APHC010328502008 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: 1799 OF 2008 Between: Somu Mondal ...PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. Y.V. Anil Kumar 2. 5588/Legal Aid Counsel for the Respondent: Public Prosecutor The Court made the following order: ORDER: The Revision has been preferred under Sections 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C’) against the judgment dated 14.5.2008in Crl.A.No.9 of 2008 passed by the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C),Tanuku,confirming the judgment dated 17.9.2007 in S.C.No.222 of 2007 on the file of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Tanuku, finding the petitioner guilty for the offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘the I.P.C’) and convicted the petitionerunder Section 235(2) of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of five years. 2 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1799 of 2008 Dated 24.03.2025 2. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 3. Sri Y.V. Anil Kumar, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned Appellate Court erred in law in concluding that the petitioner had committed the offence, though there was no substantial evidence to prove the guilt of the petitioner;Appellate Court instead of independently considering the evidence recorded by the lower Court had erroneously confirmed the sentence passed by the Trial Court; Appellate Court by relying on the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 5, who inimically disposed of towards the petitioner falsely implicated the petitioner in the case,had erroneously passed the judgment; the lower Appellate Court without scrutinizing the evidence independently had simply followed the judgment of the Trial Court and confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court; the Appellate Court had not considered that there are so many contradictions and discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses with regard to time of the incident as well as well as scene of offence;the Appellate Court ought to have considered the precarious position in which the petitioner will be put, if the sentence is confirmed and the sentence passed by the Trial Court is too harsh; the Appellate Court ought to have modified the sentence passed by the Trial Court; and urged to allow Criminal Revision Case. Alternatively, it is submitted about 17 years ago, the offence occurred and that right to speedy trial is violated and urged to show leniency in imposing the sentence. 3 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1799 of 2008 Dated 24.03.2025 4. Ms. P. Akila Naidu, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, that is why, the learned Trial Court appropriately convicted and sentenced the petitioner. The learned Appellate Court also confirmed the same. There are no material irregularities. There was no error apparent on the face of the record. There was no misreading of the evidence. Therefore, the revision case must be dismissed. 5. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. 6. Now the point for consideration is: “Whether the judgment in Crl.A.No.9of 2008dated 14.5.2008, passed by the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C), Tanuku, is correct, legal, and proper with respect to its finding, sentence, or judgment, and there are any material irregularities? And to what relief?” 7. It is apposite to refer the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v State of Bihar1wherein 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 finding of acquittal into one of conviction, is itself indicative of the nature and extent of the revisional 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 1(2002) 6 SCC 650 4 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1799 of 2008 Dated 24.03.2025 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 illegality or the prevention of gross miscarriage 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 revisional jurisdiction may be justified, but decisions of this Court have laid down the parameters of exercise of revisional 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 revisional 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 illegality resulting in grave miscarriage of justice, exercise of revisional jurisdiction in such cases is not warranted.” 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in D Stephens v Nosibolla2 at Paragraph No.10 held as under: “The revisional 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.” 9. The Hon’ble Apex Court in K Chinnaswamy Reddy v State of AP3, 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 2AIR 1951 SC 196 3AIR 1962 SC 1788 5 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1799 of 2008 Dated 24.03.2025 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 of justice. 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.” 10. It is established through the evidence of prosecution that on 22.3.2007 at about 8:45 pm, while the de factocomplainant was standing in front of the house of PW-4 and witnessing the programme of television, the petitioner came her behind and caught hold her and pressed her breast. Then PW-1 raised cries. After hearing cries, her mother, PW-3 and PW-4 came to the place and on seeing them the petitioner ran away from that place. 11. It is argued that the learned Appellate Court has not considered the evidence independently, considered the evidence recorded by the learned trial 6 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1799 of 2008 Dated 24.03.2025 Court and erroneously came to conclusion and confirmed the judgment of the learned trial Court. After careful perusal of the reasonings assigned by the learned Trial Court and the Appellate Court, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not correct. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses was inspiring confidence, trustworthy and voluntary. The learned trail Court confirmed and sentenced the petitioner, and it was confirmed by the learned appellate Court. This Court being Revisional Court has no power to appreciate the evidence like a Second Appellate Court. There are no material irregularities in conducting the trial nor there are perverse findings. 12. There was no misreading of the evidence in finding the revisionist guilty by the trial court and the Appellate Court. There are no perverse findings. The learned Trial Court and the Appellate Court had rightly appreciated the evidence and found the petitioner guilty of the offence charged. There are no grounds to interfere with the conviction. 13. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Hussainara Khatoon (IV) v. Home Secretary State of Bihar4it isheld thatright 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 Bihar5. The right of speedy trial of the revisionist is being violated because of delay in disposal of the revision within a reasonable 4AIR 1979 SC 1360 5 (1999) 7 SCC 604 7 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1799 of 2008 Dated 24.03.2025 time. Therefore, the delay is also one of the grounds to modify the impugned judgment. 14. As stated supra, the occurrence took place about 17 years ago. The petitioner was in prison for about one year nine months.The petitioner has been facing mental agony and trauma of the protracted prosecution and suffered mental harassment for a long period of 17 years. Therefore, it is appropriate and proportionate that the sentence is required to be reduced from 5 years to 2 years. 15. Accordingly, the present Criminal Revision Case is disposed of maintaining the conviction under Section 354 of ‘the I.P.C.,’while reducing the sentence of simple imprisonment of five years to two years. Noorder as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Dt:24.03.2025 TJN/KMS 8 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1799 of 2008 Dated 24.03.2025 175 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No: 1799/2008 24.03.2025 W TJN/KMS