IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.543 OF 2023 DATE: 02.02.2026 BETWEEN:

Md.Dilshad ...Revision petitioner And State of Telangana through S.H.O, Chikkadpally Police Station, Hyderabad, rep.by Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of T.S. and another. …Respondents

O R D E R

This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections

397 and 401 of the code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 aggrieved by the impugned judgment, dated 08.06.2023 in C.C.No.9871 of 2021 on the learned IX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, whereby the petitioner was found guilty of the offences under Sections 269 and 323 of I.P.C. and accordingly he was convicted and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.200/- for the offence under Section 269 of I.P.C, in default he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. He also further sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1000/- for the offence under Section 323 of I.P.C, in default he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 31.06.2021 at about 12:00 hours, while the petitioner was constructing a house bearing No.1-7-50/1, Risala, Musheerabad, with the assistance of L.W.2, respondent No.2–accused came to the petitioner’s house, intentionally abused him in filthy and vulgar language and assaulted him by using a ‘para’, causing an injury to the little finger of his right hand. As a result of the said assault, the petitioner sustained a bleeding injury to his right hand little finger.

3. On the same day, the petitioner approached Osmania General Hospital for treatment, where he was examined and treated by the doctors. Thus, the respondent No.2–accused committed offences punishable under Sections 324, 188, 269, and 270 of the Indian Penal Code and Section

52(b) of the Disaster Management Act, 2005.

4. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Chikkadpally Police Station, Hyderabad, filed a memo stating that no weapon was seized during the course of investigation. Accordingly, Sections 324, 188, 269, and 270 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 51(b) of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 were deleted, and Sections 269 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code were added. The said memo was acknowledged by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and was accepted by the learned trial Court.

5. The contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that though the Sub-Inspector of Police, by filing a memo, deleted the offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, the Crime Details Form clearly mentions in Column No.10 that the police seized ‘para’ from the scene of offence. This fact, by itself, demonstrates that the prosecution facilitated respondent No.2–accused to face a lesser punishment without properly verifying the record and without considering the seizure of the weapon. Despite the existence of material on record evidencing the use and seizure of the weapon, the learned trial Court, without due application of mind, erroneously passed the impugned judgment. Therefore, the petitioner prays this Hon’ble Court to set aside the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court and remand the matter for fresh trial in accordance with law.

6. In spite of service of notice on respondent No.2, none appears for respondent No.2.

7. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1–State submits that there is no illegality in the judgment passed by the learned trial Court. It is contended that based on the findings of the Investigating Officer, the offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code was deleted, and accordingly, respondent No.2–accused was convicted for the remaining offences. Therefore, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor prays that this Court may be pleased to dismiss the revision case.

8. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, and upo