THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1890 OF 2003 ORDER: 1. This Criminal Revision Case, under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C., is directed against the judgment dated 11.11.2003 in Criminal Appeal No.6 of 1998 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Mahaboobnagar. 2. It is the case of prosecution that, the revision petitioners/A.6 and A.9 and other accused belong to Telugu Desam party while the complainant and other witnesses belong to Congress-I party, and they were residents of Veltoor village. Telugu Desam party candidate won the Mandal Praja Parishad Territorial Constituency elections. So, the accused felt insulted and there were inimical terms between the two groups. On 26.3.1995 at about 10.00 PM, the complainant group gathered at the house of P.W.3-Nadimalla Saireddy, to discuss about developments in the village. When they were dispersing, the petitioners and 9 others formed themselves into an unlawful assembly armed with sticks, stones and chilly powder, attacked P.Ws. 1, 3 and others with an intention to do away with their lives. The accused caused injuries to P.Ws. 2 to 5 in the process. On the complaint of P.W.1, police, who registered the case, referred the injured to Hospital and after completion of investigation, laid the charge sheet. 3. The case was taken on file as Sessions Case No.53 of 1997 and made over to the Assistant Sessions Judge, Wanaparthy. The trial court framed charges for the offences under Sections 148, 307, 324, 307 read with 149, 324 read with 149 I.P.C. against the accused, and when charges were read over and explained to them in telugu, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 14 and got marked Exs.P1 to P9. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused, but Ex.D1 was marked. 5. The trial Court, upon appreciation of the evidence on record, convicted -A.1 to A.14 of the offence punishable under Section 148 I.P.C.; A.1 to A.3 of the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 324 I.P.C.; A.4 to A.14 of the offences punishable under Sections 307 read with 149 I.P.C. and 324 read with 149 I.P.C., and sentenced them. 6. On appeal, the appellate court allowed the appeal in part holding that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of -A.1 to A.14 of the offence punishable under Section 148 I.P.C.; A.1 to A.3 of the offence punishable under Sections 307 and 324 I.P.C.; A.4 to A.14 of the offences punishable under Sections 307 read with 149 I.P.C. and 324 read with 149 I.P.C., and accordingly acquitted them, however, found the petitioners/A.6 and A.9 guilty of the charges for the offences under Sections 324 read with 34 I.P.C. and 326 read with 34 I.P.C., accordingly convicted them and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month; and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months, respectively. Challenging the same, the present revision case is preferred by the petitioners/A.6 and A.9. 7. The learned senior counsel Sri C.Padmanabha Reddy appearing for the petitioners contended that the size of the weapon of offence has not been spoken to by any one of the witnesses; that the weapons of offence have not been seized so as to infer that they are dangerous weapons within the meaning of Section 326 I.P.C., and that, at best, the injuries sustained by P.W.2 would attract the offence punishable under Section 325 I.P.C. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel representing the Public Prosecutor opposed the same on the ground that findings of the courts below need not be interfered with as they are based upon the evidence on record. Hence, she prayed to dismiss the revision case. 9. As rightly contended by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, there is no other material to show the nature and size of the sticks i.e. whether they are stout or dangerous weapons. The prosecution did not also seize the sticks used in commission of the offence. Unless the weapon of offence comes within the meaning of ‘dangerous weapon’, the offence under Section 326 I.P.C. would not attract. Hence, the conviction of the petitioners of the offences punishable under Sections 326 read with 34 I.P.C. and 324 read with 34 I.P.C. are liable to be set aside. However, in view of the fact that P.W.2 sustained grievous injuries, the petitioners are found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 325 I.P.C. and accordingly they are convicted. 10. P.W.2, who sustained injuries for which the petitioners are convicted, is present in the court. He produced his ration card, which reveals his identity. The learned counsel for the petitioners identified him as the witness who testified in the court as P.W.2. He stated that at the instance of elders, the matter has been compromised with the petitioners. In view of the fact that the parties effected compromise and the offence punishable under Section 325 I.P.C. is compoundable, the petitioners are entitled for acquittal. 11. Accordingly, the petitioners/A.6 and A.9 are acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 325 I.P.C. The bail bonds of the petitioners shall stand cancelled and the fine amount, if any, paid by them shall be refunded to them. 12. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed. ------------------- (K.C.Bhanu, J.) 5.12.2009 DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1890 of 2003 Date: 05.12.2009 Between: Kanamanoori Raghupathi Reddy & another …petitioners And State of A.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1890 of 2003 5.12.2009