NUNNA SANKARA RAO Vs. STATE OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Criminal Revision Case has been preferred under Sec. 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity 'the Cr.P.C.,') against the judgment dtd. 26/5/2009 in Crl.A.No.123 of 2006 passed by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam, confirming the conviction of Accused Nos.2 and 8 for the offences under Sec. 326 of 'the I.P.C.,' while reducing the sentence from two years of rigorous imprisonment to one year rigorous imprisonment by confirming the sentence of fine. The conviction recorded by the learned Trial Court against the Accused Nos.3 and 5 is altered from Sec. 326 of 'the I.P.C.,' to Sec. 324 of 'the I.P.C.,' and sentence was reduced to three months rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the revisionists and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

(3.) Sri Challa Ajay Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioners, while reiterating the grounds of the revision, submitted that the learned Judge committed a grave error in placing undue reliance on the highly interested and inconsistent testimony of P.W.1, failing to recognize that the essential ingredients required to establish the alleged offences were not sufficiently proved by the prosecution; by disbelieving the foundational aspects of the prosecution's case and acquitting Accused No.1 and Accused No.4, the learned Judge erroneously proceeded to convict the petitioners; the medical evidence did not corroborate the prosecution's version of events, and P.W.1, the injured one, failed to specify the overt act of Accused No.1 in the F.I.R, which had previously resulted in giving benefit of doubt to Accused No.1; inclusion of Accused No.8/Nunna Kali Prasad during trial under Sec. 319 of 'the Cr.P.C.,' raises concerns regarding procedural fairness; substantial doubt persists regarding the location, timing, and manner of the alleged attack by the Accused; counter-case in S.C.No.146/2003 culminated in acquittal, with an appeal currently pending before this Hon'ble Court; reasoning adopted by the learned Sessions Judge is legally unsustainable; and that in the given overall facts and circumstances, the sentence imposed was unduly harsh and disproportionate.