APHC010572992008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3560] FRIDAY, THE 10th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 822/2008 Between: 1. DEVARAKONDA RAMULU, S/O. KOTAIAH R/O. ANUMALAVEEDU VILLAGE, RACHERLA MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF A P REP BY PP, rep.by its Public Prosecuror, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to submit this Memorandum of Criminal Revision aggrieved by the judgment in CC.No. 110 of 2003 dated 23.04.2007 on the file of the court of the addl. Junior civil Judge, Giddalur, Prakasam District and confirmed in C.A.No. 46 of 2007 dated 03.04.2008 on the file of the VI Addl. District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Markapur IA NO: 1 OF 2008(CRLRCMP 1116 OF 2008 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 filing of the certified copy of judgment dated 23.04.2007 in CC.No. 110 of 2003 on the file oof the court of the Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Giddalur, Prakasam District IA NO: 2 OF 2008(CRLRCMP 1138 OF 2008 -2- CRL.R.C. No.822 OF 2008 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 enlarge the petitioner/accused No.4 on bail by suspending the operation of conviction and sentence passed in CC.No. 110 of 2003 dated 23.04.2007 on the file of the court of the Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Giddalur, Prakasam District and confirmed in C.A.No. 46 of 2007 dated 03.04.2008 on the file of the VI Addl. District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Markapur, pending disposal of the Crl.R.C. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. B V ANJANEYULU Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: -3- CRL.R.C. No.822 OF 2008 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No:822/2008 ORDER: 1. The instant criminal revision case has been preferred against judgment and order dated 03.04.2008 passed by learned VI Additional District & Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Markapur, whereby learned Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed upon the present petitioner by learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Giddalur, Prakasam District, in C.C. No.1103 of 2003, dated 23.04.2007. 2. The brief facts of the case, in a nutshell, are as follows: 2.1. There were four accused persons in C.C. No.110 of 2003, including the present petitioner, who was arrayed as A.4. The allegation against the present petitioner is that he harboured the main assailants who had committed the offence punishable under Section 392 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, I.P.C.). 2.2. After trial, learned Magistrate concerned convicted the present petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 216A IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred an appeal before learned VI Additional District & Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Markapur. By judgment dated 03.04.2008, learned appellate Court dismissed the appeal and -4- CRL.R.C. No.822 OF 2008 confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by learned trial Court. Hence, the present Criminal Revision Case. 3. SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3.1 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire prosecution case is based on the evidence of P.Ws.3, 4 and 5. 3.2 P.W.3 is the Sarpanch of the village, who is happened to be a relative of the de facto complainant. P.W.4 is the Panchayat Secretary, who was admittedly working under the control of P.W.3. P.W.5 is the Investigating Officer, who, according to the petitioner, conducted the investigation in a perfunctory manner. 3.3 Learned counsel further submits that the present petitioner is in no way connected with the alleged offence, but learned Magistrate recorded the conviction illegally and the conviction is liable to be set aside. 4. SUBMISSIONS OF THE STATE: 4.1 Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, while refuting the contentions of the petitioner, submits that the prosecution has successfully proved the charge against the present petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 216-A of IPC. It is further submitted that the evidence of mediators establishes that certain articles, which were used in the commission of the dacoity, were seized from the house of the present petitioner. -5- CRL.R.C. No.822 OF 2008 4.2 Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further submits that there are no material contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and that the oral and documentary evidence on record fully supports the prosecution case. Thus, there is no illegality in recording of conviction. 5. During course of hearing, nominal roll of the petitioner was called for. It appears from the nominal roll that the present petitioner has undergone imprisonment for a period of three months and fourteen days in connection with this case. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. OBSERVATIONS OF THE COURT: 7.1 It appears that allegation against the present petitioner is that he harboured certain dacoits in his house. To prove the said allegation, prosecution relied upon the evidence of the mediators and the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4. From their evidence, it appears that certain material objects, which were used in the commission of the dacoity, were seized from the house of the petitioner. 7.2 During the course of arguments, though learned counsel for the petitioner heavily argued that P.W.3, the Sarpanch of the village and one of the mediators, was a relative of the de facto complainant, but no such material was placed either before learned trial Court or learned Sessions Judge to establish that, on account of such -6- CRL.R.C. No.822 OF 2008 relationship, P.Ws.3 and 4 had falsely deposed against the petitioner. 7.3 Moreover, there are no previous enmity between P.Ws.3 and 4 and the present petitioner, for which the petitioner could be falsely implicated in this matter. 7.4 Under the above observation, it appears that learned trial court has rightly relied upon the evidence of P.Ws.3, 4 and 5 in recording the conviction. At this juncture, I find no justification to interfere with the order passed by learned Sessions Judge in confirming the conviction of the present petitioner. 7.5 However, insofar as the sentence is concerned, it appears that the present petitioner has undergone imprisonment for a period of three months and fourteen days in connection with this case. The petitioner is presently aged about 60 years. Instant criminal proceedings have been pending since the year 2003 and already more than 20 years have elapsed. 7.6 In Surendran vs Sub Inspector of Police1, Hon’ble Supreme Court has taken the view that a lenient approach may be adopted in the matter of sentence where an accused has suffered the ordeal of prolonged litigation. 7.7 In the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case in which leniency may be shown in the matter 1 2021 Supreme(SC) 298 -7- CRL.R.C. No.822 OF 2008 of sentence. Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction of the present petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 216-A IPC, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year is modified and reduced from one year to the period of imprisonment already undergone by the petitioner. 7.8 Under the above observation, instant criminal revision case is disposed of. 8. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this revision shall stand closed. ______________________ SUBHENDU SAMANTA, J Dt.10.07.2026 BV