Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Guruvilli Madhukesava Reddy @ Madhu vs The State Of A P on 2 April, 2026
APHC010009272008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3560]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 963/2008
Between:
1. GURUVILLI MADHUKESAVA REDDY @ MADHU, S/O YENDU, R/O
MELIAPUTTI VILLAGE, SRIKAKULAM DIST.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. 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 memorandum of Crl.R.C., being aggrieved by the Judgment passed by the Asst. Sessions Judge, Sompeta in S.C.No.46/2003, dated 22.12.05 which was modified by the Dist. & Sessions Judge, Srikakulam in Crl.A.No.114/2005, dated 25.03.08. IA NO: 1 OF 2008(CRLRCMP 1147 OF 2008 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 dispense with the certified copy of the Order in S.C.No.46/2003 on the file of the Asst. Sessions Judge, Sompeta, dated 22.12.05.
2IA NO: 1 OF 2009(CRLRCMP 3030 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 hearing expeditiously the above Cr.R.C. Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. SHAIK MOHAMMED ISMAIL Counsel for the Respondent:
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following:3
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 963/2008 The Court made the following:
The instant Criminal Revision Case has been preferred against the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Appellate Court in C.A.No.114 of 2005 arising out of S.C.No.46 of 2003.
2. In a nut shell, the fact of the case is that the petitioner was charged with the offences punishable under sections 354, 509 and 323 of Indian Penal Code (for brevity "the I.P.C). The learned Trial Court after taking evidences convicted the petitioner for the offences punishable under section 354, 509 of I.P.C the same was challenged before the learned Appellate Court. The learned Appellate Court by passing impugned order set aside the order of conviction against the petitioner under Section 354 of PC but imposed fine, only finding the petitioner to be guilty for the offence punishable under Section 509 of I.P.C. Hence, this instant Criminal Revision Case.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Appellate Court for the offence punishable under Section 509 of I.P.C is not justified. He further submits that when the punishment under Section 354 of I.P.C was set aside, the offence punishable under Section 509 should be set aside. He further submits that the learned Appellate Court has committed error only passing order of conviction in respect of the offence under Section 509 I.P.C the petitioner should have acquitted from this case.
4
4. Sri K.Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor raised objections and submits that there are sufficient material to hold that petitioner has committed the offence punishable under Section 509 of I.P.C. He further submits that it is clear from the evidences as well as Ex.P1 that the petitioner has committed the offence punishable under section 509 of I.P.C. He further argued that the order of learned Appellate Court is speaking order, there is no merits in the instant Criminal Revision Case.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Trial Court as well as order passed by the learned Appellate Court.
6. In this particular case, it has been alleged by the prosecution, the accused finding PW.2 (victim girl) in a field lonely has committed offence under section 354 of I.P.C. When PW.1-complainant and PW.3 came to know about the alleged commission of offences. On query, the accused has uttered filthy language, insulting the modesty of PW.2 and also assaulted other witnesses. On the basis of such fact, a charge has been framed for the offences under section 354, 509 & 323 of I.P.C before the learned Trial Court. During the trial, the prosecution has adduced as many as eight (08) witnesses and some documents were exhibited. After completion of the trial, the learned Trial Court found the petitioner to be guilty for the offence punishable under Section 354 of I.P.C. and directed him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of five (05) years with fine of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five thousand only). In Appeal, the learned Appellate Court after scanning the evidences is of view 5 that the PW.3 has stated before the learned Trial Court that Ex.P1 i.e., complaint was narrated to Police and one police constable wrote down the said complaint. The learned Appellate Court on scanning all the evidences of PW.1 to PW.3 is of opinion that PW.1 had no intention to lodge complaint against the accused/petitioner for commission of offence punishable under section 354 of I.P.C. But it was only case of slapping to PW.1 by the accused with allegation intending to insult the modesty of PW.2 by uttering some gesture. On such basis, the learned Appellate Court is of view that the offence punishable under Section 354 of I.P.C. was not proved as it was not supported either by PW.2 (victim girl) or by other witness.
7. Moreover, it has been further noted by the learned Appellate court that the statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C during course of investigation by the police differs the fact to that of Ex.P1-complaint. On that basis, the learned Appellate Court has held that the accused has committed an offence under section 509 of I.P.C only.
8. It is no doubt that the criminal trial was started on the basis of Ex.P1- Complaint. The investigation of the police was ended in charge sheet on the basis of the statement recorded by the police and documents collected by the investigating officer. The Ex.P1-complaint is not sacrosanct in a criminal Trial. However, it must have correct nexus and binding with the statement of witness under Section 161 Cr.P.C. In this particular case, the learned Appellate Court has scanned the evidences and is of view that Ex.P1 i.e., complaint is not in consonance with the statement of witnesses under section 6 161 Cr.P.C. Thus it cannot be believed that the accused has committed the offence punishable under section 354 of I.P.C. However, the learned Appellate Court has believed that offence under section 509 of I.P.C. may have committed. In this case, it is very peculiar that some facts in Ex.P1 was disbelieved by the learned Appellate Court while some other facts were believed. When a document was placed before the Criminal Court. The Criminal Court has to ascertain the document ie., the complaint on basis of the evidences collected by police during investigation. In this particular case, when learned Appellate court is of view that Ex.P1 is full of exaggeration in respect of the offence punishable under section 354 of I.P.C it should not have believe the other portion of the complaint ie., complaint in respect of offence punishable under section 509 of I.P.C. When a document or an evidence before the Criminal Court appears to be full of exaggerations. Conviction on the basis of such document is not justified because accused has always right of silence and presumption of innocence, the prosecution has to prove the offence beyond all reasonable doubts. When the learned Appellate Court has disbelieved the narrations in Ex.P1 under section 354 of I.P.C he should not relied other portion of Ex.P1 to hold that offence punishable under section 509 of I.P.C has been committed. There are proved exaggeration and improvement in prosecution case. In my view, the learned Appellate Court has committed error in holding that the prosecution has rightly bring home the charge under section 509 of I.P.C.
7
9. On the above observations, the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Appellate Court against the present petitioner under section 509 of I.P.C appears to be illegal and improper and liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the same is set aside. Petitioner be acquitted from the case. Sureties are also released.
10. Accordingly, the instant Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________________ JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA Dated:02.04.2026 SSA