Peraipalli Suban Basha, Kurnool District Vs State of a.P., Rep.by Pp. High Court of a.P., Hyderabad

Revision filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C against the judgment in C.C.No.236 of 2008 dated 24-03-2011 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Allagadda^asconfirmed in CrI. Appeal No.55 of 2011 dated 05-05-2011 on the file of the Court of the III Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Nandyala.

¶10

Between:

¶11

Peraipalli Suban Basha, S/o Dasthagiri, 28 years, R/o. D.No.1-1-162 Pamula Veerana Street, Allagadda Town, Kurnool District.

¶12

...Petitioner/Accused (A-1)

¶13

AND

¶14

State of A.P, Rept. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Amaravathi

¶15

...Respondent

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri B.S. Reddy

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent: Sri K. Sandeep, Assistant^Public

¶18

Prosecutor

¶19

The Court made the following:

¶20

4

¶21

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶22

¶23

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1106 OF 2011

¶24

Between

¶25

Peraipalli Suban Basha, Kurnool District.

¶26

...PETITIONER

¶27

Versus

¶28

The State of Andhra Pradesh

¶29

...RESPONDENT

¶30

¶31

■/ li DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED

¶32

21.02.2025

¶33

2

¶34

Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.1106 of 2011 Dated 21.02.2025

¶35

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

¶36

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO

¶37

Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment?

¶38

Yes/No

¶39

Whether the copy of Judgment may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals?

¶40

Yes/No

¶41

Whether His Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Judgment?

¶42

Yes/No

¶43

3

¶44

Dr.YLRJ Crl.R.C.No.ll06 of 2011 Dated 21.02.2025

¶45

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO

¶46

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1106 OF 2011

¶47

% 21.02.2025

¶48

Between:

¶49

Peraipalli Suban Basha, Kurnool District.

¶50

...PETITIONER

¶51

Versus

¶52

The State of Andhra Pradesh

¶53

...RESPONDENT

¶54

! Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri B.S.Reddy

¶55

Counsel for the Respondent : Sri K.Sandeep, Assistant^{PublicProsecutor}

¶56

< Gist:

¶57

Head Note:

¶58

4

¶59

Dr.YLRJ Crl.R.C.No.1106 of 2011 Dated 21.02.2025

¶60

? Cases referred:

¶61

1. AIR 1951 SC 196

¶62

1. AIR 1962 SC 1788

¶63

1. (2002) 6 see 650

¶64

1. (2006) 10 see 499

¶65

1. 2007 (1) ALD (CrI.) 599 (A.P.)

¶66

1. 2004 (5) see 334

¶67

1. AIR 1979 SC 1360

¶68

1. 2000 (1) BUR 37

1 I

■>, !

5

c

Dr.YLRJ Crl.R.C.No.1106 of 2011 Dated 21.02.2025

¶74

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO

¶75

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1106 of 2011

¶76

ORDER:

¶77

This Revision has been filed under Sections 397 and^{401oftheCodeof} Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘the Cr.P.C.’)^{challengingthejudgment} dated 05.05.2011 in Crl.A.No.55 of 2011 on the file^ofthelearned III Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal, whereby and whereunder^{theconviction} and sentence of simple imprisonment for a term of one^{yearandfineof} Rs.5,000/- imposed for the offence punishable under^{Section498-Aofthe} Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘the IPC.,’) by^the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Allagadda, in C.C.No.236 of 2008, dated 24.03.2011, was confirmed. 2. I have heard the arguents of Sri B.S. Reddy, learned^{counselforthe} revisionist and Sri K. Sandeep, learned Assistant Public^{Prosecutorforthe} respondent. 3. The learned counsel for the revisionist, while reiterating^thegrounds raised in the revision, submitted that the learned^{AppellateCourtfailedtosee} that the evidence on record would not constitute any^{offenceforthealleged} offence charged; the evidence of PWs.1, 2 and 4 did not inspire any confidence; no independent witness was examined to corroborate the testimony of PW.1; PWs.3, 5 and 7, being the independent^{witnesses,didnot} support the case of the prosecution, therefore, the^{learnedCourtsbelowought}

¶78

Dr.YLRJ CrI. R.C.No.1106 of 2011 Dated 21.02.2025

¶79

to have given benefit of doubt to the revisionist. It is further submitted that the de facto complainant died on 20.05.2014, and to that effect a photocopy of the death certificate was filed. The revisionist and the de facto complainant were blessed with one daughter who had already got married. The revision was filed in the year 2011 and 14 years have passed by, and urged to show some leniency towards the revisionist and requested to modify the sentence already undergone. Alternatively, however, the learned counsel for the revisionist volunteers that an amount of Rs. 10,000/- may be imposed as a measure of penance and urged to dispose of the revision.

¶80

Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, Respondent Nos.1 to 9 and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. I have perused the record.

¶81

Now the point for consideration is:

¶82

"Whether the judgment in Crl.A.No.55 of 2011 dated 05.05.2011, passed by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge Kurnool at Nandyal, is correct, legal, and proper with respect to Its finding, sentence, or judgment, and there are any^material irregularities? And to what relief?”

¶83

It is apposite to refer the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in D Stephens v Nosibolla^ at Paragraph No. 10 held as under:

¶84

“The revisiona! 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

ViR 1951 SC 196

r

7

Dr.YLRJ Crl.R.C.No.ll06 of 2011 Dated 21.02.2025

¶89

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^{forthecorrectionof} a manifest illegality, or the prevention of a gross miscarriage of Justice. This Jurisdiction is not ordinarily invoked or used merely^{becausethelowercourt} has taken a wrong view of the law or mis-appreciated the evidence on record. ”

¶90

¶91

The Hon’ble Apex Court in K Chinnaswamy Reddy v State of AP^ at

¶92

Paragraph No.7 held as under:

¶93

“7. It is true that it is open to a High Court in revision^tosetasidean order of acquittal even at the instance of private parties, though the State may not have thought fit to appeal; but this Jurisdiction shouldⁱⁿ 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^{manifesterroronapointof} law and consequently there has been a flagrant miscarriage of Justice. Sub section (4) of S. 439 forbids a High Court from converting a^finding of acquittal into one of conviction and that makes it^{allthemoreincumbenton} the High Court to see that it does not, convert the finding of acquittal^into one of conviction by the indirect method of ordering retrial^when it cannot itself directly convert a finding of acquittal into a finding^{ofconviction.Thisplaces} limitations on the power of the High Court to set aside a finding of acquittalⁱⁿ revision and it is only in exceptional cases that this power should be exercised. It is not possible to lay down the criteria^for determining such exceptional cases which would cover all contingencies. We^may,however, indicate some cases of this kind which would in our opinion Justify the High Court in interfering with a finding of acquittal in^{revision.Thesecasesmay} be: where the trial court has no Jurisdiction to try^{thecasebuthas} still acquitted the accused, or where the trial court has wrongly shut out evidence which the prosecution wished to produce, or where the^{appealcourthas} wrongly held evidence which was admitted by the trial court to be inadmissible, or where material evidence has been overlooked either by the trial court or by the appeal court, or where the acquittal is based on a compounding of the offence, which is invalid under^{thelaw.Theseandother} cases of similar nature can properly be held to be^{casesofexceptional} nature, where the High Court can Justifiably interfere with an order of acquittal; an in such a case it is obvious that it^{cannotbesaidthattheHigh} Court was doing indirectly what it could not do directly in view of the provisions of S. 439 (4). We have, therefore, to see^{whethertheorderofthe}

¶94

^AIR 1962 sc 1788

¶95

8

¶96

Dr.YLR,J CrI. R. C. No. 1106 of 2011 Dated 21.02.2025

¶97

High Court setting aside the order of acquittal in this case can be upheld on

¶98

these principles. ”

¶99

¶100

It is further apposite to refer the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v State of Bihar= wherein at Paragraph Nos. 12 &

¶101

13 it is held as under:

¶102

...We have carefully considered the material on record and we are satisfied that the High Court w/as 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 fhi.^ .rnurt tJiat the High Court will ordinarily not interfere in revision with an nrdf^r nf acquittal except in exceptional cases where the interest of public requires interference for the correction of a manifest illenniifv nr fhc. prevention of gross miscarriaqe of justice The High Court will not be iustifind in interfering with an order of acquittal merely because the trial Court hn.<i taken a wrong view of the law or has erred in aDoreciation of evidRn.rf^ 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.

¶103

- /Q the absence of any legal infirmity either in the orocedum nr in tjie_ conduct of the trial, there was no justification for thn High Court tn interfere,. ... in exercise^ ^ of its revisional jurisdiction It ha.'^ repeatedly been hnid that the High Court should not re-appreciate the evidence to reach a findinn parent from the trial Court. In the absence of manifest illegality resulting in grave miscarriage of justice, exercise of revisional jurisdiction in .^nnh is not warranted ” ~—

¶104

^(2002) 6 see 650

¶105

f

¶106

9 Dr. YLR,J ■ Crl.R.C.No.1106 of 2011 Dated 21.02.2025

¶107

¶108

The prosecution, to prove the guilt of the revisionist, examined PWs.1 to 10 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.8. Some portions of the evidence of PWs.1 and 5 are marked as Exs.D.1 and D.2. PW.1 deposed that she was the legally wedded wife of A.1 and she was a physically challenged woman. Her marriage was performed with revisionist on 13.05.2007 at Allagadda. For the marriage, cash of Rs.50,000/- and twelve (12) tulas of gold were presented to the revisionist as dowry. After marriage, she joined the house of the revisionist. For two (2) months, she lived happily with the revisionist. Thereafter, the revisionist began abusing and beating her for silly reasons also demanded three (3) tulas of gold jewels, and cash of Rs.50,000/as additional dowry. The demand was complied. In the mean time, she delivered a female child on cesarean conducted by a male doctor. On this ground, the revisionist harassed her. Three months prior to complaint, the revisionist demanded Rs.50,000/- and sent away the victim from the house. The revisionist threatened her with dire consequences, if she failed to meet his demand and also stated that another marriage would be performed to A.1. As such, adverting to the above complaint, a case in Cr.No.89 of 2008 under Sections 498-A and 506 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, was registered.

¶109

The learned Trial Court and the learned Appellate Court^reliedonthe evidence of PWs.2 and 4, who had supported the case of PW.1. The learned

¶110

10

¶111

Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.1106 of 2011 Dated 21.02.2025

¶112

Trial Court acquitted A.2 to A.6, who are the in-laws and relatives of PW.1, but found guilty the revisionist.

¶113

In Major Singh v. State of Punjab^ the Hon'ble Apex Court held at

¶114

Paragraph No. 12 as under:

¶115

“It is well settled that minor discrepancies and minor defects in the prosecution case is not a good ground for rejecting the entire prosecution case. ”

¶116

In Namburi Karunasree v. State of Andhra Pradesh^,^the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh held at Paragraph No.26 as under:

¶117

"Minor variations in the evidence of a witness, which do not effect the credibility of the evidence, cannot be the basis to discard the intrinsic value of the evidence.”

¶118

In Daibir Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh\ the Hon’ble Apex Court held at Paragraph No. 10 as under:

¶119

When the harassment was constantly hearing and harassing his wife as he was wholely dissatisfied with the dowry given at the time of the marriage he was demanding more money and some other articles from the parents. So, the charge under section 498-A IPC has been proved ” and conviction under Section 498-A IPC has been upheld.

¶120

A careful perusal of the omissions in Ex.D.1, it can be heldiin clear

¶121

terms that those omissions are minor and immaterial and they cannot shake

¶122

J (2006) 10 see 499 2007 (l)ALD(erl.) 599 (A.P) 2004 (5) see 334

¶123

11

¶124

Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.ll06 of 2011 Dated 21.02.2025

¶125

the version of PW.1. Normally, the offence under Section^{498-Aof‘theI.P.C.,’} is committed within four walls. In such circumstances, even the testimony of a sole witness/victim of matrimonial harassment is sufficient to convict the accused, if such evidence is trust worthy, voluntary and inspiring confidence. In this case, PWs.1, 2 and 4 supported the case of prosecution. There are no material irregularities in conducting the trial. There was no misreading of evidence. There were no perverse findings. The learned^{Courtsbelowhad} rightly appreciated the evidence in correct perspective^and convicted the revisionist. Therefore, the conviction under Section^{498-Aof‘theI.P.C.,’shall} be maintained.

¶126

It has to be noted that PW.1, the de facto complainant/wife of the revisionist, died on 20.05.2014. The revision was filed in the year 2011 and nearly 14 years have passed by. A daughter was blessed^toPW.1andthe revisionist and she had even got married and living happily with her husband. All the responsibilities of unmarried daughter of revisionist^andP.W.1 was taken care by the revisionist being a father.

¶127

Right to speedy trial, which includes hearing of the^{AppealandRevision,} is part of a fundamental right guaranteed under Article^{21oftheConstitutionof} India as held in Hussainara Khatoon (IV) v. Home Secretary^State of Bihar^. This right includes speedy disposal of appeals. In addition to the

¶128

' AIR 1979 SC 1360

¶129

12

¶130

Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.1106 of 2011 Dated 21.02.2025

¶131

appeals, the right to a speedy trial also includes criminal revisions as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajdeo Sharma v. State of Bihar®. The occurrence took place about 18 years ago. The revisionist has been facing mental agony and trauma of the protracted prosecution and suffered mental harassment for a long period of 18 years. The revisionist had already undergone 10 days of imprisonment. Therefore, it is appropriate and proportionate that the sentence is required to be reduced to the period of sentence of imprisonment already undergone by the revisionist. The learned counsel for the revisionist volunteers that an amount of Rs. 10,000/- may be imposed excluding the amount of Rs.5,000/- already paid by the revisionist at the time of preferring the appeal, as a measure of penance. The said voluntary statement of the learned counsel for the revisionist is recorded and approved.

¶132

In view of obtaining peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence of one year simple imprisonment imposed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Allagadda, and as confirmed by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal, is modified to the sentence of imprisonment already undergone by the revisionist, while ordering the revisionist to pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) more towards fine, within two months (2) from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in default, the revisionist shall undergo three months (3) simple

2000(1) BUR 37

V

13

Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.1106 of 2011 Dated 21.02.2025

¶137

imprisonment. The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Allagadda, is directed to take follow-up steps.

¶138