Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Marella Koteswara Rao, vs The State Of Ap Rep By Its Pp Hyd., on 7 August, 2025
APHC010459792009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESJH
AT AMARAVATI
-o'
3 I"'.' 301
THURSDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGU^!^
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE ^
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1721 of 2009
Revision filed under Sections 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C, against the Judgment
dated 13-10-2009 passed in C.A.No. 344 of 2008, on the file of the Court of
the VIII Additional District Judge, Guntur, Guntur District and preferred against
the Judgment dated 05.11.2008 passed in C.C.No.149 of 2008, on the file of
the Court of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet, Guntur District.
Between:
Marella Koteswara Rao, S/o Veera Brahmam Occ; Driver, R/o
Ediapadu Village and Mandal, Guntur District.
...PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED
AND
The State of AP, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., at
Amaravati.
...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT
Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI MD SALEEM
Counsel for the Respondent : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Court made the following ORDER :
1
1
APHC010459792009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3369]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1721/2009
Between:
1.MARELLA KOTESWARA RAO, S/O VEERA BRAHMAM, DRIVER, R/0
EDLAPADU VILLAGE & MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
AND
1.THE STATE OF AP REP BY ITS PP HYD, rep. by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court of AP, at Hyderabad.
...RESPONDENT
Revision filed under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C., praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision
Case, the High Court may be pleased to present this Memorandum of
CrI.R.C., to this Hon'ble Court against the Crl.A.No.344 of 2008, dt.
13.10.2009 on the file of the Court of the VIII Addl. Dist. Judge, Guntur
District.
lA NO: 1 OF 2009(CRLRCMP 2386 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
suspend the sentence in Crl.A.No.344 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the
VIII Addl. Dist. Judge, Guntur District, and to release the petitioner on bail,
pending disposal of the above CrI.R.C., before this Hon'ble Court.
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.MDSALEEM
2
Counsel for the Respondent:
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The court made the following ORDER:
1. The present Criminal Revision Case, filed under Sections 397 and 401
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity, 'Cr.P.C.'), is preferred by
the petitioner/accused, challenging the judgment dated 13.10.2009 passed in
Crl.A.No.344 of 2008 by the learned VIII Additional District Judge, Guntur (for
short, the '1®* Appellate Court'). By the said judgment, the 1^' Appellate Court
partly allowed the appeal and modified the conviction recorded by the learned
Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chitakaluripet (for short, the Trial Court') in
C.C.No.149 of 2008 dated 05.11.2008. Specifically, the conviction for the
offence under Section 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC')
was altered to one under Section 337 IF^C.
2. The parties to this Criminal Revision Case will hereinafterbe referred to
as described before the Trial Court for the sake of convenience.
3. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that;
The accused, driver of auto No. AP 07 W 5868 caused an accident
on 24.02.2008. After completing their coolie work, PWs.1, 3, and
others boarded the auto to return to their village. Around 5:00 PM,
near the Madigapalli tank in Unnava village, the driver drove
recklessly at high speed, lost control and overturned the auto.
PWs.1 and 3 were injured and shifted to private hospitals in Guntur
through an ambulance. The Head Constable at Arundelpet L&O
PS, Guntur (LW.5), recorded PW.3's statement at 11:50 PM the
same day and forwarded it to PW.4 for jurisdictional action. On
26.02.2008, PW.4 registered the case as Cr.No.18 of 2009 at
Ediapadu PS and conducted the investigation. Upon completion,
PW.4 submitted the charge sheet to the Additional Junior Civil
Judge, Chilakaluripet.
3
4.
Hi
The learned Trial Court took cognizance under Sections 337 and 338 of
the IPC against the accused. Upon the accused's appearance, copies of
relevant documents were provided as required under Section 207 of the
Cr.P.C. The accused was then examined under Section 251 of the Cr.P.C.,
where the substance of the accusation was explained to him in Telugu
regarding the offences under Sections 337 and 338 of the IPC. The accused
denied the allegations and pleaded not guilty, claiming his innocence.
5.
During the course of the trial, on behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 4
and documents Exs.P1 to P6 were marked. After the closure of the
prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C.,
explaining the incriminating evidence deposed by prosecution witnesses to the
accused in Telugu, on that the accused denied the incriminating evidence and
stated that he had no defence evidence. Hence, the defence evidence was
closed.
6.
The Trial Court on hearing both sides and on considering the oral as
well as documentary evidence, found the accused guilty of the offence
punishable under section 338 of IPC as stated supra v/de its judgment, dated
05.11.2008 in C.C.No.149 of 2008 and convicted the petitioner/accused and
sentenced him to suffer Simple Imprisonment for four (04) months for the
offence under Section 338 of IPC and also to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in
default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for one month.
7.
Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court, the
unsuccessful accused filed Criminal Appeal No.344 of 2008 before the 1®'
Appellate Court. The 1®* Appellate Court partly allowed the appeal, modifying
the conviction for the offence under Section 338 of the IPC in C.C.No.149 of
2008 to Section 337 of the IPC. However, the sentence of imprisonment
imposed by the Trial Court for the offence under Section 338 of the IPC was
upheld for the offence under Section 337 of the IPC. Dissatisfied with the
same, the appellant has filed the present Criminal Revision Case, challenging
the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No.344 of
2008.
8.
During arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that he ISi:
pressing the revision petition only insofar as the sentence imposed by the Trial
Court is concerned, but the petitioner is not challenging the conviction under
Section 337 of the tPC. The petitioner's counsel further submits that the
sentence imposed may be modified. It is contended that the petitioner was the
sole breadwinner of his family. Furthermore, the petitioner has no prior
criminal record.
9. Now, the point that arises for consideration is:
Does the sentence passed by the 1^* Appellate Court
warrant any interference?
POINT;
10.
As seen from the record, the 1®* Appellate Court imposed the sentence
of simple imprisonment for four months on the accused for the offence under
Section 337 of the IPC, along with a fine of Rs. 500/-. The Appellate
Court's judgment also indicates that the accused has already paid the fine
amount.
11.
It is a well-established principle of sentencing policy that the punishment
imposed must be proportionate to the gravity of the proven offence. The
sentence should be neither nominal nor excessive. What constitutes a
proportionate sentence must be determined on a case-by-case basis, having
due regard to the specific facts and circumstances of each matter.
12.
While ordering the sentence, the facts and circumstances of each of the
case before the court has to be appreciated on its own merits and the
circumstances in one criminal case cannot be taken as a binding precedent in
so far as the order on sentence in another case, unless the facts and
circumstances of each of the instances corresponds to each other or exactly
5
if tallies. But always, the court must bear in mind the cardinal principle that the
sentence ordered must be proportionate to the gravity of the proven guilt, and
r it should not be excessive or exorbitant.
13. True that in the instant case, the petitioner / accused has been found
guilty of an offence punishable under Section 337 of the IPC. However, it is
pertinent to note that there is no allegation that the accused was under the
influence of liquor or any other substance impairing his ability to drive at the
time* of the accident. The act was one of rash and negligent driving simpliciter,
and not one involving inebriation, a factor which, if present, would have
constituted an aggravated and despicable offence warranting a stricter and
more severe sentence.
14. The sentence for an offence under Section 337 of the IPC may consist
of imprisonment for a term of up to six months, or a fine of Rs.500/-, or both,
with the extent of the sentence left to the court's discretion. However, in 1973,
the Indian Parliament introduced a limitation on this judicial discretion by
inserting sub-section (4) into Section 354 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
This provision mandates that when a court imposes a sentence of
imprisonment for less than three months for an offence punishable with
imprisonment of one year or more, the court must record its reasons for such
a sentence. This amendment clarifies that imprisonment should be the norm,
while imposing only a fine should be the exception in such cases.
15. In light of the observations made above, and considering that the
offence under Section 337 of the IPC carries a maximum punishment of six
months, this court finds merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that a fine may be imposed at the court's discretion in lieu of
sentencing the petitioner to imprisonment.
16. In Hazara Singh V. Raj Kumar\ the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:
' (2013) 9 see 516
6
10. .
It is the duty of the courts to consider all the relevant factors to
impose an appropriate sentence. The legislature has bestowed upon the \
judiciary this enormous discretion in the sentencing policy, which must be
exercised with utmost care and caution. The punishment awarded should
be directly proportionate to the nature and the magnitude of the offence.
The benchmark of proportionate sentencing can assist the Judges in
arriving at a fair and Impartial verdict "
"11. The cardinal principle of sentencing policy Is that the sentence
imposed on an offender should reflect the crime he has committed and it
should be proportionate to the gravity of the offence. This court has
repeatedly stressed the central rold of proportionality in sentencing of
offenders in numerous cases."
17. When the petitioner/accused was questioned by the Trial Court
regarding the quantum of sentence, he stated that he has two female children
and is responsible for their welfare.
18.
As seen from the record, the offence in question occurred on
24.02.2008, nearly 17 years ago, and the petitioner was approximately 35
years old at the time of the accident. Upon consideration of the material on
record, it is evident that the petitioner/accused is a first-time offender and has
no prior criminal record or antecedents. He is not reported to have ever
misused a concession of bail/suspension of sentence.
19.
Considering the nature of the o^ence committed by the accused, his
age, economic condition, and the significant passage of time since the
incident, this court is inclined to assess the implications of imprisonment at
this juncture. Incarceration after such
a prolonged period could severely
disrupt the petitioner's personal life and adversely impact the welfare of his
family, who may be dependent on him. Accordingly, this court finds that the
sentence imposed under Section 337 of the IPC is disproportionat ely severe
and may be deemed excessive. In light of these factors, this court views that
this case presents exceptional circumstances warranting judicial intervention
particularly concerning the sentence of imprisonment. Given the absence of
any prior criminal record, this court concludes that the sentence imposed on
the accused under Section 337 of the IPC should be reconsidered as
7
to interfere with the
excessive. Therefore, this court deems it necessary
impugned judgments solely to the extent of setting aside the imprisonment
imposed by both Courts, while upholding the 1®* Appellate Court s judgment to
impose a fine of Rs.500/ , which adequately serves the interests of justice.
Point is answered accordingly.
20. In the result, the criminal revision case is partly allowed. The
conviction of the petitioner/accused under Section 337 of the IPC, as upheld
confirmed. However, the sentence is
by the learned Appellate Court IS
modified as follows:
(i) The sentence of Simple Imprisonment (SI) for a period of four
months is set aside.
is confirmed. It is noted
(ii) The fine imposed by the 1®' Appellate Court is
reflected in the
that the accused has already paid the fine as
judgment of the 1®* Appellate Court
Accordingly, the bail bonds of the accused are hereby discharged. The
of this order, along with the
Registry is directed to forthwith transmit a copy
case records, to both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court for
necessary compliance.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
SD/- K.TATARAO
DEPUTY REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
To
1. The Vlll Additional District Judge, Guntur, Guntur District, (with records
if any)
2. The Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chilakaluripet, Guntur
District, (with records if any)
3. The Superintendent, District Jail, Guntur, Guntur District.
v;:V
4. The Station House Officer, Edlapadu Police Station, Guntur District.
5. One CC to Sri Md Saleem, Advocate [OPUC]
6. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh,
Amaravathi [OUT]
7. The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at
Amaravathi. (to dispatch the trial court records)
8. Two CD Copies
TK
TAC
HIGH COURT
DATED:07/08/2025
ORDER
CRLRC No.1721 of 2009 ^ 2''■inrentSectio|ixv5' 2 AUG 2025 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE IN PART