1 APHC010395102010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3369] WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO I.A.Nos.1, 2 and 3 of 2025 IN/AND CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 776/2010 Between: 1. YERRAKULA VENKATAPPAIAH, S/O NAGESHWAR RAO, BUSINESS R/O VEERANAYAKUNIPALEM VILLAGE, CHEBROLE MANDAL, GUNTUR DIST. ...PETITIONER AND 1 . 1. THE STATE OF A P, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 2. T. Sai Manikanta, S/o. T. Veeraswamy (died), aged about 27 years, R/o. Veeranayakunipalem village, Chebrole Mandal, Guntur District. 3. T. Krishna Kumari, W/o. T. Veeraswamy (died), aged about 47 years, R/o. Veeranayakunipalem village, Chebrole Mandal, Guntur District. (As per the orders dated 06.08.2025 in I.A.No.1 of 2025, the proposed Respondent Nos . 2 and 3 were impleaded as Respondent Nos . 2 and 3). ...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 set aside the Judgment dated 23.09.09 in C.C.No.285/2008 passed by the Hon'ble VI Addl. Junior Civil 2 Judge, Guntur and as confirmed by the Judgment dated 13.04.2010 in Crl.A.No.346 of 2009 passed by the VIII Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge (FTC), Guntur. IA NO: 1 OF 2010 (CRLRCMP 777 OF 2010 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 IA NO: 2 OF 2010(CRLRCMP 1137 OF 2010 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 operation of the sentence in the Judgment dated 23.09.09 in C.C.No.285/2008 passed by the Hon'ble VI Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur and as confirmed by the Judgment dated 13.04.2010 in Crl.A.No.346 of 2009 passed by the VIII Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge (FTC), Guntur, by granting bail to the Petitioner, pending disposal of this Crl.R.C. 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 implead the proposed respondents as Respondents No.2 & 3 in Crl.R.C.No.776 of 2010 of this Hon'ble Court and pass IA NO: 2 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 permit the petitioners and the accused to compromise the case in Cr.I.R.C. No.776/2010 of this Hon'ble Court filed by the accused against the Judgment dated 23.09.2009 passed in C.C.No. 285 of 2008 on the file of VI Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, which was confirmed in the Judgment dated 13.04.2010, passed in Crl.A.No. 346 of 2009 on the file of VIII Addl. District and Sessions Judge(FTC) Guntur and to pass IA NO: 3 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 may be pleased to permit the petitioners/complainant to compromise the matter with the respondent/accused herein by allowing the CrI.R.C.No.776/2010 of this Hon'ble Court filed by the accused against the 3 Judgment dt.23.09.2009 passed in C.C.No. 285 of 2008 on the file of VI Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, which was confirmed in the Judgment dated 13.04.2010, passed in CrI.A.No. 346 of 2009 on the file of VIII Addl. District and Sessions Judge(FTC) Guntur, and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. G VIJAYA SARADHI Counsel for the Respondent: 1. I.M.S PRAKASH 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER 1. I.A.No.1 of 2025 is filed by the proposed respondent Nos.2 and 3 to implead them as Respondent Nos.2 and 3 to the present revision case. 2. I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2025 have been filed by the Petitioners/Complainant, who are the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 in the Criminal Revision, seeking disposal of the present Revision Case in light of the terms and conditions of the compromise. 3. The prosecution's case is that there had been prior disputes between the accused and PW.1, Thoka Veeraswamy, regarding the management of sheep. As a result, the accused allegedly harboured a grudge against PW.1 and his family. On 22.07.2008, at approximately 10:00 PM, while PW.1 and his family members were sleeping in front of their house, the accused arrived at the scene armed with an axe and assaulted PW.1 to PW.3 using the handle portion of the axe. Consequently, they sustained injuries. Based on the statement of PW.1, marked as Ex.P1, a case was registered against the accused under Crime No.112 of 2008 at Chebrolu Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. 4 4. After considering the material as well as evidence on record, the learned VI Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur [for short, “the Trial Court”] vide Judgment dated 23.09.2009 in C.C.No.285 of 2008, convicted and sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for six (6) months for the offence under Section 324 of IPC. 5. Aggrieved by the Judgment, dated 23.09.2009 in C.C.No.285 of 2008 passed by the Trial Court, the Appellant/Accused preferred an Appeal in Crl.A.No.346 of 2009 on the file of learned VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Guntur (for short, “First Appellate Court”) challenging the correctness of the Judgment passed by the Trial Court. By Judgment dated 13.04.2010, the learned First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal, thereby confirming the conviction and the sentence imposed upon the Appellant/Accused by the Trial Court. Pursuant to the impugned Judgment, the Petitioner/Accused preferred the present Revision. 6. I have heard both sides and perused the material on record. 7. Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, the petitioner/accused and Respondents Nos. 2 and 3, the victims, appeared in person before this Court. Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 were identified by Police Constable No. 3866 of Cheborolu Police Station, while the petitioner/accused was identified by his counsel. The terms and conditions of the compromise, as outlined in the affidavit, were read to the parties, who acknowledged them to be true and correct. 8. As reflected in the Judgment in C.C. No. 285 of 2008, P.Ws. 1 to 3 sustained simple injuries. Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 correspond to P.Ws. 2 and 3, respectively. The accused was convicted of causing injuries to P.Ws. 2 and 3. The sentence imposed by the trial Court in C.C. No. 285 of 2008 was affirmed by the first appellate Court by its Judgment dated 13.04.2010 in Criminal Appeal No. 346 of 2009. It is contended that as on the date of the offence alleged, the offence under section 324 of the IPC is compoundable. 5 9. When ascertained, Respondents Nos. 2 and 3, who are P.Ws. 2 and 3 respectively, submitted that they have compromised the matter with the accused and requested permission to compound the offence. They further stated that they received an amount of ₹15,000/- from the accused as compensation. 10. Learned counsel for the Petitioner places reliance on the Judgment of the Madras High Court in A. Shankar vs. The Inspector of Police, Sulur Police Station, dated 20.11.2019, in Para 21, wherein it is stated that: “21. xxx Prior to the amendment to Sec.320 Cr.P.C under the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005, the offence under Section 324 IPC was compoundable by the person to whom hurt is caused with the permission of the Court, in terms of Sec.320(8) Cr.P.C. The occurrence had happened on 08.10.2008. The Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 came into force/effect from 31.12.2009. On the date of occurrence i.e. on 08.10.2008, the offence under Section 324 IPC was compoundable with the permission of the Court as per the decisions referred supra." 11. In support of his contention, the offence in question occurred on 22.07.2008, while the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 came into effect on 31.12.2009, thereby rendering the offence under Section 324 of the IPC non-compoundable. 12. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the offence under Section 324 of IPC is compoundable, considering the date of the offence, i.e. on 22.07.2008. 13. In view of the submissions made, this Court is inclined to grant permission for compounding the offence under Section 324 of the IPC. Pursuant to the compromise recorded in I.A. Nos. 2 and 3 of 2025, it is stated that both parties have amicably resolved their differences by entering into a Joint Memorandum of Compromise. Accordingly, there is no necessity to proceed with prosecution against the accused in respect of P.Ws. 2 and 3, who have expressed no objection to compound the offence. 6 14. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence under Section 324 of IPC are set aside against the accused for causing simple injuries to P.Ws. 2 and 3, and he is acquitted under Section 320(8) of Cr.P.C., in light of the terms and conditions of the compromise. 15. It is submitted by Respondent Nos.2 and 3 that P.W.1 is no more, who is one of the victims. However, they could not obtain the Death Certificate of P.W.1. As such, this Court is not inclined to compound the offence under Section 324 of IPC as alleged against the accused in respect of the injuries caused to PW.1. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused contends that the evidence of P.W.1 is not corroborated by the medical evidence. According to P.W.1’s testimony, he sustained injuries on his right thumb; however, Ex.P4, the Wound Certificate, indicates contusions on the right knee and right thigh. A perusal of the record supports this contention of the defence. The prosecution’s case states that P.W.1 was assaulted by the accused, who allegedly used the stick portion of an axe to inflict the injuries. 17. As evident from the record, the Investigating Officer did not seize the weapon allegedly used by the accused, nor was the size of the stick mentioned. In the absence of production of the weapon, it is difficult to conclude that the item used qualifies as a dangerous weapon. 18. In the circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that both Courts should have convicted the accused under Section 323 of the IPC rather than Section 324, as they relied on the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3. However, as previously noted, the testimonies of P.Ws.1 to 3 lack corroboration from any independent evidence, and, significantly, the medical evidence does not support P.W.1’s account of the injury. In light of the foregoing, this Court finds it difficult to uphold the findings of both the trial Court and the First Appellate Court with regard to the alleged offence under Section 324 of the IPC concerning P.W.1. 7 19. Upon being satisfied with the terms and conditions of the compromise and in view of the amicable settlement between the accused and PWs.2 and 3, I.A. Nos.1, 2, and 3 of 2025 are allowed. Consequently, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of by setting aside the Judgment dated 13.04.2010 in Crl.A.No.346 of 2009 on the file of the learned VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Guntur, which had confirmed the Judgment and sentence passed by the VI Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, dated 23.09.2009 in C.C.No.285 of 2008. Accordingly, the petitioner/accused is found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 324 of the IPC and is acquitted in respect of the injuries caused to P.W.1 under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand discharged. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO Dated: 06.08.2025 MS 8 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO I.A.Nos.1, 2 and 3 of 2025 IN/AND CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 776 OF 2010 Dated: 06.08.2025 MS