1 APHC010569992009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3560] THURSDAY, THE 1st DAY OF OCTOBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1536/2009 Between: 1. CH. RAMA LAKSHMI, PERAVALI [M], WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT., S/O. SREENU KAPAVARAM VILLAGE, PERAVALI MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF A P REP BY P P HYDERABAD ANR, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD. 2. NANDIPA RAMA ADI NARAYANA RAJU, S/O. GANIYYA @ GAYESWARA RAO KAPAVARAM VILLAGE, PERAVALI MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 toset aside the order dt. 15-05-2009 passed in Sessions Case No. 203 of 2006 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Tanuku, West Godavari District, and punish the 2nd respondent for outraging the modesty of the petitioner. IA NO: 1 OF 2009(CRLRCMP 2135 OF 2009 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 2 suspend the order dt. 15-05-2009 passed in Sessions Case No. 203 of 2006 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Tanuku, West Godavari District, pending disposal of the revision petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. G ALLABAKASH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SAI GANGADHAR CHAMARTY 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1536/2009 ORDER: This instant Criminal Revision Case has been preferred against the Judgment, dated 15.05.2009 passed in Sessions Case No.203 of 2006 on the file of learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Tanuku, wherein and whereunder, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the 2nd respondent to be not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”). 2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that, P.W.1 has lodged a report with the police contending inter alia that P.W.1 is a married woman, for the last three years, the 2nd respondent / accused was teasing and harassing her. On 24.12.2005, at about 7.00 p.m., while she was going to her uncle’s house, the accused followed her, caught her with his hands from her behind and torn her jacket and demanded her to fulfill his sexual desire, thereby he outraged her modesty in public place. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though there is a particular evidence of P.W.1 / de facto complainant in respect of the alleged offence, but the trial Court i.e. learned Sessions Judge has erroneously did not record the conviction against the 2nd respondent. He further submits that the order of acquittal is illegal and it is liable to be set aside. 4 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 5. Perused the observation of learned trial Court. The prosecution has placed P.W.3 and P.W.4 to be the eyewitnesses. But P.W.3 turned hostile and P.W.4 also did not support the prosecution case. During evidence, P.W.1 though stated that some persons about 10 to 15 in number gathered there at the time of incident, but the report does not mention the names of any of the person, who gathered there. P.W.2 had supported the prosecution case to the fact that the accused – 2nd respondent has threatened P.W.1 to kill her if she did not fulfill his desire. But such evidence is not at all appeared to be supportive or corroborative in nature. 6. I have perused the entire material placed before learned trial Court. The prosecution to prove the charge against the accused, has placed as many as 13 prosecution witnesses. Several documents were marked as Exs.P.1 to P.9. 7. On thorough perusal of the evidence on record, it appears that the statements of prosecution witnesses are neither clinching nor corroborative in nature. There are several contradictions and omissions which go to the root of the prosecution case. Such contradictions and omissions appeared in the prosecution case, have raised a reasonable doubt, thereby the learned Sessions Judge is of the view that the charge against the accused under 5 Section 354 of IPC has not proved beyond reasonable doubt. On thorough perusal, the observation of the learned trial Court appears to be justifiable in the present facts and circumstances of the case. This Court, while exercising revisional jurisdiction, has limited powers to interfere with the findings of the learned trial Court, unless and until there is illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order, which is perverse in nature, this Court cannot found any such illegality or irregularity in the present case to entertain the criminal revision case. Accordingly, the instant criminal revision case has no merit and thereby it is liable to be dismissed. 8. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________________ JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA Date: 01.10.2026 ARR 6 129 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1536/2009 Date: 01.10.2026 ARR