*THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA

+ CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1388 OF 2009

% 21.07.2026

#

1. NARRA PAUL, CHAPADU MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT, S/O. PEDDA

DANAMU COOLIE R/O. MORAIPALLE VILLAGE, CHAPADU MANDAL,

KADAPA DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER

And:

$

1. THE STATE OF A P REP BY ITS P P HYDERABAD AND 11

OTHERS, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF

A.P., HYDERABAD.

2. KOPERLA JAYASEKHAR, S/O. SIKHAMANI R/O. MORAIPALLI

VILLAGE, CHAPADU MANDAL OF KADAPA DISTRICT.

3. KOPERLA JAYAPAUL, S/ O. SIKHAMANI R/O. MORAIPALLI

VILLAGE, CHAPADU MANDAL OF KADAPA DISTRICT.

4. TANGELA SUNDARAM DIED, S/O.VEERAIAH, R/O.MORAIPALLI

VILLAGE, CHAPADU MANDAL OF KADAPA DISTRICT.

(RESPONDENT NO.4/ACCUSED NO.3 SINCE DIED, CRIMINAL

REVISION CASE AGAINST RESPONDE NT NO.4/ACCUSED NO.3 IS

ABATED, AS PER THE COURT'S ORDER DATED 09.04.2025 IN

CRL.R.C.NO.1388 OF 2009.)

5. NARRA SESHANNA, S/O. VEERAIAH R/O. MORAIPALLI VILLAGE,

CHAPADU MANDAL OF KADAPA DISTRICT.

6. OBULAPADU HAZIKELU, S/O. SUBBANNA @ DEVADANAM R/O.

MORAIPALLI VILLAGE, CHAPADU MANDAL OF KADAPA DISTRICT.

7. TANGELLA SWAMYDASS, S/O. SOLOMON R/O. MORAIPALLI

VILLAGE, CHAPADU MANDAL OF KADAPA DISTRICT.

8. TANGELLA DEVADAS, S/O. SUNDARAM R/O. MORAIPALLI

VILLAGE, CHAPADU MANDAL OF KADAPA DISTRICT.

-2-

CRL.R.C. No.1388 & 1130 OF 2009

9. NARRA NAGARAJU, S/O. SESHANNA R/O. MORAIPALLI VILLAGE,

CHAPADU MANDAL OF KADAPA DISTRICT.

10. NARRA NAGENDRA, S/O. SESHANNA R/O. MORAIPALLI VILLAGE,

CHAPADU MANDAL OF KADAPA DISTRICT.

11. KOPERLA CHANDRA, S/O. SAMSON R/O. MORAIPALLI VILLAGE,

CHAPADU MANDAL OF KADAPA DISTRICT.

12. TANGELLA YESANNA, S/O. THIMOTHI R/O. MORAIPALLI VILLAGE,

CHAPADU MANDAL OF KADAPA DISTRICT.

...RESPONDENTS

! Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. PONNEKANTI MALLIKARJUNA RAO

2. LEGAL AID

^ Counsel for the Respondents:

1. KHAJA KHUTUBUDDIN SHAIK

2. SRI PANINI SOMAYAJI - ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

3. LEGAL AID

4. --

+ CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1388 OF 2009

% 21.07.2026

#

1. KOPERLA JAYASEKHAR, S/O.SIKHAMANI MORAIPALLI VILLAGE,

CHAPADU MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT.

2. KOPERLA JAYAPUAL,, S/O.SIKHAMANI MORAIPALLI VILLAGE,

CHAPADU MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT.

3. NARRA SESHANNA, S/O.VEERAIAH MORAIPALLI VILLAGE,

CHAPADU MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT.

4. OBULAPADU HAZIKELU, S/O.SUBBANNA @ DEVADANAM

MORAIPALLI VILLAGE, CHAPADU MAND AL, KADAPA DISTRICT.

5. TANGELLA SWAMYDASS,, S/O.SOLMON MORAIPALLI VILLAGE,

CHAPADU MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT.

-3-

CRL.R.C. No.1388 & 1130 OF 2009

6. TANGELLA DEVADAS, S/O.SUNDARAM MORAIPALLI VILLAGE,

CHAPADU MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT.

7. NARRA NAGARAJU, S/O.SESHANNA MORAIPALLI VILLAGE,

CHAPADU MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT.

8. NARRA NAGENDRA, S/O.SESHANNA MORAIPALLI VILLAGE,

CHAPADU MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT.

9. KOPERLA CHANDRA, S/O.SAMSON MORAIPALLI VILLAGE,

CHAPADU MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT.

10. TANGELLA YESANNA, S/O.THIMOTHI MORAIPALLI VILLAGE,

CHAPADU MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT.

...PETITIONERS

And:

$

1. STATE S H O SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, Chapadu Police Station,

rep. by Public Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.

...RESPONDENT

! Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. RAGHU RAM VEMPATY

2. LEGAL AID

^Counsel for the Respondent:

1.Sri PANINI SOMAYAJI – ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

<Gist:

>Head Note:

? Cases referred: -

-4-

CRL.R.C. No.1388 & 1130 OF 2009

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

* * * *

CRL.R.C. Nos:1388 & 1103 OF 2009

DATE OF ORDER: 21.07.2026

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers

may be allowed to see the Order?

Yes/No

2. Whether the copies of Order may be

marked to Law Reporters/Journals

Yes/No

3. Whether Your Lordships wish to see the

fair copy of the Order?

Yes/No

_____________________

SUBHENDU SAMANTA ,J

-5-

CRL.R.C. No.1388 & 1130 OF 2009

Date of reserved for orders : 09.07.2026

Date of pronouncement : 21.07.2026

Date of uploading : 21.07.2026

APHC010374922009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3560]

TUESDAY, THE 21

st

DAY OF JULY 2026

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1388/2009

Between:

1. NARRA PAUL, CHAPADU MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT, S/O. PEDDA

DANAMU COOLIE R/O. MORAIPALLE VILLAGE, CHAPADU MANDAL,

KADAPA DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER

AND

1. THE STATE OF A P REP BY ITS P P HYDERABAD AND 11

OTHERS, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF

A.P., HYDERABAD.

2. KOPERLA JAYASEKHAR, S/O. SIKHAMANI R/O. MORAIPALLI

VILLAGE, CHAPADU MANDAL OF KADAPA DISTRICT.

3. KOPERLA JAYAPAUL, S/O. SIKHAMANI R/O. MORAIPALLI

VILLAGE, CHAPADU MANDAL OF KADAPA DISTRICT.

4. TANGELA SUNDARAM DIED, S/O.VEERAIAH, R/O.MORAIPALLI

VILLAGE, CHAPADU MANDAL OF KADAPA DISTRICT.

(RESPONDENT NO.4/ACCUSED NO.3 SINCE DIED, CRIMINAL

REVISION CASE AGAINST RESPONDENT NO.4/ACCUSED NO.3 IS

ABATED, AS PER THE COURT'S ORDER DATED 09.04.2025 IN

CRL.R.C.NO.1388 OF 2009.)

5. NARRA SESHANNA, S/O. VEERAIAH R /O. MORAIPALLI VILLAGE,

CHAPADU MANDAL OF KADAPA DISTRICT.

-6-

CRL.R.C. No.1388 & 1130 OF 2009

6. OBULAPADU HAZIKELU, S/O. SUBBANNA @ DEVADANAM R/O.

MORAIPALLI VILLAGE, CHAPADU MANDAL OF KADAPA DISTRICT.

7. TANGELLA SWAMYDASS, S/O. SOLOMON R/O. MORAIPALLI

VILLAGE, CHAPADU MANDAL OF KADAPA DISTRICT.

8. TANGELLA DEVADAS, S/O. SUNDARAM R/O. MORAIPALLI

VILLAGE, CHAPADU MANDAL OF KADAPA DISTRICT.

9. NARRA NAGARAJU, S/O. SESHANNA R/O. MORAIPALLI VILLAGE,

CHAPADU MANDAL OF KADAPA DISTRICT.

10. NARRA NAGENDRA, S/O. SESHANNA R/O. MORAIPALLI VILLAGE,

CHAPADU MANDAL OF KADAPA DISTRICT.

11. KOPERLA CHANDRA, S/O. SAMSON R/O. MORAIPALLI VILLAGE,

CHAPADU MANDAL OF KADAPA DISTRICT.

12. TANGELLA YESANNA, S/O. THIMOTHI R/O. MORAIPALLI VILLAGE,

CHAPADU MANDAL OF KADAPA DISTRICT.

...RESPONDENTS

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 to present this Memorandum of

Criminal Revision Case to this Honourable Court against the Judgment

passed in Crl.A.No.104 of 2005 on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge,

Kadapa at Proddatur dated 16-06-2009 partly allowing the appeal setting

aside the Convictions passed for the offences under Section 147, 148, 326,

324 r/w 149 IPC in C.C.No.19 of 2003 on the file of the Court of 1st Additional

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Proddatur, dated 01-03-2005.

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. PONNEKANTI MALLIKARJUNA RAO

2. LEGAL AID

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. KHAJA KHUTUBUDDIN SHAIK

2. SRI PANINI SOMAYAJI – ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

3. LEGAL AID

4. --

-7-

CRL.R.C. No.1388 & 1130 OF 2009

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1130/2009

Between:

1. KOPERLA JAYASEKHAR, S/O.SIKHAMANI MORAIPALLI VILLAGE,

CHAPADU MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT.

2. KOPERLA JAYAPUAL,, S/O.SIKHAMANI MORAIPALLI VILLAGE,

CHAPADU MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT.

3. NARRA SESHANNA, S/O.VEERAIAH MORAIPALLI VILLAGE,

CHAPADU MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT.

4. OBULAPADU HAZIKELU, S/O.SUBBANNA @ DEVADANAM

MORAIPALLI VILLAGE, CHAPADU MANDAL, KADAP A DISTRICT.

5. TANGELLA SWAMYDASS,, S/O.SOLMON MORAIPALLI VILLAGE,

CHAPADU MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT.

6. TANGELLA DEVADAS, S/O.SUNDARAM MORAIPALLI VILLAGE,

CHAPADU MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT.

7. NARRA NAGARAJU, S/O.SESHANNA MORAIPALLI VILLAGE,

CHAPADU MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT.

8. NARRA NAGENDRA, S/O.SESHANNA MORAIPALLI VILLAGE,

CHAPADU MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT.

9. KOPERLA CHANDRA, S/O.SAMSON MORAIPALLI VILLAGE,

CHAPADU MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT.

10. TANGELLA YESANNA, S/O.THIMOTHI MORAIPALLI VILLAGE,

CHAPADU MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT.

...PETITIONERS

AND

1. STATE S H O SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, Chapadu Police Station,

rep. by Public Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.

...RESPONDENT

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 to file the present Criminal Revision

Case against the Judgment dt.16-06-2009 in Crl.A.No.104 of 2005 on the file

of II Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur in so far as imposing

fine of Rs.2,000/- each to the petitioner U/s.324 of I.P.C. in setting aside the

-8-

CRL.R.C. No.1388 & 1130 OF 2009

conviction imposed by the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Proddatur in C.C.No.19 of 2003 dt.14-3-2005.

Counsel for the Petitioners:

1. RAGHU RAM VEMPATY

2. LEGAL AID

Counsel for the Respondent:

1. SRI PANINI SOMAYAJI - ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Court made the following:

-9-

CRL.R.C. No.1388 & 1130 OF 2009

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos:1388 & 1130 OF 2009

COMMON ORDER:

1. Both these criminal revision cases were arise out of common judgment,

dated 16.06.2009, passed by learned II Additional Sessions Judge,

Kadapa at Proddatur, in Crl.A.No.104 of 2005, whereby and

whereunder learned Sessions Judge has set aside the conviction of

accused for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 326, 324

read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’),

recorded by learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Proddatur, in C.C.No.19 of 2003, dated 14.03.2005, and modified the

conviction for the offence under Section 324 of IPC against all accused

by way of fine amount of Rs.2,000/-.

2. Aggrieved by the modification of conviction and sentence, de facto

complainant preferred Crl.R.C.No.1388 of 2009, whereas the accused

persons preferred Crl.R.C.No.1130 of 2009.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is as follows:

3.1. On 05.08.2002, at about 8.00 A.M., while A.1, A.2 and A.4 were

laying metal on the road along with coolies at Malawada of Moraipalli

Village, an altercation took place with P.W.1 regarding the improper

spreading of the metal. During the course of altercation, A.1 pushed

P.W.1 aside. When P.W.1 questioned his conduct, A.1 allegedly went

to his house, brought a stick and beat P.W.1 on his forehead, causing

-10-

CRL.R.C. No.1388 & 1130 OF 2009

a bleeding injury. Thereafter, A.1 again assaulted P.W.1 on the right

side of his head. A.3 allegedly caused a fracture on the left ulna of

P.W.1. The other accused allegedly assaulted P.Ws.2 to 9 with sticks

and stones, caused simple injuries.

3.2. Thereafter, the injured persons boarded an auto, proceeded to the

police station, where P.W.1 lodged a report. They were thereafter

referred to the Government Hospital for treatment.

3.3. Upon completion of investigation, the police filed a charge sheet for

offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 324 and 326 read with

Sections 149 of IPC.

3.4. During trial, prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 13, marked several

documents as Exs.P.1 to P.17. On behalf of defence, D.W.1 was

examined and Exs.D.1 to D.5 were marked.

3.5. Upon considering the evidence, learned trial court found A.1 to A.11

guilty for the offences under Sections 148 and 324 of IPC, found A.3

guilty for the offence under Section 326 of IPC, A.1, A.2 and A.4 to

A.11 found guilty for the offence under section 324 read with 149 of

IPC and Section 326 read with 149 of IPC; and sentenced A.1 to A.11

to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each and to pay a

fine of Rs.2,000/- each in default to suffer simple imprisonment three

months each for the offence under section 148 IPC. Further, A.1 to

A.11 are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year

each and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each in default to suffer simple

-11-

CRL.R.C. No.1388 & 1130 OF 2009

imprisonment for three months each for the offence under section

324 of IPC. Further, A.3 is sentenced to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for three years and also sentenced to pay a fine of

Rs.5,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months

for the offence under Section 326 of IPC. Further A.1, A.2 and A.4 to

A.11 are found guilty for the offence under section 326 r/w 149 IPC

and they are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years

each and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each in default to suffer simple

imprisonment for three months each.

3.6. Aggrieved thereby, the accused preferred appeal being Crl.A.No.104

of 2005 before learned appellate Court. Upon hearing both parties,

learned appellate Court acquitted all the accused for the offences

punishable under Sections 147, 148, 326, 324 read with Section 149

of IPC. However, convicted them for the offence punishable under

Section 324 of IPC and sentenced each of them to pay a fine of

Rs.2,000/-.

3.7. Challenging the modification of conviction and sentence, de facto

complainant preferred Crl.R.C.No.1388 of 2009, whereas the

accused persons preferred Crl.R.C.No.1130 of 2009.

4. SUBMISSIONS OF THE DE FACTO COMPLAINANT :

4.1. Learned counsel for the de facto complainant contended that learned

appellate court committed a grave illegality in reversing the well-

-12-

CRL.R.C. No.1388 & 1130 OF 2009

reasoned judgment of learned trial court and in modifying the

conviction and sentence under Section 324 IPC.

4.2. He further submits that there are glaring evidences including some

medical evidence of doctor to hold that P.W.1 including other

prosecution witnesses has sustained severe bodily injury inflicted all

accused persons; thereby, the order of acquittal for the offences

punishable under Sections 147, 148 and 326 read with Section 149

IPC is unsustainable.

5. SUBMISSIONS OF THE ACCUSED :

5.1. Learned counsel appearing for accused persons submits that there

was an unexplained and inordinate delay in lodging the FIR. As per

prosecution case, alleged incident occurred on 05.08.2002, but the

FIR was registered on 07.08.2002, there are no satisfactory

explanation for the delay of two or three days, which is fatal to the

prosecution case.

5.2. He further submits that place of occurrence itself is highly doubtful.

The evidence of Investigating Officer as well as Ex.P.17-rough sketch

clearly establish that P.W.1 had no house adjacent to the place

where the metal road was allegedly being laid. It is further submitted

that laying of a metal road by itself does not disclose any criminal

intention.

5.3. Moreover, the evidence of D.W.1, the Gram Panchayat official and

Exs.D.1 to D.5 itself proved that the metal road was actually laid on

-13-

CRL.R.C. No.1388 & 1130 OF 2009

12.08.2002, and not on 05.08.2002. It was also submitted that no

weapons, allegedly used in the commission of the offence were

seized or produced before learned trial court to substantiate the

ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC.

Hence, learned appellate court justifiably found that there is no

material to record conviction in this case.

5.4. Learned counsel also argued that Crl.R.C.No.1130 of 2009 is

preferred questioning the imposition of sentence by learned appellate

court under Section 324 of IPC against all accused persons. There

are no material before learned trial court or the appellate court to hold

that the petitioners have committed any offence of assault upon the

injured prosecution witnesses on the relevant date.

6. OBSERVATIONS OF THIS COURT :

6.1. In both these revisions, the judgment of learned appellate court is

under challenge.

6.2. Learned appellate court, while dealing with the judgment passed by

judgment in calendar case being C.C. No.19 of 2003, is of the view

that there are several discrepancies in the case of the prosecution.

6.3. Firstly, the place of occurrence itself is doubtful as the investigating

officer categorically admitted during cross-examination that there was

no house belonging to P.W.1/ complainant beside the metal road.

Further, the allegation of assault in respect of laying metal road was

occurred on 05.08.2002 and on the same day they proceeded to the

-14-

CRL.R.C. No.1388 & 1130 OF 2009

hospital for medical treatment, but FIR was registered one day

thereafter. On a plain perusal of FIR, it appears that it only disclosed

the name of three accused persons i.e., A.1, A.2 and A.4, but

subsequently, total 11 accused persons were arrayed as accused in

this case. Obviously, there are exaggerations in the prosecution

case, which appears to have been introduced only to attract the

ingredients of Sections 147 and 149 of IPC, which require

participation of at least five persons constituting an unlawful

assembly. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to establish the

common object of the alleged unlawful assembly.

6.4. Learned appellate court further observed that absence of evidence of

doctor regarding the use of dangerous weapons so as to attract the

offence punishable under Section 326 IPC. Thus, learned appellate

court has justifiably hold that the charges under Sections 147, 148,

326 read with Section 149 IPC were not proved. However, learned

appellate court, believing the sole testimony of injured/P.W.1, has

convicted the all accused persons under Section 324 of IPC. In the

considered opinion of this Court, when the entire prosecution case

regarding the place of occurrence, registration of FIR, date of alleged

occurrence is doubtful, the testimony of P.W.1 cannot safely be relied

upon without adequate corroboration.

6.5. Moreover, the evidence of D.W.1 supported by Exs.D.1 to D.5, clearly

established that the metal road was actually laid on 12.08.2002. So,

-15-

CRL.R.C. No.1388 & 1130 OF 2009

the allegation that the quarrel occurred on 05.08.2002 while laying

the same road creates serious doubt regarding the very genesis of

the occurrence.

6.6. Considering the entire material on record, I am of the view that,

though learned appellate court has recorded that conviction is

maintainable on the basis of the evidence of injured, but no order of

conviction can be passed only to keep the fear in the minds of the

accused. Criminal jurisprudence requires that every ingredient of the

offence must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

6.7. In this case, though learned appellate court has rightly acquitted the

accused of the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148 and 326

read with Section 149 of IPC, but erroneously recorded conviction

under Section 324 of IPC, despite there is heavy doubt in the

prosecution case.

6.8. In the considered opinion of this Court, the prosecution has miserably

failed to establish the charge under Section 324 of IPC beyond

reasonable doubt against any of the accused. Accordingly, Crl.R.C.

No.1130 of 2009 filed by the accused is allowed. Crl.R.C. No.1388 of

2009 filed by the de facto complainant is dismissed. The impugned

judgment of learned appellate Court is confirmed insofar as it

acquitted the accused of the offences punishable under Sections 147,

148 and 326 read with Section 149 IPC. However, the conviction and

sentence recorded against the accused for the offence punishable

-16-

CRL.R.C. No.1388 & 1130 OF 2009

under Section 324 of IPC are hereby set aside. The accused are

acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC and

are set at liberty, if they are not required in any other case.

6.9. The fine amount, if already deposited by the accused, shall be

refunded to them in accordance with law.

6.10. Under the above observation, these criminal revision cases are

disposed of.

6.11. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these revisions shall stand

closed.

____________________________

JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA

Dt.21.07.2026

BV

-17-

CRL.R.C. No.1388 & 1130 OF 2009

Whether the order is :

Speaking: Yes/No Reasoned: Yes/No

Reportable: Yes/No