Achenavalli Suresh v. The State Of A P

Counsel for the Respondent: 2 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.Nos.1762, 1766 and 1768 of 2008 Dated 20.03.2025

#1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

#3. CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1768/2008 Between: Achenavalli Suresh ...PETITIONER AND The State Of A P ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner:

#1. T DIWAKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent:

#1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: The three Criminal Revision Cases are heard and disposed of by this Common Order inasmuch as the petitioner is same in the three cases.

#2. Crl.R.C.No.1762 of 2008 has been preferred under Sections 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C’) challenging the judgment dated 03.10.2008 in Crl.A.No.33 of 2005 on the file of the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur, confirming the judgment dated 12.01.2006 in C.C.No.122 of 2005 on the file of learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Proddatur, whereby and whereunder the petitioner was found guilty under Section 248(2) of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ for the offence under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for 3 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.Nos.1762, 1766 and 1768 of 2008 Dated 20.03.2025 short ‘the I.P.C’) and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-.

#3. Crl.R.C.No.1766 of 2008 has been preferred under Sections 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C’) challenging the judgment dated 30.09.2008 in Crl.A.No.199 of 2005 on the file of the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur, confirming the judgment dated 11.07.2005 in C.C.No.47 of 2004 on the file of learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Proddatur, whereby and whereunder the petitioner was found guilty under Section 248(2) of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ for the offence under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘the I.P.C’) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years.

#4. Crl.R.C.No.1768 of 2008 has been preferred under Sections 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C’) challenging the judgment dated 30.09.2008 in Crl.A.No.200 of 2008 on the file of the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur, confirming the judgment dated 11.07.2005 in C.C.No.50 of 2004 on the file of learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Proddatur, whereby and whereunder the petitioner was found guilty under Section 248(2) of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ for the offence under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘the I.P.C’) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. 4 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.Nos.1762, 1766 and 1768 of 2008 Dated 20.03.2025

#5. I have heard the arguments Mr. T.Diwakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

#6. Mr. T.Diwakar Reddy, the learned counsel submits that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt as the learned Trial Court committed the error in relying on the evidence of P.W.2, who is stock witness and whose evidence was not trust worthy. The learned Courts below failed to appreciate that the false case were foisted for statistical purpose against an innocent person.

#7. It is argued that in regard to Crl.R.C.No.1766 of 2008, P.W.3, who was a stock witness, whose evidence was not trust worthy.

#8. In regard to Crl.R.C.No.1768 of 2008, P.W.4, who was a stock witness, whose evidence was not trust worthy and the learned Courts below wrongly relied on the evidence and found the petitioner guilty, and urged to allow the Criminal Revision Cases.

#9. Alternatively, it is submitted that the petitioner, who was 20 years age at the time of the commission of the alleged offence; nearly more than 22 years have passed by; right to speedy trial, a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, is being violated. This right to speedy trial includes speedy disposal of the Appeal and Revision. It is urged that taking into account the above submissions, sentence the petitioner to the sentence which he had already undergone.

#10. Ms.P.Akila Naidu, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that in all the three cases the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused 5 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.Nos.1762, 1766 and 1768 of 2008 Dated 20.03.2025 beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioner. Similarly, the learned Appellate Court confirmed the conviction and sentence thus concurrent finding is about the guilty of the petitioner. There was no misreading of the evidence and material irregularities in conducting the trial. Hence, urged to dismiss the Revision Case.

#11. 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.

#12. Now the point for consideration is: “Whether the judgments in Crl.A.No.33 of 2005, dated 03.10.2008, Crl.A.No.199 of 2005, dated 30.09.2008 and Crl.A.No.200 of 2005, dated 30.09.2008 passed by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur, are correct, legal, and proper with respect to its finding, sentence, or judgment, and there are any material irregularities? And to what relief?”

#13. It is apposite to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v State of Bihar1wherein 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 1(2002) 6 SCC 650 6 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.Nos.1762, 1766 and 1768 of 2008 Dated 20.03.2025 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 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 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.”

#14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in D. Stephens v Nosibolla2at 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 o 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.”

#15. 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 consequently there has been a flagrant miscarriage of justice. Sub-section (4) of S. 439 forbids a High Court from converting a