ORDER : Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J. The Revision has been preferred under Section 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C’) against the judgment dated 16.10.2017 in Crl.A.No.359 of 2015 passed by the learned XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tenali, confirming the judgment dated 25.07.2015 in S.C.No.497 of 2014 passed by the learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Tenali, finding the revisionist guilty of the offence punishable under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘the I.P.C’) and convicted the revisionist under Section 235 (2) of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three years and six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, and, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. 2. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 3. Sri Banda Sai Sampath Kumar, the learned Counsel for the Revisionist, while reiterating the grounds of the Revision, argued that the learned Courts below erred in convicting them under Section 326 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ citing several critical flaws in the prosecution’s case; the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is fraught with infirmity of interestedness; there are several discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses of the prosecution; with the alleged usage of M.O.1 it could not be possible to cause the fracture injuries to P.W.1; the evidence of P.W.1 is not corroborated with the medical evidence to prove the offence under Section 326 of ‘the I.P.C.’; taking advantage of the animosity between the Petitioner and P.W.1, the P.W.1 foisted a false case; and that it is urged to allow the Criminal Revision Case. 4. Alternatively, it is submitted that the Revisionist at the time of the alleged offence was aged about 33 years; nearly 11 years have passed by; he had suffered a lot of mental agony; now he is aged about 44 years; the Petitioner was in incarceration for more than four months; he has been suffering from severe aliments due to post Covid-19 complications and requested to consider the case of the revisionist sympathetically and urged to impose sentence which he had already undergone, while volunteering that the sentence of payment of additional fine of Rs.20,000/- be imposed as a measure of penance and urged to dispose of the revision. 5. Per contra, Ms. 5. Per contra, Ms. P. Akila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that the learned Appellate Court having gone through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the judgment of the learned Trial Court rightly passed the judgment confirming the conviction for the offence charged and urged to dismiss the revision case as there are no material irregularities, flagrant miscarriage of justice and misreading of the evidence. 6. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. 7. Now the point for consideration is: “Whether the judgment in Crl.A.No.359 of 2015 dated 16.10.2017, passed by the learned XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tenali, is correct, legal, and proper with respect to its finding, sentence, or judgment, and there are any material irregularities? And to what relief?” 8. It is apposite to refer the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v State of Bihar , [ (2002) 6 SCC 650 ] wherein at Paragraph No.13 it is held as under: “13. ... In the absence of any legal infirmity either in the procedure or in the conduct of the trial, there was no justification for the High Court to interfere in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. It has repeatedly been held that the High Court should not re-appreciate the evidence to reach a finding different from the trial Court. In the absence of manifest illegality resulting in grave miscarriage of justice, exercise of revisional jurisdiction in such cases is not warranted.” 9. The prosecution had got examined P.Ws.1 to 12 and marked Ex.P1 to P15 and M.Os.1 and 2. The learned Trial Court did not find the Petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under Section 307 of ‘the I.P.C.’ The learned Trial Court found the Petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under Section 326 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ and sentenced him as mentioned supra. 10. In this case, the evidence of P.W.10 is pivotal. P.W.10, the Civil Assistant Surgeon, had testified that he observed the following four injuries of P.W.1. i. Swelling of both lower limbs below knee. ii. Swelling of right hand and right forearm. iii. A small laceration on left lower limb below knee and abrasion of both lower limbs. iv. A contusion on right forearm. 11. P.W.10 opined that the above injuries are grievous in nature and therefore, he issued Ex.P10 wound certificate. i. Swelling of both lower limbs below knee. ii. Swelling of right hand and right forearm. iii. A small laceration on left lower limb below knee and abrasion of both lower limbs. iv. A contusion on right forearm. 11. P.W.10 opined that the above injuries are grievous in nature and therefore, he issued Ex.P10 wound certificate. However, in his cross- examination he admitted that he could not remember the name of the Radiologist who had taken X-rays of P.W.1. He admitted that X-rays might be belonged to P.W.1 or any other person. He also admitted that he did not observe any injury below left elbow and on the back side right shoulder. It was admitted further by P.W.10 that he did not specifically mention about receiving injury on right ankle either and he did mention about injuries on both limbs. He mentioned in Ex.P10 certificate initially as unknown and corrected the same as known persons. He admitted that P.W.1 did not state to him about using of knife. Admittedly, there were no bleeding injuries on the body of P.W.1. He clearly admitted that there was a possibility of fracture of bone without cut or laceration, if 50-gram sheet knife is used. He had not mentioned about the colour of injuries. He also did not mention the nature of weapons which may likely to cause the injuries mentioned in the certificate. He admitted that there was a possibility of fracture, if the person falls from 25 feet height. 12. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is clear, trustworthy and believable regarding the Petitioner beating P.W.1. However, to prove the nature of the injury sustained by P.W.1, neither radiologist was examined, nor radiologist report and X-rays were marked by the prosecution. P.W.3, who is friend of P.W.1 and an independent witness did not support the case of the prosecution. P.W.1 being injured and P.W.2 the brother had only supported the case of the prosecution. As per their evidence there were four grievous injuries, but to prove that those injuries are grievous or not, examination of radiologist is necessary. 13. In this regard, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied on the decision of the High Court of Karnataka in Sathya Deva v. State of Karnataka , [Crl.RP. Nos.1148 & 1185 of 2012] , wherein at Paragraph Nos.15 to 17 it is held as under: “15. 13. In this regard, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied on the decision of the High Court of Karnataka in Sathya Deva v. State of Karnataka , [Crl.RP. Nos.1148 & 1185 of 2012] , wherein at Paragraph Nos.15 to 17 it is held as under: “15. The doctor who has examined the injured persons was duty bound to classify the injuries as grievous injuries or not keeping in mind the definition of the grievous injury as contemplated under Section 320 of IPC. In order to substantiate the opinion of the doctor to classify the injury as a grievous injury, it is necessary that X-ray certificate and radiological certificate must be placed by the prosecution to term it as the said injuries are grievous injuries, especially when there is a fracture. 16. In this regard, this Court gainfully places reliance on the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State v. Sheenappa Gowda reported in 2011(4) KCCR 2759 , the relevant paragraph is culled out hereunder: "11. Therefore, the question for determination is limited to find out whether the said injury No. 2 is proved to be a grievous injury sustained by PW. 4. It is well settled that in criminal cases, the burden of proving the guilt of the accused is always on the prosecution and that burden would not shift unless there is a presumption or defence as enumerated in the Penal Code, 1860 is taken by the accused. In this case, the defence taken by the accused is one of denial. It is clear from the evidence of PW. 1 that he has given description of injury on physical examination of PW. 4 and has come to the conclusion that there was fracture of the middle phalanx. It is well settled that when the prosecution alleges that grievous injury has been caused, it is necessary for the prosecution to prove the same beyond resonable doubt. The evidence of PW.1. would only show that there was injury as described in the wound certificate - Ex.P2. When PW. 1 suspected such fracture, he ought to have referred the injured - PW. 4 for taking X-ray to confirm his finding that there is fracture of middle phalanx. The evidence of PW.1. would only show that there was injury as described in the wound certificate - Ex.P2. When PW. 1 suspected such fracture, he ought to have referred the injured - PW. 4 for taking X-ray to confirm his finding that there is fracture of middle phalanx. It is now well settled hat unless the prosecution produces the X-ray for confirmation of fracture opined by the Doctor on medical examination clinically it cannot be said that the accused have caused grievous injury of fracture. It is true that in the cross- examination of PW. 1, the learned Counsel appearing for the accused has not disputed the nature of injuries spoken to by PW.1. However, he same would not dispense with the production the X- ray by the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the injured had sustained fracture of middle phalanx, which is an opinion given by PW. 1 Doctor only on clinical examination of PW. 4, the injured. Therefore, it is clear that the finding of the learned Sessions Judge holding that the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 have committed the offence punishable under Section 326 of I.P.C. and the offence committed by them falls within the ambit of Section 324 of I.P.C. is justified". 17. Applying the legal principles enunciated in the aforesaid case to the case to the case on hand and in the absence of prosecution failing to place X-ray certificate and radiological certificate, injuries mentioned in the wound certificate cannot be termed as grievous injuries. Further, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners no explanation is forthcoming by the prosecution as to the injury sustained by the petitioners in each of the cases. Under such circumstances, finding recorded by the Trial Magistrate that the petitioners-accused are guilty of the offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC cannot be sustained in the eye of law and therefore, the same needs to be scaled down to 324 of IPC. Unfortunately, the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court need not bestowed its attention to the said aspect of the matter while confirming the order passed by the Trial Magistrate.” 14. Unfortunately, the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court need not bestowed its attention to the said aspect of the matter while confirming the order passed by the Trial Magistrate.” 14. In Bholu @ Hanuman v. State of Rajasthan , [2009 (1) ALT (Crl) 23 (NRC)] the High Court of Rajasthan at Paragraph No.17 held that to decide whether the injuries are grievous in nature to attract section 326 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ X-rays of the injured and opinion given by the radiologist are important and radiologist is also to be examined, and in the absence of any such evidence, the inevitable conclusion is that the prosecution failed to prove its case for an offence under Section 326 of ‘the I.P.C.’ 15. In Ragho Mahara v. State of Jharkhand , [2018 SCC Online Jhar 2373] the High Court of Jharkhand at Paragraph No.17 held that conviction under section 325 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ was not sustainable because the opinion of the Doctor that injury No.1 was grievous was not supported by X-ray plate. 16. In Surendra Rai v. State of Jharkhand , [2016 SCC Online Jhar 2372] , the High Court of Jharkhand held at Paragraph No.9 that in the light of direct evidence on the point of injury, non-production of x-ray report was not fatal for proof of case under section 326 of ‘the I.P.C.’ 17. In Swarn Singh v. Delhi Administration , [1991 Cri. Law Journal 1867 (Del.)] it is held at Paragraph No.11 that nevertheless to ascertain that the injury was grievous or simple reliance can be placed on the statement of the doctor giving reasons for arriving at the conclusion or by considering the evidence of injured. 18. In Swarn Singh v. Delhi Administration , [1991 Cri. Law Journal 1867 (Del.)] it is held at Paragraph No.11 that nevertheless to ascertain that the injury was grievous or simple reliance can be placed on the statement of the doctor giving reasons for arriving at the conclusion or by considering the evidence of injured. 18. In State of Punjab v. Naseeb Singh , [2003 SCC Online P & H 224] the High Court of Punjab and Haryana held at Paragraph No.24 that it was not possible to hold that absence of X-ray film during the trial or where X-ray of the injured is not even done in all cases would result in acquittal of the accused under section 326 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ and it will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case, where eye witness version is duly supported by medical evidence, particularly by an expert medical evidence which clearly shows that bone had fractured and it was visible from naked eye, the court would not be justified in granting acquittal to the accused for the offence under section 326 of ‘the I.P.C.’ 19. This Court in Chilaka Baburao v. State of Andhra Pradesh , [Crl.R.C.No.365 of 2010] , held that to prove the nature of injuries, examination of radiologist and marking of radiologist report and X-rays are necessary. 20. A learned Single Judge of this Court, in Nallabothula Ramachandra v. State of Andhra Pradesh , [2024 1 ALD (Cri) 728] at Paragraph Nos.16 and 17 held as under: “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. 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.” 21. In the instant case, P.W.10, the Assistant Civil Surgeon admitted in his cross-examination that he could not remember the Radiologist who had taken X-rays. P.W.1 also sceptical about the X-rays are belonging to P.W.1 or any other person. He mentioned in Ex.P10 wound certificate initially as unknown and later corrected as known persons who had beaten P.W.1. P.W.1 also did not reveal to P.W.10, he sustained injuries because of using of a knife. 22. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of present case, non- examination of the radiologist and not marking the radiologist report and X- rays are fatal to the case of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the Petitioner for the offence under Section 326 of ‘the I.P.C.’ However, there are injuries which were caused by the Petitioner by using Material Object No.1. Therefore, the Petitioner is liable for punishment under Section 324 of ‘the I.P.C.’ Hence, the conviction under Section 326 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ imposed by the learned Trial Court and confirmed by the learned Appellate Court is liable to be interfered and set aside. However, the Petitioner is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324 of ‘the I.P.C.’ 23. Therefore, the Petitioner is liable for punishment under Section 324 of ‘the I.P.C.’ Hence, the conviction under Section 326 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ imposed by the learned Trial Court and confirmed by the learned Appellate Court is liable to be interfered and set aside. However, the Petitioner is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324 of ‘the I.P.C.’ 23. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Hussainara Khatoon (IV) v. Home Secretary State of Bihar , [ AIR 1979 SC 1360 ] held that right to speedy trial which includes hearing of the Appeal and Revision is part of a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. In addition to the appeals the right to a speedy trial also includes criminal revisions as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajdeo Sharma v. State of Bihar , [ (1999) 7 SCC 604 ] . The right of speedy trial of the revisionist is being violated because of delay in disposal of the revision within a reasonable time. 24. As stated supra, the occurrence took place about 11 years ago. The revisionist has been facing mental agony and trauma of the protracted prosecution and suffered mental harassment for a long period of 11 years. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor fairly conceded that there was neither prior nor subsequent similar adverse antecedents reported against the Petitioner. Section 324 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ gives discretion to this Court either to impose imprisonment up to three years or fine or both. The petitioner was in incarceration for more than four months. The delay in disposal of this criminal revision case is also one of the grounds to modify the impugned order. Therefore, it is appropriate and proportionate that the sentence is required to be reduced to the period of sentence of imprisonment already undergone by the revisionist. 25. Considering peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of altering the conviction from the offence punishable under Section 326 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ to Section 324 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ and sentencing the Petitioner to suffer the imprisonment to which he had already undergone while directing the Petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards fine excluding the fine amount already paid by the petitioner whilst preferring appeal. The Petitioner shall pay, before the learned Trial Court, the amount of fine of Rs.25,000/- within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the Petitioner shall suffer six months rigorous imprisonment. 26. The amount of fine of Rs.25,000/- shall be paid to P.W.1 or to his legal heirs, if P.W.1 is not alive, under section 357 of ‘the Cr.P.C.’ 27. The learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Tenali is directed to take up required follow up steps for recovering the fine amount from the Petitioner and disbursing the said amount to P.W.1 or to his legal heirs, if he is not alive, under section 357 of ‘the Cr.P.C.’ There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.