Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Midde Durga Rao, vs Vadlamudi Venkatarao And 9 Others, on 11 March, 2025
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
****
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.892 OF 2009
Between:-
Midde Durga Rao ...Petitioner
Versus
Vadlamudi Venkatarao And 9 Others
...Respondent
****
DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED : 11.02.2025
2 Dr.YLR, J
Crl.R.C.No.892 of 2009
Dated 11.02.2025
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
THE HON'BLE SRI 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 JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
3 Dr.YLR, J
Crl.R.C.No.892 of 2009
Dated 11.02.2025
* HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
****
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE.No.892 OF 2009
11.02.2025
# Between:
Midde Durga Rao
...Petitioner
Versus
Vadlamudi Venkatarao And 9 Others
...Respondent
****
! Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri K. Jyothi Prasad
^ Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. K. Sandeep, Assistant Public
Prosecutor
< Gist:
> Head Note:
4 Dr.YLR, J
Crl.R.C.No.892 of 2009
Dated 11.02.2025
? Cases referred:
1) AIR 1962 SC 1788
2) AIR 1981 SC 1415
5 Dr.YLR, J
Crl.R.C.No.892 of 2009
Dated 11.02.2025
THE HON'BLE SRI DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE.No.892 OF 2009
ORDER:
The Revision has been preferred under Sections 397 and 401 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘the Cr.P.C.’) against the
judgment in Calendar Case No.1097 of 2006 dated 08.04.2009, passed by the
learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jangareddygudem, holding the
respondent No.1/accused No.1 found not guilty for the offence punishable
under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘the IPC.’) and
respondent No.2 to 9/accused Nos.1 to 9 found not guilty for the offence
under Sections 323 and 326 read with 34 of ‘the IPC.’
2. The following material grounds are raised in the revision:
i. The learned Magistrate erred in acquitting the accused for the
offences punishable under Sections 326, 323, and 326 read with 34
of ‘the IPC‘.
ii. The learned Magistrate failed to see that the ingredients to constitute
the said offences were proved by legal and reliable evidence to
convict the accused for the offences charged.
iii. The learned Magistrate should have seen that the evidence of P.W-1
was fully corroborated with the evidence of P.Ws.6 to 8.
iv. The learned Magistrate should have seen that P.W-1 was an injured
witness, his evidence was fully corroborated with the medical
evidence.
6 Dr.YLR, J
Crl.R.C.No.892 of 2009
Dated 11.02.2025v. The learned Magistrate should have seen that P.Ws.3 and 4 clearly
stated in their chief examination that the incident happened 5 or 6
years ago on one day at 6.30 and 7.00 p.m., and the incident
happened four houses away from their house and they had seen the
commission of the said offence.
vi. The learned Magistrate failed to see that the evidence of hostile
witnesses may not be rejected in toto.
vii. The learned Magistrate should have seen that Ex.P9 wound
certificate is fully corroborated with MO.1 X-Ray belonging to P.W-1
and it corroborated with the evidence of P.W-8.
3. I have heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the Revisionist,
learned Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 9, and the learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor and perused the record.
4. Sri I.V.N.Raju, learned counsel for revisionist reiterated the grounds of
revision and urged that the judgment passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate of First Class, Jangareddygudem suffers from material
irregularities and there are perverse findings recorded and therefore it is liable
to be set aside and respondent Nos.1 to 9 are liable to be convicted and
sentenced.
5. Per contra, Ms. V. Sowmya, learned counsel, representing Sri K.Jyothi
Prasad, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 9, argued that P.Ws-2 to 5,
who were happened to be direct and independent witnesses, had not
supported the case of the prosecution and there was a discrepancy with
respect to the weapon allegedly used by the Respondent Nos.1 to 9 for
7 Dr.YLR, J
Crl.R.C.No.892 of 2009
Dated 11.02.2025
causing the alleged hurt to P.W-1. Except the untrustworthy evidence of P.W-
1, which was not corroborated in material particulars, the prosecution could
not prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. There were no
material irregularities committed by the learned Courts below. Therefore, the
learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jangareddygudem had rightly
appreciated the evidence in correct perspective and acquitted the respondent
Nos.1 to 9. There was neither misreading of the evidence nor perverse
findings. Hence, it is argued that the Revision Petition is liable to be
dismissed.
6. Mr. K.Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued in the
similar lines with the learned counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 9 and urged
this Court to dismiss the revision case as there is no scope in appreciating the
evidence by this revisional court and the revision is not maintainable.
7. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by
the learned counsel for the Petitioner, Respondent Nos.1 to 9 and the learned
Assistant Public Prosecutor. I have perused the record.
8. Now the point for consideration is
Whether the judgment in C.C.No.1097 of 2006 dated
08.04.2009, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First
Class, Jangareddygudem, is correct, legal, and proper with
respect to its finding, sentence, or judgment, and there are any
material irregularities? And to what relief?
9. The Hon’ble Apex Court in K Chinnaswamy Reddy v State of AP1, at
Paragraph No.7 held as under:
1
AIR 1962 SC 1788
8 Dr.YLR, J
Crl.R.C.No.892 of 2009
Dated 11.02.2025“7. It is true that it is open to a High Court in revision to set
aside an order of acquittal even at the instance of private parties,
though the State may not have thought fit to appeal; but this
jurisdiction should in our opinion be exercised by the High Court
only in exceptional cases, when there is some glaring defect in the
procedure or there is a manifest error on a point of law and
consequently there has been a flagrant miscarriage of justice.
Sub-section (4) of S. 439 forbids a High Court from converting a
finding of acquittal into one of conviction and that makes it all the
more incumbent on the High Court to see that it does not, convert
the finding of acquittal into one of conviction by the indirect method
of ordering retrial when it cannot itself directly convert a finding of
acquittal into a finding of conviction. This places limitations on the
power of the High Court to set aside a finding of acquittal in
revision and it is only in exceptional cases that this power should
be exercised. It is not possible to lay down the criteria for
determining such exceptional cases which would cover all
contingencies. We may, however, indicate some cases of this kind
which would in our opinion justify the High Court in interfering with
a finding of acquittal in revision. These cases may be: where the
trial court has no jurisdiction to try the case but has still acquitted
the accused, or where the trial court has wrongly shut out
evidence which the prosecution wished to produce. or where the
appeal court has wrongly held evidence which was admitted by
the trial court to be inadmissible, or where material evidence has
been overlooked either by the trial court or by the appeal court, or
where the acquittal is based on a compounding of the offence,
which is invalid under the law. These and other cases of similar
nature can properly be held to be cases of exceptional nature,
where the High Court can justifiably interfere with an order of
acquittal; an in such a case it is obvious that it cannot be said that
the High Court was doing indirectly what it could not do directly in
view of the provisions of S. 439 (4). We have, therefore, to see
whether the order of the High Court setting aside the order of
acquittal in this case can be upheld on these principles.”
10. It is apposite to refer the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in
Ayodhya Dube v. Ram Sumer Singh2, wherein it is held at para No.2 as
under:
“We may add that the High Court also expressed the view
that the instances mentioned by this Court in Chinnaswamy v.
State of Andhra Pradesh as justifying interference with order of
acquittal in the exercise of revisional powers were illustrative and
not exhaustive. We agree with the view expressed by the High
Court and we only wish to say that the Criminal Justice System2 AIR 1981 SC 1415
9 Dr.YLR, J
Crl.R.C.No.892 of 2009
Dated 11.02.2025does not admit of ‘pigeon-holding’. Life and the Law do not fall
neartly into slots. When a Court starts laying down rules
enumerated (1), (2), (3), (4), or (a), (b), (c), (d), it is arranging for
itself traps and pitfalls. Categories, classifications and
compartments, which statute does not mention, all tend to make
law ‘less flexible, less sensible and less just.”
11. Keeping in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in
Ayodhya Dube and K Chinnaswamy Reddy, this revision case has to be
appreciated. As seen from the evidence of P.W-1, who was the de-facto
complainant by name M. Durgarao, that on 11.07.2003, while he was
returning from his fields at 6.30 p.m., he reached the house of A1. A1
questioned him about giving information to the Excise Police officials about
the involvement of other accused in Excise offences and on that A1 felt
aggrieved and beat with a big stone on the left knee. Several persons
gathered at that time. He went to the police station and gave a report.
12. To buttress the evidence of P.W-1, the prosecution had examined
P.Ws-2 to 5, but they deposed abysmal ignorance about the alleged offence.
In the evidence of P.W-1, he deposed that the alleged offence occurred at the
house of A1, whereas, P.W-7 the Investigating Officer had deposed that the
incident occurred near the house of A3 on Panchayat road. Similarly in Ex.P8
sketch prepared by P.W-7 does not disclose the location of the scene of
offence. There were no marks shown in Ex.P8 about the scene of offence.
The learned Trial Court also rightly observed that Ex.P8 prepared by P.W-7
was of no help to prove the case of the prosecution.
13. P.W-6 was examined to prove the drafting of scene of the offence
observation report. P.W-6 stated that there were no marks or signs at scene of
10 Dr.YLR, J
Crl.R.C.No.892 of 2009
Dated 11.02.2025
offence about the occurrence of alleged offence. P.W-7 also in his cross-
examination admitted that he had not found any traces of an altercation at the
scene of offence. Had the incident occurred, as per the version of P.W-1, that
nearly 9 persons attacked P.W-1, there would have been every possibility of
scuffling and witnessing the same by the persons, who were in that vicinity.
Ironically, P.W-1 deposed that A1 beat him with a big stone on his left knee.
P.W-1 in his cross-examination categorically admitted that there was no
abrasion or swelling over the leg. Had P.W-1 been beaten by the respondent
Nos.1 to 9 by a big stone, P.W-1 would have received at least an abrasion or
a swelling over his leg.
14. P.W-1 had stated that A1 threw a stone at him at a distance of 1 ½
yard. The stone which was allegedly used to cause injury to P.W-1 was not
seized. It has to be pointed out that the Investigating Officer/P.W-8 in his
charge sheet mentioned that respondent No.1 (A1) beat P.W-1 with a stick.
However, the said stick was also not seized. When there is a discrepancy with
regard to the alleged weapon used for the commission of offence from the
version of P.W-1 and the Investigating Officer/P.W-8, the uncorroborated
testimony of P.W-1 cannot be relied upon to sustain a conviction. The learned
Trial Court had rightly appreciated the evidence on the correct perspective
and acquitted the respondent Nos.1 to 9 by giving cogent and convincing
reasons. There was neither misreading of evidence nor flagrant irregularity
warranting this Court to invoke its extra-ordinary jurisdiction conferred under
Sections 397 and 401 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ to reverse the findings and convict the
respondents No.1 to 9.
11 Dr.YLR, J
Crl.R.C.No.892 of 2009
Dated 11.02.2025
15. Revisional power of this Court is very limited in respect of the revision
against acquittal. The revisionary Court cannot sit as a Court of appeal and
appreciate the evidence of the witnesses deposed before the Trial Court as
laid down in Ayodhya Dube and K Chinnaswamy Reddy supra. Viewing
from any angle, there are no merits and valid grounds. Accordingly, this
Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand
closed.
_________________________
DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J.
Date: 11.02.2025
Note: LR copy to be marked
B/o
SJ/KMS
12 Dr.YLR, J
Crl.R.C.No.892 of 2009
Dated 11.02.2025
73
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 892 of 2009
Date: 11.02.2025
Note: LR copy to be marked
B/o
sj
[ad_1]
Source link