CIVIL APPEAL 879 of 2016 on 20 November 2015

ORDER:

Assailing the judgment dated 20.11.2015 in Crl.A.No.57[of]2015 on the file of the learnedI Additional District[and][ Sessions]Judge, Srikakulam, which confirmed the conviction and[sentence]imposed by the judgment dated 29.06.2015in C.C. No.151of2012 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajamfor the offence punishable under Section 324 read with34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "IPC"), thepetitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 have filed the present[Criminal]RevisionCaseunderSections397 and401of theCodeofCriminal Procedure, 1973.

2. The Brief facts of the case are that:

1. On15.04.2012,atabout1:45A.M.,thedefactocomplainant, Pedada Kamalamma,along withher son,Pedada Shanmukharao, went totheir agriculturalfieldssituatedin Kanimetta Village. At that time, the accusedwereplacingsurveystonesonherland. Whenshequestioned them. Accused No.1beat her with a stick[on]her left wrist and left hand. Upon witnessing this,[her][ son]questioned the high-handed actions of Accused No.1,[who]complainant, Pedada Kamalamma,along withher son,Pedada Shanmukharao, went totheir agriculturalfieldssituatedin Kanimetta Village. At that time, the accusedwereplacingsurveystonesonherland. Whenshequestioned them. Accused No.1beat her with a stick[on]her left wrist and left hand. Upon witnessing this,[her][ son]questioned the high-handed actions of Accused No.1,[who]

then beat him with his hands and slapped him on thecheeks.

11. Based on the complaint of the defacto complainant,the police registered a case in Crime No.43 of 2012 for theoffences under Sections 324 and 323 read with Section 34of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and took up investigation.the police registered a case in Crime No.43 of 2012 for theoffences under Sections 324 and 323 read with Section 34of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and took up investigation.

3. After completionof theinvestigation,thepolicelaidacharge sheet against the accused persons which was numberedas C.C.No.151 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate[of]First Class, Rajam. After a full-fledged trial, the trial court foundAccused Nos. 1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence underSection 324 r/w 34 of IPC and accordingly, they are acquittedunder Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. but and accused Nos.1 and 2arefound guilty for the offence punishable under Section 323 r/w 34of IPC and accordingly they are convicted under Section 248(2)of Cr.P.C,,and sentenced themto pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-(Rupees One Thousand Only) each, and in default of payment offine amount, they are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonmentfor a period of seven (7) days.

4. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and2 preferred an appeal,vide Crl.A.No.57 of 2015,beforethelearned Sessions Court and the same was dismissed,videjudgment, dated 20.11.2015 on the file of the learnedI Additional2 preferred an appeal,vide Crl.A.No.57 of 2015,beforethelearned Sessions Court and the same was dismissed,videjudgment, dated 20.11.2015 on the file of the learnedI Additional DistrictandSessionsJudge,Srikakulambyconfirmingthejudgment of the trial Court.

5. Heard Sri Ch. Murali Krishna, learned Counsel appearingfor the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 and Ms. P.[Akhila][ Naidu]for the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 and Ms. P.[Akhila][ Naidu]

learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the Respondent-State.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and[2]submits that thereis no corroboration of the testimonies[of the]prosecution witnessesi.e., P.Ws.1to 3 about the presenceofsubmits that thereis no corroboration of the testimonies[of the]prosecution witnessesi.e., P.Ws.1to 3 about the presenceofP.W.2.Learnedcounselforthepetitioners/accusedfurthersubmitsthatP.Ws.1to4arerelatedwitnessesandtheirtestimony cannot be the sole basis for convicting the[accused.]submitsthatP.Ws.1to4arerelatedwitnessesandtheirtestimony cannot be the sole basis for convicting the[accused.]7.The evidence of P.W.8 (doctor) who issued Ex.P7 woundcertificate of P.W.1 admitted that the P.W.1did not[inform][ how]she sustained injuries.certificate of P.W.1 admitted that the P.W.1did not[inform][ how]she sustained injuries.

8. Ontheotherhand,learnedcounselAssistantPublicProsecutorsubmitsthattheTrialCourtafter examiningtheevidence of P.Ws.1 to 4, convicted the accused and imposed afine. There is no need to interfere with the order[of][ the][ trial][ Court]as there are no grounds for appeal or any pattern of[error]orirregularity in the way the trial Court or Sessions[Court][ passing]convictionbyappreciatingtheevidence onrecord.LearnedAssistantPublicProsecutorfurthersubmitsthatthereisnoevidence either directly or indirectly to disbelieve[the][ case][ of][ the]ProsecutorsubmitsthattheTrialCourtafter examiningtheevidence of P.Ws.1 to 4, convicted the accused and imposed afine. There is no need to interfere with the order[of][ the][ trial][ Court]as there are no grounds for appeal or any pattern of[error]orirregularity in the way the trial Court or Sessions[Court][ passing]convictionbyappreciatingtheevidence onrecord.LearnedAssistantPublicProsecutorfurthersubmitsthatthereisnoevidence either directly or indirectly to disbelieve[the][ case][ of][ the]

prosecution and that PW.1 who is a lady when questioning[the]acts of the accused, the accused No.1 pushed her to the ground,beat her on the left-hand wrist with a stick and also on her left leg.When she raised alarm, the accused No.2 kicked her withhislegs on her chest. The evidence of P.W.1 is corroborated with thetestimonies of P.Ws.2 and 3 and their evidence is consistent.The evidenceof P.W.1clearly showsthatP.W.1sustainedinjuries. On perusal of the entire material on record the trial Courtcame to conclusion that the prosecution had proved the guilt oftheaccusedandimposedafine whichdoesnotrequireinterference and prays to dismiss the appeal.

9. Now the point that arises for determination in this revision iswhether there is any manifest error of law or flagrant miscarriageof justice in the findings recorded by the first Appellate Court?”

10. Before decidingtherevision,itis keepinmindthatrevisional jurisdictionunder CrPCislimitedto correctionofjurisdictional errors,legalinfirmities, or perversityinfindings.When both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court have recordedconcurrent findings of fact, the revisional court normally[cannot]reappreciate the evidence or substitute its own findings. Exceptininterference may be warrantedif there is illegality,proceduralirregularity, perversity, or miscarriage of justice.revisional jurisdictionunder CrPCislimitedto correctionofjurisdictional errors,legalinfirmities, or perversityinfindings.When both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court have recordedconcurrent findings of fact, the revisional court normally[cannot]reappreciate the evidence or substitute its own findings. Exceptininterference may be warrantedif there is illegality,proceduralirregularity, perversity, or miscarriage of justice.

N

11. On this point the Hon’ble Apex Court in Vimal Singhv.Khuman Singh\ held “The High Court’s revisional jurisdiction[is]restricted and cannot be invoked merely for a differentvie\A/ onfacts, unless the findings are shown to be perverse[or][ based][ on]no evidence, interference in revision is not called[for.]Khuman Singh\ held “The High Court’s revisional jurisdiction[is]restricted and cannot be invoked merely for a differentvie\A/ onfacts, unless the findings are shown to be perverse[or][ based][ on]no evidence, interference in revision is not called[for.]

12. POINT:

This Court has perused the material available on record,including the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4, P.W.7—Sub-Inspector[of]Police, and P.W.8—Dr. Ch. Haranadh, who categorically[stated]that, based on the report given by P.W.1, Crime No.43[of][ 2012]wasregisteredagainsttheaccused.TheTrialCourt,afterappreciating the evidence of P.Ws.1to 4, concludedthattheprosecution had established the guiltof the accusedfortheoffence punishable under Section 323 read with Section[34][ of][ the]IPC, and accordingly imposed a fine. The Trial Court[further]found that the prosecution had proved that accused[Nos.1][ and][ 2]assaulted P.Ws.1 and 2 with sticks and hands, thereby causingsimple injuries.

13. TheoraltestimonyofP.Ws.1and2,whenreadinconjunction with the medical evidence marked as Ex.P7,wassufficient for both the trial Court and the Sessions[Court][ to][ arrive]at a conclusion as to the guilt of the accusedconjunction with the medical evidence marked as Ex.P7,wassufficient for both the trial Court and the Sessions[Court][ to][ arrive]at a conclusion as to the guilt of the accused \

6

14. In the light of the evidence on record and materialeven onthe legal position, this Court finds no merits to interfere with thefacts found by the learned trial Court and the Sessions Court andpassing conviction.the legal position, this Court finds no merits to interfere with thefacts found by the learned trial Court and the Sessions Court andpassing conviction.

15. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.

Interim orders granted earlier, if any, stand vacated.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending,if any,shall stand closed.

Sd/- K TATA RAODEPUTY REGISTRARSEOFFICER

//TRUE COPY//

To,

1. The I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Srikakulam (with records), Srikakulam (with records)St2. The Judicial Magistrate of 1class, Rajam, Srikakulam District.(withclass, Rajam, Srikakulam District.(withrecorxis),/: *'

3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor,High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT]High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT]4. One CC to Sri. C H Muraii KrishnaAdvocate [OPUC]Advocate [OPUC]5. The Section Officer, Criminal Section- High Court of Andhra Pradesh.- High Court of Andhra Pradesh.6. Three CD Copies sree X

HIGH COURT

DATED:10/02/2025

ORDERCRLRC.No.879 of 2016

DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE