APHC010152212008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3560] THURSDAY, THE 1st DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026. PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1400/2008 Between: 1. M.NAGABHUSHANAM, C.I. OF POLICE, INTELLIGENCE DEPT., KURNOOL. 2. J.RAMAKRISHAN, CONSTABLE TRAFFIC POLICE STATION, KADAPA. 3. M.CHANDRAYUDU, CONSTABLE-CUM-DRIVER TRAFFIC POLICE STATION, KADAPA. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF A.P., REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P., HYDERABAD. 2. J SRIKANTH, S/O J.BALAJI MURTHY, R/O D.NO.20/652-1, BALAJIPET, KADAPA. ...RESPONDENT(S): 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., before this Hon'ble Court against the Judgment and sentence as confirmed in Crl.A.No.36 of 2008 on the file of the Prl. Sessions Judge, Kadapa, dated 01.09.08 of the Judgment made in C.C.No.1/2008 on the file of the IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge, dated 18.02.08, imposing the sentence of (3) months for the offence U/s. 323 I.P.C. -2- CRL.R.C. No.1400 OF 2008 Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. MASTHAN NAIDU CHERUKURI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. P RAVI SHANKER 2. RAMPRASAD NAIK BHUKYA 3. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 4. LEGAL AID -3- CRL.R.C. No.1400 OF 2008 The Court made the following order: Instant Criminal Revision Case has been preferred against judgment dated 01.09.2008 passed in Crl.A.No.36 of 2008 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kadapa, wherein and whereunder he confirmed conviction and sentence of petitioners each recorded by judgment dated 18.02.2008 made in C.C.No.1 of 2008 on the file of the learned IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa, under Section 323 IPC and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, simple imprisonment for three months against present petitioners and it is further ordered, out of total fine amount, an amount of Rs.2,000/- has to be paid to PW.1 towards compensation. 2. During the revision, 3rd petitioner/A3 was expired. 3. Brief fact of the prosecution case: On 07.01.2005 at about 10.30 a.m., when complainant was returning on his motorcycle from SF Street at Kadapa to his house after completion of his work and when he reached Krishna Hall, a motorcyclist along with pillion rider came from Devuni Kadapa road, drove his motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle of the complainant, in the result of it, complainant fell down and sustained injuries. The incident was witnessed by one traffic constable, who stood near the scene of offence and asked the persons to come to the police station for verification of records. In the meanwhile, the complainant informed the incident to his -4- CRL.R.C. No.1400 OF 2008 father through his phone call. After passing 20 or 25 minutes, the father of the complainant reached the police station. A1 being the S.I. of Police called the father of the complainant to come inside of the police station. Thereafter, A1 enraged and attempted to beat the father of the complainant, when complainant tried to avert it, he had pounced upon the complainant and beat him indiscriminately all over his body. Thereafter, A1 to A3 had taken the complainant to I Town Police Station and there also, they beat complainant indiscriminately. However, C.I. of Police intervened, A1 to A3 were separated. Complainant preferred to two complaints, one against motorcyclist and his henchmen and another is against A1 to A3; but police did not take any action against A1 to A3. Hence, a private complaint was filed before the learned Magistrate. Learned Magistrate, after recording statement of the complainant, had took cognizance of the offence under Sections 323, 352 and 506 IPC against the accused persons. In order to prove the complaint, complainant himself examined as PW.1, independent witnesses were examined as PWs.2 and 3 and father of the complainant was also examined as PW.4. One written complaint, which was initially lodged to the police station against A1 to A3, was marked as Ex.P1. From defence side, neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced. After taking evidence of complainant, on hearing of the parties, learned trial Court found the petitioners to be guilty for the offence punishable under Section 323 IPC and accordingly, they were convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, amongst which, Rs.2,000/- was directed to be paid to -5- CRL.R.C. No.1400 OF 2008 PW.1 as compensation. The order of conviction was went upto appeal. Learned appellate Court has further scanned the evidence on record and confirmed the order of conviction. Hence, this revision. 4. Submission of the petitioners:- Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the private complaint of the complainant was not been properly averred the commission of offence. Offence under Section 323 IPC has not been made out. He pointed out that there are only evidences of PWs.1 to 4 regarding the commission of offence for causing simple hurt to complainant. Learned appellate Court has categorically observed that PWs.1 to 4 are interested witnesses. Moreover, it has been clarified that PW.4 is the father of PW.1 and PWs.2 and 3 are also related to PWs.1 and 4, thereby, their evidence cannot be believed to record conviction. He further submits that only one document was placed by the prosecution to substantiate the alleged offence i.e., Ex.P1. From plain perusal of Ex.P1, it would reveal that complaint is a typed one but it contained no seal of police station regarding receipt of complaint. Moreover, learned appellate Court is of the view that Ex.P1 does not bear the acknowledgment of police. Thereby, it cannot be taken to be a complaint at all. He further submits that the allegations against the present petitioners, who were the police personnel, are baseless. Prosecution has not placed sufficient materials to prove charge beyond reasonable doubt against the police officials. Thus, the order of conviction and sentence is liable to be set aside. -6- CRL.R.C. No.1400 OF 2008 5. Submission of the State:- Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that evidentiary value of this case has been properly dealt with by the learned appellate Court in paragraph 11 of its judgment. Learned appellate Court is of the view that causing hurt and assault by police to any person or to any individual does not come under the duty of the police, thereby, to initiate prosecution against police personnel i.e., present accused persons, no proper sanction is required under Section 197 Cr.P.C. He further pointed out that learned appellate Court has properly scanned the evidences on record and is of the view that evidences of PWs.1 to 4 are corroborative with each other, thereby, recording of conviction against petitioners is maintainable. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the observations of the learned trial Court as well as the learned appellate Court. 7. It appears from the private complaint that the said complaint was lodged by private individual against police personnel due to alleged atrocity by voluntary causing hurt. It has been alleged that there are dispute over the road in between complainant and other private persons, who dashed his motorcycle. It has been alleged that when the matter was reported to the police, A1 to A3 has not taken any steps but they tried to beat the father of PW.1 at that time when the complainant tried to obstruct the police personnel they beat him indiscriminately. It is true that when there is an allegation against police personnel, police shall not take any complaint. This -7- CRL.R.C. No.1400 OF 2008 is a regular course of action that police atrocity by using physical force is rampant day by day. The complainant claims that A1 to A3 beat him with hands and fists. Though it has mentioned in the complaint that he received some injuries but he was not treated before any doctor or no doctor was examined in this case. In a case of causing simple hurt, it is the essential ingredient that a person i.e., victim has suffered bodily pain, disease, or infirmity. In this case, evidence of PW.1 has sufficiently scanned by the learned trial Court as well as learned appellate Court; PW.1 being victim, his evidence cannot be brushaside, moreover, it is believable that a private individual shall not generally made complaint against police personnel unless he actually suffers. Though other witnesses i.e., PWs.2 to 4 are related to PW.1 but there is no suspicious in the case, thus, their evidence cannot be entirely brushaside. Moreover, learned trial Court as well as learned appellate Court is of the concurrent finding that the evidences of PWs.1 to 4 are corroborative and clinchingly proved the guilt against petitioners regarding causing simple injury. 8. The power of High Court in revision against order of conviction is very limited. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kuntegowda v. Thurubaiah reported in (2026) SCC Online SC 1485 has held in paragraphs 7.1, 7.3 and 7.5 as follows: 7.1. This Court, in the State of Maharashtra v. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand, (2004) 7 SCC 659 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 2003 observed that the High Court, in exercise of its -8- CRL.R.C. No.1400 OF 2008 revisional jurisdiction, cannot embark upon an in-depth roving re-examination of the oral evidence and medical evidence and come to a conclusion contrary to the consistent one reached by two courts below. In the facts of the present case, in the impugned judgment, the High Court gravely erred in upsetting the concurrent findings of conviction of the trial court and the Appellate Court by substituting its own conclusions and reasoning on the merits of the case and thereby erred in setting aside the well-reasoned and correct judgment and orders of the trial and appellate courts. 7.3. The contours for exercise of revisional jurisdiction has been well settled by the judicial dicta of this Court wherein time and again it has been observed that the High Court shall not interfere with the orders of the lower court unless: i. The order or finding of the lower court is perverse, grossly erroneous, glaringly unreasonable or wholly unreliable or untenable in law. ii. The lower court has passed the impugned order after considering an immaterial or irrelevant material or no material at all. iii. There is a non-consideration of any relevant material or the judicial discretion has been exercised arbitrarily or capriciously. 7.5. In the facts of the present case, we find that the High Court has failed to highlight any reason or material satisfaction to the effect that there was any such glaring contradiction or perversity apparent on the face of the record -9- CRL.R.C. No.1400 OF 2008 so as to justify the exercise of the powers under revisional jurisdiction and thereby erred in interfering with the judgment and orders of the courts below. Therefore, the present appeal has to be allowed by setting aside the impugned order of the High Court. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that the High Court committed an error in setting aside the order of conviction in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. No sufficient ground has been mentioned by the High Court in its judgment to enable it to exercise its revisional jurisdiction for setting aside the conviction. 9. Following the ratio of “Kuntegowda”(supra), it appears that concurrent findings of learned Courts below are not perverse and not suffers any illegality or impropriety. Under the above observation, it appears that the order of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned appellate Court suffers no illegality, thus, there exists no reason to interfere. 10. Accordingly, the instant Criminal Revision Case is hereby dismissed. The petitioners are hereby directed to comply the order of the learned appellate Court by paying a fine amount within six weeks from the date of passing of this order. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this criminal revision case shall stand closed. ____________________________ JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA Date : 01.10.2026 SPP -10- CRL.R.C. No.1400 OF 2008 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1400 of 2008 Dated 01.10.2026 SPP