APHC010069152018 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: 259/2018 Between: 1. MURAMUTLA BRAHMAIAH, R/O. MURAMUTLAPALLI, H.WADA., H/O.VATHALURU, PULLAMPET MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT 2. M.RAJASEKHAR, R/O. MURAMUTLAPALLI, H.WADA., H/O.VATHALURU, PULLAMPET MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT 3. KUPPAM PENCHALAIAH, R/O. MURAMUTLAPALLI, H.WADA., H/O.VATHALURU, PULLAMPET MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT 4. M.MALLIKARJUNA, R/O. MURAMUTLAPALLI, H.WADA., H/O.VATHALURU, PULLAMPET MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT 5. M.SREENIVASULU, R/O. MURAMUTLAPALLI, H.WADA., H/O.VATHALURU, PULLAMPET MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT 6. M.ESWARAIAH, R/O. MURAMUTLAPALLI, H.WADA., H/O. VATHALURU, PULLAMPET MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT ...PETITIONERS AND 1. STATE OF AP, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at 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 call for the records and set aside the Judgment dated./18-01-2018 of the III Addl. Sessions Judge, Rajampet made -2- Crl.R.C. No.259 of 2018 in SC No. 306/2012 in conforming the judgment dated 28-02-2013 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Rajampet, by allowing the Criminal Revision and to pass. IA NO: 1 OF 2018 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 dispense with filing of certified copy of the Judgment in SC.No.306/2012 dt.28.02.2013 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge Rajampet. IA NO: 2 OF 2018 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 of confirmation in criminal appeal No. 39/2013 on the file of the III Additional Judge, Kadapa at Rajampet, dt.18-01.2018 made in SC.NO. 306/2012 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge Rajampet, Kadapa District dt. 28.02.2013 by enlarge petitioners on bail, pending disposal of the Criminal R.C. Counsel for the Petitioners: 1. K VENUGOPAL REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following order: 1. Instant criminal revision case has been preferred against judgment dated 18.01.2018, passed by learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Rajampet, Kadapa District, in Crl.A.No.39 of 2013, whereby learned Sessions Judge has confirmed judgment, dt.28.02.2013, passed by learned Assistant Sessions Judge, in S.C. No.306 of 2012, whereby and whereunder the petitioners were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years each and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each in default of payment of fine simple imprisonment for -3- Crl.R.C. No.259 of 2018 four months each for the offence punishable under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 8I.P.C.9). Further, A.1 to A.6 were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years each and have to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, have to undergo simple imprisonment for six months each for the offence punishable under section 307 of I.P.C. On payment of fine Rs.90,000/-, P.W.1 was awarded an amount of Rs.50,000/- under section 357(1) Cr.P.C. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE PROSECUTION CASE: a) The petitioners and P.W.1 are co-villagers. They are belonging to different groups. There were long standing disputes between them. On 15.06.2011 there was a dispute in fixing bore well, thereby it has been alleged that the present petitioners due to the long standing political disputes, on the next day on 16.06.2011 at 6.00 AM when P.W.1 was proceeding to calls of nature, A.1 to A.6 were armed with deadly weapons viz., knifes and crow bars came out from the cheeki bushes and hacked P.W.1 with knife in different parts of his body. Meanwhile, L.Ws.2 to 4 came to the spot. On seeing them A.1 to A.6 fled away. P.W.1 was shifted to hospital. On receipt of complaint, police registered a crime case and thereafter arrested the petitioners, investigation ended in filing charge sheet under Sections 148 and 307 of I.P.C. b) During trial, the prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses -4- Crl.R.C. No.259 of 2018 and exhibited several documents Exs.P.1 to P.15 and some material objects including so-called offensive weapons were marked as M.Os.1 to 9. After trial, learned trial court found the petitioners guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 148 and 307 of I.P.C. and passed order of conviction and sentence. Such order of conviction and sentence was under challenge before learned appellate court. After hearing, learned appellate court dismissed the appeal by confirming the order of conviction and sentence. Hence, the present revision petition. 3. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS: a) Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset submits the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the motive of the alleged assault by A.1 to A.6 on P.W.1. There are no grave intention by A.1 to A.6 to kill P.W.1. The evidence of witnesses are not corroborative in nature. No independent witnesses were examined. The F.S.L. report clearly suggests the so-called weapons, which were sent for opinion of expert, are not contained blood stains. Learned trial court failed to appreciate the entire facts and circumstances of the case, thereby caused miscarriage of justice. b) Learned trial court has failed to appreciate that the incident happened in the village, but no independent witnesses were examined as well as the prosecution miserably failed to bring home the charge against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Petitioner further submits that -5- Crl.R.C. No.259 of 2018 learned appellate court has also not properly gone through the evidence and thereby in a routine manner confirmed the order of conviction and sentence passed by learned trial court. He further submits that doctor has opined that such injury may be caused due to speed driving of a two wheeler. Thus, in this case the prosecution has not bring home the charge against the petitioners beyond all reasonable doubt and prayed for acquittal of the petitioners. 4. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE STATE: a) Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits there is long standing enimity between two groups. Admittedly the petitioners were within one group and P.W.1 was another group. The prosecution has successfully proved the enimity. The alleged dispute occurred on 15.06.2011. On the next day i.e. on 16.06.2011 all the accused persons suddenly attacked P.W.1 with deadly weapons, thereby P.W.1 sustained injuries. He further submits that P.Ws.2, 3 and 6 has seen the accused persons while assaulting P.W.1. Moreover the prosecution case has been corroborated by the version of P.W.1 (injured himself) supported by the medical witness. He further submits that P.W.1 has specifically stated the role of each and every accused person how they hacked P.W.1 with knife. The evidence of P.W.9 is very clear regarding injury sustained by P.W.1. The factum of injury as stated by P.W.1 is correctly corroborated by the evidence of P.W.9. He further submits that the injuries are grievous in nature -6- Crl.R.C. No.259 of 2018 and remain unrebutted, the nature of the injuries suggested that the petitioners had the intention to cause the death of P.W.1. b) It is further argued by learned Assistant Public Prosecutor that the evidence of P.Ws. are corroborated in nature. Moreover P.W.4 though declared hostile, but partially supports the prosecution case. He further submits that learned appellate court has correctly scanned the evidence and finding no other discrepancies, the order of conviction was confirmed. There is no merit in the revision. 5. FINDINGS OF THIS COURT: a) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. Perused the judgment passed by learned trial court. It appears that the charge was framed under Sections 148 and 307 of I.P.C. To prove the case under Section 307 of I.P.C., prosecution has to prove the petitioners being the accused has an intention to kill P.W.1 and thereby they knowingly caused such injury which can cause death to P.W.1/ injured. In this case, learned counsel for the petitioner has raised a point that the prosecution has failed to bring home the actual intention to cause such injury by A.1 to A.6 to P.W.1. Prosecution case laid regarding the long standing enimity between two groups of the village, such dispute was actually admitted by the defence during the cross examination. During the cross-examination of P.W.1, a suggestion was put that the villagers, were under the -7- Crl.R.C. No.259 of 2018 apprehension that P.W.1 had caused theft to the plantation, attacked and hacked him. However there are no other suggestion or evidence on behalf of the defence that P.W.1 was involved in theft. Moreover there are no report to the police regarding such theft. However, rivalry between two groups are so immense that fixing bore well caused huge disputes in the village. Thus, in this case, the motive as stated by the prosecution between A.1 to A.6 and P.W.1 has been well narrated and well proved. b) In considering the other evidence on record regarding the injury sustained by P.W.1, it appears from the evidence of P.W.1 as well as the prosecution case that P.W.1 has sustained injury through knife by A.1 to A.6. In the evidence of P.W.1 he has specifically stated that A.1 hacked him with knife on his head. A.3 stabbed his left hand and caused bleeding injury, A.5 hacked him on his right hand A.2 beat him with left foot. A.4 beat him with crow bar on his right leg and caused bleeding injuries and A.6 caused swelling injury. On the basis of such statement of P.W.1, it is necessary to note down the injury which was examined by P.W.9 (Doctor) upon the person of P.W.1. The injuries which were found by P.W.9 are as follows: 1. Pain and tenderness over the middle of the right leg, 2. A cut injury of size 10 x 6 x 2 cm with open fracature in the middle of the left leg, -8- Crl.R.C. No.259 of 2018 3. A cut injury with open fracture over the middle of the right fore- arm, 4. A cut injury of size 4 x 2 x 1 cm on over left forearm, 5. A laceration injury of size 2 x 1 cm over top of left index finger, 6. A cut injury of size 2 x 1 cm over lateral end arm left eye-brow, 7. A cut injury of size 2 x 1 cm over left parital temporal region of head, 8. A irregular laceration injury of size 5 x 3 x 1 cm over vertex of head, 9. A cut laceration injury of size 4 x 1 x 1 cm over area above left frontal head, 10. A cut injury of size 2 x 1 x 1 cm over area above right ear. c) On careful perusal of the statement of P.W.1 and P.W.9, it appears that P.W.1 has specifically stated the involvement of the each and every accused and how they hacked him. The injury as examined by P.W.9 supported the version of P.W.1. Moreover, the evidence of P.Ws.2, 3 and 6 are corroborative. Though P.Ws.2, 3 and 6 are relatives of P.W.1 but their evidence cannot be brushed aside in the attending facts and circumstances of the case. It is true that P.W.1 has sustained injuries. All the injuries are incised cut injury. Thus it is proved that the prosecution has been sufficiently established regarding the injuries sustained by P.W.1. d) Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited decision of the Hon9ble Supreme Court in a case between Sivamani and Anr. V. State represented by Inspector of Police, Vellore Taluk Police Station, -9- Crl.R.C. No.259 of 2018 Vellore District1. By citing the observation of the Hon9ble Supreme Court, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that bodily injury capable of resulting in death should have to be proved in a case under Section 307 of I.P.C. The relevant paragraph of the judgment is set out as under: “9. In State of Madhya Pradesh v Saleem, (2005) 5 SCC 554, the Court held that to sustain a conviction under Section 307, IPC, it was not necessary that a bodily injury capable of resulting in death should have been inflicted. As such, non-conviction under Section 307, IPC on the premise only that simple injury was inflicted does not follow as a matter of course. In the same judgment, it was pointed out that '... The court has to see whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the section.’The position that because a fatal injury was not sustained alone does not dislodge Section 307, IPC conviction has been reiterated in Jage Ram v State of Haryana, (2015) 11 SCC 366 and State of Madhya Pradesh v Kanha, (2019) 3 SCC 605. Yet, in Jage Ram (supra) and Kanha (supra), it was observed that while grievous or life-threatening injury was not necessary to maintain a conviction under Section 307, IPC, 'The intention of the accused can be ascertained from the actual injury, if any, as well as from surrounding circumstances. Among other things, the nature of the weapon used and the severity of the blows inflicted can be considered to infer intent." e) On perusal of the law laid down by the Hon9ble Supreme Court, it appears that it has been alleged before the Hon9ble Division Bench that A.3 and A.4 tried to attack P.W.1 with knife. P.W.1 escaped from their attack and caught hold of the appellants9 hands, as a result of which, sustained abrasion injuries on his right shoulder and left thumb. So, in cited case before the Hon9ble Division Bench, there are only two injuries, both are simple in nature. But in this 1 (2023) 14 SCR 849 -10- Crl.R.C. No.259 of 2018 particular case, there are atleast ten injuries found by P.W.9 on the person of P.W.1. They are stated to be grievous injury on vital part of body and such injury can cause death to P.W.1. Reasons thereby, the law laid down by the Hon9ble Division Bench, in Sivamamma9s case (supra) is factually distinguishable. f) Learned counsel for the petitioner also raised an issue that weapon which was seized during the course of investigation were not proved to be a weapon which was used to assault/ hack P.W.1. It appears that the report has submitted by F.S.L. stating that the knife which was placed before the F.S.L. does not contain any blood stain. The evidentiary value of the report is not sacrosanct, it is always rebuttable in nature. g) In this case particular case the injury sustained by the petitioner was well proved. P.Ws.1, 2, 3 and 6 has supported the prosecution case to show that A.1 to A.6 has hacked P.W.1 at the relevant point of time. During the course of investigation, police has arrested accused persons and seized weapons. During that time, the blood stains on the knife may be wiped out. Thus the report of the F.S.L. is not so material and fatal to the prosecution case. Considering the facts of the instant matter and also considering the observation of learned trial court and appellate court, I find no justification to interfere with their finding. Accordingly, the order of conviction passed by learned trial court confirmed by learned appellate court is -11- Crl.R.C. No.259 of 2018 appears to be justifiable. The instant criminal revision case is hereby dismissed as devoid of merit. 6. Accordingly, the criminal revision case is disposed of. 7. The order suspension of the sentence during the pendency of the criminal revision case stands vacated. The petitioners are directed to appear before learned trial court within eight weeks from the date of passing of this order to serve the remaining portion of the sentence. Failing which, learned trial court shall issue non-bailable arrest warrant against petitioners to comply the order. 8. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Revision Case shall stand closed. ____________________________ JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA Dt.09.04.2026 BV