IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 622 OF 2007 Between: Sathram Munaswamy, S/o.K.Kuppaiah, aged R/o.Narasimhanapalli, T.V.Palle Mandal, Chittoor District. 1. 62 years, 2. Sathram Subramanyam, S/o.S.Munaswamy, aged R/o.Narasimhanapalli, T.V.Palle Mandal, Chittoor District. Sathram Neerajakshulu, S/o.S.Munaswamy, aged R/o.Narasimhanapalli, T.V.Palle Mandal, Chittoor District. 35 years. 3. 27 years, 4. Uttaramalluru Janardhan, S/o.Late U.Markondaiah, aged 40 years, R/o.Narasimhanapalli, T.V.Palle Mandal, Chittoor District. ...Petitioners/Appellants/Accused 1 to 4 AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., at Amaravati, through SHO., rep. by Thavanamapalle, PS., (Crime No.72/2002) ...Respondent/Respondent/Complainant Revision filed under Sections 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.PC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to set-aside the Judgment, dated 25-04-2007 passed in Crl.A.No.305 of 2005 the I Additional District & Sessions Judge on the file of Chittoor, confirming the Judgment, dated 09-12-2005 passed in CC No.60 of 2003 on the file of IV ^Additiprial Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chittoor and consequently , acquit the petitioners/accused No.1 to 4. Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri M.Vinod Kumar, representing Sri T.C.Krishnan Counsel for the Respondent iMs.P.Akhila Naidu, Assistant Public Prosecutor The Court made the following Order: / APHC010396152007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 622/2007 Between: Sathram Munaswamy & three others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of AP Rep By Its PP Hyd Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1.TCKRISHNAN Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ...RESPONDENT ORDER: The Criminal Revision Case has been preferred under Sections 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C’) challenging the Judgment dated 25.04.2007 in Crl.A.No.305 of 2005 on the file of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor, confirming the conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Sections 323 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘the I.P.C’) by 2 Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.622 of 2007 Dated 06.05.2025 the learned IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chittoor, in C.C.No.60 of 2003 vide Judgment dated 09.12.2005 sentencing petitioners to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three months and to fine of Rs.200/- each for the offence under Section 323 read with 34 of ‘the and further convicted them and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each for the offence under Section 324 read with 34 of ‘the IRC’. the pay a IPC. 2. The petitioner No.1/Accused No.l/Sathram Munaswamy, S/o. K.Kuppaiah, died. To that effect, the status report was filed by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. The death certificate certifies that the petitioner No. 1/Accused No.1, died on 20.11.2021. Hence, the case against the petitioner No.1/Accused No.1, is abated. 3. Mr. M. Vinod Kumar, learned counsel representing Sri T.C.Krishnan, the learned counsel for the petitioners, while reiterating the grounds of the revision, submits that the petitioners had not committed any offence; they were falsely implicated; there was a failure to appreciate that the de-facto complainant caused injury against Accused No.1, who was aged about 65 years old and incurred Rs.45,000/- towards medical expenditure; no cases under Sections 323 and 324 of ‘the IPC.,’ were made out; a case was lodged by the petitioners vide Cr.No.65 of 2003 against P.W.1 to 4 for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 326 of ‘the IPC.,’ subsequently, P.W.1 lodged a report with the police. The Case and counter in C.C.Nos.65 and 60 / 3 Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.622of 2007 Dated 06.05.2025 of 2003 were tried simultaneously, C.C.No.65 of 2003 was ended in acquittal the instant case, the petitioners were convicted and C.C.No.60 of 2003, erroneously; the prosecution had not proved the guilt of the petitioners beyond reasonable doubt, and hence, requested to allow the Criminal Revision Case by setting aside impugned judgments. Alternatively, it is submitted that the offence had taken place in the year 2002, and nearly 23 years have passed by; petitioner No.1 is no more, petitioner No.2 has crossed 57 years, petitioner No.4 has crossed 62 years, petitioner No.3 has crossed 49 years. The de-facto complainant also is an octogenarian. The petitioners have been suffering mental agony and trauma because of the protracted and delayed disposal of the case, and their fundamental right to get speedy justice was infringed. The learned counsel for the petitioners volunteers that an amount Rs.5,000/- each may be imposed the petitioner Nos.1 to 4 as a measure of penance, and urged to sentence the petitioners to which they had already undergone. 4. on Per contra Ms.P.Akila Naidu, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, argued that the prosecution could establish the guilt of the petitioners for the offence under Sections 323 and 324 of ‘the IPC.,’ beyond a reasonable doubt. Hence, the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced them; the learned Appellate Court did not interfere with the findings of the learned Trial Court and confirmed the same; there is no misreading of the evidence, no flagrant miscarriage of justice, no error on the law; no procedure irregularity and urged 5. 4 Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.622 of 2007 Dated 06.05.2025 to dismiss the revision Case as re-appreciation of the evidence is not possible while invoking the revision jurisdiction. 6. 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. 7. Now the point for consideration is: "Whether the judgment in Crl.A.No.305 of 2005, dated 25.04.2007, passed by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor, is correct, legal, and proper with respect to its finding, sentence, or judgment, and there are any material irregularities? And to what relief?” The learned Trial Court examined P.Ws. 1 to 7, marked Exs.P.1 to 6. 8. After an elaborate Trial, the learned Trial Court found the petitioners guilty of the offence under Sections 323 and 324 of ‘the IPC.,’ and sentenced them as mentioned supra. The learned Appellate Court also confirmed the same while addressing the grounds raised in the appeal. Based on the report lodged by the petitioners, the case was registered and it was investigated, the charge sheet was filed in C.C.No.65 of 2003. Based on the report lodged by the de- facto complainant/P.W.1 herein, the investigation was conducted, and the The learned Trial Court charge sheet was filed in C.C.No.60 of 2003. conducted the case and counter as per the procedure desired and established, and acquitted the accused in C.C. No. 65 of 2003, but convicted the petitioners, who are the accused in C.C. No. 60 of 2003. / / 5 Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.622 of 2007 Dated 06.05.2025 The learned Trial Court appreciated the facts and circumstances of the 10. case in the correct perspective and found the petitioners guilty of the offences under Sections 323 and 324 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ There is no misreading of the evidence, no error in law, and no flagrant miscarriage of justice or procedure. Therefore, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses cannot be re-assessed by this Court as a Second Appellate Court by invoking the powers under Sections 397 and 401 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ and hence the conviction for the offences under Sections 323 and 324 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ shall be sustained. 11. With regard to the quantum of sentence that would be imposed on the petitioners, petitioner No.1 is no more, the case against him is abated. As mentioned supra nearly 23 years have passed by; right to a speedy trial, including the speedy disposal of appeals and revision cases as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hussainara Khatoon (IV) v. Home Secretary State of Bihar^ 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 Bihar^ The de-facto complainant is aged about 80 years; there are no previous or subsequent adverse antecedents against the petitioners. Indeed, a case was registered at the behest of the petitioners against P.W.1, but that case 12. ^ Air 1979 SC 1360 ^2000(1) BUR 37 6 Dr. YLR, J . Crl.R.C.No.622of2007 Dated 06.05.2025 was ended in acquittal. A case and counter were tried by the learned Trial Court and disposed of. The learned counsel for the petitioners volunteers that an amount of Rs.5,000/- may be imposed as a fine towards penance and intends to submit a Demand Draft to that effect, and requesting this Court to give the said amount towards compensation to P.W.1 as per Section 357 of ‘the Cr.P.C’. 13. In view of the nature of the injuries sustained by the P.W.1, the gravity of the case, and the period that has been taken for disposing of the Criminal Revision Case, the interest of justice would be sub-served, if the petitioners are sentenced to imprisonment to which they had already undergone while directing the petitioners to pay Rs.5,000/- each towards compensation to P.W.1 under Section 357 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ as a measure of penance. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of confirming the conviction under Sections 323 and 324 of ‘the IPC.,’ sentencing the petitioner to the imprisonment to which they had already undergone while imposing an additional amount of Rs.5,000/- each towards fine on the petitioner Nos.2 to 4. The fine amount shall be paid to P.W.1 or his legal heirs. 14. 15. The learned IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chittoor, is directed to take necessary follow-up steps. 16. The Registrar Judicial, is directed to forward the Demand Draft bearing No.627845 drawn in favour of Kalikiri Chinnabba, for an amount of >- 7 Dr. YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.622 of 2007 Dated 06.05.2025 Rs.15,000/- to the learned IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class. Chittoor, instructing to disburse that amount to P.W.1, if alive, in case he is not to his legal representatives and get the compliance report from the learned Trial Court. alive, sequel. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending shall stand closed. As a Sd/- K TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To. 1. The Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. 2. The I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Chittoor, Chittoor District. 3. The IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chittoor, Chittoor District. 4. The Station House Officer, Thavanamapalle Police Station, Chittoor District. 5. One CC to Sri T.C.Krishnan, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CC's to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati [OUT] 7. The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 8. Three CD Copies BSV vna \ V < WIGH COURT \ '\ DATED:06/05/2025 ORDER CRLRC.No.622 of 2007 DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE