APHC010100052013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION Between: 1. SATHIGALLA JANARDHAN, S/O.PEDDA VENKATAPPA @ PILLAPPA H/O.GANDRAJUPALLI VILLAGE, GANGAVARAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DIST. 1. STATE OF A P REP BY P P HYD, High Court, Hyderabad. Revision filed under Section 397/401 of circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Case, the High Court may be pleased to present this Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Revision Case to this Hon'ble Court agai Judgment of the in CC No.364 of 2008 on the file of the First Class, Palamaner, as confirmed in Crl.A.No.55 of 2012 on the file of the Dist., and Sessions Judge, Chittoor, dt.16th day of August 2013 for the following among other grounds. IA NO: 1 OF 2013(CRLRCMP 2713 OF 2013 Petition under Section 151 CPC in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to dispense with the production of the certified cop No.364 of 2008 on the file of the the interest of Justice. IA NO: 2 OF 2013(CRLRCMP 2733 OF 2013 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1767/2013 SATHIGALLA JANARDHAN, S/O.PEDDA VENKATAPPA @ PILLAPPA H/O.GANDRAJUPALLI VILLAGE, GANGAVARAM MANDAL, ...PETITIONER AND STATE OF A P REP BY P P HYD, High Court, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Case, the High Court may be pleased to present this Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Revision Case to this Hon'ble Court agai Judgment of the in CC No.364 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Palamaner, as confirmed in Crl.A.No.55 of 2012 on the file of the Dist., and Sessions Judge, Chittoor, dt.16th day of August 2013 for the her grounds. IA NO: 1 OF 2013(CRLRCMP 2713 OF 2013 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 production of the certified copy of the Judgment in CC No.364 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Palamaner, in IA NO: 2 OF 2013(CRLRCMP 2733 OF 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3369] EIGHTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO SATHIGALLA JANARDHAN, S/O.PEDDA VENKATAPPA @ PILLAPPA H/O.GANDRAJUPALLI VILLAGE, GANGAVARAM MANDAL, ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT CrPC 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 Grounds of Criminal Revision Case to this Hon'ble Court against the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Palamaner, as confirmed in Crl.A.No.55 of 2012 on the file of the Dist., and Sessions Judge, Chittoor, dt.16th day of August 2013 for the praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to y of the Judgment in CC First Class Magistrate, Palamaner, in 2 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 sentenced passed in C.C.No.364 of 2008 on the file of the J.F.C.M., Palamaner, as confirmed in Crl.A.No.55 of 2012 on the file of the District & Sessions Judge, at Chittoor, dt.16.08.2013 and release the petitioner on bail, pending disposal of the Crl.R.C., before this Hon'ble Court. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. D PURNACHANDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following ORDER: 1. The Criminal Revision Case, under Section 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) is filed on behalf of the petitioner/accused assailing the Judgment dated 16.08.2013 passed in Crl.A.No.55 of 2012 on the file of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor (for short, ‘1st Appellate Court’), whereby the 1st Appellate Court dismissed the appeal, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed against the petitioner/accused for the offence under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code,1860 (for short, ‘IPC’) vide Judgment dated 30.01.2012 passed in C.C.No.364 of 2008 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Palamaner (for short, ‘the Trial Court’). 2. The parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed in C.C.No.364 of 2008. 3. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that: The accused developed an illicit relationship with P. Nagamma, the wife of LW.1 (P. Subramanyam). Upon knowing the affair, LW.1 confronted and reprimanded both his wife and the accused. Subsequently, the accused eloped with P. Nagamma, abandoning her young children. In response, village elders intervened and summoned both the accused and P.Nagamma. They admonished the 3 couple and advised Nagamma to reconcile and live amicably with her husband, LW.1. This intervention allegedly caused the accused to harbour a grudge against LW.1. Acting on this animosity, on 29.09.2008 at approximately 9:30 AM, the accused assaulted LW.1 with a stick at the tea stall-cum-provision store of LW.4 (Gattappa) located in S.C. Colony, Gandrajupalli, Ganga Varam Mandal. As a result, LW.1 sustained bleeding injuries to his head and right hand. Based on the medical intimation and the statement of the victim (LW.1), a case in Cr.No.117 of 2008 was registered for an offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC. During the course of the investigation, the Investigating Officer examined and recorded the statements of witnesses LWs.1 to 5. The accused was arrested on 04.10.2008 and remanded to judicial custody, and after completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the IPC. 4. The Trial Court took cognizance against the accused under Section 324 of the IPC. On the appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C. 5. The accused was examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C., and he denied the commission of the offence. A charge under Section 324 of IPC against the accused was framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. During the course of the trial, on behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 6 were examined and Exs.P1 to P5 were marked. After the closure of the evidence of prosecution, the accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. concerning the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence let in by the prosecution, for which he denied the same, and he stated that he had no defence witnesses on his behalf. 4 7. The trial Court on hearing both sides and on considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, found the accused guilty for the offence under Section 324 of IPC and he was convicted and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for six months and also sentence to pay fine of Rs.5000/-, in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for two months for the offence under Section 324 of IPC vide its Judgment, dated 30.01.2012 in C.C.No.364 of 2008. 8. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.55 of 2012 before the 1st Appellate Court. However, the 1st Appellate Court, upon consideration, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the Judgment of conviction and sentence imposed on the accused by the Trial Court. Still dissatisfied, the appellant/accused has now filed the present Criminal Revision Case, challenging the Judgment rendered by the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No.364 of 2008. 9. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K. Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Respondent / State and perused the record. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court erred in convicting the petitioner under Section 324 IPC; the essential ingredients constituting the offence have not been established by any legal or reliable evidence; both courts wrongly relied upon the highly interested and contradictory testimonies of the prosecution witnesses (PWs.1 to 4); PW.1 had a clear motive to falsely implicate the accused, having developed a grudge against him on the ground that the accused was alleged to have an illicit intimacy with PW.1’s wife; both courts ought to have considered that the non-examination of the PW.1’s wife is fatal to the prosecution’s case; the prosecution witnesses have allegedly embellished their versions at various stages with the intent to falsely implicate 5 the accused; the medical evidence contradicts the prosecution’s version, and the delay in lodging the FIR has not been satisfactorily explained. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the Judgment in Criminal Appeal No.55 of 2012 to demonstrate that the accused has paid the fine amount of Rs.5,000/-. Learned counsel further submits that both courts failed to appreciate the evidence on record properly and overlooked the fact that the prosecution did not produce the stick alleged to have been used by the accused in the commission of the offence; the prosecution’s case is riddled with discrepancies, contradictions, and improbabilities. 12. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State has, while supporting the impugned judgments of conviction and sentence passed by both Courts, submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts, by letting in valid and cogent evidence and that though the prosecution witnesses are interested witness, their evidence is sufficient to base conviction on the revision petitioner / accused for the offence under section 324 of IPC and that therefore, the impugned judgments of conviction and sentence do not warrant any inference by this Court. 13. Now, the point that arises for consideration is: (I) Whether the conviction recorded against the accused under Section 324 of the IPC, as affirmed by the 1st Appellate Court, upholding the Judgment of the Trial Court, is sustainable in law? (II) Whether the sentence passed by the 1st Appellate Court warrants any interference? POINTS Nos.I AND II: 14. It is settled law as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra V. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Sing Anand1, that “in exercise of revisional powers, this Court need not undertaken in-depth and minutest 1 (2004) 7 SCC 659 6 reexamination of entire evidence, when there is no error in the findings arrived by the Trial Court as well 1st Appellate Court”. 15. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor placed reliance on the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Manju Ram Kalita V. State of Assam2, wherein it was held that: “ 9. ....if the courts below have recorded the finding of fact, the question of re- appreciation of evidence by the third Court does not arise unless it is found to be totally perverse. The higher Court does not sit as a regular court of appeal. Its function is to ensure that law is being properly administered. Such a court cannot embark upon fruitless task of determining the issues by reappreciating the evidence. 10. This Court would not ordinarily interfere with the concurrent findings on pure questions of fact and review the evidence again unless there are exceptional circumstances justifying the departure from the normal practice. 8. ….The position may undoubtedly be different if interference is one of law from [the] facts admitted and proved or where the finding of fact is materially affected by violation of any rule of law or procedure.” 16. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further submits that the aforesaid view was further reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Malkeet Singh Gill V. The State of Chattisgarh3, thus: “8. ….The High Court in criminal revision against conviction is not supposed to exercise the jurisdiction alike to the appellate Court and the scope of interference in revision is extremely narrow. Section 397 of Criminal Procedure Code (in short ‘CrPC’) vests jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court. The object of the provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be wellfounded error which is to be determined on the merits of individual case. It is also well settled that while considering the same, the revisional Court does not dwell at length upon the facts and evidence of the case to reverse those findings.” 17. As evident from the Judgment in C.C.No.364 of 2008, dated 30.01.2012, the Trial Court convicted the accused under Section 324 IPC and sentenced him to six months' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000/-, with a default 2 (2009) 13 SCC 330 3 AIR 2022 SC 3283 7 sentence of one month's imprisonment. Aggrieved by this, the accused filed Criminal Appeal No.55 of 2012. By Judgment dated 16.08.2013, the 1st Appellate Court dismissed the appeal, thereby confirming the conviction and sentence under Section 324 IPC imposed by the Trial Court. 18. To appreciate the submissions made on behalf of both sides, I have gone through the evidence on record. 19. PW.1 (P.Subramanyam), the victim, categorically testified regarding the incident that at about 9:30 AM, while he was present at the tea stall of Gattappa in Gandrajupalle village and talking with T. Gangappa (PW.3), the accused came and beat him with a stick on his right hand and head, causing injuries. PW.3 and PW.4 (M.Venkatesu) were present at the time and witnessed the incident. 20. PW.3 supported the version of PW.1 and testified that about three years before the date of giving evidence, while he, along with Gattappa and PW.4, were sitting at the tea stall of Gattappa, PW.1 came and requested payment of a due amount; while they were talking, the accused came from behind and beat PW.1 on the head and wrist with a stick; as a result, PW.1 fell unconscious and was subsequently taken to the hospital in a 108 ambulance. 21. PW.4, supporting the prosecution’s case, testified that the accused came from behind PW.1 and beat him on his head and wrist, causing bleeding injuries. However, as seen from the record, PW.4 did not specifically mention the weapon allegedly used by the accused in the commission of the offence. PW.2, who is the brother of PW.1, is not an eyewitness to the incident and, therefore, his evidence is not helpful in determining the guilt of the accused. 22. The prosecution examined PW.5, Showkath Ali, Medical Officer, who examined PW.1 and found the following injuries: (i) an lacerated wound of size 1 x 4 cm over the frontal area, (ii) a lacerated wound of size 1 x 1 x 1 cm over the right palm, (iii) an abrasion of 15 cm x 1 cm on right forearm, and (iv) an 8 abrasion of 3 x 1 cm on the right thigh. He issued Ex.P2 wound certificate, and opined that the injuries were simple in nature, stating that such injuries could possibly be sustained if a person fell on a hard surface. The evidence of PWs.1, 3 and 4 is consistent regarding the accused causing injuries to PW.1. 23. PW.6, A. Nagaraju, Investigating Officer, testified that based on the PW.1’s statement, he registered a case in Cr.No.117 of 2008 for the offence under Section 324 of IPC vide Ex.P4; he visited and observed the scene of offence and prepared Ex.P.5 rough sketch; on 04.10.2008, he arrested the accused and sent him for remand. Nothing was elicited during his cross- examination to discredit his evidence. 24. Both the Trial Court and the 1st Appellate court have independently evaluated the evidence of PWs.1, 3 to 5 and have recorded concurrent findings affirming their reliability concerning the incident and accepted their evidence that the accused beat PW.1 with a stick and caused injuries as shown in the Ex.P.2 wound certificate. 25. Importantly, no material has been brought on record to suggest that the PWs.3 and 4 bore any animosity toward the accused or had any vested interest in falsely implicating him. There are no allegations of enmity, bias, or undue influence which could taint their credibility or render their testimonies unreliable. The naturalness of their testimonies, coupled with the absence of contradiction or exaggeration, reinforces the view that their statements are genuine and voluntary. Their testimonies are in substantial harmony with that of PW.1, and collectively form a cogent and credible chain of evidence pointing to the accused's involvement in the offence. This Court is of the view that the testimonies of PWs.1, 3 to 5 are truthful and trustworthy. Furthermore, the version of PW.1 is supported by medical evidence as referred to above. 26. These findings are neither perverse nor based on conjecture and are supported by the record. In the absence of any compelling reason to disbelieve these assessments, this Court finds no justifiable grounds to take a 9 contrary view regarding the credibility of the said witnesses, i.e., PWs.1, 3 to 5. Accordingly, their testimony is accepted as credible. 27. It is well settled that, in the absence of perversity or manifest error, a revision court is not expected to interfere with concurrent findings of fact by the courts below. In the present case, there is no material on record to question the credibility of PWs.1, 3 to 5 or to disbelieve the contents of Ex.P.1 to P.6. 28. However, as evident from the record, the investigating officer did not seize the stick purportedly used by the accused in the commission of the offence. PWs.1, 3, and 4 have not testified regarding the size, measurements, and dimensions of the alleged weapon to categorize it as a dangerous weapon. Despite this, both Courts convicted the accused for the offence under Section 324 of the IPC without adequately considering this aspect. There is no substantive evidence on record to establish that the stick alleged to be used by the accused qualifies as a deadly weapon within the meaning of the law. Therefore, this Court holds that the offence is established under Section 323 IPC, rather than Section 324 IPC. 29. As far as the scope of power of this Court while exercising revisionary jurisdiction under Section 397 of Cr.P.C., is concerned, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Krishnan and another V. Krishnaveni and another4, has held that in case Court notices that there is a failure of justice or misuse of judicial mechanism or procedure, sentence or order is not correct, it is salutary duty of the High Court to prevent the abuse of the process or miscarriage of justice or to correct irregularities/incorrectness committed by inferior criminal Court in its judicial process or illegality or sentence or order. The relevant para of the Judgment is reproduced as under: "8. The object of Section 483 and the purpose behind conferring the revisional power under Section 397 read with Section 401, upon the High 4 (1997) 4 Supreme Court Case 241 10 Court is to invest continuous supervisory jurisdiction so as to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct irregularity of the procedure or to mete out justice. In addition, the inherent power of the High Court is preserved by Section 482. The power of the High Court, therefore, is very wide. However, the High Court must exercise such power sparingly and cautiously when the Sessions Judge has simultaneously exercised revisional power under Section 397(1). However, when the High Court notices that there has been failure of justice or misuse of judicial mechanism or procedure, sentence or order is not correct, it is but the salutary duty of the High Court to prevent the abuse of the process or miscarriage of justice or to correct irregularities/incorrectness committed by inferior criminal Court in its judicial process or illegality of sentence or order." 30. In light of the observations made in the preceding paragraphs, this Court views that the accused can be convicted under Section 323 of the IPC, which is a cognate and lesser offence to that under Section 324 of the IPC, even in the absence of a specific charge, pursuant to Section 222(2) of the Cr.P.C. Both the Trial Court and the 1st Appellate Court erred in convicting the accused under Section 324 of the IPC instead of Section 323 of the IPC. Accordingly, the conviction of the accused under Section 324 of the IPC is hereby modified to one under Section 323 of the IPC. 31. As evident from the record, the offence occurred on 29.09.2008, nearly 17 years ago, at which time the accused was approximately 32 years old. In light of the circumstances discussed above, and upon a careful evaluation of the material available on record, there is nothing to indicate that the accused has any prior criminal antecedents. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and in the interest of justice, it is deemed appropriate to refrain from imposing a sentence of imprisonment. Instead, the ends of justice would be adequately met by directing that the fine amount already paid by the accused be awarded to PW.1 as compensation. Accordingly, the points are answered. 32. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed in part. The conviction and sentence under Section 324 of the IPC, upheld by the District 11 and Sessions Judge, Chittoor, in Crl.A.No.55 of 2012 dated 16.08.2013, affirming the Judgment dated 30.01.2012 in C.C.No.364 of 2008 by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Palamaner, is hereby set aside. However, the accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 323 IPC. Considering that nearly seventeen years have elapsed since the date of the offence, and in light of the circumstances stated hereinabove, this Court deems it appropriate not to impose a sentence of imprisonment. Instead, in the interest of justice, the accused is directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the victim (PW.1). As the accused has already deposited a fine amount of Rs.5,000/-, the said amount shall be treated as compensation and disbursed to PW.1 under Section 357(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, upon due verification of identity. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand discharged. Interim orders granted, if any, shall stand vacated, and the miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________ JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO Date:18.09.2025 SAK 12 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1767 of 2013 Date: 18.09.2025 SAK