1 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.994 of 2010 Dated 05.02.2025 APHC010528722010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 994/2010 Between: Janipella Balaraju & Another ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State of AP Rep By the Public Prosecutor, High Court ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner(S): K. Gani Reddy Counsel for the Respondent: Public Prosecutor The Court made the following: 2 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.994 of 2010 Dated 05.02.2025 ORDER: The revision was preferred under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘the Cr.P.C.,’) against the judgment dated 06.05.2010 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari District at Rajahmundry in Criminal Appeal No.197 of 2009, where under the appeal was partly allowed reducing the sentence from rigorous imprisonment for one year to simple imprisonment for three months while enhancing the payment of fine from Rs.500 to Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) against the judgment passed by the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ramachandrapuram. 2. The revisionist No.2 Janipella Kanthamma died on 14.07.2001 and accordingly the case against her was abated. 3. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 4. Sri K. Gani Reddy, the learned counsel for the revisionists submits that learned Appellate Court and the Trial Court had placed much reliance on the evidence of interested witnesses and arrived at wrong conclusions; the conviction was passed on the presumptions and assumptions which are against law; as the revisionist was neighbour to accused No.1, he was dragged into the case with false allegations; there was ambiguity in the narrations of the prosecution witnesses; the persecution could not examine any independent witnesses and there were several self-contradictions in the depositions of the witnesses of the prosecution; all the witnesses in the case 3 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.994 of 2010 Dated 05.02.2025 are planted to suit the false allegations of PW.1; the learned Trial Court had, instead of disbelieving the evidence of the interested witnesses, given much weight to those versions in utter violations of the evidence available on record; the learned Appellate Court ought to have seen that there was no evidence to support the case of the prosecution and acquitted the petitioners. Hence, it was urged to allow the Revision. 5. Per contra, Mr. Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that the evidence of material witnesses corroborated with each other and is consistent; wound certificates disclosed that PW.1 and PW.2 suffered injuries in the hands of the accused; the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts and that is the reason why the learned Trial Court rightly convicted and sentenced the accused; the learned Appellate Court also confirmed the same and thus, prayed to dismiss the revision petition as there are no grounds warranting any interference since there was no material irregularity concerning the procedure and misreading of the evidence. 6. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further submitted that as can be seen from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, their evidence is corroborating and inspiring the confidence to sustain conviction since the oral evidence and documentary evidence are supporting the case of the prosecution; the learned Trial Court and also the Appellate Court had rightly appraised the facts of the case and came to correct conclusion; there was no concrete material to disbelieve the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and 4 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.994 of 2010 Dated 05.02.2025 nothing significant was elicited from the direct and injured witnesses to spurn their evidence. 7. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced. I have perused the material on record. 8. Now the point for consideration is, whether the judgment in Crl.A.No.197 of 2009 dated 06.05.2010, passed by the learned First Additional District and Sessions Judge, East Godavari District at Rajahmundry, is correct, legal, and proper with respect to its finding, sentence, or judgment, and there are any material irregularities? And to what relief? 9. As can be seen from the record, to prove the case of the prosecution, PW.1, the defacto-complainant, and the victim deposed in clear terms that A3 and A2 had come and fought with his sister, and when PW.1 tried to rescue his sister, A2 the revisionist bit on his right palm and scratched on his neck with nails resulting bleeding injuries. A3 bit the right hand index finger of his sister and PW.2, on 05.09.2006. PW.1 gave report vide Ex.P1 to the police. PW.2 being the elder sister of PW.1, who was also an injured witness, testified corroborating the version of PW.1. Indeed, the testimony of on injured witness is given great weight, as he is the best witness to speak about the incident as laid down in State of UP v. Kishan Chand1. 10. PW.3 mother of PW.1 and PW.2 also supported the version of PW.1 and PW.2 in material particulars. PW.4, who is the direct witness to the occurrence, also supported the case of the prosecution. Even though PW.1 to 1. 2004 (7) SCC 629 5 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.994 of 2010 Dated 05.02.2025 PW.3 are witnesses by relation, PW.4 is an independent witness who supported the case of prosecution. The testimony of related witnesses cannot be discarded merely because of their relationship with the victim or accused as laid down in State of UP v. Nahar Singh2. 11. PW.6 Medical Officer testified that PW.1 and PW.2 sustained injuries and to that effect he issued Ex.P3 and P4 wound certificates. PW.7 the Investigating Officer deposed that on the report of PW.1 under Ex.P1, he had registered F.I.R in Crime No.93 of 2006 for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 323 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘the I.P.C.,’) took up the investigation, visited the scene of offence, prepared a sketch of the scene of offence under Ex.P6, examined the witnesses and recorded their statements under Section 161 of ‘the Cr.P.C.’ On 20.09.2006 PW.7 arrested A1 and A4 and forwarded them to judicial remand. Later, on 05.09.2006 PW.7 secured the presence of PW.6 and PW.4 and recorded their statements and on receipt of wound certificates, later he filed a charge sheet. 12. There is no miscarriage of justice much less a flagrant miscarriage of justice. There was no misreading of the evidence. The findings of the learned Appellate Court and the learned Trial Court are not perverse. They are proper. There was no ambiguity in the narrations of the witnesses of the prosecution. Non-examination of independent witnesses is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. Evidence of even a salutatory witness, if trustworthy and corroborated by medical evidence can be relied on as laid down in Vahula 2. (1998) 3 SCC 561 6 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.994 of 2010 Dated 05.02.2025 Bhushan v. State of Tamil Nadu3. There were no material contradictions or omissions in the evidence of the witnesses to disbelieve the version of the prosecution. The offence occurred on 05.09.2006. A3 /revisionist No.2 died. Nearly, 18 years have elapsed. Although the offence under Section 324 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ is compoundable with the permission of the Court under Section 320 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ and as per the judgment of Ramlal v. State of J&K4, the parties had not evinced any interest in compounding the offence. 13. The right to speedy trial is a fundamental right as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hussainara Khatoon (IV) v. Home Secretary State of Bihar5. This right includes speedy disposal of appeals. In addition to the appeals, the right to a speedy trial also includes criminal revisions as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajdeo Sharma v. State of Bihar6. In the facts and circumstances of the case interest of justice would be sub- served, if the sentence of simple imprisonment of three (3) months imposed by the learned Appellate Court is modified to the sentence already undergone by the petitioner while enhancing the payment of fine of Rs.5,000/- to Rs.10,000/- since Section 324 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ gives discretion to the Court either to impose imprisonment or fine or both. 14. In the result, this Criminal Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction by modifying the sentence to the sentence already undergone by the petitioner No.1/A.2 while enhancing payment of fine from Rs.5,000/- to 3. AIR 1989 SC 236 4. (1999) 2 SCC 213 5. AIR 1979 SC 1360 6. 2000(1)BLJR37 7 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.994 of 2010 Dated 05.02.2025 10,000/- to be payable within two (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In default of payment of the enhanced fine, the revisionist shall undergo simple imprisonment for two (02) months. The record reveals that the revisionist had already paid a fine of Rs.5,000/- at the time of submitting the revision. Therefore, he is directed to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) more to be paid equally to the injured witnesses/PW.2 and PW.3 under Section 357 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ towards compensation. 15. The learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ramachandrapuram is directed to take necessary follow-up steps. 16. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 17. The registry is directed to mark a copy of this order to the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ramachandrapuram. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Dt: 05.02.2025 KMS 8 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.994 of 2010 Dated 05.02.2025 403 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 994/2010 05.02.2024 W KMS