APHC010364352014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3560] THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1370/2014 Between: 1. TELUGU NAGARAJU, S/O. TELUGU RANGANNA, PEDDA MARRIVEEDU VILLAGE, GONEGANDAL MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF A P, REP., BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT AT HYDERABAD. ...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 against the judgment dt.18.06.2014 passed in Crl.A.No.93 of 2011 passed by the Hon'ble II Addl. Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Adoni, confirming the conviction under Section 326 IPC vide Judgment dt.28.02.2011 passed in CC.No.288 of 2009 passed by the Hon'ble Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Pathikonda. IA NO: 1 OF 2014(CRLRCMP 2144 OF 2014) 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 filing of the certified copy of the Judgment dt.28.02.2011 passed in CC.No.288 of 2009 passed by the Hon'ble Judicial Magistrate of First Class Pathikonda. 2 IA NO: 2 OF 2014(CRLRCMP 2208 OF 2014 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 enlarge the petitioners on bail in CC.No.288/2009 on the file of the court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Pathikonda, pending disposal of the above revision. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. BUTTA VIJAYA BHASKER Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following Order: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1370 OF 2014 ORDER: The petitioner was convicted by the trial Court for an offence punishable under Section 326 IPC wherein the trial Court has convicted the petitioner to suffer imprisonment for a period of one year, which was modified by the learned appellate Court to the imprisonment for five months. Against the order of conviction by the learned Courts below, the instant criminal revision case has been preferred. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was a family dispute between the accused and the petitioner, due to such provocation and heat of temper has caused hurt to PW.1. There was a settlement between the family of PW.1 and the accused person thereby the de facto complainant, who was younger brother of the accused person, submitted a detailed report before the learned appellate Court to take a lenient view for keeping family harmony. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the appellate Court, inspite of receiving such a report from the de facto complainant, which was marked as Ex.X1, again convicted the accused for sentence of five months. He submits that the trial Court has not taken proper view. Thus the order passed by the trial Court is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the instant criminal revision case is pending since 2009. The petitioner/accused person is roaming before the criminal Courts for a long period. Thus, considering the circumstances of the case, the order of conviction may be set aside. 4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor refuted the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the learned trial Court has properly gone through the evidences on record. The alleged offence against the accused person/petitioner has been substantially proved by the evidences. 4 The trial Court, after scanning the evidences, has passed the order of convictiion. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further submits that the offence punishable under Section 326 IPC is not at all compoundable in nature. Thus, though the report has been placed before the learned appellate Court, recording the compromise between the parties, the appellate Court has opted to reduce the sentence. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor also further submits that at this juncture, there is no illegality and impropriety in the findings of the learned trial Court. So, the order of conviction cannot be set aside. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, considering the entire circumstances of the case, I perused the prosecution case as it has been narrated in the judgment of the trial Court as follows:- On 05.05.2009 at about 8.30 p.m., the accused came to the house of the PW.1 and demanded to give his share of land and so saying he beat PW.1 with a stick on his left hand forearm and caused a contusion and dumb injury. The evidence shows that by such attack of the accused, PW.1 got a fractured injury on his left forearm. The learned trial Court, after scanning the evidence on record, has convicted the accused under Section 326 IPC. 7. In plain perusal of the definition of voluntary hurt by dangerous weapons under Section 326 IPC, it has been enumerated that to substantiate an offence under Section 326 IPC, the prosecution must prove that 1) the accused has voluntarily caused grievous hurt to the injured; 2) such grievous injury must be caused by the accused by means of any instrument of shooting, stabbing and 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. 8. In the case of the prosecution, it has been proved that the injured (PW.1) has sustained grievous hurt (fractured injury) by the attack of the 5 accused to left forearm of the injured, which comes under the definition of grievous hurt. In this case, it further appears that the accused has used the instrument to cause grievous hurt upon PW.1 is a stick. Stick is not an instrument for “shooting, stabbing or cutting”. The ingredients of Section 326 IPC substantially requires, the accused must assault PW.1 or cause hurt PW.1 by instrument for “shooting, stabbing and cutting”. The prosecution case has proved the commission of injury to the PW.1 by accused through a stick. Hence, the ingredients of Section 326 IPC have not properly proved in this case. 9. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the weapon used in the instant case is a stick, which may also cause death of any person. 10. Having heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and also perusing the attending facts and circumstances, it has appeared that the accused allegedly blow the stick on the left formarm of PW.1. Thus, the accused/petitioner never had any intension to cause death of PW.1. 11. The learned trial Court as well as the learned appellate Court proceeded to found guilty of the accused for the offence under Section 326 IPC and convicted thereunder, which appears to me not proper under the fact are discussed herein above. In this particular case, the learned Courts below have imposed the sentence without following ingredients under Section 326 IPC. Hence, it appears to me that the order of conviction and sentence against the accused person/petitioner is liable to be setaside. Therefore, the judgment dated 28.02.2011 in Calendar Case No.288 of 2009 of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Pattikonda is hereby set aside and consequently, the judgment dated 18.06.2014 in Criminal Appeal No.93 of 2011 is also hereby set aside. 12. Accordingly, the accused/petitioner is hereby acquitted from this case. 13. The sureties standing in favour of the petitioner are also released. 6 14. On the above observation, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. ____________________________ JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA Date: 13.11.2025 SPP 7 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1370 of 2014 13.11.2025 SPP