logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 APHC 952 My Notes print Preview print print
Court : High Court of Andhra Pradesh
Case No : Criminal Revision Case No. 1790 of 2008
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA
Parties : Nagabattula Satyanarayana Versus The State of AP Rep by PP & Others
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: K. Venkatesh, Advocate. For the Respondents: Public Prosecutor, Turaga Sai Surya, Advocate.
Date of Judgment : 15-06-2026
Head Note :-
Criminal Procedure Code - Sections 397/401 -
Judgment :-

(Prayer: Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased toto setaside the order of Acquittal in S.C.No. 371/2007, dt.22.09.2008 on the file of the Court of the Asst.Sessions Judge, Amalapuram, East Godavari District in the interest of justice.

A status report is placed on record by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Allavaram Police Station. It reflects from the report that respondent No.2/Accused No.1 has expired on 18.06.2015, and respondent No.3/Accused No.2 has also expired on 04.11.2011. Respondent No.4 is old and bedridden due to illness. The report is taken on record. Accordingly, the case against respondent Nos.2 and 3 is abated.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and also the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

3. The instant Criminal Revision Case has been preferred against an order of acquittal passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Amalapuram, East Godavari District in S.C. No. 371 of 2007, wherein charge was framed against all the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for brevity, ‘the I.P.C.’).

4. The brief facts of the matter is that:

On 27.07.2007, due to a dispute between LW.1 and Accused Nos.1 to 3 regarding watering of fields, it has been alleged that Accused Nos.1 to 3 assaulted LW.1 with an iron crowbar, iron rod, and other deadly weapons on vital parts of the body. A charge was framed under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. before the learned Trial Court. During trial before the learned Trial Court, as many as 10 prosecution witnesses were examined. Among them, PW.9 is the Doctor, who examined injured/LW.1.

5. After examination of the prosecution witnesses and hearing the arguments of both parties, the learned Trial Court was of the opinion that the charge under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. could not be proved against the accused persons. Consequently, they were found not guilty and acquitted.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court is improper. The learned Trial Court ought to have properly appreciated the prosecution witnesses, specifically the evidence of PW.9/Doctor. He further submits that the injuries are on vital parts of the body of LW.1, which may have resulted in the death of LW.1. Thus, the order of acquittal is illegal and liable to be set aside.

7. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the learned Trial Court has categorically appreciated the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and passed a reasonable order wherein the injuries sustained by LW.1 are only lacerated injuries caused by a blunt object, which is not sufficient to sustain a conviction under Section 307 of the I.P.C.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the observations of the learned Trial Court. It appears that the allegation against all the accused persons, as framed before the learned Trial Court, is that they caused serious injuries on the vital part of the body of LW.1, and a charge was framed under Section 307 of the I.P.C.

9. Section 307 of the I.P.C. defines the offence of attempt to murder, i.e., causing injury with the intention to kill a person.

10. Doctor, i.e., PW.9, examined LW.1 after the alleged incident and found some fresh lacerated injuries on the person of PW.1. It was also alleged in the prosecution case that the accused persons assaulted PW.1 with a crowbar on the head. The injury recorded in PW.1 is not such an injury which could be caused by hitting with a crowbar. The learned Trial Court has observed that the injury alleged by the prosecution is not such a severe injury as is appearing on the person of LW.1.

11. I have perused the observation of the learned Trial Court at para Nos.26 and 27 of the impugned order. It appears that the learned Trial Court has categorically observed the prosecution case in the attending facts and circumstances, in light of the evidence of PW.9.

12. Considering the same, I find no illegality or impropriety in the order of the learned Trial Court.

13. Merely, there may have been several other options to decide the issue in hand, but the learned Trial Court has opted to decide that the facts for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the I.P.C., as appearing in the prosecution case, are not justified in terms of the medical evidence. Such findings cannot be denied at this stage as the learned Trial Court has observed the demeanor of all witnesses placed before it. Moreover, prosecution failed to demonstrate mensrea of accused person to commit an offence under section 307 of I.P.C.

14. Considering the same, I find no merits to entertain the instant Criminal Revision Case. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is hereby dismissed.

Consequently, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
 
  CDJLawJournal