1 APHC010346852015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3560] FRIDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1684/2015 Between: 1. SADAM PEDDA YOGAIAH, PRAKASAM DIST. & 2 OTHRS, S/O. NARAYANA, OCC: CULTIVATION, R/O. PADAMARA KASIPURAM VILLAGE, KURICHEDU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DIST. 2. GADDAM VENKATESWARLU,, S/O. LATE NAGAIAH, OCC: CULTIVATION, R/O. PADAMARA KASIPURAM VILLAGE, KURICHEDU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DIST. 3. USULLA VENKATESWARLU, S/O. YALLAIAH, OCC: CULTIVATION, R/O. PADAMARA KASIPURAM VILLAGE, KURICHEDU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DIST. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE TRIPURANTHAKAM P S, through Sub Inspector of Police, Tripuranthakam P.S., rep. by its Public Prosecutor at High court, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. N RAVI PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1684/2015 O R D E R: 1. Petitioners were convicted by the learned Trial Court i.e., Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Markapur in CCNo.337 of 2010 for an offence punishable under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code (for short I.P.C.,) and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two (02) years each and to pay a fine of Rs.300/- (Rupees three hundreds only) each. Against such Order of conviction, the petitioners approached the Appellate Court i.e., VI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Markapur. The Appellate Judge found the Petitioners to be guilty not for the offence punishable under Section 326 of the I.P.C., but for the offence punishable under Section 325 of I.P.C r/w 34 of I.P.C and also modified the sentence to Simple Imprisonment for one (01) month and to pay fine of Rs.300/- (Rupees three hundred only) each. Hence, this Criminal Revision Case (for short Crl.R.C). 2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submit that the evidence of prosecution is not justifiable to record conviction of Petitioners under Section 325 of I.P.C.,. He further submits that the learned Appellate Court has perused the discrepancies and consequently converted the offence from Section 326 of I.P.C., to Section 325 of I.P.C.,. He further submits that the learned Appellate Court on perusing the discrepancies in the evidence must have acquitted the 3 Petitioners. He further submits that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt against the present petitioners for the offence punishable either under Section 326 or 325 of I.P.C., there is a benefit of doubt. Thus, the Petitioners deserve acquittal. 3. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor raised objection and submits that the learned Trial Court has convicted the Petitioners for an offence punishable under Section 326 of I.P.C.,. However, the weapon used in the alleged offence is Brick, it is not an instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, thus, the learned Appellate Court has converted the punishment from Section 326 of I.P.C to Section 325 of I.P.C. He further submits that there are no discrepancies in the Order passed by the learned Appellate Court, so the conviction Order is maintainable. 4. Peculiar fact goes to show that there is an allegation against the present petitioners that they have committed the offence of voluntarily causing grievous hut to the injured – P.W.6. To prove the offence, the prosecution has examined as many as eight (08) witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.8 and exhibited 5 documents - marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5. Surprisingly, no Material Object (M.O) placed on record before the learned Trial Court. The alleged Brick which was used to cause grievous hurt to the injured was also not recovered. 5. The learned Appellate Court has opined that the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.7 is not corroborating the entire facts. P.W.7 is the Doctor who deposed 4 regarding the injuries sustained by the injured (P.W.6), but the Doctor has deposed that such injury may be caused if fallen on hard/rough surface. 6. Placing reliance upon the evidence of prosecution witnesses, let me scan the case of the prosecution regarding causing injury. It has been alleged that on the day of incident, Accused No.1 to 3 went to P.W.6 with an intention to bring him to Gramapanchayath Office. There was scuffling and it was alleged that at that time Accused No.1 to 3 beat him with a Brick and caused injury, thereafter, P.W.6 fell down unconscious. Particularly, to prove the offence, the prosecution has to place the material object i.e., weapon used in the alleged offence. Learned Appellate Court is doubtful regarding size of the material object (brick) whether it is small or big. Prosecution has no explanation on that point. Moreover, facts suggest that after such assault, P.W.6 fell down over rough surface, so, the injury caused on the back side of the head of P.W.6, whether assault through Brick or by falling is also unknown. Doctor has also not clearly deposed regarding cause of injury. 7. Considering the entire aspect, it appears that the learned Appellate Court though have visited the evidence of prosecution and has noted discrepancies, but ordered the conviction of the Petitioners under Section 325 of I.P.C.,. In my view, the learned Appellate Court has committed error by convicting the Petitioners though it is clearly established that there are discrepancies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and no material object or Brick which was used for assault of P.W.6 was not recovered or not placed on 5 record before the Trial Court. Learned Appellate Court should have acquitted the present Petitioners. 8. Considering the entire aspect, in my view, the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the charge against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt. The evidence of prosecution, if conjointly perused along with the evidence of Doctor, it reveals that the injury caused upon the person of P.W.6 is not actually connected the alleged offence against the present Petitioners. 9. Under the above observation, I find the order of conviction recorded by the learned Appellate Court under Section 325 of I.P.C., is also erroneous. The Petitioners deserve to be acquitted. 10. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed. The order of Conviction and sentence passed against the present Petitioners is hereby set aside. Petitioner be set at liberty. The bail bonds of Petitioners, if any, shall stand closed after expiry of six (06) months as per section 437A of Criminal Procedure Code (corresponding Section 481 of BNSS). Consequently, pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA Dated:12.12.2025. KS. 6 65 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1684/2015 DATED:12.12.2025. KS