APHC010053792010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] FRIDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1449/2010 Between: 1.KAMI REDDY, S/O. NARASA REDDY, R/O. DAYYALAKUNTAPALLI VILLAGE, B.K. SAMUDRAM MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT 2.K. OBI REDDY, S/O. NARASA REDDY R/O. DAYYALAKUNTAPALLI VILLAGE, B.K. SAMUDRAM MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT ...PETITIONER(S) AND THE STATE OF A P, Rep by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner(S): K NARSI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C.,’) challenging 2 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.1449 of 2010 11.07.2025 the judgment dated 28.07.2010 in Crl.A.No.14/2010 on the file of the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Anantapur, confirming the judgment dated 03.02.2010 in C.C.No.514/2006 on the file of the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Prohibition and Excise Court, Anantapur whereby and whereunder the Petitioners were found guilty of the charge under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘the I.P.C.,’) and sentenced to suffer six months simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.3,000/-. 2. During the pendency of this Criminal Revision Case Accused No.2/Petitioner No.2/K.Obiredy died on 03.11.2024. Therefore, the Revision Case against him was abated. 3. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State. 4. Mr. K.Narsi Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, while reiterating the grounds of the revision, argued that the courts below failed to appreciate the material discrepancy in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses; there is no consistency in the version of the witnesses of the prosecution; there was discrepancy in preparation of the FIR which creates doubt in the case of the prosecution; there was no evidence to establish that the petitioner used deadly weapon. Hence, it is urged to set aside the impugned judgment. 3 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.1449 of 2010 11.07.2025 5. It is submitted, alternatively, that the petitioner No.1/A1 is aged about 55 years and has been suffering from severe elements due to post covid-19 complications. He was incarceration for a period of 21 days; the alleged offence was taken place more than 2 decades ago; the petitioner No.1/A1 is the own brother of P.W.1, there are land disputes and also survey disputes in between them; the alleged stone, which was used for causing injury to P.W.1, was not seized by the investigating officer. It is further volunteered that the petitioner would additionally be fined to an amount of Rs.5,000/- as a measure of penance. This additional fine amount may be excluded from the fine amount already paid by the petitioner and urged to dispose of the Criminal Revision Case in the interest of the justice as the right to get speedy trail of the petitioner is being frustrated. 6. Per contra, Ms. P.Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that the prosecution witnesses had consistently spoken that the accused had bet P.W.1 and caused bleeding injuries with a dangerous weapon, thought it was not seized, all the witnesses have in one voice deposed that the accused beat P.W.1 with stone. Evidence of the prosecution witnesses cannot be re-appreciated at this juncture by invoking the revisional jurisdiction and urged to dismiss the Criminal Revision Case, as there are no material irregularities, flagrant miscarriage of justice and perverse findings. 7. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. 4 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.1449 of 2010 11.07.2025 8. Now the point for consideration is: “Whether the order in Crl.A.No.14 of 2010 dated 28.07.2010, passed by the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Anantapur, is correct, legal, and proper with respect to its finding, sentence, or judgment, and there are any material irregularities? And to what relief?” 9. While deciding a criminal revision case filed against concurrent conviction of accused, it is apposite to refer the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar1 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 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. In State of Karnataka v. Appa Babu Ingale2, at Paragraph No.2 it is held as under: “…Ordinarily it is not open for the High Court to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below specially by re- appreciating the evidence in its revisional jurisdiction….” 11. In Jagannath Chowdhary v. Ramayan Singh3, at Paragraph Nos.10 to 13 it is held as under: 1(2002) 6 SCC 650 2AIR 1993 SC 1126 3AIR 2002 SC 2229 5 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.1449 of 2010 11.07.2025 “10. While it is true and now well-settled in a long catena of cases that exercise of power under Section 401 cannot but be ascribed to be discretionary - this discretion, however, as is popularly informed has to be a judicious exercise of discretion and not an arbitrary one. Judicial discretion cannot but be a discretion which stands "informed by tradition, methodised by analogy and disciplined by system" - resultantly only in the event of a glaring defect in the procedural aspect or there being a manifest error on a point of law and thus a flagrant miscarriage of justice, exercise of revisional jurisdiction under this statute ought not to be called for. It is not to be lightly exercised but only in exceptional situations where the justice delivery system requires interference for correction of a manifest illegality or prevention of a gross miscarriage of justice. In Nosibolla: Logendranath Jha and Chinnaswamy Reddy (supra) as also in Thakur Das (Thakur Das (Dead) by LRs v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr., 1978 (1) SCC 27) this Court with utmost clarity and in no uncertain terms recorded the same. It is not an appellate forum wherein scrutiny of evidence is possible; neither the revisional jurisdiction is open for being exercised simply by reason of the factum of another view being otherwise possible. It is restrictive in its application though in the event of there being a failure of justice there can said to be no limitation as regards the applicability of the revisional power. 11. The High Court possesses a general power of superintendence over the actions of courts subordinate to it. On its administrative side, the power is known as the power of superintendence. On the judicial side, it is known as the duty of revision. The High Court can at any stage even on its own motion, if it so desires, and certainly when illegalities or irregularities resulting in injustice are brought to its notice call for the records and examine them. This right of the High Court is as much a part of the administration of justice as its duty to hear appeals and revisions and interlocutory applications -so also its right to exercise its powers of administrative superintendence. Though however, the jurisdictional sweep of the process of the High Court, however, under the provisions of Section 401 is very much circumscribed, as noticed hereinbefore. 12. Having regard to the aforesaid, we do feel it expedient to record that in the contextual facts presently under consideration before this Court, the High Court cannot but be said to have exceeded its revisional jurisdiction in setting aside the order of acquittal. 13. In any event, writing of a fresh judgment as directed by the Court is rather a significant departure in the normal disposal of revisional applications. Opportunities have been given for further argument but would that by itself tilt the scale - this aspect of the matter has already been noticed earlier, as such we need not dilate thereon excepting recording that an extremely significant 6 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.1449 of 2010 11.07.2025 departure from the normal form of Court orders stands challenged in this Court.” 12. Keeping in view of all the principles laid down in the judgments referred supra, I shall proceed to decide this Revision Case without there being any iota of re-appreciation of evidence by sitting like a second appellate court. This Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 397 read with Section 401 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ cannot invoke it’s 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, Jagannath Chowdhary and Appa Babu Ingale. However, this Court is not denuded of its powers to examine whether judgments impugned are correct, legal and proper with respect to their findings, sentence or even judgment and there are any material irregularities. If there are manifest illegalities and interest of public justice requires interference for the correction of those manifest illegalities or to prevent a great miscarriage of justice, this Court is empowered to evaluate the evidence and analyze it and come to a just conclusion. 13. Before the learned Trial Court, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and got marked Ex.P1 to P6. For the petitioner side no evidence was let in and no documents were marked. Albeit in this case, the witnesses of prosecution in unison deposed that the accused beat P.W.1 with a stone, the stone was not recovered by the investigating officer, and that is not fatal to the case of the prosecution inasmuch as the injured and eye witnesses in one voice have spoken before the learned Trial Court that the accused indulged in 7 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.1449 of 2010 11.07.2025 causing injury by using stone. The learned Appellate Court also confirmed the judgment of the learned Trial Court. 14. In view of the above, conviction for the charge under Section 324 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ shall be maintained. With regard to the sentence of imprisonment of six months simple imprisonment imposed by the learned Trial Court and confirmed by the learned Appellate Court, it has to be pointed out that there were no prior or subsequent adverse similar antecedents against the petitioner. Petitioner No.1 is own brother of injured-P.W.1. Admittedly, there are land disputes between the petitioners and P.W.1. There are disputes with regard to the survey of their lands also. The Petitioner is now aged about 55 years and has been suffering from complicated elements because of covid-19 pandemic. The petitioner was incarceration for a period of 21 days. There was no intention of causing injury with a deadly weapon. It is not the case of the prosecution that the petitioner carried along with them any deadly weapons like sticks, knives or iron rods. The learned counsel for the petitioner volunteered that an amount of Rs.5,000/- may additionally be imposed towards fine on the petitioner no.1 as a measure of penance. The said voluntary statement is recorded and approved. 15. In view of the above peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, Criminal Revision Case is disposed of confirming the conviction for the charge under section 324 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ while sentencing the petitioner to suffer imprisonment to which he already undergone and sentencing the petitioner to 8 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.1449 of 2010 11.07.2025 pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- additionally as a measure of penance within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the Petitioner shall suffer simple imprisonment for three months. The fine amount shall be paid to the injured, if died, his legal representatives equally. 16. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case stands disposed of in the terms stated above. 17. The learned Trial Court shall take required follow up steps in this regard. No order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Dt: 11.07.2025 VTS