APHC010364762008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3560] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1482/2008 Between: 1. HARIJANA CHINNA ERANNA, S/O HARIJANA GANGANNA, STUDENT, R/O SADAPURAM VILLAGE, ADONI MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP REP BY ITS PP HYD TRGH SHO ADONI TALUK PS, through SHO., Adoni Taluk PS., Kurnool District, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., at 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 allow the Crl.R.C., by setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed in Crl.A.No. 35 of 2007, dt. 16-09-2008 on the file of the II Addl. Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Adoni, Confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Adoni in SC.No. 236 of 2004 and consequently acquit the accused; ii) and to grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. IA NO: 1 OF 2008(CRLRCMP 2009 OF 2008 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 filing of the Certified copy of the Judgment passed in 2 SC.No. 236 of 2004, dt. 02-03-2007 on the file of the Asst. Sessions Judge, Adoni. IA NO: 2 OF 2008(CRLRCMP 2019 OF 2008 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 petitioner herein on bail by suspending the conviction and sentence imposed in Crl.A.No. 35 of 2007, dt.16-09-2008 on the file of the II Addl. Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Adoni, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed in SC.No. 236 of 2004 on the file of the Asst. Sessions Judge, Adoni, pendig disposal of the Crl.R.C., Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. J JANAKIRAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 3 The Court made the following Order: Heard. 2. Present petitioner was convicted by the learned trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and the said conviction was confirmed by the learned appellate Court. Hence, this criminal revision case. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Courts below is improper and perverse. He further places relevant portion of the judgment of the learned trial Court to show that injuries sustained by the complainant (PW.1) are simple in nature so it is not commensurate to the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. He submits that the doctor/PW.4, who examined the victim/injured/PW.1 on the same day, specifically observed that the injury sustained by PW.1 is simple in nature. He further submits that there are several discrepancies in the evidence of prosecution thereby the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC is not tenable. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has already undergone incarceration for a period of one and half months. Hence, prayed to set aside the order of conviction. 4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor raised objection and submits that the learned trial Court, after perusing the evidence on record, has passed the order of conviction against the petitioner. There are justifiable reasons to believe the case of the prosecution. The petitioner has assaulted PW.1 due to previous enmity, by such assault, PW.1 has sustained injury. Nature of injury is not relevant factor regarding the conviction under Section 307 IPC. It is 4 further submits that in this case a dragor was used to cause death of PW.1 thereby as stated by the witness that the petitioner may kill PW.1. He submits the present facts and circumstances of the case, the observation of the learned Courts below is justifiable. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the observation of the learned trial Court as well as the learned appellate Court. 6. In particular, alleged incident happened in the year 2004. It is admitted fact that there are previous enmity between PW.1 and petitioner. Admittedly, PW.1 and petitioner are in their tender age. It has been complained that the petitioner forced PW.1 to love him but she denied. When petitioner once tried to throttled her, there was a village solace between their families thereby no complaint was made in the police station. On the date of incident, it has been alleged that PW.1 when went to attend calls of nature in the fields, the petitioner hurled stones on her from the back side and she sustained bleeding injury on her head thereafter the petitioner allegedly beat her and dragged her to some distance and took out a dragger and stabbed her, by such, she sustained injury over her person. It is further alleged that some witness were appeared there, thereafter, the petitioner fled away. PW.1 reported the police on the same day and appeared before the Doctor. To justify the injury of PW.1, evidence of doctor as PW.4 required to set out as recorded by the learned trial Court; it reads as follows: “PW.4/The Doctor deposed to the facts that on 2-2-2004 at about 5.30 PM the victim was referred to her by the S.H.O., Adoni she found that 5 there are 4 injuries found on the body of the victim, 5th injury is incise, wound over right index, finger encircling the nail bed she had referred the patient to Govt. General Hospital, Kurnool X-ray. No facture is seen. All the injuries are simple in nature. The injuries could have been caused by blunt object. The age of injuries are 3 to 6 hours prior to her examination. Ex.P.2 is the wound certificate.” 7. On the basis of the evidence of PW.1 and PW.4, the learned trial Court is of the opinion that there are corresponding injuries, after such attack, PW.1 has suffered injury. Stones and knife were recovered during investigation but surprisingly it appears that though the investigating officer has recovered the knife but the knife or stones were not forwarded to the forensic laboratory to examine the same. It further submits that the injury sustained by the injured is simple in nature and as opined by the doctor/PW.4 that injury could be caused by any blunt object. The learned trial Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has successfully bring home the charge against the petitioner regarding assault upon PW.1. 8. After perusing the entire case, it appears to me that the alleged incident regarding assault PW.1 does not itself termed as voluntary attempt to kill PW.1. It further appears that when there is an allegation of hurling stone over the head of PW.1, on the same day PW.1 was examined, no such injury was found on her head, moreover when one stab by knife, the victim cannot suffer a minor injury over her finger. 8. Considering the same, it appears that the injuries as notice by the learned trial Court are not commensurate to the offence punishable under 6 Section 307 IPC. It further appears that the evidences in support of the prosecution are full of exaggeration and there are discrepancies to prove the case against the petitioner beyond all reasonable doubt. However, if on perusal of the entire case, it appears that the punishment of the present petitioner is not maintainable under Section 307 IPC it may be maintainable under Section 324 IPC. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is in custody since one and half months. The conviction of the petitioner for five years is hereby modified to the period that had already undergone by the petitioner during the course of investigation and trial. 9. Accordingly, the petitioner is hereby set at liberty from this case. 10. The sureties standing in favour of the petitioner are also released. 11. On the above observation, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. ____________________________ JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA Date : 20.02.2026 SPP 7 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1482 of 2008 Dated 20.02.2026 SPP