Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Setty Bhaskara Rao vs State Of A P Rep By P P on 21 July, 2026
APHC010548992009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3560]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE 21st DAY OF JULY 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 793/2009
Between:
1. SETTY BHASKARA RAO, S/O. KANNAYYA R/O. BHALUUGUDA, H/O.
POTHANGI, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. STATE OF A P REP BY P P, rep. by its Public prosecutor, High Court of
A.P. at 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 present this memorandum of
Crl.R.C., aggrieved by the Judgment and sentence of the VII Addl. District
Judge (FTC), Visakhapatnam, dated 27-04-2009 passed in Crl.Appeal No. 24
of 2007, confirming the judgment and conviction of the Assistant Sessions
Judge, Chodavaram in S.C. 97/2006, dated 13-06-2007.
IA NO: 1 OF 2009(CRLRCMP 1079 OF 2009
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to
dispense with the requirement of filing the certified copy of the judgment of the
Assistant Sessions Judge, Chodavaram dated 13-06-2007 in S.C. 97 of 2006
for the present in the interest of justice.
IA NO: 2 OF 2009(CRLRCMP 1087 OF 2009
-2-
CRL.R.C. No.793 OF 2009
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to
enlarge him on bail by suspending the judgment and sentence of the VII Addl.
District Judge (FTC), Visakhapatnam, dated 27-04-2009 passed in Crl.Appeal
No. 24 of 2007, who confirmed the judgment and conviction of the Assistant
Sessions Judge, Chodavaram dated 13-06-2007 in S.C. 97/2006 on such
terms and conditions as deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the
case during the pendency of the above Crl.R.C.
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. K JYOTHI PRASAD
Counsel for the Respondent:
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Court made the following:
-3-
CRL.R.C. No.793 OF 2009
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No:793/2009
ORDER:
1. The instant criminal revision case has been filed against the judgment,
dated 27.04.2009, passed by learned VII Additional District Judge (Fast
Track Court), Visakhapatnam, in Crl.A.No.24 of 2007, confirming the
judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 13.06.2007, passed by
learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Chodavaram, in S.C.No.97 of 2006.
2. The petitioner was arrayed as the sole accused in S.C. No.97 of 2006
for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 (for short, ‘I.P.C.’). Upon conclusion of the trial, learned Assistant
Sessions Judge convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-. On
appeal, while confirming the conviction, learned appellate Court
modified the sentence of imprisonment from five years to three years.
Aggrieved thereby, the present criminal revision case has been filed.
3. PROSECUTION CASE, IN BRIEF:
3.1. P.W.2/ victim and the accused are residents of nearby houses in the
same village. There had been frequent disputes between them. Earlier,
a case was registered against the accused, wherein he was convicted
and fined a sum of Rs.50/-, which allegedly created a grudge against
P.W.2.
-4-
CRL.R.C. No.793 OF 2009
3.2. It is the further case of the prosecution that on 09.04.2005, at about
4.00 p.m., the accused attacked P.W.2 with a knife, pushed him and
inflicted as many as eleven knife blows on his neck with an intention to
cause his death. P.W.2 sustained bleeding injuries and raised hue and
cry for help. On hearing his cries, other witnesses and villagers rushed
to the spot, whereupon the accused managed to escape from the
scene.
3.3. A report was lodged with the police, on the basis of which a case was
registered for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC.
3.4. During the course of investigation, P.W.2 was examined by the doctor
(P.W.11). After completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed
and, upon trial, learned Assistant Sessions Judge convicted the
accused.
4. SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER:
4.1.Firstly, the injuries sustained by P.W.2 were admittedly simple in nature,
there was no intention to kill P.W.2 and that due to sudden provocation
such assault had caused. The essential ingredients constituting an
offence under Section 307 of IPC has not been proved by the
prosecution.
4.2. Secondly, it is submitted that the medical evidence is inconsistent with
the prosecution case, as the injuries sustained by P.W.2 were simple in
nature, as such the assault cannot be equated with the offence
punishable under Section 307 IPC.
-5-
CRL.R.C. No.793 OF 2009
4.3.Thirdly, he argued that the independent witnesses did not support the
prosecution case and were declared hostile. The remaining witnesses
examined by the prosecution are close relatives of P.W.2 and,
therefore, their testimony ought not to have been relied upon without
independent corroboration.
4.4.Learned counsel also submits that the alleged recovery of M.O.1 (knife)
from the possession of the petitioner is doubtful, as the mediators to the
recovery proceedings turned hostile during trial.
4.5.Lastly, learned counsel submits that both the trial court as well as the
appellate court have proceeded erroneously and recorded the
conviction of the present petitioner. He further submits that conviction
against the present petitioner cannot be recorded under Section 307 of
IPC, but at best, the conviction may be recorded under Section 324 of
IPC. He further submits that the petitioner has been facing criminal
proceedings for nearly twenty years, and therefore, the sentence may
be modified by imposing a fine instead of imprisonment.
4.6.In support of his submissions, reliance was placed upon the judgment of
Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Hari Singh v. Sukhbir Singh and
others1.
5. SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR:
5.1. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has refuted the contention of
learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the prosecution has
1
(1988) 4 SCC 551
-6-
CRL.R.C. No.793 OF 2009successfully bring home the charge against the petitioner beyond all
reasonable doubt. It is further submitted that the testimony of the
relatives (P.W.1, P.W.3) of P.W.2 cannot be discarded merely on the
ground of relationship, particularly when their evidence is otherwise
reliable and trustworthy.
5.2. It is further submitted that the evidence clearly establishes that the
petitioner bore a grudge against P.W.2 on account of the earlier STC
case wherein the petitioner was sentenced with fine and without any
provocation, the petitioner inflicted blow on the neck and vital parts of
the body of P.W.2, which makes it clear that he has only intention to kill
P.W.2.
5.3. He further submits that learned trial court and learned appellate court
has categorically dealt with the issue in respect of the value of the
evidence. Hence, there is no scope to interfere with the concurrent
findings recorded by the Courts below.
6. OBSERVATION OF THIS COURT:
7. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned
Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and perused the
material available on record and the judgments of learned trial court and
the appellate court.
7.1. As per the provision of Section 307 of IPC, it is necessary for the
prosecution to prove that accused had the intention or knowledge that,
by his act assault, death is likely to be caused to the victim.
-7-
CRL.R.C. No.793 OF 2009
7.2. In Hari Singh v. Sukhbir Singh (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court
held that although the accused (in cited case) was carrying a sharp
edged weapon (Ballam), he had used only its blunt side for assaulting
the victim. On those peculiar facts, the Supreme Court concluded that
the intention to cause death was absent. Thus, raito of Hari Singh is
distinguishable.
7.3. The facts of the present case stand on an entirely different footing. Let
me understand whether there is sudden provocation of the petitioner to
commit assault upon the victim/ P.W.2.
7.4. The prosecution has narrated that in earlier STC case was ended in
punishment to petitioner, wherein the petitioner was convicted and
sentenced with a fine. The said fact was not countered by the defence
regarding the facts and circumstance of earlier grudge.
7.5. Thus, in the entire prosecution case, there are no circumstances of
sudden provocation of the petitioner to assault P.W.2. There are no
sudden disputes between them. So that this Court can ascertain that
there is sudden provocation.
7.6. Let me understand whether the petitioner had no intention to cause
death of P.W.2. The fact suggests that the petitioner attacked P.W.2
with knife and inflicted eleven blows on his neck, which is undoubtedly a
vital part of the human body. Causing one or two blows at the neck of a
person itself is sufficient to cause death of that person.
-8-
CRL.R.C. No.793 OF 2009
7.7. In this particular case, at the time of causing blow, the victim has
managed to save himself from the blow and petitioner, which resulted
the petitioner to cause further more blow; by that way, eleven blows are
there. There is no explanation from the defence side, why eleven
numbers of blow of knife was caused on the neck of P.W.2 in an sudden
provocation. Thus, the argument lack of intention of petitioner to kill
P.W.2 is not justified.
7.8. Insofar as the medical evidence is concerned, it is admitted that the
injuries sustained by P.W.2 have been opined to be simple in nature. In
a case under Section 307 IPC, it is not necessary to assess the
ingredients of Section 307 IPC merely by calculating the nature of
injuries sustained by the injured person. The evidence suggests that the
accused inflicted eleven blows with a knife on the neck of the victim.
Even if the injuries are opined to be simple in nature, that by itself does
not render the medical evidence inconsistent with the prosecution case
or negate the offence under Section 307 IPC.
7.9. On considering the evidence of other prosecution witnesses who are
relatives of P.W.2, learned appellate court has extensively considered
the issue in paragraphs 10 and 11 of its judgment regarding the value of
evidence of other relative witnesses of P.W.2. Moreover, though they
are the relatives, the value of the witnesses cannot be brushed aside at
this stage.
-9-
CRL.R.C. No.793 OF 2009
7.10. As regards the recovery of M.O.1 (knife), it appears that the mediators to
the seizure turned hostile during trial. However, learned trial court
recorded that mediator has admitted his signature over the
mediatornama.
7.11. Learned trial court, at paragraph 10 of its judgment, has rightly relied
upon the admissible portion of the testimony of P.W.8. In my view, the
observation of learned trial court appears to be not illegal or improper in
the attending facts and circumstances of the case.
7.12. Under the above observation, I find no justification to interfere with the
order of learned trial court as well as learned appellate court in recording
conviction and sentence of the present petitioner.
7.13. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the offence under
Section 307 of IPC may be converted to Section 324 of IPC. However, in
the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is amply clear from
the strength of the evidence that the prosecution has bring home the
charge against the accused under Section 307 of IPC beyond reasonable
doubt. Therefore, the punishment imposed upon the petitioner cannot be
modified by converting the conviction from Section 307 of IPC to Section
324 of IPC.
7.14. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I find no valid
or sufficient ground to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by
the courts below. The order of conviction and sentence passed by
learned trial court, as affirmed by the learned appellate court, does not
-10-
CRL.R.C. No.793 OF 2009
warrant any interference. Accordingly, the instant criminal revision, being
devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.
7.15. The order suspending the sentence during pendency of the criminal
revision case stands vacated. The petitioner is directed to appear before
learned trial court/ jail authorities within six weeks from the date of
passing of this order to serve out the remaining portion of the sentence.
Failing which, learned trial court shall issue a non-bailable warrant
against petitioner to comply the order.
7.16. Accordingly, the criminal revision case is disposed of.
8. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this revision case shall stand
closed.
____________________________
JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA
Dt.21.07.2026
BV
-11-
CRL.R.C. No.793 OF 2009
Whether the order is :
Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No
Reportable Yes/No
