1 APHC010208552019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] MONDAY, THE 31st DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 779/2019 Between: TUPAKULA SANJEEV, S/O LATE KRISHNUDU, AGED 34 YEARS,OCC AGRICULTURC COOLIE, R/ O SANJEEVA NAGAR, PRODDATUR TOWN, KADAPA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF AP, REP BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE KOILKUNTLA POLICE STATION, KURNOOL DISTRICT. REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH 2. SHAIK ABDUL RAHIMAN, NATIVE OF DESAI STREET, KOILKUNTLA TOWN. ( R2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE COURT'S ORDER DATED 15.07.2026) ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: V NITESH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2. MADHAVI DONTHARAJU 2 The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity, ‘the Cr.P.C.’) / Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, ‘the BNSS’), challenging the judgment dated 28.06.2019 passed in Crl.A.No.157 of 2018 by the learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Allagadda, Kurnool District, whereby and whereunder the petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘the IPC’), while reducing the sentence of two years of imprisonment imposed by the learned Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Koilkuntla, dated 05.10.2018 in C.C.No.237 of 2015, to three months. 2. Petitioner is present. Respondent No.2 is not being produced by the Station House Officer, Koilkuntla. 3. Ms.D.Madhavi, learned counsel, is appointed as Legal Aid Counsel for Respondent No.2. The Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee, is directed to issue necessary proceedings in this regard. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for Respondent No.2. 5. Mr.V. Nitesh, learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the grounds of revision, alternatively submits that the petitioner is ready to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) towards compensation as 3 a measure of penance. He further submits that the petitioner has undergone 25 days in judicial custody and has paid Rs.2,000/- towards fine. 6. On perusal of the record, there is no finding of the learned Trial Court or the learned Appellate Court that the petitioner was previously convicted for a similar offence. The petitioner was in judicial custody for a period of 25 days before preferring the appeal and has paid Rs.2,000/- towards fine. The learned Trial Court convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 324 of ‘the IPC’ and sentenced him to imprisonment for a period of two years. In the appeal, the learned Appellate Court modified the sentence of two years to three months. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are grounds of revision to the effect that the prosecution witnesses failed to prove the case of the prosecution. The learned Trial Court failed to observe that the material object was not seized and that there was a discrepancy in the evidence of P.W.5. This Court, while exercising revisional jurisdiction, cannot go into the evidence of the prosecution witnesses with regard to its veracity. However, the witnesses for the prosecution have consistently deposed that the petitioner/accused beat the victim with a stick. The witnesses for the prosecution deposed that the petitioner beat the victim with a stick, which was about five feet in length. The non-recovery of the weapon/stick by the Investigating Officer is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. In view of the fact that all the witnesses for the prosecution had consistently stated that the petitioner beat Respondent No.2 with a stick, there are no reasons to interfere 4 with the judgment of the learned Trial Court, in view of the fact that there are no material irregularities or miscarriage of Justice. 8. Accordingly, the conviction confirmed by the learned Appellate Court is hereby confirmed. However, with regard to the sentence of imprisonment of three months, the petitioner already underwent 25 days in judicial custody and had paid Rs.2,000/- towards fine. The offence under Section 324 of ‘the IPC’ is punishable with imprisonment or fine or both. The alleged offence took place in the year 2015, and more than one decade has elapsed. The petitioner/accused has a right to speedy disposal of his cases, including the calendar case, appellate case and revisional case. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in Hussainara Khatoon (IV) v. Home Secretary State of Bihar1, held that the right to speedy disposal of cases is a fundamental right of the accused guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In addition to appeals, the right to speedy trial also includes criminal revisions, as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajdeo Sharma v. State of Bihar2. 9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the allegations, and in view of the fact that the petitioner has not been previously convicted for a similar offence, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of while confirming the conviction of the petitioner for the offence under Section 324 of ‘the IPC’; modifying the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone. The fine amount is enhanced from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.12,000/-. The enhanced fine amount of Rs.10,000/- shall be paid by the 1 Air 1979 SC 1360 2 2000 (1) BLJR 37 5 petitioner to Respondent No.2 as compensation. The petitioner is at liberty to deposit the said amount before the Registrar (Judicial), who shall, in turn, disburse the same to Respondent No.2 either by summoning Respondent No.2 through the Station House Officer, Koilkuntla, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order or send the amount to the learned Trial Court for disbursement to the respondent No.2. 10. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Revision Case shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 31.08.2026 Pmk 6 185 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 779 of 2019 Date: 31.08.2026 Pmk