APHC010346852015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3560]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

FRIDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1684/2015 Between:

1. S ADAM PEDDA YOGAIAH, PRAKASAM DIST. & 2 OTHRS, S/O.

NARAYANA, OCC: CULTIVATION, R/O. PADAMARA KASIPURAM VILLAGE, KURICHEDU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DIST.

2. G ADDAM VENKATESWARLU,, S/O. LATE NAGAIAH, OCC:

CULTIVATION, R/O. PADAMARA KASIPURAM VILLAGE, KURICHEDU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DIST.

3. U SULLA VENKATESWARLU, S/O. YALLAIAH, OCC: CULTIVATION, R/O. PADAMARA KASIPURAM VILLAGE, KURICHEDU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DIST. ...PETITIONER(S)

AND

1. S UB INSPECTOR OF POLICE TRIPURANTHAKAM P S, through Sub Inspector of Police, Tripuranthakam P.S., rep. by its Public Prosecutor at High court, Hyderabad.

...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. N RAVI PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent:

1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following:

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1684/2015

O R D E R:

1. Petitioners were convicted by the learned Trial Court i.e., Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Markapur in CCNo.337 of 2010 for an offence punishable under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code (for short I.P.C.,) and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two (02) years each and to pay a fine of Rs.300/- (Rupees three hundreds only) each. Against such Order of conviction, the petitioners approached the Appellate Court i.e., VI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Markapur. The Appellate Judge found the Petitioners to be guilty not for the offence punishable under Section 326 of the I.P.C., but for the offence punishable under Section 325 of I.P.C r/w 34 of I.P.C and also modified the sentence to Simple Imprisonment for one (01) month and to pay fine of Rs.300/- (Rupees three hundred only) each. Hence, this Criminal Revision Case (for short Crl.R.C).

2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submit that the evidence of prosecution is not justifiable to record conviction of Petitioners under Section 325 of I.P.C.,. He further submits that the learned Appellate Court has perused the discrepancies and consequently converted the offence from Section 326 of I.P.C., to Section 325 of I.P.C.,. He further submits that the learned Appellate Court on perusing the discrepancies in the evidence must have acquitted the Petitioners. He further submits that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt against the present petitioners for the offence punishable either under Section 326 or 325 of I.P.C., there is a benefit of doubt. Thus, the Petitioners deserve acquittal.

3. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor raised objection and submits that the learned Trial Court has convicted the Petitioners for an offence punishable under Section 326 of I.P.C.,. However, the weapon used in the alleged offence is Brick, it is not an instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, thus, the learned Appellate Court has converted the punishment from Section 326 of I.P.C to Section 325 of I.P.C. He further submits that there are no discrepancies in the Order passed by the learned Appellate Court, so the conviction Order is maintainable.

4. Peculiar fact goes to show that there is an allegation against the present petitioners that they have committed the offence of voluntarily causing grievous hut to the injured – P.W.6. To prove the offence, the prosecution has examined as many as eight (08) witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.8 and exhibited 5 documents - marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5. Surprisingly, no Material Object (M.O) placed on record before the learned Trial Court. The alleged Brick which was used to cause grievous hurt to the injured was also not recovered.

5. The learned Appellate Court has opined that the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.7 is not corroborating the entire facts. P.W.7 is the Doctor who deposed regarding the injuries sustained by the injured (P.W.6), but the Do