1 APHC010204852010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3560] FRIDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 809/2010 Between: 1. MADDALA JAMES,, S/O SUNDARAM, PEDALINGAMPADU VILLAGE, BHEEMADOLE MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP REP BY ITS PP HYD, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., at Hyderabad, through SHO., Bhimadole PS., ...RESPONDENT Revision filed under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C., praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to set-aside the judgment passed in Crl.A.No. 114 of 2008, dt.16-04-2010, on the file of the I Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, West Godavari District at Eluru to the extent, confirming the conviction and sentence in CC.No.758 of 2006, dt.16-04-2008, on the file of the II Addl. J.F.C.M., Eluru, under section 324 of IPC., and to acquit the petitioner / Accused. IA NO: 1 OF 2010(CRLRCMP 1185 OF 2010 Petition under Section 151 C.P.C., praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail by suspending the sentence made in CC.No.758 of 2006, dt.6-04-2008, on the file of the II Addl. J.F.C.M., Eluru, U/s 324 IPC as confirmed in Crl.A.No.114 of 2008, dt.16-04-2010, on the file of the I Addl. Dist. & 2 Sessions Judge, West Godavari District, at Eluru, pending disposal of the above Crl.R.C., Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SARALA NEELAGIRI 2. LEGAL AID Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 809/2010 O R D E R: 1. Petitioner was arrayed as an accused in Calendar Case (for short CC) No.758 of 2006 wherein the charge has been framed against the present Petitioner under Sections 325 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code (for short I.P.C). Trial was conducted before the learned jurisdictional Magistrate i.e., II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Eluru. After such trial, the Petitioner found guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 325 and 324 of I.P.C., and was convicted. Against such Order of conviction, he approached the Appellate Court vide Criminal AppealNo.114 of 2008. After hearing the parties, learned Appellate Court i.e., I Additional District & Sessions Judge, West Godavari District, Eluru, acquitted the Petitioner for the charge under Section 325 of I.P.C, but the Order of conviction for the charge under Section 324 of I.P.C., was not touched. Hence, this Criminal Revision Case (for short Crl.R.C). 2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the charge against the Accused person /Petitioner beyond all reasonable doubt. It has been alleged in the prosecution case that Petitioner has indiscriminately beat P.W.1 with a stout stick, such stout stick was not produced by the prosecution before the Trial Court. Moreover, there are no eyewitnesses to see the alleged incident. On the basis of evidence of P.W.1, the learned Trial Court has convicted the accused under Sections 325 as well as 324 4 of I.P.C.,. He further submits that even if the case of the prosecution has to be believed for the sake of argument, that stout stick cannot be termed as a weapon which can attract Section 324 of I.P.C. This is not the instrument of cutting or stabbing. Thus, the conviction under Section 324 of I.P.C., is also bad in Law. He further submits that the evidence of children of P.W.1 has not supported the prosecution case. Thus, the conviction is illegal. He further submits that the present Petitioner is more than 60 years old, the alleged incident happened in the year 2006. Thus, at this junction, the Petitioner deserves mercy. 3. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor raised objection and submits that the case of the prosecution has been sufficiently proved by the version of P.W.1 as well as other medical evidences, the injury sustained by P.W.1 is grievous in nature. He further submits that though in this case a stout stick was used for assault, but from the nature of injury it would be revealed that the petitioner sustained bleeding injury over her head. He submits that in this particular case the weapon i.e., stout stick used by accused may in anyway cause death to P.W.1. He further submits that the Appellate Court has categorically scanned the evidences on record and acquitted the Petitioner under Section 325 of I.P.C., but, the order of conviction under Section 324 of I.P.C., is maintainable. 4. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties, perused the observation of the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court. 5 5. Learned Trial court in deciding the case of the prosecution is of the view that P.W.1 is the best evidence who deposed regarding the injuries sustained by her. Learned Trial Court has also opined on the basis of medical evidence of P.W.6 – Doctor, that P.W.1 sustained grievous injury. The non- submission of stout stick (weapon) used at the time off assault appears to learned Trial Court as well as learned Appellate Court not fatal for the prosecution case. The learned Appellate Court, however, on scanning the evidences, is of the view that the case against present Petitioner for the charge under Section 325 of I.P.C., cannot be proved, however, he confirmed the Order of conviction under Section 324 of I.P.C.,. To justify the prosecution case, let me set out the provision under Section 324 of IPC.,. “Section 324:- Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means:- Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both”. Section 324 I.P.C., defined the punishment for voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons and means; dangerous weapons or means has been initially discussed under Section 324 of I.P.C., to be any instrument for shooting, stabbing or for cutting, but such section also mention about use of any weapon which is likely to cause death. In the present case, the prosecution has successfully proved that the Petitioner assaulted P.W.1 with a stout stick. The 6 said assault was not committed by sudden anger or heat of action. The weapon i.e. stout stick used for such assault was also not contradicted by the defence before the trial court. No other story has been narrated by the defence before the Trial Court. The entire case of the prosecution as well as the circumstances goes to show that admittedly Petitioner has assaulted P.W.1 with a stout stick. P.W.1 has also sustained injury over her head. Stout stick, if used to strike over the head of a lady, that strike may cause death also. Such a way, the stout stick may be termed as a dangerous weapon as defined under Section 324 of I.P.C. Thus, on scanning the entire evidence and Judgment and Order of conviction passed by the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court, I find no illegality or impropriety in the said Order. 6. Accordingly, the Order of conviction passed by the learned Trial Court, confirmed by the learned Appellate Court as 4 (four) months Rigorous Imprisonment appears to me justified. However, as the present Petitioner is aged more than 60 years, the imprisonment could not be rigorous, but it shall be modified to simple imprisonment. The period of detention undergone by the Petitioner shall be set of according to the Provisions of section 428 of Cr.P.C (corresponding to Section 468 of BNSS). Accordingly, I find no justification to entertain the instant Criminal Revision Case as devoid of merits. 7 The Petitioner is directed to appear before the learned Trial Court within three (3) weeks from the date of this Order, to serve out the remaining portion of sentence, failing which, the trial court shall take necessary steps to comply the Orders. 7. The instant Criminal Revision case is disposed of as modified. Consequently, pending miscellaneous applications, if any shall stand dismissed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA Dated:05.12.2025. KS. 8 190 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 809/2010 DATED:05.12.2025. KS