ORDER :

1. In this Criminal Revision Petition filed by three (3) convicts, they seek to set aside the judgment of the learned first appellate Court by exercising powers under Section 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. Respondent herein is the State on whose prosecution these revision petitioners were earlier convicted by the learned trial Court.

2. The facts leading to the presentation of present revision are to be noticed.

Crime No. 50 of 2009 of Chennur police station was investigated into by the Sub Inspector of Police and on collection of evidence and conclusion of investigation a charge sheet was filed before learned First Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadapa for the offences under Sections 324 r/w. 34 IPC and Section 188 IPC. After taking cognizance of offence and securing the presence of accused and having furnished copies of documents and after hearing counsel on both sides the learned trial Court framed a charge under Section 324 IPC as against A2 and A3 and a charge under Section 324 r/w. 34 IPC against A1. The accused denied the facts and pleaded not guilty. Further trial ensued where prosecution examined PWs. 1 to 8 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6 and also exhibited one of the crime weapons/MO.1 stick. The incriminating material available on record was explained to the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein the accused denied the truth of the evidence. Accused did not adduce any evidence. After hearing arguments on both sides and after thorough scrutiny of evidence on record, learned trial Court found A1 to A3 guilty for the charges framed against them and convicted them and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and further directed each one of them to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- prescribing default sentence to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Before the learned trial Court, it was a case of one victim and three accused. They belong to different political parties and the alleged offence occurred on 23.04.2009 which was the day for general elections for Parliament as well as State Assembly. The allegations are that all the three accused noticed the victim/PW-1 at 2.30 PM at Old bank street, Chennur of Kadapa District and thus accused reached the victim and attacked him. A1 caught hold the neck of the victim and dragged him and A2 using MO.1 stick caused injury on the head and A3 using a stone caused injury on the back of the victim. The evidence of victim/PW-1 and that of his friend, who was by his side and witnessed the incident, gave evidence as PW-2 and the earlier statement of PW-1 given to police as per Ex.P1 were found consistent by the trial Court. In addition to that there was the evidence of PWs. 3, 4 and 5 which also stood as full support for the version of the prosecution. The victim was examined by medical expert and his wound certificate was there on record and was exhibited as a document while examining the investigation officer/PW-8. It seems the medical doctor who examined the victim did not testify before the Court and prosecution gave up his evidence. It was in that context of facts defence raised a contention before the learned trial Court about proof of contents of the wound certificate/Ex.P6. Learned trial Court by furnishing its own reasons observed that from the rest of the evidence it was able to reach to the conclusion about simple hurt suffered by PW-1 in the hands of accused and therefore it felt that non-examination of doctor did not affect the case of the prosecution. Acting upon such evidence the learned trial Court found the accused guilty and convicted them and sentenced them accordingly.

3. Challenging that judgment all the three convicts preferred Criminal Appeal No. 124 of 2010 and First Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa after due hearing, by his judgment dated 24.01.2012 felt that the wound certificate of the victim was not proved in accordance with law and it gave its reasons at Para 12, 13 and 14 of its judgment and held that, that technical lapse shoul