The court upheld the modification of conviction from Section 326 to Section 324 based on procedural irregularities and mental anguish caused by prolonged litigation.

ORDER :

Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J.

The Criminal Revision Case has been preferred under Sections 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C’) challenging the judgment dated 25.03.2010 in Crl.A.No.28 of 2009 passed by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry, modifying the conviction for the offence from Section 326 of ‘the IPC.,’ to Section 324 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (for short ‘the I.P.C’) and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only), and, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days, as against the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 2,000/- imposed by the learned I Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, in S.C.No.334 of 2008 dated 09.02.2009 finding the revisionist guilty, under Section 235 (2) of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ for the offence punishable under Section 326 of ‘the IPC.’

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

3. Sri Y. Sudhakar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, whilst reiterating the grounds of the revision, submitted that the judgment of the learned Appellate Court in convicting the accused for the charge under Section 324 of ‘the IPC.,’ and imposing sentence for three months besides payment of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment of 15 days, is erroneous and contrary to evidence on record and probabilities of the case; the learned Appellate Court ought to have seen that there was no explanation for the delay in presenting the F.I.R which is fatal to the case of the prosecution and ought to have acquitted the accused; there is no corroboration between one witness and other witness and none of the independent witnesses supported the prosecution case; the sister of the 2nd accused i.e., Smt.N. Suryakantham is an injured person and basing on her report a case was registered against the P.W.3, Komali Nageswara Rao which was an incident happened in the subject matter of the present case and as it being a case in counter and the petitioner and his family members are victims at the hands of the prosecution witnesses ought to have acquitted the petitioner on the same ground along with the accused.

3.1. It is further argued that the incident happened at 7:00 p.m., in the dark night and there was no light at the relevant point of time and hurling of tiles by persons from the dark was admitted by the prosecution witnesses and ought to have acquitted the petitioner; the doctor also confirmed that the injury sustained by P.W.2 is possible by hurling of tiles with force and ought to have acquitted the petitioner. Further there is no evidence on record to show that the injury was sustained by P.W.2 can only be possible by an axe; the 2nd accused is nowhere shown as accused till the filing of the charge sheet and L.W.3 was shown as 2nd accused in Crime No.90 of 2017 and later he was figured as L.W.3 and father of the accused was arrayed as 2nd accused in the charge sheet and there is no explanation implicating the 2nd accused in a mechanical manner; the statement of 2nd accused was recorded by the investigating officer on 28.07.2007 at Bobillilanka village at his house, but the same investigating officer deposed that the 2nd accused was absconding from his house from 26.07.2007 onwards and the learned Courts below ought to have given benefit