APHC010170172009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3560] WEDNESDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 633/2009 Between: 1. BADUGU SRINIVAS @ SRINU, S/O SATYANARAYANA, COOLIE R/O SOMUDAVARAPALEM VILLAGE, E.G.DIST. MUMMIDIVARAM P.S.LIMITS. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF A P, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT 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 Crl.R.C., to this Hon'ble Court against the Orders passed in Crl.A.No.42 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the II Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, E.G.Dist., at Amalapuram, dated 24.09.08 modifying the Judgment in S.C.No. 265 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the Asst. Sessions Judge, Amalapuram, dated 08.02.07. IA NO: 1 OF 2009(CRLRCMP 829 OF 2009 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 (96) days in filing this Crl.R.C., against the Orders passed in Crl.A.No.42 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the II Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, E.G.Dist., at Amalapuram, dated 24.09.08. 2 SS, J Crl.R.C.No.633 of 2009 Dated 08.04.2026 IA NO: 2 OF 2009(CRLRCMP 854 OF 2009 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 sentence awarded in Sc.No. 265/2006 on the file of the Court of the Asst. Sessions Judge's Amalapuram East Godavari District, Amalapuram, Dt.24.09.2008 and release him on bail pending disposal of the above Crl.RC IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 Recall the Non-Bail Warrants dated 30-06-2025 in CRLRC No. 633/2009 pending disposal of the above Crl.R.C. and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. G SIMHADRI Counsel for the Respondent: 1. G SIMHADRI Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 3 SS, J Crl.R.C.No.633 of 2009 Dated 08.04.2026 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 633/2009 The Court made the following ORDER: The instant Criminal revision case is preferred against the order of cognizance passed by the learned Trial Court against the present petitioner punishable under section 307 of I.P.C. 2. In a nut shell the prosecution is A1 and A2 are son-in-law of LWs 1 and 2. After their marriage disputes raised between A1 and A2 with their wives, they were living separately with A1 and A2. On 26.03.2008 at about 4 to 4.30pm A1 and A2 with curved knife attached LWs 1 and 2. As such LW1 sustained severe cut injuries on her right palm and she fell down. It is alleged that first of all A2 gave a blow of punch to LW2. When LW1 intervened A2 caught hold her and A1 attached with knife. By such, firstly LW1 tried to save herself from blow thereby her right palm was injured, it became two pieces, then she fell down. Again A1 hacked on her right hand, on the left shoulder, on her right breast, on the right ribs and on the neck indiscriminately. LW2 escaped from the scene. A1 chased, when PW3 intervened A1 also attacked him. 3. The matter was reported to the police on 29.03.2025. During trial prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses, 10 documents 4 SS, J Crl.R.C.No.633 of 2009 Dated 08.04.2026 were exhibited. Material objects including knife (offending weapon) with other material objects were also recovered and marked. 4. After completion of trial the learned counsel for the petitioner has acquitted A3 to A5 but convicted A1 and A2 for the offences punishable under section 307 of I.P.C. Such order of conviction was challenged before appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.42 of 2007. Learned appellate Court, after hearing the parties found the involvement of A2 is doubtful, thus A2 was acquitted on benefit of doubt. But A1’s punishment was confirmed. Hence this revision. Submission of Petitioner 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that learned appellate Court while deciding the issue on merit has gone through the evidence of PW1 as well as two Doctor witnesses namely PWs 8 and 9. The two Doctors has opined differently regarding wounds. 6. Doubt so raised before the learned appellate Court regarding involvement of A2 thereby A2 was allowed on benefit of doubt. It is the positive point of learned counsel for the petitioner that while A2 and A1 were alleged to be involved in the same offence the parity should be given both the accused persons but it cannot be allowed only to A2. He 5 SS, J Crl.R.C.No.633 of 2009 Dated 08.04.2026 submits that if prosecution case is clarified properly, it would be revealed first A2 caught hold LW1, thereafter A1 stabbed her; unless A2 caught hold LW1 it would not possible for A1 to commit such crime. When the involvement of A2 was doubtful A1 also required to give clean chit on benefit of doubt. He further submits that the learned Court has committed grave error by giving benefit of doubt to A2 only. If the case is doubtful in respect of A2, involvement of A1 also doubtful. 7. He further submits that injures located by PW8 at the person of LW1 is five in number. But PW9 another Doctor of KIMS hospital found 12 injures. The disparity of opinion between two Doctors itself cause the prosecution case doubtful. He further submits that A1 was falsely implicated in this case due to admitted enmity. 8. Finally the learned counsel submits that instant criminal proceedings pending since 2006. The petitioner is more than 45 years old. During course of investigation, trial and appeal period, petitioner was incarcerated for about eight months. So, petitioner’s case can be considered sympathetically. 6 SS, J Crl.R.C.No.633 of 2009 Dated 08.04.2026 Submission of State: 9. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that in this case charge was framed under section 307 r/w 149 I.P.C. Five persons were arraigned as accused. During trial 11 witnesses were examined, amongst them PW1, 2 and 3 are injured and PW4 and 5 are ocular witnesses and PW8 and 9 are Doctors. All the witnesses supported the prosecution case. PW1 has categorically discloses the factum of assault, after injury, the injured was firstly treated by PW8. Initially PW8 examined PW1 and found some injuries which is appearing thus noted such injuries to be five injuries. Thereafter considering the critical condition of PW1, she was referred to another hospital with better facilities for better treatment. PW9 after thorough examination submitted wound certificate. The said certificate reveals that PW1 sustained 12 injuries in her person. He further submits that injuries are all on vital parts of the body. Injury itself substantiated intention of A1 to kill PW1. He further submits that prosecution sufficiently proved the charges beyond reasonable doubt against A1 and A2. Thus, learned Trial Court rightly framed the charges and convicted both the accused person. 10. He further submits that the learned Appellate Court opined that involvement of A2 is doubtful. He submits that the submission of the 7 SS, J Crl.R.C.No.633 of 2009 Dated 08.04.2026 learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be entertained. Role of A1 and A2 are different. Role of A2 was caught hold LW1 and A1 had assaulted LW1. When the roles are different, the Principle of parity cannot be allowed to both the accused persons. He further submits that injures sustained by PW1 is 12 in number thus, this is a heinous offence. At this juncture A1 cannot be shown any mercy. 11. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor also submitted that the punishment for offence under section 307 I.P.C is 10 years. Learned Trial Court has imposed three years punishment. However from nominal role it reveals that A1 was incarcerated for more than 7 months 21 days. 12. Heard learned counsel on both sides. Observations of this Court: 13. The merit of the instant Criminal Revision is that whether A1 and A2 both were required to be treated equally on the Principle of parity. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that both A1 and A2 may be given benefit of doubt but not only A2. On the contrary the Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the role of the accused persons are different thus the Principle of Parity is not applicable in this case. Learned appellate Court while discussing the role of A2 is of view 8 SS, J Crl.R.C.No.633 of 2009 Dated 08.04.2026 that there are some variations in the statement of PW1. PW1 himself does not say that A2 caught hold her while A1/accused was hacking her. There are other witnesses where from it appears that A2 had no intention to cause such injury to PW1 or PW2. On scanning those witnesses learned appellate Court is of view that involvement of A2 is doubtful. 14. In this case charge was framed under section 307 I.P.C. To prove the charge, prosecution has to prove that accused has committed serious injury to injured with an intent that the injury is such a nature that it can cause death of the injured. The injuries appeared in the person of PW1 are 12 in number in the vital part of body, there may be discrepancies in the evidence of PW8 or 9 but the injuries sustained by PW1 and as well as noted by PW5 are sufficient to hold that A1 had intention to kill PW1. Such intention is not appearing in the action of A2 thereby the charge under section 307 I.P.C however proved against A1. 15. In deciding the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner regarding Principle of parity it appears that Assistant Public Prosecutor rightfully submits regarding involvement and role of both the accused persons is different. Though the prosecution has laid down story that A2 had caught hold PW1 while A1 hacked her. But PW1 did not state before 9 SS, J Crl.R.C.No.633 of 2009 Dated 08.04.2026 the Court that while A1 was hacking her A2 was caught hold her. At this juncture if we carefully scan all the evidences on the basis of prosecution case the role of A1 and A2 are different; A1 was assailant. Thereby proves the Principle of parity cannot be applicable to both the accused persons. In this present case the evidence are so clear to prove the offence against the A1 beyond reasonable doubt. Independent witness PW3 had stated the involvement of A1. Moreover the evidence of PW1 and 3. Therefore prosecution bring successfully prove the charge against A1 learned Appellate Court has rightfully confirmed conviction against A1; there is no perversity. 16. It is argued by learned counsel for petitioner that present petitioner is suffering criminal litigation since about 20 years. Now the petitioner is more than 45 years. He prayed for lenience. Considering particular nature of offence, committed by petitioner, I am of a view that society always demand justice. Punishment under section 307 I.P.C provided imprisonment for at least 10 years. Learned Trial Court only awarded punishment of three years. I find it is sufficient and justifiable in the pursuant facts and circumstances, hence, there is no scope of lenience. 17. Accordingly this Court cannot accept the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner on that. The instant Criminal Revision Case is 10 SS, J Crl.R.C.No.633 of 2009 Dated 08.04.2026 dismissed as devoid of merit. Since the appeal is pending for long time, the petitioner is directed to appear before learned Trial Court within eight (8) weeks from the date of the order to serve out remaining portion of sentence failing which, learned Trial Court shall take appropriate steps according to law. 18. Accordingly, the instant Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA Dated: 08.04.2026 PBS 11 SS, J Crl.R.C.No.633 of 2009 Dated 08.04.2026 286 THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE SRI SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.633 of 2009 Date: 08.04.2026 PBS