Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Kamanuri Narasimha Rao vs The State Of Ap., on 8 April, 2025
APHC010317372012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3521]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 2148/2012
Between:
Kamanuri Narasimha Rao ...PETITIONER
AND
The State of AP ...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Burlu Chandra Sekhar
Counsel for the Respondent:
Public Prosecutor (AP)
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Criminal revision case has been preferred under Sections 397 and 401
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C‘) challenging
the judgment dated 31.10.2012 in Crl.A.No.157 of 2012 on the file of the
learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Markapur, allowing the
criminal appeal in part confirming the conviction and sentence against the
petitioner for the offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(for brevity ‘the I.P.C‘), vide judgment dated 01.08.2012 passed by the learned
Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Podili, in C.C.No.190 of 2008 setting aside
conviction and sentence against the petitioner, A2 to A10 for the offences
2
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.R.C.No.2148 of 2012
Dated 08.04.2025
under Section 353 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘the
I.P.C‘) and conviction and sentence against A2 to A10 for the offence under
Section 323 r/w 149 of ‘the I.P.C‘.
2. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and
the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.
3. Sri I. Koti Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the
grounds of the revision, submitted that no independent witnesses were
examined; P.Ws.1 to 3 are the police constables who were interested
witnesses; evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is not trustworthy since they had not
sustained any injuries; P.Ws.1 to 3 are inimical to the petitioner; and requested
to allow the criminal revision case.
4. Alternatively, it is submitted that the offence occurred in the year 2008
and nearly 17 years have passed by. The petitioner was in jail for about 4
days. The petitioner’s right to speedy disposal of the criminal revision case as
guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is infringed, and urged
to sentence the petitioner to which he had already undergone.
5. Per contra, Ms. P. Akila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
vehemently argued that the prosecution had proved the guilt of the petitioner
beyond all reasonable doubt; though P.Ws.1 to 3 are police officials, their
evidence was not tainted with any infirmities; the learned Appellate Court
rightly found the petitioner guilty for the offence under Section 323 of ‘the
I.P.C‘; there was no misreading of the evidence and material irregularity
3
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.R.C.No.2148 of 2012
Dated 08.04.2025
committed by the learned Appellate Court and urged to dismiss the criminal
revision case.
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.157 of 2012 dated 31.10.2012
passed by the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Markapur, is correct, legal, and proper with respect to its finding,
sentence, or judgment, and there are any material irregularities?
And to what relief?”
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 Nos.12
& 13 it is held as under:
“12. … We have carefully considered the material on record and
we are satisfied that the High Court was not justified in re-
appreciating the evidence on record and coming to a different
conclusion in a revision preferred by the information under
Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Sub-section (3)
of Section 401 in terms provides that nothing in Section 401 shall
be deemed to authorize a High Court to convert a finding of
acquittal into one of conviction. The aforesaid sub-section, which
places a limitation on the powers of the revisional Court,
prohibiting it from convert a finding of acquittal into one of
conviction, is itself indicative of the nature and extent of the
revisional power conferred by Section 401 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure. If the High Court could not convert a finding
of acquittal into one of the conviction directly, it could not do so
indirectly by the method of ordering a re-trial. It is well settled by
a catena of decisions of this Court that the High Court will
ordinarily not interfere in revision with an order of acquittal except
in exceptional cases where the interest of public justice requires
interference for the correction of a manifest illegality or the
1
(2002) 6 SCC 650
4
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.R.C.No.2148 of 2012
Dated 08.04.2025prevention of gross miscarriage of justice.The High Court will not
be justified in interfering with an order of acquittal merely
because the trial Court has taken a wrong view of the law or has
erred in appreciation of evidence. It is neither possible nor
advisable to make an exhaustive list of circumstances in which
exercise of revisional jurisdiction may be justified, but decisions
of this Court have laid down the parameters of exercise of
revisional jurisdiction by the High Court under Section 401 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure in an appeal against acquittal by a
private party.
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. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in D Stephens v Nosibolla2 at Paragraph
No.10 held as under:
“The revisional jurisdiction conferred on the High Court under S.
439, Cr.P.C., is not to be lightly exercised, when it is invoked by
a private complainant against an order of acquittal, against which
the Govt. has no right of appeal under S. 417. It could be
exercised only in exceptional cases where the interests of public
justice require interference for the correction of a manifest
illegality, or the prevention of a gross miscarriage of justice. This
jurisdiction is not ordinarily invoked or used merely because the
lower court has taken a wrong view of the law or mis-appreciated
the evidence on record.”
10. The Hon’ble Apex Court in K Chinnaswamy Reddy v State of AP3,at
Paragraph No.7 held as under:
“7. It is true that it is open to a High Court in revision to set aside
an order of acquittal even at the instance of private parties,
though the State may not have thought fit to appeal; but this
jurisdiction should in our opinion be exercised by the High Court
only in exceptional cases, when there is some glaring defect in
the procedure or there is a manifest error on a point of law and
2
AIR 1951 SC 196
3
AIR 1962 SC 1788
5
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.R.C.No.2148 of 2012
Dated 08.04.2025consequently there has been a flagrant miscarriage of justice.
Sub-section (4) of S. 439 forbids a High Court from converting a
finding of acquittal into one of conviction and that makes it all the
more incumbent on the High Court to see that it does not,
convert the finding of acquittal into one of conviction by the
indirect method of ordering retrial when it cannot itself directly
convert a finding of acquittal into a finding of conviction. This
places limitations on the power of the High Court to set aside a
finding of acquittal in revision and it is only in exceptional cases
that this power should be exercised. It is not possible to lay down
the criteria for determining such exceptional cases which would
cover all contingencies. We may, however, indicate some cases
of this kind which would in our opinion justify the High Court in
interfering with a finding of acquittal in revision. These cases may
be where the trial court has no jurisdiction to try the case but has
still acquitted the accused, or where the trial court has wrongly
shut out evidence which the prosecution wished to produce. or
where the appeal court has wrongly held evidence which was
admitted by the trial court to be inadmissible, or where material
evidence has been overlooked either by the trial court or by the
appeal court, or where the acquittal is based on a compounding
of the offence, which is invalid under the law. These and other
cases of similar nature can properly be held to be cases of
exceptional nature, where the High Court can justifiably interfere
with an order of acquittal; an in such a case it is obvious that it
cannot be said that the High Court was doing indirectly what it
could not do directly in view of the provisions of S. 439 (4). We
have, therefore, to see whether the order of the High Court
setting aside the order of acquittal in this case can be upheld on
these principles.”
11. 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 permissible in the
revision case as laid down in the decisions in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh, D
Stephens and K Chinnaswamy Reddy.
12. The learned Trial Court had examined P.Ws.1 to 5, marked Exs.P1 to 4
for the prosecution. From the defence side nobody was examined and no
document was marked. On 3-9-2008 at 10-00 hours P.W.5/ASI, T.V.Palli
6
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.R.C.No.2148 of 2012
Dated 08.04.2025
Police Station being the Station House Officer received information about the
galata ensued in between Mala and Madiga caste people of S.C. colony at
Chennareddypalli. Immediately, he deputed the home guards and Police
Constables viz., Immadi Ranganayakulu, K.Nagaraju and Chennakesavulu
(P.Ws.1 to 3) to Chennareddypalli to enquire into the matter. Accordingly, they
had visited the village and having noticed the crowd, they dispersed them. At
about 14-30 hours P.W.5 visited Chennareddypalli in connection with the
investigation of the case in Crime No.30/2008. P.W.1 came to him and
explained about the incident and showed the petitioner who was serving in the
army and stated that he was responsible for the occurrence. P.W.5 while
examining the scene of offence heard the cries of P.W.1 and accused 1 to 10
were beating and assaulting P.Ws.1 and 2 with hands and legs. Immediately,
P.W.5 and P.W.3 rushed there and dispersed the mob and then referred
P.Ws.1 and 2 to Govt. Area Hospital, Markapur in 108 ambulance along with
P.W.3 for treatment.
13. On hospital intimation the Station House Officer, Markapur Rural Police
Station, B.Paparao (L.W.5) had rushed to Govt. Area Hospital, Markapur and
recorded the statement of P.W.1 at 18-30 hours on 3-9-2008 and transferred
the statement to T.V.Palli P.S, on point of jurisdiction. P.W.5, on receipt of
hospital intimation along with a statement of P.W.1 recorded by L.W.5,
registered it as a case in Crime No.31/2008 under Sections 353, 324 read with
34 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ at 19-30 hours and submitted the original FIR along with a
statement of the victim to the learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Podili. He
7
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.R.C.No.2148 of 2012
Dated 08.04.2025
had visited the scene of offence, examined, prepared sketch, also visited
Government Area Hospital, Markapur and recorded the statements of P.Ws.1
to 3. P.W.4/Dr. Madhava Rao, Medical Officer, Government Area Hospital,
Markapur deposed that he treated P.Ws.1 and 2 issued wound certificates
opining that the injuries were simple. On 10-9-2008 P.W.5 had arrested A2 to
A10 and sent them for judicial remand. It was established that Al to A10
committed the offence punishable under Section 323 r/w 34 of ‘the I.P.C‘.
14. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and 5 reveals that the petitioner, being A1,
caught hold the shirt of P.W.1 and beat him and the remaining accused
pushed P.W.1 to the ground and beat him with hands and legs and all the
accused persons also beat P.W.2 with hands and legs. P.W.4 the Medical
Officer Government Area Hospital, Makapur testified that he examined P.W.1,
but found no injuries.
15. P.W.4 stated further that P.W1 complained of pain over the head, neck,
chest and abdomen. P.W.4, on examination, noticed tenderness and pain in
the above areas and to that effect he issued Ex.P2 wound certificate. Nothing
concrete was elicited from the evidence of the witnesses of prosecution to
spurn their evidence that they were speaking falsehood. The learned Trial
Court and the learned Appellate Court had rightly appreciated the evidence
from correct perspective and found the petitioner guilty for the offence
charged. There is no material irregularity and no flagrant miscarriage of
justice. Therefore, the conviction under Section 323 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ shall be
maintained.
8
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.R.C.No.2148 of 2012
Dated 08.04.2025
16. With regard to the sentence of imprisonment of one month and
imposition of fine Rs.100/- (Rupees Hundred Only), the offence occurred in
the year 2008. Nearly, 17 years passed by. The right to speedy trial is a
fundamental right as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Hussainara Khatoon (IV) v. Home Secretary State of Bihar 4. This right
includes speedy disposal of appeals. In addition to the appeals, the right to a
speedy trial also includes speedy disposal of criminal revisions as per the
decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajdeo Sharma v. State of Bihar5. The
petitioner had already undergone 4 days of incarceration. The petitioner had
also paid the fine amount. The petitioner is an Army man. Moreover, there are
no prior or subsequent similar adverse antecedents against the petitioner.
17. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the criminal
revision case is disposed of maintaining the conviction for the offence under
Section 323 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ and sentence of fine Rs.100/-, while sentencing the
petitioner to suffer the sentence of imprisonment which he had already
undergone.
18. 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: 08.04.2025
KMS
4
AIR 1979 SC 1360
5
2000 (1) BLJR 37
9
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.R.C.No.2148 of 2012
Dated 08.04.2025
165
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 2148/2012
08.04.2025
W
KMS
[ad_1]
Source link