IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1506 OF 2010 Between: John Patan Rusthum Khan … PETITIONER And The State of A.P. … RESPONDENT This Court made the following: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1506 OF 2010 ORDER: 1. The petitioner/A3 who is accused of offence punishable under Section 307/34 I.P.C. along with two others and who was unsuccessful in his petition filed in the lower Court under Section 227 Cr.P.C. for his discharge, is the petitioner. The lower Court rightly found that the petitioner’s plea of alibi cannot be gone into and decided in the present petition. Similarly, the alleged discrepancies in the statements of witnesses also cannot be subject of discussion in a petition for discharge. 2. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that even if the prosecution allegations are accepted to be true for the sake of argument, the offence would be one under Section 324 I.P.C. and cannot be one under Section 307 I.P.C. Intention of the accused has to be gathered from all the circumstances as well as the evidence. One circumstance which goes in favour of the prosecution at this stage is seat of injury. The injury is on right parital region of the injured. It is a fatal region. The injury is of the size 12x4 cm and it is a laceration. Therefore, it would be pre-judging the issue whether facts and circumstances of the case attract Section 307 I.P.C. or Section 324 I.P.C. It is a matter to be decided by the trial Court after recording the entire evidence during trial. I see no infirmity in the order passed by the lower Court. 3. Hence, the criminal revision petition is dismissed. ______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J August 27, 2010 KL HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1506 OF 2010 August 27, 2010 KL