APHC010402502011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] FRIDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1681/2011 Between: GONTHUNA SATHIBABU, S.RAYAVARAM MANDAL, S/O. RAMBABU CULTIVATION R/O. VOMMAVARAM VILLAGE, S.RAYAVARAM MANDAL. ...PETITIONER AND STATE OF A P REP BY P P HIGH COURT HYDERAABAD, Rept. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: D SANGEETHA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER: The Revision Petition has been filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘the Cr.P.C’) against the judgment 2 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.1681 of 2011 07.03.2025 dated 16.08.2011 in Crl.A.No.35 of 2009 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Visakhapatnam confirming the conviction against Revisionist for the offence under Sections 342 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘the I.P.C’) against the judgment dated 05.08.2009 passed by the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Yellamanchilli in C.C.No.312 of 2006 whereunder the Revisionist was convicted for the offence under Sections 342 and 353 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 342 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ and also to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 353 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-. 2. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 3. Mr.Ismail, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that placing on the reliance of the testimony of P.Ws.1 to 4 conviction is not proper as they are interested and there are discrepancies in their evidence. Abnormal delay in lodging of the report was not considered; there is material contradiction in the depositions of the prosecution witnesses therefore the revision has to be allowed as the learned Appellate Court has not appreciated the case on the correct perspective. 4. Alternatively, it is submitted that the Revisionist is aged about 54 years and suffering from severe aliments and he has suffered ten years 3 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.1681 of 2011 07.03.2025 imprisonment. The occurrence was taken place in the year 2006. The learned Counsel for the Revisionist volunteers to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- including the fine of Rs.1,000/- imposed by the learned Trial Court as a measure of penance. 5. Per contra, Ms. P.Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 clearly shows that the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. The learned Trial Court rightly found the Revisionist guilty for the offence under Sections 342 and 353 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ and sentenced him appropriately and the learned Appellate Court also rightly appreciated the evidence on correct perspective and confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Trial Court. There are no material irregularities and misreading of evidence, and urged to dismiss the revision case. 6. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both sides. I have perused the record thoroughly. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the judgment in Crl.A.No.35 of 2009 dated 16.08.2011, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Visakhapatnam, is correct, legal, and proper with respect to its finding, sentence, or judgment, and there are any material irregularities? And to what relief? 4 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.1681 of 2011 07.03.2025 7. It is apposite to refer the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v State of Bihar1 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 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 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.” 1(2002) 6 SCC 650 5 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.1681 of 2011 07.03.2025 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 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.” 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 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 2AIR 1951 SC 196 3AIR 1962 SC 1788 6 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.1681 of 2011 07.03.2025 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. As seen from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, it is clear that the Revisionist had wrongfully confined P.W.1 and assaulted him, on the ground that the P.W.1 had not attended the medical camp. P.W.1 is a Panchayat Secretary, while he was attending his routine work in his office, the Revisionist came in a drunken state and asked about non-attending of medical camp and he unnecessarily argued with P.W.1 and picked up keys from his hands and wrongfully confined him and assaulted him while he was working in the Panchayat Office. There are no material contradictions or omissions which would smash the case of the prosecution. Mere interestedness is not a ground to dispel the truth in the versions of prosecution witnesses. Evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 inspires confidence. As the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the Revisionist and the Appellate Court also confirmed the same. There are no material irregularities in conducting the Trial. There was no error apparent on the face of the record. Therefore, the conviction imposed by the learned Trial Court and confirmed by the Appellate Court for the offences under Sections 342 and 353 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ shall be maintained. 7 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.1681 of 2011 07.03.2025 11. Coming to the sentence of imprisonment ordered by the learned Trial Court and confirmed by the Appellate Court, the Revisionist was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for one year and payment of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Sections 342 and 353 of ‘the I.P.C.’ 12. Section 342 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ says: “Punishment for wrongful confinement.— Whoever wrongfully confines any person shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.” 13. Section 353 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ says: “Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty.— Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person being a public servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.” 14. The High Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 397 r/w 401 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ cannot invoke its revisional power as a Second Appellate Court. Re-appreciation of evidence is not possible in the revision case as laid down in the decisions in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh, D Stephens and K Chinnaswamy Reddy. 8 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.1681 of 2011 07.03.2025 15. Sections 342 and 353 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ give discretion to this Court either to impose imprisonment or fine or both. The right to speedy trial is a fundamental right as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in HussainaraKhatoon (IV) v. Home Secretary State of Bihar 4.This right includes speedy disposal of appeals. 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. 16. The occurrence happened in the year 2006. The revisionist has been facing mental agony and trauma of the protracted prosecution and suffered mental harassment for a long period of 19 years. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor also fairly conceded that there are no previous or subsequent similar adverse antecedents against the Revisionist. The Revisionist is now aged about 54 years. 17. The learned Counsel for the Revisionist submits that he has been suffering from severe aliments due to post Covid-19 complications and requested to consider the case of the revisionist sympathetically and volunteered that an amount of Rs.5,000/- may be imposed excluding the fine of Rs.1,000/- paid by the Revisionist at the time of preferring the Appeal as a measure of penance. The said statement is recorded and approved. 4 AIR 1979 SC 1360 5 2000 (1) BLJR 37 9 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.1681 of 2011 07.03.2025 18. In the view of the above mentioned reasons, the Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed while maintaining the conviction for the offence under Section 342 and 353 of the I.P.C., but sentence of imprisonment is modified to that of sentence of imprisonment which the Revisionist had undergone and a fine of Rs.5,000/- is imposed. The fine amount of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) shall be deposited before the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Yellamanchilli within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the Revisionist shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Upon receipt of such payment the learned Magistrate is directed to pay the amount to the victim/de-facto complainant as compensation under Section 357 of ‘the Cr.P.C’. The learned Magistrate is directed to take necessary steps in this regard and report compliance to this Court as early as possible. No order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Dt: 07.03.2025 VTS