MIDDE DURGA RAO, v. VADLAMUDI VENKATARAO AND 9 OTHERS,
Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh
Bench: Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Andhra Pradesh judgment dated 2025-02-11. MIDDE DURGA RAO, v. VADLAMUDI VENKATARAO AND 9 OTHERS,. Read the judgment and case details on...
Judgment text
J c IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 892 of 2nnQ Revision filed under Sections 397 & 401 of Cr. P. C, Aggrieved by the Judgment of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Jangareddigudem West Godavari District dated 08. 4. 2009, in CC. No. 1097 of 2006. Between; Midde Durga Rao, S/o. Rattaiah aged 48 years, Gowda, R/o. Yerrampeta Village, Koyyalagudem Mandal, West Godavari District. ... Petitioner/Defacto Complainant/PW-1 AND 1. Vadlamudi Rambabu, S/o. Naganna, aged 45 years, Gowda, R/o. Yerrampeta Village, Koyyalagudem Mandal, West Godavari District. 2. Vadlamudi Venkatarao, S/o. Naganna, aged 49 years, Gowda, R/o. Yerrampeta Village, Koyyalagudem Mandal, West Godavari District. 3. Vadlamudi Satyanarayana @ Sattibabu, S/o. Naganna, aged 38 years, Gowda, R/o. Yerrampeta Village, Koyyalagudem Mandal, West Godavari District. 4.
Vadlamudi Narsimha Rao @ Narsibabu S/o. Naganna, aged 41 years. Gowda, R/o. Yerrampeta Village, Koyyalagudem Mandal, West Godavari District. ♦ 5. Vadlamudi Sreenivasa Rao @ Sreenu, S/o. Naganna aged 33 years, Gowda, R/o. Yerrampeta Village, Koyyalagudem Mandal, West Godavari District. 6. Vadlamudi Sreenivasa Rao @ China r Sreenu, S/o. Venkatarao aged 29 years, Gowda, R/o. Yerrampeta Village Koyyalagudem Mandal, West Godavari District. 7. Vadlamudi Prasad, S/o. Venkata Rao, aged 25 years, Gowda, R/o. Yerrampeta Village, Koyyalagudem Mandal, West Godavari District. 8. Vadlamudi Anji Babu, S/o. Venkatarao, aged 23 years, Gowda, R/o. Yerrampeta Village, Koyyalagudem Mandal West Godavari District. 9. Vadlamudi Anji Babu @ Anji, r S/o. Rambabu, aged 22 years, Gowda, R/o. Yerrampeta Village, Koyyalagudem Mandal, West Godavari District. ... Respondents/Accused 1 to 9 10. State of A. P. rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A ■ P. , Amaravati. ...
Respondent/Complainant Counsel for the Petitioner . ■ Sri I V N Raju Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 9; Smt K Jyothi Prasad Counsel for Respondent No. 10 ■ Public Prosecutor The Court made the following: w HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI **** CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 892 OF 2009 Between ... Petitioner Midde Durga Rao Versus Vadlamudi Venkatarao And 9 Others ... Respondent **** 11. 02. 2025 DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED Dr. YLR, J Crl. R. C. No. 892 of 2009 Dated 11. 02. 2025 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL: THE HON’BLE SRI DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No 2. Whether the copy of Judgment may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals? es/No 3. Whether His Lordship wish to see the J fair copy of the Judgment? Yes/No 3 Dr. YLR, J 0 Crl. R. C. No. 892 of 2009 Dated 11. 02. 2025 * HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI **** CRIMINAL REVISION CASE. No. 892 OF 2009 11. 02. 2025 # Between: Midde Durga Rao ...
Petitioner Versus Vadlamudi Venkatarao And 9 Others ... Respondent' **** ! Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri K. Jyothi Prasad Public Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. K. Sandeep, Assistant Prosecutor < Gist: > Head Note: Dr. YLR, J Crl. R. C. No. 892 of 2009 Dated 11. 02. 2025 ? Cases referred: 1) (1993) 4 see 10 2) AIR 1979 SC 1360 3) (2015) 13 sec 444 4) (2015) 5 sec 182 5) (2015) 5 sec 197 6) (2012) 2 sec 182 / r ( 5 Dr. YLR, J Crl. R. C. No. 892 of 2009 Dated 11. 02. 2025 THE HON’BLE SRI DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE. No. 892 OF 2009 ORDER: and 401 of the The Revision has been preferred under Sections 397 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘the Cr. P. C. ’) against the passed by the judgment in Calendar Case No. 1097 of 2006 dated 08. 04. 2009, holding the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jangareddygudem, the offence punishable respondent No. 1/accused No.
1 found not guilty for under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘the IPC. ’) and for the offence respondent No. 2 to 9/accused Nos. 1 to 9 found not guilty under Sections 323 and 326 read with 34 of ‘the IPC. ’ 2. The following material grounds are raised in the revision; for the 1. The learned Magistrate erred in acquitting the accused read with 34 offences punishable under Sections 326, 323, and 326 of ‘the IPC’. to constitute II. The learned Magistrate failed to see that the ingredients evidence to the said offences were proved by legal and reliable convict the accused for the offences charged. of P. W-1 The learned Magistrate should have seen that the evidence was fully corroborated with the evidence of P. Ws. 6 to 8. IV. The learned Magistrate should have seen that P. W-1 was an injured medical witness, his evidence was fully corroborated with the evidence. Dr. YLR, J Crl. R. C. No. 892 of 2009 Dated 11. 02. 2025 V.
The learned Magistrate should have seen that P. Ws. 3 and 4 clearly stated in their chief examination that the incident happened 5 or 6 years ago on one day at 6. 30 and 7. 00 p. m. , and the incident happened four houses away from their house and they had seen the commission of the said offence. VI. The learned Magistrate failed to see that the evidence of hostile witnesses may not be rejected in toto. VII. The learned Magistrate should have seen that Ex. P9 wound certificate is fully corroborated with M0. 1 X-Ray belonging to P. W-1 and it corroborated with the evidence of P. W-8. 3. I have heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the Revisionist learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 9, and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and perused the record. 4. Sri I. V. N.
Raju, learned counsel for revisionist reiterated the grounds of revision and urged that the judgment passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jangareddygudem suffers from material irregularities and there are perverse findings recorded and therefore it is liable to be set aside and respondent Nos. 1 to 9 are liable to be convicted and sentenced. 5. Per contra, Ms. V. Sowmya, learned counsel representing Sri K. Jyothi Prasad, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 9 argued that P. Ws-2 to 5, who were happened to be direct and independent witnesses, had not supported the case of the prosecution and there was a discrepancy with respect to^the weapon allegedly used by the Respondent Nos. 1 to 9 for 7 Dr. YLR, J f Crl. R. C. No. 892 of 2009 Dated 11. 02. 2025 evidence of P. W-causing the alleged hurt to P. W-1. Except the untrustworthy 1, which was not corroborated in material particulars, the prosecution could doubt.
There were no not prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable below. Therefore, the material irregularities committed by the learned Courts had rightly learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jangareddygudem acquitted the respondent appreciated the evidence in correct perspective and Nos. 1 to 9. There was neither misreading of the evidence nor perverse is liable to be findings. Hence, it is argued that the Revision Petition dismissed. argued in the 6. Mr. K. Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor similar lines with the learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 9 and urged this Court to dismiss the revision case as there is no scope in appreciating the is not maintainable. evidence by this revisional court and the revision advanced by 7. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments Nos. 1 to 9 and the learned the learned counsel for the Petitioner, Respondent Assistant Public Prosecutor. I have perused the record. 8.
Now the point for consideration is Whether the judgment in C. C. No. 1097 of 2006 dated of First 08. 04. 2009, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate with Class, Jangareddygudem, is correct, legal, and proper there are any respect to its finding, sentence, or judgment, and material irregularities? And to what relief? State of AP\ at 9. The Hon’ble Apex Court in K Chinnaswamy Reddy v Paragraph No. 7 held as under: ^AIR19>S2 SC 1788 Dr. YLR, J Crl. R. C. No. 892 of 2009 Dated 11. 02. 2025 7. It is true that it is open to a High Court in revision to set aside an order of acquittal even at the instance of private parties though the State may not have thought fit to appeal; but this jurisdiction should in our opinion be exercised by the High Court only in exceptional cases, when there is some glaring defect in the procedure or there is a manifest error on a point of law and consequently there has been a flagrant miscarriage of justice Sub-section (4) of S.
439 forbids a High Court from converting a finding of acquittal into one of conviction and that makes it all the more incumbent on the High Court to see that it does not, convert the finding of acquittal into one of conviction by the indirect method of ordering retrial when it cannot itself directly convert a finding of acquittal into a finding of conviction. This places limitations on the power of the High Court to set aside a finding of acquittal in revision and it is only in exceptional cases that this power should be exercised. It is not possible to lay down the criteria for determining such exceptional cases which would cover all contingencies. We may, however, indicate some cases of this kind Which would in our opinion justify the High Court in interfering with a finding of acquittal in revision.
These cases may be: where the trial court has no jurisdiction to try the case but has still acquitted the accused, or where the trial court has wrongly shut out evidence which the prosecution wished to produce, or where the appeal court has wrongly held evidence which was admitted by the trial court to be inadmissible, or where material evidence has been overlooked either by the trial court or by the appeal court, or where the acquittal is based on a compounding of the offence which is invalid under the law. These and other cases of similar nature can properly be held to be cases of exceptional nature where the High Court can justifiably interfere with an order of acquittal; an in such a case it is obvious that it cannot be said that the High Court was doing indirectly what it could not do directly in view of the provisions of S. 439 (4).
We have, therefore, to see whether the order of the High Court setting aside the order of ” acquittal in this case can be upheld on these principles. 10. It IS apposite to refer the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in i- Ayodhya Dube v. Ram Sumer Singh^ wherein it is held at para No. 2 as under: We may add that the High Court also expressed the view that the instances mentioned by this Court in Chinnaswamy v. State of Andhra Pradesh as justifying interference with order of acquittal in the exercise of revisional powers were illustrative and not exhaustive. We agree with the view expressed by the High Court and we only wish to say that the Criminal Justice System ^ AIR 1981 SC1415 9 Dr. YLR, J Crl. R. C. No. 892 of 2009 Dated 11. 02. 2025 do not fall does not admit of ‘pigeon-holding’. Life and the Law rules neartly into slots.
When a Court starts laying down enumerated (1), (2), (3), (4), or (a), (b), (c), (d), it is arranging for itself traps and pitfalls, Categories, classifications and to make compartments, which statute does not mention, all tend law ‘less flexible, less sensible and less just. ” 11. Keeping in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case has to be Ayodhya Dube and K Chinnaswamy Reddy, this revision was the de-facto appreciated. As seen from the evidence of P. W-1, who while he was complainant by name M. Durgarao, that on 11. 07. 2003, the house of A1. A1 returning from his fields at 6. 30 p. m. , he reached Police officials about questioned him about giving information to the Excise the involvement of other accused in Excise offences and on that A1 felt Several persons aggrieved and beat with a big stone on the left knee. gathered at that time. He went to,the police station and gave a report. had examined 12. To buttress the evidence of P. W-1, the prosecution P.
Ws-2 to 5, but they deposed abysmal ignorance about the alleged offence. offence occurred at the In the evidence of P. W-1, he deposed that the alleged house of A1, whereas, P. W-7 the Investigating Officer had deposed that the incident occurred near the house of A3 on Panchayat road. Similarly in Ex. P8 of the scene of sketch prepared by P. W-7 does not disclose the location scene of offence. offence. There were no marks shown in Ex. P8 about the The learned Trial Court also rightly observed that Ex. P8 prepared by P. W-7 was of no help to prove the case of the prosecution. the offence 13. P. W-6 was examined to prove the drafting of scene of marks or signs at scene of observation report. P. W-6 stated that there were no 10 Dr. YLR, J Crl. R. C. No. 892 of 2009 Dated 11. 02. 2025 offence about the occurrence of alleged offence. P. W-7 also in his cross-examination admitted that he had not found any traces of an altercation at the scene of offence.
Had the incident occurred, as per the version of P. W-1, that nearly 9 persons attacked P. W-1, there would have been every possibility of scuffling and witnessing the same by the persons, who were in that vicinity. Ironically, P. W-1 deposed that A1 beat him with a big stone on his left knee. P. W-1 in his cross-examination categorically admitted that there was no abrasion or swelling over the leg. Had P. W-1 been beaten by the respondent Nos. 1 to 9 by a big stone, P. W-1 would have received at least an abrasion or a swelling over his leg. 14. P. W-1 had stated that A1 threw a stone at him at a distance of 1 14 yard. The stone which was allegedly used to cause injury to P. W-1 was not seized. It has to be pointed out that the Investigating Officer/P. W-8 in his charge sheet mentioned that respondent No. 1 (A1) beat P. W-1 with a stick. However, the said stick was also not seized.
When there is a discrepancy with regard to the alleged weapon used for the commission of offence from the version of P. W-1 and the Investigating Officer/P. W-8, the uncorroborated testimony of P. W-1 cannot be relied upon to sustain a conviction. The learned Trial Court had rightly appreciated the evidence on the correct perspective and acquitted the respondent Nos. 1 to 9 by giving cogent and convincing reasons. There was neither misreading of evidence nor flagrant irregularity warranting this Court to invoke its extra-ordinary jurisdiction conferred under Sections 397 and 401 of ‘the Cr. P. C. ,’ to reverse the findings and convict the / respondents No. 1 to 9. 11 Dr. YLR, J Crl. R. C. No. 892 of 2009 Dated 11. 02. 2025 of the revision 15. Revisional power of this Court is very limited in respect as a Court of appeal and against acquittal.
The revisionary Court cannot sit the Trial Court as appreciate the evidence of the witnesses deposed before Viewing laid down in Ayodhya Dube and K Chinnaswamy Reddy supra. Accordingly, this from any angle, there are no merits and valid grounds. no order as to costs. Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. There shall be shall stand As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, closed. Sd/- K TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER One fair copy to Hon’ble Dr Justice Y. LAKSHMANA RAO (for his Lordships kind perusal) To West Godavari 1. The Judicial First Class Magistrate, Jangareddigudem, District, (with records if any) West 2. The Station House Officer, Koyyalagudam Police Station, Godavari District. 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi[OUT] 4. One CC to Sri I. V. N. Raju, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Smt. K. Jyothi Prasad, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Nine (09) L. R. Copies. 7.
The Under Secretary, Union of India, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi. Association 8. The Secretary, Andhra Pradesh High Court Advocates’ Library, High Court Buildings, Amaravathi. of Andhra Pradesh at 9. The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court Amaravathi. (to dispatch the trial court records) 10. Three CD Copies TK sree HIGH COURT DATED:11/02/2025 ORDER CRLRC. No. 892 of 2009 cn fe 15 MAR 2025 c® 'X'5' . Current Section DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE
Source: High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.