Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO
Chikatla Hari Prasad @ Lazar, S/O. Naganna, Utchilivaripeta, H/O. G.Pedapudi Village, P.Gannavaram Mandal – Appellant
Versus
State Of AP Rep By PP, rep.by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad – Respondent
ORDER :
1. The Criminal Revision Case, under Section 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "Cr.P.C.‟) is filed on behalf of the petitioner/accused assailing the Judgment dated 20.03.2009 passed in Crl.A.No.313 of 2007 on the file of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, East Godavari, at Amalapuram (for short, 1 st Appellate Court‟), whereby the 1 st Appellate Court partly allowed the appeal by modifying the Judgment and conviction and sentence imposed against the petitioner/accused for the offence under Section 324 of INDIAN PENAL CODE ,1860 (for short, IPC‟) instead of Section 326 of IPC vide Judgment dated 31.10.2007 passed in C.C.No.87 of 2005 on the file of the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kothapeta (for short, „the Trial Court‟).
2. The parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed in C.C.No.87 of 2005.
3. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that:
On 28.05.2004 at about 6.00 A.M., the accused, armed with a stick, pounced upon P.W.1, Ch. Syamalavathi was at her house situated in Utchilivaripeta, beaten indiscriminately and also threatened with dire consequences, and she sustained grievous injur
Modification of conviction requires evidence consistency; appellate courts must ensure convictions align with the facts presented without assuming the trial court's findings are absolute.
Conviction under Section 324 IPC upheld based on evidence, while the charge under Section 307 IPC was invalidated due to lack of intent, leading to a reduced sentence based on the time elapsed since ....
The injured's evidence and medical evidence play a crucial role in establishing the charges of assault under the IPC.
The court upheld the conviction for causing injuries but modified the sentence to a fine, considering the elapsed time and nature of injuries.
The appellate court's modification of conviction from Section 307 to Section 324 IPC was justified due to insufficient evidence of grievous injury, upheld by the revisional court.
Minor discrepancies in witness testimony do not invalidate a conviction under Section 324 IPC when the evidence is otherwise consistent.
The court clarified roles of individual defendants in an assault case, affirming different charges and penalties for each based on evidence of participation.
Conviction requires adequate evidence; lack thereof necessitates a reduction in charges and sentencing.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
