IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE Or 1* D 2k O rs PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1951 OF 2008 Revision filed under Section 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C against the Judgment dt.26-12-2008 passed in CrI.A.No. 21 of 2005 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed in C.C.No. 203 of 2003, dt.28-01-2005 on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate Court., Vizianagaram. Between: Jami Srinu @ Srinivasa Rao, S/o late Laxmana Rao Occ: Sugarcane Vendor, R/o Burlepeta, Vizianagaram. aged 50 years ...PETITIONER(ACCUSED N0.1/APPELLANT) AND The State of A.P., through S.l. of Police, Vizianagaram Vizianagaram, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT(COMPLAINANT/RESPONDENT) : SMT TADDI SOWMYA NAIDU Counsel for the Respondent: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following COMMON ORDER : I Town PS., Counsel for the Petitioner 1 Crl.R.C.No.1951 of 2008 Dr.YLRJ APHC010083762008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1951/2008 Between: Jami Srinu @ Srinivasa Rao, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of AP Rep By Its PP Hyd Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.TADDI SOWMYANAIDU Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ...RESPONDENT The Court made the following Order: 2 Crl.R.C.No.1951 of 2008 Dr.YLRJ THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1951 of 2008 COMMON ORDER: Criminal Revision Case has been preferred under Sections 397 and 401 1. of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C’), challenging the judgment dated 26.12.2008 in Criminal Appeal No.21 of 2005 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram, whereby and whereunder, the appeal was dismissed confirming the judgment dated 28.01.2005 in C.C.No.203 of 2003 on the file of learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vizianagaram whereunder, the petitioner was found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘the I.P.C’) and convicted him under Section 248(2) of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six (06) months and also directed to pay a fine of Rs.2500/- and in default, simple imprisonment for two (02) months. 2. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 3. Ms.T.Sowmya Naidu, the learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the grounds for the revision, submitted that the prosecution had not proved the guilt of the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt; there is no corroboration between evidence of PWs.1 to 3 and their evidence suffers from inconsistency; non-examination of independent witness was fatal to the case of the prosecution; the ingredients under Section 326 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ 3 Crl.R.C.No.1951 ofso,, Dr.YLRj- were not established and prayed to allow the criminal revision. Alternatively, it is submitted that the petitioner was in jail for more than 13 days; the alleged incident occurred in the year 2003 i.e., more than two decades have passed by. The complainant was also died on 13.11.2023. The petitioner is aged about 50 years, doing sugar cane vending business. The sentence which the petitioner has already undergone may be considered while imposing the sentence in this case and the petitioner who is present, volunteers that an amount of Rs. 10,000/- would be paid towards a measure of penance and the same may be given to the legal heirs of the de-facto complainant and urged to consider his request on humanitarian grounds as right to speedy trial has guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, includes right to speedy disposal of the revision, was infringed. 4. Per contra, Ms.Akila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, argued that the prosecution proved the guilt of the petitioner beyond all the reasonable doubt. Concurrent conviction and sentence was suffered by the petitioner and there are no material irregularities and misreading of evidence by the learned courts below and urged to dismiss the revision on the point of sustaining concurrent conviction, while requesting the court to consider the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner on the point of payment of fine as a measure of penance. 5. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments adduced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. I have perused the entire record. 4 CrI.R.C No.1951 of 2008 Dr.YLRJ Now the point for consideration is: 6. "Whether the judgments in Crl.A.No.21 of 2005, dated 26.12.2008 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram, is correct, legal, and proper with respect to its finding, sentence, or judgment, and there are any material irregularities ? And to what relief?” It is apposite to refer the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v State of Bihar^ wherein at Paragraph Nos. 12 7. & 13 it is held as under: "12. ...We have carefully considered the material on record and we are satisfied that the High Court was not justified in re-appreciating the evidence on record and coming to a different conclusion in a revision preferred by the information under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Sub-section (3) of Section 401 in terms provides that nothing in Section 401 shall be deemed to authorize a High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction. The aforesaid sub-section, which places a limitation on the powers of the revisional Court, prohibiting it from convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction, is itself indicative of the nature and extent of the revisional power conferred by Section 40Tof the Code of Criminal Procedure. If the High Court could not convert a finding of acquittal Into one of the conviction directly, it could not do so Indirectly by the method of ordering a re-trial. It is well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court that the High Court will ordinarily not interfere in revision with an order of acquittal except in exceptional cases where the interest of public justice requires interference for the correction of a manifest illegality or the prevention of gross miscarriage of justice. The High Court will not be justified in interfering with an order of acquittal merely because the trial Court has taken a wrong view of the law or has erred in appreciation of evidence. It is neither possible nor advisable to make an exhaustive list of circumstances in which exercise of revisional jurisdiction may be justified, but decisions of this Court have laid down the parameters of exercise of revisional jurisdiction by the High Court under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in an appeal against acquittal by a private party. 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 (2002) 6 see 650 5 CrI.R.C No.1951 of Dr.YLRj. miscarriage of justice, exercise of revisional jurisdiction in such cases is not warranted. ” The Hon’ble Supreme Court in D Stephens v Nosiboila^ at Paragraph 8. No. 10 held as under; “The revisional jurisdiction conferred on the High Court under S. 439, Cr..PC., is not to be lightly exercised, when it is invoked by a private complainant against an order of acquittal, against which the Govt, has o right of appeal under S. 417. 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. ” The Hon’ble Apex Court in K Chinnaswamy Reddy v State of AP^, at 9. Paragraph No.7 held as under: “1. It is true that it is open to a High Court in revision to set aside an order of acquittal even at the instance of private parties, though the State may not have thought fit to appeal; but this jurisdiction should in our opinion be exercised by the High Court only In exceptional cases, when there is some glaring defect in the procedure or there is a manifest error on a point of law and consequently there has been a flagrant miscarriage ofjustice. Sub section (4) of S. 439 forbids a High Court from converting a finding of acquittal into one of conviction and that makes it all the more incumbent on the High Court to see that it does not, convert the finding of acquittal into one of conviction by the indirect method of ordering retrial when it cannot itself directly convert a finding of acquittal into a finding of conviction. This places limitations on the power of the High Court to set aside a finding of acquittal in revision and it Is only in exceptional cases that this power should be exercised. It is not possible to lay down the criteria for determining such exceptional cases which would cover all contingencies. We may, howeve,r indicate some cases of this kind which would in our opinion justify the High Court in interfering with a finding of acquittal in revision. These cases may be: where the trial court has no jurisdiction to try the case but has still acquitted the accused, or where the trial court has wrongly shut out evidence which the ^AIR 1951 sc 196 ^AIR 1962 SC 1788 6 CrI R C No 1951 of 2008 Dr.YLRJ prosecution wished to produce, or where the appeal court has wrongly held evidence which was admitted by the trial court to be inadmissible, or where material evidence has been overlooked either by the trial court or by the appeal court, or where the acquittal is based on a compounding of the offence, which is invalid under the law. These and other cases of similar nature can properly be held to be cases of exceptional nature, where the High Court can justifiably interfere with an order of acquittal; in such a case it is obvious that it cannot be said that the High Court n/as doing indirectly what it could not do directly in view of the provisions of S. 439 (4). We have, therefore, to see whether the order of the High Court setting aside the order of acquittal in this case can be upheld on these principles. 10. To prove the guilt of the accused/petitioner in C.C.No.203 of 2003, as per the request of the prosecution, the learned trial court examined PWs.1 to 7, marked Exhibits PI to P7 and M.O.Nos.1 & 2. Learned trial court, having appraised the evidence, came to a conclusion that the petitioner had committed the offence, for which he was charged. Accordingly, convicted and sentenced him. Learned appellate court also having gone through the evidence, witness of the prosecution and also the judgment of the learned trial court did not incline to interfere with the conviction and sentence dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner/appellant. 11. As seen from the judgments of the learned appellate court and the learned trial court, there is no misreading of evidence, there are no irregularities much less material irregularities committed by the learned courts below. This Court, while exercising powers under Section 397 and 401 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ cannot sit as a second appellate court for appreciating the evidence of the witnesses of the prosecution. Therefore, the conviction under Section 326 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ shall be maintained. 7 Crl.R.C.No.1951 of 20^ Dr.YLRj 12. With regard to the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the learned trial court and confirmed by the learned appellate court, the offence was taken place more than two decades ago. The petitioner was in jail for a period of 13 days. The petitioner with a wooden stick hit the de-facto complainant on his mouth due to which, dislocation of tooth was caused, which is considered to be grievous injury as per Section 326 of ‘the I.P.C.’. In this case, the de- facto complainant - PW1 died on 13.11.2023. 13. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor fairly conceded that there were no previous antecedents against the petitioner. The Superintendent of Sub Jail, Vizianagaram, submitted the nominal rolls of the petitioner. The petitioner was in prison for more than 13 days as mentioned supra. The right to speedy trial is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in HussainaraKhatoon (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^. 14. The petitioner is present before the Court. He is aged about 50 years. He is a sugar cane vendor. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has two children and they are pursuing their education. Learned counsel for the petitioner volunteers that an amount of Rs. 10,000/-, which excludes the payment of fine already paid by the petitioner, may be imposed “air 1979 SC 1360 ® 2000(1) BUR 37 8 Crl.R.C.No.1951 of 2008 Dr.YLRJ A of penance towards compensation. The said statement is as a measure recorded and approved. For the above mentioned reasons, the revision case is disposed of, confirming the conviction under Section 326 of ‘the J.P.C.,’ sentencing the petitioner to the sentence to which he has already undergone, while imposing an amount of Rs. 10,000/- which excludes the payment of fine of Rs.2500/- paid by the petitioner, at the time of preferring the appeal before the learned appellate court. The fine amount shall be paid to the Legal Representatives of the de-facto complainant/PWI under Section 357 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ before the learned trial court. The fine amount of Rs.10,000/- shall be paid before the 15. learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vizianagaram, within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which, the petitioner shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three (03) months. No order as to costs. 16. The Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vizianagaram, is directed to take necessary steps in implementing the order of this Court. Consequently, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed. SD/- K.SRINIVASA RAJU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR hr //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Additional Sessions Judge: Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District. 2. The Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate Court: Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District. 3. One CC to Smt. Taddi Sowmya Naidu Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CC's to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh Amaravati [OUT] 5. The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh Amaravathi at at 6. THREE CD COPIES SAM TAC HIGH COURT DATED:25/03/2025 COMMON ORDER CRLRC.No.1951 of 2008 g 2« m 2025 ^ Current Seoiion . DISPOSING OF THE CRLRC .x'\