CIVIL APPEAL 70 of 2012 on 5 September 2009

COMMON JUDGMENT:

Assailingthe CommonJudgmentdated17.01.2012inCrl.A.Nos.225and 229of 2009onthefileof thelearnedIIAdditionalSessionsJudge,EastGodavariatAmalapuram,confirming the conviction passed against the accused[Nos.1][ &][ 2]by the Judgment dated 05.09.2009 in C.C.No.126 of 2005[on][ the]file of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate[of][ First][ Class][ at]Amalapuram, for the offences under Sections 384 and[385][ read]with 34 IPC, the petitioners/accused Nos.1 & 2 filed the presentcriminal revision cases under Section 397 r/w.401 of the CriminalProcedure Code, 1973.

2. These revision cases were admitted on18.01.2012 andthe sentenceof imprisonment imposed against the petitionerswere suspended, vide orders in Crl.R.C.M.P.Nos.113[and][ 114][ of]2012, respectively.the sentenceof imprisonment imposed against the petitionerswere suspended, vide orders in Crl.R.C.M.P.Nos.113[and][ 114][ of]2012, respectively.

3. The brief facts of the case are that:

i)Accused Nos.1& 2 are native of Kakinada andEx-newspaper reporters. They used to extort the publicand earn money. PW.1 and PW.2 are the husband andwife. PW.1 being native of Mukkamala Village and he[is]the trustee of choultry Nos.1 and 2 of Mukkamala Village.

ThesaidtwochoultriesareunderthecontrolofEndowment Department. PW.3 and PW.4 are the purohitsof two choultries.In the year 1996, choultry No.1wasdamaged due to cyclone hit. The Endowment Departmentsanctioned Rs.2,00,000/- for reconstructionof the[said]choultry. After completion of work, audit was completed[to]the expenses by the Government.

ii)While the matter stood thus,in the year 2004,1Stweek of August, A2 came to the house of PW.1 and gotacquaintance with him by introducing his name as Rajuand working as reporter in Janaspandana newspaper andhe came from Kakinada and threatened PW.1 by puttingfearthatthegrantofEndowmentDepartmentwasmisappropriated without re-constructionof choultries[and]took photos of PW.1 threatening that he will publish[the]photos and allegations against him in the paper. Later,[he]demanded to give an amount of Rs.20,000/- to him.If[he]failed to pay the same, he publishes his biodatainallnewspapers. Thus, A2 took an amount of Rs.18,000/-fromPW.1forciblyandtherebycheatedhimbyhisdeceitful words.iii)On18.11.2004,accusedNos.1&2cametoMukkamala Village with a view to threaten PW.1 and[earn]money by putting in fear. A2 sent A1 to the house of[PW.1]bygivinglesson,howtoactbeforePW.1.Ontheinstigation of A2, A1 approached PW.2, as PW.1 did[not]present at that time A1 introduced himself that he[came]from Assistant Commissioner’sOffice at Kakinada andasked her about PW.1 and that PW.2 replied that, PW.1went outside.week of August, A2 came to the house of PW.1 and gotacquaintance with him by introducing his name as Rajuand working as reporter in Janaspandana newspaper andhe came from Kakinada and threatened PW.1 by puttingfearthatthegrantofEndowmentDepartmentwasmisappropriated without re-constructionof choultries[and]took photos of PW.1 threatening that he will publish[the]photos and allegations against him in the paper. Later,[he]demanded to give an amount of Rs.20,000/- to him.If[he]failed to pay the same, he publishes his biodatainallnewspapers. Thus, A2 took an amount of Rs.18,000/-fromPW.1forciblyandtherebycheatedhimbyhisdeceitful words.iii)On18.11.2004,accusedNos.1&2cametoMukkamala Village with a view to threaten PW.1 and[earn]money by putting in fear. A2 sent A1 to the house of[PW.1]bygivinglesson,howtoactbeforePW.1.Ontheinstigation of A2, A1 approached PW.2, as PW.1 did[not]present at that time A1 introduced himself that he[came]from Assistant Commissioner’sOffice at Kakinada andasked her about PW.1 and that PW.2 replied that, PW.1went outside.

iv)On19.11.2004,A1telephonedtoPW.1andthreatened him that he committedfraud in reconstructionof Mukkamala choultries. On 21.11.2004, A1 & A2 cameto Mukkamala, waited at Mukkamala center, and sent[A1]to PW.1. A1 went to the house of PW.1 at about 11.00a.m. and got introduced himself that he is Aruna Patrikareporter and threatened him by puttingin fear that[he]committedfraudinreconstructionofchoultriesanddemanded him to pay Rs.25,000/-. If he failed to pay[the]said amount,he would publish the allegationsin thenewspaper. Then, PW.1 got suspicion on the behaviour[of]A1 and he informed the same to PWs.3 to 5. When,PWs.3 to 5 wentto the house of PW.1andintheirpresence, PW.1 asked A1 about his identity card, but[A1]failed to produce the same. Then, PWs.1to 5 came toconclusion that A1is a fake reporter and handed over[to]Ambajipeta Police Station by giving a written report.threatened him that he committedfraud in reconstructionof Mukkamala choultries. On 21.11.2004, A1 & A2 cameto Mukkamala, waited at Mukkamala center, and sent[A1]to PW.1. A1 went to the house of PW.1 at about 11.00a.m. and got introduced himself that he is Aruna Patrikareporter and threatened him by puttingin fear that[he]committedfraudinreconstructionofchoultriesanddemanded him to pay Rs.25,000/-. If he failed to pay[the]said amount,he would publish the allegationsin thenewspaper. Then, PW.1 got suspicion on the behaviour[of]A1 and he informed the same to PWs.3 to 5. When,PWs.3 to 5 wentto the house of PW.1andintheirpresence, PW.1 asked A1 about his identity card, but[A1]failed to produce the same. Then, PWs.1to 5 came toconclusion that A1is a fake reporter and handed over[to]Ambajipeta Police Station by giving a written report.

V). Basing on the report of PW.1., PW.7 Sub-Inspector[of]Police, Ambajipeta Police Station, registered a caseinCrime No.95 2004under Section 420,384 and 385r/w.34 of IPC and investigated into.

4. After completion of investigation, PW.7-Sub-lnspector[of]Police,laid charge sheet and the same was taken onfile andnumberedas C.C.No.126of 2005 onthefile of the learnedAdditional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Amalapuram,[after]full-fledgedtrialvide Judgment, dated05.09.2009,foundthefacculed Nos.1 and 2 guilty of the offence punishableunderPolice,laid charge sheet and the same was taken onfile andnumberedas C.C.No.126of 2005 onthefile of the learnedAdditional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Amalapuram,[after]full-fledgedtrialvide Judgment, dated05.09.2009,foundthefacculed Nos.1 and 2 guilty of the offence punishableunder Sections 384 and 385 r/w 34 IPC and sentenced them to undergosimple imprisonment for a period of three (3) years[each][ and][ to]payfineofRs.2,000/-each,indefaulttosuffersimpleimprisonment of three (3) months each, for the offences underSections 384 and 385 read with 34 of IPC.

5. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners/accused Nos.1& 2preferredappeals,videCrl.A.Nos.229and225of2009respectively, before the Court of learnedII Additional SessionsJudge,EastGodavariat Amalapuramandthe sameweredismissed,videCommonJudgmentdated17.01.2012,byconfirming the conviction passed by the trial Court against theaccusedNos.1&2,butmodifiedthesentenceof accusedNos.1 and 2 to undergo simple imprisonment for a period[of][ three](3) years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in default to suffersimple imprisonment for a period of three(3) months,[each][ for][ the]offence under Section 384of IPC and accusedNos.1and2further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period oftwo (2) years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-,in default to suffersimple imprisonment for a period of three (3) months each, for theoffence under Section 385 of IPC.preferredappeals,videCrl.A.Nos.229and225of2009respectively, before the Court of learnedII Additional SessionsJudge,EastGodavariat Amalapuramandthe sameweredismissed,videCommonJudgmentdated17.01.2012,byconfirming the conviction passed by the trial Court against theaccusedNos.1&2,butmodifiedthesentenceof accusedNos.1 and 2 to undergo simple imprisonment for a period[of][ three](3) years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in default to suffersimple imprisonment for a period of three(3) months,[each][ for][ the]offence under Section 384of IPC and accusedNos.1and2further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period oftwo (2) years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-,in default to suffersimple imprisonment for a period of three (3) months each, for theoffence under Section 385 of IPC.

6. Against the said Common Judgment of the first AppellateCourt, the present criminal revision cases were preferred by thepetitioners/accused No.1 & 2.Court, the present criminal revision cases were preferred by thepetitioners/accused No.1 & 2.

7. Heard Sri G. Rama Gopal, learned counsel for the revisionpetitioners/accusedNos.1&2inboththerevisionsandMiss.RAkhilaNaidu,learnedAssistantPublicProsecutorrepresenting the Respondent-State.petitioners/accusedNos.1&2inboththerevisionsandMiss.RAkhilaNaidu,learnedAssistantPublicProsecutorrepresenting the Respondent-State.

8. Nowthepointthatarisesfordeterminationintheserevisionsare:“whether thereis any manifesterroroflaworflagrant miscarriage of justice in the findings recorded by the firstAppellate Court?”revisionsare:“whether thereis any manifesterroroflaworflagrant miscarriage of justice in the findings recorded by the firstAppellate Court?”

9. SriG. RamaGopal,learnedcounselfortherevisionpetitioners/accusedNos.1& 2 submitsthat the Courtsbelowshould have appreciated that none of the ingredients[to][ constitute]the offence under Sections 384 and 385 read with 34I PC aresatisfiedto convict the accused.Hefurther submitsthattheevidenceoftheprosecutionwitnessesiscontradictorytoprosecution case and no corroboration to each witness,it givesany amount of doubt over the prosecution case, thereby,theconviction against the accused is unsustainable and the Courtsbelow ought to have disbelieved the version of the prosecutionwitnesses and ought to have acquitted the accused, therefore.petitioners/accusedNos.1& 2 submitsthat the Courtsbelowshould have appreciated that none of the ingredients[to][ constitute]the offence under Sections 384 and 385 read with 34I PC aresatisfiedto convict the accused.Hefurther submitsthattheevidenceoftheprosecutionwitnessesiscontradictorytoprosecution case and no corroboration to each witness,it givesany amount of doubt over the prosecution case, thereby,theconviction against the accused is unsustainable and the Courtsbelow ought to have disbelieved the version of the prosecutionwitnesses and ought to have acquitted the accused, therefore.

theconvictionconfirmedbythefirstAppellateCourtinCrl.A.Nos.229 and 225 of 2009 is liable to be set aside.

10.

10. Per contra, Miss. P. Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant PublicProsecutor representing the Respondent-State, submits that boththe Courts have categorically appreciated the evidence placedonrecord.In particular, the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 coupled withthe testimony of PWs.3 to 5 supports the version that A1 and A2were committed offences punishable under Sections 384 and 385read with34IPC. Thereis noerror or contradictorytotheevidence on record, as contended by the learned counsel for thepetitioners/accused Nos.1 & 2. The evidence on record clearlyestablishes that the prosecution proved the guilt of[the][ accused]for the offences punishable under Sections 384 and 385 read with34 IPC.Prosecutor representing the Respondent-State, submits that boththe Courts have categorically appreciated the evidence placedonrecord.In particular, the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 coupled withthe testimony of PWs.3 to 5 supports the version that A1 and A2were committed offences punishable under Sections 384 and 385read with34IPC. Thereis noerror or contradictorytotheevidence on record, as contended by the learned counsel for thepetitioners/accused Nos.1 & 2. The evidence on record clearlyestablishes that the prosecution proved the guilt of[the][ accused]for the offences punishable under Sections 384 and 385 read with34 IPC.

11. Havingheardthelearnedcounselforthepetitioners/accused Nos.1 & 2 as well learned Assistant PublicProsecutor representing the Respondent-State, after examiningthe evidence on record, PW.5 is the neighbor of PW.1.[He][ stated]that on 21.11.2004 at about 11.30 a.m., PW1 called him while hewas present in his house, when he went to the house of PW.1, atthat time, PWs.1 to 4 were present and in their presence,[A1]demanded Rs.25,000/- from PW1, as he committed fraudin thepetitioners/accused Nos.1 & 2 as well learned Assistant PublicProsecutor representing the Respondent-State, after examiningthe evidence on record, PW.5 is the neighbor of PW.1.[He][ stated]that on 21.11.2004 at about 11.30 a.m., PW1 called him while hewas present in his house, when he went to the house of PW.1, atthat time, PWs.1 to 4 were present and in their presence,[A1]demanded Rs.25,000/- from PW1, as he committed fraudin the amounts of choultry No.1, if PW.1 paid the said amount to him, hewill not say anything, otherwise, he would inform the[same][ and]also publish in the newspapers, at that time when PW.1[asked][ the]A1to show his identity card, then, A1replied that[he][ had][ no]identity card. Then, on suspicion, PWs.1 to 5 caught[hold][ A1][ and]handed over to Ambajipeta police station by submitting[the][ Ex.PI]report.

12. The testimony of PWs.1 to 5 corroborated with each[other.]Nothing was elicited during cross examination to disbelieve[their]testimony.Furthermore,P.W.6mediatorscorroboratedtothetestimony of P.W.7 investigating officer regarding[confession]ofaccused No.1 under the cover of Ex.P.2 and seizure of M.0.1 aswellconfessionof accusedNo.2underthecoverofEx.P.3mediators report.Nothing was elicited during cross examination to disbelieve[their]testimony.Furthermore,P.W.6mediatorscorroboratedtothetestimony of P.W.7 investigating officer regarding[confession]ofaccused No.1 under the cover of Ex.P.2 and seizure of M.0.1 aswellconfessionof accusedNo.2underthecoverofEx.P.3mediators report.

13. Reading the above material/evidence placed onrecordbefore the Trial Court, their evidence cogently and corroborativelyestablished that the accused on 21.11.2004 visited the house ofPW1at11.00a.m.and demandedhimto payRs.25,000/-,otherwise, they will publish certain allegations against[him][ in][ their]newspaper.before the Trial Court, their evidence cogently and corroborativelyestablished that the accused on 21.11.2004 visited the house ofPW1at11.00a.m.and demandedhimto payRs.25,000/-,otherwise, they will publish certain allegations against[him][ in][ their]newspaper.

14. It is settled law as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme[Court]inStateof Maharashtrav. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Sing Anand\ that “in exercise of revisional powers, this[Court][ need]not undertakenin-depth and minutest re-examinationof entireevidence, when thereis no error in the findings arrived[by][ the]Trial Court as well first Appellate Court.

15. It is settled law that in view of the concurrent findings[on]facts by the Courts below, this Court being Revisional[Court][ is][ not]expected to set aside the same without any material[of perversity]or manifest error in the findings arrived by the Court[below.][ There]ISnomaterial before this Court to discard the trustworthiness[of]prosecution witnesses.

16. However, while arguing the matter, learned counsel[for][ the]petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 submits that the incident[was]occurred on 18.11.2004 and by this time twenty (20)[years][ have]already been lapsed and there are no criminal antecedents.[He]further submits that A1is aged about 65 years and[he][ is][ having]wife and he is only bread winner. Likewise, A2 is having[wife][ and]children. Consideringall these things,heprays thatfortheoffences under Sections 384 and 385 read with 34I[PC][ alternative]fine can be imposed against the petitioners/accused[Nos.1][ &][ 2.]petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 submits that the incident[was]occurred on 18.11.2004 and by this time twenty (20)[years][ have]already been lapsed and there are no criminal antecedents.[He]further submits that A1is aged about 65 years and[he][ is][ having]wife and he is only bread winner. Likewise, A2 is having[wife][ and]children. Consideringall these things,heprays thatfortheoffences under Sections 384 and 385 read with 34I[PC][ alternative]fine can be imposed against the petitioners/accused[Nos.1][ &][ 2.]

17. He brought to the notice of this Court a Judgment of[the]Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nand Ballabh Pant v. State[(Union]Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nand Ballabh Pant v. State[(Union]

n)

Territory of Delhif, wherein the APEX Court considered[the]factsandreducedtheperiodofsentenceof imprisonmentimposed on the appellate from two (2) months to one (1) monthrigorous imprisonment.

18. HealsobroughttothenoticeofthisCourtanotherJudgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jagdish Chander[v.]State of Delhi^, wherein also the APEX Court considered therelevantcircumstancesandreducedthesentenceofimprisonment to that of already undergone but increasedthesentence of fine from Rs.500/- to Rs.700/-.

19. As wellin Mohinder Singhv. State of Haryana"^, theHon’ble Supreme Court held at paragraph No.2 that “they[are][ not]inclined to interfere on the merits of the case andat the sametime, they cannot lose sight of fact that the occurrence took placemore than a quarter of century back and to send the[accused][ in]prison after 25 years, would be travesty of justice.Hon’ble Supreme Court held at paragraph No.2 that “they[are][ not]inclined to interfere on the merits of the case andat the sametime, they cannot lose sight of fact that the occurrence took placemore than a quarter of century back and to send the[accused][ in]prison after 25 years, would be travesty of justice.

20. No doubt, in the present case also the incident was[said][ to]be happened on 18.11.2004 and by this time twenty (20) yearshave already been lapsed.be happened on 18.11.2004 and by this time twenty (20) yearshave already been lapsed.

21.

21. Having regard to the above discussion and in view of theabove pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Courtisof theconsideredopinionthat theconvictionisupheld,however,tomeettheendsofjustice,thesentenceofimprisonment is modified to that of fine of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees[Five]Thousand Only) each to the petitioners/accused Nos.1 & 2 for theoffences under Sections 384 and 385 read with 34 IRC.above pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Courtisof theconsideredopinionthat theconvictionisupheld,however,tomeettheendsofjustice,thesentenceofimprisonment is modified to that of fine of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees[Five]Thousand Only) each to the petitioners/accused Nos.1 & 2 for theoffences under Sections 384 and 385 read with 34 IRC.

22. In the result, both the Criminal Revision Cases are allowedin part to the extent of modifying the sentence of imprisonmentimposed against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 to that offine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) each[instead][ of]three (3) years of simple imprisonment for the offences underSections 384 and 385 read with 34 ofI PC. In-default of paymentof said fine amount, the petitioners/accused Nos.1and 2 shallundergo the sentenceof imprisonment imposedby thefirstAppellate Court.in part to the extent of modifying the sentence of imprisonmentimposed against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 to that offine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) each[instead][ of]three (3) years of simple imprisonment for the offences underSections 384 and 385 read with 34 ofI PC. In-default of paymentof said fine amount, the petitioners/accused Nos.1and 2 shallundergo the sentenceof imprisonment imposedby thefirstAppellate Court.

Interim orders granted earlier if any, shall stand[vacated.]

To.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending,if any,shall stand closed.

SD/- K.TATA RAODEPUTY REGISTRARSECTION OFFICER

//TRUE COPY//

1. TheII Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavariat Amalapuram.at Amalapuram.(with records)

2. The AdditionalJudicialFirst ClassMagistrate, Amalapuram.(withMagistrate, Amalapuram.(withrecords)

3. One CC to SRI. G RAMA GOPAL Advocate [OPUC]

4. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of[Andhra][ Pradesh]atAmaravathi. [OUT]Amaravathi. [OUT]

5. The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court[of][ Andhra][ Pradesh.]

6. The SHO, Ambaji Peta PS East Godavari District.

7. The Superintendent Sub Jail, Amalapuram East Godavari[District.]

8. Three CD Copies

Pmg

TAC

HIGH COURT

DATED:06/01/2025

POMMON ORDER

i

CRLRC.Nos.70 & 71 of 2012

O< 3 AUG 2025ISP»intSeci

PARTLY ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL REVISIONCASE