Dismissed

Korla Ram Mohan Rao, Peddapulivarru [v], Guntur Dist. v. the State, Rep. by P.P., Hyderabad.

Andhra Pradesh HC10 Sept 2026CRLRC/2040/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal revision challenging a conviction for outraging the modesty of a 16-year-old girl under Section 354 IPC, where the appellate court had reduced the sentence from five to three years rigorous imprisonment. Finding no illegality in the impugned orders after reviewing the evidence of five witnesses including the victim and two eye-witnesses, the court vacated the interim suspension of sentence and directed the petitioner to surrender within six weeks to serve the remaining sentence.

What did the court decide?

Criminal revision dismissed; interim suspension of sentence vacated; petitioner directed to surrender within six weeks to serve remaining sentence.

Korla Ram Mohan Rao, Peddapulivarru [v]… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

[3560]

¶2

APHC010116862009

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 11^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA

¶7

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 2040/2009

¶8

Between:

¶9

KORLA RAM MOHAN RAO, PEDDAPULIVARRU [V], GUNTUR DIST., S/O. VENKATESWARA RAO @ LALU HINDU, AGRICULTURAL COOLIE R/O. PEDDAPULIVARRU VILLAGE, BHATTIPROLU MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

THE STATE REP BY P P HYDERABAD, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor Hyderabad, S.H.O., Bhattiprolu Police Station.

¶13

...RESPONDENT

¶14

Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the CriminalRevisionCase, the High Court may be pleased toto allow the Criminal Revision Case and set aside the Judgment dated 13-04-2009 passed in S.C. No. 432 of 2008 on the file of the Assistant Sessions cum Senior Civil Judge Court, Repalle which was modified vide Judgment dated 27-11-2009 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 140 of 2009 on the file of the XI Additional District & Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Guntur at Tenali.

¶15

IA NO: 1 OF 2009(CRLRCMP 2864 OF 2009

¶16

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 Judgment and Sentence dated 27-11-2009 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 140 of 2009 on the file of the XI Additional District & Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Guntur at Tenali and release the petition on bail.

¶17

¶18

SS,J Crl.R.C.No.2040 of 2009

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶20

1.G M SWAMULU

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent:

¶22

1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶23

¶24

SS,J Crl.R.C.No.2040 of 2009

¶25

The Court made the following Order:

¶26

Bailable Warrant issued by this Court was executed on 16.10.2025. At the time of releasing on bail, the petitioner has given an undertaking to the concerned learned Magistrate to appear before this Court on the date of hearing.

¶27

Inspite of such undertaking, none appears before this Court on behalf of the petitioner. Then, this Court proceeded to hear the matter on merit.

¶28

The petitioner was arrayed as an accused in S.C.No.432 of 2008 before learned Assistant Sessions Judge for a charge under Section 354 of I.P.C.. He was convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, who found him guilty and directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of five (05) years and also to pay a fine of (Rupees Five Thousand only). In Criminal Appeal, the substantive sentence was modified to rigorous imprisonment for a period of three (03) years and fine of Rs.5,000/-. Hence, this Criminal Revision.

¶29

During the trial, the prosecution has examined as many as five witnesses, including the victim and two eye-witnesses. On the basis of the evidence of the witnesses, including the eye-witnesses, the learned Trial Court found petitioner guilty for the charge under Section 354 of I.P.C.. The learned Appellate Court has also scanned the evidence, including cross-examination of defence to the prosecution witnesses. The learned Appellate Court has affirmed the conviction of the petitioner. The victim was 16 years old at the time of the incident. Accordingly, her statement as well as

¶30

¶31

SS,J Crl.R.C.No.2040 of 2009

¶32

the statements of the other witnesses recorded before the Trial Court, were

¶33

taken into consideration.

¶34

There is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order.

¶35

Considering the aspect, I find no merit in the instant Criminal Revision and accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed as devoid of merit. The order of suspension of sentence passed by this Court during the pendency of the present Criminal Revision is hereby vacated.

¶36

The petitioner is directed to appear before the learned Trial Court within six (06) weeks from the date of passing of the order to serve out the remaining part of the sentence. Failing which, the learned Trial Court shall issue warrant of arrest against the petitioner to comply the order. The State is directed to intimate the order of this Court to petitioner.

¶37

Let a copy of this order shall be served upon the learned Trial Court for necessary compliance.

¶38

Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.

¶39

As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶40

_______________________

¶41

SUBHENDU SAMANTA, J

¶42

Date:11.09.2026 KPV

¶43

¶44

SS,J Crl.R.C.No.2040 of 2009

¶45

217

¶46

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA

¶47

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No:2040 of 2009

¶48

11.09.2026

¶49

KPV

Korla Ram Mohan Rao, Peddapulivarru [v], Guntur Dist. v. the State, Rep. by P.P., Hyderabad.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Korla Ram Mohan Rao, Peddapulivarru [v], Guntur Dist. v. the State, Rep. by P.P., Hyderabad.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases