The requirement of radiologist examination and production of x-ray files to prove the nature of injuries is essential in cases involving the determination of the nature of injuries under the Indian Penal Code.

JUDGMENT

1. Assailing the judgment dtd. 2/12/2009 in Crl.A.No.172 of 2009 on the file of the Court of learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, modifying the conviction and sentence imposed by the judgment dtd. 6/4/2009 in C.C.No.49 of 2008 on the file of the Court of learned VI Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Guntur, the petitioner/de facto complainant filed the present criminal revision case under Sec. 397 r/w.401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C.").

2. The revision case was admitted on 11/6/2010.

3. The facts leading to file the present criminal revision case are that:

i). On 30/4/2007 at 10.00 p.m., P.Ws.1 and 3 were going to the fields of Narakoduru on their cycles and the accused and his brother followed them from their behind with a knife upto the fields and attacked on P.W.1, threw him down and stabbed him on his back, left shoulder and neck. As a result, he sustained bleedings injuries.

ii). For the said act, on the statement of P.W.1, P.W.7 S.I of Police, Chebrolu Police Station, registered a case in Cr.No.74 of 2007 and after completion of investigation filed charge sheet against the accused under Sec. 326 of IPC.

4. The said charge sheet was taken on file and numbered as C.C.No.49 of 2008 on the file of the Court of learned VI Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Guntur. After fullfledged trial, the trial Court found the accused guilty of the offence under Sec. 326 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "IPC") and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one (1) year and also pay fine of Rs.500.00, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one (1) month.

5. Aggrieved by the same, the 1st respondent/accused preferred an appeal, vide Crl.A.No.172 of 2009, before the Court of learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, and after appreciating the entire material on record, the first Appellant Court found the guilt of the accused for the offence under Sec. 324 of IPC instead of Sec. 326 of IPC and thereby, modified the sentence of one (1) year simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.500.00 to that of fine of Rs.5, 000.00, in default of payment of fine, shall undergo simple imprisonment for four (4) months.

6. Against the said judgment of the first Appellate Court, the present criminal revision case was preferred by the petitioner/de facto complainant.

7. Heard Sri A.E.R.Naidu, learned counsel representing Sri Raja Reddy Koneti, learned counsel for the petitioner/de facto complainant, Sri V.Jithender Rao, learned counsel for the 1st respondent/accused and Sri Soora Venkata Sainath, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the 2nd respondentState.

8. Now the point that arises for determination in this revision is "whether there is any manifest error of law or flagrant miscarriage of justice in the judgment rendered by the first Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.172 of 2009?"

9. It is settled law that revision is a discretionary power and not a right of the party. The Revisional Court should not reappreciate the evidence or interfere with the findings of fact, unless they are perverse or unreasonable. More so, it is also settled that a revision is not maintainable if an appeal lies but has not been filed by the State. However, the Revisional Court can entertain a revision petition by the other party who is not entitled to appeal or by a stranger who is aggrieved by the order of the Court. But, Revisional Court can exercise its power if the appellate court has acted without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction or has failed to exercise its jurisdiction. These aspects have to be looked into and thereafter only to consider to what extent the petition is maintainable under revision.

10. Admittedly, the present revision is filed by the de facto complainant/P.W.1 by name K.Chintaiah.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner/de facto complainant submits that the learned Sessions Judge failed to consider the evidence of P.W.6 Doc