Basi Reddigari Eswara Reddy & 2 Others Vs the State of A.P. — Andhra Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Basi Reddigari Eswara Reddy & 2 Others Vs the State of A.P. — Andhra Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Sentence of petitioners/A1 to A3 modified to simple imprisonment for three weeks and a fine of Rs.1,000/- each (equal to A4 to A8); sentence already undergone during investigation and trial, so no further punishment; no order as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the punishment imposed upon A1 to A3 by the learned trial Court separately from A4 to A8 (despite identical liability under Section 366 read with 34 IPC) is illegal or improper.

Court's answer

From PW.4's evidence, all eight accused were present and jointly took away the victim; she never cited any separate overt act by A1 to A3 in her chief or cross-examination, nor did other witnesses; therefore all of A1 to A8 are jointly liable for the kidnapping and there is no material before the trial Court for awarding different punishments for the same offence to A1 to A3.

Ratio / Principle

Considering the nature and antecedents of the petitioners (A1 to A3), there is no separate overt act of these petitioners as compared to A4 to A8.

Key takeaways

The argument of parity advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners is meritorious: the petitioners are liable to the punishment on par with A4 to A8.ratio¶¶53
The imposition of one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2,000/- upon A1 to A3 was improper; they should be equally punishable with A4 to A8, and accordingly their sentence is modified.ratio¶¶54
Petitioners/A1 to A3 remain guilty for the offence punishable under Section 366 read with 34 IPC and their modified sentence is simple imprisonment for three weeks and a fine of Rs.1,000/- each (the same as A4 to A8).

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision under Sections 397/401 CrPC by A1 to A3 against the appellate confirmation (Crl.A.No.95 of 2007, dated 01.05.2009, Family Court-cum-Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Anantapur) of their conviction in S.C.No.785 of 2004 (Asst. Sessions Judge, Gooty, dated 27.07.2007) under Section 366 read with 34 IPC. Although all eight accused were convicted for the same kidnapping-for-marriage offence, proved through the version of the victim (PW.4) with no eyewitnesses and the jeep driver not examined, the trial Court had imposed a harsher sentence on A1 to A3 (rigorous imprisonment one year plus fine Rs.2,000/- each) than on A4 to A8 (simple imprisonment three weeks plus fine Rs.1,000/- each). Holding that PW.4 never attributed any separate overt act to A1 to A3, that all of A1 to A8 were jointly liable for the kidnapping, and that there was no material for differential punishment, the High Court found the separate heavier punishment illegal, modified the sentence of A1 to A3 to simple imprisonment for three weeks and a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, and recorded that they had already undergone the sentence during investigation and trial (27 days, 04.08.2004 to 31.08.2004), requiring nothing further. Criminal Revision Case disposed of; pending miscellaneous applications stood disposed of.

[3560]

APHC010332372009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

FRIDAY, THE 10^th DAY OF JULY 2026

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 792/2009

Between:

BASI REDDIGARI ESWARA REDDY, S/O.VEERA REDDY, CULTIVATION RAVULUDIKI VILLAGE, ANANTHAPUR DIST.

BASI REDDIGARI SAMBASIVA REDDY,, S/O VEERA REDDY, CULTIVATION RAVULUDIKI VILLAGE, ANANTHAPUR DIST.

BASI REDDIGARI BABU, S/O.VEERA REDDY, CULTIVATION RAVULUDIKI VILLAGE, PEDDAVADGURU MANDAL, ANANTHAPUR DIST.

...PETITIONER(S)

AND

THE STATE OF A P, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.

...RESPONDENT

Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to prefer this Crl.R.C., before this Hon'ble Court being aggrieved by the Order dated 01.05.09 made in Crl.A.No.95 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the Judge, Family Court-cumAddl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Ananthapur in confirming the Judgment passed in S.C.No.785 of 2004 on the file of the Asst. Sessions Judge, Gooty, dated 27.07.07.

IA NO: 1 OF 2009(CRLRCMP 1077 OF 2009

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

2

dispense with the filing of the certified copy of the Judgment in S.C.No.785 of 2004 on the file of the Asst. Sessions Judge, Gooty, dated 27.07.07.

IA NO: 2 OF 2009(CRLRCMP 1086 OF 2009

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 enlarge the petitioners on bail by suspending the execution of sentence passed in Crl.A.No.95 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the Judge, Family Court-cum-Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Ananthapur dated 01.05.2009 in confirming the Judgment passed in S.C.No.785 of 2004 on the file of the Asst. Sessions Judge, Gooty, dated 27.07.07.

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1.K SRINIVAS

Counsel for the Respondent:

1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

3

The Court made the following Order:

The present Criminal Revision Case has been preferred against the judgment dated 01.05.2009 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court cum Additional District and Sessions Judge, Anantapur, in Criminal Appeal No.95 of 2007 confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 27.07.2007 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Gooty in S.C.No.785 of 2004.

2. Brief fact of the matter is that:

The present petitioner along with seven others, were arrayed as A1 to A8 for the offence punishable under Section 366 read with 34 IPC. After conclusion of trial, learned trial Court has found present petitioners/A1 to A3 to be guilty for the offence punishable under Section 366 read with 34 of IPC and convicted them under Section 235 (2) Cr.P.C. At the time of awarding punishment, learned trial Court has punished present petitioners being A1 to A3 with a sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each but imposed a punishment to A4 to A8 to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three weeks and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each.

3. Sole issue arises before this Court that whether the punishment imposed upon A1 to A3 by the learned trial Court separately from A4 to A8 is illegal or improper to the present facts and circumstances of this case.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the case was filed by on the behest of PWs.1 and 2 before the police with the allegation that their daughter (PW.4) was forcibly taken away by all the accused persons with a criminal intention to perform her marriage with A3. He further submits that PWs.1

4

and 2 are parents of victim girl. PW.4 is victim girl. He further submits that there are no eye-witnesses in the alleged incident. Learned trail Court below has recorded the conviction and sentence based on the deposition of PW.4. He further submits that on plain perusal of deposition of PW.4, it would reveal that all the accused persons are present at the time of taking away the victim girl by a jeep, there are no separate overtact by any of the accused rather A1 to A3 for commission of such alleged offence of kidnapping. He submits that there are several decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as learned High Courts regarding the parity of judgment in criminal proceedings. Learned trial Court has illegally awarded the punishment separately to A1 to A3 citing them as main offenders. Prosecution case never cited A1 to A3 as main offenders and that the observation of the learned trial Court is illegal and liable to be set aside.

5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor refuted the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that the entire criminal activity of accused persons was based upon a purpose of performing marriage of PW.4 with A3. He further submits that A1 to A3 are cited as main offenders by learned trial Court and learned appellate Court has observed that they are the main culprits. He further submits that sufficient evidence was produced that A4 to A8 are only assisted A1 to A3. To prove the charge against the accused persons, learned trial Court after scanning with the evidences is of the view that the ingredients of Section 366 read with 34 IPC has been sufficiently proved beyond all reasonable doubt. He further submits that A1 to A3 are the main offenders and A4 to A8 were only accompanied with A1 to A3 while committing the offence in question. Only A4 to A8 are part in the criminal activity in committing the offence by

5

accompanying with the main offenders, thus, the plea of parity cannot be entertained.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the entire evidences and materials on record.

7. To properly justified to the arguments of the parties, I perused the lower Court record specifically, evidence of PW.4 i.e., victim girl.

8. Admittedly, when the offence of kidnapping is done, there are no eyewitnesses. Moreover, there are no ocular witnesses according to the prosecution case except the driver of the jeep. The driver was not examined as prosecution witness. Obviously, the case has to be proved according to the version of PW.4. To verify the entire case, specific portion of chief examination and crossexamination of PW.4 is set out as follows:

E xamination-in-chief of PW.4:

“PWs.1 and 2 are my parents. PW.3 Sankaraiah is my grandfather. LW.4 Lakshmi Devi is my younger sister. I know witnesses Maddileti Lakshminarayana and Thimmareddy. I know all the accused. This offence took place more than two years back. We are five daughters to our parents. Our eldest sister is married. Around 11.30 a.m. on the date of incident. I went to my relatives house. When I was returning, all the accused came in a jeep and forcibly took me along with them in a jeep. I raised cries. My sister Lakshmidevi, our grandfather PW.3 and my mother PW.2 witnessed the same. Even before they interfere, I was forcibly taken away by the accused, towards Royalacheruvu side. They took me upto Meerapuram road. They took me with an intention to perform my marriage with A3 Babu in the nearby temple at Meerapuram. The shepherds interfered and rescued me. The accused told them that I was their relative and they were to perform my marriage with A3 Babu, I told them that I was kidnapped and forcibly brought. The shepherds altercated and objected for performing the marriage. Accused told that their relative Thimmareddy was residing at Meerapuram and that I could be taken there. We all went there. The said

6

Thimmareddy chastised the accused for kidnapping me. The accused fled away. The said Thimmareddy and shepherds brought me back to my parents at 10.00 p.m. on that day. ”

Cross-examination of PW.4:

“The jeep used to attend our village daily for taking passengers. The jeep was coming behind me and I came aside. I was pulled into the jeep. I could identify A1 Eswara, A3 Babu and others, they were present in the said jeep. There were three persons present in the said jeep. The others also boarded the jeep at the same place…

9. From plain reading of evidence of PW.4, it appears that PW.4 indicated all

the accused persons were present at the time of commission of offence kidnapping. It has been specifically stated by PW.4 that she was forcibly taken inside the jeep by the accused persons and all that accused persons were present. She never cited in her chief or cross-examinations that A1 to A3 particularly forcibly taken her from the road to the jeep and she stated that A4 to A8 were present inside the jeep. The other witnesses are also not cited about anything which indicated separate overtact of A1 to A3. Surprisingly, in dealing with the said issue, learned appellate Court is of the view that A1 to A3 are the main offenders. The offence under Section 366 IPC constitutes as and when offenders taken away victim. In this particular case, A1 to A8, all jointly liable for kidnapping PW.4, thereby, I find no material before learned trial Court for awarding different punishments for the same offence to A1 to A3. In this particular case, it appears that PW.4 was taken away and on the same day, she was returned back with the instance of PW.6 to her parents’ house at 10 p.m.

10. Considering the nature and antecedents of the present petitioners being A1 to A3, I find no separate overtact of these petitioners to that of A4 to A8. Thus, in my view, learned trial Court has illegally awarded separate punishment to the

7

petitioners/A1 to A3. Thus, argument advance by learned counsel for the petitioners appears to be meritorious, on that score, the petitioners are also liable to the punishment on par with A4 to A8.

11. Under the above observations, the instant Criminal Revision Case appears to be meritorious. Imposition of sentence upon A1 to A3 for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- is improper. They should be equally punishable with A4 to A8. Hence, the sentence of A1 to A3 is modified herewith.

12. Accordingly, petitioners/A1 to A3 are found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 366 read with 34 IPC and they are punished with sentence to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three weeks and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each. It further appears from trial Court judgment, as recorded by the learned Magistrate, the period undergone by A1 to A8 is from 04.08.2004 to 31.08.2004 i.e., total 27 days.

13. A1 to A3 have already undergone the sentence as imposed during investigation and trial of this case, thereby, they are not require to suffer any punishment further.

14. Under the above observation, the instant Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

____________________________ JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA

Date : 10.07.2026

SPP

8

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.792 of 2009

Dated 10.07.2026

SPP