2026:APHC:270 (cid:13) APHC010253712008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3560]

AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 687/2008 Between:

1. TELUGU GANI VENKATA RAMUDU, S/O.PEDDA RAMUDU, R/O.

KOMAROLU VILLAGE, ORVAKAL MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER AND

1. THE STATE OF A P REP BY PP, AND STATE , REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P., HYDERABAD.

2. ALAWALA UMA MAHESWARI, W/O. A. HARSHAVARDHAN REDDY, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/O. KOMAROLU VILLAGE, ORVAKAL MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. RESPONDENT NO.2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 06.08.2024 IN I.A.NO.1 OF 2024 IN CRL.R.C.NO.687 OF 2008.

...RESPONDENT(S):

Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated 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 to this Honourable Court aggrieved by the Conviction and sentence passed in Crl.A.No.60/2007 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Kurnool, dated 25.04.2008 in confirming conviction and sentence of two years R.I. and to pay fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer S.I., For One Month , for the offence under Sec.354 IPC passed by the Addl. Assistant Sessions Judge, Kurnool, in SC.No.

379/2006, dt.14.05.2007 IA NO: 1 OF 2008(CRLRCMP 939 OF 2008 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 operation of the Sentence and conviction passed in Crl.A.No. 60/2007 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Kurnool, dated 25.04.2008 by confirming the conviction and sentence passed in SC.No. 379/2006 by the Addl. Assistant Sessions Judge, Kurnool, dated 14.05.2007 and enlarge the petitioner on bail, pending disposal of the above Crl.RC IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 permit the petitioner to implead the proposed respondent/de facto complainant as 2nd respondent in CrI.RC.No.687 of 2008 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. K RATHANGA PANI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following:

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No:687 OF 2008

ORDER:

1. The instant criminal revision case has been filed challenging impugned judgment dt.14.05.2007 in S.C. No.379 of 2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool, and confirmed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kurnool, by the judgment, dt.25.04.2008 in Crl.A.No.60 of 2007, whereby the present petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer one month simple imprisonment, for the offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (for short „IPC’).

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court have not properly scanned the evidence on record and, as such, arrived at an erroneous judgment of conviction. The learned counsel further submits that if the evidence adduced by the prosecution had been properly appreciated, it would have been evident that the charge under Section 354 of I.P.C. was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The learned counsel further submits that there are several contradictions in the prosecution case. Moreover, there is existence of counter case by the accused. The accused was examined as DW1. However, his evidence was not properly considered. The Trial Court also failed to take into account the previous enmity between the husband of the victim and the accused. Thereby passed order of conviction in an irregular manner. The learned counsel also pointed out that there several discrepa