Andhra Pradesh High Court
CRLRC/131/2009 of TADI SATTI REDDY, Vs THE STATE OF AP REP BY ITS PP HYD., & 8 OTHERS, on 9 July 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3560] FRIDAY, THE 10th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 131/2009 Between: 1. TADI SATTI REDDY,, S/O GANI RAJU, R/O PULAGURTA VILLAGE, ANAPARTHY MANDAL, EAST
APHC010099442009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE 10th DAY OF JULY 2026
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 131/2009
Between:
1. TADI SATTI REDDY,, S/O GANI RAJU, R/O PULAGURTA VILLAGE, ANAPARTHY MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF AP REP BY ITS PP HYD 8 OTHERS, REP. BY ITS
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P., AT HYDERABAD.
2. TADI DHARMA REDDY, S/O GANI RAJU, R/O PULAGURTHA, ANAPARTHY MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.
3. TADI LAKSHMI, W/O DHARAM REDDY, R/O PULAGURTHA, ANAPARTHY MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.
4. TADI SESHA RATNAM, D/O DHARMA REDDY, R/O PULAGURTHA, ANAPARTHY MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.
5. TADI KRISHNA REDDY, S/O GANI RAJU, R/O PULAGURTHA, ANAPARTHY MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.
6. TADI LEELAVATHI, W/O KRISHNA REDDY, R/O PULAGURTHA, ANAPARTHY MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.
7. TADI
SRINIVASA
REDDY,
S/O
KRISHNA
REDDY,
R/O
PULAGURTHA, ANAPARTHY MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.
8. PADALA
ARUNA,
W/O
SURYANARAYANA
REDDY,
R/O
PULAGURTHA, ANAPARTHY MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.
9. TADI GANESH REDDY, S/O VENKATA REDDY, R/O PULAGURTHA, ANAPARTHY MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the CriminalRevisionCase, the High Court may be pleased toto prefer this Memorandum of Crl.R.C., having been aggreived by the Judgment passed in
CC.No. 7 of 2004, dt. 11-02-2008 on the file of the Addl. J.F.C.M., Ramachandrapuram.
IA NO: 1 OF 2008(CRLRCMP 1772 OF 2008
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 codone the delay of ''113'' days in representing the appeal.
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. T V S PRABHAKARA RAO
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. N SIVA REDDY
2. N SIVA REDDY-02969/AP/998/1985
3. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Court made the following:
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No:131 OF 2009
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
1. Instant criminal revision case has been preferred against the order, dated 11.02.2008 passed by learned Additional Judicial Magistrate, Ramachandrapuram, in C.C. No.7 of 2004. The said C.C. was registered against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 326 and 324 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.
2. After conclusion of trial, learned Magistrate passed an order of acquittal, finding the accused persons not guilty of the charges levelled against them. Aggrieved by the said order of acquittal, the petitioner, being the de facto complainant, has preferred the instant revision.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that learned Magistrate concerned had not properly appreciated the facts and evidence on record, thereby resulted miscarriage of justice. He further submits that the truth was clearly revealed from the material available on record, but learned Magistrate failed to appreciate the evidence in its proper perspective. He further submits that P.W.2 had categorically deposed regarding the commission of offences by respondent-accused persons and that his evidence had corroborative value. However, learned Magistrate had not properly considered the said evidence and, thereby, erroneously recorded the order of acquittal. Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for appropriate orders.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the impugned order suffers no illegality. Moreover, learned Magistrate concerned had categorically considered the evidence adduced by the prosecution, but there are no sufficient material to substantiate the charges against the respondent-accused persons, therefore, the order of acquittal was rightly passed.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the observations and findings of the learned Magistrate concerned.
6. To prove its case, the prosecution examined seven witnesses and placed various documents on record, including the injury certificate. Upon a thorough consideration of the evidence, learned trial Court observed that accused persons had also sustained certain injuries, for which the prosecution had offered no explanation. Learned Magistrate opined that the non-explanation of the injuries sustained by the accused was fatal to the prosecution case.
7. Upon perusal of the observations of learned Magistrate, it appears that a suspicion arose in the mind of learned Magistrate regarding the prosecution version as to why the prosecution is silent about the injury suffered by accused persons. It further appears that there are several contradictions and discrepancies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses.
8. Considering the entire material on record and the finding recorded by learned Magistrate concerned, it appears that the impugned finding suffers no illegality. The material on record indicates that there was a fight between two groups and members of both parties were sustained injuries. At this juncture, it cannot not be ascertained who is the actual assailant and who is the victim. Considering the same, it cannot be said that charges against the respondent-accused persons were proved beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, I find that observations and findings of learned Magistrate suffer from no illegality or perversity. The order of acquittal has been justifiably recorded.
9. Under the above observation, I find no justification to interfere with the order passed by learned Magistrate. Hence, the criminal revision case is dismissed as devoid of merit.
10. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________________ JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA BV