Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
A.V.RAVINDRA BABU
Mareddigari Suryanarayana @ Suryudu – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
ORDER :
1. Challenge in this Criminal Revision Case is to the judgment in Criminal Appeal No.27 of 2008, dated 17.04.2010, on the file of the Court of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool (for short "the learned Additional Sessions Judge") whereunder the learned Additional Sessions Judge, while dealing with the Criminal Appeal filed by the appellant, against the conviction and sentence under Section 326 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (for short "the IPC"), dismissed the Criminal Appeal confirming the conviction and sentence imposed against him in Calender Case No.81 of 2005, dated 22.02.2008, on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Atmakur, Kurnool District (for short "the trial Court") for the offence under Section 326 of IPC.
2. The parties to this Criminal Revision Case will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the trial Court, for the sake of convenience.
3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, according to the contents of the charge sheet in Calender Case No.81 of 2005 is that accused is resident of Jamminagar, Velegode Town. De-facto complainant namely Vadde Seshaiah (LW.1) is the injured. The complainant raised paddy crop i
The application of Section 335 IPC is more appropriate when grievous hurt arises from grave and sudden provocation rather than Section 326 IPC, leading to a modification of conviction and reduction o....
The appellate court must show compelling reasons to overturn an acquittal, and mere witness testimony without corroboration is insufficient to establish intent for assault.
The court upheld the conviction and sentence based on unassailable evidence, despite discrepancies in the prosecution's case.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the accused's actions constituted an offence under Section 326 of IPC, and the evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to prove t....
: CONVICTION UPHELD – ACCUSE did not come with the weapon, spade with a pre-plan and he picked up the weapon from the person who was working in the field, only after such quarrel. Considering the sai....
The court confirmed conviction under Section 326 IPC for grievous hurt, setting aside conviction under Section 324 IPC as it constitutes a lesser included offence.
The delay in sending the FIR did not affect the prosecution's case, and the court found no illegality or perversity in the lower courts' findings.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's consideration of consistent evidence, motive, and use of a weapon in confirming the conviction and sentence, while also taking into acc....
Conviction upheld for grievous assault and trespassing; however, due to circumstances, sentence reduced from three years to one.
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
