The main legal point established in the judgment is the consideration of the nature of injuries, the lack of expert medical opinion, and the maximum punishment under Section 337 of the IPC in determining the appropriate sentence.

ORDER :

Assailing the judgment dated 11.10.2011 in Crl.A.No.67 of 2010 on the file of Court of learned II Additional District & Sessions Judge(FTC), Srikakulam, confirming the conviction against the petitioner/accused for the offence under Section 337 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) by the judgment dated 02.07.2010 in C.C.No.85 of 2009 on the file of Court of learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Prohibition & Excise), Srikakulam, but modified and reduced the sentence of imprisonment from six (6) months to three (3) months simple imprisonment, the petitioner/accused filed the present criminal revision case under Section 397 r/w.401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”).

2. The revision case was admitted on 17.10.2011 and the sentence of imprisonment was suspended vide orders in Crl.R.C.M.P.No.3129 of 2011.

3. The petitioner was arrayed as accused in Cr.No.58 of 2008 of Laveru Police Station for the offence under Section 338 of IPC and police laid the charge sheet and the same was numbered as C.C.No.85 of 2009 on the file of Court of learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Prohibition & Excise), Srikakulam and after full pledged trial, found the accused guilty for the offence under Section 337 of IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six (6) months.

4. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court, the petitioner/accused filed an appeal, vide Crl.A.No.67 of 2010, before the Court of learned II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Srikakulam and the same was dismissed by confirming the conviction against the petitioner, but modified and reduced the sentence of imprisonment from six (6) months to three (3) months simple imprisonment.

5. Against the said judgment of the first Appellate Court, the present criminal revision case was preferred by the petitioner/accused.

6. Now the point that arises for determination in this revision is “whether there is any illegality or infirmity in the findings recorded by the Trial Court as well first Appellate Court?”

7. Sri P.Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that victim in this case was examined as P.W.3 and according to the prosecution P.W.1 by name Varanasi Sambamurthy gave a report as if he saw the incident and the same was registered by the Sub Inspector of Police, Laveru Police Station vide Cr.No.58 of 2008 under Section 338 of IPC. In fact, neither P.W.1 nor P.W.2/Sunku Neelayya supported the version of prosecution.

8. He further submits that the Court below erroneously convicted the petitioner under Section 337 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for a period of three (3) months and that the judgment of the Court below is not sound in law.

9. As against the same, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that both the Courts below made concurrent findings with regard to the injuries received by P.W.3, relied upon the evidence P.W.6 and nothing was placed on record to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below.

10. After hearing both sides, as well perusing the material on record, it is true, P.W.3, who is injured, was admitted in Government Hospital, Srikakulam immediately after the incident and thereafter shifted to Seven Hills Hospital, Visakhapatnam for better treatment. P.W.3 categorically deposed that about three years ago at about 06.30 a.m. he started from Tatipudi Village on his Bajaj Platina motor cycle to Srikakulam and at about 09.00 a.m., when he reached near Subhadrapuram Junction near Laveru, a Tipper Lorry came in opposite direction in wrong route dashed against his motor cycle, due to which, he fell down on the road and received injuries on the back side of his head, left chin, left color bone and ribs.

11. The prosecution, no doubt, examined P.W.6, Medical Officer, who treated P.W.3 and he deposed that on 07.05.2008 at about 07.59 p.m., he examined P.W.3 and found the following inju