Without X-Ray, No Grievous Hurt — Conviction Under Section 326 IPC Unsustainable:  Andhra Pradesh High Court

“Absence of Radiological Evidence Fatal — Conviction Modified From Section 326 IPC to Section 324 IPC”, In a significant judgment, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has ruled that a conviction under Section 326 IPC (causing grievous hurt) cannot be sustained in the absence of mandatory radiological evidence like X-rays and the testimony of a radiologist.

Quashing the concurrent findings of the Trial and Appellate Courts, the Bench of Dr. Justice Y. Lakshmana Rao held: “In the absence of radiological evidence corroborating fracture injuries, the prosecution cannot sustain a conviction under Section 326 IPC.”

The Court, however, found the petitioner guilty under Section 324 IPC (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapon) and reduced the sentence to the period already undergone, coupled with a compensation of ₹25,000 to the victim under Section 357 CrPC.

The revision arose from the conviction of the petitioner, Addepalli Krishna Murthy, under Section 326 IPC, sentenced to 3 years and 6 months simple imprisonment by the Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Tenali, which was affirmed by the XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tenali.

The allegation was that the petitioner assaulted the complainant (P.W.1) with a knife, causing multiple injuries including alleged fractures. The petitioner challenged the correctness, legality, and propriety of the conviction, primarily on the ground that the prosecution failed to establish the grievous nature of the injuries as defined under Section 320 IPC.

The Court framed the key question:

“Whether, in the absence of X-ray reports and radiologist testimony, the conviction under Section 326 IPC can be sustained?”

Further, it considered whether the protracted delay of 11 years from the date of occurrence should mitigate the sentence.

Medical Evidence

The Court critically analyzed the testimony of P.W.10, the Civil Assistant Surgeon who issued the wound certificate (Ex.P10).

“P.W.10 admitted in cross-examination that he neither remembered the name of the radiologist nor produced the X-ray plates or radiological report. In fact, he admitted uncertainty whether the X-rays belonged to P.W.1 at all,” the Court noted.

It emphasized: “Mere mention of 'fracture' in the wound certificate without corroborating X-ray or radiologist testimony is insufficient to establish grievous hurt under Section 326 IPC.”

Held that in the absence of X-rays and expert medical testimony, a conviction for causing grievous hurt involving fractures cannot stand.

“Grievous Hurt Not Proved, But Hurt by Dangerous Weapon Is” — Court on Conversion of Offence

The Court reasoned: “Though grievous hurt is not established, there is credible evidence from P.W.1 and P.W.2 that the petitioner did cause injuries with a dangerous weapon (knife). This squarely attracts Section 324 IPC.”

Accordingly, the conviction under Section 326 IPC was set aside and altered to Section 324 IPC, which deals with voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons.

Delay as a Mitigating Factor — Right to Speedy Trial Invoked

Relying on the constitutional mandate under Article 21 (Right to Speedy Trial) and the landmark rulings in Hussainara Khatoon (AIR 1979 SC 1360) and Rajdeo Sharma v. State of Bihar (1999) 7 SCC 604, the Court observed:

“The petitioner has endured mental agony and trauma for over 11 years in this criminal litigation. The right to speedy trial stands violated.”

The Court also noted that the petitioner had no previous or subsequent criminal antecedents and had already served more than four months in incarceration.

The High Court delivered a well-balanced verdict:

• Conviction under Section 326 IPC set aside.

• Conviction altered to Section 324 IPC (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapon).

• Sentence reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone (over 4 months).

• A fine of ₹25,000 imposed as compensation to the victim (P.W.1) under Section 357 CrPC.

• In default of paying the fine, the petitioner will undergo six months rigorous imprisonment.

• The fine amount to be disbursed to P.W.1 or his legal heirs if deceased.

The Court directed the Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Tenali to take necessary steps for recovery and disbursal.

This judgment reinforces the importance of robust medical evidence in grievous hurt cases and upholds the fundamental right to a speedy trial. It sends a clear message that technical lapses like the absence of X-ray reports and radiologist testimony cannot be brushed aside, and that courts must ensure convictions are based on legally sustainable evidence.

Date of Decision: 16th June 2025