Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Jujjuri Venkata Nagendra Reddy vs The State Of A.P. on 26 March, 2025
APHC010263492008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3521]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1786/2008
Between:
Jujjuri Venkata Nagendra Reddy ...PETITIONER
AND
The State Of A P ...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. S APPADHARA REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent:
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
The Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity „the Cr.P.C‟) challenging the Judgment dated 25.11.2008 in Crl.A.No.212 of 2005 on the file of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru, whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence passed in judgment dated 06.10.2005 in C.C.No.655 of 2000 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First 2 Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1786 of 2008 Dated 26.03.2025 Class, Chintalapudi. The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chintalapudi, sentenced the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity „the I.P.C‟) to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six months and amount of Rs.1,000/- towards fine and in default of payment of fine, the petitioner was directed to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of two months.
2. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.
3. Sri S. Appadhara Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Counsel erred in appreciating the evidence of the prosecution in correct prospective, the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. There was no corroboration in the evidence of P.W.1 in material aspects and urged to allow the Criminal Revision Case. Alternatively, it is submitted that the petitioner and the injured are own brothers. P.W.1 and the petitioner are the sons‟ of Accused No.2, who is no more. The learned Trial Court was pleased to acquit the Accused No.2. The offence was committed in a heat of passion, and the petitioner had already undergone more than 15 days in incarceration. The de-facto complainant/P.W.1 also died by falling from tree, leniency may be shown towards the petitioner in sentencing the petitioner; the learned counsel for the petitioner volunteered that an amount of Rs.25,000/- may order to be paid by the petitioner towards fine or compensation as a measure of penance, which 3 Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1786 of 2008 Dated 26.03.2025 amount may be given to the Legal heirs of the de-facto complainant/P.W.1 and urged to impose sentence which the petitioner had already undergone on humanitarian grounds, inasmuch as the alleged offence was taken place about more than 2 decades ago as the right to speedy trial of the petitioner as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, was infringed.
4. Per contra, Ms. P.Akila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that the prosecution had proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. There are no material irregularities committed by the Courts below. There was no miscarriage of justice. Therefore, the Criminal Revision Case shall be dismissed. It is submitted that the Court may exercise its discretion in imposing the sentence on the petitioner, who is present before the Court.
5. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. I have perused the record.
6. Now the point for consideration is:
"Whether the judgment in Crl.A.No.212 of 2005, dated 25.11.2008, passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru, is correct, legal and proper with respect to its finding, sentence, or judgment, and there are any material irregularities? And to what relief?"
7. In order to prove the guilt of the petitioner, the prosecution had examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and got marked Exs.P.1 to 5. The evidence of P.W.1 4 Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1786 of 2008 Dated 26.03.2025 was vivid that Accused No.1 came with an axe and beat him on his left jaw and as a result, he sustained bleeding injury. The evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 5 clearly disclosed that the prosecution proved the guilt of the petitioner beyond all reasonable doubt. The learned Trial Court and the learned Appellate Court appraised the evidence on perspective and appropriately convicted the petitioner for the offence charged.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on decision of this Court in Mareddigari Suryanarayana v. State of A.P.,1 wherein this Court took the view of altering the conviction from Section 326 of „the IPC.,‟ to Section 335 of „the IPC‟. Section 335 of „the IPC.,‟ lays down as follows:
"355. Voluntarily causing grievous hurt on provocation- whoever voluntarily causes grievous hurt on grave and sudden provocation, if he neither intends nor knows himself to be likely to cause grievous hurt to any person other than the person who gave the provocation, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to four years, or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both."
9. A careful reading of Section 335 of „the IPC.,‟ it would be clear that Section 335 of „the IPC.,‟ would be attracting to a case where the person voluntarily causes grievous hurt on grave and sudden provocation, if he neither intends nor knows himself to be likely to cause grievous hurt to other person other than the person, who gave the provocation. In the instant case where the de-facto complainant/P.W.1 had not provoked Accused No.1 he was just briefing his father about the amounts towards the agricultural output. 1 MANU/AP/0368/2024 5 Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1786 of 2008 Dated 26.03.2025 The petitioner attacked the P.W.1 with an axe. An ordinary and reasonable prudent man would know the fact that attacking with an axe on the head of the de-facto complainant definitely cause grievous hurt. Therefore, this Court is unable to accept the request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner to alter the conviction from Section 326 of „the IPC.,‟ to Section 335 of „the IPC‟. The facts and circumstances mentioned in Mareddigari Suryanarayana are altogether different from the facts and circumstances of the instant case. Therefore, that ratio cannot be applied in the instant case.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner further relied on the decision in T.K.Binu v. State of Kerala Crl.Rev.Pet.No.966 of 2001 dated 29.10.2012 wherein the High Court of Kerala altered Section of law from Section 326 of „the IPC.,‟ to Section 335 of „the IPC.,‟ and sentenced the petitioner to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the Court and pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- as compensation to the injured therein.
11. The facts and circumstances of the case in T.K.Binu and the instant case are different. Therefore, the decision of High Court of Kerala cannot be followed in this case. Therefore, the conviction under Section 326 of „the IPC.," shall be maintained.
12. With regard to imposition of sentence on the petitioner, the learned Trial Court imposed six months Rigorous Imprisonment and learned Appellate Court confirmed the same. However, there are certain peculiar circumstances in the 6 Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1786 of 2008 Dated 26.03.2025 case. They are: P.W.1 is own brother of the petitioner. P.W.1/de-facto complainant by name Jujjuri Satyanaraya Reddy, who suffered injuries, is no more. He died on 17.09.2018 to that effect, photocopy of the death certificate is filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the same was confirmed by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Father of P.W.1 and Accused No.1, by name Jujjuri Ramakrishna Reddy was figured as Accused No.2 in this case. The learned Trial Court acquitted Accused No.2 as the prosecution could not prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In this case, the material object i.e., axe was not seized by the Investigating Officer. P.W.1/de-facto complainant sustained two injuries.
13. The petitioner is aged about 50 years. The offence was committed by him about 25 years ago, when he was vicenarian. It is not that the petitioner had gone to the house of de-facto complainant/P.W.1 and attacked with him an axe. It is the case of the prosecution that the de-facto complainant/P.W.1 came to the house of Accused Nos.1 and 2 and he was talking about agricultural expenses, at that time Accused No.1 came and picked up altercation and attacked P.W.1.
14. Accused No.1 has submitted that he has an unmarried daughter aged about 26 years old, who has been suffering from mental disorder. Indeed, right to speedy trial as per the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Hussainara Khatoon (IV) v. Home Secretary State of Bihar 2 . This right 2 Air 1979 SC 1360 7 Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1786 of 2008 Dated 26.03.2025 includes speedy disposal of appeals. In addition to the appeals, the right to a speedy trial also includes criminal revisions as per the decision of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Rajdeo Sharma v. State of Bihar3.
15. The learned counsel for the petitioner volunteered that petitioner may be sentenced to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards fine as a measure of penance and the said amount may be paid to the legal heirs of P.W.1/de-facto complainant. The said voluntary statement of the petitioner, confirmed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is recorded and approved. Interest of justice would be sub served, if the petitioner is directed to suffer the imprisonment which he had already undergone.
16. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of by maintaining the conviction recorded by the learned Trial Court and confirmed by the learned Appellate Court for the offence under Section 326 of „the IPC.,‟ while sentencing the petitioner to suffer imprisonment which he had already undergone, while enhancing the payment of fine of Rs.1,000/- to Rs.26,000/-. The petitioner had already paid Rs.1,000/- at the time preferring the appeal. Now, he is liable to pay Rs.25,000/- to the Legal heirs of the de-facto complainant/P.W.1 paid within two (2) months from the date of receipt of this order. If the petitioner failed to pay Rs.25,000/- to the Legal heirs of the de-facto complainant/P.W.1, the petitioner shall suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for two months.
3 2000 (1) BLJR 37 8 Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1786 of 2008 Dated 26.03.2025
17. The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chintalapudi, is directed to take necessary follow up step for collecting fine amount of Rs.25,000/- from the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.
_________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 26.03.2025 RSI 9 Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1786 of 2008 Dated 26.03.2025 83 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1786 of 2008 Date:26.03.2025 RSI