1APHC010190962012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3560] THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1917/2012 Between: 1. DONGA RAMA PRASAD @ CURRENT RAMU, S/O SAHEB SETTI, OCC: PVT. ELECTRICIAN, R/O 5TH STREET, WEAVERS COLONY, UPPADA VILLAGE, U.KOTHAPALLI MANDAL, E.G.DIST. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF A P, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. Through the P.S., Uppada Kothapalli, E.G.Dist. ...RESPONDENT Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the CriminalRevisionCase, the High Court may be pleased toto allow this Crl.R.C., by setting-aside the judgments dated 03.10.2012 made in Crl.A.No.241 of 2012 on the file of the VII Addl. Sessions Judge, Kakinada, E.G.Dist., confirming the judgment dated 16.07.2012 made in S.C.No.594 of 2011 on the file of the Asst. Sessions Judge cum Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram, E.G.Dist. IA NO: 1 OF 2012(CRLRCMP 2900 OF 2012 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail by suspending the operation of the judgment dated 03.10.2012 made in Crl.A.No.241 of 2012 on the file of the VII Addl. Sessions Judge, Kakinada, E.G.Dist. 2 SS,J Crl.R.C.No.1917 of 2012 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. A K KISHORE REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 3 SS,J Crl.R.C.No.1917 of 2012 The Court made the following Order: Assailing an Order of the learned VII Additional Sessions Judge, Kakinada, whereby he confirmed the Order of sentence and conviction imposed by the Trial Court upon the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 376 read with Section 511 of I.P.C., the instant Criminal Revision has been preferred. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is not arguing on the merits of the matter, but the fact such is that the petitioner had categorically submitted before the learned Trial Court that he has never done such an offence. However, he submits that the offence alleged to have been happened in the year, 2010 and at that time, the petitioner was aged about 44 years old. Now, the matter is pending since long, the petitioner has already undergone 104 days of incarceration during the enquiry and trail of the matter. Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for leniency. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the State raised an objection and submits that the offence has sufficiently proved before the learned Trial Court. The learned Appellate Court has already confirmed the observations of the learned Trial Court. At this juncture, no leniency can be prayed. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the present petitioner/accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 376 read with Section 511 of I.P.C. for attempting to commit rape 4 SS,J Crl.R.C.No.1917 of 2012 upon victim and was convicted by the learned Trial Court and was directed to undergo sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of five (05) years and also directed to pay a fine amounting to Rs.500 (Rupees Five Hundred Only) I.D.S.I. for further one (01) month for each offence. 5. Considering the fact that the petitioner being an accused has been grilled by the fire of litigation since 2010, it was further considered that though the petitioner’s offence had already been proved, but as the substantial period has already been passed. However, having heard the entire submissions and considering the entire circumstances, it appears that the petitioner is about to attain the age of 60 years. At this juncture, the imposition of rigorous imprisonment upon the petitioner would be harsh one. Accordingly, the imposition of punishment upon the petitioner for rigorous imprisonment for a period of five (05) years, requires modification; hence, the petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one (01) year, instead of rigorous imprisonment for a period of five (05) years. 6. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Petition is hereby disposed of. The petitioner is directed to appear before the learned Court below to serve out the remaining part of the sentence within two (02) weeks from the date, failing which, the learned Trial Court shall issue warrant of arrest against petitioner to comply the order of punishment. Inform the learned Trial Court accordingly. 5 SS,J Crl.R.C.No.1917 of 2012 As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ SUBHENDU SAMANTA, J Date:06.11.2025 KPV 6 SS,J Crl.R.C.No.1917 of 2012 94 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No:1917 of 2012 06.11.2025 KPV