APHC010192042017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3560] TUESDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 2028/2017 Between: 1. MUYYEBOIONAN VENKATESWARA RAO, WG.DT & 2 OTRS.,, S/O LAKSHMUDU, R/O BUTTAIGUDEM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 2. KATTAM DURGA RAO, S/O GANGARAJU, R/O 'GOWRAMPETA, BUTTAIGUDEM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 3. UJYEKE SRINU @ DABBA SRINU, S/O SUBBA RAJU, . R/O PENTAPALEM, JANGAREDDYDUEM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF AP REP PP AND ANR, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. NEERAM DHASARADHUDU, S/O CHINNABBAI, R/O VEERANNAPALEM, BUTTAIGUDEM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 set aside the judgment in Crl.A.No.369 of 2015 on the file of IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari District at Kovvur confirming the judgment in 2 C.C.No.716 of 209 dt.2710-2015 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jangareddygudem, West Godavari District and release the petitioners on bail, pending disposal of the above Crl.R.C. in the interest of justice. IA NO: 1 OF 2017(CRLRCMP 3245 OF 2017 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 judgment in CrI.A.No.369 of 2015 on the file of IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari District at Kovvur confirming the judgment in C.C.No.716 of 2013 dt.2710- 2015 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jangareddygudem, West Godavari District and release the petitioners on bail, pending disposal of the above CrI.R.C. in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. K J V N PUNDAREEKAKSHUDU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 2028/2017 The Court made the following: The instant Criminal Revision Case has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Trial Court in CC.No.07 of 2013 passed against present petitioners and one another. The learned Trial Court found the petitioners guilty for the offence punishable under Section 323 of Indian Penal Code (For brevity the I.P.C) and sentenced them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six months each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each and also to pay compensation of Rs.2,000/- to the defacto-complainant. Against such order of conviction, petitioners have preferred an Appeal. Learned Appellate Court dismissed the appeal by confirming the impugned order. Hence the instant Criminal Revision Case. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that accused Nos.1 to 3 are before this Court. At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the dispute between the defacto-complainant and accused persons was arising out of borrowing of loan. The Defacto-complainant stood as surety of the loan amount borrowed by the accused Nos.1 and 2 and two more persons from Vijaya Bank. The loan was not paid, the said bank issued notice to defacto-complainant. There are altercation between the defacto-complainant and accused persons, reasons thereby suddenly picked up quarrel during conversation and accused persons have been assaulted defacto-complainant. 4 Defacto-complainant admitted to the hospital after receiving injury and the case was registered against the petitioners. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Trial Court is illegal and improper. He further submits that the prosecution miserably failed to bring home the charge against the petitioners, thereby order of conviction and sentence is illegal and liable to set aside. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that a head constable who alleged have recorded the statement of the defacto-complainant at hospital was not cited as charge sheet witness or never produced before this Court to prove the complaint.Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that offending weapons were not seized. The dispute between the parties are civil in nature. The assault may have been committed at heat of momement. Thus, the petitioners may be exonerated from Rigorous Imprisonment and they may be directed to pay fine. 5. Sri K.Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor raised some objections. To prove the charge, prosecution has produced as many as six witnesses. Among them, PW.1 is Defacto-complainant, who supported the prosecution case entirely. The evidence of PW.1 was corroborated by other witness ie., PW.6-Doctor who examined PW.1 after suffering injury. The evidence of PW.6 has proved that the present petitioners have assaulted PW.1 indiscriminately. Thus, order of conviction and sentence for the offence 5 punishable under section 323 of I.P.C is maintainable and there is no merit in the instant Criminal Revision Case. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the observation and order passed by the learned Trial Court as well as observation of the learned Appellate Court. It appears that on 30.10.2013 at about 3-00 pm., during discussion about repayment of bank loan between defacto-complainant and accused persons, suddenly accused persons beat defacto-complainant with hands and stones, by such, the defacto-complainant sustained injuries and admitted to the hospital. 7. To prove the prosecution case, prosecution has adduced as many as six witnesses. PW.1-Defacto-complainant-cum-injured who specifically stated about factum of assault. Admittedly, no weapon of assault was recovered during the investigation by the police. But the assault was committed by the petitioners is sufficiently proved by PW.1-defacto-complainat and PW.6- Doctor, who treated PW.1 at hospital. 8. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that head constable, who recorded the statement of PW.1 was not examined by the prosecution. The statement of PW.1 was marked as Ex.P1. Ex.P1 was marked on behest of PW.1. Moreover, PW.1 has himself admitted before Court that he stated the contents of Ex.P1 which was recorded by the Head Constable. Ex.P1 was statement of PW.1. Thus, the evidence of constable, who recorded the statement is not necessary. Moreover, it is not fatal to the 6 prosecution case. Ultimately, the factum of assault which was stated by PW.1 before the Court and also stated before the Head Constable who recorded Ex.P1.It further appears that the other witnesses are corroborative in nature. PW.6 also supported the case of prosecution. Reasons thereby, it appears that conviction against the present petitioners for the offence punishable under section 323 of I.P.C appears to be recorded on the basis of just evidence both orally and documentary. It further appears that learned Appellate Court has correctly scanned the evidences and affirmed the order of learned Trial Court. Thus, I find no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order passed by learned Trial Court as well as learned Appellate Court. Thus the order of conviction for the offence punishable under section 323 of I.P.C is maintainable. 9. However, in this particular case, it appears that the alleged incident happened in the year 2013, already 13 years has been elapsed. The petitioners are in custody for some period during the course of investigation of the instant case. Admittedly the alleged assault was caused by accused persons to defacto-complainant in respect of repayment of bank loan. Thus, there are no previous enmity between the parties, the alleged incident may have happened in the heat of the moment during the course of conversation. Thus, in my view order of conviction and sentence against present petitioners deserved to be altered. 7 10. In the attending facts and circumstances of the case, thus the order of imprisonment upon the present petitioners is hereby converted to the period already undergone by the petitioners during investigation, enquiry and Trial. 11. Petitioners are also directed to pay further fine amount of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) each, before learned Court below within period of four (04) weeks from the date of passing of this order, failing which the learned Court below shall issue necessary orders of Non Bailable Warrant to comply the order. 12. Accordingly, the instant Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA Dated:07.04.2026 SSA