HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

****

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.839 OF 2009

Between:-

1. Nunna Sankara Rao, S/o.Narasimha Rao, R/o.Sanarudravaram,

Kalidindi Mandal, Krishna District.

2. Nunna Kali Venkata Srinivasa Rao @ Bosu, (A-3), S/o.Narasimha

Rao, R/o.Sanarudravaram, Kalidindi Mandal, Krishna District.

3. Nunna Ramaiah, (A-5), S/o.Subba Rao, R/o.Sanarudravaram,

Kalidindi Mandal, Krishna District.

4. Nunna Kali Prasad, (A-8), S/o.Narasimha Rao,

R/o.Sanarudravaram, Kalidindi Mandal, Krishna District.

...Petitioners

AND

The State of A.P., rep by Public Prosecutor,

High Court of A.P., Hyderabad,.

...Respondent

****

DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED : 16.06.2025

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO

1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No

2. Whether the copy of Judgment may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No

3. Whether His Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Judgment? Yes/No _________________________

Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J * THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO + CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.839 OF 2009 % 16.06.2025 # Between:

1. Nunna Sankara Rao, S/o.Narasimha Rao, R/o.Sanarudravaram, Kalidindi Mandal, Krishna District.

2. Nunna Kali Venkata Srinivasa Rao @ Bosu, (A-3), S/o.Narasimha Rao, R/o.Sanarudravaram, Kalidindi Mandal, Krishna District.

3. Nunna Ramaiah, (A-5), S/o.Subba Rao, R/o.Sanarudravaram, Kalidindi Mandal, Krishna District.

4. Nunna Kali Prasad, (A-8), S/o.Narasimha Rao, R/o.Sanarudravaram, Kalidindi Mandal, Krishna District.

...Petitioners AND The State of A.P., rep by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad,.

...Respondent ! Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri Challa Ajay Kumar ^Counsel for the Respondent : Ms. P.Akhila Naidu, Assistant Public Prosecutor Gist:

> Head Note:

? Cases referred:

1) (2002) 6 SCC 650

2) Crl.RP.Nos.1148 & 1185 of 2012

3) 2009 (1) ALT (Crl) 23 (NRC) 4) 2018 SCC Online Jhar 2373 5) 2016 SCC Online Jhar 2372

6) 1991 Cri. Law Journal 1867 (Del.)

7) 2003 SCC Online P & H 224

8) Crl.R.C.No.365 of 2010

9) 2024 1 ALD (Cri) 728

10) AIR 1979 SC 1360 11) (1999) 7 SCC 604 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No:839 of 2009

ORDER:

The Criminal Revision Case has been preferred under Section 397 and

401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C.,’) against the judgment dated 26.05.2009 in Crl.A.No.123 of 2006 passed by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam, confirming the conviction of Accused Nos.2 and 8 for the offences under Section 326 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ while reducing the sentence from two years of rigorous imprisonment to one year rigorous imprisonment by confirming the sentence of fine. The conviction recorded by the learned Trial Court against the Accused Nos.3 and 5 is altered from Section 326 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ to Section 324 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ and sentence was reduced to three months rigorous imprisonment.

2. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the revisionists and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

3. Sri Challa Ajay Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioners, while reiterating the grounds of the revision, submitted that the learned Judge committed a grave error in placing undue reliance on the highly interested and inconsistent testimony of P.W.1, failing to recognize that the essential ingredients required to establish the alleged offences were not sufficiently proved by the prosecution; by disbelieving the foundational aspects of the prosecution’s case and acquitting Accused No.1 and Accused No.4, the learned Judge erroneously proceeded to convict the petitioners; the medical evidence did not corroborate the prosecution’s version of events, and P.W.1, the injured one, failed to specify the overt act of Accused No.1 in the F.I.R, which had previously resulted in giving benefit of doubt to Accused No.1; inclusion of Accused No.8/Nunna Kali Prasad during trial under Section 319 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ raises concerns regarding