APHC010657762011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO I.A.Nos.2 and 3 2025 In/& CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 2557/2011 Between: Tammisetti Subba Rao, ...PETITIONER AND The State of A.P rep by its Public Prosecutor Hyderabad ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: Yallabandi Ramatirtha Counsel for the Respondent: Public Prosecutor The Court made the following: ORDER: The Revision has been preferred under Sections 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C’) challenging the judgment dated 27.12.2011 passed by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru in Crl.A.No.31 of 2010, whereunder the conviction for the offence under Section 326 of ‘the I.P.C’ was confirmed and sentence of imprisonment was reduced from two years simple imprisonment to one year 2 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.2557 of 2011 Dated 11.03.2025 simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 326 of ‘the IPC’. 2. The learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate I Class, Tadepalligudem vide judgment dated 22.01.2010 in C.C.No.60 of 2004 found the revisionist guilty for the offence under Section 326 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ and sentenced him to undergo two years simple imprisonment. 3. Before going into merits of the matter, the revisionist and the defact complainant/P.W.1 by name T.V.V. Satyanaraya Murthy/injured are present. The learned counsel for the revisionist filed an application I.A.No.3 of 2025 seeking permission to compromise the case and a joint memo is also filed containing the signatures of the revisionist and the defact complainant with the signatures of the counsel for the both sides. 4. Sri P. Ranga Rao, learned counsel filed vokalat for the defacto complainant/P.W.1. An application in I.A.No.2 of 2025 is filed requesting this Court to permit the revisionist/accused and the defacto complainant to compound the case. 5. The learned counsel for the revisionist submits that undeniably Section 326 of ‘the I.P.C’ is non-compoundable as per Section 320 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ and relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ram Pujan v. State of Uttar Pradesh1 wherein at para No.7 held as under: 1 (1973) 2 SCC 456 3 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.2557 of 2011 Dated 11.03.2025 “7. The appellants during the pendency of the appeal were not released on bail and are stated to have already undergone a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of more than four months. As the parties who belong to one family have settled their dispute, it is, in our opinion, not necessary to keep the appellants in jail for a longer period. The major offence for which the appellants have been convicted is no doubt non-compoundable, but the fact of compromise can be taken into account in determining the quantum of sentence. It would, in our opinion, meet the ends of justice if the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellants is reduced to the period already undergone provided each of the appellants is pays a fine of Rs.1,500/- in addition to the period of imprisonment already undergone for the offence under Section 326 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine, each of the appellants shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a total period of one year for the offence under Section 326 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code. Out of the fine, if realised, Rs.2,000/- should be paid to Ram Sewak and Rs.2,000/- to Ram Samujh as compensation. We order accordingly.” 6. The learned counsel for the revisionist further relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ishwar Singh v. State of Madya Pradesh2 wherein at para Nos.15 and 16 held as under: “15. In our considered opinion, it would not be appropriate to order compounding of an offence not compoundable under the Code ignoring and keeping aside statutory provisions. In our judgment, however, limited submission of the learned counsel for the appellant deserved consideration that while imposing substantive sentence, the factum of compromise between the parties is indeed a relevant circumstance which, the Court may keep in mind. 16. In the instant case, the incident took place before more than fifteen years; the parties are residing in one and the same village and they are also relatives. The appellant was about 20 years of age at the time of commission of crime. It was his first offence. Ater conviction, the petitioner was taken into custody. During the pendency of appeal before the High Court, he was enlarged on bail but, after the decision of the High Court, he again surrendered and is in jail at present. Though he had applied for bail, the prayer was not granted and he is not released on bail. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances, in our opinion, ends of justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant (Accused No.1) is reduced to the period already undergone.” 2 AIR 2009 SC 675 4 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.2557 of 2011 Dated 11.03.2025 7. A perusal of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ram Pujan and Ishwar Singh, the Honble Supreme Court did not incline to compound a non-compoundable offence, but was pleased to reduced the period of sentence already undergone by the appellant therein. 8. In the instant case, the revisionist and the defacto complainant have submitted that they are first cousins and they are neibours also; in heat of passion the unfortunate incident occurred; and the revisionist has been supporting the family of the defacto complainant. The revisionist further financially contributed Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) to the son of the defacto complainant for sending him to abroad to pursue higher studies. At the intervention of the elders of both sides the matter was compromised and urged to show lenience in imposing the sentence. Section 326 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ in unequitable terms as per Section 320 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ is non-compoundable offence. 9. In this case, there was no misreading of the evidence. There were no flagrant errors either on the law on any material fact. There were no irregularities let alone material irregularities in the case. The learned Trial Court and the Appellate Court rightly appreciated the evidence on correct prospective and found the revisionist guilty. Such concurrent findings cannot be disturbed by this Court invoking powers under Section 397 and 401 of ‘the Cr.P.C’. This Court cannot sit like a second Appellate Court for reappreciating the evidence. Therefore, the contentions of the learned counsel for the 5 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.2557 of 2011 Dated 11.03.2025 revisionist raised in the grounds of the revision cannot be appreciated and sustained. The revisionist was only in jail for one day. 10. However, keeping in view of the compromise affected in between the revisionist and the defacto complainant; the revision was of the year 2011; the occurrence happened in the years 2003; more than 23 years have elapsed, the revision case would be disposed of while maintaining the conviction for the offence under Section 326 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ but reducing the period of sentence which the petitioner had already undergone by the revisionist. 11. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is disposed of while maintain the conviction for the offence under Section 326 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ but reducing the period of sentence which the petitioner had already undergone by the revisionist. 12. Ergo, I.A.Nos. 2 and 3 are liable to be dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Dt: 11.03.2025 KMS 6 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.2557 of 2011 Dated 11.03.2025 237 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No: 2557/2011 11.03.2025 W KMS