1 APHC010513842010 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: 144/2010 Between: 1. NALAGORLA RAMAIAH, & ANOTHER,, S/O GURAVAIAH, R/O MUTCHINTALA. 2. NALAGORLA KONDALU, (A-3), S/O GURAVAIAH, R/O MUTCHINTALA. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF AP REP BY ITS PP HYD, 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 Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to present this Memorandum of Grounds of Crl.R.C., to this Hon'ble Court against the Judgment of the I Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam, in Crl.A.No. 12 of 2008, dt. 28-01-2010. IA NO: 1 OF 2010(CRLRCMP 202 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 dispense with the production of the certified copy of the Judgment in CC.No. 262 of 2002 on the file of the J.F.C.M., Jaggayyapet. IA NO: 2 OF 2010(CRLRCMP 216 OF 2010 2 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 execution of sentence and release the petitioners on bail pending disposal of the Crl.R.C., before this Hon'ble Court. Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. D SANGEETHA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.144 OF 2010 ORDER: The instant Criminal Revision Case has been preferred against the judgment, dated 28.01.2010, in Crl.A.No.12 of 2008 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Machilipatnam, Krishna District, whereby and whereunder the learned Appellate Court, though confirming the order of conviction and sentence against the petitioners, modified the same to some extent. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.2 and 3 before the learned trial Court for offences punishable under Sections 326 and 324 IPC. It is alleged that, on 11.11.2001, at about 10.00 a.m., the accused persons attacked LWs.1, 2 and 3 with stout sticks, causing injury to their persons. The overt act has been stated in the report of the Police that A-1 beat LW.1 with stout sticks on his head, A-2 beat LW.1 with his stout stick on the right leg ankle and A-3 beat LW.1 with stout stick on the right upper arm and right hand index and also left foot. A-1 also beat LW.2 with stick on the left leg below the knee. A-2 beat LW.2 with stick on his right forearm and A-3 beat LW.2 with stick below the right forearm. A-2 beat LW.3 with stick on left shoulder and A-3 beat LW.3 with stick on both sides of abdomen and left hand thumb and right hand little finger. PW.8 is the Doctor, who examined PWs.1 to 3, injured persons and 4 proved wound certificates wherefrom it appears that most of the injuries are simple in nature and apart from one injury, which is grievous in nature i.e., injury Nos.2 and 3 mentioned in Ex.P3. 3. During course of investigation, it has also been revealed that there are previous enmity between the parties and on the report of A-1, PWs.1 to 3 were convicted in a separate case. After completion of trial, Court has recorded conviction against petitioners under Section 326 IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two (02) years. Learned trial Court also found the present petitioners to be guilty for offence punishable under Section 324 IPC and directed them undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one (01) year. The said order of conviction was challenged in appeal, and learned trail Court, after hearing the matter, confirmed the conviction. 4. During that period A-1 had expired, learned Appellate Court has partly allowed the appeal by recording order of conviction against petitioners under Section 324 IPC instead of 326 IPC. The substantive sentence was also modified and reduced from two (02) years to four (04) months. It has been observed by the learned Appellate Court in paragraph No.40 as under:- 40. Thus, the evidence adduced by the prosecution clinchingly established that the accused Nos.2 and 3 caused simple injuries on the persons of PWs.1 to 3. 5 Therefore, the accused Nos.2 and 3 are liable for conviction for the offences punishable under Section 324 IPC for causing simple injuries to PWs.1 to 3. 5. On the aforesaid reason, learned Appellate Court has recorded conviction against petitioners under Section 324 IPC. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the instant criminal revision case has been pending since more than twenty (20) years, present petitioners have suffered immense mental agony and have also suffered financially. He further argued as conviction was recorded under Section 324 IPC by learned Appellate Courts, petitioners have already suffered incarceration for some days during enquiry, investigation and trial of this case and a necessary order of leniency may be passed. 7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent/State submits that the learned trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court has passed impugned order of conviction against petitioners on the basis of prosecution witnesses and they are justifiable and there is no scope to interfere. 8. Heard Sri D. Sangeetha Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Panini Somayaji, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent/State. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, it appears to me that the petitioners being A-2 and A-3 are convicted by the learned trial 6 Court under Section 326 IPC. However, during hearing of the appeal, learned Appellate Court has observed that the overt act of the petitioners being A-2 and A-3 in the instant case to cause injury upon the person of PWs.1 to 3 are simple in nature. There is no material before this Court to disbelieve the findings of learned Appellate Court recorded at paragraph No.40. 10. When the injury inflicted by accused is simple in nature and the case proceedings have been pending for more than twenty (20) years, I think it necessary that a reasonable order be passed. In this case, it appears from the nominal roll issued by the Superintendent of Central Prison, Rajamahendravaram, that the present petitioners are in custody for more than one (01) month. 11. Considering the same, order of conviction and sentence passed by learned trial Court, modified by learned Appellate Court is further modified to the period already undergone by the present petitioners during remand period. However, they are directed to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each before the learned trial Court, within a period of six (06) weeks from the date of passing of this order, barring the fine already deposited earlier. 12. Accordingly, the instant Criminal Revision Case is dismissed and disposed of. The order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court, modified by the learned Appellate Court, is hereby confirmed, but for the modification recorded earlier. 7 As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________________ JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA Dated: 23.09.2026 CVD