THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1371 of 2004 Dated:17.06.2010 Between: Paniyala Ramreddy and others .. Petitioners And The State of Andhra Pradesh rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad .. Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1371 of 2004 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the judgment dated 30.09.2003 passed in Criminal Appeal No.18 of 2001 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Nizamabad, whereby and whereunder, the learned Judge dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence of the petitioners/accused for the offence punishable under Section 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1960 (for short ‘IPC’). The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 10.12.1996 at about 8.30 a.m., when PWs.1 to 4 were coming to their houses from their fields situated in Agraharam Shivar of Domakonda, A-1 to A-3 attacked them with axes, cart pegs and sticks and caused injuries. PW.1 presented Ex.P1 complaint before the Station House Officer, Domakonda Police Station. Thereupon, LW.13 B.Ashok, P.C.No.532 of P.S. Domakonda, received Ex.P1 report and registered a case in Crime No.95 of 1996 for the offence under Section 324 read with 34 IPC and referred the injured to the Government Civil Hospital, Kamareddy for treatment. LW.11 Dr. B.Raja Gopal Rao, Deputy Civil Surgeon, Government Civil Hospital, Kamareddy, examined PW.1 Gorla Beeraiah, PW.3 Gorla Chinna Balaiah and LW.4 Gorla Narsaiah and issued wound certificates. LW.12 Dr. Venkateswarlu, Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Civil Hospital, Kamareddy, examined PW.2 Gorla Ramulu and issued wound certificate. After completing the investigation, LW.14 Sri V.Shivanarayana, Station House Officer, Domakonda Police Station, laid charge sheet in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kamareddy. The learned Magistrate took the charge sheet on file as C.C.No.280 of 1999. On appearance of the accused and on furnishing copies of documents to them as provided under Section 207 Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate examined the accused under Section 239 Cr.P.C., and framed a charge against the accused for the offence under Section 324 read with 34 IPC, read over and explained to them. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To bring home the guilt of the accused with which they stood charged, prosecution examined ten witnesses and exhibited five documents. The plea of the accused is that they are the victims in the hands of the prosecution party. They exhibited four documents on their behalf. The contradictions in 161 Cr.P.C. statements of PWs.1 to 3 are marked as Exs.D1 to D4. The learned Magistrate on considering the evidence brought on record and on hearing the prosecution and the accused found A-1 to A-3 guilty for the offence punishable under Section 323 read with 34 IPC and sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for one month each. Assailing the judgment of conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.280 of 1999, the accused filed Criminal Appeal No.18 of 2001 on the file of the Sessions Judge at Nizamabad. The learned Sessions Judge on reappraisal of the evidence and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, did not find any valid ground to interfere with the judgment of conviction and sentence of the accused for the offence under Section 323 read with 34 IPC and thereby proceeded to dismiss the appeal by judgment dated 30.09.2003. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent – State. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners/accused are victims in the hands of the prosecution party and therefore non-examination of the investigating officer as well as the medical officer is fatal to the case of the prosecution. A further submission has been made that PWs.1 to 4 are interested witnesses and the version spoken by them cannot be accepted since they themselves admitted that some of the accused received injuries in the incident. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor supported the judgment impugned in the revision. The petitioners did not raise any objection for trial being proceeded against them with regard to the incident said to have taken place on 10.12.1996 at 8.30 a.m., despite the fact of another crime being registered against the prosecution party with regard to the injuries received by them in the hands of the prosecution party. At this distance of time, it is impermissible for the petitioners to contend that a case arising out of the report filed against them by the prosecution party ought to have been tried along with the case arising out of the report filed against the prosecution party by the same Court simultaneously. PWs.1 to 3 are the injured. They categorically stated that they sustained injuries in the hands of the petitioners/accused. Nothing is suggested to them that they did not receive injuries in the incident. In the absence of such suggestion, non-examination of the doctor, who treated them is not much material, more particularly the offence alleged against them is one under Section 323 IPC. The trial Court as well as the appellate Court considered the material brought on record in right perspective and found the petitioners/accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 323 read with 34 IPC. Therefore, I do not find illegality or irregularity in the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court and as confirmed by the lower appellate Court for the offence under Section 324 read with 34 IPC against the petitioners/accused warranting interference of this Court in exercise of powers under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. _________________________ B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J 17.06.2010 KH