1 APHC010040972014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3560] TUESDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1076 OF 2014 Between: 1. KANAPALA NAGA RAJU @ BULLI GUNDU, GUNTUR DIST, S/O SAMUEL, R/O MADIGAPALLI, KOLLURU VILLAGE & MANDAL GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF A.P. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V ROOPESH KUMAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following Order : The Petitioner was found guilty for an offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC and he was convicted to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. Against the said order of conviction, he approached learned Appellate Court, vide Criminal Appeal No. 421 of 2012. 2 The learned Appellate Court has confirmed the order of conviction by dismissing the Appeal. Hence, the instant Criminal Revision Case. 2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the order of conviction and sentence passed by learned Trial Court is illegal and improper. The evidences placed by the prosecution are not properly scanned by learned Courts below, thereby an erroneous judgment has been recorded. He further argued that the alleged injury does not attract the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC. Accordingly, he prayed to set aside the conviction under Section 307 of IPC. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further argued that the present Petitioner is aged about 40 years. The alleged incident happened in the year 2012, since then the Petitioner is roaming before the Courts below regularly, thus leniency may be observed. 4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the evidence of prosecution which was placed before the learned Trial Court is sufficient and justified to record the conviction. He further argued that the injured and also Doctors were examined and explained the injury sustained by the injured. The weapon and blood stained wearing apparels also seized. The prosecution has sufficiently proved the case against the present Petitioner. Accordingly, the conviction under Section 307 of IPC is maintainable. He further argued that the Appellate Court also scanned the evidences and after scanning, there 3 is no chance to alter the conviction. Accordingly, there is no scope to entertain the Criminal Revision Case. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. Perused the observation of learned Trial Court as well as learned Appellate Court. 6. PW-2 was a witness in a murder case against the present Petitioner. The Petitioner after getting bail from that case attacked the PW-2 through knife. He tried to attack and hack the PW-2 on his neck. PW-2 raised right hand to block. The knife hit the hand of PW-2 and he received bleeding injury to his finger and palm. 7. This being the prosecution case, the prosecution has placed as many as 9 witnesses including the PW-2 as the injured and PWs-7 and 8 are the Doctors. The injury sustained by the injured i.e PW-2 at the palm is in-sized injury. Sharp aged weapons are used to cause such injury as per Doctor’s report. The Police have seized two knives, blood stained lungees, shirts i.e, wearing apparels including the motorcycle through which PW-1 moved from one place to another at the time of attack. The case of the prosecution has justifiably proved the offence against the present Petitioner, but nature of injury as shown is not sufficient to cause death of the PW-2. 8. PW-2 himself as well as PW-1 stated before learned Trial Court the blow of knife by the Petitioner was for killing of the PW-2, but only injury sustained by him in the hand basically in the palm. The blow of such a nature, it has not reached up to bone. 4 9. Considering the entire fact of the prosecution case, the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC regarding attempt to cause death to PW- 2 is not justifiable. Furthermore, it has been proved sufficiently that the Petitioner has used knife to cause grievous hurt to PW-2, thereby PW-2 sustained injury. 10. In my view, the offence committed by the Petitioner punishable under Section 326 of IPC instead of Section 307 of IPC. Considering the same, the punishment as recorded by learned Trial Court as well as confirmed by learned Appellate Court is hereby altered for the offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC. The conviction of 7 years is also hereby modified to conviction of 3 years. The fine amount would be intact. 11. Accordingly, the instant Criminal Revision Case is allowed in terms of altering the sentence from Section 307 to 326 of IPC and also modified the sentence from 7 years rigorous imprisonment to 3 years rigorous imprisonment. 12. Under the above observation, the instant Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. The order of suspension of sentence passed by this Court during pendency of the instant Criminal Revision Case is hereby revoked. The Petitioner is directed to appear before the learned Trial Court within three (03) weeks from the date of passing of this order to serve out the remaining portion of sentence, failing which, learned Trial Court shall issue Non-Bailable arrest Warrant against the present Petitioner to comply the order. Since the 5 Petitioner is not present before this Court, let a copy of this order be served upon the learned Trial Court for ready reference. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________ SUBHENDU SAMANTA, J Date: 23.12.2025 Note: Issue C.C by 24.12.2025 B/o KK 6 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1076 OF 2014 Date: 23.12.2025 Note: Issue C.C by 24.12.2025 B/o KK