1 APHC010544682013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3560] THURSDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1547/2013 Between: 1. GUMADALA RAVI KUMAR, S/O LATE SRI PAKEER HINDU R/O VISWANADHAPURAM VILLAGE H/O DUDDUKALLU PANCHAYAT G.L.PURAM MANDAL VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF AP, Rep by its Public Prosecutor High Court of AP., Hyderabad ...RESPONDENT Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the CriminalRevisionCase, the High Court may be pleased toto present this Memorandum of Crl.RC before this Honble Court against the Judgment made in Crl.A.No.176/2013 on the file of the court of the II Addl.District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Parvathipuramdt 17.07.2013 preferred against the Calendar and Judgment made in CC No.24/2012 on the file of the the Court of the JFCM., Kurupamdt 22.11.2012 IA NO: 1 OF 2013(CRLRCMP 2389 OF 2013 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 operation of the Judgment made in Crl.A.No.176/2012 on the file of the Court of the II Addl.District and Sessions Judge (FTC) Parvathipuramdt 17.07.2013 preferred against the Calendar and Judgment made in CC 2 No.24/2012 on the file of the court of the JFCM., Kurupamdt 22.11.2012 and enlarge the petitioner on bail, pending disposal of the present Crl.RC Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. N SIVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1547/2013 The Court made the following Order: The instant Criminal Revision Case has been preferred against the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Trial Court and confirmed by the learned Appellate Court against the present petitioner finding after finding him to be guilty for the offence punishable under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code (herein short as I.P.C). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Court below are improper and there are no ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 324 of I.P.C. Prosecution has failed to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubts. Moreover, the conviction and sentence passed against the present petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 324 of I.P.C is baseless. It is further submit that there are political rivalry and previous enmity in between the two groups of villages, thereby the PW.1 has sustained injuries and the petitioner was falsely implicated in this case. It is further argued that the prosecution has failed to seize offending cricket bat and there is no explanation for the non production of the said offending cricket bat. 3. He further submits that there are delay in lodging First Information Report. The learned Court below could not appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case, he prays to set aside the impugned sentence and conviction. 4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor raised objections and submits that the learned Trial Court as well as learned Appellate Court has properly gone through the record and evidence laid by the prosecution witnesses suggested that PW.1 was injured by attack of accused person thereby he sustained injury. It is further proved that the present petitioner had assaulted PW.1 by 4 cricket bat on the head of the PW1, thereby PW.1 sustained bleeding injury and blood was oozing out from his ear. The injury though recorded by the Doctor/ Medical Officer is simple in nature but it may be fatal. He further submits that using cricket bat in causing head injury, itself prove the intention of the petitioner to cause grievous injury to the PW.1. He further submits that it is not a sudden incident, or a spar of moment, it is due to previous enmity preplanned act of the petitioner. Though, other accompanied persons were not found guilty but they gathered together to commit the offence. He further submits that the learned Court below and learned Appellate Court has gone through the evidence on record laid by the prosecution and passed the order of conviction, which is justifiable in law. He further submits that non production of bat or non seizing of weapon is not fatal to the case of prosecution. He further submits that evidence of PW.1 to PW.8 except PW.5 has clearly supported the prosecution case. On the basis of which, conviction against present petitioner for the offence under section 324 of I.P.C is sustainable. 5. Heard the learned counsel. Perused the judgment of the learned Court below. 6. The nut shell of prosecution case is that on 06.05.2012, PW.1 and others went to Kansingu village for playing cricket, after completion of the game, they left the village in TATA ACE Auto to reach their village and when the vehicle reached Viswanadhapuram village, due to previous grudge between both the villages, the accused person stop the vehicle and beat PW.1 with cricket bat on his head and on left ear and caused bleeding injury. 7. To prove the prosecution case, the prosecution has placed as many as fourteen (14) witnesses and several documents were also marked as Exhibits P1 to P8. No material objects which used for the offence was seized or exhibited. For defence, some portion of statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C of PW.2 and PW.3 were marked. 5 8. During the course of trial, the several arguments were raised before learned Trial Court regarding the previous enmity, political rivalry and delay for lodging F.I.R. The learned Trial Court has decided those issues on the basis of evidence on record. The learned Appellate court has also decided the issues on the basis of evidences laid before the Trial Court. It has been noted by the learned Trial court that PW.1 to PW.8 except PW.5 supported the prosecution case. 9. On thorough scanning of prosecution case, it appears that charge was framed against petitioner as well as other four accused persons under Section 324, 323, 341 r/w 34 of I.P.C. 10. After conclusion of trial, the petitioner being accused No.1 only found guilty for the offences punishable under section 341 & 324 of I.P.C. The learned Trial court has sentenced the petitioner for Rigorous Imprisonment of two (02) years and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under section 324 of I.P.C and also directed to go Simple Imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- for the offence punishable under section 341 of I.P.C. 11. Let the consider whether on the basis, the present facts and circumstances of this case sentence against the petitioner is justifiable or not. 12. It is the case of prosecution that PW.1 along with his friends were playing cricket in a village and after completion of such game, whether they were on the way, their vehicle were restrained by the petitioner and his party, thereby, it has been alleged that petitioner being Accused No.1 has caused injury to PW.1 by using a cricket bat, by such incident PW.1 sustained bleeding injury over his head. 13. PW.10 is a Doctor, who deposed before the Court and submitted that he was examined PW.1 on 06.05.2012 i.e., the day of the incident and found lacerated injury on the left side of scalp of PW.1 and also found bleeding from 6 left ear. Thereafter, PW.1 was referred to District Hospital. PW.10 being a Civil Surgeon specially opined that the above injuries are simple in nature. 14. Let be considered whether the evidence of PW.10 is justifiable regarding ingredients of offence punishable under section 324 of I.P.C Section 324 of IPC read as follows: Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means.— Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. 15. On plain perusal of the provision, Section 324 of I.P.C is definition of offence of voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means. Dangerous weapons or means defined in this section as any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, and also define any instrument which, used as weapon of offence, is likely to cause death. 16. It is the submission of the learned Assistant Public prosecutor that cricket bat or heavy stick can be used as a dangerous weapon as defined under section 324 I.P.C. He further pleaded that if any person caused fatal blow particularly on the head of the person by using a cricket bat by such way, the injured can received fatal injury, which can cause death. On that way, the cricket bat can be turned as dangerous weapon, under section 324 of I.P.C. Thereby, the punishment under section 324 of IPC is maintainable. 17. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that though the prosecution has put heavily reliance upon the weapon used by the 7 petitioner is a cricket bat but such cricket bat was neither recovered nor seized by the prosecution during the course of investigation. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that without seizing the weapon, the case of the prosecution cannot be said to be proved. 18. On the basis of submission made on behalf of the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that it has been alleged in the entire prosecution case that accused person had a plan to cause injury to PW.1. However, when the PW.1 and his friends were returning after playing cricket, they were restrained on the way, and thepetitioner/accused No.1 and his associates beat PW.1 with a cricket bat. It was surprisingly to note that though the incident happened on a particular date ie., 06.05.2012 but the associates of PW.1 has shifted him to nearby hospital, the police reached to the hospital and recorded the statement of PW.1 but cricket bat or any weapon used in the said assault was not recovered or seized by the prosecution. 19. Though in all cases, non recovery of weapon used in the offence is not fatal to the prosecution case, but in this case, it has been time and again suggested on behalf of defence there are political rivalry between the groups, thereby the petitioner has sustained injuries. Furthermore, if there was a pre- plan to assault PW.1 the petitioner and his associates should not armed with only a simple bat but they must armed with some other dangerous weapons to cause injury. 20. Moreover, in considering the injury sustained by PW.1 and also considering the opinion of PW.10 that the injury sustained by PW.1 is simple in nature. 21. I am of the view that though the alleged cricket bat was said to be used as a weapon in this offence but such assault by the cricket bat is not so fatal to cause death to the PW.1. 22. Considering the same in my view, the conviction under section 324 of I.P.C appears to be not maintainable. However, the PW.1 has sustained injury 8 that may be caused previous grudge and political rivalry, it has been proved that PW.1 has sustained injury by the attack of PW.1 23. Accordingly, in my view the conviction under section 324 of I.P.C is not maintainable.The petitioner may be punished with under section 323 of I.P.C., thereby, the punishment is converted to Section 323 of I.P.C. 24. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, it appears that the incident happened in the year 2012, it was already passed 14 years, faced the long pendency of litigation. So in my view, instead of conviction, imposition of punishment would be sufficient. After such incident, the petitioner is directed to pay further fine of Rs.5,000/-. 25. The punishment of the petitioner under section 341 of IPC is also converted to a fine of Rs.500/-. The imposition of punishment of fine passed by this court is additional to the fine, which was already awarded by the learned Trial Court. 26. Accordingly the instant Criminal Revision Case is disposed of, the petitioner are directed to pay the amount of fine before the learned Trial Court within six (06) weeks, from the date of passing of this order, failing the learned Court below shall issue warrant of arrest against the present petitioner to comply the order. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA Dated:12.02.2026 SSA 9 219 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1547/2013 Dated 12.02.2026 SSA 10