Telangana High Court

G.Raghulu vs Gali Bapu And 2 Others on 1 May, 2024

           THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

          CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1272 OF 2009

ORDER:

This revision is filed by the de facto complainant aggrieved

by the judgment of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge at

Manthani (for short "Court below"), in S.C.No.618 of 2008, dated

08.06.2009.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 21.03.2008 while playing

Holi, there was quarrel between PW-2 and the accused persons.

It is alleged that accused Nos.1 and 2 attacked PW-2 with axes.

Complaint was lodged before the police on the same day which is

Ex.P-1.

3. On the basis of the complaint filed, police investigated the

case and filed charge sheet under Section 307 read with 34 of

IPC. Charge was framed for the said offence and the Court below

examined PWs-1 to 12 and marked Exs.P1 to P9 on behalf of the

prosecution. The Court below acquitted the accused on the

following grounds:

i. There is no intention on part of the accused Nos.1 and 2 to

murder PW-2

ii. All the injuries on PW-2 are simple in nature and attack by

the axes by accused Nos.1 and 2 is contrary to the injuries.

iii. None of the injuries are on any vital part of the body.

iv. PW-2, other witnesses and accused Nos.1 & 2 were all in

drunken condition when incident has taken place. It was a

drunken brawl on the festival day.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would

submit that as per the evidence of the Doctor, there were

grievous injuries. Therefore, the conviction has to be reversed.

5. Having gone through the record, it can be seen that PW-2 did

not receive any grievous injuries on any vital part of the body.

There were injuries, which are scratches and lacerations.

Admittedly, it was festival day of Holi, and there was fight in

between the accused and PW-2. It was admitted during trial that

all of them were drunk.

6. Under Section 401(3) Cr.P.C, the High Court is prohibited

from reversing an order of acquittal into conviction. The ground

raised by learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that Court