Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Vunnam Babu, Guntur Dt., vs The State Of Ap., Rep Pp., on 16 June, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 2658 OF 2017
Revision filed under Section 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C., aggrieved by the
judgment made in CrI.A No. 359 of 2015 dated 16-10-2017 on the file of the
XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tenali, while confirming the
judgment in S.C.No.497 of 2014 on the file of the Additional Assistant
Sessions Judge, Tenali, dated 25-07-2015.
Between;
Vunnam Babu, S/o Daniel, Hindu, aged about 33 years, R/o Kolakaluru
Village, Tenali Mandal, Guntur District.
...Petitioner/Appellant/Accused No.1
AND
The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by the Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
...Respondent/Respondent/Complainant
Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Banda Sai Sampath Kumar
Counsel for the Respondent: Public Prosecutor (AP)
The Court made the following:
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No:2658 of 2017
ORDER:
The Revision has been preferred under Section 397 and 401 of Code of
Criminal Procedure. 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C‘) against the judgment dated
16.10.2017 in Crl.A.No.359 of 2015 passed by the learned XI Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Tenali, confirming the judgment dated 25.07.2015
in S.C.No.497 of 2014 passed by the learned Additional Assistant Sessions
Judge, Tenali, finding the revisionist guilty of the offence punishable under
Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘the I.P.C‘) and
convicted the revisionist under Section 235 (2) of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ and sentenced
him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three years and six months
and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, and, in default, to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of one month.
2. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the revisionist and
the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.
3. Sri Banda Sai Sampath Kumar, the learned Counsel for the Revisionist,
while reiterating the grounds of the Revision, argued that the learned Courts
below erred in convicting them under Section 326 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ citing several
critical flaws in the prosecution’s case; the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is fraught
with infirmity of interestedness; there are several discrepancies in the evidence
of the witnesses of the prosecution; with the alleged usage of M.0.1 it could
not be possible to cause the fracture injuries to P.W.1; the evidence of P.W.1
2
Dr.YLRJ
Crl.R.C.No.2658of 2017
16.06.2025
is not,,corroborated with the medical evidence to: prove the offence under
Section 326 of ‘the I.P.C.’; taking advantage of the animosity between the
Petitioner and P.W.1, the P.W.1 foisted a false case; and that it is urged to
allow the Criminal Revision Case.
4. Alternatively, it is submitted that the Revisionist at the time of the alleged
offence was aged about 33 years; nearly 11 years have passed by; he had
suffered a lot of mental agony; now he is aged about 44 years; the Petitioner
was in incarceration for more than four months; he has been suffering from
severe aliments due to post Covid-19 complications and requested to consider
the case of the revisionist sympathetically and urged to impose sentence
which he had already undergone, while volunteering that the sentence of
payment of additional fine of Rs.20,000/- be imposed as a measure of
penance and urged to dispose of the revision.
5. Per contra, Ms. P. Akila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
vehemently argued that the learned Appellate Court having gone through the
evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the judgment of the learned Trial
Court rightly passed the judgment confirming the conviction for the offence
charged and urged to dismiss the revision case as there are no material
irregularities, flagrant miscarriage of justice and misreading of the evidence.
6. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by
the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record.
7. Now the point for consideration is:
3
Dr.YLRJ
CrLR.C.No.2658of 2017
16.06.2025”Whether th6 judgment in Crl.A.No.359 of 2015 dated 16.10.2017,
passed by the learned XI Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Tenali, Is correct, legal, and proper with respect to its finding,
sentence, or judgment, and there are any material irregularities ?
And to what relief?”
8. It is apposite to refer the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bindeshwari Prasad
Singh v State of Bihar^ wherein at Paragraph No. 13 it is held as under:
“13. … In the absence of any legal infirmity either in the procedure
or in the conduct of the trial, there was no justification for the High
Court to interfere in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. It has
repeatedly been held that the High Court should not re-appreciate
the evidence to reach a finding different from the frial Court. In the
absence of manifest Illegality resulting in grave miscarriage of
justice, exercise of revisional jurisdiction in such cases is not
warranted.
9. The prosecution had got examined P.Ws.1 to 12 and marked Ex.PI to
PI 5 and M.Os.1 and 2. The learned Trial Court did not find the Petitioner guilty
of the offence punishable under Section 307 of ‘the I.P.C.’ The learned Trial
Court found the Petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under Section 326
of ‘the I.P.C.,’ and sentenced him as mentioned supra.
10. In this case, the evidence of P.W.10 is pivotal. P.W.10, the Civil Assistant
Surgeon, had testified that he observed the following four injuries of P.W.1.
I. Swelling of both lower limbs below knee.
II. Swelling of right hand and right forearm.
A small laceration on left lower limb below knee and abrasion of
both lower limbs.
IV. A contusion on right forearm.
(2002) 6 see 650
Dr.YLRJ
CrLR.C.No.2658of 2017
16.06.2025
11. P.W.10 opined that the above injuries are grievous in nature and
therefore, he issued Ex.PIO wound certificate. However, in his cross-
examination he admitted that he could not remember the name of the
Radiologist who had taken X-rays of P.W.1. He admitted that X-rays might be
belonged to P.W.1 or any other person. He also admitted that he did not
observe any injury below left elbow and on the back side right shoulder. It was
admitted further by P.W.10 that he did not specifically mention about receiving
injury on right ankle either and he did mention about injuries oh both limbs. He
mentioned in Ex.PIO certificate initially as unknown and corrected the same as
known persons. He admitted that P.W.1 did not state to him about using of
knife. Admittedly, there were no bleeding injuries on the body of P.W.1. He
clearly admitted that there was a possibility of fracture of bone without cut or
laceration, if 50-gram sheet knife is used. He had not mentioned about the
colour of injuries. He also did not mention the nature of weapons which may
likely to cause the injuries mentioned in the certificate. He admitted that there
was a possibility of fracture, if the person falls from 25 feet height.
12.
The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is clear, trustworthy and believable
regarding the Petitioner beating P.W.1. However, to prove the nature of the
injury sustained by PW.1, neither radiologist was examined, nor radiologist
report and X-rays were marked by the prosecution. P.W.3, who is friend of
P.W.1 and an independent witness did not support the case of the prosecution.
PW.1 being injured and P.W.2 the brother had only supported the case of the
5
Dr.YLRJ
Crl.R.C.No.2658 of 2017
16.06.2025
prosecutid’n. As per their evidence there were four grievous injuriosrbut to
prove that those injuries are grievous or not, examination of radiologist IS
necessary.
13. In this regard, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied on the
decision of the High Court of Karnataka in Sathya Deva v. State of
Karnataka^, wherein at Paragraph Nos. 15 to 17 it is held as under:
“15. The doctor who has examined the injured persons was duty bound to
classify the injuries as grievous injuries or not keeping in mind the definition
of the grievous injury as contemplated under Section 320 of I PC. In order to
substantiate the opinion of the doctor to classify the injury as a grievous
injury, it is necessary that X-ray certificate and radiological certificate must
be placed by the prosecution to term it as the said injuries are grievous
injuries, especially when there Is a fracture.
16. In this regard, this Court gainfully places reliance on the Judgment of
the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State v. Sheenappa Gowda
reported in 2011(4) KCCR 2759, the relevant paragraph is culled out
hereunder:
“11. Therefore, the question for determination is limited to find
out whether the said injury No. 2 is proved to be a grievous injury
sustained by P.W 4. It is well settled that in criminal cases, the
burden of proving the guilt of the accused is always on the
prosecution and that burden would not shift unless there is a
presumption or defence as enumerated in the Penal Code, 1860 is
taken by the accused. In this case, the defence taken by the
accused Is one of denial. It is clear from the evidence of P.W 1 that
he has given description of injury on physical examination of P.W 4
and has come to the conclusion that there was fracture of the
middle phalanx. It is well settled that when the prosecution alleges
that grievous injury has been caused. It is necessary for the
prosecution to prove the same beyond resonable doubt. The
evidence of P.W1. would only show that there was Injury as
described in the wound certificate – Ex.P2. When P.W 1 suspected
such fracture, he ought to have referred the injured – P.W 4 for
taking X-ray to confirm his finding that there is fracture of middle
phalanx. It is now well settled hat unless the prosecution produces
the X-ray for confirmation of fracture opined by the Doctor on
medical examination clinically it cannot be said that the accused
have caused grievous Injury of fracture. It is true that in the cross-
examination of P.W 1, the learned Counsel appearing for the
accused has not disputed the nature of injuries spoken to by P.W 1.
However, he same would not dispense with the production the X-
ray by the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the2CrLRP.Nos.1148& 1185 of 2012
6Dr.YLRJ
Crl.R.C.No.2658of 2017
16.06.2025■* -• injured had sustained fracture of middle phalcur^, which is an
opinion given by PW. 1 Doctor only on clinical examination of P.W
4, the injured. Therefore, it is clear that the finding of the learned
Sessions Judge holding that the prosecution has failed to prove
that the accused Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 have committed the offence
punishable under Section 326 of I.PC. and the offence committed
by them falls within the ambit of Section 324 of I. PC. is justified”.
17. Applying the legal principles enunciated In the aforesaid case to the
case to the case on hand and in the absence of prosecution failing to place
X-ray certificate and radiological certificate, injuries mentioned in the wound
certificate cannot be termed as grievous injuries. Furthe,r as rightly
submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners no explanation is
forthcoming by the prosecution as to the injury sustained by the petitioners
in each of the cases. Under such circumstances, finding recorded by the
Trial Magistrate that the petitioners-accused are guilty of the offence
punishable under Section 326 of I PC cannot be sustained In the eye of law
and therefore, the same needs to be scaled down to 324 of IPC.
Unfortunately, the learned Judge In the First Appellate Court need not
bestowed its attention to the said aspect of the matter while confirming the
order passed by the Trial Magistrate. ”
14.
In Bholu @ Hanuman v. State of Rajasthan^ the High Court of
Rajasthan at Paragraph No. 17 held that to decide whether the injuries aregrievous in nature to attract section 326 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ X-rays of the injured
and opinion given by the radiologist are important and radiologist is also to be
examined, and in the absence of any such evidence, the inevitable conclusion
is that the prosecution failed to prove its case for an offence under Section 326
of ‘the I.P.C.’
15.
In Ragho Mahara v. State of Jharkhand^ the High Court of Jharkhand
at Paragraph No.17 held that conviction under section 325 of ‘the I.P.C., wasnot sustainable because the opinion of the Doctor that injury No.1 was
grievous was not supported by X-ray plate.
= 2009(1) ALT(Crl) 23(NRC)
^ 2018 see Online Jhar 2373
#V- 7
Dr.YLRJ
Crl.R.C.No.2658 of 2017
16.06.2025In Surendra Ral v. State of Jharkhand^, the High Cburt of Jharkhand
•. •
16.
held at Paragraph No.9 that in the light of direct evidence on the point of injury,
non-production of x-ray report was not fatal for proof of case under section 326
of ‘the I.P.C.’
17. In Swam Singh v. Delhi Administration® it is held at Paragraph No. 11
that nevertheless to ascertain that the injury was grievous or simple reliance
can be placed on the statement of the doctor giving reasons for arriving at the
conclusion or by considering the evidence of injured.
18. In State of Punjab v. Naseeb Singh^ the High Court of Punjab and
Haryana held at Paragraph No.24 that it was not possible to hold that absence
of X-ray film during the trial or where X-ray of the injured is not even done in all
cases would result in acquittal of the accused under section 326 of ‘the I.P.C.,’
and it will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case, where eye
witness version is duly supported by medical evidence, particularly by an
expert medical evidence which clearly shows that bone had fractured and it
was visible from naked eye, the court would not be justified in granting
acquittal to the accused for the offence under section 326 of ‘the I.P.C.’
19. This Court in Chilaka Baburao v. State of Andhra Pradesh®, held that
to prove the nature of injuries, examination of radiologist and marking of
radiologist report and X-rays are necessary.
= 2016 see Online Jhar 2372
® 1991 Cri. Law Journal 1867 (Del.)
^ 2003 see Online P & H 224
®erl.R.e.No.365 of 2010
Dr.YLR.J
Crl.R.C.No.2658of 2017
16.06.2025
20.
Alearned Single Judge of this Courts in Nallabothula Ramachandra v.
State of Andhra Pradesh^ at Paragraph Nos. 16 and 17 held as under:
”16. Besides, there is a judgment of High Court of Andhra
Pradesh relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners
reported between Erlapalli Prakasham \/. State of Andhra
Pradesh, 2002 (1) ALD (CrI.) 621 (AP), in which there was an
observation by the Coordinate Bench of this Court that ‘the
Radiologist has not produced the X-ray films and in the
absence of the same, it cannot be said that there are grievous
injuries and it must be taken that the injured have sustained
simple injuries.
17. It is also relevant to refer the judgment of High Court of
Madras between Muniammal v. Superintendent of Police,
2008 see Online Mad 1251, wherein the High Court has
relied upon its earlier judgment between Maddan Copal
Kakkad v. Naval Dubey, (1992) 3 SCC 204 and held in the
said judgment at paragraph No. 34 as follows:
A medical witness called in as an expert to assist the
Court is not a witness of fact and the evidence given by
the medical officer is really of an advisory character
given on the basis of symptoms found on examination.
The expert witness is expected to put before the
Court all materials inclusive of the data which induced
him to come to the conclusion and enlighten the
Court on the technical aspect of the case by explaining
the terms of science so that the Court, although not an
expert, may form its own judgment on those materials
after giving due regard to the experts opinion because
once the experts opinion is accepted, it is not the
opinion of the medical officer but of the Court. ”
21.
In the instant case, P.W.10, the Assistant Civil Surgeon admitted in his
cross-examination that he could not remember the Radiologist who had taken
X-rays. P.W.1 also sceptical about the X-rays are belonging to P.W.1 or any
other person. He mentioned in Ex.PIO wound certificate initially as unknown
“2024 1 ALD (Cri)728
#*v.<*»
9
Dr.YLRJ
CrLR.C.No.2658of 2017
16.06.2025
and later corrected as known persons who had beaten P.W.1. P.W.1 also did
not reveal to P.W.10, he sustained injuries because of using of a knife.
22.
Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of present case, non
examination of the radiologist and not marking the radiologist report and X-
rays are fatal to the case of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the Petitioner
for the offence under Section 326 of ‘the I.P.C.’ However, there are injuries
which were caused by the Petitioner by using Material Object No.1. Therefore,
the Petitioner is liable for punishment under Section 324 of ‘the I.P.C.’ Hence,
the conviction under Section 326 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ imposed by the learned Trial
Court and confirmed by the learned Appellate Court is liable to be interfered
and set aside. However, the Petitioner is convicted for the offence punishable
under Section 324 of ‘the I.P.C.’
23. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Hussainara Khatoon (IV) v. Home
Secretat7 State of BihaH° held that right to speedy trial which includes
hearing of the Appeal and Revision is part of a fundamental right under Article
21 of the Constitution. In addition to the appeals the right to a speedy trial also
includes criminal revisions as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in
Rajdeo Sharma v. State of Bihar^T The right of speedy trial of the revisionist
is being violated because of delay in disposal of the revision within a
reasonable time.
‘AIR 1979 sc 1360
‘(TgSQi) 7 see 604
10
Dr.YLRJ
CrLR.C.No.2658of 2017
16.06.2025
24. As stated supra, the occur-renee took place about 11 years ago. The
revisionist has been facing mental agony and trauma of the protracted
prosecution and suffered mental harassment for a long period of 11 years. The
learned Assistant Public Prosecutor fairly conceded that there was neither
prior nor subsequent similar adverse antecedents reported against the
Petitioner. Section 324 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ gives discretion to this Court either to
impose imprisonment up to three years or fine or both. The petitioner was in
incarceration for more than four months. The delay in disposal of this criminal
revision case is also one of the grounds to modify the impugned order.
Therefore, it is appropriate and proportionate that the sentence is required to
be reduced to the period of sentence of imprisonment already undergone by
the revisionist.
25. Considering peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the Criminal
Revision Case is disposed of altering the conviction from the offence
punishable under Section 326 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ to Section 324 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ and
sentencing the Petitioner to suffer the imprisonment to which he had already
undergone while directing the Petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/-
towards fine excluding the fine amount already paid by the petitioner whilst
preferring appeal. The Petitioner shall pay, before the learned Trial Court, the
amount of fine of Rs.25,000/- within a period of two months from the date of
receipt of copy of this order, failing which the Petitioner shall suffer six months
rigorous imprisonment.
11
Dr.YLR.J
Cr[.R.C.No.2658 of 2017
16.06.2025
26.
The amount of fine of Rs.25,000/- shall be paid to P.W.1 or to his legal
heirs, if P.W.1 is not alive, under section 357 of ‘the Cr.P.C.’
27.
The learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Tenali is directed to
take up required follow up steps for recovering the fine amount from the
Petitioner and disbursing the said amount to P.W.1 or to his legal heirs, if he is
not alive, under section 357 of ‘the Cr.P.C.’
There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory
applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
Sd/- V DIWAKAR
DEPUTY REGISTI^R
//TRUE COPY//
SEi N OFFICER
To,
1. The XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tenali, Guntur District.
2. The Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Tenali, Guntur District.
3. The II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tenali, Guntur District.
4. The Superintendent, Tenali Sub-Jail, Guntur District.
5. The Station House Officer, Tenali Taluk Police Station, Guntur District.
6. One CC to Sri Banda Sai Sampath Kumar, Advocate [OPUC]
7. Two CC’s to The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at
Amaravati [OUT]
8. The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
9. Three CD Copies
SAM
sree
HIGH COURT
DATED:16/06/2025
ORDER
CRLRC.No.2658 of 2017
I 19 JUN 2025 ”
Si
^ Current aecuonDISPOSING OF THE CRLRC