APHC010356732025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] MONDAY, THE 27th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 762/2025 Between: 1. KONDRU APPARAO, SO APPALASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, D.NO. 3 11 33, CHINNA VEEDHI, RECHARLAPETA, KAKINADA. 2. KONDRU RAMALAKSHMI, W/O.APPARDO, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, D.NO. 3-11- 33, CHINNA VEEDHI, RECHARLAPETA, KAKINADA ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF AP, AMARAVATHI. THRU SHO WOMEN PS KAKINADA 2. TALLUPULUAMMA DEVI, D/O. DANDI KRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 44,ELVIN PETA, BEHIND AMEBEDKAR BOMMA, GANDHI NAGAR, KAKINADA TOWN, EAST GODAVARI, ANDHRA PRADESH -533004 ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. KAKUMANU JOJI AMRUTHA RAJU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. KOMARA PRUDHVI RAJ 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: The Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C.,’) challenging the judgment dated 20.06.2025 in Crl.A.No.386 of 2022 on the file of the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Kakinada, confirming the conviction for the charge under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘the I.P.C.,’) vide judgment dated 04.11.2022 in C.C.No.441 of 2016 passed by the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kakinada. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned Legal Aid Counsel for Respondent No.2. 3. Sri Kakumanu Joji Amrutha Raju, learned Counsel for the Petitioner while reiterating the grounds of revision submits that the Petitioners are in- laws of Respondent No.2 and they are aged about 79 years and 75 years respectively. They were in the judicial custody for a period of twenty days. To prove the guilt of the Petitioners prosecution had examined as many as six witnesses and got marked Ex.P1 to P5. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the Petitioners and no documents were marked. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners further urged this Court to reduce the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone by the Petitioners and urged to dispose of the Criminal Revision Case. 4. Per contra, Mr. A.Sai Rohith, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that the learned Appellate Court having gone through the 3 evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the judgment of the learned Trial Court rightly passed the judgment confirming the conviction for the offence charged and urged to dismiss the revision case as there are no material irregularities, flagrant miscarriage of justice and misreading of the evidence. 5. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. 6. Now the point for consideration is: “Whether the order in Crl.A.No.386 of 2022 dated 20.06.2025, passed by the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Kakinada, is correct, legal, and proper with respect to its finding, sentence, or judgment, and there are any material irregularities? And to what relief?” 7. In adjudicating a Criminal Revision assailing concurrent findings of conviction, it is jurisprudentially imperative to advert to the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar1, wherein the Court, at Paragraph No.13, emphatically delineated the contours of revisional jurisdiction. It was observed that in the absence of demonstrable legal infirmity in the procedural framework or in the conduct of the trial, the High Court is bereft of justification to exercise its revisional powers. The Hon’ble Apex Court underscored that revisional authority is not a forum for re- appreciation or re-evaluation of evidence with a view to supplant the findings of the Trial Court. Only where there exists manifest illegality or palpable perversity culminating in grave miscarriage of justice, can the extraordinary jurisdiction under revision be legitimately invoked, otherwise, judicial restraint must prevail. 1(2002) 6 SCC 650 4 8. In the context of revisional scrutiny over concurrent findings of conviction, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Appa Babu Ingale 2, at Paragraph No.2, has categorically circumscribed the ambit of interference by the High Court. The Court observed that ordinarily it is impermissible for the revisional Court to unsettle concurrent determinations of fact rendered by the subordinate Courts, particularly by embarking upon a fresh re-appreciation of evidence. The revisional jurisdiction, being supervisory in nature, is not intended to function as a second appellate forum, its invocation is justified only where glaring illegality, perversity, or miscarriage of justice is manifest. Absent such exceptional circumstances, judicial discipline mandates deference to the concurrent findings of the Courts below. 9. In Jagannath Chowdhary v. Ramayan Singh3, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while elaborating upon the ambit of revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ lucidly articulated that such power is inherently discretionary, but the discretion must be exercised judiciously, never arbitrarily. Judicial discretion, as the Court emphasized, must be “informed by tradition, methodised by analogy and disciplined by system,” thereby confining its invocation to circumstances of glaring procedural defects, manifest errors of law, or flagrant miscarriage of justice. The revisional forum is not an appellate tribunal for re-scrutiny of evidence or substitution of possible alternative views, its application is restrictive, reserved for exceptional situations where correction of illegality or prevention of gross injustice is imperative. The Court 2AIR 1993 SC 1126 3AIR 2002 SC 2229 5 further clarified that while the High Court retains supervisory authority over subordinate courts, both administratively and judicially, the jurisdictional sweep under Section 401 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ remains circumscribed. In the facts under consideration, the High Court was held to have transgressed its revisional limits by setting aside an acquittal and directing a fresh judgment, which constituted a significant departure from the normal course of revisional adjudication. 10. Keeping in view of all the principles laid down in the judgments referred supra, I shall proceed to decide this Revision Case without there being any iota of re-appreciation of evidence by sitting like a second appellate court. This Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 397 read with Section 401 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ cannot invoke it’s revisional power as a Second Appellate Court and re-appreciation of evidence is not possible in the revision case as laid down in the decisions in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh, Jagannath Chowdhary and Appa Babu Ingale supra. However, this Court is not denuded of its powers to examine whether judgments impugned are correct, legal and proper with respect to their findings, sentence or even judgment and there are any material irregularities. If there are manifest illegalities and interest of public justice requires interference for the correction of those manifest illegalities or to prevent a great miscarriage of justice, this Court is empowered to evaluate the evidence and analyze it and come to a just conclusion. 6 11. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Hussainara Khatoon (IV) v. Home Secretary State of Bihar4 it is held that right to speedy trial which includes hearing of the Appeal and Revision is part of a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. 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 Bihar5. The right of speedy trial of the revisionist is being violated because of delay in disposal of the revision within a reasonable time. 12. In the considered view of this Court, upon meticulous scrutiny of the impugned judgments of the learned Trial Court and the learned Appellate Court, no perversity, illegality, or material irregularity is discernible so as to warrant interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 of ‘the Cr.P.C.’ The concurrent findings of conviction are founded upon due appreciation of the evidence adduced, and the submissions advanced on behalf of the Petitioners fail to demonstrate any manifest error of law, procedural infirmity, or flagrant miscarriage of justice. It is well‑settled that revisional jurisdiction is supervisory in nature and cannot be invoked as a second appellate forum for re‑appreciation of evidence, except in circumstances of glaring illegality or palpable perversity. In the present case, the record reveals no such exceptional circumstance, therefore, the judgments impugned are correct, legal, and proper, having been rendered in consonance with established principles of criminal jurisprudence. Accordingly, this Court 4 AIR 1979 SC 1360 5 (1999) 7 SCC 604 7 finds no merit in the revision and holds that the conviction and sentence as affirmed by the learned Appellate Court do not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference. 13. Insofar as the quantum of sentence is concerned, this Court has given anxious and circumspect consideration to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. As mentioned supra, the Petitioners are persons of advanced age and are afflicted with serious and debilitating health conditions. Consequently, while maintaining and affirming the well-founded conviction recorded against the Petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of ‘the I.P.C.,’ as upheld by the learned Appellate Court, this Criminal Revision Case is disposed of, by modifying the sentence and reducing the imprisonment from six months to the period of incarceration already undergone by the Petitioners. 14. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case stands disposed of in the terms stated above. No order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. ________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Dt: 27.07.2026 VTS