1 SS,J Crl.R.C.No. 1091 of 2009 Dated 18.09.2026 APHC010334432009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3560] FRIDAY, THE 18th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1091 OF 2009 Between: 1. BANKA INNASAIAH, S/O VEERAIAH, R/O THALLACHERUVU VILLAGE, ATCHAMPET MANDAL, GUNTUR DIST. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF A P, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. D SANGEETHA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 2 SS,J Crl.R.C.No. 1091 of 2009 Dated 18.09.2026 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1091 OF 2009 ORDER: 1. The instant Criminal Revision Case (for short Crl.R.C) has been preferred against the Judgment in Criminal Appeal (Crl.A) No. 1091 of 2009 dated 03.07.2009 passed by the learned X Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Guntur at Narasaraopet, confirming the Judgment of conviction and sentence in S.C.No. 80 of 2008 dated 15.12.2008 passed by the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet. 2. Petitioner was arrayed as an accused before the learned Trial Court for an offence punishable under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Brief facts of the prosecution:- on 14.10.2007 accused in drunken state was abusing the general public in filthy language in front of house of P.W.1- Mariyanna. At that time, P.W.1 prevented accused from his abusing and asked to go to his house, out of which, accused abused Mariyanna, left the place for the time, but developed grudge. Next day, on 15.10.2007 at 6.00 P.M., P.W.1 was chitchatting with P.W.3 and P.W.4 in front of his house, at that time, accused came and voluntarily stabbed on the stomach of P.W.1 by means of a knife, with an intention to kill P.W.1. P.W.1 suffered serious injury and some portion of his 3 SS,J Crl.R.C.No. 1091 of 2009 Dated 18.09.2026 intestine came out, P.W.3, P.W.4 and others admitted him in Community Health Center through 108 Ambulance. After receiving hospital intimation of such incident, police recorded the statement of P.W.1 in the hospital on 17.10.2007. Accused was arrested on the same day in the presence of witness – P.W.6 and P.W.7. Doctor – P.W.8 examined P.W.1 and issued wound certificate. After completion of investigation, P.W.10 – Investigation Officer submitted charge sheet. 4. After recording the evidence of prosecution witnesses, upon considering the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, learned trial Judge found petitioner to be guilty for the offence punishable under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five (05) years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only). 5. Being aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the accused has preferred an appeal before the appellate court (X Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Guntur at Narasaraopet) and the same was dismissed. Hence, the present Criminal Revision Case has been preferred. 6. Submissions of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner: learned counsel for the revision petitioner has raised only two points to challenge the concurrent findings of Courts below. 4 SS,J Crl.R.C.No. 1091 of 2009 Dated 18.09.2026 Firstly, it has been argued that there are contradictions in medical evidence in this case, thus the order of conviction and sentence is not sustainable. Secondly, there was a delay of two days in lodging the F.I.R., (First Information Report) in this case, which was unexplained by the prosecution. Thus, the order of conviction is bad in law. 7. During arguments learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in this case Doctor was examined as P.W.8 who proved the wound certificate issued by him. During evidence when M.O.1 (material object) i.e., knife which was shown to Doctor to be the offending weapon, he stated that the wound which was sustained by P.W.1 is not possible through M.O.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that there is gross contradiction in the evidence of P.W.8. When medical evidence is not sufficient to record the wound sustained by P.W.1 – injured, recording of conviction and sentence against the petitioner is bad in Law. In support of his contention, he cited a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in Criminal Appeal No.635 of 2006, Krishnaegowda and others … Appellants vs. State of Karnataka by Arkalgud Police … Respondents with Criminal Appeal No. 1067 of 2006, Nanje Gowda and another … Appellants vs. State of Karnataka by Arkalguda Police Station … Respondents, 5 SS,J Crl.R.C.No. 1091 of 2009 Dated 18.09.2026 decided on 28.03.2017 reported in (2017) 13 Supreme Court Cases 98 wherein at paragraphs 39 to 42 of the Judgment it was held that:- “Medical Evidence: 39. When we look at the medical evidence, the Doctor (PW10) has categorically stated that the weapons were not sent to her. In the chief examination, it was stated that the injuries 1 & 4 on the body of the deceased are possible with chopper and club. But in the cross examination it was deposed that even if a person falls on a sharp object these injuries could happen. According to PW3, the deceased fell into the drain. 40. As per the evidence of prosecution witnesses, accused by using the sharp edge of the weapon assaulted on the right side of the forehead but the Doctor’s evidence in this regard is that the deceased has not sustained incised wound on the forehead. PW10 further stated that if a person is assaulted with an object like MO4 it would result in fracture of frontal bone. 41. The other ground is, when the father of A5 gave a complaint against the deceased’s family as the police filed ‘B form’ the same was closed and not filed before the Court. Apart from that, the direction of the Court to seize the gun of the deceased and file a case under the relevant provisions of the Arms Act was not brought to the notice of the Court. Non explanation of injuries on A5 is another major defect. 42. Once there is a clear contradiction between the medical and the ocular evidence coupled with severe contradictions in the oral evidence, clear latches in investigation, then the benefit of doubt has to go to the accused. 43. Going by the material on record, we disagree with the finding of the High Court that the ocular evidence and the medical evidence are in conformity with the case of prosecution to convict the accused. The High Court has brushed aside the vital defects involved in the prosecution case and in a very unconventional way convicted the accused”. In analyzing the 2nd point, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the alleged incident occurred on 15.10.2007, whereas the F.I.R was lodged on 6 SS,J Crl.R.C.No. 1091 of 2009 Dated 18.09.2026 17.10.2007, there was clear delay of two days in lodging the F.I.R, and the prosecution had not placed any explanation for such inordinate delay. He submitted that, when F.I.R was lodged with delay of two days, there was every possibility of concocting and inclusion of colorable materials so as to falsely implicate the petitioner in this case. 8. Submissions of the state: Sri P.Somayaji, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the case of the prosecution has been sufficiently proved by the evidence of all the witnesses. P.W.1 is the de-facto complainant cum injured. P.W.2 is the wife of P.W.1, P.W.3 to P.W.5 are the direct eyewitnesses of the incident. P.W.6 and P.W.7 are the mediators in whose presence police arrested the accused and during interrogation, on the leading statement of accused, M.O.1- knife was recovered. He further submits that the evidence of P.W.8 – Medical Officer is justifiable to that of the issuance of wound certificate. Furthermore, the learned trial judge has placed his explanation why the evidence of P.W.8 – Medical Officer can be accepted. He further submits that the injured was primarily admitted to the hospital on the same day of the incident. There was some delay in referring injury intimation to the police, which was the reason, for registering the crime with a delay of two days. There are evidences, including medical evidence for treatment of the injured soon after the incident. There are eyewitnesses to the incident. Thus, the evidence of the prosecution cannot be brushed aside. 7 SS,J Crl.R.C.No. 1091 of 2009 Dated 18.09.2026 Observation of the Court: 9. In considering the first point i.e., contradictions in medical evidence; it appears that Medical Officer, who examined P.W.1 appeared before the trial court as P.W.8 to prove the wound certificate. The wound certificate was marked as Ex.P.3. Wound certificate itself shows that P.W.1 has sustained injury on 15.10.2007 “due to stab with a knife”. P.W.8 has opined in the said wound certificate that the above injury was grievous in nature and might be caused with sharp object. P.W.8 appeared in the Dock and in her evidence stated that such type of injury was possible with sharp edge weapon. When M.O.1 was shown to P.W.8 she stated that such type of injury is not possible through M.O.1. In analyzing such evidence, the learned trial Judge is of the opinion that when there is proper evidence by P.W.8 itself regarding infliction of injury by sharp edge weapon, it could not be possible to believe the latter statement of P.W.8, where he stated that injury of P.W.1 could not be possible through M.O.1. The learned trial judge did not rely on the said version of P.W.8 as other attending circumstances and evidence of P.W.8 itself supports the prosecution case. Wound certificate has been sufficiently proved. 10. I have perused the wound certificate from the trial court record. In it, it is clearly mentioned about stab injury on the left side of the abdomen of P.W.1 and also opinion of P.W.8 therein. In dealing with the said issue, learned 8 SS,J Crl.R.C.No. 1091 of 2009 Dated 18.09.2026 appellate Court is also of the same view that the stray statement of P.W.8 cannot brush aside the entire evidence of prosecution witnesses. 11. Having perused the concurrent findings of the learned trial court and the learned appellate court, it appears to me that the trial court and the appellant court have decided the issue very justifiably. The evidence of a witness before the court shall have to be taken as a whole, only a stray statement made by some witness, itself cannot vitiate his entire evidentiary value. At this juncture, in my view, there are no contradictions in medical evidence as alleged by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Accordingly, this point decided against petitioner. 12. In considering the second point i.e., regarding delay in lodging the F.I.R; it appears that the wound certificate shows that P.W.1 was admitted in the hospital at 6.30 P.M, he was first seen by the Doctor at 7.45 P.M. Ex.P.4 is the hospital intimation to the police about accident/injury, which was signed by the Doctor and the persons concerned on the same day i.e., on 15.10.2007, but it was forwarded on dispatch on later stage. It appears that though the F.I.R was lodged on 17.10.2007, with two days delay after the incident, I find no justification to disbelieve the prosecution story. At the juncture, the point of delay in lodging the F.I.R in this case also decided in negative. 9 SS,J Crl.R.C.No. 1091 of 2009 Dated 18.09.2026 13. Accordingly, the instant Criminal Revision Case is appears to be devoid of merits and the same is dismissed. The order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Trial Court and affirmed by the learned appellate court is hereby sustainable. However, the petitioner being accused is dealing with the criminal litigation since the year 2007, already 18 years elapsed. Accordingly, I think it necessary to modify the substantive portion of the sentence. The substantive sentence period of five (05) years is hereby modified to three (03) years of rigorous imprisonment. The period of detention already undergone by the petitioner/accused during investigation, trial and appeal period, would be given set off from the substantive sentence as per section 428 of the Criminal Procedure Code (corresponding section 468 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023). The Order of suspension of imprisonment of petitioner, if any, granted by this court shall stand cancelled. The petitioner is directed to appear before the learned trial court or before the jail authorities to serve out remaining portion of the sentence within six (06) weeks from the date of passing of this order, failing which, the learned trial court shall issue necessary warrant of arrest upon the petitioner to comply the order of this Court. 10 SS,J Crl.R.C.No. 1091 of 2009 Dated 18.09.2026 Let the copy of this order be served on the learned trial court. _________________________________ SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA Dated 18.09.2026 KS Whether the order is : Speaking: Yes Reasoned : Yes Reportable: No Non-Reportable: Yes 11 SS,J Crl.R.C.No. 1091 of 2009 Dated 18.09.2026 144 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1091 OF 2009 Dated:18.09.2026. KS