1 SS, J Crl.R.C.Nos.914 & 965/2009 APHC010596892009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3560] WEDNESDAY, THE 23rd DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No: 914/2009 Between: 1. KONDALLA NAGENDRA, S/O NAGARAJU, COOLIE R/O DIGUVAPALLI VILLAGE, TADIPATRI MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DIST. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF A P, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT 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 submit this memorandum of Crl.R.C., being aggrieved by the Judgment dated 03.06.09 passed in Crl.A.No.83 of 2007 on the file of the Judge, Family Court-cum-Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Anantapur which was confirmed the conviction made in S.C.No.46/2003 on the file of the Asst. Sessions Judge, Gooty, Anantapur Dist., dated 10.07.07. IA NO: 1 OF 2009 (CRLRCMP 1208 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 dispense with the production of certified copy of the Judgment made in S.C.No.46/2003 on the file of the Asst. Sessions Judge, Gooty, Anantapur Dist., dated 10.07.07. IA NO: 2 OF 2009 (CRLRCMP 1223 OF 2009 2 SS, J Crl.R.C.Nos.914 & 965/2009 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 suspend the judgment dt.03.06.2009 passed in Crl.A.No.83/2007 on the file of Judge, Family Court-cum- Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Anantapur in confirming the judgment dt.10.07.2007 in Sc.No.46/2003 by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Gooty, Ananapur District and to release the petitioner/Accused No.2 on the bail pending disposal of the present Criminal Revision Case Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. CH.U.M.REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No: 965/2009 Between: 1. KAMMAGALLA VEERANNA AT ERULU, (A3), S/O OBULESU, COOLIE R/O DIGUVAPALLI VILLAGE, TADIPATRI MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DIST. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF A P, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT Revision filed under Section 397/401 of 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 submit this memorandum of Crl.R.C., being aggrieved by the Judgment dated 03.06.09 passed in Crl.A.No.83 of 2007 on the file of the Judge, Family Court-Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Ananthapur which was confirmed the conviction made in S.C.No.46/2003 on the file of the Asst. Sessions Judge, Gooty, Ananthapur Dist. 3 SS, J Crl.R.C.Nos.914 & 965/2009 IA NO: 1 OF 2009(CRLRCMP 1284 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 dispense with the production of certified copy of the Judgment made in S.C.No.46 of 2003 on the file of the Asst. Sessions Judge, Gooty, Ananthapur Dist., dated 10.07.07. IA NO: 2 OF 2009(CRLRCMP 1303 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 suspend the Judgment dated 03.06.09 passed in Crl.A.No.83 of 2007 on the file of the Judge, Family Court-Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Ananthapur which was confirmed the conviction made in S.C.No.46/2003 on the file of the Asst. Sessions Judge, Gooty, Ananthapur Dist. and to release the petitioner/ Accused No.3 on the pending disposal of the Cr.RC IA NO: 3 OF 2009(CRLRCMP 1416 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 permit the petitioner to amend the Grounds of Revision in Crl.Rc.No.965/2009 and in Crl.RC.M.P.No.1303/2009 as Crl.A.No.84/2007 on the file of the Judge Family court cum Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Anantapur by deleting the Crl.A.No.83/2007 on the file of Judge Family Court cum Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Anantapur. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. CH.U.M.REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 4 SS, J Crl.R.C.Nos.914 & 965/2009 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos.914 and 965 of 2009 COMMON ORDER: Both the Criminal Revision Cases have been preferred against the order of conviction passed in S.C.No.46 of 2003, dated 10.07.2007, by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Gooty. Petitioners are arrayed as Accused Nos.2 and 3 before learned trial Court. They are convicted under Section 326 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one (01) year with a fine of Rs.800/-. 2. In appeal, the said order of conviction was confirmed by dismissing the appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court is improper. The conviction was only recorded on the basis of a solitary witness. However, the offending sickle was not recovered by the Police during the course of investigation. There is iota of doubt regarding the involvement of the present petitioners. Accordingly, the order of conviction is confirmed. 4. He further submits that the instant petitioners are dealing with this criminal revision cases for more than twenty (20) years. They suffered immense mental pain and agony due to the pendency of the criminal litigation. Accordingly, some order of leniency may be passed. 5 SS, J Crl.R.C.Nos.914 & 965/2009 5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the charge against present petitioners has been sufficiently proved on the basis of evidence of PWs. Petitioners has assaulted victim PW.1 at the relevant point of time and such assault has been sufficiently proved by the evidence of PW.4/Doctor, and wound certificate issued by the Doctor was also marked. Thus, there is no scope of leniency and the impugned order of conviction is a concurrent finding; there is no chance to interfere with it. 6. Heard Sri Ch.U.M.Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Panini Somayaji, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent/State. 7. Perused the observations of the learned Courts below. 8. The only merit involved in these criminal revision cases is whether the concurrent finding can be altered. It appears that the material object, i.e., the offending weapon (sickle), was not recovered by the Police during the course of investigation. However, the evidence of PWs.1 and 2/injured witnesses as well as PW.3 is sufficient to record a finding that the offence has been actually committed by the petitioners. Moreover, PW.4/Doctor has proved the wound certificate, which was marked as Ex.P2, including the X-ray conducted on the person of PW.1. It appears that PW.1 has sustained fracture injuries to his right forearm, right shoulder and ribs. Considering the situation, it appears that the learned trial Court has correctly recorded the order of conviction against 6 SS, J Crl.R.C.Nos.914 & 965/2009 the petitioners. Learned Appellate Court has further scanned the evidence and found no merit. Thus, the appeal has been dismissed. 9. Now in considering the long pendency of the instant litigation, it appears that present petitioners are about 22 to 24 years old at the time of alleged accident, after twenty (20) years they are now aged about 44 and 45 years. Order of conviction was recorded under Section 326 IPC and they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one (01) year. During course of enquiry, investigation and trial, they were remanded from 09.05.2002 to 25.07.2002 i.e., more than two (02) months. However, learned counsel has pleaded regarding leniency due to long pendency of the instant criminal litigation. It is true that the litigation was started in the year 2007, but could not be concluded till today and it is pending before this Court since 2009. However, though the petitioners have suffered immense during long pendency of the instant criminal revision, but it appears that on the date of admission of the instant criminal revision, they were enlarged on bail. 10. Considering the entire situation, in my view, the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court and confirmed by the learned Appellate Court cannot be set aside, as they are reasonable and speaking orders. However, in the present facts and circumstances, this Court thinks it necessary to reduce the substantive sentence from one (01) year to three and a half (3½) months. 7 SS, J Crl.R.C.Nos.914 & 965/2009 11. With the above observations, the Criminal Revision Cases are disposed of. 12. The order of conviction and sentence is hereby confirmed, but for the above observation regarding reduction of the substantive sentence. Order of suspension of sentence passed by this Court during pendency of these criminal revision cases is hereby vacated. Petitioners are directed to appear before learned trial Court or before the jail authority within a period of six (06) weeks to serve out remaining portion of sentence; by setting off the period already undergone by them under Section 428 of Cr.P.C corresponding Section 468 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Failing which, learned trial Court shall issue necessary warrant of arrest against petitioners to comply with the order. 13. Let a copy of the order be served upon learned trial Court for ready references. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________________ JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA Dated: 23.09.2026 CVD