APHC010366792008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] TUESDAY ,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1311/2008 Between: Chandaka Sanyasappadu ...PETITIONER AND The State Of A P ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. G RAMA GOPAL Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Revision Case has been preferred under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C’) challenging the Judgment dated 20.06.2008 in Crl.A.No.20 of 2008 on the file of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, whereby and whereunder, the Appeal was allowed in part, setting aside the conviction for offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘the IPC’) 2 Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1311 of 2008 Dated 18.03.2025 but, finding the petitioner guilty for the offence under Section 323 of ‘the IPC.,’ and sentenced the petitioner to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- which was already paid by the petitioner before the learned Trial Court and holding that the petitioner is entitled for refund of the excess fine amount of Rs.2,000/- paid. 2. The learned IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Bheemunipatnam, passed the Judgment dated 13.03.2008 in C.C.No.141 of 2004 finding the petitioner guilty for the offence under Section 324 of ‘the IPC.,’ and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-. 3. Sri G. Ram Gopal, the learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the grounds of the revision submitted that the prosecution had not proved the guilty of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt; wrongly relied on the interested testimony of P.Ws.1 and 2; there was inconsistency in the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2; presence of P.Ws.3, 4 and 5 at the scene of offence was doubtful; and urged to allow the revision case. Alternatively, it is submitted that the alleged offence occurred in the year 2007; nearly more than 1 ½ decade passed by; the petitioner is respectable person and he is in the active politics. Even though he had not committed any offence charged, he was found guilty and requested to apply the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (for brevity 'the Act') by showing lenience. 4. Per contra, Ms. P. Akila Naidu, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that the prosecution had proved the guilt of the accused beyond 3 Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1311 of 2008 Dated 18.03.2025 reasonable doubt and that is the reason why, the learned Trial Court and also the Appellate Court found the petitioner guilty and appropriately sentenced the petitioner; there was concurrent conviction, which need not be disturbed by invoking the powers under Sections 379 and 401 ‘of the Cr.P.C.,’ and urged to dismiss the revision case. 5. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. I have perused the record. 6. Now the point for consideration is: “Whether the judgment in Crl.A.No.20 of 2008, dated 20.06.2008, passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, is correct, legal and proper with respect to its finding, sentence, or judgment, and there are any material irregularities? And to what relief?” 7. To prove the guilt of the petitioner the prosecution had examined P.Ws.1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P-1 to 5 and M.O.1. It is the case of the prosecution, P.W.1-Smt. Lenka Narayana deposed that P.W.2 is her husband and the petitioner also used to reside besides their house in the village and they were also having lands side by side within the limits of Anandapuram. She further stated that about more than two years ago, on one day a quarrel ensued at their fields in connection with a bund dispute existing between their lands, and on that day at about 4.00 p.m., when she along with her husband went to the fields the petitioner told that they had no right to come there as they have no lands there. Then the petitioner beat with stick on the head of 4 Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1311 of 2008 Dated 18.03.2025 her husband due to which her husband sustained bleeding injury on his forehead. Then she took him to hospital for treatment. Thereafter she had gone to the police station and gave Ex.P.1 report and she identified M.O.1 as the stick with which the accused beat her husband. 8. The learned Trial Court, having minutely examined evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the material objects, and the exhibits, found the petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under Section 324 of ‘the IPC.,’ and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/-. However, the learned Appellate Court in the appeal found the petitioner guilty for the offence under Section 323 of ‘the IPC.,’ and sentenced him to pay Rs.1,000/-. This Court cannot appreciate the evidence of the witnesses of the prosecution like a Second Appellate Court as per the Judgments referred as under. 9. It is apposite to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v State of Bihar1whereinat 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 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 1(2002) 6 SCC 650 5 Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1311 of 2008 Dated 18.03.2025 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.” 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in D. Stephens v Nosibolla2at 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 o 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.” 11. 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 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 2AIR 1951 SC 196 3AIR 1962 SC 1788 6 Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1311 of 2008 Dated 18.03.2025 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.” 12. There is no misreading of the evidence. There were no material irregularities in the case. Therefore, the conviction under Section 323 of ‘the IPC.,’ shall be sustained. It is brought to the notice that there is a Civil Suit pending in which, injunction was granted in favor of the petitioner against P.Ws.1 and 2. It is a fact that there are Civil disputes pending between the petitioner and P.Ws.1 and 2. This is a fit case where the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (‘the Act’) can be invoked inasmuch as the punishment prescribed for Section 323 of ‘the IPC.,’ is either sentence of imprisonment or fine or both. 13. As per Section 3 of ‘the Act’, the petitioner can be released after due admonition since the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has also submitted 7 Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1311 of 2008 Dated 18.03.2025 that there were no previous or subsequent instances of conviction sustained against the petitioner either on the similar charges or on the different charges. Taking into account, the nature of the offence and the character of the petitioner, it is expedient that instead of sustaining sentence of payment of fine of Rs.1,000/- it is proper and appropriate to release the petitioner on the probation of good conduct after due admonition. 14. Section 4 of ‘the Act’ empowers this Court to release the petitioner on probation of good conduct inasmuch as the petitioner was not charged with an offence punishable with death or imprisonment of life. Therefore, this Court finds that it is a fit case to apply the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of ‘the Act’. 15. Section 12 of ‘the Act’ emphasizes that sentence of payment of fine shall not suffer any disqualification attached to the conviction for the offence under Section 323 ‘of the IPC’. 16. For the above reasons, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of maintaining the conviction for the offence under Section 323 ‘of the IPC.,’ while setting aside the sentence of payment of Rs.1,000/- by applying the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of ‘the Act’ and also Section 360 of ‘the Cr.P.C’. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 18.03.2025 RSI 8 Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1311 of 2008 Dated 18.03.2025 93 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1311 of 2008 Date:18.03.2025 RSI