APHC010439462010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3560] MONDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 217/2010 Between: 1. BORRA SESHAIAH, S/O. RAMAIAH, R/O. CHJINAPULIVARU (V), KOLLURU (M), GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. YEMENENI SIVAIAH AND 6 OTHERS, S/O. KOTESWARA RAO, R/O. CHINAPULIVARRU, KOLLURU MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. YEMINENI NAGARAJU A2, S/O. SILVAIAH, R/O. CHINAPULIVARRU, KOLLURU MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. UPPALA SRINIVASA RAOA3, S/O. NAGESWARA RAO, R/O. CHINAPULIVARRU, KOLLURU MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 4. TATA SRINIVASA RAO A4, S/O. RAVI, R/O. CHINAPULIVARRU, KOLLURU MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 5. TATA RAMANJANEYULUA5, S/O. RAVI, R/O. CHINAPULIVARRU, KOLLURU MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 6. TATA SAMBAIAH A6, S/O. RAVI, R/O. CHINAPULIVARRU, KOLLURU MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 7. STATE OF A P, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P., HYDERABAD ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 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 Criminal Revision Case in this Hon'ble Court against the Judgment in S.C.No.87 of 2009 dated 05.10.2009 on the file of the Court of the Additional Assistance Sessions Judge, Tenali. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SREEKANTH REDDY AMBATI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. K RAMA KOTESWARA RAO 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 3 The Court made the following Order: Respondents 1 to 6 are arrayed as accused in Sessions Case No.87 of 2009 for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 324 read with 34 IPC. Learned trial Court, after conclusion of trial, found the A1 to A6 guilty for the offence punishable under Section 324 read with 34 IPC and convicted them under Section 235 (2) Cr.P.C and all the accused persons are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. 2. The petitioner being de facto complainant challenged the order of conviction on the ground that the learned Court below should have convicted the accused under Section 326 IPC instead of Section 324 IPC. It is the sole contention of the petitioner that the accused persons jointly attacked PW.7 on 17.08.2008 without any provocation by dangerous weapons, by such attack, PW.7 sustained severe head injury thereby after such injury he lost speaking. This is a permanent nature of injury causing permanent impairing of speech. Thus the conviction under Section 326 IPC is necessary instead of Section 324 IPC. 3. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the learned Court below has assigned reason for the conviction under Section 307 IPC is not maintainable as the charge has been framed under Section 324 IPC, hence, the accused persons are convicted under Section 324 IPC. He further submits that the learned Court below has assigned reason why the conviction was maintainable under Section 324 IPC. Accordingly, the observation of the learned Court below requires no interference. 4 4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further submits that in paragraph 35 of the impugned judgment, the learned Court below has opined that there are no earlier enmities between PW.7 as well as A1 to A6. Thus, there is no intention to kill. Hence, the conviction is not possible under Section 307 IPC. He further submits that PW.10/Doctor, who proved and submitted the wound certificate. It appears that the injury sustained by PW.7 is simple in nature. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the observation of the learned Court below. 6. It appears that injured appeared before the Court below as PW.7. It has been alleged that by such injury PW.7 has lost his speech and it has also argued that till today he could not speech. It further appears that the learned Court below has opined that there are no suggestions from the defence that PW.7 was dumb or unable to speak prior to the incident. The learned Court below also opined that perhaps due to such attack by accused, PW.7 has lost his speech. Further, it appears to me that if it has been specifically proved before the learned Court below that PW.7 has lost his speech due to attack of A1 to A6, thus the offence punishable under Section 326 IPC is maintainable. 7. In this particular case, it appears that after attack, PW.7 fell unconscious and he was admitted in the Hospital, during his treatment, one x- ray and CT scan was done on his brain. The said report was placed before PW.10. On careful perusal of evidence of PW.10, it appears that PW.10 deposed that on perusal of CT Scan report there are no abnormalities. One 5 can lost his speech due to injury over his brain. It has been alleged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that due to such attack, PW.7 sustained severe injury on brain that’s why he is not able to speak. The evidence of PW.10 makes it clear that there are no abnormalities in the CT Scan report, which tantamounts that the injury sustained by PW.7 by the attack of A1 to A6 does not damage his brain. Thus, the loss of speech may be by other reason but not for the injury inflicted by A1 to A6 upon PW.7. 8. Section 326 IPC requires injury, which is in the nature of grievous. PW.10 deposed that the injury sustained by PW.7 is simple in nature. Thus the conviction under Section 324 read with 34 IPC is maintainable. There is no merit to record conviction of A1 to A6 under Section 326 IPC as the petitioner has not sustained any grievous hurt. Accordingly, I find no merit to entertain the instant criminal revision case. 9. On the above observation, the instant Criminal Revision Case is dismissed as devoid of merits. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. ____________________________ JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA Date: 05.01.2026 SPP 6 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.217 of 2010 Dated 05.01.2026 SPP