w r»' $ PHC010517482009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.786 of 2009 Revision filed under Sections 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C, aggrieved by the Judgment dated 11.05.2009 passed in Crl.A.No.6 of 2008, on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari District, at Amalapuram in modifying the conviction of sentence passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Razole in C.C.No.228 of 2005, dated 19.12.2007. Between: Bathula Nagendra Prasad, S/o.Venkat Rao, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Mamidikuduru Village and Mandal, East Godavari District. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED N0.1 AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Amaravati. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner : SMT MADHAVI PUNNA (LEGAL AID) Counsel for the Respondent : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following ORDER: APHC010517482009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3369] WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 786/2009 Between: 1.BATHULA NAGENDRA PRASAD, S/O VENKAT RAO, AGRICULTURE R/O MAMIDIKUDURU VILLAGE & MADAL, E.G.DIST. ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF A.P., Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court ofA.P., Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT Revision filed under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C., 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 conviction in Crl.A.No.6'of 2008, dated 11.05.09 on the file of the II Addl. Sessions Judge, E.G.Dist., at Amalapuram, as well as the Judgment of conviction passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate C.C.No.228 of 2005, dated 19.12.07, by allowing the CrI.R.C. lA NO: 1 OF 2009fCRLRCMP 1076 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 Judgment passed Crl.A.No.6 of 2008, dated 11.05.09 on the file of the II Addl. Sessions Judge, E.G.Dist., at Amalapuram, in modifying the conviction and sentence passed by the Judicial Magistrate. First Class Magistrate, Razole in C.C.No.228 of 2005, dated 19.12.07 by enlarging the petitioner on bail in the interest of justice. and Razole in Counsel for the Petitioner; 1 .MADHAVI PUNNA 2. LEGAL AID Counsel for the Respondent; 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following; //ORDER// 397 and 401 of the Code of behalf of the Criminal Revision Case, under Section 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) is filed on pe«.ione.accused No.1 assa.ng the dud.n.en. da.ed Cri A NO 6 of 2008 on the file of the learned M Additional Sessions Judge, Has Godava°i (for short, 't’- Appellate Courf), wherePy f Appellate Coud While allowing the appeal in part, confirmed the imposed against the appellant;A,1 for the offence under Sect»n Penal Code,1860 (for short, IPC’) vide Judgment dated 19.12^2 P C.C.N0.228 of 2005 on the file of the learned I Class Magistrate Court, Razole (for short, ‘the Trial Court). The Criminal Procedure 1. C.C.No.228 of 2005 to suffer Rigorous of Rs.500/- in default to months for the offence also sentenced to suffer Simple a fine of Rs.200/- in default to order, dated 19.12.2007 in and sentenced him and to pay a fine The Trial Court, vide its convicted the petitioner/A.1 2. Imprisonment for one (1) year Simple Imprisonment Section 324 of IPC and for three (03) undergo punishable under Imprisonment for six (06) months and to pay Simple imprisonment for one and half month for the offence unde and both the sentences shall run concurrently. The Tria undergo Section 509 of IPC Court set off the remand period, if any Section 428 of the Cr.P.C. On appeal, the 1 ^ , dated 11.05.2009 passed in Crl.A.No.6 of 2008 allowed t e passed by the Trial Court , undergone by the .petitioner under Appellate Court vide its Judgment part and set aside the conviction and sentence in 3 against the petitioner/A. 1. However, the petitioner/A.1 was found guilty and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three (3) months and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- and in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for one (1) month for the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/A. 1 filed the present Revision Case. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner/A. 1, and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing for the Respondent-State. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Courts below merely referred to the evidence of the witnesses without proper appreciation and erroneously recorded the conviction; PWs.1 and 2 were not present at the scene of the offence at the relevant time, which was not adequately considered; the Courts committed a material irregularity by failing to consider invoking Section 360 of the Cr.P.C., in favour of the petitioner; the delay of three days in recording the statement of PW.1 (Ex.P1) was also overlooked. He further argues that PWs.1 to 3 belongs to the same family, and the so- called independent witness PW.4 did not support the prosecution's case. It is submitted, that PW.I's evidence showed improvements from her earlier versions, which undermines her credibility; the police failed to seize the bucket, a material object in the case, and without its seizure, a conviction under Sections 324 or 323 of the IPC is unsafe; the Courts below are faulted for merely narrating the evidence without critical analysis, resulting in a conviction and sentence that are contrary to law, the weight of evidence, and the probabilities of the case. 4. Now, the point that arises for determination in this Revision is; 5. “Whether there is any manifest error of law or flagrant miscarriage of justice in the findings recorded by the Trial Court as well as the 1 Appellate Court?” St 6^ It is settled law as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of % Maharashtra V. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Sing Ananci\ that “in exercise of revisional powers, this Court need not undertaken in-depth and minutest reexamination of entire evidence, when there is no error in the findings arrived by the Trial Court as well 1®* Appellate Court”. Learned counsel for the petitioner/A.1 contends that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, namely PWs.1 to 3, are those of interested witnesses and are not corroborated by any independent witness. It is, therefore, argued that both the Trial Court and the 1®' Appellate Court erred in placing reliance on their evidence. On a perusal of the record, it is noted that PW.1 is the injured witness and has specifically attributed overt acts to Accused No.1 and others. PW.2 is the husband of PW.1, and PW.3 is the granddaughter of PW.1. PW.4, who is stated to be a neighbour, did not support the case of the prosecution. Nonetheless, the evidence of PW.1, being the injured witness, is duly corroborated by the testimonies of PW.2 and PW.3. 7. The law is well-settled that the testimony of a witness carries great evidentiary value and cannot be discarded merely on the grounds of a relationship with the injured witness/victim, unless it‘is found to be inherently unreliable or contradicted by material evidence. The material on record indicates that the incident in guestion occurred on 11.10.2005. The statement of PW.1, marked as Ex.P.1, was recorded by the Sub-Inspector of Police on 14.10.2005. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that both the Trial Court and the 1^* Appellate Court failed to properly consider the delay in recording the statement of PW.1. 8. 9. To substantiate the injuries sustained by PW.1, the prosecution examined the Medical Officer as PW.5, who deposed that he examined PW.1 10. ^ (2004) 7 see 659 5 ■€S5 at 09:50 AM on 11.10.2005. He observed a lacerated injury over the left parietal region and sub-conjunctival hematoma on the medial half of the right eyeball. He opined that the injuries were simple in nature, likely caused by a blunt object, and were sustained within six hours prior to the time of examination. His testimony is supported by Ex.P.3, the wound certificate, which corroborates the oral evidence of PWs.1 to 3 regarding the injuries sustained by PW.1. Regarding the delay, the 1®* Appellate Court has appropriately observed that Ex.P.3 mentions that the injured person was brought with Memo No.37/HoSp/05 dated 11.. 10.2005 and was accompanied by P.C.No.2589 of Nagaram Police Station. The medical record shows that PW.1 was examined by PW.5 at 09:50 AM on the same day. A reading of Ex.P.1, along with the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, clearly indicates that the incident occurred at approximately 7:00 AM on 11.10.2005. The Wound Certificate further indicates that PW.1 was first taken to the Police Station and then referred to the Government Hospital, Razole, on the same day. This Court is of the view that if PW.1 had deliberately withheld information regarding the incident, the Medical Officer would not have issued the memo or examined her so promptly. The delay in recording the statement of PW.1 by the investigating officer, in the absence of any material to suggest false implication or fabrication, cannot be treated as sufficient ground to disbelieve the otherwise consistent and corroborated testimonies of PWs.1 to 3. 11. Initially, the Trial Court convicted Accused Nos.1 to 4. It found Accused No.1 guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 509 of the IPC, and Accused Nos.2 to 4 guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 509 read with Section 34 of IPC. However, upon a proper appreciation of the evidence on record, the 1®* Appellate Court acquitted Accused Nos.2 to 4 of all charges under Sections 324 and 509 read with Section 34 of IPC. Concerning Accused No.1, the 1®* Appellate Court observed that although PW.1 sustained injuries allegedly caused by a bucket, the said bucket was not 12. seized by the investigating agency. In the absence of seizure and proof ^ regarding the nature of the bucket, the Appellate Court held that it could not be treated as a "dangerous weapon" within the meaning of Section 324 of IPC. Consequently, the 1"'Appellate Court rightly concluded that the essential ingredients to attract the offence under Section-324 of IPC were not established and, accordingly, altered the conviction of Accused No.1 from Section 324 of IPC to Section of 323 IPC, for causing simple hurt. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits Judgment of the Trial Court nor that of the 1®* Appellate Court reflects consideration of the antecedents of the petitioner. It is contended that both Courts failed to call for a report from the Probation Officer to possibility of extending the benefit of probation under the Offenders Act, 1958. 13. that neither the any examine the Probation of As seen from the record, the petitioner was approximately 22 years old at the time of the incident. There is nothing on record to indicate that the petitioner has any criminal antecedents subsequent to his involvement in the present case. Given these circumstances, this Court is of the considered 14. opinion that both the Trial Court and the 1®* Appellate Court ought to have called for a report from the Probation Officer to assess the suitability of 1958, to the petitioner/A.1. The failure to consider this statutory safeguard, particularly given the petitioner's young age and absence of extending the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, any prior or subsequent criminal conduct, constitutes a material irregularity. Considering the fact that the offence in question occurred 11.10.2005, and that at the time of recording the statement on the quantum of sentence before the Trial Court, Accused No.1 stated he 15. on was pursuing an I.T.I., course and was aged about 22 years, this Qourt is of the view that imposition of a custodial sentence at this stage is not warranted. Nearly two decades have passed since the incident occurred, and there is no material on 7 record to suggest that Accused No.1 has been involved in any other criminal although the 1®* Appellate Court of IPC to Section 323 of IPC any criminal antecedents or has activity since then. Even otherwise, conviction from Section 324 rightly altered the by recording cogent - Probation of Offenders Act, appropriately applied in the circumstances of this reasons, it failed to consider 1958, which could case. or invoke the provisions of the have been 16. Upon examination of the is evident that an for the offence punishable sentence imposed by the 1 error has been committed i St Appellate Court, it sentencing a fine of Rs.5,000/- in Section 323 of the Indian the statutory provision, the maximum fine that under Section 323 of IPC i Penal Code. As can be imposed for an offence - IS Rs.1,000/-. Therefore, the sentence of fine Appellate Court is contrary to law and per imposed by the 1 St warrants modif/cation. Accordingly, the fine Court is liable to be amount imposed on A.1 by the 1 conformity with the statutory limit St Appellate reduced to Rs.1,000/- iin prescribed under Section 323 of IPC. 17. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to set aside the sentence of simple imprisonment of three the offence under Section (03) months imposed for 323 of the IPC by the 1» Appellate Court. This View that imposing a fine of Rs 1 non/ ■ would meet the ends of justice. Court is of the vi 18. In light of the circumstances discussed above and available on record, this Court upon careful concurs with the consideration of the material findings of the r‘ Appellate established the Court to the extent that the prosecution has guilt of Accused No.1 beyond a conviction of the accused for the Section 323 of the Indian Penal of the view that the 1 reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the offence punishable under Code stands justified. However, this Court is Appellate Court erred i St imposing a sentence of simple along with a fine of Rs.5,000/-, which appears case. Given the nature in imprisonment for three months, to be excessive in the facts and cicircumstances of the 8 Of the offence, the age of the accused at the time, the long lapse of time since ^ the incident, and the absence of any subsequent criminal conduct, this Court finds that it is a fit case warranting interference limited to the aspect of the sentence of imprisonment and fine imposed upon Accused No.1. Accordingly, the point is answered. The Criminal Revision Case is allowed in part. While the conviction of the petitioner/Accused No.1, as recorded by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Amalapuram, in Criminal Appeal No.6 of 2008 dated 11.05.2009 is 19. upheld, the substantive sentence of three (03) months simple imprisonment imposed on the petitioner/A.1 for the offence under Section 323 of the IPC is hereby set aside. However, the sentence of fine imposed on Accused No.1 is modified, by reducing the amount from Rs.5,000/- to Rs. 1,000/-. The petitioner/Accused No.1 is directed to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, if not already paid, for the offence under Section 323 of the IPC. In default of payment, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one (1) month. The fine amount so collected shall be paid to the complainant/PW.1 as compensation under section 357 of the Cr.P.C. Any excess fine amount already paid by the petitioner/Accused No.1 shall be refunded to him forthwith. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- V.DIWAKAR DEPUTY REGISTRAR I i //TRUE COPY// S N OFFICER To 1. The II Additional Sessions Judge, Amalapuram, East Godavari District. 2. The Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Razole, East Godavari District. 3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. 4. The Station House Officer, Nagaram Police Station, East Godavari District. 5. One CC to Smt Madhavi Punna (Legal Aid), Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi [OUT] 7. The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi 8. Two CD Copies TK HIGH COURT DATED:16/07/2025 ORDER CRLRC No.786 of 2009 £P 5 21 AUG 2025 m «9, Current Section ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE IN PART