Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Nunna Sankara Rao And 3 Others, vs The State Of A.P., Rep By Pp., on 16 June, 2025
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
****
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.839 OF 2009
Between:-
1. Nunna Sankara Rao, S/o.Narasimha Rao, R/o.Sanarudravaram,
Kalidindi Mandal, Krishna District.
2. Nunna Kali Venkata Srinivasa Rao @ Bosu, (A-3), S/o.Narasimha
Rao, R/o.Sanarudravaram, Kalidindi Mandal, Krishna District.
3. Nunna Ramaiah, (A-5), S/o.Subba Rao, R/o.Sanarudravaram,
Kalidindi Mandal, Krishna District.
4. Nunna Kali Prasad, (A-8), S/o.Narasimha Rao,
R/o.Sanarudravaram, Kalidindi Mandal, Krishna District.
...Petitioners
AND
The State of A.P., rep by Public Prosecutor,
High Court of A.P., Hyderabad,.
...Respondent
****
DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED : 16.06.2025
2
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.R.C.No.839 of 2009
Dated 16.06.2025
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No
2. Whether the copy of Judgment may be
marked to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No
3. Whether His Lordship wish to see the
fair copy of the Judgment? Yes/No
_________________________
Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J
3
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.R.C.No.839 of 2009
Dated 16.06.2025
* THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
+ CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.839 OF 2009
% 16.06.2025
# Between:
1. Nunna Sankara Rao, S/o.Narasimha Rao, R/o.Sanarudravaram,
Kalidindi Mandal, Krishna District.
2. Nunna Kali Venkata Srinivasa Rao @ Bosu, (A-3), S/o.Narasimha
Rao, R/o.Sanarudravaram, Kalidindi Mandal, Krishna District.
3. Nunna Ramaiah, (A-5), S/o.Subba Rao, R/o.Sanarudravaram,
Kalidindi Mandal, Krishna District.
4. Nunna Kali Prasad, (A-8), S/o.Narasimha Rao,
R/o.Sanarudravaram, Kalidindi Mandal, Krishna District.
...Petitioners
AND
The State of A.P., rep by Public Prosecutor,
High Court of A.P., Hyderabad,.
...Respondent
! Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri Challa Ajay Kumar
^Counsel for the Respondent : Ms. P.Akhila Naidu,
Assistant Public Prosecutor
< Gist:
> Head Note:
4
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.R.C.No.839 of 2009
Dated 16.06.2025
? Cases referred:
1) (2002) 6 SCC 650
2) Crl.RP.Nos.1148 & 1185 of 2012
3) 2009 (1) ALT (Crl) 23 (NRC)
4) 2018 SCC Online Jhar 2373
5) 2016 SCC Online Jhar 2372
6) 1991 Cri. Law Journal 1867 (Del.)
7) 2003 SCC Online P & H 224
8) Crl.R.C.No.365 of 2010
9) 2024 1 ALD (Cri) 728
10) AIR 1979 SC 1360
11) (1999) 7 SCC 604
5
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.R.C.No.839 of 2009
Dated 16.06.2025
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No:839 of 2009
ORDER:
The Criminal Revision Case has been preferred under Section 397 and
401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C.,’) against the
judgment dated 26.05.2009 in Crl.A.No.123 of 2006 passed by the learned I
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam, confirming
the conviction of Accused Nos.2 and 8 for the offences under Section 326 of
‘the I.P.C.,’ while reducing the sentence from two years of rigorous
imprisonment to one year rigorous imprisonment by confirming the sentence of
fine. The conviction recorded by the learned Trial Court against the Accused
Nos.3 and 5 is altered from Section 326 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ to Section 324 of ‘the
I.P.C.,’ and sentence was reduced to three months rigorous imprisonment.
2. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the revisionists
and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.
3. Sri Challa Ajay Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioners, while
reiterating the grounds of the revision, submitted that the learned Judge
committed a grave error in placing undue reliance on the highly interested and
inconsistent testimony of P.W.1, failing to recognize that the essential
ingredients required to establish the alleged offences were not sufficiently
proved by the prosecution; by disbelieving the foundational aspects of the
6
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.R.C.No.839 of 2009
Dated 16.06.2025
prosecution’s case and acquitting Accused No.1 and Accused No.4, the
learned Judge erroneously proceeded to convict the petitioners; the medical
evidence did not corroborate the prosecution’s version of events, and P.W.1,
the injured one, failed to specify the overt act of Accused No.1 in the F.I.R,
which had previously resulted in giving benefit of doubt to Accused No.1;
inclusion of Accused No.8/Nunna Kali Prasad during trial under Section 319 of
‘the Cr.P.C.,’ raises concerns regarding procedural fairness; substantial doubt
persists regarding the location, timing, and manner of the alleged attack by the
Accused; counter-case in S.C.No.146/2003 culminated in acquittal, with an
appeal currently pending before this Hon’ble Court; reasoning adopted by the
learned Sessions Judge is legally unsustainable; and that in the given overall
facts and circumstances, the sentence imposed was unduly harsh and
disproportionate.
4. Alternatively, it is submitted that the revisionists at the time of the
alleged offence were aged about 46, 37, 34 and 41 years respectively; nearly
23 years have passed by; they have been suffering a lot of mental agony;
petitioner No.1 has been suffering from severe aliments due to post Covid-19
complications; they were in incarceration for more than 65 days; it is requested
to consider the case of the revisionists sympathetically to impose sentence
which they had already undergone, while volunteering that the sentence of
payment of fine of Rs.1,000/- may be enhanced to Rs.5,000/- as a measure of
penance and urged to dispose of the revision.
7
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.R.C.No.839 of 2009
Dated 16.06.2025
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, 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:
“Whether the judgment in Crl.A.No.123 of 2006 dated 26.05.2009,
passed by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge:
Krishna, Machilipatnam, 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 Bihar1 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 trial 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 examined P.Ws.1 to 11, got marked Ex.P1 to P13 and
M.Os.1 to 4. P.W.1 is the de-facto complainant and injured. P.W.2 is wife of the
P.W.1. P.W.2 also sustained injuries. P.W.3 is the elder brother of P.W.1, who
1
(2002) 6 SCC 650
8
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.R.C.No.839 of 2009
Dated 16.06.2025
happened to witness the occurrence along with P.W.5. Their evidence is
crystal clear that the Petitioners attacked and beat P.Ws.1 and 2 with sticks,
knifes and spear. There was a dispute in between the Petitioners’ group and
the injured group regarding land and its survey. There was a dispute about
irrigation bode also. As the evidence of witness of the prosecution inspired
confidence that there were speaking voluntarily with truthfulness, the learned
Trial Court convicted the Petitioners under various offences. Further the
learned Appellate Court modified the convictions as indicated supra. The
evidence of the witness of the prosecution cannot be appreciated at this
juncture sitting like second appellate court while exercising jurisdiction under
Sections 397 and 401 of ‘the I.P.C.’ Indeed, no radiologist was examined to
prove that Accused No.2 and Accused No.8 caused grievous hurt to the
injured. No radiologist report was marked. No X-rays were also marked.
10. In this regard, it is pertinent to refer the decision of the High Court of
Karnataka in Sathya Deva v. State of Karnataka2, 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 IPC. 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.
2
Crl.RP.Nos.1148 & 1185 of 2012
9
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.R.C.No.839 of 2009
Dated 16.06.2025Sheenappa 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 PW. 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 PW. 1 that he has given description of
injury on physical examination of PW. 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
PW.1. would only show that there was injury as described in
the wound certificate – Ex.P2. When PW. 1 suspected such
fracture, he ought to have referred the injured – PW. 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 PW. 1,
the learned Counsel appearing for the accused has not
disputed the nature of injuries spoken to by PW.1. However,
he same would not dispense with the production the X-ray by
the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the
injured had sustained fracture of middle phalanx, which is an
opinion given by PW. 1 Doctor only on clinical examination of
PW. 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.P.C.
and the offence committed by them falls within the ambit of
Section 324 of I.P.C. 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. Further, 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 IPC cannot be sustained in the eye of law and
10
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.R.C.No.839 of 2009
Dated 16.06.2025
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.”
11. In Bholu @ Hanuman v. State of Rajasthan3 the High Court of
Rajasthan at Paragraph No.17 held that to decide whether the injuries are
grievous 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.’
12. In Ragho Mahara v. State of Jharkhand4 the High Court of Jharkhand
at Paragraph No.17 held that conviction under section 325 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ was
not sustainable because the opinion of the Doctor that injury No.1 was
grievous was not supported by X-ray plate.
13. In Surendra Rai v. State of Jharkhand5, the High Court of Jharkhand
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.’
14. In Swarn Singh v. Delhi Administration6 it is held at Paragraph No.11
that nevertheless to ascertain that the injury was grievous or simple reliance
3
2009 (1) ALT (Crl) 23 (NRC)
4
2018 SCC Online Jhar 2373
5
2016 SCC Online Jhar 2372
6
1991 Cri. Law Journal 1867 (Del.)
11
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.R.C.No.839 of 2009
Dated 16.06.2025
can be placed on the statement of the doctor giving reasons for arriving at the
conclusion or by considering the evidence of injured.
15. In State of Punjab v. Naseeb Singh7 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.’
16. This Court in Chilaka Baburao v. State of Andhra Pradesh8, held that
to prove the nature of injuries, examination of radiologist and marking of
radiologist report and X-rays are necessary.
17. A learned Single Judge of this Court, in Nallabothula Ramachandra v.
State of Andhra Pradesh9 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 v. State of Andhra Pradesh,
2002 (1) ALD (Crl.) 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.
7
2003 SCC Online P & H 224
8
Crl.R.C.No.365 of 2010
9
2024 1 ALD (Cri) 728
12
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.R.C.No.839 of 2009
Dated 16.06.2025
17. It is also relevant to refer the judgment of High Court of Madras
between Muniammal v. Superintendent of Police, 2008 SCC Online
Mad 1251, wherein the High Court has relied upon its earlier
judgment between Maddan Gopal 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.”
18. In view of the above judgments, and as no radiologist was examined to
speak that witnesses sustained grievous injuries and no X-rays and report of
radiologist were marked, the conviction under Section 326 of ‘the I.P.C.,’
imposed against the Petitioner No.1/Accused No.2 and Petitioner
No.4/Accused No.8 is liable to be converted into conviction under Section 324
of ‘the I.P.C.’
19. Of course, there was no misreading of the evidence in finding the
revisionists guilty by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court about attacking
the injured. There are no perverse findings. The learned Trial Court and the
Appellate Court had rightly appreciated the evidence and found the
revisionists guilty of the offences charged. There are no grounds to interfere
with the conviction under section 324 of ‘the I.P.C.’
13
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.R.C.No.839 of 2009
Dated 16.06.2025
20. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Hussainara Khatoon (IV) v. Home
Secretary State of Bihar10, it is 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 Bihar11. The right of speedy trial of the revisionist
is being violated because of delay in disposal of the revision within a
reasonable time.
21. As stated supra, the occurrence took place about 23 years ago. The
revisionists had been facing mental agony and trauma of the protracted
prosecution and suffered mental harassment for a long period of 23 years.
There were no previous adverse antecedents against the petitioners as per
the impugned judgments. The petitioners were in incarceration for more than
65 days. Therefore, the delay 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.
22. The learned Trial Court imposed Rs.1,000/- which was confirmed by the
learned Appellate Court. The learned Counsel for the revisionists volunteered
that the revisionists would pay Rs.5000/- excluding the Rs1,000/- paid by the
revisionists, while preferring the appeal before Appellate Court, as a measure
10
AIR 1979 SC 1360
11
(1999) 7 SCC 604
14
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.R.C.No.839 of 2009
Dated 16.06.2025
of penance. Section 324 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ gives discretion to this Court either to
impose three years imprisonment as punishment or fine or both. If an amount
of Rs.10,000/- is imposed towards fine on Petitioner No.1/Accused No.2 and
Petitioner No.4/Accused No.8 it would meet the ends of justice. Similarly, if a
fine amount of Rs.5,000/- is imposed on Petitioner No.2/Accused No.3 and
Petitioner No.3/Accused No.5, it would also meet the ends of justice. If these
fine amounts are disbursed to the injured witnesses, or their legal heirs, if the
injured are not alive, equally by the learned Trial Court as per Section 357 of
‘the Cr.P.C.,’ it would further meet the ends of justice.
23. In view of the obtaining peculiar facts and circumstances of the case,
the revision is disposed of, altering the conviction for the offence punishable
under section 326 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ to section 324 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ and reducing the
sentence which the revisionists had already undergone, and further imposing
fine of Rs.10,000/- on Petitioner No.1/Accused No.2 and Petitioner
No.4/Accused No.8, further, Petitioner Nos.2 and 3/Accused Nos.3 and 5 are
directed to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards fine. The fine amounts
imposed in this order shall be paid before the learned Trial Court within a
period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing
which the Petitioner No.1/Accused Nos.2 and Petitioner No.4/Accused No.8
shall undergo four months of rigorous imprisonment and Petitioner
No.2/Accused No.3, and Petitioner No.3/Accused No.5 shall undergo two
months of rigorous imprisonment, respectively. The additional fine amounts
15
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.R.C.No.839 of 2009
Dated 16.06.2025
imposed herein shall be disbursed by the learned Trial Court to the injured
witnesses equally, if they are alive or else the fine amounts shall be disbursed
to their legal representatives equally, 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.
________________________
Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J
Dt:16.06.2025
Note: LR copy to be marked.
B/o
VTS