Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Bathula Nagendra Prasad vs The State Of A.P. on 16 July, 2025
APHC010517482009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3369]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T
T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 786/2009
Between:
1. BATHULA NAGENDRA PRASAD, S/O VENKAT RAO, AGRICULTURE
R/O MAMIDIKUDURU VILLAGE & MADAL, E.G.DIST.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF A.P., Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P.,
Hyderabad.
...RESPONDENT
Revision filed under Section 397/401 of Cr Cr.P.C., praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision
Case, the High Court may be pleased to set aside the Judgment and
conviction in Crl.A.No.6 of 2008, dated 11.05.09 on the file of the II Addl.
Sessions Judge,
ge, E.G.Dist., at Amalapuram, as well as the Judgment of
conviction passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Razole in
C.C.No.228 of 2005, dated 19.12.07, by allowing the Crl.R.C.
IA NO: 1 OF 2009(CRLRCMP 1076 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 Judgment passed Crl.A.No.6 of 2008, dated 11.05.09 on the file
of the II Addl. Sessions Judge, E.G.Dist., at Amalapuram,
Amalapuram, in modifying the
conviction and sentence passed by the Judicial Magistrate. First Class
Magistrate, Razole in C.C.No.228 of 2005, dated 19.12.07 by enlarging the
petitioner on bail in the interest of justice.
2
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. MADHAVI PUNNA
2. LEGAL AID
Counsel for the Respondent:
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Court made the following:
//ORDER//
1. The Criminal Revision Case, under Section 397 and 401 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) is filed on behalf of the
petitioner/accused No.1 assailing the Judgment dated 11.5.2009 passed in
Crl.A.No.6 of 2008 on the file of the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, East
Godavari (for short, ‘1st Appellate Court’), whereby the 1st Appellate Court
while allowing the appeal in part, confirmed the conviction and sentence
imposed against the appellant/A.1 for the offence under Section 323 of Indian
Penal Code,1860 (for short, ‘IPC‘) vide Judgment dated 19.12.2007 passed in
C.C.No.228 of 2005 on the file of the learned I Class Magistrate Court, Razole
(for short, ‘the Trial Court’).
2. The Trial Court, vide its order, dated 19.12.2007 in C.C.No.228 of 2005
convicted the petitioner/A.1 and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous
Imprisonment for one (1) year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to
undergo Simple Imprisonment for three (03) months for the offence
punishable under Section 324 of IPC and also sentenced to suffer Simple
Imprisonment for six (06) months and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- in default to
undergo Simple Imprisonment for one and half month for the offence under
Section 509 of IPC and both the sentences shall run concurrently. The Trial
Court set off the remand period, if any, undergone by the petitioner under
Section 428 of the Cr.P.C. On appeal, the 1st Appellate Court vide its
Judgment dated 11.05.2009 passed in Crl.A.No.6 of 2008 allowed the appeal
in part and set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court
3against the petitioner/A.1. However, the petitioner/A.1 was found guilty and
accordingly convicted and sentenced him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for
three (3) months and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- and in default to suffer Simple
Imprisonment for one (1) month for the offence punishable under Section 323
of IPC. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/A.1 filed the present Revision
Case.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner/A.1, and learned Assistant
Public Prosecutor, appearing for the Respondent-State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Courts below merely
referred to the evidence of the witnesses without proper appreciation and
erroneously recorded the conviction; PWs.1 and 2 were not present at the
scene of the offence at the relevant time, which was not adequately
considered; the Courts committed a material irregularity by failing to consider
invoking Section 360 of the Cr.P.C., in favour of the petitioner; the delay of
three days in recording the statement of PW.1 (Ex.P1) was also overlooked.
He further argues that PWs.1 to 3 belongs to the same family, and the so-
called independent witness PW.4 did not support the prosecution’s case. It is
submitted that PW.1’s evidence showed improvements from her earlier
versions, which undermines her credibility; the police failed to seize the
bucket, a material object in the case, and without its seizure, a conviction
under Sections 324 or 323 of the IPC is unsafe; the Courts below are faulted
for merely narrating the evidence without critical analysis, resulting in a
conviction and sentence that are contrary to law, the weight of evidence, and
the probabilities of the case.
5. Now, the point that arises for determination in this Revision is:
“Whether there is any manifest error of law or flagrant miscarriage of
justice in the findings recorded by the Trial Court as well as the 1st
Appellate Court?”
4
6. It is settled law as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of
Maharashtra V. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Sing Anand1, that “in exercise of
revisional powers, this Court need not undertaken in-depth and minutest
reexamination of entire evidence, when there is no error in the findings arrived
by the Trial Court as well 1st Appellate Court”.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner/A.1 contends that the testimonies of
the prosecution witnesses, namely PWs.1 to 3, are those of interested
witnesses and are not corroborated by any independent witness. It is,
therefore, argued that both the Trial Court and the 1st Appellate Court erred in
placing reliance on their evidence. On a perusal of the record, it is noted that
PW.1 is the injured witness and has specifically attributed overt acts to
Accused No.1 and others. PW.2 is the husband of PW.1, and PW.3 is the
granddaughter of PW.1. PW.4, who is stated to be a neighbour, did not
support the case of the prosecution. Nonetheless, the evidence of PW.1,
being the injured witness, is duly corroborated by the testimonies of PW.2 and
PW.3.
8. The law is well-settled that the testimony of a witness carries great
evidentiary value and cannot be discarded merely on the grounds of a
relationship with the injured witness/victim, unless it is found to be inherently
unreliable or contradicted by material evidence.
9. The material on record indicates that the incident in question occurred
on 11.10.2005. The statement of PW.1, marked as Ex.P.1, was recorded by
the Sub-Inspector of Police on 14.10.2005. During the course of arguments,
learned counsel for the petitioner contended that both the Trial Court and the
1st Appellate Court failed to properly consider the delay in recording the
statement of PW.1.
10. To substantiate the injuries sustained by PW.1, the prosecution
examined the Medical Officer as PW.5, who deposed that he examined PW.1
1
(2004) 7 SCC 659
5
at 09:50 AM on 11.10.2005. He observed a lacerated injury over the left
parietal region and sub-conjunctival hematoma on the medial half of the right
eyeball. He opined that the injuries were simple in nature, likely caused by a
blunt object, and were sustained within six hours prior to the time of
examination. His testimony is supported by Ex.P.3, the wound certificate,
which corroborates the oral evidence of PWs.1 to 3 regarding the injuries
sustained by PW.1.
11. Regarding the delay, the 1st Appellate Court has appropriately observed
that Ex.P.3 mentions that the injured person was brought with Memo
No.37/Hosp/05 dated 11.10.2005 and was accompanied by P.C.No.2589 of
Nagaram Police Station. The medical record shows that PW.1 was examined
by PW.5 at 09:50 AM on the same day. A reading of Ex.P.1, along with the
evidence of PWs.1 to 3, clearly indicates that the incident occurred at
approximately 7:00 AM on 11.10.2005. The Wound Certificate further
indicates that PW.1 was first taken to the Police Station and then referred to
the Government Hospital, Razole, on the same day. This Court is of the view
that if PW.1 had deliberately withheld information regarding the incident, the
Medical Officer would not have issued the memo or examined her so
promptly. The delay in recording the statement of PW.1 by the investigating
officer, in the absence of any material to suggest false implication or
fabrication, cannot be treated as sufficient ground to disbelieve the otherwise
consistent and corroborated testimonies of PWs.1 to 3.
12. Initially, the Trial Court convicted Accused Nos.1 to 4. It found Accused
No.1 guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 509 of the IPC,
and Accused Nos.2 to 4 guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 324
and 509 read with Section 34 of IPC. However, upon a proper appreciation of
the evidence on record, the 1st Appellate Court acquitted Accused Nos.2 to 4
of all charges under Sections 324 and 509 read with Section 34 of IPC.
Concerning Accused No.1, the 1st Appellate Court observed that although
PW.1 sustained injuries allegedly caused by a bucket, the said bucket was not
6
seized by the investigating agency. In the absence of seizure and proof
regarding the nature of the bucket, the 1st Appellate Court held that it could
not be treated as a “dangerous weapon” within the meaning of Section 324 of
IPC. Consequently, the 1st Appellate Court rightly concluded that the essential
ingredients to attract the offence under Section 324 of IPC were not
established and, accordingly, altered the conviction of Accused No.1 from
Section 324 of IPC to Section of 323 IPC, for causing simple hurt.
13. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that neither the
Judgment of the Trial Court nor that of the 1st Appellate Court reflects any
consideration of the antecedents of the petitioner. It is contended that both
Courts failed to call for a report from the Probation Officer to examine the
possibility of extending the benefit of probation under the Probation of
Offenders Act, 1958.
14. As seen from the record, the petitioner was approximately 22 years old
at the time of the incident. There is nothing on record to indicate that the
petitioner has any criminal antecedents subsequent to his involvement in the
present case. Given these circumstances, this Court is of the considered
opinion that both the Trial Court and the 1st Appellate Court ought to have
called for a report from the Probation Officer to assess the suitability of
extending the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, to the
petitioner/A.1. The failure to consider this statutory safeguard, particularly
given the petitioner’s young age and absence of any prior or subsequent
criminal conduct, constitutes a material irregularity.
15. Considering the fact that the offence in question occurred on
11.10.2005, and that at the time of recording the statement on the quantum of
sentence before the Trial Court, Accused No.1 stated he was pursuing an
I.T.I., course and was aged about 22 years, this Court is of the view that
imposition of a custodial sentence at this stage is not warranted. Nearly two
decades have passed since the incident occurred, and there is no material on
7
record to suggest that Accused No.1 has any criminal antecedents or has
been involved in any other criminal activity since then. Even otherwise,
although the 1st Appellate Court rightly altered the conviction from Section 324
of IPC to Section 323 of IPC by recording cogent reasons, it failed to consider
or invoke the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, which could
have been appropriately applied in the circumstances of this case.
16. Upon examination of the sentence imposed by the 1st Appellate Court, it
is evident that an error has been committed in sentencing a fine of Rs.5,000/-
for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. As per
the statutory provision, the maximum fine that can be imposed for an offence
under Section 323 of IPC is Rs.1,000/-. Therefore, the sentence of fine
imposed by the 1st Appellate Court is contrary to law and warrants
modification. Accordingly, the fine amount imposed on A.1 by the 1 st Appellate
Court is liable to be reduced to Rs.1,000/- in conformity with the statutory limit
prescribed under Section 323 of IPC.
17. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to set
aside the sentence of simple imprisonment of three (03) months imposed for
the offence under Section 323 of the IPC by the 1st Appellate Court. This
Court is of the view that imposing a fine of Rs.1,000/- instead of Rs.5,000/-
would meet the ends of justice.
18. In light of the circumstances discussed above and upon careful
consideration of the material available on record, this Court concurs with the
findings of the 1st Appellate Court to the extent that the prosecution has
established the guilt of Accused No.1 beyond a reasonable doubt.
Accordingly, the conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under
Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code stands justified. However, this Court is
of the view that the 1st Appellate Court erred in imposing a sentence of simple
imprisonment for three months, along with a fine of Rs.5,000/-, which appears
to be excessive in the facts and circumstances of the case. Given the nature
8
of the offence, the age of the accused at the time, the long lapse of time since
the incident, and the absence of any subsequent criminal conduct, this Court
finds that it is a fit case warranting interference limited to the aspect of the
sentence of imprisonment and fine imposed upon Accused No.1. Accordingly,
the point is answered.
19. The Criminal Revision Case is allowed in part. While the conviction of
the petitioner/Accused No.1, as recorded by the learned II Additional Sessions
Judge, Amalapuram, in Criminal Appeal No.6 of 2008 dated 11.05.2009, is
upheld, the substantive sentence of three (03) months simple imprisonment
imposed on the petitioner/A.1 for the offence under Section 323 of the IPC is
hereby set aside. However, the sentence of fine imposed on Accused No.1 is
modified, by reducing the amount from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.1,000/-. The
petitioner/Accused No.1 is directed to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, if not already
paid, for the offence under Section 323 of the IPC. In default of payment, he
shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one (1) month. The fine
amount so collected shall be paid to the complainant/PW.1 as compensation
under section 357 of the Cr.P.C. Any excess fine amount already paid by the
petitioner/Accused No.1 shall be refunded to him forthwith.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________
T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J
Date: 16.07.2025
SAK
9
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 786 of 2009
Date: 16.07.2025
SAK
[ad_1]
Source link