ORDER V. Srinivas, J. - Assailing the judgment dated 27.02.2012 in Crl.A.No.145 of 2011 on the file of Court of learned III Additional District & Sessions Judge, (FTC), Anantapur, confirming the conviction and fine imposed against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence under Section 326 of IPC by the judgment dated 29.10.2011 in S.C.No.146 of 2010 on the file of Court of learned Principal Assistant Session Judge, Anantapur, but modified and reduced the sentence of imprisonment from three years to one year simple imprisonment, and set aside the said judgment in respect of the conviction and sentence imposed against them for the offence under Section 148 of IPC, the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 filed the present criminal revision case under Section 397 r/w.401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred as 'Cr.P.C.'). 2. The revision case was admitted on 01.03.2012 and the sentence of imprisonment was suspended vide orders in Crl.R.C.M.P.No. 570 of 2012. 3. The petitioners were arrayed as accused in Cr.No.112 of 2009 of Bukkarayasamudram Police Station for the offence under Section 147, 148, 324 and 307 r/w.149 of IPC and police laid the charge sheet and thereafter the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, vide P.R.C.No.120 of 2009 on the file of Court of learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Anantapur, and numbered as S.C.No.146 of 2010 on the file of Court of learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Anantapur and the trial was conducted and found the accused Nos.1, 2 and 5 guilty for the offences under Section 148 and 326 of IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three (3) years and also pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- each for the offence under section 326 IPC, in default, suffer simple imprisonment for three (3) months each and also sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three (3) years for the offence under section 148 IPC, and also found the accused Nos.3, 4 and 6 guilty for the offences under Section 147 and 326 r/w.149 IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three (3) years and also pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- each for the offence under section 326 r/w.149 IPC, in default, suffer simple imprisonment for three (3) months each and also sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two(2) years for the offence under section 147 IPC. Out of the fine amount Rs.2,000/- from each accused shall be paid to P.W.2 towards compensation under Section 327 Cr.P.C. The remand period undergone by the accused shall be set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. 4. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court, the petitioners/accused No.1 and 2 along with other accused filed an appeal, vide Crl.A.No.145 of 2011, before the Court of learned III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Anantapur and the same was allowed in part by setting aside the conviction, sentence of imprisonment and fine imposed against accused Nos.3 to 6 for the offences under Section 147, 148 and 326 r/w.149 IPC and conviction and sentence passed against petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence under Section 148 of IPC, and confirmed the conviction passed against petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence under Section 326 IPC, but the sentence of imprisonment was modified and reduced to one (1) year from three (3) years simple imprisonment and with regard to fine imposed against petitioners confirmed the judgment of the trial Court. 5. Against the said judgment of the first Appellate Court, the present criminal revision case was preferred by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2. 6. Now the point that arises for consideration in this revision is 'whether there is any illegality or infirmity in the findings recorded by the first Appellate Court?' 7. Sri N.Ranga Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the victim in this case was examined as P.W.2. According to P.W.2, accused No.1 beat him with iron pipe on the left side of his forehead and caused bleeding injury, meanwhile, accused No.2 came and beat him with iron pipe and caused bleeding injury on his nose. 8. He further submits that no doubt the prosecution filed C.T. scan and X-rays etc., but no expert was examined to prove the contents therein saying that there are multiple fractures of the left frontal bone and bilateral nasal bone fracture. 9. He further submits as per the evidence of P.W.6 Dr.Prem Patil, one Shilpa Gupta, Radiologist taken C.T. scan and X-rays, but prosecution failed to examine the said Shilpa Gupta, who arrayed as L.W.7 in the prosecution case, which is fatal and there is no conclusive proof to believe that P.W.2 sustained fracture injuries on the left frontal bone and bilateral nasal bone. This was also taken as ground in the first appeal also. But, the learned Sessions Judge did not consider the same to come to conclusion that the radiologist opinion is required to support the testimony of P.W.6. 10. As against the same, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that both the Courts below made concurrent findings with regard to the injuries received by P.W.2, relied upon the evidence P.Ws.5 and 6, discussed at length and nothing was placed on record to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below. 11. After hearing both sides, as well perusing the material on record, it is true, initially P.W.2 was taken to Government Hospital, Anantapur and P.W.5 by name Dr.P.Nagaraju deposed in his evidence that on 16.09.2009 at 02.40 P.M., he examined P.W.2, who accompanied by one Sekhar and found a laceration 6 x 1 cm bone deep on the left side of forehead and the patient was discharged at his request at 03.15 P.M. on the same day without taking any X-rays and thereby, he could not opine about the nature of the injury and he issued Ex.P.2 wound certificate. During the cross examination he stated that no external injury was found by him on the nose and the patient did not reveal about any injury on the back. 12. The next witness examined by the prosecution is P.W.6 Dr.Prem Patil, said to be consultant at Tirumala Hospital, Bangalore. He examined P.W.2, on 16.09.2009 at 09.15 P.M., who was referred from G.G.H., Anantapur. Thereafter, P.W.2 was sent to C.T Scan as well X-rays. According to P.W.2, one Shilpa Gupta, who is a Radiologist in their hospital has taken C.T. scan and X-rays of P.W.2 and basing on the report under Ex.P.3 C.T. Scan and Ex.P.4 bunch of X-rays, he treated the fractures of P.W.2. He categorically deposed that L.W.7 is a Radiologist, who opined that the injuries of P.W.2 are factures in nature. 13. In order to accept the testimony of P.W.6, the evidence of L.W.7/Shilpa Gupta is required to prove the factures of the left frontal bone and bilateral nasal bone said to be received by P.W.2, in particularly in the hands of petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2. 14. Admittedly the said Shilpa Gupta/L.W.7 was not examined. 13. In order to accept the testimony of P.W.6, the evidence of L.W.7/Shilpa Gupta is required to prove the factures of the left frontal bone and bilateral nasal bone said to be received by P.W.2, in particularly in the hands of petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2. 14. Admittedly the said Shilpa Gupta/L.W.7 was not examined. Besides, P.W.6 Dr.Prem Patil did not state in his evidence whether he is a physician or a surgeon and also not stated his capacity in Tirumala Hospital, except stating that he worked as Consultant. Unless the prosecution proved that the injuries said to be received by P.W.2 are fractures, it cannot be said that the prosecution established that those injuries were grievous in nature. 15. May be true, Ex.P.3 C.T. scan contains film as well report and Ex.P.4 bunch of X-ray films, but, unless and until the said Shilpa Gupta/L.W.7 was examined by the prosecution, those reports cannot be taken as expert evidence. Because, as already stated supra, P.W.6 did not state whether he is a physician or a surgeon to certify that the said reports are correct and can be relied upon. 16. Besides, there is a judgment of High Court of Andhra Pradesh relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners reported between Erlapalli Prakasham v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2002 (1) ALD (Crl.) 621 (AP), in which there was an observation by the Coordinate Bench of this Court that 'the Radiologist has not produced the X-ray films and in the absence of the same, it cannot be said that there are grievous injuries and it must be taken that the injured have sustained simple injuries.' 17. It is also relevant to refer the judgment of High Court of Madras between Muniammal v. Superintendent of Police, 2008 SCC Online Mad 1251, wherein the High Court has relied upon its earlier judgment between Maddan Gopal Kakkad v. Naval Dubey, (1992) 3 SCC 204 and held in the said judgment at paragraph No.34 as follows: 'A medical witness called in as an expert to assist the Court is not a witness of fact and the evidence given by the medical officer is really of an advisory character given on the basis of symptoms found on examination. The expert witness is expected to put before the Court all materials inclusive of the data which induced him to come to the conclusion and enlighten the Court on the technical aspect of the case by explaining the terms of science so that the Court, although not an expert, may form its own judgment on those materials after giving due regard to the experts opinion because once the experts opinion is accepted, it is not the opinion of the medical officer but of the Court.' 18. In the present case also, the evidence on record did not speak about Radiologist opinion. In the absence of evidence of Radiologist, as discussed supra, simply basing on the opinion given by P.W.6 Dr. Prem Patil on the C.T. scan or on X-ray films, this Court cannot accept that the prosecution proved the injuries received by P.W.2 are grievous in nature. 19. Thereby, this Court is of the considered opinion that, since P.W.2 received injuries and prosecution is not able to establish that the injuries are grievous in nature, it can be said that they are simple in nature alone. When P.W.2 evidence is taken into consideration that he received injuries in the hands of petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2, it can be safely concluded that he sustained injuries in the hand of petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2. But, so far as findings of the learned Sessions Judge as well Trial Court about the nature of the injuries is concerned, unless not established by the prosecution through the competent person/Radiologist, it cannot be said that they are grievous in nature. 20. For the above reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion, the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge is liable to be set aside, since the prosecution failed to prove the nature of the injures are grievous and it can be treated as simple in nature, the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 are liable for conviction for the offence under Section 324 of IPC, as P.W.2 categorically deposed that he received injuries in the hands of petitioners, in particularly he deposed that accused No.1 beat him with iron pipe on his forehead and accused No.2 also beat him with iron pipe on his nose. Admittedly, the incident happened on 16.09.2009 and more than 13 years have been lapsed. 21. Admittedly, the incident happened on 16.09.2009 and more than 13 years have been lapsed. 21. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed in part and the petitioners/accused No.1 and 2 are convicted for the offence under Section 324 of IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three (3) months, consequently, modified the judgment dated 27.02.2012 in Crl.A.No. 145 of 2011 on the file of Court of learned III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Anantapur. The period of sentence, if any, already undergone by the petitioners, shall be given set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. The petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 are directed to surrender before the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Anantapur, to serve the remaining sentence. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.