Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Pedamutu Sreenu vs The State Of A.P., Rep, By Its Pp on 1 September, 2025
1
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.R.C.No.1065 of 2014
Dated 01.09.2025
HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1065/2014
ORDER:
The Criminal Revision Case has been preferred under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity 'the Cr.P.C'), challenging the judgement dated 30.04.2014 in Crl.A.No.160 of 2012 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Metropolitan Division, Vijayawada, whereby and whereunder the conviction for the charge under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'the I.P.C') was confirmed while reducing the sentence of imprisonment from one year to six months, passed by the learned III Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada vide judgment dated 28.11.2012 in C.C.No.186 of 2009, wherein the petitioner was found guilty for the charge under Section 304-A of 'the I.P.C.,' and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for one year.
2. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.
3 Mr. P. Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the grounds of the revision, submits that the prosecution could not establish the ingredients of Section 304-A of 'the I.P.C.,' against the petitioner; the petitioner was not identified as the driver of the offending vehicle; the petitioner cannot be convicted based on the evidence of P.W.10 and the alleged extra-judicial confession; the evidence of P.W.4 and P.W.5 claiming as eye-witnesses cannot be believed; the chain of circumstances did not 2 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1065 of 2014 Dated 01.09.2025 complete beyond all reasonable doubt warranting the conviction; there was contributory negligence on the part of the motorcyclist/P.W.3 and urged to allow the criminal revision case.
4. Alternatively, it is submitted that the alleged accident occurred in the year 2005, that is more than 20 years. The petitioner aged about 75 years has been suffering from severe tuberculosis. He suffered more than 12 days in incarceration. He is presently on his deathbed. The petitioner volunteers to pay an amount of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) compensation towards measure of penance to the legal heirs of the deceased. The petitioner right to speedy trial has been infringed and urged to dispose of the criminal revision case in the interest of justice.
5. On the other hand, Ms. P. Akila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, vehemently argued that the petitioner caused the death of two persons who were going on a motorcycle. The P.W.4 and P.W.5, eye- witnesses, clearly identified the petitioner; the learned Appellate Court liberally reduced the sentence of one year imprisonment to six months imprisonment; the evidence of the witnesses of the prosecution cannot be re-appreciated while invoking the revisional jurisdiction and argued to dismiss the criminal revision case while conceded that the petitioner has been suffering from tuberculosis and aged about 75 years and no adverse prior or subsequent antecedents against the petitioner.
3
Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1065 of 2014 Dated 01.09.2025
6. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. I have perused the record.
7. Now the point for consideration is:
"Whether the judgment in Crl.A.No.160 of 2012 dated 30.04.2014 passed by the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, is correct, legal, and proper with respect to its finding, sentence, or judgment, and there are any material irregularities? And to what relief?"
8. While deciding a criminal revision case filed against acquittal of accused, it is apposite to refer the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar1wherein at Paragraph No.13 it is held as under:
"13. ... In the absence of any legal infirmity either in the procedure or in the conduct of the trial, there was no justification for the High Court to interfere in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. It has repeatedly been held that the High Court should not re-appreciate the evidence to reach a finding different from the trial Court. In the absence of manifest illegality resulting in grave miscarriage of justice, exercise of revisional jurisdiction in such cases is not warranted."
9. In State of Karnataka v. Appa Babu Ingale2, at Paragraph No.2 it is held as under:
"...Ordinarily it is not open for the High Court to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below specially by re- appreciating the evidence in its revisional jurisdiction...."
10. In Jagannath Chowdhary v. Ramayan Singh3, at Paragraph Nos.10 to 13 it is held as under:
1
(2002) 6 SCC 650 2 AIR 1993 SC 1126 4 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1065 of 2014 Dated 01.09.2025 "10. While it is true and now well-settled in a long catena of cases that exercise of power under Section 401 cannot but be ascribed to be discretionary - this discretion, however, as is popularly informed has to be a judicious exercise of discretion and not an arbitrary one. Judicial discretion cannot but be a discretion which stands "informed by tradition, methodised by analogy and disciplined by system" - resultantly only in the event of a glaring defect in the procedural aspect or there being a manifest error on a point of law and thus a flagrant miscarriage of justice, exercise of revisional jurisdiction under this statute ought not to be called for.
It is not to be lightly exercised but only in exceptional situations where the justice delivery system requires interference for correction of a manifest illegality or prevention of a gross miscarriage of justice. In Nosibolla: Logendranath Jha and Chinnaswamy Reddy (supra) as also in Thakur Das (Thakur Das (Dead) by LRs v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr., 1978 (1) SCC 27) this Court with utmost clarity and in no uncertain terms recorded the same. It is not an appellate forum wherein scrutiny of evidence is possible; neither the revisional jurisdiction is open for being exercised simply by reason of the factum of another view being otherwise possible. It is restrictive in its application though in the event of there being a failure of justice there can said to be no limitation as regards the applicability of the revisional power.
11. The High Court possesses a general power of superintendence over the actions of courts subordinate to it. On its administrative side, the power is known as the power of superintendence. On the judicial side, it is known as the duty of revision. The High Court can at any stage even on its own motion, if it so desires, and certainly when illegalities or irregularities resulting in injustice are brought to its notice call for the records and examine them. This right of the High Court is as much a part of the administration of justice as its duty to hear appeals and revisions and interlocutory applications -so also its right to exercise its powers of administrative superintendence. Though however, the jurisdictional sweep of the process of the High Court, however, under the provisions of Section 401 is very much circumscribed, as noticed hereinbefore.
12. Having regard to the aforesaid, we do feel it expedient to record that in the contextual facts presently under consideration before this Court, the High Court cannot but be said to have exceeded its revisional jurisdiction in setting aside the order of acquittal.
13. In any event, writing of a fresh judgment as directed by the Court is rather a significant departure in the normal disposal of revisional applications. Opportunities have been given for further argument but would that by itself tilt the scale - this aspect of the 3 AIR 2002 SC 2229 5 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1065 of 2014 Dated 01.09.2025 matter has already been noticed earlier, as such we need not dilate thereon excepting recording that an extremely significant departure from the normal form of Court orders stands challenged in this Court."
11. Keeping in view of all the principles laid down in the judgments referred supra, I shall proceed to decide this Revision Case without there being any iota of re-appreciation of evidence by sitting like a second appellate court. This Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 397 read with Section 401 of 'the Cr.P.C.,' cannot invoke it's revisional power as a Second Appellate Court and re-appreciation of evidence is not possible in the revision case as laid down in the decisions in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh, Jagannath Chowdhary and Appa Babu Ingale. However, this Court is not denuded of its powers to examine whether judgments impugned are correct, legal and proper with respect to their findings, sentence or even judgment and there are any material irregularities. If there are manifest illegalities and interest of public justice requires interference for the correction of those manifest illegalities or to prevent a great miscarriage of justice, this Court is empowered to evaluate the evidence and analyze it and come to a just conclusion.
12. The learned Trial Court examined as many as thirteen witnesses and marked Exs.1 to 16. The evidence of P.W.4 and P.W.5 is clear that they had identified the petitioner as the driver of the appending vehicle. They deposed that the petitioner drove the lorry in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle in which, the deceased No.1/Chintala Rama Devi, her elder son, and deceased No.2/Chintala Deepthi Chand were travelling. In fact, 6 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1065 of 2014 Dated 01.09.2025 P.W.3 was going to Gudiwada on a motorcycle bearing No.AP 16 AG 3086 along with his wife and two children. P.W.3 was riding the motorcycle, his wife/deceased No.1 was pillion rider keeping her younger son with her, and the elder son/deceased No.2 was seated on the petrol tank. Thus, P.W.3 was riding the motorcycle with four persons including himself. The learned Trial Court having appreciated the evidence of the witnesses found the petitioner guilty for the charge under Section 304-A, 338 of 'the I.P.C.,' and under Section 134 (a) and (b) read with 187 of Motor Vehicle Act 1988. There was no mechanical defect in the vehicle i.e., lorry bearing No. AP 16 TT 3359 driven by the petitioner as per the evidence of the Motor Vehicle Inspector. The identity of the petitioner is not in dispute, as he was seen and identified by P.W.4 and P.W.5, and P.W.10, the owner of the vehicle, produced the accused before the Investigating Officer. The learned Appellate Court also rightly confirmed the judgment of the learned Trial Court. Hence, the conviction for the charge under Section 304-A, 338 of 'the I.P.C.,' and under Section 134 (a) and (b) read with 187 of 'the Act.,' shall be maintained.
13. With regard to the sentence of imprisonment, it has to be pointed out that the incident occurred on 09.01.2005, and nearly, 20 years have passed by. The petitioner is aged about 75 years. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted a medical report stating that the petitioner has been suffering severe tuberculosis, which is a highly infectious disease. The petitioner had already in incarceration for more than 12 days. There are no 7 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1065 of 2014 Dated 01.09.2025 adverse prior or subsequent antecedents against the petitioner. The petitioner has volunteered to pay an amount of Rs.30,000/- as a measure of penance. The said voluntary statement is recorded and approved.
14. In view of the obtaining peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the conviction of the petitioner for the charges under Sections 304-A, 338 of 'the I.P.C.,' and under Section 134 (a) and (b) read with 187 of 'the Act.,' shall be maintained while reducing the sentence of imprisonment to which the petitioner had already undergone besides sentencing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.30,000/- towards fine, within two (02) months from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the petitioner shall suffer six months simple imprisonment. The fine amount of Rs.30,000/- paid by the petitioner shall be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased persons i.e., P.W.3/husband.
15. The learned III Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada is directed to take necessary follow-up steps.
16. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
_________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Dt: 01.09.2025 KMS 8 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1065 of 2014 Dated 01.09.2025 115 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No: 1065 of 2014 01.09.2025 W KMS