1 APHC010718982015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3560] MONDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 3031/2015 Between: 1. CHODAVARAPU RAMANA, SRKKAKULAM & 2 OTRS.,, S/O. LATE JOGAYYA, AGRICULTURE, R/O. AYYAVARIPETA VILLAGE, BURJA MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. CHODAVARAPU VENKATARAO, S/O. RAMANA, AGRICUTLURE, R/O. AYYAVARIPETA VILLAGE, BURJA MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. GIRADA THAMMINAIDU, S/O. LATE NARAYANASWAMY, AGRICUTLURE, R/O. AYYAVARIPETA VILLAGE, BURJA MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. All are residents of Ayyavaripeta Village, Burja Mandal, Srikakulam District. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF AP REP PP, rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad, for the state of Telangana and the state of AP. through Sub- Inspector of Police, Borja, Srikakulam District. ...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 present this memorandum of criminal revision case aggrieved by the order dated 30-11-2015 passed by the court of 2 the 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Srikakulam in Crl.A.No.93 of 2014 in CC.No.5 of 2013 dated 13-11-2014 on the file of the court of the Junior Civil Judge, Amadalavalasa. IA NO: 1 OF 2015(CRLRCMP 4569 OF 2015 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 the judgment in CC.No.5 of 2013 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Amadalavalasa, Srikakulam District. IA NO: 2 OF 2015(CRLRCMP 4612 OF 2015 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 sentence passed on 30.11.2015 in Crl.A.No.93/2014 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Srikakulam in C.C.no.5/2013 dated 13.11.2014 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Amadalavalasa and enlarge the Revision petition No.2 & 3 on bail pending disposal of the Crl.R.C. and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. TOTA TEJESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 3031/2015 O R D E R: 1. Petitioners are arrayed as Accused No.1 to 3 for a charge under Sections 326, 324, 323 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short I.P.C) in Calendar Case (for short C.C) No.5 of 2023 on the file of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Srikakulam. After the trial, the learned Trial Court has convicted the Petitioners/Accused for an offence punishable under Section 324 of I.P.C., and sentenced Accused No.1 to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) and Accused No.2 and 3 are sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for six (06) months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) each, against which, the Petitioners approached the Appellate Court vide Criminal Appeal (for short Crl.A.) No.93 of 2014, wherein the Appellate Court i.e., the I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Srikakulam, has confirmed the conviction order passed by the learned Trial Court. Hence, the Instant Criminal Revision Case (for short Crl.R.C). 2. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners submit that the impugned Order of Judgment and conviction passed by the learned Trial Court is illegal and improper. The learned Trial Court has not properly gone through the evidences and there is miscarriage of justice. He further submits that the learned Appellate Court has also not properly scanned the evidences and in a slipshod manner 4 confirmed the Order of conviction. He further submits that there are several discrepancies in the prosecution case, thus the conviction is liable to be set aside. 3. Sri Panini Somayaji, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State has cited several paragraphs of the Judgment passed by the learned Trial Court. He pointed out that the learned Trial Court has decided the evidentiary value of prosecution witnesses. The allegation against the present Petitioners has been sufficiently proved for the offence punishable under Section 324 of I.P.C.,. The prosecution has brought home the guilt of the petitioners for that charges beyond all reasonable doubt. He further submits that though the charges are framed under Sections 326, 324, 323 r/w 34 of I.P.C., the learned Trial Court has justifiably came to the opinion that the prosecution has successfully proved the charge under Section 324 of I.P.C., only against the Petitioners. He further submits that the learned Appellate Court has also carefully gone through the evidence on record and dismissed the appeal. 4. Heard the learned Counsel, perused the material on record. 5. In this particular case, it has been alleged that there was enmity between P.W.1-Chodavaram Bhujanga Rao and Accused persons, thereby on 27.07.2012 when P.W.1-Chodavaram Bhuganga asked the accused to attend agricultural work but they failed to attend. When P.W.1-Chodavaram Bhujanga Rao asked the accused about the same, at that time, Accused No.1 to 3 along with others and one Juvenile in Conflict with Law (for short JCL) by name Raju, 5 armed with sticks and stones, attacked and beat P.W.1-Chodavaram Bhujanga Rao and P.W.2-Chodavarapu Chinnappayya, thereby, they sustained severe injuries and admitted in a Hospital for treatment. On the basis of allegations, the prosecution has initiated the Calendar Case for the offence under Sections 326, 324, 323 r/w 34 of I.P.C.,. In the trial, the prosecution has produced as many as 08 (eight) witnesses (P.W.1 to P.W.8) and they have placed documents marked as exhibits (for short Ex.) P.1 to P.5 and also material objects (for short M.Os) i.e., sticks and brick pieces as M.Os.1 to 4 and 5 to 12. 6. Learned Trial Court in deciding the merit of this matter has observed that the Petitioners/Accused No.1 to 3 are found guilt for the offence punishable under Section 324 of I.P.C., however, as Accused No.1 was aged person, at the time of pronouncement of Judgment learned Trial Court has sentenced only fine against Accused No.1. 7. In justifying the instant Crl.R,C., it appears that the learned Trial Court has observed that the present Petitioners have caused injury over the scalp and other portion of the body of P.W.1 and P.W.2 by using sticks and stones. P.W.7 is the Doctor who examined the injured on the day of incident. Though P.W.7 has noted injuries over the scalp of P.W.1 as well as P.W.2, the learned Trial Court is of the opinion that using sticks and stones by Accused No.1 to 3 for causing hurt to P.W.1 and P.W.2 are the dangerous weapons as defined under section 324 of I.P.C.,. Admittedly, the alleged incident was happened at about 7.00 P.M.,. There are no other independent witnesses, except the injured 6 themselves. It has been argued by the Defence Counsel before the Trial Court that all the witnesses are relatives, so their evidence cannot be taken note for recording of conviction. P.W.4 and P.W.5 are the hearsay witnesses. Moreover, the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 – injured, does not specifically state regarding the overt-acts by each accused persons. P.W.6 is the mediator in whose presence the investigating officer has seized the crime weapons i.e., sticks and bricks from the scene. It has been proved before the learned Trial Court that P.W.6 is a relative of P.W.1 and P.W.2. Admittedly, there were other medaitor namely Mamidi Sriramulu in whose presence investigating Officer has seized material objects, but he never deposed as a prosecution witness. Further-more, the observation of learned Trial Court is very clear that though the injured himself could not ascertained which of the accused caused injury to them, the learned Trial Court on the basis of the evidence of injured, has found the Petitioners to be guilty. 8. In the present facts and circumstances of this case, it appears that the sticks and bricks i.e., Material Objects used to cause hurt upon the injured (P.W.1 and P.W.2) is not such a weapon which is likely to cause death of the injured. P.W.7 – Doctor has noted lacerated injury over the scalp of injured/ P.W.1 and also noticed some tenderness over the right shoulder of P.W.2. In my view, the said injuries are not so grievous, which may likely to cause death to the injured (P.W.1 and P.W.2). 7 9. Under the above observation, in my view, the present petitioners who are now aged persons, deserves leniency. 10. Accordingly, the Order of conviction passed by the learned Trial Court and the Appellate Court appears to me not illegal in the eye of Law, but, considering the present facts and circumstances, the present Petitioners being Accused No.1 to 3 deserves leniency. A.1 was directed to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) as already imposed, the other accused persons being Accused No.2 and 3 are also directed to pay a further fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) each instead of undergoing simple imprisonment for six (6) months). Petitioners/Accused persons are directed to pay the fine amount before the learned Trial Court within two (02) weeks from the date of passing of this order. 11. Accordingly, Order of conviction and sentence is modified and Crl.R.C is disposed of. Consequently, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA Dated:08.12.2025. KS. 8 205 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 3031/2015 DATED:08.12.2025. KS