APHC010018572019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] MONDAY,THE THIRD DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 72/2019 Between: 1.O.RAMACHANDRAM, HARIJANAPETA, KRISHNAIPALEM, TADEPALLIGUDEM MANDAL 2.OLISETTI KUMARI, W/O. RAMACHANDRAM ALIAS RAMACHANRA RAO, AGED 28 YEARS, HARIJANAPETA, KRISHNAIPALEM (V), TADEPALLIGUDEM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DSITRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1.STATE OF AP, Harijanapeta, Krishnaipalem, Tadepalligudem mandal ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1.ARUN SHOWRI G 2.LEGAL AID Counsel for the Respondent: 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER: 2 Criminal Revision Case has been preferred under Sections 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731 challenging the judgment dated 28.01.2019 in Crl.A.No.56 of 2015 passed by the learned VII Additional Sessions Judge, West Godavari Division, Eluru2, confirming the judgment dated 09.02.2014 in C.C.No.221 of 2014 passed by the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem3 finding the revisionists guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 323, 448 and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 18604 and they were convicted under Section 255(2) of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment of three months each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 323 read with 34 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ and are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 448 read with 34 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ and are further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months each and pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 506 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ and in default of payment of fines, they were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days each. 2. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 1 the Cr.P.C., 2 the Appellate Court 3 the Trial Court 4 the I.P.C., 3 3. Sri G.Arun Showri, the learned Legal Aid Counsel for the Petitioners, while reiterating the grounds of the revision, submits that the impugned judgment of the learned Appellate Court is legally unsustainable. The sentence of imprisonment and fine imposed are disproportionate to the gravity of the alleged offences and accusations, and ought to have been reconsidered. The prosecution witnesses have given inconsistent and contradictory testimonies, lacking mutual corroboration, which undermines the reliability of the prosecution case. The investigation is flawed, perfunctory thereby affecting the fairness of the trial. No medical evidence has been adduced to support the prosecution’s allegations, rendering the case unsubstantiated. 4. Learned Counsel for the Revisionists further submits that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and the benefit of doubt ought to have been extended to the Petitioners. The learned Appellate Court had failed to appreciate the evidence in its entirety and overlooked the fact that the Petitioners have been subjected to prolonged litigation for over four years. The Petitioners had no prior criminal antecedents and were entitled to the benefit of benevolent sentencing provisions under law. 5. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that the Petitioners’ right to speedy disposal of the Criminal Revision Case as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India is infringed. 6. Per contra, Ms. P. Akila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that the learned Appellate Court having gone through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the judgment of the learned Trial 4 Court rightly passed the judgment confirming the conviction for the offence charged and urged to dismiss the revision case as there are no material irregularities, flagrant miscarriage of justice and misreading of the evidence. 7. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. I have perused the record. 8. Now the point for consideration is: “Whether the judgment in Crl.A.No.59 of 2015 dated 28.01.2019 passed by the learned VII Additional Sessions Judge, Wesst Godavari Division, Eluru, is correct, legal, and proper with respect to its finding, sentence, or judgment, and there are any material irregularities? And to what relief?” 9. It is apposite to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v State of Bihar5 wherein at Paragraph No.13 it is held as under: “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 the 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 Nosibolla6 at Paragraph No.10 held as under: “… 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.” 5(2002) 6 SCC 650 6AIR 1951 SC 196 5 11. This Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 397 read with Section 401 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ cannot invoke its revisional power as a Second Appellate Court and re-appreciation of evidence is not possible in the revision case as laid down in the decisions in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh, and D Stephens. 12. The prosecution alleges that PW.1, Arigela Kumari, purchased a colour television under an installment scheme through Accused No.1, to whom she paid the full amount in three terms. Despite this, the TV shop owner demanded payment from P.W.1, indicating Accused No.1 had failed to remit the amount. On 11.04.2013 at around 3:00 PM, P.W.1 confronted Accused No.1 at his residence, but he offered no explanation. She then approached PW.4, Devalla Raju, who convened a Panchayat. Even there, Accused No.1 remained silent and abused P.W.1 in vulgar language. Later, around 4:00 PM, while P.W.1 and P.W.2 (her mother-in-law) were at home, Accused No.1 and Accused No.2 trespassed into her house, dragged her out, and assaulted her, Accused No.1 kicked her, Accused No.2 beat her and pulled her hair. Both issued threats to kill and used obscene language. Accused No.1 also threatened to expose photographs allegedly showing P.W.1 and himself in close proximity. P.W.3, P.W.1’s co-sister, intervened and rescued her. 13. P.W.1 lodged a complaint, registered as a case in Crime No.91/13 punishable under Sections 448, 323, 509 and 506 read with Section 34 of ‘the I.P.C.’ After investigation, charge sheet was filed and cognizance taken. Upon appearance, Accused No.1 and Accused No.2 were furnished documents 6 under Section 207 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ and charges were explained under Section 251 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ to which they pleaded not guilty. During trial, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.6 and marked Exs.P1 to P3. For Defence side marked Exs.D1 and D2, but led no oral evidence. 14. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the concurrent conviction passed by the learned Trial Court and Appellate Court as there is neither flagrant miscarriage of justice nor material irregularities. However, the Petitioners have filed this Revision Case in the year 2019. Nearly, six years have passed by. The Petitioners have no adverse similar antecedents. The offences under Section 323, 448, 506 read with 34 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ are all punishable with either imprisonment or fine or both. 15. In fact, the right to speedy trial is a fundamental right as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hussainara Khatoon (IV) v. Home Secretary State of Bihar7. 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 Bihar8. The petitioners were in incarceration for a period of more than 15 days. There are no similar adverse antecedents reported against the petitioners as fairly conceded by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 16. If an additional amount of Rs.5,000/- was imposed on the Petitioners for the charge under Section 323 of ‘the I.P.C.,’; an additional amount of Rs.1,000/- for the charge under Section 448 of ‘the I.P.C.,’; and an additional 7 Air 1979 SC 1360 8 2000 (1) BLJR 37 7 amount of Rs.1,000/- for the charge under Section 506 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ interest of justice would be sub-served. 17. The above mentioned fine shall be paid in-addition to the fine already paid before the learned Trial Court. 18. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of confirming the conviction for the charge under Sections 323, 448 and 506 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ while altering the sentence of imprisonment of one month imposed under Section 323 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ into fine of Rs.5,000/- additionally to be paid by the Petitioners each; the Petitioners each shall also pay an amount of Rs.1,000/- for the charge under Section 448 of ‘the I.P.C.,’; and an amount of Rs.1,000/- for the charge under Section 506 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ as an additional fine. Failure to pay additional fines, the Petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. 19. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. No order as to costs. 20. The learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem shall take necessary follow-up steps. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Dt: 03.11.2025 VTS 8