SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(AP) 1278

V. SRINIVAS
Koduru Chintaiah – Appellant
Versus
Koduru Elia – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
A.E.R.Naidu, Advocate, Raja Reddy Koneti, Advocate, V.Jithender Rao, Advocate, Soora Venkata Sainath, Advocate

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The judgment reiterates that revision is discretionary and the Revisional Court should not reappreciate evidence unless perverse or unreasonable, and that revision can be entertained when the appellate court acted without jurisdiction or exceeded jurisdiction (!) . - It confirms the necessity of radiologist examination and production of X-ray evidence to prove the nature of injuries under Sec. 326 IPC, citing prior judgments and observations that absence of radiologist testimony and X-ray films undermines proof of Sec. 326, and may support reducing to Sec. 324 IPC (!) (!) (!) . - The Court held there were no grounds to interfere with the first appellate Court’s modification of conviction from Sec. 326 to Sec. 324 IPC and dismissed the revision, thereby upholding the first appellate judgment (!) (!) (!) . - The judgment discusses options when confronted with an order of acquittal or a mixed appellate outcome, including remand for retrial or treating the revision as an appeal under Sec. 401(5) Cr.P.C., outlining the appropriate procedural steps and precedents (Joseph Stephen, Chinnaswamy Reddy) (!) (!) (!) .

What is the scope and limitation of Revisional Court’s power under Sec. 397 r/w. 401 Cr.P.C. in a case where the first appellate Court modified the conviction from Sec. 326 to Sec. 324 IPC?

What are the evidentiary requirements to prove grievous injuries under Sec. 326 IPC, specifically the necessity of radiologist examination and production of X-ray files, as discussed in this judgment?

What remedies or options does the High Court have when an order of acquittal or modification by the first appellate Court is challenged in revision, including remand for retrial or treating revision as an appeal under Sec. 401(5) Cr.P.C.?


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.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top