Dismissed

Sri Saik Narasimha Rao v. the State of A.P

Andhra Pradesh HC22 Dec 2023CRLRC/614/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a criminal revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. challenging the confirmation of Section 498-A IPC conviction and sentence. Upholding the lower courts' factual findings as supported by cogent evidence and adhering to high court restraint in revisions, the court reaffirmed the conviction and directed the accused to surrender.

What did the court decide?

Judgment confirming conviction and sentence to be affirmed; accused directed to surrender to serve remaining sentence.

Sri Saik Narasimha Rao Vs the State of A.P — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.614 of 2009

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This Revision is arising out of judgment dated 23.01.2009 passed in Crl.A.No.46 of 2007 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Vijayawada, wherein the learned Judge has dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence imposed against the petitioner/accused for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC in the judgment dated 07.02.2007 in C.C.No.441 of 2003 passed by the learned II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-Mahila Magistrate, Vijayawada.

¶4

Brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that: The marriage of defacto complainant was performed with A.1 on 05.07.1991. At the time of marriage, her parents gave Rs.50,000/- to the petitioner/accused and also presented gold ornaments, wrist swatch and house hold articles worth Rs.10,000/-to the petitioner/accused. After two years of marriage, A.1, being addicted to vices, started harassing his wife by demanding her to bring some

¶5

¶6

amounts from her parents’ house and other accused used to support the version of A.1. Even her parents adjusted the amounts as demanded by the accused in view of the marital life of defacto complainant, A.1 used to neglect his wife and children. The parents of defacto complainant gave Rs.10,000/- for purchasing two buffaloes and when the accused proposed to purchase one tractor, they also adjusted to Rs.15,000/-to the accused. About one year prior to giving report defacto complainant purchased one lottery ticket in the name of her daughter and in turn they won a Hero Honda motorcycle. Accused sold away that motorcycle on the pretext to deposit the sale proceeds in the name of her daughter but used that amount for the vices of A.1. Moreover, A.1 developed illicit intimacy with another lady in the village and finally accused drove out defacto complainant from their house as she refused to sign on blank papers. Since then, she was staying at her parents’ house and the accused did not turn up to take her back to their house. Basing on the report of defacto

¶7

¶8

complainant a case in Crime No.47 of 2003 was registered against the A.1.

¶9

The prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.4 and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.2. On behalf of the accused, DW-1 and DW2 were examined.

¶10

By considering the material on record, the trial Court convicted the A.1 for the offence punishable under Section 498–A IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two (02) years and shall pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one (01)month.

¶11

Aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the revision petitioner/A.1 preferred an appeal before the lower appellate Court, but the same was dismissed by confirming the trial Court’s judgment.

¶12

Being aggrieved, the present revision has been filed by the petitioner/A.1.

¶13

¶14

Heard Sri Mullapudi Satyanarayana, learned Legal Aid counsel appearing on behalf of the revision petitioner and Sri Sravan Kumar Naidana learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the respondent-State.

¶15

Now the point that arises for determination in this revision is “whether there is any illegality or impropriety in the sentence imposed by the trial Court as confirmed by the appellate Court i.e., Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Vijayawada?”

¶16

It is the categorical case of the prosecution that about one year back prior to incident PW-1 purchased one lottery ticket in the name of her daughter in turn she won Hero Honda motorcycle. Accused sold away that motorcycle with a pretext to deposit the sale proceeds in the name of her daughter but used that amount for the vices of A.1. Moreover, A.1 developed illicit intimacy with another lady in the village and finally accused drove out complainant/Sarada from their house as she refused to sign on blank papers. Which all culminating to file a complaint before the police and the same was registered as

¶17

¶18

a case in Crime No.47 of 2003 of Unguturu Police Station.

¶19

The Sub-Inspector of police examined the witnesses and filed charge sheet and the same was numbered as C.C.No.441 of 2003 on the file of the learned II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-Mahila Magistrate, Vijayawada, in which three independent witnesses and I.O. were examined as Ex. PWs.1 to 4 and on behalf of accused, DW-1 and DW-2. After elaborate discussion, the trial Court made a finding that the evidence of PW-1 is consistent cogent and convincing, nothing found to disbelieve her testimony. Her mother, who is examined as PW-2 also corroborated the evidence of PW-1.

¶20

PW-3 is an eyewitness for the incident said to have happened in the house of PW-1 and she says, A.1 bet PW-1 by caught hold the tuft of hair and by demanding PW-1 to sign on some papers. So, giving weight to the testimonies of PWs.1 to 3, the trial Court found that the prosecution proved its case and the accused committed an offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC. Though the

¶21

¶22

petitioner/accused examined one DW-1- G.Masthan Vali, he states that PW-1 has no interest to reside with other family members of A.1. But he did not clarify whether PW-1 was sent out by the accused or she voluntarily left the house rather necked out by accused from their house. Incidentally, the evidence of DW-1 did not shake the prosecution case. Likewise, one M.Koti Reddy examined as DW-2 by the accused, his evidence is more or less not shaken the case of the prosecution.

¶23

The trial Court after evaluating the entire evidence in correct prospective and came to a conclusion that A.1 harassed PW-1 by demanding amounts and beat her when she questioned the accused for the selling of motorcycle and for not giving the amounts to her. So, all these facts culminates that the accused committed an offence under Section 498-A IPC, for which, the trial Court found the prosecution proved to guilt of the accused/A.1 for the offence punishable under Section 498–A IPC.

¶24

¶25

On which, the petitioner herein preferred an appeal in Crl.A.No.46 of 2007 on the file of Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Vijayawada, even, the Sessions Court discussed the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 in detail, the Sessions Court also concurred with the opinion arrived at by the Trial Court and culminated the evidence of PWs-1 to 4, to come to a conclusion that A.1 harassed and ill-treated his wife i.e. PW-1-Siva Sarada subjected her cruelty in several ways by beating and by demanding her to get amounts from her parents, by neglecting her to maintain herself and her children and also developed intimacy with another lady, which goes to show that A.1 committed the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC and found that prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the said offence.

¶26

This Court also verified the testimonies of PWs.1 to 4 as well as the material on record. In this connection, it is kept in mind a judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court

¶27

¶28

reported in Amit Kapoor v Ramesh Chander¹ , in which,

¶29

the Apex Court held that:

¶30

“Finding of facts accorded by lower Court not to altered by a revisional Court merely because another view on the same evidence is possible, when factual appreciation is involved, then it must find place in the class of cases resulting in a perverse finding. Basically, the power is required to be exercised so that justice is done and there is no abuse of power by the Court. Merely an apprehension or suspicion of the same would not bea sufficient ground for interference in the factfinding Courts as well as appellate Court judgments”.

¶31

There is another judgment of the Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali @ Deepak² , wherein also the above rule is reiterated.

¶32

Not only, the above citied case law, Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure vests the Court with the power to call for records and examine the records of an inferior court for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularity of any proceedings or order made in a case, but the object of the provision is also to set right of patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law.

¶33

1 AIR ONLINE 2019 SC 668

¶34

2 (2013) 5 SCC 762

¶35

¶36

In this Case, after careful consideration of the evidence of PWs.1 to 4, it appears to be in accordance with law.

¶37

In this connection, it is relevant to refer one more judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of

¶38

Maharastra v Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand³ ,

¶39

whereinheld at para 21 and 22 as follows:

¶40

“21. In embarking upon the minutest re-examination of the whole evidence at the revisional stage, the learned Judge of the High Court was totally oblivious of the self-restraint that he was required to exercise in a revision under Section 397 CrPC. On behalf of the accused, reliance is placed on the decision of this Court to which one of us (Justice Sabharwal) is a party, i.e. Criminal Appeal No. 523 of 1997 decided on 9.3.2004 [Ram Briksh v. Ambika Yadav] That was the case in which the High Court interfered in revision because material evidence was overlooked by the courts below.

¶41

22. The Revisional Court is empowered to exercise all the powers conferred on the Appellate Court by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 410 Cr.P.C. Section 401 Cr.P.C is a provision enabling the High Court to exercise all powers of Appellate Court, if necessary, in aid of power of superintendence or supervision as a part of power of revision conferred on the High Court or the Sessions Court. Section 397 Cr.P.C confers power on the High Court or Sessions Court, as the case may be, "for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed

¶42

3 (2004) 7 SCC 659

¶43

¶44

and as to the regularity of any proceeding of such inferior court." It is for the above purpose, if necessary, the High Court or Sessions Court can exercise all appellate powers. Section 401 Cr.P.C conferring powers of Appellate Court on the Revisional Court is with the above limited purpose. The provisions contained in Section 395 to Section 401 Cr.P.C, read together, do not indicate that the revisional power of the High Court can be exercised as a second appellate power.”

¶45

From the above, it is categorically stated that the minutest re-examination of the whole evidence at the revisional stage or the High Court can be exercised as a second appellate power is not permissible, and the learned Judge of the High Court was totally oblivious of the selfrestraint that he was required to exercise in a revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. So, this Court which dealing the revision is not permitted to minutest re-examination of the whole evidence, is oblivious of the self-restraint in the backdrop of circumstances.

¶46

In another judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ram Briksh Singh v. Ambika Yadav⁴ , held that when the material evidence was overlooked by courts below, then the High Court is validating the entire evidence. Here in

¶47

4 2004 (7) SCC 665

¶48

¶49

this case, this Court also scrutinized the material on record and nothing found to interfere with the judgment passed by the Sessions Court as well trial Court.

¶50

For these reasons, this Court is of the view that there are no valid reasons to interfere with well-reasoned judgments passed by the Courts below.

¶51

In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the judgment dated 23.01.2009 in Crl.A.No.46 of 2007 on the file of learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Vijayawada. The period of sentence, if any, already undergone by the petitioner/accused, shall be given set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. The petitioner/accused is directed to surrender before the Court of learned II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-Mahila Magistrate, Vijayawada, to serve the sentence imposed, if not, the learned Magistrate concerned shall take steps against the petitioner/accused.

¶52

¶53

Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated.

¶54

Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand

¶55

closed.

¶56

______________________ JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS

¶57

Date:22.12.2023 KNN

¶58