Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Rama Rao Nagesh Babu, Spsr Nellore Dt., vs The State Of Ap., Rep Pp., on 24 July, 2025
1
APHC010828762016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3369]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE TWENTY-FOURTH DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 192/2016
Between:
1. RAMA RAO NAGESH BABU, SPSR NELLORE DT., S/O HARINADH,
OCC: TEACHER, RESIDENT OF VENKATAGIRI, SPSR NELLORE
DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF AP REP PP, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court
of Judicature, at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of
Andhra Pradesh.
...RESPONDENT
Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated ed in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to present this memorandum of Criminal Revision Case is filed being aggrieved by the Judgment passed in Crl.A.No.179/ 2012, dated 05 05-01-2016 on the file of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District filed against the Judgment passed in S.C.No.252/ 2011, dated 28 28-8-2012 2012 on the file of the court of II Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court) Nellore, SPSR Nellore District.
IA NO: 1 OF 2016(CRLRCMP 207 OF 2016 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 filing of the certified copy of the judgment passed in 2 SC.No.252 of 2011 dated 28-8-2012 on the file of the court of the II Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, (FTC), Nellore, SPSR Nellore District.
IA NO: 2 OF 2016(CRLRCMP 244 OF 2016 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 of imprisonment passed in S.C.No.252/2011, dated 28.08.2012 on the file of the Court of II Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Nellore, SPSR Nellore District which was confirmed in the judgment passed in Crl.A.No.179/2012, dated 05.01.2016 on the file of IV Additional District and sessions judge, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District and release the petitioner on bail, pending disposal of the criminal Revision case before this Honourable court and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. G VIJAYA SARADHI Counsel for the Respondent:
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 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.2, who was the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.179 of 2012, on the file of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore (for short, 'the 1 st Appellate Court), challenging the judgment, dated 05.01.2016, whereunder the 1st Appellate Court partly allowed the Appeal, but confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed against the A.2 for the offences under Sections 342 and 324 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, IPC')
2. By its judgment dated 28.08.2012 in S.C.No.252 of 2011 of II Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Nellore (for short, 'the Trial Court'), the Sessions Judge convicted the petitioner/A.2 and sentenced him as follows: (i) Rigorous Imprisonment (RI) for 1 year and a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default Simple Imprisonment (SI) for 3 months for the offence under Section 342 read with 34 IPC; (ii) RI for 3 years and a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default SI 3 for 4 months under Section 324 read with 34 IPC; (iii) RI for 4 years and a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default SI for 6 months under Section 326 read with 34 IPC;
and (iv) RI for 5 years and a fine of Rs.20,000/-, in default SI for 6 months under Section 307 read with 34 IPC. All sentences were directed to run concurrently. On appeal, the 1st Appellate Court, vide judgment dated 05.01.2016 in Crl.A.No.179 of 2012, partly allowed the appeal by setting aside the conviction and sentence under Sections 326 and 307 read with 34 IPC, but confirmed the conviction under Sections 342 and 324 read with 34 IPC, directing the petitioner to surrender for serving the sentence. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner/A.2 filed the present Criminal Revision Case.
3. The parties to this Criminal Revision Case will hereinafter be referred to as described before the trial Court for the sake of convenience.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner/A.2, and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing for the Respondent-State.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Trial Court erred in relying on the interested and inconsistent testimony of PWs.1 to 5; except PW.2, none of the prosecution witnesses are eyewitnesses to the incident that allegedly occurred at A.1's house; PW.2, a child witness, was reportedly tutored by Subbamma, an attendant at Balasadhan; PW.2 did not specifically state that A.2 caused her burn injuries; on the contrary, A.2, PW.2's teacher, applied ointment and band-aid to her wounds at school; none of the witnesses (PWs.1 to 11) testified to witnessing any illicit relationship between A.1 and A.2, and their evidence is riddled with material omissions and contradictions; there is no independent evidence establishing the presence of A.2 at the scene on the date of the incident, nor did PWs.3 to 11 see A.2 inflict injuries on PW.2; PW.20, the investigating officer, filed a petition to refer A.1 to a psychiatrist, which suggests her mental condition could have contributed to the incident; the investigation was superficial, and the charge sheet was filed 4 mechanically; lastly, invoking Section 34 IPC to convict A.2 was erroneous, and in any case, the sentence imposed is unduly harsh.
6. Now, the point that arises for determination in this revision is:
(I) Whether the conviction recorded against A.2 under Sections 342 and 324 read with Section 34 of the IPC by the 1st Appellate Court affirming the Trial Court's judgment is sustainable in law?
(II) Whether the sentence passed by the 1st Appellate Court warrants any interference?
POINT NO.I:
7. 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".
8. 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."
1(2004) 7 SCC 659 2 (2009) 13 SCC 330 5
9. The aforesaid view was further reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Malkeet Singh Gill V. The State of Chattisgarh3, 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 'CrPC') 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."
10. It is the case of the prosecution that A.1, along with her daughter, PW.2, was residing in a rented house located opposite the residence of PWs.1, 3, and others; A.2 was the paramour of A.1, and they had developed an illicit relationship; to continue their illegal intimacy, A.1 and A.2 considered PW.2, the victim girl, to be an obstacle; as a result, they began to harass her by wrongfully confining her inside the house whenever they went out, and by denying her necessities such as food and water. Further, it is alleged that A.1 and A.2 used to heat a kitchen knife and an iron rod on the stove and press them against the body of the victim girl, causing severe physical abuse; A.1 was employed as a teacher at a Z.P. High School, while A.2 was running a private school at Venkatachalam; a close acquaintance gradually developed between A.1 and A.2; initially, A.2 used to visit A.1 at her residence, but after neighbours raised concerns about their relationship, A.1 shifted to another house on Sarvepalli Road, approximately 15 days before the incident.
11. The prosecution relied on the evidence of PWs.3 to 10 to establish that A.1 and A.2 were residing together with PW.2 in the same house located on Sarvepalli Road. PW.1, Sk. Jeelani Basha, who is employed as a school bus driver, testified that on 14.09.2010, while he was at his residence, PW.3, 3 AIR 2022 SC 3283 6 Sk.Noorjahan came to his house and informed him that A.1 had confined PW.2 by locking her inside the house from the outside; immediately thereafter, he, along with PW.3, Venkateswarlu, Veturi Mahesh, and others, went to A.1's school and questioned her regarding the sounds of PW.2 weeping from the locked house; A.1 promptly returned home and opened the door; upon entering, they found PW.2 crying and observed injuries on her feet, hands, head, and back--all of which were burn injuries; PW.2 was immediately shifted to the Government Hospital for treatment; upon enquiry, PW.2 disclosed that A.1 and A.2 had inflicted the burn injuries by using a heated knife. However, during cross-examination, PW.1 admitted that he had not observed any injuries on PW.2 when A.1 and PW.2 were residing in the earlier house opposite his at Venkatachalam.
12. PW.3, a neighbour of A.1 on Sarvepalli Road, also supported the prosecution's case. According to her testimony, A.1 and A.2 used to confine PW.2 inside the house by locking it from the outside while they attended their respective schools; during such confinement, PW.2 would often cry for water. She further corroborated the prosecution's version of the incident that occurred on 14.09.2010 at around 10:00 AM. During cross-examination, PW.3 stated that her house is located opposite that of A.1, at a distance of approximately 100 meters, and that she had observed the presence of A.2 at A.1's house during morning hours.
13. The evidence of PW.4, K. Lakshmi, also supports the prosecution's case. She testified that about 15 days before the incident, A.1, A.2, and PW.2 had shifted their residence to a house located opposite hers; upon hearing the cries of PW.2, she informed PW.3; on 14.09.2010 at around 10:00 AM, she, along with PW.3 and others, went to the house of the accused after hearing PW.2 crying for water; they then called A.1 and got the house unlocked. During cross-examination, PW.4 stated that she came to know from PW.2 that A.1 and A.2 had inflicted burn injuries on her using an iron rod and a knife.
714. PW.6 (V. Mahesh), PW.7 (Sk. Khadar Masthan), and PW.8 (B. Sajida) also supported the prosecution's case by deposing that A.1 and A.2 used to confine PW.2 inside the house, lock the door from outside, and then leave for their work. The evidence of PW.9 (P. Khayum Khan) further establishes that A.1 not only confined PW.2 but also made her stand under the scorching sun and routinely locked her inside the house whenever she went to school. PW.10 (Sk. Jeelani) also corroborated the prosecution's version by stating that A.2 frequently visited the home of A.1, and when he questioned A.1 about A.2's visits, A.1 and A.2 subsequently shifted their residence. PW.11, T. Uma Maheswari, Project Officer, testified that on 14.09.2010, she saw a news item on a television channel reporting that a child (PW.2) had been wrongfully confined in her house by her mother and another individual named Nagesh. The report alleged that the child had been tied with a rope and subjected to burn injuries. Acting on this information, she, along with Nagendramma (LW.16), visited the locality and enquired with the neighbours. The neighbours confirmed that PW.2 had been wrongfully confined, locked inside the house, and physically abused. They also informed her that PW.2's mother and a person named Nagesh were residing together.
15. PW.12, P. Arun, the first husband of A.1, deposed that he had obtained a divorce from A.1 and, on 14.09.2010, saw a news scroll on television reporting that A.1 had tortured her daughter. During cross-examination, PW.12 stated that he and A.1 separated one month after their marriage. He denied the suggestion that PW.2 is his daughter or that his father had harassed A.1 for sexual intercourse. PW.13, O. Purushotham, the father of A.1, testified that A.1 and PW.12 lived together for about one year; he had seen television reports indicating that PW.2 had suffered burn injuries. During cross-examination, PW.13 revealed that upon enquiring about the injuries, A.1 informed him that A.2 had caused the burn injuries to PW.2. He further testified that when he met A.1 in jail, he observed burn injuries on her body as well. PW.19, R. Bhaskara Rao, a press reporter for Praja Sakti, also 8 supported the prosecution's case. He testified that on 14.09.2010, he received information that a girl (PW.2) had been wrongfully confined in her house and had sustained injuries; he visited A.1's house along with the police, took photographs and video footage, and personally observed injuries on PW.2's back, feet, and other parts of her body; he handed over the compact disc marked as MO.2 and the photographs to the police; on 01.05.2012, he produced his laptop in court and played the MO.2 compact disc as evidence.
16. The prosecution examined PW.20, the Sub Inspector of Police, who investigated the case. His evidence reveals that he received the report marked as Ex.P.1 from PW.1, registered a case, and submitted the FIR marked as Ex.P.7; he recorded the statements of witnesses, visited the scene of offence, and prepared a rough sketch of the scene marked as Ex.P.8 in the presence of PW.9 and PW.17. PW.17 also supported the prosecution's case by deposing that the Sub-Inspector of Police seized MO.1 (a knife) under the cover of an observation report in his presence. PW.2, the victim, testified that A.1 and A.2 were residing with her in a house at Venkatachalam; she was studying in A.2's school, and that her mother was working in a high school; A.1 and A.2 caused burn injuries to her by heating a knife and pressing it against her body, and that they locked her inside the house. The prosecution established the existence of burn injuries sustained by PW.2 through the medical evidence of PWs.14 to 16.
17. PW.14, a Senior Doctor at Ramachandra Reddy Hospital, Nellore, examined PW.2 and noticed the following injuries:
(i) Deep burns over the plantar surface of both feet, right 4 x 3 cm, left 5 x 6 cm, a deep burns present over the back of 6 x 2 cm.
(ii) A contusion around left eye.
(iii) Multiple old scars present over the scalp 1 x 2 to 1 x 3 cm.
(iv) Multiple scratches, contusions, scalds and scars present all over the body. Oedema of left upper and wall limbs, puffimus of face present.
R.S both lungs clear.
918. PW.15, Civil Assistant Surgeon at Government Hospital, Nellore, deposed that on 15.09.2009 at around 07:00 PM, PW.2 was brought to the hospital by Woman Police Constable No. 1755. Upon examination, the following injuries were observed on PW.2:
i. A healed laceration on right eyebrow 1 X 0.5 C.M., size. 7 days duration.
ii. Black eye on left side healed, three days.
iii. A healed abrasion below right eye 1/ C.M., below right eye size 1½ X ½ C.M., 7 days duration.
iv. A small pinhead-sized healed abrasion by the side of the right nostril, 4 days duration.
v. Laceration over lower lip in middle, size ½ X ½ c.m., two days duration.
vi. Outerside, left side of fore arm healed multiple abrasions 4 in number, 2 days duration.
vii. Healed laceration of 5.5 C.M., X 0.5 C.M., from over anterior auxiliary line on right side chest, 5 days duration.
viii. A contusion over right hypo cheldrim of size 4 X 0.5 C.M., brown in colour, below one contusion 4.5 X 0.5 C.M., brown in. colour, 3 days duration.
ix. Pain of entire left including upper arm level.
x. Abrasion on inner side of left elbow of 0.5 C.M., into 0.5 C.M.,
xi. Multiple linear abrasions on inner side of right ankle, 7 days duration.
xii. A round burnt area 1.0 C.M., diameter on right ankle, 2 days duration. xiii. 4 X 2 C.M., burn injury and 7 X 6 C.M., over outer side of right thigh. xiv. 8 X 2 C.M., burns are linear healed, 7 days over left thigh. Scab formed brown in colour.
xv. A healed 4 X 0.5 C.M., abrasion above injury, since 7 days. xvi. Multiple horizontal linear scratches on right fore arm, 11 in number extend upto right shoulder.
xvii. Two healed round 1 C.M., diameter outer side of right elbow, 4 days duration. 1 above the other.
xviii. Multiple contusions over the back from upper hand of scapula to middle of back, 5 in number, 3 horizontal, 2 linear direction. xix. Pain right hypo condriaum.
19. PW.16, a Senior Surgical Consultant, deposed that on 15.09.2010, at around midnight, PW.2 was admitted to their hospital, having been referred from RICH Hospital, Nellore. PW.2 remained under treatment until her 10 discharge on 23.09.2010. According to PW.16, the child had sustained multiple injuries, including injuries to the liver.
20. The defence examined A.1 as DW.1, who testified that PW.2 was studying at the convent run by A.2 in Venkatachalam. She admitted that she used to visit A.2's school and gradually developed an acquaintance with him. A.1 stated that A.2 insisted on having sexual intercourse with her, but she refused unless he agreed to marry her; A.2 allegedly promised to marry her but imposed a condition that PW.2 should not be allowed to stay with them, which A.1 refused to accept. DW.2, a social worker and a member of the Child Welfare Committee, deposed that on 14.09.2010 at about 4:00 PM, he visited the Venkatachalam Police Station, where both A.1 and A.2 were present; upon enquiry, A.1 informed him that A.2 had beaten PW.2 and caused burn injuries during the night.
21. As already observed, A.1 did not deny the fact that A.2 used to visit her house, as testified by the prosecution witnesses. Furthermore, no motive or enmity was suggested against PWs 1 and 3 to 10 that would lead them to depose falsely against A.1 and A.2. The evidence on record establishes that PW.2 was wrongfully confined in the house, denied access to water, and subjected to burn injuries. Taking into account the totality of this evidence, the 1st Appellate Court concluded that the prosecution had successfully proved that the accused persons alone had wrongfully confined PW.2. Consequently, the 1st Appellate Court convicted both A.1 and A.2 for the offence punishable under Section 342 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
22. The evidence of PW.14 reveals that upon examining PW.2, he found four external injuries and issued the wound certificate marked as Ex.P.3. PW.15, Civil Assistant Surgeon, also examined PW.2 and observed both healed and fresh injuries on various parts of her body. PWs . 1 and 3 to 10 testified that they too observed burn injuries on PW.2 when the house was opened by A.1. PW.2, the victim, categorically deposed that A.2 had caused 11 the injuries to her. However, the defence relied on a portion of PW.2's testimony in which she stated that Subbamma aunty told her that A.2 had inflicted the burn injuries. The 1st Appellate Court carefully considered the entire testimony of PW.2, along with the supporting evidence of other prosecution witnesses, and concluded that PW.2 had, in fact, sustained multiple injuries. Since it was established that A.1, A.2, and PW.2 were residing together in the same house at the relevant time, the 1st Appellate Court held that it was incumbent upon A.1 and A.2 to explain how PW.2 sustained those injuries. Both the Trial Court and the 1 st Appellate Court noted that A.2, who would be expected to know the cause of the injuries, failed to offer any explanation and did not raise any substantive defence in this regard.
23. Upon careful consideration of the evidence on record, both the Trial Court and the 1st Appellate Court concurrently held that A.1 and A.2, acting in furtherance of their common intention, voluntarily caused burn injuries and other physical harm to PW.2. However, the 1st Appellate Court also observed that the injuries sustained by PW.2 were not grievous. Consequently, it held that the ingredients of Section 307 of the IPC, relating to attempt to murder, were not attracted in this case.
24. After considering the entire evidence on record, the 1st Appellate Court concluded that A.1 and A.2 regarded PW.2, the victim girl, as an obstacle to their illicit relationship and, as a result, inflicted injuries upon her. A careful reading of the testimonies of PWs . 1 and 3 to 10 reveals that nothing was elicited during their cross-examinations to discredit or contradict their statements.
25. The learned defence counsel primarily relied on the contents of Ex.P.1 report, pointing out that it does not contain any specific allegations against A.2. However, the evidence of DW.1 also confirms that she was living with PW.2 and A.2 at the relevant time. The overall evidence on record consistently establishes that A.1, A.2, and PW.2 were residing together in a 12 rented house. Ex.P.1 clearly states that PW.2 was wrongfully confined, and that both A.1 and A.2 had bolted the house from the outside. Furthermore, the testimonies of PWs 1 and 3 to 10 corroborate that A.1 and A.2 used to leave PW.2 locked inside the house while they attended their respective schools. The learned defence counsel also relied on PW.2's cross-examination, in which she stated that A.2 had applied ointment and a bandage to her injuries and also beat her only when she failed to study. She also said that she had learned the alphabet and mathematics from A.2. Based on this testimony, the defence contended that A.2 had no direct role in the commission of the alleged offence.
26. Upon a comprehensive and analytical reading of the testimony of PW.2, it becomes evident that she has made clear, unequivocal, and specific attributions against the petitioner, who is arrayed as A.2, both during the investigative phase and subsequently during the trial. This Court has carefully evaluated the PW.2's testimony, and finds it to be internally coherent, materially consistent across her statements, and free from contradictions or significant embellishments. Moreover, it is essential to note that PW.2 had been under the exclusive care and custody of her mother, who is arrayed as A.1, until the incident in question. Despite this close relationship, PW.2 did not hesitate to name A.1 during investigation and in her testimony. This fact alone serves to undermine any suggestion that her testimony is motivated by extraneous considerations or malice. On the contrary, her willingness to depose against her mother suggests a painful attempt to speak the truth, rather than to shield or unfairly target anyone. She had no apparent animus against either A.1 or A.2 before the alleged incidents, and nothing has been placed on record to suggest that she had any reason to implicate the petitioner falsely.
27. The testimony of PW.2 stands as a cogent, consistent. It has withstood cross-examination and remains materially unshaken. Her evidence is not only plausible but also corroborated by the circumstances surrounding the case. In 13 light of these factors, this Court sees no justifiable reason to cast doubt on the reliability or truthfulness of her evidence. Her testimony, overall, exhibits the hallmarks of credibility and appears trustworthy. The testimony of PW.2 does not stand in isolation. Her version of events receives substantial corroboration from the depositions of other witnesses, i.e., PWs.1, 3 to 10, who were residents of the same locality where the offence is alleged to have occurred. Given their proximity to the house of A.1 and A.2, it is reasonable to expect that PWs.1, 3 to 10 would have been aware of the circumstances and events unfolding within the household. Importantly, no material has been brought on record to suggest that the PWs.1, 3 to 10 bore any animosity toward the accused persons or had any vested interest in falsely implicating them. There are no allegations of enmity, bias, or undue influence which could taint their credibility or render their testimonies unreliable. The naturalness of their testimonies, coupled with the absence of contradiction or exaggeration, reinforces the view that their statements are genuine and voluntary. Their testimonies are in substantial harmony with that of PW.2, and collectively form a cogent and credible chain of evidence pointing to the involvement of A.1 and A.2 in the offence. This Court is of the considered view that the testimonies are both truthful and trustworthy. Furthermore, the version of PW.2 is supported by medical evidence as referred to above.
28. Both the Trial Court and the 1st Appellate Court have independently evaluated the evidence of PWs.1, 3 to 10 and have recorded concurrent findings affirming their reliability. These findings are neither perverse nor based on conjecture, and are supported by the record. In the absence of any compelling reason to disbelieve these assessments, this Court finds no justifiable ground to take a contrary view regarding the credibility of the said witnesses, i.e., PWs.1, 3 to 10. Accordingly, their testimony is accepted as credible.
29. Upon thorough appreciation of the evidence, the 1st Appellate Court found that the nature of injuries sustained by PW.2 did not indicate an 14 intention to cause her death. Accordingly, the 1st Appellate Court held that the prosecution had successfully proven its case against the accused under Section 342, read with Section 34, of the IPC. Furthermore, the 1st Appellate Court rightly convicted A.2 for the offences punishable under Sections 342 and 324, read with Section 34 of the IPC. Upon perusal of the record and appreciation of the factual circumstances, this Court finds that the conviction recorded by both the Trial Court and the 1st Appellate Court is based on cogent and reliable evidence. Upon careful consideration, I see no illegality, error, or perversity in the concurrent findings of the Courts below regarding the conviction of A.2 for the offences under Sections 342 and 324, read with Section 34 of the IPC.
30. 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. There is no justification for interfering with the findings of the 1st Appellate Court insofar as they pertain to setting aside the conviction under Sections 307 and 326, read with Section 34 of the IPC. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered.
POINT NO.II:
31. Learned counsel for A.2 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 Kerala 4 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court reduced the sentence awarded to 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. State 5, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court considering the fact that appellants have no other 4 (2021) 12 SCC 92 5 (2021) 1 SCC 726 15 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.
32. To appreciate the said submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner / A.2 pointed out that the incident occurred on 14.09.2010. A.2, a teacher by profession, remained in remand for three months and sixteen days, as recorded in the nominal rolls. The Trial Court imposed a total fine of Rs.72,000/-, directing Rs.70,000/- to be paid to the victim girl as compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C., after the expiry of the appeal period. However, the 1st Appellate Court, while setting aside the conviction under Sections 326 and 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC, imposed a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence under Section 342 read with Section 34 of the IPC, to be paid to the victim as compensation. The conviction and sentence under Sections 342 and 324 read with Section 34 IPC, as recorded by the Trial Court, were affirmed by the 1st Appellate Court.
33. Regarding the period of imprisonment served by A.2, the nominal roll submitted by the prison authorities indicates that he had already completed three months and sixteen days during the investigation, inquiry, and trial.
34. It appears from the record that nearly fifteen years have passed since the incident involving A.2. During this extensive period, there is no material on record indicating that A.2 has engaged in any further criminal activity or possesses a history of criminal antecedents. Moreover, PW.2's testimony sheds additional light on the character and conduct of A.2. PW.2's evidence demonstrates that A.2 applied ointment and bandages to her injuries and provided assistance with her education. Considering the considerable passage of time since the incident, the absence of any further criminal involvement, and the positive conduct noted in the victim's evidence, this Court is persuaded to carefully weigh the implications of imposing further imprisonment at this stage. Incarceration after such a prolonged period could disrupt A.2's personal life and adversely affect the welfare of his family, who 16 may be dependent on him. In light of these factors, this Court finds that this case presents exceptional circumstances that warrant judicial intervention, specifically concerning the sentence of imprisonment. Accordingly, this Court deems it appropriate to modify or limit the imprisonment imposed on A.2, balancing the interests of justice with the mitigating factors that have emerged over time.
35. After taking into consideration of the material placed on record, it can be seen that the petitioner/A.2 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 A.2, 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 A.2 by the 1st Appellate Court for the offences under Sections 342 and 324 read with Section 34 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 A.2. Accordingly, the point No.2 is answered.
36. In the result, the Criminal Revision is partly allowed. While the conviction of petitioner / A.2 for the offences under Sections 342 and 324 read with Section 34 of the IPC is upheld, as rendered by the 1st Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.179/2012 dated 05.01.2016, affirming the judgment of the Trial Court in S.C.No.252/2011 dated 28.08.2012, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment imposed on petitioner / A.2 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 17 the imposition of fine against the petitioner / A.2, shall remain undisturbed. The bail bonds executed by A.2 shall stand discharged.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________ T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J Date: 24.07.2025 SAK 18 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 192 of 2016 Date: 24.07.2025 SAK