Kamanuri Narasimha Rao v. The State of AP

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 08.04.2025 prevention 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