APHC010544682013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3560]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

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. G UMADALA 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. S TATE 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 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:

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 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 inciden