1 APHC010256732011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3560] FRIDAY,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1417/2011 Between: 1. SANDHIPOGU MUSALAIAH, S/O VENKAIAH MADIGA BY CASDTE, BYTAMANJULUUR VILLAGE J.PANGULURU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP REP BYITS P P, PUblicProsector, High Court of AP., Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT 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 toAppeal against the judgment of the Session: Prakasam Division: Ongole(Before the Prl.Sessions Judge, Ongole) Prakasam District, in CrlA.No.8/2011, dt. 26-05/2011 IA NO: 1 OF 2011(CRLRCMP 2028 OF 2011 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 to dispense with the production of the certified copy and as well as Xerox Copy of the trial court Judgment in Sc.No.570/2010 dt. 28-01-2011, on the file of the court of Assistant Sessions Judge, Addanki, Prakasam District, and to pass IA NO: 2 OF 2011(CRLRCMP 2042 OF 2011 2 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 to suspend the execution of sentence and release the petitioner on bail, in Crl.A.No.8/2011, dated 26.05.2011, on the file of the Court of Prl. Sessions Judge, Ongole, Prakasam District, pending disposal of the Crl.R.C. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. A GAYATRI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1417/2011 The Court made the following Order: The Instant Criminal Revision Case has been preferred against the order of conviction passed by the learned Trial Court in Sessions Case No.570 of 2010, which was confirmed in criminal appeal by the learned Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.8 of 2011 under section 354 of Indian Penal Code, thereby the learned Trial Court has convicted the present petitioner for a period of 5 years and to pay fine of Rs.200/-, in default of payment of fine, to suffer 3 months simple imprisonment. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the alleged incident happened in the year 2010, during the pendency of the matter, the complainant has already expired. The learned Court below has imprisoned highest punishment to the petitioner, though there are several discrepancies in the evidence and the order passed by the learned Court below. He submits that though the learned Trial Court has found the petitioner to be guilty by virtue of amendment of Andhra Pradesh in respect of punishment under section 354 of IPC, the punishment against the present petitioner should be considered. He further submits that on merits, there are several discrepancies in the evidence of PW1, there are no ocular witnesses to support the prosecution case.Accordingly necessary order may be passed. 3. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor raised some objections and submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below suffers 4 no illegality and impropriety. He further submits that according to the Amendment of Andhra Pradesh in respect of quantum punishable under section 354 of IPC, the point may be considered. 4. Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner.On perusal of impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court, it appears that the incident happened on 17.04.2010, PW.1 was the victim. PWs. 2 to 4 are the relatives of the victim. On plain perusal of the First Information Report, it appears that the victim has stated that the some person had seen the accused to left the spot, after commission of the alleged offence, but no such evidence was adduced by the prosecution. There are discrepancies in the evidence of PW1. The evidence of PW’s 2 to 4 are exaggerated during the trial, which was noted by the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court. However, considering facts and circumstances of this Court, it appears to me that the order of conviction and sentence passed against the present petitioner as recorded by the learned Trial Court though suffers from minor discrepancies, but the entire conviction cannot be vitiated. However, according to Andhra Pradesh State Amendment for the offence punishable under section 354 of IPC, the Court in adequate and special reason may pass sentence less than five years. The State amendment vide A.P Act 6 of 1991 read as follows Andhra Pradesh in its application to the State of Andhra Pradesh, S.354 substituted as under : “354, Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty---- Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any woman, intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby outrage her modesty, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to sever years and shall also be liable to fine: 5 Provided that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment of either description for a term which may be less than five years, but which shall not be less than two years” Vide A.P.Act 6 of 1991. 5. It appears that the alleged offence was committed in the year 2010. Petitioner has already grilled in the fire of long pending litigation. The petitioner was in custody for considerable period, during the investigation, trial and appeal of this case. Considering the same, the sentence of imprisonment against the present petitioner would be justified to be two (02) years instead of five (05) years. The period of imprisonment, which was already under gone by the present petitioner during the entire period be set of under Section 428 Cr.P.C. 6. Accordingly, the instant Criminal Revision Case is disposed off. The petitioner is directed to surrender before the learned Trial Court within 12.03.2026 to serve out remaining portion of sentence, failing which, the Trial Court shall issue necessary directions of NBWA against petitioner to carry out the sentence. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA Dated:13.02.2026 CMK/SSA