APHC010165312011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3560]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

TUESDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1439 OF 2011 Between:

1. TADI SIMHACHALAM @ SEEMAIAH & 5 OTHERS, S/O ANJAIAH, KOTHA MUPPARU, PEDAPADU MANDAL, W.G.DIST.

2. TADI BHASKARA RAO,, S/O SEETARAMAIAH, KOTHA MUPPARU, PEDAPADU MANDAL, W.G.DIST.

3. TADI SRINIVASA RAO,, S/O SEETARAMAIAH, KOTHA MUPPARU, PEDAPADU MANDAL, W.G.DIST.

4. TADI SEETARAMAIAH,, S/O ANJAIAH, KOTHA MUPPARU, PEDAPADU MANDAL, W.G.DIST.

5. TADI GANGARAJU,, S/O ANJAIAH, KOTHA MUPPARU, PEDAPADU MANDAL, W.G.DIST.

6. TADI RANGA RAO,, S/O SIMHACHALAM, KOTHA MUPPARU, PEDAPADU MANDAL, W.G.DIST.

...PETITIONER(S)

AND

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THROUGH THE S.H.O., PEDAPADU P.S., W.G.DIST.

...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. DAMARAJU MADHUSUDHAN & VIJAY KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent:

1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following Order :

The Petitioners were convicted by the learned Trial Court under Section

326 and 148 of IPC. In Appeal, the said conviction was confirmed. Hence, this Criminal Revision Case.

2. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the impugned order of conviction passed by learned Trial Court, confirmed by the learned Appellate Court is illegal. He further submits that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the charge against the present Petitioner under Section 326 of IPC. He further submits that though the Doctor was deposed as PW-4, but X-Ray film was not marked as exhibit. Thus, the conviction under Section 326 of IPC is bad in law. Learned counsel for the Petitioners further argued that the alleged incident happened in the year 2005, so more than 20 years have already been elapsed and some of the Petitioners being old aged persons deserves leniency.

3. The only point of law to be decided by this Court, whether conviction under Section 326 of IPC is justifiable in the present facts and circumstances of the case. To understand the merit of this matter, the injury sustained by the injured as noted by PW-5 are as follows:-

(i) Laceration and fracture deformity of the left upper arm 6 x 3 cms, muscle deep;

(ii) Fracture deformity and laceration of the right upper arm 5 x 3 cms, muscle deep with bleeding;

(iii) Laceration of right leg with bone deep 4 x 3 cms, with bleeding.

(iv) Laceration of the left leg 5 x 3 cms, bone deep with bleeding.

X-Ray film take on 06.08.205 reflected four bone fractures as follows:-

(i) Fracture of the both bones of right forearm; (ii) Fracture of the both bones of left forearm;

(iii) Fracture of fibula of right leg; and (iv) Fracture of lower end of femur and upper end of Tibia of left leg.

4. The X-Ray films were produced during examination of PW-5, who gave his opinion on the basis of the X-Ray films, but Radiologist who has conducted X-Ray over victim, was not examined.

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that according to the observations of the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in “State of Punjab v. Manga Singh”, 1992 LawSuit (P&H) 873 . X-Ray report or the evidence of Radiologist is must to prove the offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC. Learned counsel for the Petitioners also relied upon a decision of a coordinate bench of this Court in “Vunnam Babu v. State of Andhra Pradesh”, Criminal Revision Case No.2658 of 2017, dated 16.06.2025, wherein coordinate bench of this Court after deciding several observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court has converted the offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC to Section 324 of IPC.

6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that learned Appellate Court as well as learned Trial Court has correctly recorded an order of

conviction against the Petitioners. He further submits that the ingredients of Section 326 of IPC has been justified and established. The Accused pe