The court confirmed the conviction for extortion but quashed the sentence for the accused’s juvenile status at the time of the offence, highlighting the need for age verification during sentencing.

JUDGMENT :

1. The criminal revision case has been preferred under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Cr.P.C.') challenging the judgment dated 27.06.2008 in Criminal Appeal No.215 of 2007 passed by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, whereby and whereunder the conviction and sentence imposed in the judgment dated 25.06.2007 in CC No.167 of 2006 on the file of the learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tenali, was confirmed.

2. I have heard the arguments of learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

3. Sri N. Harinadh, learned Counsel, representing Sri Ch. Ravindra Babu, learned Counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the grounds of revision, argued that the evidence of PW1 to PW5 coupled with Ex.P1 to Ex.P10 and MO1 had not proved the guilt of the petitioner for the alleged offence under Section 384 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (for short 'the I.P.C.'), and it is urged to allow the revision. Alternatively, it is submitted that the petitioner, at the time of the alleged offence was a minor. The alleged occurrence was taken place in the year 2005, nearly, 20 years have passed by. The petitioner was in jail for 92 days i.e., from 07.12.2005 to 20.01.2006 (44 days) and from 27.06.2008 to 14.08.2008 (48 days) and requested to show some lenience and sentence the petitioner to the sentence which he had already undergone.

4. Per contra, Ms. Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that the prosecution had proved the guilt of the petitioner beyond all reasonable doubt; there was a concurrent finding of the guilty of the petitioner; appreciation of evidence is not permissible in the revision case; there are no material irregularities pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Therefore, urged to dismiss the revision case.

5. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. I have perused the material on record.

6. Now the point for consideration is :

Whether the judgment in Crl. A No.215 of 2007 dated 27.06.2008, passed by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, is correct, legal, and proper with respect to its finding, sentence, or judgment, and there are any material irregularities? And to what relief?

7. To bring home the guilt of the petitioner, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW5 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P10 and MO1. The learned Trial Court having examined the evidence of prosecution witnesses and also the exhibits marked, found the petitioner guilty for the offence under Section 384 of 'the I.P.C.'. The learned Appellate Court also on appraisal of the evidence, rightly confirmed the judgment of the learned Trial Court. There are no material irregularities in conducting the trial and finding the guilt of the petitioner either by the learned Trial Court or by the Appellate Court; there was no misleading of evidence. The judgment of the learned Appellate Court and also the learned Trial Court did not suffer from any irregularities. This Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence like a second Appellate Court, while deciding the revision case. Therefore, the conviction shall be maintained for the alleged offence under Section 384 of 'the I.P.C.'.

8. Whereas it is pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was minor at the time of the alleged offence and produced a Transfer Certificate issued by S.N. Government High School, Chebrole in favour of the petit