APHC010366762009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3560] THURSDAY, THE 17th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 2140/2009 Between: 1. NITLA BABURAO, S/O.VENKATA RATNAM, R/O.GODICHERLA VILLAGE, NAKKAPALLI MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. NITLA CHANTI AND ANOTHER, S/O. VENKATA RATAM, R/O. GODICHERLA VILLAGE, NAKKAPALLI MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P., HYDERABAD. ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 Criminal Revision case against the judgment dt.03.09.2009 passed in Crl.A.No.2/2009 on the file of the VIII Addl. District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Visakhapatnam as modified the judgment passed in C.C.No. 642/2005 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Yelamanchali, dt.30.01.2009 IA NO: 1 OF 2009(CRLRCMP 3013 OF 2009 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 fix an early of the hearing of the above Criminal Revision -2- CRL.R.C. No.2140 OF 2009 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. T S ANIRUDH REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2. ELEVATED AS JUDGE -3- CRL.R.C. No.2140 OF 2009 The Court made the following order: A report is received from Inspector of Police, Nakkapalli Police Station, which shows that the petitioner/de facto complainant as well as 1st respondent/accused being brothers are residing in the same house and there is no quarrel between them at this juncture. 2. None appears on behalf of petitioner and 1st respondent. 3. This matter is pending since 2009. 4. Petitioner being de facto complainant lodged a report to the police thereby a case was registered under Section 326 IPC against 1st respondent. Learned trial Court, after hearing prosecution witnesses, has recorded order of conviction under Section 325 IPC and sentenced 1st respondent to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two years with a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. The said order of conviction and sentence was under challenge before the appellate Court. Learned appellate Court, after taking note of the fact that the de facto complainant and accused are full brothers and the matter of dispute is older one, has altered the order of conviction under Section 325 IPC to Section 323 IPC and instead of imposing and substantive sentence, fine of Rs.1,000/- was imposed for the offence under Section 323 IPC. It was further ordered that if already deposited a fine amount of Rs.5,000/- by -4- CRL.R.C. No.2140 OF 2009 dint of order of learned trial Court, learned trial Court has directed to refund an amount of Rs.4,000/- to the credit of 1st respondent. 5. Against the order of alteration of conviction and sentence, instant criminal revision has been preferred. 6. It has been reported by the police authority that both the petitioner and 1st respondent being full brothers and old aged persons, are residing under the same roof and both are suffering ill-health. 7. The only point raised in the criminal revision is that the learned appellate has not considered the evidence of PW.6, who is a doctor, and Ex.P3 i.e., wound certificate, showing injury was grievous in nature. It is the point before this Court under this revision as to whether the alteration of sentence from Section 325 to Section 323 IPC is erroneous. 8. On careful perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned appellate Court, it appears that learned appellate Court only considered the status of the parties being full brothers, who are residing under the same roof and there are no quarrel between them and passed the order of leniency. 9. Considering the same, I find no justification to interfere with the order of the learned appellate Court, which is not illegal, impropriety and basis of evidence on record, on the prevalent perspectives. -5- CRL.R.C. No.2140 OF 2009 10. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed as devoid of merit. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this criminal revision case shall stand closed. ____________________________ JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA Date : 17.09.2026 SPP -6- CRL.R.C. No.2140 OF 2009 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 2140 of 2009 Dated 17.09.2026 SPP