The prosecution must prove grievous injuries beyond reasonable doubt, including medical corroboration, or charges must be downgraded to lesser offences accordingly.

ORDER :

Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J.

The Criminal Revision Case has been preferred under Section 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C.,’) against the judgment dated 26.05.2009 in Crl.A.No.123 of 2006 passed by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam, confirming the conviction of Accused Nos.2 and 8 for the offences under Section 326 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ while reducing the sentence from two years of rigorous imprisonment to one year rigorous imprisonment by confirming the sentence of fine. The conviction recorded by the learned Trial Court against the Accused Nos.3 and 5 is altered from Section 326 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ to Section 324 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ and sentence was reduced to three months rigorous imprisonment.

2. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the revisionists and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

3. Sri Challa Ajay Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioners, while reiterating the grounds of the revision, submitted that the learned Judge committed a grave error in placing undue reliance on the highly interested and inconsistent testimony of P.W.1, failing to recognize that the essential ingredients required to establish the alleged offences were not sufficiently proved by the prosecution; by disbelieving the foundational aspects of the prosecution’s case and acquitting Accused No.1 and Accused No.4, the learned Judge erroneously proceeded to convict the petitioners; the medical evidence did not corroborate the prosecution’s version of events, and P.W.1, the injured one, failed to specify the overt act of Accused No.1 in the F.I.R, which had previously resulted in giving benefit of doubt to Accused No.1; inclusion of Accused No.8/Nunna Kali Prasad during trial under Section 319 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ raises concerns regarding procedural fairness; substantial doubt persists regarding the location, timing, and manner of the alleged attack by the Accused; counter-case in S.C.No.146/2003 culminated in acquittal, with an appeal currently pending before this Hon’ble Court; reasoning adopted by the learned Sessions Judge is legally unsustainable; and that in the given overall facts and circumstances, the sentence imposed was unduly harsh and disproportionate.

4. Alternatively, it is submitted that the revisionists at the time of the alleged offence were aged about 46, 37, 34 and 41 years respectively; nearly 23 years have passed by; they have been suffering a lot of mental agony; petitioner No.1 has been suffering from severe aliments due to post Covid-19 complications; they were in incarceration for more than 65 days; it is requested to consider the case of the revisionists sympathetically to impose sentence which they had already undergone, while volunteering that the sentence of payment of fine of Rs.1,000/- may be enhanced to Rs.5,000/- as a measure of penance and urged to dispose of the revision.

5. Per contra, Ms. P. Akila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that the learned Appellate Court having gone through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the judgment of the learned Trial Court rightly passed the judgment confirming the conviction for the offence charged and urged to dismiss the revision case as there are no material irregularities, miscarriage of justice and misreading of the evidence.

6. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record.

7. Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the judgment in Crl.A.No.123 of 2006 dated 26.05.2009, passed by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge: Krishna, Machilipatnam, is correct, legal, and proper with respect to its finding, sentence, or judgment, and there are any material irregularities? And to what relief?”

8. It is apposite to refer the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v State of Bihar , [(2002) 6 SCC 650] wherein at Paragraph No.13 it i