IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY THE ELEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 277 of 2005 Between: Kornana Chiranjeevulu … Petitioner V/s. State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad … Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Aravala Rama Rao Counsel for the Respondent: Addl. Public Prosecutor The Court made the following order (order follows 2nd page) THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION No. 277 OF 2005 O R D E R : This Criminal Revision is directed against the conviction and sentence passed by the II-Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Srikakulam, in Criminal Appeal No. 93 of 2001 dated 14-2- 2005, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Srikakulam, in CC.No. 241 of 1997, dated 16-6-2001 whereby and whereunder, the petitioner was not guilty for the offence under section 363 of IPC but he was found guilty for the offence under section 377 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. 2. The petitioner was tried for the offence punishable under 363 of IPC. On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the learned Magistrate found the petitioner not guilty under section 363 of IPC but he was found guilty for the offence punishable under section 377 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs12000/-, in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months. On appeal, the learned II-Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Srikakulam, on re-appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence placed on record confirmed the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Magistrate as stated hereinabove Challenging the same, the present Criminal Revision is filed. 3. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner emphatically raised several contentions and at last he confines his argument only with regard to the quantum of sentence and prayed mercy of this court. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Addl.Public Prosecutor representing the State. This Court perused the oral and documentary evidence placed on record. 5. The offence took place in the year 1990 and that the petitioner had lost his job. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that his family members are depending upon him and by afflux of time, the victim has completed his College education also. 6. As can be seen from the evidence placed on record, it is evident that PW-1 the victim categorically deposed that on 03- 9-1996 at about 10:00 p.m. after study hours while he was in his dormitory room, the petitioner-accused came and called him and he along with PW-2 followed the petitioner-accused and the petitioner- accused asked PW-2 to go back on the pretext that he has to talk with PW-1 secretly and accordingly PW-2 went back and then the petitioner-accused took him to a well and un-tied his lungi and also nicker of PW-1 and penetrated his pennies into the annus of PW-1 and made sexual inter course and after fulfilling his desire of lust, he let him free and threatened him not to tell the incident to any one. PW- 1 further deposed that he went back to his room and informed the incident to PWs-2 and 3 and others who are his co-students and then they reported the matter to PW-4 their night teacher, who asked them to report the matter on the next day. PW-1 further deposed that on 04- 9-1996 morning they reported the matter to PW-6 their Principal, who went to Etcherla Police Station and reported the matter. PWs-2 and 3 the co-students of PW-1 also fully corroborated PW-1 in all material aspects. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances and taking into consideration the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the trial Judge as well as the appellate Judge have concurrently held against the petitioner and gave cogent reasoning for their conclusion. Therefore, I do not see any merit to interfere with the conviction recorded by both the courts below and the same is confirmed, but however, the sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment inflicted by both the courts below for two years Rigorous Imprisonment is modified to that of one year Rigorous Imprisonment. However, the fine amount paid by the petitioner shall remain unaltered. The pre-detention period undergone by the petitioner is set-off under section 428 of Cr.P.C. The petitioner is, therefore, directed to surrender before the concerned court within one month, preferably on or before 25-12-2010. On his failure to surrender on or before 25-12-2010, the trial Court is directed to take steps and issue Non-bailable warrant against the petitioner, so as to incarcerate the petitioner to serve the sentence inflicted by this Court. The Criminal Revision Case fails and the same is liable to be dismissed. 6. With the above modification in the sentence, the Criminal Revision Case is accordingly dismissed. ______________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO. 11-11-2010 I s L THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 277 OF 2005 Circulation Entry No. Date: 11-11-2010 Computer No. 43 Court Master: I s L