IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
T.MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J.
Konuku Pradeep Reddy S/o Venkata Reddy – Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Revision Case No. 2728 of 2017
Decided On : 07-01-2026
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.1, who was the one of the appellants in Criminal Appeal No.551 of 2015, on the file of II Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari District, Amalapuram (for short, "the 1st Appellate Court), challenging the judgment, dated 09.08.2017, whereunder the 1st Appellate Court partly allowed the appeal, by setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed against the accused Nos.2 and 3 for the offence under Section 417 r/w.109 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, " IPC ") and confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed against the petitioner/accused No.1 for the offence under of vide Judgment dated 30.10.2015 in S.C.No.13 of 2015 on the file of learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Amalapuram (for short, "the trial Court").
2. By Judgment dated 30.10.2015 in S.C.No.13 of 2015 of learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Amalapuram (for short, "the Trial Court"), convicted the petitioner/A.1 and two others (A.2 and A.3) and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of One (1) Year and also sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5000/- each (Rupees Five Thousand only), in default of payment of fine, they shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of four (4) months each for the offence punishable under Section 417 r/w.109 of IPC .
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. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that:
(a) The victim, is the de facto complainant in Cr.No.97/2013 of Allavaram Police Station. She holds a Diploma in Hospital Sterilization Management and Operation Theatre Technician. About eight years earlier, while studying Intermediate, she developed an intimate relationship with Accused No.1. At the beginning she did not believe the version of accused about marriage. Later, she believed his version and followed him in watching cinemas at Amalapuram. She on one fine day in the month of July 2006 at about 6.00 p.m. the accused No.1 took her to the outskirts of Tummalapalli village on the pretext that he is taking her to cinema from Bendamurlanka. The accused No.1 forcibly committed rape on her without her consent by promising that he would marry her. She became pregnant.
(b) She informed Accused Nos.2 and 3, parents of Accused No.1, through elders. They advised her to continue the pregnancy and assured that the marriage would be solemnized shortly. Meanwhile, due to the critical illness of the grandfather of Accused No.1, Accused Nos.1 to 3 went to Hyderabad. On 24.02.2007 at about 2.00 a.m., the victim delivered a dead female fetus at Area Hospital, Amalapuram, where she received treatment. Despite repeated requests from the victim"s family for marriage, Accused Nos.2 and 3 postponed it on the pretext that Accused No.1 should first secure employment. During this period, Accused No.1 continued to visit her house and cohabit with her under the promise of marriage. On 22.10.2013 at about 11.00 a.m., Accused No.1 refused to marry her and offered monetary compensation. Even after intervention by village elders, Accused Nos.2 and 3 declined to consent to the marriage, compelling the victim to approach Allavaram Police Station with her grievance.
(c) On receipt of the written complaint, L.W.20, Sub-Inspector of Police, Allavaram, registered Cr.No.97/2013 under Sections 376 and 417 read with 34 IPC and forwarded it to the concerned authorities. On 24.10.2013, the Inspector of Police, Amalapuram Circle, visited the Police Station, sent the victim for medical examination, examined relevant witnesses, and prepared a rough sketch. On 28.10.2013, Accused Nos.1 to 3 were arrested and remanded to judicial custody.
(d) On 29.10.2013, L.W.15, Assistant Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine, Rangaraya Medical College, Kakinada, issued an age determination c
State of Maharashtra Vs. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Sing Anand
Manju Ram Kalita Vs. State of Assam
Malkeet Singh Gill Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh
Omanakkuttan Vs. State of Kerala
Chellammal and Another Vs. State Represented by the Inspector of Police
The court ruled that sentencing must consider the offender's personal circumstances, emphasizing proportionality in punishment relative to the gravity of the offence.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Probation of Offenders Act and the discretion of the court to provide the benefit of probation based on the nature of the of....
The court held that the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 applies to offenders above 21 years, emphasizing rehabilitation over punishment.
The court established that the application of the Probation of Offenders Act must consider the nature of the offence and that procedural requirements, such as obtaining a probation officer's report, ....
Elapse of time is not a ground to trivialize seriousness of a crime committed by offender and to take a lenient view in matter of punishment.
Convictions under Section 304-A IPC may permit probation for first-time offenders, balancing justice and rehabilitation, especially in negligence-based cases lacking mens rea.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.