Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
Vunnam Babu, Guntur Dt. – Appellant
Versus
State Of AP., Rep PP. – Respondent
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 prosecut
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.
The prosecution must prove grievous injuries beyond reasonable doubt, including medical corroboration, or charges must be downgraded to lesser offences accordingly.
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 P....
The need for conclusive proof of grievous injuries to establish the offence under Section 326 of IPC.
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.
The court held that the conviction under Section 326 of IPC based on legally inadmissible evidence was a gross illegality.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on the sole testimony of the injured witness, the sufficiency of evidence for conviction, and the reasons for not granting the benefit....
Grievous injury claims require substantive medical evidence; corroborative testimony from injured witnesses is pivotal in determining the validity of such charges under the Indian Penal Code.
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
