly noticed that the prescribed punishment for an offence under Section 323 of the IPC includes imprisonment of up to one year, a fine, or both. 25. Considering the nature of the offence committed by the accused, his age, economic condition, and the significant passage of time since the incident, this Court is inclined to assess the implications of imprisonment at this juncture. Incarceration after such a prolonged period could severely disrupt the petitioner's personal life and adversely impact the welfare of his family, who may be dependent on him. Accordingly, this Court finds that the sentence imposed under Section 323 of the IPC is disproportionately severe and may be deemed excessive. In light of these factors, this Court views this case as presenting exceptional circumstances that warrant judicial intervention, particularly concerning the sentence of imprisonment. Given the absence of any prior criminal record, this Court concludes that the sentence imposed on the accused under Section 323 of the IPC should be reconsidered as excessive. Therefore, this Court deems it necessary to interfere with the impugned judgments solely to the extent of setting aside the imprisonment imposed by both Courts, while upholding the imposition of a fine of Rs.500/-, which adequately serves the interests of justice. The point is answered accordingly. 9 26. In the result, the criminal revision case is partly allowed. The conviction of the petitioner/accused under Section 323 of the IPC, as affirmed by the judgments of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Alur (dated 10.01.2011 in C.C.No.353 of 2009) and the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Adoni, is upheld. However, the sentence is modified as follows: (i) The sentence of three months’ Rigorous Imprisonment (RI) imposed by the Trial Court, as affirmed by the 1st Appellate Court, shall stand set aside, and (ii) the fine imposed by the Trial Court, as upheld by the 1st Appellate Court, shall stand confirmed. Accordingly, the bail bonds of the accused are hereby discharged. The Registry is directed to forthwith transmit a copy of this order, along with the case records, to both the Trial Court and the 1st Appellate Court for necessary compliance. Interim orders granted, if any, shall stand vacated, and the miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO Date: 18.09.2025 SAK 10 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO Criminal Revision Case No.1299 OF 2012 DATE: 18.09.2025 SAK