APHC010271372006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3560] THURSDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1483/2006 Between: 1. N.DURGA RAO, S/O.LATE MUTYALU R/O.MINARVA THEATRE ROAD, PENUGONDA WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. KASIREDDY KRISHNA DIED, S/O.APPA RAO (ALL ARE R/O.PENUGONDA,WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT). 2. KASIREDDY MUTYALA RAO, S/O.APPA RAO (ALL ARE R/O.PENUGONDA,WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT). 3. KASIREDDY RAMBABU DIED, S/O.APPA RAO (ALL ARE R/O.PENUGONDA,WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT). 4. NOWDU SREENU, S/O.NAGESWARA RAO (ALL ARE R/O.PENUGONDA,WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT). 5. KASIREDDY LAXMINARAAYANA LACHAIAH, S/O.NOT KNOWN (ALL ARE R/O.PENUGONDA,WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT). 6. KOTTANI NAGESWARA RAO DIED, S/O.SURYANARAAYANA (ALL ARE R/O.PENUGONDA,WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT). 7. SULA NAGESWARA RAO, S/O.SURYANARAYANA (ALL ARE R/O.PENUGONDA,WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT). 8. KASIREDDY APPAYAMMA DIED, W/O.APPA RAO (ALL ARE R/O.PENUGONDA,WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT). 2 9. KASIREDDY SURYAVATHI DIED, W/O.KRISHNA RAO (ALL ARE R/O.PENUGONDA,WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT). 10. KARIREDDY NARASAMMA, W/O.MUTYALU (ALL ARE R/O.PENUGONDA,WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT). 11. KASIREDDY LAXMI DIED, W/O.RAMBABU. (ALL ARE R/O.PENUGONDA,WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT). 12. KASIREDDY BHAVANI, W/O.RAMU (ALL ARE R/O.PENUGONDA,WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT). 13. KOTTANI VALLI SENA DIED, W/O.NAGESWARA RAO (ALL ARE R/O.PENUGONDA,WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT). SINCE RESPONDENT NOS. 1, 3, 6, 8, 9, 11 AND 13 HAVE EXPIRED, CRIMINAL REVISION CASE AGAINST RESPONDENT NOS. 1, 3, 6, 8, 9, 11 AND 13 IS HEREBY DROPPED, AS PER THE COURT ORDER DATED 30.03.2026 IN CRL.R.C.NO.1483 OF 2006. 14. KASIREDDY GANI GANESH, S/O.MUTYALA RAO (ALL ARE R/O.PENUGONDA,WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT). 15. THE DTATE OF A P REP BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE PENUGONDA, P.S.WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT,REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF A.P. HYDERABAD. ...RESPONDENT(S): Revision filed under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the CriminalRevisionCase, the High Court may be pleased toCriminal R.C.against the Judgment in S.C.No.99/2000 on the file of the Asst.Sessions Judge,Tanuku, W.G.District dt.14-10-2003. IA NO: 1 OF 2004(CRLMP 3243 OF 2004 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 Condone the delay of '48 days' in representation the above R.C. IA NO: 2 OF 2004(CRLMP 4577 OF 2004 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 Condone the delay of 41 of days in filing the Revision. 3 IA NO: 3 OF 2004(CRLMP 4578 OF 2004 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 dispensewith the filing of Certified copy of Judgment in SC No.99/2000 dt.14- 10-2003 of Asst.Sessions Judge's Court Tanuku, in the above Crl R.C. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SREEKANTH REDDY AMBATI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. C SHARAN REDDY 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: 4 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1483/2006 The Court made the following: The instant Criminal Revisions Case has been preferred against Order of Acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court in S.C.No.99 of 2000 wherein and where under, learned court below has acquitted all the respondent Nos.1 to 14 from the charge under Section 147, 148, 307, 324, 326 r/w 149 of Indian Penal Code (for brevity ‘of I.P.C’). 2. The brief facts of the prosecution is that, defacto-complainant as well as other injured and the respondents herein are belong to same caste and they were engaged in the same profession. They were having disputes in between two groups in furtherance of enmity. on 30.07.1998, an altercation took place in petty family affairs. The petty family matters turned into huge altercation between the parties and thereby all the respondents armed with deadly weapons formed into an unlawful assembly and attacked defacto-complainant as well as other injured. By such PW.1 as well as other injured sustained severe bodily injuries and admitted into hospital. The matter was referred to police, accordingly the crime was registered. 3. To prove the prosecution case, twenty two (22) witnesses were examined, thirty four (34) documents were marked and seventeen (17) material objects were placed. On behalf of the defence, one witness was examined. After recording evidences and after hearing parties, learned court 5 below acquitted all the accused persons from the charges leveled against them and finding them not guilty. Hence, the instant Criminal Revision Case. Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner: 4. Learned Trail has committed error and misread the evidences of prosecution. Learned court below has also not considered the exhibited documents. Learned Court below has not applied mind in scanning the evidences of prosecution witnesses. There are sufficient material before the learned Trial Court to hold that respondents were committed offence punishable under section 307 of the I.P.C. Prosecution witnesses are injured and eye witnesses, who specifically stated the factum of attack of respondents. All the evidences are corroborated to each other supported by the medical witness. Police have recorded the statements of available witnesses, which was also supported the prosecution case by reports of doctors. Doctor has examined the injured, though it appears that the injuries are on the vital part and grievous in nature. The learned Court below failed to appreciate the true nature of evidence of prosecution witnesses. 5. Learned court below has decide the issue in wrong manner, reasons thereby illegal order of acquittal was formal. He submits that prosecution has successfully bring home the charge against the petitioners but the learned Trial court has misread and mis-appreciate the evidences on record and acquitted the respondents. He prayed for necessary action. 6 Submissions of the respondents: 6. Learned Trial Court has committed no error. There are case and counter-case between the parties, and in the alleged tussle, the parties/accused persons also sustained injuries. The accused persons also filed a criminal case before the police authorities, being Cr. No. 50 of 1998. However, the police did not properly investigate that case and proceeded only with Cr. No. 49 of 1998. There is no explanation from the prosecution as to how the accused persons sustained injuries in the same altercation. He further submits that the learned Court below has noted in its judgment the factum of inaction and bias on the part of the investigating agency in failing to properly investigate Cr. No. 50 of 1998. 7. He further submits that, in view of the observations of this Court in Crl.R.C. No. 898 of 2007, a Bench of this Court has categorically observed that if investigating agency did not investigate in a fair manner so as to elicit the truth, and that the failure of the prosecution to offer any explanation regarding the injuries sustained by accused renders the prosecution evidence unreliable. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that the learned Trial Court has correctly observed that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is a parrot-like repetition of allegations; therefore, the learned court below rightly opined that such evidence cannot be relied upon. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that, as there is a case and counter-case and the police did not properly investigate the other case, the evidence of the prosecution cannot be relied upon to record a 7 conviction against the accused persons. He further submits that the learned court below has committed no error in deciding the case, and thereby the accused persons were acquitted. Submissions of the State: 8. Sri K.Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the case was registered on the basis of report to the police by PW.1. During the course of the trial, all the injured witnesses stated before the Court explaining name of the persons who assaulted them and the nature of the weapons used by the assailants. The evidence of eye witnesses and injured persons are corroborative in nature. 9. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further submits that Doctor was examined as PW.11, who noted the injuries sustained by PW.1 and other prosecution witnesses, among them PW.1 and PW.2 sustained severe injuries including head injury, which is grievous in nature on vital part. On the basis of evidences on record and the impugned orders, the prosecution has successfully proved its case before the learned Trial Court. He further argued the accused persons have also not pleaded their defence properly. However, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor assisted this Court on the point that accused persons were also sustained injuries in the same time, PW.s and accused persons and doctor i.e., PW.11 has deposed that he treated accused No.1, who sustained injuries. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor also 8 ascertain that the learned Trial Court recorded the manner of investigation conducted by police in Cr.No.50 of 1998. Observation of this Court: 10. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the prosecution case. It is alleged by the prosecution that the accused persons/respondents formed an unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapons, and attacked PW.1 and other prosecution witnesses with an intention to kill them. As a result, PW.1 and the other prosecution witnesses sustained injuries and were treated at hospital. Doctor has deposed before Court regarding the injuries and has issued wound certificates. Certain material objects, including the alleged weapons and blood-stained clothes of the prosecution witnesses and other injured persons, were also seized during the course of investigation. 11. In deciding the case before law, learned Trial Court opined that prosecution had failed to account for the injuries sustained by Accused No. 1 and the other accused in the same incidents between the accused persons and the prosecution witnesses. The learned Court below also noted that the prosecution witnesses had influenced the police, and for that reason, police did not properly investigate Cr. No. 50 of 1998 filed by accused persons. In this case, learned Trial Court has noted that as there was a disputes and altercation between two groups, thereby the prosecution witnesses in one group has given evidence before Court in parrot-like manner. It is the opinion of the learned Trial Court that after a long period has elapsed, it is not possible 9 to all prosecution witnesses to say verbatim witness regarding the cause of injury and the assault, which appears to the learned Trial Court to be unnatural. Learned Trial Court has conducted Trial who also noted demeanor of witness then he is the best person to testify credibility of witnesses. 12. From a careful scanning of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses (PWs), it appears that they have consistently and cogently stated the facts of the assault committed by the accused persons after forming an unlawful assembly with common intention, there is corroborative evidence of all the eye-witnesses and injured witnesses. The only reason for which the learned Trial Court disbelieved the prosecution case is that the prosecution failed to account for the injuries sustained by the accused in the same fight. 13. In a case where two groups fight with each other, it is often difficult to determine who the actual aggressor is and who was aggrieved. In the present case, it appears that a clash occurred between two groups, and persons from both sides sustained injuries. When the matter was reported to the police, they ought to have conducted the investigation in an impartial manner. Though it has been proved that Accused No. 1 sustained injuries, as stated by PW.11 in this case, the police merely closed Crime No. 50 of 1998. 14. Particularly, when prosecution failed to disclose regarding the injuries sustained by accused in a same tussle between the two groups, the version of prosecution witnesses cannot be believed. 10 15. Time and again, this Court has discussed the issue. Division Bench of this Court in Crl.A. No. 380 of 2009 has categorically observed, following other Division Benches of this Court, that when there is a case and counter-case, the investigating agency should conduct investigation in both cases. Both cases should be investigated and placed before the same Court or the same Judge for decision. The crucial aspect was again discussed by this Court in the said judgment. In deciding each case, the prosecution may rely upon the evidence of that particular case, and the evidence of the counter-case cannot be relied upon in the other case. The Public Prosecutor should be different in both cases, learned Court below, after hearing the arguments in both matters, should pronounce judgment separately unless the cross-cases are effectively heard. Therefore, the learned Judge shall pronounce the judgments one after another. 16. It has also been discussed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Lakshmi Singh and another v. State of Bihar1, wherein the infirmity arising from the non-explanation of injuries sustained by accused has been pointed out in paragraph 36 as follows: “ non-explanation of injuries sustained by accused, held that “in a murder case, the non-explanation of the 4 AIR 1976 SC 2263 28 injuries sustained by the accused at about the time of the occurrence or in the course of altercation is a very important circumstances from which the Court can draw the following inferences: (1) That the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and the origin of the occurrence and has thus not presented the true version. (2) That the witnesses, who have denied the presence of the injuries on the person of the 1 1976 Crl.L.J.1736 SC 11 accused are lying on a most material pint and therefore, their evidence is unreliable. (3) That in case there is a defence version, which explains the injuries on the person of the accused, it is rendered probable so as to throw doubt on the prosecution case’. 17. This being the principle of law, it appears that in the present case there were sufficient reasons before the learned court to disbelieve the version of the prosecution. The investigating agency as well as the prosecution have not proceeded clearly to investigate both the crime cases, and therefore the learned Trial Court has disbelieved the version of the prosecution. It has been held by the learned Trial Court that the injuries sustained by the injured witnesses cannot be disbelieved, though they are vital to the prosecution case. When there is exaggeration in the prosecution version and there is admitted suppression/non-explanation of material facts by the prosecution regarding the injuries sustained by the accused in the same altercation, the prosecution case cannot be believed. In my view, the learned Court below has not committed any error in acquitting the respondents. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed as devoid of merits. 18. With the above observations, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA Dated:09.04.2026 SSA