SRI SALADI SATYA SAMUDRA GANGA ARJUN KUMAR @ ARJUN v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

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 execution of sentences passed by the Asst. Sessions Judge, Kothapeta, E.G.Dist., in S.C.No.115 of 2011, dated 26.08.2011 as confirmed by the II Addl. Sessions Judge, Amalapuram, E.G.Dist., dated 08.10.2012, in Crl.A.No. 346 of 2011, and release the petitioner on bail, pending the above Crl.R.C. 2 Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. A GAYATRI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent:

1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following Order: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 2223 OF 2012 ORDER: Heard.

2. Petitioner was arrayed as an accused, along with other three persons in S.C.No.115 of 2011 for the offence punishable under Section 392 read with 397 and 120-B IPC.

3. The learned trial Court, after completion of trial, has acquitted all the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 120-B IPC but convicted accused No.1/petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 392 read with 397 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years with fine of Rs.1,000/-. The petitioner approached the appellate Court by filing Crl.A.No.346 of 2011, wherein the appellate Court has modified the order of sentence of A1 and convicted him only for the offence punishable under Section 397 IPC, the period of imprisonment was not altered. Hence, the instant criminal revision case.

4. For better appreciation of the instant matter, the brief fact of the prosecution is required to be discussed.

5. PW.1 was working with PW.2, proprietor of Jindal Jewellers at Narasapuram, was entrusted to collect Rs.7,00,000/- from the customers and deposit the same in ICICI Bank Ramachadrapuram. PW.1 went to Kakinada collected Rs.7,00,000/- and went 4 Ramachandrapuram. He could reach Ramachandrapuram by 6.00 p.m., as the Bank at Ramachandrapuram had been closed, with instructions from his proprietor, he was on his way to go back to Narasapuram with cash of Rs.18,50,000/-, he reached Ravulapalem by 9.00 p.m., since he had some more time to catch his bus, he went outside and had some water and was going back into the bus-stand, when he reached the in-gate, petitioner came upon him and tried to snatch the cash bag from PW.1, PW.1 resisted him, then the petitioner stabbed him with knife on his left shoulder, left side stomach and left hand wrist, still he did not leave the bag and on his cries, the mob at bus stand gathered there and caught hold petitioner.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the prosecution has failed to produce any eye-witness to prove that the petitioner tried to snatch cash bag from PW.1. She further submits that there are no ocular witnesses to justify the case of the prosecution. She further submits that it has been alleged that some of the persons were gathered there and caught hold and beat A1 but when they were produced before the Court they turned hostile. She submits that the prosecution was not sufficiently proved charge against petitioner. Thus, the alleged offence against the present petitioner has not been proved beyond all reasonable doubt. She further submits that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact that no such alleged cash bag containing Rs.18,50,000/- has been recovered from the possession of PW.1. Thus, the entire case of the prosecution fails and not proved. She further submits that the learned appellate Court has also not carefully gone 5 through and scanned evidence of PW.1 and failed to set aside the judgment passed by the learned trail Court. She further contended that since the alleged offence has been committed in the year 2009, now several years has already been elapsed. The litigation is pending since long time. The petitioner is working as a priest in a church. She further submits, on the other hand, in this case particularly, highest punishment was imposed upon the petitioner according to the provision under Section 397 IPC. Thus the order of conviction and sentence required to be set aside.

7. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor raised objections and submits that the learned trial Court has categorically observed in the judgment regarding the evidence of PW.1. He further submits that though some witnesses of prosecution are gone hostile it does not automatically destroy the entire prosecution case. The accused/petitioner was caught redhanded at the scene of the crime as well as the other material evidence has been recovered and seized, moreover, the medical reports as well as the evidences of Doctors have sufficiently proved the case. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further submits that the learned appellate Court, while satisfying the merits and demerits of the judgment passed by the learned trial Court, has categorically opined that the prosecution has successfully bring home the charge against the petitioner. However, the appellate Court, in view of the offence punishable under Section 392 IPC could not be proved as the prosecution case fails to seize the alleged money but the factum of robbery has been proved. 6

8. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further submits that the offence punishable under Section 397 IPC sufficiently has been proved.

9. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available in the judgment of the learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court.

10. It appears that during the trial, the prosecution has been produced 12 witnesses including the victim as PW.1 and two doctors were examined as PWs.8 and 9. The doctors identified the wounds of the victim/PW.1 as well as the wounds on the person of the petitioner. It appears that the petitioner was caught redhanded at the scene of crime and there are some persons, who gathered there and assaulted the petitioner. It further appears that the prosecution has also produced as many as 17 documents and 11 material objects also placed on record during the trial.

11. On plain perusal of the observation of the learned trial Court, it appears that in Point No.3, learned trial Court has discussed about the ingredients of offence punishable under Section 120-B IPC, which appears by the learned Magistrate has not been proved. However, the learned trial Court found the petitioner guilty for the offence punishable under Section 392 read with 397 IPC. Learned appellate Court, while deciding the appeal, has observed that PW.2 being the investigating officer immediately recovered M.Os.1 and M.Os.5 and Exs.P.10 to 12 under cover of Ex.P.13 and M.Os.6 to 11 under the cover of Ex.P.14 in the presence of mediators. The identity of accused 7 was proved before the trial Court. The accused was caught redhanded in the scene of crime; as the accused was identified on dock by PW.1, there is no necessity for conduction of test identification parade. The appellate Court has categorically observed that non-identification of the accused by PW.1 before filing charge sheet does not vitiate the prosecution case.

12. On attending facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the observation of the appellate Court is correct in the present perspective. PW.1 is the victim of the crime and A1 is the offender. The prime offender has to be identified before the Court below, by that way, PW.1 when appeared before the Court, has identified the offender as A1, who spotted at the scene of crime. Thus, the identification of the A1/petitioner is not doubtful.

13. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and considering the arguments of the prosecution as well as the learned counsel for the petitioner, it appears that the findings of the learned trial Court as well as the learned appellate Court is not vitiated or illegal according to the attending facts and circumstances of the case.

14. As the crime happened in the year 2009 and several years have already been elapsed, the petitioner might have suffered immense agony due to long pendency. Thus, this Court reduces the sentence for five years instead of seven years. The period of sentence already undergone by the A1/petitioner, during investigation, enquiry and trial has to be set off according to the provision of Section 428 Cr.P.C.(Section 297 BNSS). 8

15. Under the above observation, the instant Criminal Revision Case is dismissed as devoid of merit. The order of suspension of sentence passed by this Court during pendency of the instant Criminal Revision Case is hereby revoked. The Petitioner is directed to appear before the learned Trial Court within three (03) weeks from the date of passing of this order to serve out the remaining portion of sentence, failing which, learned Trial Court shall issue Non-Bailable Warrant against the present Petitioner to comply the order. Since the Petitioner is not before this Court, let a copy of this order be served upon the learned Trial Court for ready reference. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. Date: 28.11.2025 SPP ____________________________ JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA 9 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2223 of 2012 SPP

28.11.2025