APHC010253302020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] TUESDAY, THE 15th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 361/2020 Between: 1. K N SHIVA KUMAR, S/O LATE KUNTI NARASIMHAPPA, AGE. 28, R/O S C COLONY, MUTHUKURU VILLAGE, GUDIBANDA MANDAL, ANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR OF HIGH COURT, AMARAVATHI. 2. K N NAGENDRA, CRIME NO. 30 OF 2016 OF GUDIBANDA POLICE STATION, ANANTAPUR DIST. ( R-2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE COURT'S ORDER DATED 09/07/2026 ) ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. N RANGA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: The Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Sections 397 and 401of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C.’), questioning the judgment dated 25.08.2020 passed in Crl.A.No.104 of 2017 on the file of the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Hindupur (for brevity ‘learned Appellate Court’), whereby and whereunder the conviction for the charge under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code (for brevity ‘the I.P.C.’) recorded by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Hindupur (for brevity ‘learned Trial Court’), in S.C.No.475 of 2016, vide judgment dated 18.07.2017, was confirmed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 3. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has filed certain documents stating that respondent No.2 is no more. 4. Hence, the Criminal Revision Case against respondent No.2 is abated. 5. Respondent No.2 lodged a complaint with the Station House Officer, Gudibanda Police Station, which was registered as a case in Crime No.30 of 2016 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of ‘the I.P.C.’ After thorough investigation, charge sheet was filed for the alleged offences mentioned above. The learned Trial Court, after conducting thorough trial, found the petitioner/accused guilty for the charge under Section 498-A of ‘the I.P.C.’, but acquitted the petitioner for the charge under Section 306 of ‘the I.P.C.’, as the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt for the above mentioned count. 3 6. The petitioner has challenged the judgment of the learned Trial Court before the learned Appellate Court. The learned Appellate Court, as mentioned supra, confirmed the conviction and sentence for the charge under Section 498-A of ‘the I.P.C.’ 7. Mr.N.Ranga Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the grounds raised in the revision, submits that there was no cruelty or harassment meted out by the petitioner towards the daughter of respondent No.2. It is further submitted that the petitioner had undergone nearly 193 days in the District Jail, Anantapuramu. Hence, the learned counsel urged to dispose of the Criminal Revision Case by setting off the period which the petitioner had already undergone. 8. Of course, the petitioner has paid an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards fine as imposed by the learned Trial Court. The learned Trial Court has imposed three years of imprisonment on the petitioner for the charge under Section 498-A of IPC. The wife of the petitioner committed suicide by setting herself ablaze, and 100% burns were noted by the Medical Officer. PW1 deposed that his daughter was subjected to cruelty and harassment and that the petitioner had also demanded Rs.50,000/- and suspected his daughter’s fidelity. 9. The learned Trial Court, having appreciated the evidence of the witnesses of the prosecution, who are eight in number, concluded that the prosecution proved the guilt of the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt for the 4 charge under Section 498-A of ‘the I.P.C.’ The learned Appellate Court also confirmed the same. 10. This Court cannot appreciate the evidence of the witnesses of the prosecution when the learned Appellate Court has already considered the evidence and confirmed the findings of the learned Trial Court. There is no miscarriage of the justice. There are also no material irregularities in conducting the trial or appeal. 11. Having regard to the entire nature of the offence alleged against the petitioner, conviction recorded against the petitioner for the charge under Section 498-A of ‘the I.P.C.’, is confirmed. However, with regard to the sentence of imprisonment, the learned Trial Court has mentioned in its judgment that the petitioner was in the jail for about 133 days. Later, the petitioner was in the judicial custody for about 60 days. Thus, the petitioner was in the judicial custody for about 193 days. Nature of evidence is only the statement of PW1/respondent No.2. No other witnesses who directly saw the alleged harassment or cruelty had spoken against the petitioner. 12. The Criminal Revision Case is of the year 2020. The alleged offence was committed in the year 2016. Nearly ten years have passed by. The petitioner’s right to speedy trial, which includes disposal of the Sessions Case, the Appeal and the Revision Case, has been violated under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Section 498-A of ‘the I.P.C.’ prescribes imprisonment for a period of three years and with fine. There is no minimum sentence of imprisonment prescribed under Section 498-A of ‘the I.P.C.’ 5 13. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of confirming the conviction and upholding payment of fine of Rs.10,000/- for the charge under Section 498-A of ‘the I.P.C.’, while reducing the sentence of imprisonment to which the petitioner had already undergone. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 15.09.2026 BMS