Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Komali Satyanarayana Sathibabu vs The State Of A.P. on 16 June, 2025
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 669 of 2010
ORDER:
The Criminal Revision Case has been preferred under Sections 397 and
401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C‘) challenging
the judgment dated 25.03.2010 in Crl.A.No.28 of 2009 passed by the learned I
Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry, modifying the
conviction for the offence from section 326 of ‘the IPC.,’ to section 324 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘the I.P.C‘) and sentencing him to undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of
Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only), and, in default, to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of 15 days, as against the sentence of rigorous
imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 2,000/- imposed by the learned I
Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, in S.C.No.334 of 2008 dated 09.02.2009
finding the revisionist guilty, under Section 235 (2) of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ for the
offence punishable under Section 326 of ‘the IPC.’
2. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and
the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.
3. Sri Y. Sudhakar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, whilst reiterating
the grounds of the revision, submitted that the judgment of the learned
Appellate Court in convicting the accused for the charge under Section 324 of
‘the IPC.,’ and imposing sentence for three months besides payment of
2
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.R.C.No.669 of 2010
Dated 16.06.2025
Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment of 15 days, is erroneous
and contrary to evidence on record and probabilities of the case; the learned
Appellate Court ought to have seen that there was no explanation for the delay
in presenting the F.I.R which is fatal to the case of the prosecution and ought
to have acquitted the accused; there is no corroboration between one witness
and other witness and none of the independent witnesses supported the
prosecution case; the sister of the 2nd accused i.e., Smt.N. Suryakantham is an
injured person and basing on her report a case was registered against the
P.W.3, Komali Nageswara Rao which was an incident happened in the subject
matter of the present case and as it being a case in counter and the petitioner
and his family members are victims at the hands of the prosecution witnesses
ought to have acquitted the petitioner on the same ground along with the 2 nd
accused.
3.1. It is further argued that the incident happened at 7:00 p.m., in the dark
night and there was no light at the relevant point of time and hurling of tiles by
persons from the dark was admitted by the prosecution witnesses and ought to
have acquitted the petitioner; the doctor also confirmed that the injury
sustained by P.W.2 is possible by hurling of tiles with force and ought to have
acquitted the petitioner. Further there is no evidence on record to show that
the injury was sustained by P.W.2 can only be possible by an axe; the 2nd
accused is nowhere shown as accused till the filing of the charge sheet and
L.W.3 was shown as 2nd accused in Crime No.90 of 2017 and later he was
3
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.R.C.No.669 of 2010
Dated 16.06.2025
figured as L.W.3 and father of the 1st accused was arrayed as 2nd accused in
the charge sheet and there is no explanation implicating the 2nd accused in a
mechanical manner; the statement of 2nd accused was recorded by the
investigating officer on 28.07.2007 at Bobillilanka village at his house, but the
same investigating officer deposed that the 2nd accused was absconding from
his house from 26.07.2007 onwards and the learned Courts below ought to
have given benefit of doubt of the petitioner.
3.2. It is further more argued that the P.W.1 and P.W.3 deposed that they
had sustained injuries, but there was no medical evidence to support their
contention and moreover there was no corroboration between the manner of
incident and sustained of injury by P.W.2 ought to have acquitted the
petitioner; the medical evidence was not strictly proved as to the nature of the
injury sustained by P.W.2 and there was no positive evidence as to the
sutured wound of P.W.1 and there is no corresponding injury, and hence the
learned Courts below ought to have given benefit of doubt to the petitioner; the
Radiologist was not examined and his report was not filed in order to decide
the injuries are grievous nature, and the learned Courts below ought to have
acquitted the petitioner; the prosecution witnesses categorically admitted that
some persons hurled tiles from dark, the Court’s below erroneously placed
burden on the defence instead of extending of benefit of doubt to the
petitioner; P.W.2 version in his cross-examination that he along with the
4
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.R.C.No.669 of 2010
Dated 16.06.2025
petitioner were watching T.V. at 7:00 p.m., on 26.07.2007 and were inside the
house clearly showed the innocence of the petitioner.
4. Alternatively, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that nearly
18 years ago alleged incident was taken place. By that time the age of the
Petitioner was only 21 years. He has been facing mental agony because of
delayed litigation. He has no adverse antecedents either prior or subsequent.
The Petitioner is ready to pay the additional amount of Rs.10,000/- towards
fine as a measure of penance and urged to consider the case of the Petitioner
and pass appropriate orders.
5. Per contra, Ms. P. Akila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
vehemently argued that the learned Appellate Court having gone through the
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.
6. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by
the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor. I have perused the record.
7. Now the point for consideration is:
“Whether the judgment in Crl.A.No.28 of 2009 dated 25.03.2010
passed by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, East
Godavari at Rajahmundry, is correct, legal, and proper with
respect to its finding, sentence, or judgment, and there are any
material irregularities? And to what relief?”
5
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.R.C.No.669 of 2010
Dated 16.06.2025
8. It is apposite to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in
Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v State of Bihar1 wherein at Paragraph No.13 it
is held as under:
“13…. In the absence of any legal infirmity either in the procedure
or in the conduct of the trial, there was no justification for the
High Court to interfere in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.
It has repeatedly been held that the High Court should not re-
appreciate the evidence to reach a finding different from the trial
Court. In the absence of manifest illegality resulting in grave
miscarriage of justice, exercise of revisional jurisdiction in such
cases is not warranted.
9. This Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 397 read with
Section 401 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ cannot invoke its revisional power as a Second
Appellate Court and re-appreciation of evidence is not possible in the revision
case as laid down in the decision in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh.
10. It is forthcoming in the evidence of witnesses of prosecution that P.W.3
known to P.W.5, who is a businessman at Rajahmundry. Petitioner/Accused
No.1 requested P.W.3 a loan of Rs.5,000/- to purchase a motorcycle from
P.W.5. P.W.3, accordingly, arranged that loan. However, the Petitioner refused
to pay the loan amount, when P.W.3 demanded the Petitioner. P.W.5 came to
the house of the Petitioner for collection of amounts on 26.07.2007 and
insisted the Petitioner to pay the loan amount, but the Petitioner replied that he
would pay whenever he had money and quarrelled with P.W.3 and 5.
1
(2002) 6 SCC 650
6
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.R.C.No.669 of 2010
Dated 16.06.2025
Petitioner also replied that there was no necessity to pay the amount and gave
a vague reply.
11. It is evident that Accused No.2 pushed down P.W.5. Petitioner attacked
P.W.1 with an axe and caused injuries on the head at left side. As a result,
P.W.1 lost his consciousness. P.W.2 was attacked by the Petitioner with an
axe. He also sustained head injury. Evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 clearly disposed
that the Petitioner caused injuries to the victims. Therefore, the learned
Appellate Court found the Petitioner guilty of the offence under Section 324 of
‘the I.P.C.’ The remaining all the other grounds which the learned Counsel for
the Petitioner raised in this Criminal Revision Case cannot be appreciated in
the revision case by sitting as second Appellate Court for re-appreciating or re-
evaluating of the evidence of the witness of the prosecution. Such a course is
impermissible under Section 397 and 401 of ‘the Cr.P.C.’ There was no
misreading of evidence. There were no material irregularities. There was no
flagrant miscarriage of justice. The judgment of the learned Appellate Court
must be sustained. Hence the conviction under Section 324 of ‘the I.P.C.,’
shall be maintained.
12. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Hussainara Khatoon (IV) v. Home
Secretary State of Bihar2 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
2
AIR 1979 SC 1360
7
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.R.C.No.669 of 2010
Dated 16.06.2025
includes criminal revisions as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in
Rajdeo Sharma v. State of Bihar3. The right of speedy trial of the revisionist
is being violated because of delay in disposal of the revision within a
reasonable time.
13. As stated supra, the occurrence took place about 18 years ago. At the
time of commission of the offence the age of the petitioner was 21 years. Now
he is about 40 years. The revisionist has been facing mental agony and
trauma of the protracted prosecution and suffered mental harassment for a
long period of 18 years. Section 324 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ gives discretion to this
Court either to impose sentence of imprisonment for three years or fine or
both. The Petitioner was in incarceration for a period of 45 days. The learned
Assistant Public Prosecutor fairly conceded that there were neither prior nor
subsequent adverse antecedents against the petitioner. Therefore, the delay is
also one of the grounds to modify the impugned judgment. Therefore, it is
appropriate and proportionate that the sentence is required to be reduced to
the period of sentence of imprisonment already undergone by the revisionist,
while the payment of fine amount is required to be enhanced.
14. The learned Trial Court imposed Rs. 2,000/- (thousand two thousand
only) which was enhanced by the learned Appellate Court to Rs.5,000/-. The
learned counsel for the revisionist volunteered that the revisionist would pay
Rs.10,000/- excluding the fine of Rs.5,000/- already paid by the revisionist,
3 (1999) 7 SCC 604
8
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.R.C.No.669 of 2010
Dated 16.06.2025
while preferring the appeal before Appellate Court, as a measure of penance.
The said voluntary statement is recorded and approved.
15. In view of the obtaining peculiar facts and circumstances of the case,
the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of, confirming and maintaining the
conviction under section 324 of ‘the IPC.,’ while reducing the sentence to
which the revisionist had already undergone, and imposing the sentence of
payment of additional fine of Rs.10,000/- excluding the fine amount already
paid by the revisionist.
16. The additional fine amount of Rs.10,000/- shall be paid by the revisionist
before the learned trial court within a period of two months from the date of
receipt of this order, failing which the revisionist shall undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of three months. The additional fine amount of
Rs.10,000/- shall be paid to the de-facto complainant or to his LR’s, if the de-
facto complainant is not alive.
17. The learned I Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Rajahmundry is
directed to take up required follow-up steps for recovering the fine amount
from the Petitioner and disbursing the said amount to the de-facto complainant
or to his LR’s, if he is not alive, under section 357 of ‘the Cr.P.C.’
18. The I Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Rajahmundry is directed to
recover the payment of an additional fine of Rs.10,000/- from the revisionist
within two months from the date of receipt of this order.
9
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.R.C.No.669 of 2010
Dated 16.06.2025
19. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory
applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
_________________________
Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J
Dt: 16.06.2025
KMS
10
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.R.C.No.669 of 2010
Dated 16.06.2025
33
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 669/2010
16.06.2025
W
KMS