Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Konuku Pradeep Reddy vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh Rep Pp on 7 January, 2026
APHC010859412017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3369]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 2728 OF 2017
Between:
1. KONUKU PRADEEP REDDY, EAST GODAVARI DT.,, S/O. VENKATA
REDDY, R/O. PALAGUNTACHERUVU H/O. BENDAMURLANKA
VILLAGE, ALAVARAM MANDAL, EG.DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH REP PP, through Inspector of
Police, Amalapuram Circle, East Godavari District, rep. by the Public
Prosecutor, High Court, 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 allow the Crl.R.C. by setting aside
the judgment passed in Crl.A.no. 551/2015 dated 9-8-2017 on the file of the II
Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari, Amalapuram modifying the
sentence of imprisonment imposed in SC.No. 13/2015 dated 30-10-2015 on
the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Amalapuram and consequently acquit
the petitioner/accused No. 1; ii) and to grant such other relief or reliefs as
this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
IA NO: 1 OF 2017(CRLRCMP 4453 OF 2017
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 petitioner herein on bail by suspending the sentence imposed in
Crl.A.No. 551/2015 dated 9-8-2017 on the file ofthe II Additional Sessions
Judge, East Godavari, Amalapuram modifying the sentence of imprisonment
imposed in SC.No. 13/2015 dated 30-10-2015 on the file of the Assistant
Sessions Judge, Amalapuram from one year simple imprisonment to six
2
months simple imprisonment, pending disposal of the main criminal revision
case.
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. G RAJASREE
Counsel for the Respondent:
1. SRI K. SANDEEP, ASST. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Court made the following:
ORDER
1. This Criminal Revision Case, filed under sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short, „Cr.P.C.‟), is preferred by the petitioner/A.1, who was the one of the appellants in Criminal Appeal No.551 of 2015, on the file of II Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari District, Amalapuram (for short, „the 1st Appellate Court), challenging the judgment, dated 09.08.2017, whereunder the 1st Appellate Court partly allowed the appeal, by setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed against the accused Nos.2 and 3 for the offence under Section 417 r/w.109 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, „IPC‟) and confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed against the petitioner/accused No.1 for the offence under Section 417 of IPC vide Judgment dated 30.10.2015 in S.C.No.13 of 2015 on the file of learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Amalapuram (for short, „the trial Court‟).
2. By Judgment dated 30.10.2015 in S.C.No.13 of 2015 of learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Amalapuram (for short, „the Trial Court‟), convicted the petitioner/A.1 and two others (A.2 and A.3) and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of One (1) Year and also sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5000/- each (Rupees Five Thousand only), in default of payment of fine, they shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of four (4) months each for the offence punishable under Section 417 r/w.109 of IPC.
3. The parties to this Criminal Revision Case will hereinafter be referred to as described before the trial Court for the sake of convenience.
34. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that:
(a) The victim, is the de facto complainant in Cr.No.97/2013 of Allavaram Police Station. She holds a Diploma in Hospital Sterilization Management and Operation Theatre Technician. About eight years earlier, while studying Intermediate, she developed an intimate relationship with Accused No.1. At the beginning she did not believe the version of accused about marriage. Later, she believed his version and followed him in watching cinemas at Amalapuram. She on one fine day in the month of July 2006 at about 6.00 p.m. the accused No.1 took her to the outskirts of Tummalapalli village on the pretext that he is taking her to cinema from Bendamurlanka. The accused No.1 forcibly committed rape on her without her consent by promising that he would marry her. She became pregnant.
(b) She informed Accused Nos.2 and 3, parents of Accused No.1, through elders. They advised her to continue the pregnancy and assured that the marriage would be solemnized shortly. Meanwhile, due to the critical illness of the grandfather of Accused No.1, Accused Nos.1 to 3 went to Hyderabad. On 24.02.2007 at about 2.00 a.m., the victim delivered a dead female fetus at Area Hospital, Amalapuram, where she received treatment. Despite repeated requests from the victim‟s family for marriage, Accused Nos.2 and 3 postponed it on the pretext that Accused No.1 should first secure employment. During this period, Accused No.1 continued to visit her house and cohabit with her under the promise of marriage. On 22.10.2013 at about 11.00 a.m., Accused No.1 refused to marry her and offered monetary compensation. Even after intervention by village elders, Accused Nos.2 and 3 declined to consent to the marriage, compelling the victim to approach Allavaram Police Station with her grievance.
(c) On receipt of the written complaint, L.W.20, Sub-Inspector of Police, Allavaram, registered Cr.No.97/2013 under Sections 376 and 417 read with 34 IPC and forwarded it to the concerned authorities. On 4 24.10.2013, the Inspector of Police, Amalapuram Circle, visited the Police Station, sent the victim for medical examination, examined relevant witnesses, and prepared a rough sketch. On 28.10.2013, Accused Nos.1 to 3 were arrested and remanded to judicial custody.
(d) On 29.10.2013, L.W.15, Assistant Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine, Rangaraya Medical College, Kakinada, issued an age determination certificate assessing the victim‟s age at about 25 years. L.W.16, Dr. P. Padma Nalini, issued a medical certificate stating that the victim was habituated to sexual intercourse. L.W.19, Dr. N. C. Paramkusa, certified that the victim was admitted to Area Hospital, Amalapuram, where she delivered a dead female fetus weighing about 2 kgs on 24.02.2007 and was discharged on 26.02.2007 at 6.00 p.m. Upon completion of the investigation and collection of evidence, the Inspector of Police filed the charge sheet seeking punishment of the accused in accordance with law.
5. On receipt of Charge Sheet, the case was taken on file Under Section 417 and 376(1) IPC against the accused Nos.1 to 3 by assigning P.R.C.No.22 of 2014 on the file of Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Amalapuram.
6. After appearance of the accused Nos. 1 to 3 and after supply of copies to all the entire case in P.R.C.22/2014 is committed to the Sessions Court, East Godavari, Rajahmundry on 02.01.2015. Upon which, the same was numbered as S.C.No.13 of 2015 and made over to Assistant Sessions Judge Court, Amalapuram, for disposal in accordance with law.
7. After appearance of the accused Nos. 1 to 3, they were examined and the contents of charges under Section 417 r/w 109 IPC against accused Nos.1 to 3, Sections 376 (1) IPC against accused No.1, Section 376(2) against the accused No.1 and Section 376 (1) r/w 109 IPC and Section 376(2) r/w 109 IPC against accused Nos.2 and 3 were read over and explained to them for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The accused No.1 has got means to engage an Advocate at his choice. Accordingly, charge under 5 Sections 417 r/w 109 IPC against accused Nos. 1 to 3, charges under Section 376(1) and (2) IPC against accused No.1 and charges under Section 376(1) r/w 109 and Section 376 (2) r/w 109 IPC against the accused Nos. 2 to 3 were framed.
8. During the course of trail PWs. 1 to 10 were examined and Exs. P1 to P9 was marked. After the closure of the evidence of prosecution, the accused were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence let in by the prosecution, for which they denied the same and stated that they had no defence witnesses. The accused were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and pleaded not guilty.
9. The trial Court, on hearing both sides and on considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, found the accused Nos.1 to 3 guilty of the offence, as stated supra vide Judgment dated 30.10.2015 in S.C.No.13 of 2015.
10. Felt aggrieved by the aforesaid conviction and sentence, the unsuccessful accused 1 to 3 filed Criminal Appeal No.551 of 2015 before the 1st Appellate Court, and the 1st Appellate Court partly allowed the appeal by setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed against the Accused Nos.2 and 3 for the offence under Section 417 r/w.109 of IPC and acquitted the accused Nos.2 and 3. However, the 1st Appellate Court confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed against the Accused No.1 for the offence under Section 417 of IPC.
11. Felt aggrieved by the same, the unsuccessful appellant/A.1 filed the present Criminal Revision Case, challenging the Judgment of the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No.551 of 2015.
12. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/A.1, and Sri K. Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing for the Respondent/State.
13. Despite having raised multiple grounds against the conviction in the grounds of revision, the learned counsel for the petitioner/A.1 has limited his 6 arguments exclusively to the quantum of the sentence. The petitioner has no prior criminal record and has been in judicial custody from 28.10.2013 to 21.11.2013 and again from 12.08.2017 to 07.12.2017.
14. It is settled law as observed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra V. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Sing Anand1, that "in exercise of revisional powers, this Court need not undertaken in-depth and minutest reexamination of entire evidence, when there is no error in the findings arrived by the Trial Court as well 1st Appellate Court".
15. The Apex Court in Manju Ram Kalita V. State of Assam2, held that:
9. ....if the courts below have recorded the finding of fact, the question of re-
appreciation of evidence by the third Court does not arise unless it is found to be totally perverse. The higher Court does not sit as a regular court of appeal. Its function is to ensure that law is being properly administered. Such a court cannot embark upon fruitless task of determining the issues by reappreciating the evidence.
10. This Court would not ordinarily interfere with the concurrent findings on pure questions of fact and review the evidence again unless there are exceptional circumstances justifying the departure from the normal practice.
8. ....The position may undoubtedly be different if interference is one of law from [the] facts admitted and proved or where the finding of fact is materially affected by violation of any rule of law or procedure."
16. The aforesaid view was further reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Malkeet Singh Gill V. The State of Chhattisgarh3, thus:
"8. ....The High Court in criminal revision against conviction is not supposed to exercise the jurisdiction alike to the appellate Court and the scope of interference in revision is extremely narrow. Section 397 of Criminal Procedure Code (in short 'Cr.P.C') vests jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court. The object of the provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be wellfounded error which is to be determined on the merits of individual case. It is also well settled that while considering the same, the revisional Court does not dwell at length upon the facts and evidence of the case to reverse those findings."1
(2004) 7 SCC 659 2 (2009) 13 SCC 330 3 AIR 2022 SC 3283 7
17. In light of the settled legal position, upon reviewing the judgments, this Court finds that both courts, after recording cogent reasons, concurrently held that the accused was found guilty of the offence under Section 417 of the IPC. In view of the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that the 1st Appellate Court has rightly appreciated the evidence and assessed the material placed before it in a proper and correct perspective.
18. Upon considering the submissions of learned counsel on both sides, I see no illegality, error, or perversity in the findings of the Courts below regarding the conviction of the accused for the offence under Section 417 of the IPC.
19. There is no justification for interfering with the findings of the 1st Appellate Court insofar as they pertain to setting aside the conviction under Section 417 of the IPC.
20. Now, the Point that arises for consideration is:
Whether the sentence passed by the 1st Appellate Court warrants any interference?
POINT:
21. Learned counsel for the petitioner/A.1 has sought a modification of the sentence, contending that further incarceration would be excessive and unjust, given that the accused had already served a significant portion of the sentence. The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the decision in Omanakkuttan V. State of Kerala4, wherein the Hon‟ble Supreme Court reduced the sentence awarded to the accused punished for offences under section 308 and 326 IPC for the period already undergone. Reference has also been made to the Judgment in case of Murali V. State5, wherein the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, considering the fact that appellants have no other criminal antecedent the punishment for offences under section 147, 148, 341, 352, 323, 324, 307 and 34 IPC was reduced to the period already undergone
22. It is a well-established principle of sentencing policy that the punishment imposed must be proportionate to the gravity of the proven offence. The 4 (2021) 12 SCC 92 5 (2021) 1 SCC 726 8 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.
23. 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 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 it should not be excessive or exorbitant.
24. True that, in the instant case, the petitioner/A.1 has been found guilty of an offence under Section 417 of the IPC for dishonestly deceiving P.W.1 with the intention of fulfilling his purpose, and subsequently delaying marriage.
25. Learned counsel for the petitioner/A.1 submits that the accused was approximately 26 years old at the time of the offence and has no prior criminal record. His family depends solely on him for support. He is now around 46 years old. The incident occurred in 2006. According to the nominal rolls submitted by the Superintendent of Central Prison, Rajamahendravaram, the accused has been in custody for a total of 140 days i.e., from 28.10.2013 to 21.11.2013, and from 12.08.2017 to 07.12.2017.
26. The Trial Court imposed a fine of Rs.5,000/- in addition to the sentence imposed for the offence punishable under Section 417 of IPC. The conviction and sentence under Section 417 of IPC, as recorded by the Trial Court, were affirmed by the 1st Appellate Court while reducing the quantum of sentence from one year to six months.
27. Regarding the period of imprisonment served by the accused, the nominal rolls submitted by the prison authorities indicate that he had completed 140 days during the investigation, inquiry, and trial.
928. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial court has not invoked the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter „the P.O. Act‟). Section 4 of the Act reads as follows:
"Sec. 4(1) When any person is found guilty of having committed an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and the court by which the person is found guilty is of opinion that, having regard to the circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence and the character of the offender, it is expedient to release him on probation of good conduct, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the court may, instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment direct that he be released on his entering into a bond, with or without sureties, to appear and receive sentence when called upon during such period, not exceeding three years, as the court may direct, and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behavior."
29. It is submitted that the petitioner has a fixed place of abode and regular occupation. The trial court ought to have obtained a report from the District Probation Officer. However, without exercising its powers under Section 4 of the P.O. Act, the trial court convicted the accused, and the first appellate Court upheld this conviction.
30. In Chellammal and Another V. State Represented by the Inspector of Police6, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held that:
26. On consideration of the precedents and based on a comparative study of Section 360, Cr. PC and sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Probation Act, what is revealed is that the latter is wider and expansive in its coverage than the former. Inter alia, while Section 360 permits release of an offender, more twenty-one years old, on probation when he is sentenced to imprisonment for less than seven years or fine, Section 4 of the Probation Act enables a court to exercise its discretion in any case where the offender is found to have committed an offence such that he is punishable with any sentence other than death or life imprisonment......
28. Summing up the legal position, it can be said that while an offender cannot seek an order for grant of probation as a matter of right but having noticed the object that the statutory provisions seek to achieve by grant of probation and the several decisions of this Court on the Point of applicability of Section 4 of the Probation Act, we hold that, unless applicability is excluded, in a case where the circumstances stated in sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Probation Act are attracted, the Court has no discretion to omit from its consideration release of the offender on probation; on the contrary, a mandatory duty is cast upon the Court to consider whether the case before it warrants releasing the offender upon fulfilment of the stated circumstances. The question of grant of probation 6 2025 Supreme(SC) 685 10 could be decided either way. In the event the Court, in its discretion, decides to extend the benefit of probation, it may, upon considering the report of the probation officer, impose such conditions as deemed just and proper. However, if the answer be in the negative, it would only be just and proper for the Court to record the reasons therefor.
31. As seen from the record, neither of the Courts has given any specific reason as to why the benefit of section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act has not been given to the petitioner. It is the mandatory duty cast upon the Magistrate, as well as the 1st Appellate Court, which has not been performed in the case at hand. However, the record shows that nearly twenty years have elapsed since the offence involving the accused. During this extensive period, there is no material on record indicating that the accused has engaged in any further criminal activity or possesses a history of criminal antecedents. Considering the passage of time since the incident, the absence of any further criminal involvement, this Court is persuaded to carefully weigh the implications of imposing further imprisonment at this stage. Incarceration after such a prolonged period could disrupt the accused's personal life and adversely affect the welfare of his family, who may be dependent on him. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a first-time offender. After giving my anxious consideration to the question of reduction of sentence as requested on behalf of the petitioner, this Court is of the view that some consideration should be shown to the petitioner in the matter, specifically concerning the sentence of imprisonment. Accordingly, this Court deems it appropriate to modify or limit the imprisonment imposed on the accused, balancing the interests of justice with the mitigating factors that have emerged over time.
32. Considering the age of the accused, economic condition, the passage of time since the accident, and the absence of any prior criminal antecedents, this Court finds that the sentence imposed against the accused for the offence alleged is on the higher side and can be considered excessive. Therefore, this Court finds it necessary to interfere with the impugned Judgment of the 1st Appellate Court only to the limited extent of reducing the quantum of 11 sentence, to ensure that the punishment remains reasonable and proportionate to the proven guilt.
33. After taking into consideration the material placed on record, it can be seen that the petitioner/A.1 has no previous antecedents. In terms of Section 428 Cr.P.C., any period of detention undergone by an accused during the investigation, inquiry, or trial of the same case must be set off against the term of imprisonment ultimately imposed. However, considering the period of incarceration already undergone by the accused, this Court is of the considered opinion that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment should be modified to the period already undergone, which, in the circumstances, would meet the ends of justice. However, while upholding the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused by the 1st Appellate Court for the offence under Section 417 of IPC, this Court is of the considered view that the ends of justice would be adequately served by reducing the substantive sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone by the accused. Accordingly, the Point is answered.
34. In the result, the Criminal Revision is partly allowed. While the conviction of petitioner/A.1 for the offence under Section 417 of IPC is upheld, as rendered by the 1st Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.551 of 2015 dated 09.08.2017 affirming the Judgment of the Trial Court in S.C.No.13 of 2015 dated 30.10.2015, the sentence of simple imprisonment imposed on petitioner /A.1 is hereby modified and reduced to the period already undergone. Accordingly, the substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed by the 1st Appellate Court stands reduced to that duration. The remainder of the Judgment of the 1st Appellate Court, insofar as it relates to the imposition of a fine against the petitioner/A.1, shall remain undisturbed. The accused shall be released forthwith if he is not involved in any other crimes. The bail bonds executed by the accused shall stand discharged.
12Interim orders granted earlier, if any, shall stand vacated, and the miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________________ JUSTCIE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO Date: 07.01.2026 MS 13 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 2728 of 2017 Date: 07.01.2026 MS