1 APHC010406452019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] WEDNESDAY, THE 5th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1258/2019 Between: 1. UDATHA CHINNABBAIAH @ SURENDRA,, SIO SUDHAKAR, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/O EPURU VILLAGE, MUTHUKURU MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF A P, THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MUTHUKURU POLICE STATION, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P, AMARAVATHI. 2. ISANAKA SUDHAKAR REDDY, R/O EPURU BALIJAPALEM VILLAGE OF MUTHUKUR PS ( R2 IS IMPLEADED SA PER THE COURT'S ORDER DATED 15.07.2026. ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 toMemorandum of Criminal revision case against the judgment dated 29.11.2019 in Criminal Appeal No. 126 of 2 2017 on the file of the Court of the Special Judge for Trail of offences under S.Cs and S.Ts (POA) Act Cum V Additional Sessions Judge, Nellore thereby partly modifying and confirming the part of conviction and sentence passed in the judgment dated 28.02.2017 in CC.No.221 of 2014 on the file of the Court of the IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SIVAPRASAD REDDY VENATI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2. KURAVATI LENIN BABU The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Sections 480 & 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, 'the BNSS'), challenging the judgment dated 29.11.2029 passed by the learned Special Judge for Trial of Offences under the SCs and STs (POA) Act-cum-V Additional Sessions Judge, Nellore in Crl.A.No.126 of 2017, whereby and whereunder the petitioner/Accused No.1 was convicted for the charge under Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity, ‘the I.P.C.,’) and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of one year and, for the charge under Section 324 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of one year. He was also directed to pay a fine of Rs.4,000/- for the offence under Section 452 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ and an amount of Rs.2,000/- for 3 the offence under Section 324 of ‘the I.P.C.,’. The petitioner has paid the fine amount. 2. Heard Sri Venati Siva Prasad Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner. He has reiterated the grounds of the Criminal Revision Case and submits that the alleged offence took place in the year 2014 and nearly 12 years have passed. Respondent No.2 is also no more. The petitioner volunteers that an amount of Rs.10,000/- may be imposed towards additional fine, as the offences under Sections 452 & 324 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ are punishable with imprisonment which may extend up to seven years and three years respectively, but without any minimum sentence prescribed. The petitioner was in judicial custody for a period of 10 days, and the proved charges are not punishable with minimum imprisonment and therefore urged to pass appropriate orders. 3. The learned Legal Aid Counsel for Respondent No.2 would submit that appreciation of the evidence is not permissible as per Section 497 of ‘the BNSS’. There are no merits or justification, nor is there any illegality warranting interference. Therefore, the order of conviction is required to be confirmed, while urging this Court to pass appropriate orders, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. PW.1/Respondent No.2 lodged a complaint with the Sub-Inspector of Police/PW.6, which was registered as a case in Cr.No.70 of 2014. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. The learned Trial Court 4 examined PW.1 to PW.7 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P6, Ex.D1 and Ex.D2. No witnesses were examined on behalf of the accused. 5. The learned Trial Court found the petitioner/Accused No.1 guilty of the charges under Sections 452 & 324 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ and convicted him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years and paying a fine amount of Rs.4,000/- for the charge under Section 452 of ‘the I.P.C’. For the charge under Section 324 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ he was directed to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-. The petitioner/Accused No.1 challenged the judgment dated 28.02.2017 passed by the learned IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore in C.C.No.221 of 2014. The learned Appellate Court partly allowed the appeal while confirming the conviction for the charges under Sections 452 & 324 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ and reduced the sentence of imprisonment as mentioned supra. The fine amount was directed to be paid. In the grounds of the Revision Case, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there were contradictions marked through Ex.D1 and Ex.D2. 6. Be that as it may, this Court cannot again re-appreciated the evidence of PW.3. PW.3, as mentioned by the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court, has consistently spoken about the specific overt acts of the petitioner/Accused No.1. The learned Appellate Court has rightly confirmed the conviction for the charges. There are no merits to interfering with the aspect of conviction. 5 7. Hence, the conviction for the charges under Sections 452 & 324 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ is held sustainable. With regard to the sentence of imprisonment, the learned Appellate Court reduced the sentence imposed by the learned Trial Court. It is also on record that the petitioner was in judicial custody for a period of ten (10) days and had also paid fine amount of Rs.6,000/-. Respondent No.2 is no more. The alleged offence took place in the year 2014 and nearly 12 years have passed. The petitioner is aged about 39 years. He has a wife, children and old aged parents to maintain, and he has not committed similar offences. 8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, and in view of the fact that the proved charges are not punishable with minimum imprisonment, the sentence of imprisonment is modified to the period already undergone by the petitioner, while directing him to pay an additional amount of Rs.4,000/- for the charge under Section 452 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ and Rs.6,000/- for the charge under Section 324 of ‘the I.P.C’. Thus, the petitioner shall pay an additional fine of Rs.10,000/-. The fine amount shall be deposited with the learned Registrar (Judicial) within a period of one (01) week, failure to pay the Petitioner shall suffer imprisonment for a period of three (03) months. 6 9. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. No order as to costs. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 05.08.2026 SSA 7 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1258/2019 Date: 05.08.2026 SSA