The prosecution must provide medical and radiological evidence to establish grievous injuries for conviction under Section 326 IPC, emphasizing due process and the right to a speedy trial.

ORDER :

Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J.

The Revision has been preferred under Section 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C’) against the judgment dated 16.10.2017 in Crl.A.No.359 of 2015 passed by the learned XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tenali, confirming the judgment dated 25.07.2015 in S.C.No.497 of 2014 passed by the learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Tenali, finding the revisionist guilty of the offence punishable under Section 326 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (for short ‘the I.P.C’) and convicted the revisionist under Section 235 (2) of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three years and six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, and, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.

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

3. Sri Banda Sai Sampath Kumar, the learned Counsel for the Revisionist, while reiterating the grounds of the Revision, argued that the learned Courts below erred in convicting them under Section 326 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ citing several critical flaws in the prosecution’s case; the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is fraught with infirmity of interestedness; there are several discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses of the prosecution; with the alleged usage of M.O.1 it could not be possible to cause the fracture injuries to P.W.1; the evidence of P.W.1 is not corroborated with the medical evidence to prove the offence under Section 326 of ‘the I.P.C.’; taking advantage of the animosity between the Petitioner and P.W.1, the P.W.1 foisted a false case; and that it is urged to allow the Criminal Revision Case.

4. Alternatively, it is submitted that the Revisionist at the time of the alleged offence was aged about 33 years; nearly 11 years have passed by; he had suffered a lot of mental agony; now he is aged about 44 years; the Petitioner was in incarceration for more than four months; he has been suffering from severe aliments due to post Covid-19 complications and requested to consider the case of the revisionist sympathetically and urged to impose sentence which he had already undergone, while volunteering that the sentence of payment of additional fine of Rs.20,000/- be imposed 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, flagrant 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.359 of 2015 dated 16.10.2017, passed by the learned XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tenali, 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 is held as under:

“13. ... In the absence of any legal infirmity either in the procedure or in the conduct of the trial