APHC010123732010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3560] THURSDAY, THE 24th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 99/2010 Between: 1. SRI. MADDALA BABU RAO,, S/O M. JALAIAH, RTC DRIVER, STAFF NO. 725649, OF BAPATLA DEPOT, R/O INTURU VILLAGE, ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., at Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the CriminalRevisionCase, the High Court may be pleased toto allow the Crl.R.C., by setting aside the Judgment in Crl.A.No. 163 of 2009, dt. 20-01-2010 on the file of the II Addl. Sessions Judge, Guntur district, and grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. IA NO: 1 OF 2010(CRLRCMP 146 OF 2010 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 herein on bail, by suspending the sentence imposed in Crl.A.No. 163 of 2009, dt. 20-01-2010, on the file of the II Addl. Sessions Judge, Guntur, modifying the Judgment of the Asst. Sessions Judge, Bapatla, in SC.No. 623 of 2008, dt. 21-04-2009, pending disposal of the Crl.R.C., Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SUREPALLI MADHAVA RAO 2. LEGAL AID Counsel for the Respondent: 2 SS,J Crl.R.C.No.99 of 2010 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 3 SS,J Crl.R.C.No.99 of 2010 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 99/2010 ORDER: Heard Sri Surepalli Madhava Rao, learned legal aid counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Sri Panini Somayaji, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 2. The instant Criminal Revision has been preferred against the order dated 20.01.2010 passed by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, in Criminal Appeal No.163 of 2009, whereby the learned appellate Court, while confirming the conviction of the petitioner under Sections 326 and 324 IPC, modified the substantive sentence. 3. Brief facts of the case of the prosecution are as follows:- The accused borrowed Rs. 3,000/- from the defacto complainant (PW.1) in the year 2005. On 17.10.2007 at about 8:30 p.m., accused promised to discharge the said loan and required defacto complainant to present near Gadiyala Stambham, Bapatla. From there, the accused took the defacto complainant towards Chintavaripalem on his motorbike on the pretext of discharging the loan. The accused stopped the vehicle near cross road of Chintavaripalem (at turning), hacked the defacto complainant with a coconut cutting knife on his head, left shoulder, left thigh, and right neck causing bleeding injuries. On hearing hues and cries, villagers came and the accused ran away. The matter was reported to the Station House Officer, Bapatla (R) 4 SS,J Crl.R.C.No.99 of 2010 Police Station, and the Sub-Inspector of Police, Bapatla (R) Police Station registered a case as Cr. No. 77 of 2007. After completion of investigation, he submitted the charge sheet under Section 307 IPC. During the trial before the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, the prosecution has examined ten witnesses namely PWs.1 to 10 and several documents were marked as Exs.P1 to 16. The Offending weapon knife, blood-stained banian, blood- stained biscuit-coloured shirt, and blood-stained black colour pant were seized and marked as MOs.1 to 4. On behalf of defence side, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. After taking the deposition of prosecution witnesses and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial court found the petitioner to be guilty for an offence punishable under Sections 326 and 324 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five (05) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. In appeal, though the order of conviction was confirmed, but the learned appellate Court modified the substantive sentence and sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three (03) years for the offence punishable under Section 326 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of one (01) year for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC. However, the fine imposed by the trial Court remained intact. Hence, the present criminal revision. 4. Submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner are as follows:- Sri Surepalli Madhava Rao, learned legal aid counsel, submits that the impugned order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional 5 SS,J Crl.R.C.No.99 of 2010 Sessions Judge, Guntur, is improper and illegal. PWs.3 and 4 are cited as independent witnesses to support the prosecution case. Though they are stated to be eye witnesses, but they have not supported the prosecution case. The learned trial Court as well as the learned appellate Court should have been considered that fact to acquit the present petitioner. He further submits that though there are criminal cases, but the conviction under Section 326 IPC is illegal. However, the offence was committed in the year 2008. Nearly 20 years have already elapsed, so this Court may take a lenient view during the pendency of the instant criminal revision. 5. Submissions of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor are as follows:- It is submitted that the prosecution has sufficiently proved the charge against the present petitioner. It is also submitted by the State that though the charge was framed under Section 307 IPC, but on the basis of evidence of injured witness as well as the statement of the doctor, who deposed as PW.6, it is clear that the victim has sustained severe injuries including the grievous hurt on his person by the attack of the petitioner. Accordingly, there is no scope to interfere. 6. Observation of this Court:- It appears that the learned trial Court as well as the learned appellate Court found the petitioner to be guilty for the offence under Sections 326 and 324 IPC. It further appears that though the charge was framed under Section 307 IPC, but the prosecution could not bring home the charge under Section 6 SS,J Crl.R.C.No.99 of 2010 307 IPC as the motive has not been proved well. However, the crime as well as the offence committed by the petitioner has been sufficiently proved by the evidence of injured witnesses. The injured witness is the based witness to state the fact that the petitioner has hacked him at the relevant point of time. PW.6 is a doctor, who examined PW.1 just after the incident, and found seven severe injuries on the person of the defacto complainant amongst which injury no.7 is grievous in nature. The Doctor also opined that the injuries are caused by using the sharp object. In this case, MO.1 is a coconut cutting knife. At this juncture, it appears that the prosecution has sufficiently proved the crime against the present petitioner. Accordingly, the conviction under Section 324 as well as 326 IPC is maintainable. 7. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as the incident happened in the year 2008 and the accused has been dealing with this criminal litigation for nearly 20 years, this Court deems it necessary to reduce the substantive sentence. To that effect, the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court thereafter modified by the learned appellate Court, is further modified to two (02) years instead of three (03) years for the offence punishable under Section 326 IPC. 8. With the above observations, the instant Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. 9. The order of suspension of sentence passed by this Court during the pendency of the present Criminal Revision is hereby vacated. 7 SS,J Crl.R.C.No.99 of 2010 10. The petitioner is directed to appear before the learned Trial Court within six (06) weeks from the date of passing of the order to serve out the remaining part of the sentence, failing which the learned Trial Court shall issue warrant of arrest against the petitioner to comply the order. Since the petitioner is not before this Court, the State is directed to intimate the order of this Court to petitioner. 11. Let a copy of this order shall be served upon the learned Trial Court for necessary compliance. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ SUBHENDU SAMANTA, J Date:24.09.2026 mmk/pvs 8 SS,J Crl.R.C.No.99 of 2010 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No:99 of 2010 24.09.2026 MMK/pvs