1 SS,J Crl.R.C.No. 1616 of 2009 Dated 17.09.2026 APHC010078722009 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: 1616 OF 2009 Between: 1. EVURI KOTAIAH, S/O SIVA NAGESWARA RAO, R/O MANYAMVARIPALEM VILLAGE, NAGARAM MANDAL, GUNTUR DIST. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 3 OTHERS, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, HYDERABAD. 2. YEMINENI BRAHMAIAH, S/O RAMAKOTAIAH, TEACHER R/O YEMINENIVARIPALEM (V), CHERUKUPALLI MANDAL, GUNTUR DIST. 3. YEMINENI VENKATA RAO, S/O RAMAKOTAIAH, R/O YEMINENIVARIPALEM (V), CHERUKUPALLI MANDAL, GUNTUR DIST. 4. YEMINENI RAMAKOTAIAH, S/O RAGHAVAIAH, R/O YEMINENIVARIPALEM (V), CHERUKUPALLI MANDAL, GUNTUR DIST. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SIVA SANKARA RAO BORRA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. K M KRISHNA REDDY 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 2 SS,J Crl.R.C.No. 1616 of 2009 Dated 17.09.2026 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1616 OF 2009 ORDER: 1. Instant Criminal Revision Case (for short Crl.R.C) has been preferred by the Petitioner – defacto complainant against the order of acquittal dated 12.05.2009 in Calendar Case (for short C.C) No.64 of 2006 passed by the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Repalle. 2. Respondents No.2 to 4 arrayed as accused in C.C.No.64 of 2006. 3. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that:- Accused used to pick up quarrel with L.W.2 on question of earlier dispute. It is further alleged that accused became enraged with L.W.1 who pacified the quarrel between accused and L.W.2. At that time, Accused No.1 beat L.W.1 with an iron rod on his head and on the back side of his shoulder and caused bleeding injury. It is further alleged that when L.W.2 went to rescue L.W.1, then Accused No.2 beat with a stick on his left buttock and on her left hand. Accused No.3 beat with his hands. L.W.3 to L.W.5 witnessed the incident. L.W.1 lodged report to the police, thereby Crime No.51 of 2006 under section 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered. After completion of investigation, police filed charge sheet against the unofficial 3 SS,J Crl.R.C.No. 1616 of 2009 Dated 17.09.2026 respondents/ accused for the offence punishable under section 324 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. During the course of trial, prosecution has examined as many as seven (07) witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.7, including the Doctor as P.W.6 and got marked several documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6. 5. After hearing the parties, upon considering the oral and documentary evidences placed on record, the learned Trial Court is of the view that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused and accordingly recorded order of acquittal. 6. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the learned trial court has failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances of this case, thereby he failed to take note of the evidence of the injured witnesses. He further submits that the evidence of injured witnesses was corroborated by the medical evidence, the Doctor who treated the injured was examined, who also corroborated the evidence of witnesses with regard to injuries and absolutely elicited the guilt of the respondents/accused. The learned trial court has committed an error in recording the order of acquittal. 7. Sri P.Somayaji, learned Additional Public Prosecutor also submits that the order passed by the learned trial Court is a cryptic one, he has not 4 SS,J Crl.R.C.No. 1616 of 2009 Dated 17.09.2026 properly reasoned why the respondents/accused were acquitted. There is medical evidence and the evidence of injured, through which the prosecution case has been justifiably proved. 8. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 9. Charge was framed in this case for the offence under section 324 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It has been alleged in the prosecution case that the respondents No.2 to 4/accused in furtherance to their common intention, have voluntarily caused grievous injury to P.W.1 and P.W.2, thereby they have committed the offence. 10. The evidence lead by the prosecution has been categorized by the learned Trial Court. It is the opinion of the learned Trial Court that though P.W.1 and P.W.2 have deposed regarding their injuries, which resulted in an attack by the accused persons, but such attack was not properly corroborated by any independent evidence. In the prosecution case, L.W.3 to L.W.5 were cited as independent witnesses, L.W.4 was examined by the prosecution as P.W.3. P.W.3 did not support the case of prosecution, though introduced as an independent witness, but he was not declared as hostile. He did not depose regarding attack by the accused on P.W.1 and P.W.2. There are no independent 5 SS,J Crl.R.C.No. 1616 of 2009 Dated 17.09.2026 witnesses in the case. Accordingly, the learned Trial Court has gone to acquit the present respondents No.2 to 4/accused. 11. Let me consider whether the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 – injured witnesses as well as the evidence of Doctor – P.W.6 who issued the wound certificate, is sufficient to bring home the charge against the accused persons. Doctor (P.W.6) at the time of examination has deposed that he has noted seven (07) injuries on the person of P.W.1 and four (04) injuries on the person of P.W.2, among them, only injury No.1 of P.W.1 is grievous in nature, other injuries are simple in nature. When a charge has been framed under section 324 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution is duty bound to prove that in furtherance of the common intention of the accused persons, have committed the offence of voluntarily causing grievous hurt to P.W.1 and P.W.2 by using dangerous means or weapon. In this case, the prosecution failed to seize the iron rod which was alleged to be used for causing such injury. It further appears that the prosecution has also failed to establish that there was common intention among the accused persons as defined under section 34 of the Indian penal Code. The common intention and motive is integral part of crime, without such common intention/common mind to have mens rea against P.W.1 and P.W.2, it is not possible to prove guilt under section 324 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Trial court has also recorded that there are discrepancies in the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2. Learned Trial Court has 6 SS,J Crl.R.C.No. 1616 of 2009 Dated 17.09.2026 specifically recorded that motive as well as the common intention has not been proved. In a case to prove charge under section 324 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, only evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 is not sufficient. Moreover, P.W.4 who was cited as independent witnesses to the occurrence has not stated anything about motive / intention of the Respondents/accused. 12. I find no justification to disbelieve the observation of the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court. The instance Criminal Revision Case appears to be merit less. 13. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Consequently, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, in this case, shall stand dismissed. _________________________________ SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA Dated 17.09.2026 KS Whether the order is : Speaking: Yes Reasoned : Yes Reportable: No Non-Reportable: Yes 7 SS,J Crl.R.C.No. 1616 of 2009 Dated 17.09.2026 167 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1616 OF 2009 Dated:17.09.2026. KS