Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Mudamanchu Balamma, vs State Of A.P., Rep By Pp., And 2 Others, on 1 September, 2025
APHC010303052009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3369]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 2179/2009
Between:
1. MUDAMANCHU BALAMMA, W/O. KONDA GURAVAIAH,
GURIJEPALLI VILLAGE, Y.PALEM MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. STATE OF A P REP BY PP AND 2 OTHERS, HIGH COURT OF A.P.,
HYDERABAD
2. GOPIDESI KASAIAH A1, S/O. CHENNAIAH, R/O. GURIJEPALLI
VILLAGE, Y.PALEM MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.
3. GOPIDESI YELLAMANDA A3, W/O. KASAIAH, R/O. GURIJEPALLI
VILLAGE, Y.PALEM MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT(S):
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 Revision Case and set
aside the impugned Judgment in S.C.No.166/2007, dated 23.10.2009 on the
file of the Asst. Sessions Judge, Markapuram, Prakasam District, in which the
accused (Respondents Nos.2 and 3) were acquitted, having good grounds to
succeed in the Revision Case.
IA NO: 1 OF 2009(CRLRCMP 38754 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
2
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. KOTI REDDY IDAMAKANTI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. V MALLIK
2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Court made the following:
ORDER
1. The Criminal Revision Case, under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, „Cr.P.C.‟) is filed by the petitioner/de facto complainant assailing the Judgment dated 23.10.2009 passed in S.C.No.166 of 2007 on the file of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Markapur (for short, „the trial Court‟), whereby the trial Court acquitted the Respondents/A.1 and A.3 for the offences punishable under Section 452, 354 r/w.34 and Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC‟).
2. The parties to this Criminal Revision Case will hereinafter be referred to as described before the trial Court for the sake of convenience.
3. The prosecution's case is as follows:
(a) Accused No.3 is the wife of Accused No.1, and both reside in Gurijepalli. The victim (P.W.1) is the daughter of P.W.2, Mudamanchu Konda Guravaiah, and Mudamanchu Rosamma, who earn their livelihood as daily wage labourers. Approximately one month before 27.01.2006, the victim's parents were away. One week before that date, during the night, while the victim was asleep at home, A.1 and A.2 (a juvenile in conflict with the law) unlawfully entered her house, held her, and kissed her. Frightened, she raised an alarm. P.W.4, Darisi Rajamma, a neighbour, heard the commotion, rushed to the scene, and rescued the victim, prompting the accused to flee.3
(b) On the morning of 27.01.2006, the victim informed her returning parents about the incident. The matter was then reported to the village elders.
Later that evening, around 5:00 p.m., while the victim went to relieve herself, A.3 assaulted her by slapping her cheeks, accusing her of tarnishing her husband‟s reputation by reporting the incident. P.W.4, Shaik Vali, witnessed the assault, intervened, and rescued the victim. On 28.01.2006, at around 12:00 noon, the victim and her father lodged a complaint at the police station. Based on this report, P.W.5, B. Papa Rao, Investigating Officer, registered the case as Crime No.2 of 2006 for the offences as mentioned supra.
4. After laying the charge sheet by the Investigating Officer, the committal Court passed an order under Section 209(a) of Cr.P.C., following the provisions of Sections 207 and 208 Cr.P.C. The case is committed to the Court of Sessions. Subsequently, the case in Sessions Case No.166 of 2007 has been numbered. After hearing the Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel, the trial court framed charges against the accused, punishable under Section 452, read with Section 34 of the IPC, against A.1, and under Section 323 of the IPC, against A.3. The accused did not plead guilty but claimed to be tried.
5. During the course of the trial, on behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws. 1 to 5 were examined, and Exs. P1 to P5 were marked, and no oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused.
6. After the closure of the evidence of the prosecution, the accused were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. concerning 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 and pleaded not guilty.
7. The Trial Court, upon hearing both sides and considering the oral and documentary evidence, found A.1 not guilty of the offences punishable under Section 452 and 354 r/w. 34 of IPC and A.3 found not guilty for the offence 4 punishable under Section 323 of IPC vide its Judgment dated 23.10.2009 in S.C.No.166 of 2007, and acquitted A.1 and A.3.
8. Felt aggrieved by the aforementioned acquittal of the accused, the de facto complainant filed the present Criminal Revision Case, challenging the Judgment of the trial Court in S.C. No. 166 of 2007.
9. Now, the point that arises for consideration is:
Was the trial Court justified in acquitting accused Nos.1 & 3?
POINT:
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner/de facto complainant contends that the trial Court failed to properly appreciate the consistent and cogent evidence of the prosecution witnesses, which was sufficient to convict the accused. It is argued that the testimonies of P.Ws.1 and 2, the victim and her father, clearly describe the manner in which the offence was committed. The trial Court erred in placing undue weight on minor discrepancies in their evidence. Moreover, it failed to recognize that the victim‟s testimony alone, being trustworthy and credible, was sufficient to sustain a conviction, especially when supported by her father‟s evidence.
11. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner/de facto complainant, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing for the Respondent No.1/State and learned counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 and 3.
12. 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 as 1st Appellate Court".
1(2004) 7 SCC 659 5
13. I have carefully examined the witness depositions and considered the submissions made by both parties. The de facto complainant, who is the victim, was examined as P.W.1, and her report has been marked as Ex.P1. The marital relationship between Accused Nos.1 and 3 is not in dispute. The case against Accused No.2, being a juvenile in conflict with the law, has been split up and dealt with separately.
14. During the cross-examination of P.W.1, the victim, Ex.D1 was elicited. To establish the incident, the prosecution examined P.W.2, Mudamanchu Konda Guravaiah (the victim‟s father), P.W.3, Darisi Rajamma, and P.W.4, Shaik Vali. However, P.Ws.3 and 4 did not support the prosecution‟s case and denied having given statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. to the police, which were marked as Exs.P2 and P3.
15. According to P.W.1, the incident occurred around midnight on a Wednesday, when Accused Nos. 1 and 2 entered her house. Accused No. 2 allegedly caught her hands from behind, waking her, while Accused No. 1 kissed her on the cheeks. When she cried out, they allegedly covered her mouth with a cloth. However, during cross-examination, P.W.1 stated that she did not inform the village elders or her junior paternal uncles about the incident. The trial court observed that, under normal human conduct, a victim of such a serious offence would be expected to confide in close family members. Although her paternal uncles resided in the same village, she did not disclose to them or their wives. The trial court considered it a suspicious circumstance, thereby casting doubt on the prosecution's version of events.
16. The evidence of P.W.1 (the victim) indicates that two separate incidents occurred. The second incident reportedly took place on 27.01.2006, with the complaint being filed on 28.01.2006, following the return of her parents to their home. The testimony of P.W.2, Mudamanchu Konda Guravaiah, was deemed hearsay. The trial court rightly noted that P.W.2 exaggerated the incident, testifying that P.W.1 had informed him that Accused No.1 committed rape on 6 her, and that the incident occurred approximately five days before their arrival. The trial court observed that P.W.1 did not allege rape in her testimony, nor does Ex.P1 contain any such allegation. Furthermore, the Trial court considered that the victim waited three days before reporting the incident to her parents, who then arrived at her house only after this delay. After an elaborate discussion of P.W.2's evidence, the trial court concluded that the assertion that Accused No.1 committed rape on P.W.1 cannot be regarded as true and is likely an improvement made by P.W.2 for reasons known only to him.
17. The prosecution examined P.W.3, Darisi Rajamma, to establish that she heard the victim's cries and opened the front door latch to help. However, P.W.3 stated that she had no knowledge of the case, and the police did not further examine her. Consequently, P.W.3 did not support the prosecution's case.
18. The prosecution examined P.W.4, Shaik Vali, as an eyewitness to the second incident and to confirm that he rescued the victim from the hands of Accused No.3. However, he stated that he had no knowledge about the case, and the police neither examined him further nor recorded his statement.
19. In paragraph 16 of the Judgment, the trial court noted a discrepancy between the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.5 regarding the date of the first incident. P.W.5, the Investigating Officer, stated that the charge sheet mentioned the incident occurred within one week before 27.01.2006, whereas his investigation reveals the assault by Accused No.3 on P.W.1 on the evening of 27.01.2006. A perusal of Exs.P1 and D1 confirms inconsistency in P.W.1's evidence concerning the date of the offence. P.W.1 contended that the incident occurred one week before 27.01.2006. After a detailed examination, the trial court expressed doubt about the prosecution's case, primarily because P.W.1 failed to disclose the incident to anyone, including the wives of her junior paternal uncles, who reside in the same village.
720. The trial court observed another discrepancy in P.W.1's evidence, noting that she denied making the statements recorded in Ex. D1 during cross-examination. Additionally, the Trial court pointed out that Ex.P1 does not specify who prepared the report. The report states that the incident occurred approximately one week before its submission, a claim denied by P.W.1. Ex.D1, however, states that about one week earlier, when she was alone at home, Accused No.1 and Rajaiah (Accused No.2) trespassed at midnight, kissed her, and behaved indecently.
21. After considering all the evidence, the trial court found that P.W.1‟s testimony lacked credibility and was not entirely reliable. Furthermore, P.Ws.3 and 4, who were allegedly present immediately after the incident, did not support the prosecution‟s case. The Trial court also noted inconsistencies in the Investigating Officer‟s evidence and observed that the investigation did not align with the report received. On this basis, the trial court gave the accused the benefit of the doubt.
22. Now, it is relevant to refer to certain decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ganesha v. Sharanappa2, wherein it was held that:
"In a case where the finding of acquittal is recorded on account of misreading of evidence or non-consideration of evidence or perverse appreciation of evidence, nothing prevents the High Court from setting aside the order of acquittal at the instance of the informant in revision and directing fresh disposal on merit by the trial court. In the event of such direction, the trial court shall be obliged to reappraise the evidence in light of the observation of the Revisional Court and take an independent view uninfluenced by any of the observations of the Revisional Court on the merit of the case. By way of abundant caution, we may herein observe that interference with the order of acquittal in revision is called for only in cases where there is manifest error of law or procedure and in those exceptional cases in which it is found that the order of acquittal suffers from glaring illegality, resulting into miscarriage of justice. The High Court may also interfere in those cases of acquittal caused by shutting out the evidence which otherwise ought to have been considered or where the material evidence which clinches the issue has been overlooked. In such an exceptional case, the High Court in revision can set aside an order of acquittal but it cannot convert an order of acquittal into that of an order of 2 (2014) 1 SCC 87 8 conviction. The only course left to the High Court in such exceptional cases is to order."
23. Further, in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar3, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held at paragraph No.12 as follows:
"12. ... Sub-section (3) of Section 401 in terms provides that nothing in Section 401 shall be deemed to authorize a High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction. The aforesaid subsection, which places a limitation on the powers of the Revisional Court, prohibiting it from converting a finding of acquittal into one of conviction, is itself indicative of the nature and extent of the revisional power conferred by Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If the High Court could not convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction directly, it could not do so indirectly by the method of ordering a retrial. It is well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court that the High Court will ordinarily not interfere in revision with an order of acquittal except in exceptional cases where the interest of public justice requires interference for the correction of a manifest illegality or the prevention of gross miscarriage of justice. The High Court will not be justified in interfering with an order of acquittal merely because the trial court has taken a wrong view of the law or has erred in appreciation of evidence. It is neither possible nor advisable to make an exhaustive list of circumstances in which exercise of revisional jurisdiction may be justified, but decisions of this Court have laid down the parameters of exercise of revisional jurisdiction by the High Court under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in an appeal against acquittal by a private party."
24. After reviewing the prosecution‟s evidence, the trial court correctly noted discrepancies concerning the date of the incident, other material facts, and the victim‟s conduct immediately following the alleged event. Consequently, it cannot be concluded that the prosecution has proved the case beyond a reasonable doubt.
25. Given the discussions above and findings and considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the considered view that the learned Judge has rendered a judicious and well-reasoned order, duly considering the material on record and the arguments advanced on behalf of both parties. The impugned order is not perverse or illegal, and no 3 2002 SCC (Cri) 1448] 9 interference is warranted. The Criminal Revision Case, therefore, deserves dismissal.
26. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed, confirming the Judgment dated 23.10.2009 passed in S.C.No.166 of 2007 on the file of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Markapur.
Interim orders granted earlier, if any, shall stand vacated, and the miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________________ JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO Date: 01.09.2025.
MS 10 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 2179 of 2009 Date: 01.09.2025 MS