APHC010727972011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Between: 1. ERIKALA CHALAPATHI, ANANTAPUR, S/O. LINGANNA N/O. BANDLAPALLI PAPPUR VILLAGE, NARPALA MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. NOW R/O. D.NO. 28 1. STATE OF A P REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT Rept. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad. 2. Shivamma, W/o M. Nagappa, R/o D.No.3 Mukthapuram, Ananthapur. 3. Sake Parvathi, W/o Sake Chalapathi, R/o. D.No.28 Colony, Second Cross, Anantapur. (Respondents 2 and 3 have been added as parties in accordance with the orders passed in I.A.No.1 of 2025) Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Case, the High Court may be pleased to present this memorandum of Crl.R.C., aggrieved by the judgment dated 15 of 2009 on the file of the Special Addl. Sessions Judge, Anantapur sentences passed by the Prl. Assistant Sessio S.C.No.547 of 2008 dated 18 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 91/2011 ERIKALA CHALAPATHI, ANANTAPUR, S/O. LINGANNA N/O. BANDLAPALLI PAPPUR VILLAGE, NARPALA MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. NOW R/O. D.NO. 28-2-570, NAVODAYA COLONY, ...PETITIONER AND STATE OF A P REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT Rept. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad. Shivamma, W/o M. Nagappa, R/o D.No.3-144, Nalla Cherlo Palli, Mukthapuram, Ananthapur. 3. Sake Parvathi, W/o Sake Chalapathi, R/o. D.No.28-2-578, Navodaya Colony, Second Cross, Anantapur. ondents 2 and 3 have been added as parties in accordance with the orders passed in I.A.No.1 of 2025) ...RESPONDENT Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Case, the High Court may be pleased to present this memorandum of aggrieved by the judgment dated 15-11-2010 made in Crl.A.No.120 Special Sessions Judge for S.Cs & S.Ts cases cum Addl. Sessions Judge, Anantapur confirming the judgment conviction and sentences passed by the Prl. Assistant Sessions Judge, Ananatapur in d 18-10-2009. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3369] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO ERIKALA CHALAPATHI, ANANTAPUR, S/O. LINGANNA N/O. BANDLAPALLI PAPPUR VILLAGE, NARPALA MANDAL, ANANTAPUR 570, NAVODAYA COLONY, ...PETITIONER STATE OF A P REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT HYD, 144, Nalla Cherlo Palli, 578, Navodaya ondents 2 and 3 have been added as parties in accordance with ...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 2010 made in Crl.A.No.120 Sessions Judge for S.Cs & S.Ts cases cum confirming the judgment conviction and ns Judge, Ananatapur in 2 IA NO: 1 OF 2011(CRLRCMP 130 OF 2011 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 the filing of the certified copy of judgment in S.C.No.547 of 2008, dated 08-10-2009 of Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Anantapur in the above CRl.R.C., in the interest of justice. IA NO: 2 OF 2011(CRLRCMP 139 OF 2011 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 execution of sentences passed by the Principal Asst. Sessions Judge, Anantapur dt.08/10/2009 in S.C.No.547 of 2008 as confirmed by the Special Sessions Judge for Trial of SCs & STs cases-cum-Additional Sessions Judge, Ananthapur dt.15/11/2010 in CRL.A.No.120 of 2009 and release the petitioner on bail, pending the above 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 may be pleased to implead the proposed respondents as Respondents No.2 & 3 in CrI.R.C.No.91 of 2011 of this Hon'ble Court and 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 ORDER: 1. The Criminal Revision Case, under Section 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) is filed on behalf of the petitioner/accused assailing the judgment dated 15.11.2010 passed in Crl.A.No.120 of 2009 on the file of the learned Special Sessions Judge for Trial of SCs and STs cases – cum – Additional Sessions Judge, Anantapur 3 (for short, ‘1st Appellate Court’), whereby the 1st Appellate Court dismissed the appeal, by confirming the conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant/accused for the offences punishable under Section 326 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’) vide judgment dated 08.10.2009 passed in S.C.No.547 of 2008 on the file of the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Anantapur (for short, ‘the Trial Court’). 2. The parties to this Criminal Revision Case will hereinafter be referred to as described before the Trial Court for the sake of convenience. 3. The prosecution's case, in brief, is that the de facto complainant, Sivamma, is the mother of LW.2, Parvathi, and the mother-in-law of the accused, who married Parvathi approximately five years prior. Due to marital disputes, frequent quarrels arose, leading to two cases (Cr. Nos. 233 and 234 of 2003, I Town P.S.) under Section 324 read with Section 34 of the IPC. Cr. No. 233/2003 was compromised before the Lok Adalat, while in Cr. No. 234/2003, the accused and others were convicted in C.C. No. 576/2005 and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-.Later, Parvathi resumed cohabitation with the accused. However, he kept a mistress, Ratnamma, in Muthyalamma Colony and resided with her. Two months before the incident, he beat and drove Parvathi away, after which she began living with her mother. Bearing a grudge against both women, on 12.05.2008 at about 8:30 p.m., the accused, armed with a sickle, went to Sivamma's house demanding his wife be sent to him. When questioned about the weapon, he threatened to kill Sivamma and struck her head. She raised her hand to block the blow, resulting in her left thumb being severed and causing bleeding. He then struck her left shoulder, inflicting another bleeding injury.LWs. 2 to 4 arrived, prompting the accused to flee. The injured person was taken to the Government Hospital, Anantapur, where her statement was recorded, and a case was registered in Cr.No.126 of 2008 under Sections 326 and 307 of the IPC. After the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the accused. 4 4. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Anantapur, took cognizance of the charge sheet in P.R.C.No.100 of 2008 for offences under Sections 326 and 307 IPC. Following the procedure under law, the Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Anantapur, under Section 209(a) Cr.P.C. The Sessions Judge took it on file as S.C. No. 547 of 2008 and transferred it to the Trial Court for disposal. Upon the accused’s appearance, he was examined under Section 228(1)(b) Cr.P.C. and pleaded not guilty. After hearing both sides, the Trial Court framed a charge under Section 307 IPC, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, which he denied, claiming trial. 5. During the course of the trial, on behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 9 were examined, and Exs.P1 to P11, Exs.D1 and D2 and MO.1 were marked. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., concerning the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution's evidence, for which he denied, reported no defence witnesses and pleaded not guilty. 6. The Trial Court on hearing both sides and on considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, found the accused guilty of the offence as stated supra vide its judgment, dated 08.10.2009 in S.C.No.547 of 2008 and convicted the petitioner/accused and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for three (03) years for the offence under Section 326 of IPC and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for two months. 7. Felt aggrieved by the aforesaid conviction and sentence, the unsuccessful accused filed Criminal Appeal No.120 of 2009 before the 1st Appellate Court, and the 1st Appellate Court dismissed the Criminal Appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed against the accused. Felt aggrieved by the same, the unsuccessful appellant filed the present Criminal 5 Revision Case, challenging the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No.120 of 2009. 8. During the pendency of the revision proceedings, learned counsel for the petitioner/defacto complainant filed I.A.No.1 of 2025 seeking to implead the defacto complainant and her daughter (PWs.1 and 2) as respondent Nos.2 and 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor expressed no objection to such impleadment in Crl.R.C.No.91 of 2011. 9. The Supreme Court in the case of Kirshnan v. Kirshnaveni and Another1, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that: "the object of Section 483 and the purpose behind conferring the regional power under Section 397 read with Section 401, upon the High Court is to invest continuous supervisory jurisdiction so as to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct irregularity of the procedure or to meet out justice. In addition, the inherent power of the High Court is preserved by Section 482. The power of the High Court, therefore, is very wide. However, High Court must exercise such power sparingly and cautiously when the Sessions Judge has simultaneously exercised revisional power under Section 397 (1 ). However, when the High Court notices that there has been failure of justice or misuse of judicial mechanism or procedure, sentence or order is not correct, it is but the salutary duty of the High Court to prevent the abuse of the process or miscarriage of justice or to correct irregularities/incorrectness committed by inferior Criminal Court in its judicial process or illegality of sentence or order. " 10. In exercise of the revisional jurisdiction, this Court has to see whether the finding recorded by the both Courts suffers from any legality, propriety, regularity or it was recorded as against the provisions of law or established principles of law or in violation of principles of natural justice. In such an event, this Court is required to intervene. 11997 (1) Recent C. R. 724 6 11. Although under Section 397 Cr.P.C., the Court is not expected to reappraise the evidence like an Appellate Court, it can refer to the evidence adduced to determine whether the judgment suffers from any legal flaw. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the de facto complainant/victim (PW.1) is the mother-in-law of the accused, PW.2 is his wife, and PW.3 is his father-in-law. It is stated that the accused and PWs.1 to 3 are closely related, and during the pendency of the present revision, the matter has been amicably settled between PW.1 (the victim) and the accused. It is further submitted that, three years after the incident, the accused and PW.2 have been cohabiting as husband and wife. It is also brought to the Court's notice that the wife and mother-in-law of the accused have appeared before this Court today and have expressed their willingness to compound the offence by filing appropriate applications. The record reflects that, pursuant to a Non-Bailable Warrant issued by this Court, the accused was remanded to judicial custody and is currently lodged in Central Prison, Kadapa. Due to his incarceration, it has not been possible to obtain his signature on the compounding petition, resulting in the Registry’s objection to the numbering of the petition for want of the accused’s signature. Upon enquiry, PW.1 confirmed that the accused is her son-in-law, that he has been taking care of her, and she has accordingly requested the Court to permit compounding of the offence. 13. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State opposed the compounding of the offence, submitting that an offence under Section 326 IPC is not compoundable. In contrast, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the ingredients of Section 326 IPC are not attracted in the present case. However, since the accused stands convicted under Section 326 IPC, this Court holds that the offence cannot be compounded for two reasons: (i) the accused has not been produced before the Court, and (ii) the compromise petition does not bear his signature. Notwithstanding this, the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused requested that the revision be 7 disposed of on its merits. In light of the submissions from both parties, this Court is inclined to decide the matter on the merits. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the de facto complainant/victim (PW.1) did not fully support the prosecution’s case, and that the interested testimonies of PWs.1 to 3 lack corroboration from any independent evidence. 15. As evident from the record, the prosecution examined mediators PW.4 (R. Chandra Sekhar) and PW.5 (Boya Seena) to establish that the accused made a confessional statement in their presence, stating that he had kept the sickle used in the commission of the offence in front of his house. However, the evidence of PWs.4 and 5 demonstrates that they did not support the prosecution regarding the seizure of the weapon and were subsequently declared hostile witnesses. In the absence of corroborative evidence from PWs.4 and 5, the Trial Court ought not to have relied solely on the investigating officer's testimony to prove the seizure of the sickle. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused further contends that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused used the sickle (MO.1) to cause grievous hurt to PW.1. Reliance is placed on PW.1’s testimony, wherein she stated that the accused did not use the sickle (M.O.1) produced in this case to inflict injury upon her, and that the weapon shown to her was not the one actually used. She further testified that the said weapon was thrown into her house after the incident, following which the accused left the scene. In light of PW.1’s testimony, coupled with the testimonies of PWs.4 and 5, this Court finds that the prosecution has failed to establish that M.O.1 (sickle) was used in the commission of the offence. 17. On the other hand, PW.1’s testimony reveals that her elder daughter is a constable at Anantapuram, where the accused also resides. PW.2 testified that the accused came to her house and that there were disputes between her brother-in-law, Sriramulu, and the accused; Sriramulu, also a constable, was 8 on no talking terms with the accused. PW.7’s evidence confirms that PW.1 sustained a grievous injury, as supported by Ex.P7, the wound certificate issued by him. The testimonies of PWs.1 to 3, corroborated by PW.7, establish that PW.1 suffered a grievous injury. However, although the prosecution alleged that the accused used M.O.1 (sickle), PW.1’s testimony casts doubt on the use of that weapon. Since the prosecution has failed to prove that M.O.1 was used by the accused, a reasonable doubt arises as to its involvement in the commission of the offence. 18. In light of the facts of this case, this Court entertains doubt as to whether M.O.1 was used by the accused. Nevertheless, despite PW.1’s cross- examination and the evidence of PWs.4 and 5, the Trial Court accepted the prosecution’s version that M.O.1 was the weapon used by the accused in the commission of the offence. Under these circumstances, the prosecution has failed to prove that M.O.1 was the weapon employed in the offence. Given the discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses regarding the weapon allegedly used by the accused, and as already noted, PW.1’s testimony raises a reasonable doubt in the Court’s mind about the use of the M.O.1 sickle in the commission of the offence. However, the prosecution has successfully established that the accused voluntarily caused grievous hurt. 19. Upon careful analysis of both the oral and documentary evidence, it is evident that the appreciation thereof by the Trial Court as well as the 1st Appellate Court, regarding the involvement of M.O.1 in the commission of the offence, is unreasonable and not supported by the evidence. Consequently, the impugned judgments are liable to be interfered with insofar as the findings of both Courts that the prosecution proved the commission of the offence under Section 326 of the IPC. 20. In light of the observations made in the preceding paragraphs, this Court views that the accused can be convicted under Section 325 of the IPC, which is a cognate and lesser offence to that under Section 326 of the IPC, 9 even in the absence of a specific charge, pursuant to Section 222(2) of the Cr.P.C. Both the Trial Court and the 1st Appellate Court erred in convicting the accused under Section 326 of the IPC instead of Section 325 of the IPC. Accordingly, the conviction of the accused under Section 326 of the IPC is hereby modified to one under Section 325 of the IPC. 21. The Trial Court's judgment records that the accused remained in custody from 20.05.2008 to 23.06.2008, totaling 35 days. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused has been in judicial custody due to the execution of NBW. Considering the nature of the injuries sustained by PW.1, the amicable settlement between the parties, PW.1's statement that the accused has since been attending to her welfare, continued cohabitation between PW.2 and accused without disputes subsequent to the incident, the age of the accused (30 years at the time of the offence), and the lapse of 17 years since the incident, this Court is inclined to adopt a lenient approach in sentencing under Section 325 of the IPC, which would also serve the ends of justice. Accordingly, the accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The imposition of a fine of Rs.500/- by the 1st Appellate Court, affirming the Trial Court's order, is upheld. However, in default of payment of the fine, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month instead of two months. Thus, the criminal revision case is liable to be decided accordingly. 22. The Criminal Revision Case is allowed in part. The conviction and sentence under Section 326 IPC, as recorded by the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Anantapur in S.C.No.547 of 2008, dated 08.10.2009, and affirmed by the learned Special Sessions Judge for Trial of SCs & STs Cases – cum – Additional Sessions Judge, Anantapur, in Criminal Appeal No. 120 of 2009, dated 15.11.2010, are hereby set aside. However, the accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 325 IPC and is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three (3) months. The period of imprisonment, if any, already undergone by the accused shall be set off 10 against the sentence now imposed, in terms of section 428 of the Cr.P.C. The imposition of a fine by the Trial court, as upheld by the 1st Appellate Court, is maintained. However, by modifying the default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one (1) month instead of two (2) months. The bail bonds executed by the accused shall stand discharged. Consequently, the petitioner/accused shall be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other case or crime. Interim orders, if any, granted earlier shall stand vacated, and all pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J Date: 14.08.2025 S A K 11 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO Criminal Revision Case No.91 of 2011 Date: 14.08.2025 S A K 172