Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. N SIVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent:
1. 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 brevity, 'Cr.P.C.'), is filed on behalf of the petitioner/accused, assailing the Judgment dated 10.12.2009 passed in Crl.A.No.251 of 2008 by the learned Judge, Family Court - cum - Additional District and Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry (for short, the '1 st Appellate Court'), whereby the 1st Appellate Court dismissed the appeal, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant/accused for the offence under section 338 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC') vide Judgment dated 29.07.2008 passed in C.C.No.245 of 2005 by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ramachandrapuram (for short, the 'Trial Court').
(b) Head Constable P. Suryanaraya of Biccavole Police Station recorded Mukteswara Rao's statement at 8:30 AM the same day and registered a case (Cr. No. 41 of 2005) under Section 338 IPC.

Dr. B. Rambabu, Casualty Medical Officer at Government Hospital, Kakinada, examined Mukteswara Rao and issued a wound certificate noting seven injuries, two of which were grievous. Following investigation, the police filed a charge sheet against the accused.

4. The learned Trial Court took cognizance under Section 338 of the IPC against the accused. Upon his appearance, copies of relevant documents were furnished as required under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C. The accused was then examined under Section 251 of the Cr.P.C., where the substance of the accusation was explained to him in Telugu. The accused voluntarily admitted to the offence under section 338 of the IPC and pleaded guilty.

5. After recording the accused's plea of guilty, the Trial Court found him guilty of the offence punishable under section 338 of IPC. By its judgment, dated 29.07.2008 in C.C.No.245 of 2005, the Trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him to suffer six months' Simple Imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1000/-, with an additional two months' Simple Imprisonment in default of payment.

6. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court, the unsuccessful accused filed Criminal Appeal No.251 of 2008 before the 1 st Appellate Court. The 1st Appellate Court dismissed the appeal, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed against the accused by the Trial Court in C.C.No.245 of 2005, dated 29.07.2008. Dissatisfied with the same, the appellant has filed the present Criminal Revision Case, challenging the judgment of the 1st Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.251 of 2008.

18. Considering the nature of the offence committed by the accused, his age, economic condition, and the significant passage of time since the incident, this court is inclined to assess the implications of imprisonment at this juncture. Incarceration after such a prolonged period could severely disrupt the petitioner's personal life and adversely impact the welfare of his family, who may be dependent on him. Accordingly, this court finds that the sentence imposed under Section 338 of the IPC is disproportionately severe and may be deemed excessive. In light of these factors, this court views that this case presents exceptional circumstances warranting judicial intervention, particularly, concerning the sentence of imprisonment. Given the absence of any prior criminal record, this court concludes that the sentence imposed on (2013) 9 SCC 516 the accused under Section 338 of the IPC should be reconsidered as excessive. Therefore, this court deems it necessary to interfere with the impugned judgments solely to the extent of setting aside the imprisonment imposed by both Courts, while upholding to impose a fine of Rs.500/-, which adequately serves the interests of justice. Point is answered accordingly.