Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 19453
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Subhendu Samanta, J
JAVVADI RAMESH KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH – Respondent
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 787/2009
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Y Narapa Reddy
For the Respondents: Public Prosecutor
To sustain a conviction under Section 307 IPC, the prosecution must prove a specific intent or knowledge to cause death; mere assault with a sharp weapon without proven intent to kill constitutes an offence under Section 324 IPC.
Headnote:The petitioner was convicted under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for allegedly attacking the complainant with a sickle following a dispute over an alleged illicit relationship. The trial and appellate courts concurrently found the petitioner guilty, sentencing him to five years of rigorous imprisonment. The High Court observed that while the assault was proven, the prosecution failed to provide evidence of a specific intent to kill, noting that the injuries sustained were simple in nature. The primary issue was whether the ingredients of Section 307 IPC were satisfied. The court reasoned that "Intention to kill is mental act" and that merely causing an assault with a sharp-cutting weapon does not automatically prove an attempt to murder unless the prosecution establishes a clear intent to cause death or bodily injury likely to cause death. The punishment of petitioner is hereby converted to Section 324 IPC, hence, he is punished for rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of the prosecution's case and the history of concurrent convictions by the trial and appellate courts. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding the lack of evidence for intent to kill and the reliability of prosecution witnesses. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. court's analysis of the evidence showing a lack of proven motive or intent to commit murder. (Para 7) |
| 4. the legal requirement that section 307 ipc requires proof of a mental act (intent) beyond the mere use of a weapon. (Para 8) |
| 5. conversion of the conviction from attempt to murder (s.307 ipc) to voluntarily causing hurt (s.324 ipc) due to lack of intent. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
Reserved on : 31.03.2026
Pronounced on : 07.05.2026
Uploaded on : 07.05.2026
APHC010585752009
Revision filed under Section 397 /401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to submit this memorandum of Criminal Revision Petition aggrieved by the judgment in S.C.No.425 of 2008, dated 9.2.2009 on the file of the court of the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet, and confirmed in Crl.A.No. 46 of 2009 dated 4.5.2009 on the file of the Judge, Family Court-cum-Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Guntur
IA NO: 1 OF 2009(CRLRCMP 1080 OF 2009
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 conviction and sentence handed over to the petitioner in S.C.No. 425 of 2008, dated 9.2.2009 on the file of the court of the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet, and confirmed in Crl.A.No. 46 of 2009 dated 4.5.2009 on the file of the Judge, Family Court-cum- Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Guntur and enlarge the petitioner on bail pending disposal of the revision
The Court made the following Order:
The instant criminal revision case is filed against the concurrent finding of learned Court below wherein and whereunder they found the petitioner to be guilty for an offence punishable under Section 307 IPC.
2. The brief fact of the prosecution case is that on 20.12.2007 in the morning when de facto complainant is going towards Nudurupadu side from his village Munagapadu for selling beaten paddy and puffed rice keeping them on a basket behind his cycle. Suddenly accused who was driving a motorcycle, and dashed de facto complainant’s cycle from behind, as a result, de facto complainant fell down then and there, accused took out a sickle from back of his motorcycle and hacked de facto complainant on his head, left hand, neck and nose indiscriminately, thereby de facto complainant sustained bleeding injuries. It is alleged that accused had a grudge that de facto complainant had got illegal intimacy with wife of the accused. At the time one G.Kondala Rao along with G. Prakasa Rao came to the spot, snatched the sickle from the hands of accused and threw away, thereafter separated the accused. They called ambulance by phone and admitted injured in Government Area Hospital.
3. Charge was framed against petitioner under Section 307 IPC, during course of trial, prosecution has examined 14 witnesses and placed 12 documents marked as separate exhibits, material objects, M.Os.1 to 18, were also marked. Contradictions appeared in the evidences of prosecution witnesses were marked by the defence. After hearing the prosecution witnesses, learned trial Court has convicted petitioner for an offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and sentenced to go rigorous imprisonment for five years and directed to pay fine Rs.1,000/-. Order of Conviction was challenged in appeal, learned appellate Court has confirmed the order by dismissing the appeal, hence this revision.
4.
Submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner:
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court is only on the basis of con
