IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
A.V. Ravindra Babu, J.
Gudugunturi Rama Rao @ Goduguluri Rama Rao S/o Yogaiah – Petitioner
Versus
The State of A.P. Rep. by the Public Prosecutor – Respondent
Criminal Revision Case No. 564 of 2009
Decided On : 03-05-2023
Criminal Revision Case - Indian Penal Code - Section 324, Section 307 - The court discussed the evidence and found the accused guilty of causing injuries under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. The judgment of the lower court was modified, reducing the sentence from rigorous imprisonment to simple imprisonment for one year.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the accused causing injuries to two individuals, leading to a trial and subsequent appeal. The lower court convicted the accused under Section 324 and Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the accused guilty of causing injuries under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and modified the sentence imposed by the lower court.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the nature of injuries, witness testimony, and the consistency of evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the consistency of witness testimony, medical evidence, and the lack of glaring inconsistency between the ocular and medical evidence to reach its decision.
Final Decision: The Criminal Revision Case was allowed in part, modifying the rigorous imprisonment imposed against the accused to simple imprisonment for one year, while upholding the rest of the judgment in Criminal Appeal No.11 of 2008.
ORDER :
This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner, who was the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.11 of 2008, on the file of VI Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Markapur, Prakasam District (“Additional Sessions Judge” for short), challenging the judgment, dated 31.03.2009, whereunder the learned Additional Sessions Judge, dismissed the Criminal Appeal modifying the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the appellant before the Assistant Sessions Judge, Darsi in S.C.No.303 of2007 as that of Section 324 of Indian Penal Code (“I.P.C.” for short) from that of Section 307 of I.P.C. for causing injuries to P.W.1, as such, sentenced the appellant to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months and sustained the conviction and sentence imposed against the accused before the Court below under Section 324 of I.P.C. insofar as causing injuries to P.W.2 is concerned.
2. The parties to this Criminal Revision Case will hereinafter be referred to as described before the trial Court for the sake of the convenience.
3. The Sessions Case No.303 of 2007, on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge, Darsi, arose out of a committal order, dated 20.04.2007 in P.R.C.No.5 of 2007 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Darsi.
4. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Mundlamur Police Station, filed a charge sheet pertaining to Crime No.117 of 2006 of Mundlamur Police Station, alleging in substance that during night of 25.11.2006 at 8-00 p.m., the accused attacked L.W.1- Nallabothu Raja Kumari with a sickle and cut her neck and also beat her on right hand with that sickle and tried to kill her. In the meantime, L.W.2-Mannam Subbayamma came for rescue of the victim. Accused also beat her with a stick on her head and back indiscriminately and also tried to kill her, as L.W.1 supported the cause of L.W.2 when the dispute arose between L.W.2 and the accused. On 25.11.2006 midnight both the victims came to Mudlamur Police Station with bleeding injuries and L.W.1 presented a report to L.W.13-Sub Inspector of Police, Mudlamur Police Station. He registered the same as a case in Crime No.117 of 2006 under Sections 324 and 307 of I.P.C. and took up investigation. He examined the victims during the course of investigation. On 26.11.2006 he visited the scene of offence, drafted observation report and prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence in the presence of L.W.10-T. Sudhakar and L.W.11-Kalava Lingaiah, the panchayatdars. He further examined the prosecution witnesses and recorded their statements. He arrested the accused on 30.11.2006 and forwarded to Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Darsi for judicial remand. He interrogated the accused by taking him to police custody on 11.12.2006 and pursuant to the disclosure statement given by the accused, he seized the sickle and stick which were used at the time of commission of offence by the accused under the cover of mahazarnama in the presence of L.W.10 and L.W.11. Later, the accused was handed over to judicial custody. The Medical Officer- L.W.12 examined L.W.1 and L.W.2 and issued wound certificates stating that the injuries found on L.W.1 and L.W.2 were simple in nature and would have been caused by a blunt object. After completion of investigation, L.W.12 filed the charge.
5. The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Darsi, took cognizance against the accused for the offences under Sections 324 and 307 of I.P.C. and after complying the provisions of Section 207 of Cr.P.C. with regard to furnishing of documents to the accused, committed the case to the Court of Sessions in P.R.C.No.5 of 2007. Thereupon, the case was assigned with the Sessions Case number and was made over to the Assistant Sessions Judge, Darsi, for disposal in accordance with law.
6. On appearance of the accused before the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Darsi, charges under Section 324 of I.P.C. for causing injuries
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on consistent witness testimony, medical evidence, and lack of glaring inconsistency between ocular and medical evidence to determine ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on credible testimony of prosecution witnesses and medical evidence to establish guilt, and the non-fatal nature of non-seizure of the....
: CONVICTION UPHELD – ACCUSE did not come with the weapon, spade with a pre-plan and he picked up the weapon from the person who was working in the field, only after such quarrel. Considering the sai....
The court upheld the conviction and sentence based on unassailable evidence, despite discrepancies in the prosecution's case.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on corroborative evidence, including witness testimony and medical evidence, to establish guilt under the relevant sections of the Ind....
The court emphasized the special status of injured witnesses and affirmed the need for corroboration in cases involving motive from disputes.
The appellate court must show compelling reasons to overturn an acquittal, and mere witness testimony without corroboration is insufficient to establish intent for assault.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.