IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI MONDAY ,THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS C^RIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 879 OF Criminal Revision Case under Section 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C. Judgment made in CRLA.No.57 of 2015 dated 20.11.2015 on the file of the Court of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Srikakulam against the order made in C.C.No.151 of 2012 dated 29.106.2015 the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of 1®* Class, Rajam. against the preferred on the file of Between: 1. Annepu Rama Krishna, S/o. Varaha Narasimhulu, R/o. Kanimetta Village, Ponduru Mandal, Srikakulam District. Aged about 47 years. 2. Annepu Kishore @ Kishore Kumar Bhardwaj, S/o. Rama Krishna, Aged about 21 years, R/o. Kanimetta Village, Ponduru Mandal, Srikakulam District. ...Petitioners/Accused AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, Hyderabad ...Respondent Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI CH. MURALI KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS V ^ - % CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.879 of 2016 ORDER: Assailing the judgment dated 20.11.2015 in Crl.A.No.57 of 2015 on the file of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Srikakulam, which confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the judgment dated 29.06.2015 in C.C. No.151 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajam for the offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "IPC"), the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 have filed the present Criminal Revision Case under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Brief facts of the case are that: 2. On 15.04.2012, at about 1:45 A.M., the defacto 1. complainant, Pedada Kamalamma, along with her son, Pedada Shanmukharao, went to their agricultural fields situated in Kanimetta Village. At that time, the accused were placing survey stones on her land. When she questioned them. Accused No.1 beat her with a stick on her left wrist and left hand. Upon witnessing this, her son questioned the high-handed actions of Accused No.1, who 2 then beat him with his hands and slapped him on the cheeks. Based on the complaint of the defacto complainant, the police registered a case in Crime No.43 of 2012 for the offences under Sections 324 and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and took up investigation. 11. 3. After completion of the investigation, the police laid a charge sheet against the accused persons which was numbered as C.C.No.151 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajam. After a full-fledged trial, the trial court found Accused Nos. 1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence under Section 324 r/w 34 of IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. but and accused Nos.1 and 2 found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 323 r/w 34 of IPC and accordingly they are convicted under Section 248(2) of Cr.P.C,, and sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only) each, and in default of payment of fine amount, they are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of seven (7) days. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 preferred an appeal, vide Crl.A.No.57 of 2015, before the learned Sessions Court and the same was dismissed, vide judgment, dated 20.11.2015 on the file of the learned I Additional are 4. 3 District and Sessions Judge, Srikakulam by confirming the judgment of the trial Court. Heard Sri Ch. Murali Krishna, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 and Ms. P. Akhila Naidu learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the 5. Respondent-State. Learned counsel for the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 6. submits that there is no corroboration of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses i.e., P.Ws.1 to 3 about the presence of Learned counsel for the petitioners/accused further submits that P.Ws.1 to 4 are related witnesses and their P.W.2. testimony cannot be the sole basis for convicting the accused. The evidence of P.W.8 (doctor) who issued Ex.P7 wound 7. certificate of P.W.1 admitted that the P.W.1 did not inform how she sustained injuries. On the other hand, learned counsel Assistant Public 8. Prosecutor submits that the Trial Court after examining the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4, convicted the accused and imposed a fine. There is no need to interfere with the order of the trial Court as there are no grounds for appeal or any pattern of error or irregularity in the way the trial Court or Sessions Court passing conviction by appreciating the evidence on record. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further submits that there is no evidence either directly or indirectly to disbelieve the case of the \ N 4 prosecution and that PW.1 who is a lady when questioning the acts of the accused, the accused No.1 pushed her to the ground, beat her on the left-hand wrist with a stick and also on her left leg. When she raised alarm, the accused No.2 kicked her with his legs on her chest. The evidence of P.W.1 is corroborated with the testimonies of P.Ws.2 and 3 and their evidence is consistent. The evidence of P.W.1 clearly shows that P.W.1 sustained injuries. On perusal of the entire material on record the trial Court came to conclusion that the prosecution had proved the guilt of the accused and imposed a fine which does not require interference and prays to dismiss the appeal. 9. Now the point that arises for determination in this revision is whether there is any manifest error of law or flagrant miscarriage of justice in the findings recorded by the first Appellate Court?” Before deciding the revision, it is keep in mind that revisional jurisdiction under CrPC is limited to correction of jurisdictional errors, legal infirmities, or perversity in findings. When both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court have recorded concurrent findings of fact, the revisional court normally cannot reappreciate the evidence or substitute its own findings. Except interference may be warranted if there is illegality, procedural irregularity, perversity, or miscarriage of justice. 10. in 5 On this point the Hon’ble Apex Court in Vimal Singh v. Khuman Singh\ held “The High Court’s revisional jurisdiction is restricted and cannot be invoked merely for a different vie\A/ on facts, unless the findings are shown to be perverse or based on no evidence, interference in revision is not called for. 11. 12. POINT: This Court has perused the material available on record, including the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4, P.W.7—Sub-Inspector of Police, and P.W.8—Dr. Ch. Haranadh, who categorically stated that, based on the report given by P.W.1, Crime No.43 of 2012 was registered against the accused. The Trial Court, after appreciating the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4, concluded that the prosecution had established the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 323 read with Section 34 of the IPC, and accordingly imposed a fine. The Trial Court further found that the prosecution had proved that accused Nos.1 and 2 assaulted P.Ws.1 and 2 with sticks and hands, thereby causing simple injuries. The oral testimony of P.Ws.1 and 2, when read in conjunction with the medical evidence marked as Ex.P7, was sufficient for both the trial Court and the Sessions Court to arrive 13. at a conclusion as to the guilt of the accused (1998) 7 see 223 ! \ X 6 14. In the light of the evidence on record and material the legal position, this Court finds no merits to interfere with the facts found by the learned trial Court and the Sessions Court and passing conviction. 15. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Interim orders granted earlier, if any, stand vacated. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. even on Sd/- K TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SE OFFICER To, 1. The I Additional District and Sessions Judge 2. The Judicial Magistrate of 1 recorxis), /: *' 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, 4. One CC to Sri. C H Muraii Krishna 5. The Section Officer, Criminal Section 6. Three CD Copies , Srikakulam (with records) class, Rajam, Srikakulam District. St (with High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] Advocate [OPUC] - High Court of Andhra Pradesh. sree HIGH COURT DATED:10/02/2025 ORDER CRLRC.No.879 of 2016 DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE