[ad_1]
Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Rama Rao Nagesh Babu, Spsr Nellore Dt., vs The State Of Ap., Rep Pp., on 24 July, 2025
1
APHC010828762016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3369]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE TWENTY-FOURTH DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 192/2016
Between:
1. RAMA RAO NAGESH BABU, SPSR NELLORE DT., S/O HARINADH,
OCC: TEACHER, RESIDENT OF VENKATAGIRI, SPSR NELLORE
DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF AP REP PP, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court
of Judicature, at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of
Andhra Pradesh.
...RESPONDENT
Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the
circumstances stated
ed in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision
Case, the High Court may be pleased to present this memorandum of
Criminal Revision Case is filed being aggrieved by the Judgment passed in
Crl.A.No.179/ 2012, dated 05
05-01-2016 on the file of IV Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District filed against the Judgment
passed in S.C.No.252/ 2011, dated 28 28-8-2012
2012 on the file of the court of II
Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court) Nellore, SPSR
Nellore District.
IA NO: 1 OF 2016(CRLRCMP 207 OF 2016
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 the judgment passed in
2
SC.No.252 of 2011 dated 28-8-2012 on the file of the court of the II Additional
Assistant Sessions Judge, (FTC), Nellore, SPSR Nellore District.
IA NO: 2 OF 2016(CRLRCMP 244 OF 2016
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
suspend the sentence of imprisonment passed in S.C.No.252/2011, dated
28.08.2012 on the file of the Court of II Additional Assistant Sessions Judge,
(Fast Track Court), Nellore, SPSR Nellore District which was confirmed in the
judgment passed in Crl.A.No.179/2012, dated 05.01.2016 on the file of IV
Additional District and sessions judge, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District and
release the petitioner on bail, pending disposal of the criminal Revision case
before this Honourable court and pass
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. G VIJAYA SARADHI
Counsel for the Respondent:
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
The Court made the following ORDER:
1. This Criminal Revision Case, filed under sections 397 and 401 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’), is preferred by the
petitioner/A.2, who was the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.179 of 2012, on
the file of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore (for short, ‘the 1 st
Appellate Court), challenging the judgment, dated 05.01.2016, whereunder
the 1st Appellate Court partly allowed the Appeal, but confirmed the conviction
and sentence imposed against the A.2 for the offences under Sections 342
and 324 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, IPC‘)
2. By its judgment dated 28.08.2012 in S.C.No.252 of 2011 of II Additional
Assistant Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Nellore (for short, ‘the Trial
Court’), the Sessions Judge convicted the petitioner/A.2 and sentenced him as
follows: (i) Rigorous Imprisonment (RI) for 1 year and a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in
default Simple Imprisonment (SI) for 3 months for the offence under Section
342 read with 34 IPC; (ii) RI for 3 years and a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default SI
3for 4 months under Section 324 read with 34 IPC; (iii) RI for 4 years and a fine
of Rs.10,000/-, in default SI for 6 months under Section 326 read with 34 IPC;
and (iv) RI for 5 years and a fine of Rs.20,000/-, in default SI for 6 months
under Section 307 read with 34 IPC. All sentences were directed to run
concurrently. On appeal, the 1st Appellate Court, vide judgment dated
05.01.2016 in Crl.A.No.179 of 2012, partly allowed the appeal by setting aside
the conviction and sentence under Sections 326 and 307 read with 34 IPC,
but confirmed the conviction under Sections 342 and 324 read with 34 IPC,
directing the petitioner to surrender for serving the sentence. Aggrieved
thereby, the petitioner/A.2 filed the present Criminal Revision Case.
3. The parties to this Criminal Revision Case will hereinafter be referred to
as described before the trial Court for the sake of convenience.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner/A.2, and learned Assistant
Public Prosecutor, appearing for the Respondent-State.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Trial Court erred in
relying on the interested and inconsistent testimony of PWs.1 to 5; except
PW.2, none of the prosecution witnesses are eyewitnesses to the incident that
allegedly occurred at A.1’s house; PW.2, a child witness, was reportedly
tutored by Subbamma, an attendant at Balasadhan; PW.2 did not specifically
state that A.2 caused her burn injuries; on the contrary, A.2, PW.2’s teacher,
applied ointment and band-aid to her wounds at school; none of the witnesses
(PWs.1 to 11) testified to witnessing any illicit relationship between A.1 and
A.2, and their evidence is riddled with material omissions and contradictions;
there is no independent evidence establishing the presence of A.2 at the
scene on the date of the incident, nor did PWs.3 to 11 see A.2 inflict injuries
on PW.2; PW.20, the investigating officer, filed a petition to refer A.1 to a
psychiatrist, which suggests her mental condition could have contributed to
the incident; the investigation was superficial, and the charge sheet was filed
4
mechanically; lastly, invoking Section 34 IPC to convict A.2 was erroneous,
and in any case, the sentence imposed is unduly harsh.
6. Now, the point that arises for determination in this revision is:
(I) Whether the conviction recorded against A.2 under
Sections 342 and 324 read with Section 34 of the IPC by the
1st Appellate Court affirming the Trial Court’s judgment is
sustainable in law?
(II) Whether the sentence passed by the 1st Appellate Court
warrants any interference?
POINT NO.I:
7. It is settled law as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of
Maharashtra V. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Sing Anand1, that “in exercise of
revisional powers, this Court need not undertaken in-depth and minutest
reexamination of entire evidence, when there is no error in the findings arrived
by the Trial Court as well 1st Appellate Court”.
8. The Apex Court in Manju Ram Kalita V. State of Assam2, held that:
9. ….if the courts below have recorded the finding of fact, the
question of re-appreciation of evidence by the third court does not arise
unless it is found to be totally perverse. The higher court does not sit as
a regular court of appeal. Its function is to ensure that law is being
properly administered. Such a court cannot embark upon fruitless task
of determining the issues by reappreciating the evidence.
10. This Court would not ordinarily interfere with the concurrent findings
on pure questions of fact and review the evidence again unless there
are exceptional circumstances justifying the departure from the normal
practice.
8. ….The position may undoubtedly be different if interference is one of
law from [the] facts admitted and proved or where the finding of fact is
materially affected by violation of any rule of law or procedure.”
1
(2004) 7 SCC 659
2
(2009) 13 SCC 330
5
9. The aforesaid view was further reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in Malkeet Singh Gill V. The State of Chattisgarh3, thus:
“8. ….The High Court in criminal revision against conviction is not
supposed to exercise the jurisdiction alike to the appellate Court and the
scope of interference in revision is extremely narrow. Section 397 of
Criminal Procedure Code (in short ‘CrPC‘) vests jurisdiction for the
purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or
propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed and as to
the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior court. The object of the
provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law.
There has to be wellfounded error which is to be determined on the
merits of individual case. It is also well settled that while considering the
same, the revisional Court does not dwell at length upon the facts and
evidence of the case to reverse those findings.”
10. It is the case of the prosecution that A.1, along with her daughter, PW.2,
was residing in a rented house located opposite the residence of PWs.1, 3,
and others; A.2 was the paramour of A.1, and they had developed an illicit
relationship; to continue their illegal intimacy, A.1 and A.2 considered PW.2,
the victim girl, to be an obstacle; as a result, they began to harass her by
wrongfully confining her inside the house whenever they went out, and by
denying her necessities such as food and water. Further, it is alleged that A.1
and A.2 used to heat a kitchen knife and an iron rod on the stove and press
them against the body of the victim girl, causing severe physical abuse; A.1
was employed as a teacher at a Z.P. High School, while A.2 was running a
private school at Venkatachalam; a close acquaintance gradually developed
between A.1 and A.2; initially, A.2 used to visit A.1 at her residence, but after
neighbours raised concerns about their relationship, A.1 shifted to another
house on Sarvepalli Road, approximately 15 days before the incident.
11. The prosecution relied on the evidence of PWs.3 to 10 to establish that
A.1 and A.2 were residing together with PW.2 in the same house located on
Sarvepalli Road. PW.1, Sk. Jeelani Basha, who is employed as a school bus
driver, testified that on 14.09.2010, while he was at his residence, PW.3,
3
AIR 2022 SC 3283
6
Sk.Noorjahan came to his house and informed him that A.1 had confined
PW.2 by locking her inside the house from the outside; immediately thereafter,
he, along with PW.3, Venkateswarlu, Veturi Mahesh, and others, went to A.1’s
school and questioned her regarding the sounds of PW.2 weeping from the
locked house; A.1 promptly returned home and opened the door; upon
entering, they found PW.2 crying and observed injuries on her feet, hands,
head, and back–all of which were burn injuries; PW.2 was immediately
shifted to the Government Hospital for treatment; upon enquiry, PW.2
disclosed that A.1 and A.2 had inflicted the burn injuries by using a heated
knife. However, during cross-examination, PW.1 admitted that he had not
observed any injuries on PW.2 when A.1 and PW.2 were residing in the earlier
house opposite his at Venkatachalam.
12. PW.3, a neighbour of A.1 on Sarvepalli Road, also supported the
prosecution’s case. According to her testimony, A.1 and A.2 used to confine
PW.2 inside the house by locking it from the outside while they attended their
respective schools; during such confinement, PW.2 would often cry for water.
She further corroborated the prosecution’s version of the incident that
occurred on 14.09.2010 at around 10:00 AM. During cross-examination, PW.3
stated that her house is located opposite that of A.1, at a distance of
approximately 100 meters, and that she had observed the presence of A.2 at
A.1’s house during morning hours.
13. The evidence of PW.4, K. Lakshmi, also supports the prosecution’s
case. She testified that about 15 days before the incident, A.1, A.2, and PW.2
had shifted their residence to a house located opposite hers; upon hearing the
cries of PW.2, she informed PW.3; on 14.09.2010 at around 10:00 AM, she,
along with PW.3 and others, went to the house of the accused after hearing
PW.2 crying for water; they then called A.1 and got the house unlocked.
During cross-examination, PW.4 stated that she came to know from PW.2 that
A.1 and A.2 had inflicted burn injuries on her using an iron rod and a knife.
7
14. PW.6 (V. Mahesh), PW.7 (Sk. Khadar Masthan), and PW.8 (B. Sajida)
also supported the prosecution’s case by deposing that A.1 and A.2 used to
confine PW.2 inside the house, lock the door from outside, and then leave for
their work. The evidence of PW.9 (P. Khayum Khan) further establishes that
A.1 not only confined PW.2 but also made her stand under the scorching sun
and routinely locked her inside the house whenever she went to school.
PW.10 (Sk. Jeelani) also corroborated the prosecution’s version by stating
that A.2 frequently visited the home of A.1, and when he questioned A.1 about
A.2’s visits, A.1 and A.2 subsequently shifted their residence. PW.11, T. Uma
Maheswari, Project Officer, testified that on 14.09.2010, she saw a news item
on a television channel reporting that a child (PW.2) had been wrongfully
confined in her house by her mother and another individual named Nagesh.
The report alleged that the child had been tied with a rope and subjected to
burn injuries. Acting on this information, she, along with Nagendramma
(LW.16), visited the locality and enquired with the neighbours. The neighbours
confirmed that PW.2 had been wrongfully confined, locked inside the house,
and physically abused. They also informed her that PW.2’s mother and a
person named Nagesh were residing together.
15. PW.12, P. Arun, the first husband of A.1, deposed that he had obtained
a divorce from A.1 and, on 14.09.2010, saw a news scroll on television
reporting that A.1 had tortured her daughter. During cross-examination,
PW.12 stated that he and A.1 separated one month after their marriage. He
denied the suggestion that PW.2 is his daughter or that his father had
harassed A.1 for sexual intercourse. PW.13, O. Purushotham, the father of
A.1, testified that A.1 and PW.12 lived together for about one year; he had
seen television reports indicating that PW.2 had suffered burn injuries. During
cross-examination, PW.13 revealed that upon enquiring about the injuries, A.1
informed him that A.2 had caused the burn injuries to PW.2. He further
testified that when he met A.1 in jail, he observed burn injuries on her body as
well. PW.19, R. Bhaskara Rao, a press reporter for Praja Sakti, also
8
supported the prosecution’s case. He testified that on 14.09.2010, he received
information that a girl (PW.2) had been wrongfully confined in her house and
had sustained injuries; he visited A.1’s house along with the police, took
photographs and video footage, and personally observed injuries on PW.2’s
back, feet, and other parts of her body; he handed over the compact disc
marked as MO.2 and the photographs to the police; on 01.05.2012, he
produced his laptop in court and played the MO.2 compact disc as evidence.
16. The prosecution examined PW.20, the Sub Inspector of Police, who
investigated the case. His evidence reveals that he received the report
marked as Ex.P.1 from PW.1, registered a case, and submitted the FIR
marked as Ex.P.7; he recorded the statements of witnesses, visited the scene
of offence, and prepared a rough sketch of the scene marked as Ex.P.8 in the
presence of PW.9 and PW.17. PW.17 also supported the prosecution’s case
by deposing that the Sub-Inspector of Police seized MO.1 (a knife) under the
cover of an observation report in his presence. PW.2, the victim, testified that
A.1 and A.2 were residing with her in a house at Venkatachalam; she was
studying in A.2’s school, and that her mother was working in a high school;
A.1 and A.2 caused burn injuries to her by heating a knife and pressing it
against her body, and that they locked her inside the house. The prosecution
established the existence of burn injuries sustained by PW.2 through the
medical evidence of PWs.14 to 16.
17. PW.14, a Senior Doctor at Ramachandra Reddy Hospital, Nellore,
examined PW.2 and noticed the following injuries:
(i) Deep burns over the plantar surface of both feet, right 4 x 3 cm, left 5
x 6 cm, a deep burns present over the back of 6 x 2 cm.
(ii) A contusion around left eye.
(iii) Multiple old scars present over the scalp 1 x 2 to 1 x 3 cm.
(iv) Multiple scratches, contusions, scalds and scars present all over the
body. Oedema of left upper and wall limbs, puffimus of face present.
R.S both lungs clear.
9
18. PW.15, Civil Assistant Surgeon at Government Hospital, Nellore,
deposed that on 15.09.2009 at around 07:00 PM, PW.2 was brought to the
hospital by Woman Police Constable No. 1755. Upon examination, the
following injuries were observed on PW.2:
i. A healed laceration on right eyebrow 1 X 0.5 C.M., size. 7 days
duration.
ii. Black eye on left side healed, three days.
iii. A healed abrasion below right eye 1/ C.M., below right eye size 1½ X
½ C.M., 7 days duration.
iv. A small pinhead-sized healed abrasion by the side of the right nostril,
4 days duration.
v. Laceration over lower lip in middle, size ½ X ½ c.m., two days
duration.
vi. Outerside, left side of fore arm healed multiple abrasions 4 in
number, 2 days duration.
vii. Healed laceration of 5.5 C.M., X 0.5 C.M., from over anterior auxiliary
line on right side chest, 5 days duration.
viii. A contusion over right hypo cheldrim of size 4 X 0.5 C.M., brown in
colour, below one contusion 4.5 X 0.5 C.M., brown in. colour, 3 days
duration.
ix. Pain of entire left including upper arm level.
x. Abrasion on inner side of left elbow of 0.5 C.M., into 0.5 C.M.,
xi. Multiple linear abrasions on inner side of right ankle, 7 days duration.
xii. A round burnt area 1.0 C.M., diameter on right ankle, 2 days duration.
xiii. 4 X 2 C.M., burn injury and 7 X 6 C.M., over outer side of right thigh.
xiv. 8 X 2 C.M., burns are linear healed, 7 days over left thigh. Scab
formed brown in colour.
xv. A healed 4 X 0.5 C.M., abrasion above injury, since 7 days.
xvi. Multiple horizontal linear scratches on right fore arm, 11 in number
extend upto right shoulder.
xvii. Two healed round 1 C.M., diameter outer side of right elbow, 4 days
duration. 1 above the other.
xviii. Multiple contusions over the back from upper hand of scapula to
middle of back, 5 in number, 3 horizontal, 2 linear direction.
xix. Pain right hypo condriaum.
19. PW.16, a Senior Surgical Consultant, deposed that on 15.09.2010, at
around midnight, PW.2 was admitted to their hospital, having been referred
from RICH Hospital, Nellore. PW.2 remained under treatment until her
10
discharge on 23.09.2010. According to PW.16, the child had sustained
multiple injuries, including injuries to the liver.
20. The defence examined A.1 as DW.1, who testified that PW.2 was
studying at the convent run by A.2 in Venkatachalam. She admitted that she
used to visit A.2’s school and gradually developed an acquaintance with him.
A.1 stated that A.2 insisted on having sexual intercourse with her, but she
refused unless he agreed to marry her; A.2 allegedly promised to marry her
but imposed a condition that PW.2 should not be allowed to stay with them,
which A.1 refused to accept. DW.2, a social worker and a member of the Child
Welfare Committee, deposed that on 14.09.2010 at about 4:00 PM, he visited
the Venkatachalam Police Station, where both A.1 and A.2 were present;
upon enquiry, A.1 informed him that A.2 had beaten PW.2 and caused burn
injuries during the night.
21. As already observed, A.1 did not deny the fact that A.2 used to visit her
house, as testified by the prosecution witnesses. Furthermore, no motive or
enmity was suggested against PWs 1 and 3 to 10 that would lead them to
depose falsely against A.1 and A.2. The evidence on record establishes that
PW.2 was wrongfully confined in the house, denied access to water, and
subjected to burn injuries. Taking into account the totality of this evidence, the
1st Appellate Court concluded that the prosecution had successfully proved
that the accused persons alone had wrongfully confined PW.2. Consequently,
the 1st Appellate Court convicted both A.1 and A.2 for the offence punishable
under Section 342 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
22. The evidence of PW.14 reveals that upon examining PW.2, he found
four external injuries and issued the wound certificate marked as Ex.P.3.
PW.15, Civil Assistant Surgeon, also examined PW.2 and observed both
healed and fresh injuries on various parts of her body. PWs . 1 and 3 to 10
testified that they too observed burn injuries on PW.2 when the house was
opened by A.1. PW.2, the victim, categorically deposed that A.2 had caused
11
the injuries to her. However, the defence relied on a portion of PW.2’s
testimony in which she stated that Subbamma aunty told her that A.2 had
inflicted the burn injuries. The 1st Appellate Court carefully considered the
entire testimony of PW.2, along with the supporting evidence of other
prosecution witnesses, and concluded that PW.2 had, in fact, sustained
multiple injuries. Since it was established that A.1, A.2, and PW.2 were
residing together in the same house at the relevant time, the 1st Appellate
Court held that it was incumbent upon A.1 and A.2 to explain how PW.2
sustained those injuries. Both the Trial Court and the 1 st Appellate Court noted
that A.2, who would be expected to know the cause of the injuries, failed to
offer any explanation and did not raise any substantive defence in this regard.
23. Upon careful consideration of the evidence on record, both the Trial
Court and the 1st Appellate Court concurrently held that A.1 and A.2, acting in
furtherance of their common intention, voluntarily caused burn injuries and
other physical harm to PW.2. However, the 1st Appellate Court also observed
that the injuries sustained by PW.2 were not grievous. Consequently, it held
that the ingredients of Section 307 of the IPC, relating to attempt to murder,
were not attracted in this case.
24. After considering the entire evidence on record, the 1st Appellate Court
concluded that A.1 and A.2 regarded PW.2, the victim girl, as an obstacle to
their illicit relationship and, as a result, inflicted injuries upon her. A careful
reading of the testimonies of PWs . 1 and 3 to 10 reveals that nothing was
elicited during their cross-examinations to discredit or contradict their
statements.
25. The learned defence counsel primarily relied on the contents of Ex.P.1
report, pointing out that it does not contain any specific allegations against
A.2. However, the evidence of DW.1 also confirms that she was living with
PW.2 and A.2 at the relevant time. The overall evidence on record
consistently establishes that A.1, A.2, and PW.2 were residing together in a
12
rented house. Ex.P.1 clearly states that PW.2 was wrongfully confined, and
that both A.1 and A.2 had bolted the house from the outside. Furthermore, the
testimonies of PWs 1 and 3 to 10 corroborate that A.1 and A.2 used to leave
PW.2 locked inside the house while they attended their respective schools.
The learned defence counsel also relied on PW.2’s cross-examination, in
which she stated that A.2 had applied ointment and a bandage to her injuries
and also beat her only when she failed to study. She also said that she had
learned the alphabet and mathematics from A.2. Based on this testimony, the
defence contended that A.2 had no direct role in the commission of the
alleged offence.
26. Upon a comprehensive and analytical reading of the testimony of PW.2,
it becomes evident that she has made clear, unequivocal, and specific
attributions against the petitioner, who is arrayed as A.2, both during the
investigative phase and subsequently during the trial. This Court has carefully
evaluated the PW.2’s testimony, and finds it to be internally coherent,
materially consistent across her statements, and free from contradictions or
significant embellishments. Moreover, it is essential to note that PW.2 had
been under the exclusive care and custody of her mother, who is arrayed as
A.1, until the incident in question. Despite this close relationship, PW.2 did not
hesitate to name A.1 during investigation and in her testimony. This fact alone
serves to undermine any suggestion that her testimony is motivated by
extraneous considerations or malice. On the contrary, her willingness to
depose against her mother suggests a painful attempt to speak the truth,
rather than to shield or unfairly target anyone. She had no apparent animus
against either A.1 or A.2 before the alleged incidents, and nothing has been
placed on record to suggest that she had any reason to implicate the
petitioner falsely.
27. The testimony of PW.2 stands as a cogent, consistent. It has withstood
cross-examination and remains materially unshaken. Her evidence is not only
plausible but also corroborated by the circumstances surrounding the case. In
13
light of these factors, this Court sees no justifiable reason to cast doubt on the
reliability or truthfulness of her evidence. Her testimony, overall, exhibits the
hallmarks of credibility and appears trustworthy. The testimony of PW.2 does
not stand in isolation. Her version of events receives substantial corroboration
from the depositions of other witnesses, i.e., PWs.1, 3 to 10, who were
residents of the same locality where the offence is alleged to have occurred.
Given their proximity to the house of A.1 and A.2, it is reasonable to expect
that PWs.1, 3 to 10 would have been aware of the circumstances and events
unfolding within the household. Importantly, no material has been brought on
record to suggest that the PWs.1, 3 to 10 bore any animosity toward the
accused persons or had any vested interest in falsely implicating them. There
are no allegations of enmity, bias, or undue influence which could taint their
credibility or render their testimonies unreliable. The naturalness of their
testimonies, coupled with the absence of contradiction or exaggeration,
reinforces the view that their statements are genuine and voluntary. Their
testimonies are in substantial harmony with that of PW.2, and collectively form
a cogent and credible chain of evidence pointing to the involvement of A.1 and
A.2 in the offence. This Court is of the considered view that the testimonies
are both truthful and trustworthy. Furthermore, the version of PW.2 is
supported by medical evidence as referred to above.
28. Both the Trial Court and the 1st Appellate Court have independently
evaluated the evidence of PWs.1, 3 to 10 and have recorded concurrent
findings affirming their reliability. These findings are neither perverse nor
based on conjecture, and are supported by the record. In the absence of any
compelling reason to disbelieve these assessments, this Court finds no
justifiable ground to take a contrary view regarding the credibility of the said
witnesses, i.e., PWs.1, 3 to 10. Accordingly, their testimony is accepted as
credible.
29. Upon thorough appreciation of the evidence, the 1st Appellate Court
found that the nature of injuries sustained by PW.2 did not indicate an
14
intention to cause her death. Accordingly, the 1st Appellate Court held that the
prosecution had successfully proven its case against the accused under
Section 342, read with Section 34, of the IPC. Furthermore, the 1st Appellate
Court rightly convicted A.2 for the offences punishable under Sections 342
and 324, read with Section 34 of the IPC. Upon perusal of the record and
appreciation of the factual circumstances, this Court finds that the conviction
recorded by both the Trial Court and the 1st Appellate Court is based on
cogent and reliable evidence. Upon careful consideration, I see no illegality,
error, or perversity in the concurrent findings of the Courts below regarding the
conviction of A.2 for the offences under Sections 342 and 324, read with
Section 34 of the IPC.
30. In view of the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court
finds that the 1st Appellate Court has rightly appreciated the evidence and
assessed the material placed before it in a proper and correct perspective.
There is no justification for interfering with the findings of the 1st Appellate
Court insofar as they pertain to setting aside the conviction under Sections
307 and 326, read with Section 34 of the IPC. Accordingly, point No.1 is
answered.
POINT NO.II:
31. Learned counsel for A.2 has sought a modification of the sentence,
contending that further incarceration would be excessive and unjust, given
that the accused had already served a significant portion of the sentence. The
learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the decision in
Omanakkuttan V. State of Kerala 4 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court
reduced the sentence awarded to accused punished for offences under
section 308 and 326 IPC for the period already undergone. Reference has
also been made to the judgment in case of Murali V. State 5, wherein the
Hon’ble Supreme Court considering the fact that appellants have no other4
(2021) 12 SCC 92
5
(2021) 1 SCC 726
15criminal antecedent the punishment for offences under section 147, 148, 341,
352, 323, 324, 307 and 34 IPC was reduced to the period already undergone.
32. To appreciate the said submission, the learned counsel for the
petitioner / A.2 pointed out that the incident occurred on 14.09.2010. A.2, a
teacher by profession, remained in remand for three months and sixteen days,
as recorded in the nominal rolls. The Trial Court imposed a total fine of
Rs.72,000/-, directing Rs.70,000/- to be paid to the victim girl as compensation
under Section 357 Cr.P.C., after the expiry of the appeal period. However, the
1st Appellate Court, while setting aside the conviction under Sections 326 and
307 read with Section 34 of the IPC, imposed a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the
offence under Section 342 read with Section 34 of the IPC, to be paid to the
victim as compensation. The conviction and sentence under Sections 342 and
324 read with Section 34 IPC, as recorded by the Trial Court, were affirmed by
the 1st Appellate Court.
33. Regarding the period of imprisonment served by A.2, the nominal roll
submitted by the prison authorities indicates that he had already completed
three months and sixteen days during the investigation, inquiry, and trial.
34. It appears from the record that nearly fifteen years have passed since
the incident involving A.2. During this extensive period, there is no material on
record indicating that A.2 has engaged in any further criminal activity or
possesses a history of criminal antecedents. Moreover, PW.2’s testimony
sheds additional light on the character and conduct of A.2. PW.2’s evidence
demonstrates that A.2 applied ointment and bandages to her injuries and
provided assistance with her education. Considering the considerable
passage of time since the incident, the absence of any further criminal
involvement, and the positive conduct noted in the victim’s evidence, this
Court is persuaded to carefully weigh the implications of imposing further
imprisonment at this stage. Incarceration after such a prolonged period could
disrupt A.2’s personal life and adversely affect the welfare of his family, who
16
may be dependent on him. In light of these factors, this Court finds that this
case presents exceptional circumstances that warrant judicial intervention,
specifically concerning the sentence of imprisonment. Accordingly, this Court
deems it appropriate to modify or limit the imprisonment imposed on A.2,
balancing the interests of justice with the mitigating factors that have emerged
over time.
35. After taking into consideration of the material placed on record, it can be
seen that the petitioner/A.2 has no previous antecedents. In terms of Section
428 Cr.P.C., any period of detention undergone by an accused during the
investigation, inquiry, or trial of the same case must be set off against the term
of imprisonment ultimately imposed. However, considering the period of
incarceration already undergone by A.2, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment should be modified to the
period already undergone, which, in the circumstances, would meet the ends
of justice. However, while upholding the conviction and sentence imposed on
A.2 by the 1st Appellate Court for the offences under Sections 342 and 324
read with Section 34 IPC, this Court is of the considered view that the ends of
justice would be adequately served by reducing the substantive sentence of
imprisonment to the period already undergone by A.2. Accordingly, the point
No.2 is answered.
36. In the result, the Criminal Revision is partly allowed. While the
conviction of petitioner / A.2 for the offences under Sections 342 and 324 read
with Section 34 of the IPC is upheld, as rendered by the 1st Appellate Court in
Crl.A.No.179/2012 dated 05.01.2016, affirming the judgment of the Trial Court
in S.C.No.252/2011 dated 28.08.2012, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment
imposed on petitioner / A.2 is hereby modified and reduced to the period
already undergone. Accordingly, the substantive sentence of imprisonment
imposed by the 1st Appellate Court stands reduced to that duration. The
remainder of the judgment of the 1st Appellate Court, insofar as it relates to
17
the imposition of fine against the petitioner / A.2, shall remain undisturbed.
The bail bonds executed by A.2 shall stand discharged.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________
T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J
Date: 24.07.2025
SAK
18
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 192 of 2016
Date: 24.07.2025
SAK
[ad_2]
Source link