THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.757 OF 1999 & CRL.R.C.NO.6 OF 2003 DT.05.08.2010 Between: Crl.Appeal No.757 of 1999: The Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad ………..Appellant Vs. Lalam Paidinaidu and three others. ……… Respondents Crl.R.C.No.6 of 2003: Lalam Pydinaiah (A-1) ……………….Petitioner Vs. State of A.P., represented by P.P. ……………..Respondent COMMON JUDGMENT: Crl.Appeal No.757 of 1999 is filed by the State challenging the judgment passed in S.C.No.37 of 1996, dated 25.03.1996 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Chodavaram, whereby and whereunder A-2 to A-4 were acquitted for the offence under Sections 447 and 307 I.P.C., and A-1 was convicted for the offence under Section 326 I.P.C., and is sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three years and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to further suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of nine months. Accused No.1 was further ordered under under Section 357 Cr.P.C., to pay a compensation of Rs.15,000/- to the victim Ruthala Bhaskara Rao within two months from the date of that order and if he fails to pay the compensation amount as ordered above, he shall further suffer default sentence for one year Rigorous Imprisonment. The fine amount of Rs.5,000/- imposed to Accused No.1 shall also be paid fully to the victim Ruthala Bhaskara Rao, if realized and after appeal time is over. Crl.R.C.No.6 of 2003 is filed by A-1 challenging the judgment passed in Crl.Appeal No.16 of 1998, dated 09.12.2002 on the file of VII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, whereby and whereunder the conviction and sentence passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Chodavaram against the revision petitioner/A-1 was confirmed. I have heard Sri C.Praveen Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/A-1 in Crl.R.C.No.6 of 2003 and Sri S.Chandra Sekhar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents in Crl.A.No.757 of 1999 and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the state in both the Criminal Revision Case and Criminal Appeal. Since both the Criminal Appeal and Criminal Revision Case arise out of the same judgment passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Chodavaram, which was confirmed by the learned VII Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Tract Court), Visakhapatnam in Crl.Appeal No.16 of 1998 and since all the points to be determined being one and the same, both the cases are being disposed of by the following judgment: Brief facts that are necessary for considering the case under appeal as well as the revision may be stated as follows: The prosecution party are the residents of Thotakurapalem Village, which is within the limits of Ravikamatham Police Station, Visakhapatnam. There is a land dispute between the first accused and PW-1 and a civil litigation was also pending between them in respect of the disputed land on the date of the incident. The date of incident was 04.06.1995. PW-2 being engaged by PW-8 was transporting the country manure to the dispute land, which is at a distance of about 1 kilometer to Potluru Village. PW-5 was also traveling in the same tractor. PW-5 and Y.Kumar were proceeding in the same tractor being engaged by the labourers along with PW-1 and on the way PW-3 also got into the tractor. The accused who were present at Paradesakamma Temple, saw the tractor proceeding towards his land and thereafter A-1 forcibly took away the knife from PW-4 and rushed into the aforesaid land. On being instigated by the remaining accused A-2 to A-4, A-1 hacked PW-1 with a knife. When PW-1 was getting the manure dumped, A-1 aimed a blow against PW-1 in order to kill him and as the tractor moved, the blow fell upon the right leg of PW-1 causing grievous injury. Thereafter PW-1 was taken to his house on the tractor and from there to Ravikamatham Police Station and as the condition of PW-1 was found to be precarious, he was shifted to Narsipatnam Hospital and from there to K.G.Hospital, Visakhapatnam. The Head Constable 675 of Ravikamatham Police Station-PW-18 went to the hospital and recorded the statement of PW- 1(Ex.P-1). Basing on which, he registered Cr.No.22 of 1995 as per Ex.P- 22 F.I.R., and the police after completing their usual investigation, filed charge sheet against A-1 to A-4. The case was made over to the Assistant Sessions Judge, Chodavaram, for trial and charges under Section 447, 307 and 326 I.P.C., read with Section 114 I.P.C., were framed against the accused. In the course of trial, the learned Sessions Judge examined PWs.1 to 18 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-23 and marked MOs.1 to 5 on behalf of the prosecution and marked Ex.D-1 on behalf of the accused. On consideration of the entire evidence available on record, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Chodavaram acquitted A-2 to A-4 and convicted A-1 for the offence under Section 326 I.P.C., sentenced him as mentioned above and also ordered to pay compensation of Rs.15,000/- to PW-1. Thereafter, in Crl.A.16 of 1998 the learned VII Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Tract Court) confirmed the judgment passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Chodvaram in S.C.No.37 of 1996. Now the point for consideration in this appeal as well as the revision case is whether there are any valid grounds to interfere with the judgment passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Chodavaram in S.C.No.37 of 1996, which was confirmed by the VII Additional Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam in Crl.A.16 of 1998. The evidence of PWs.1 to 8 who claim to be the owners of the land could not be able to establish the same before the learned trial Court. However, the evidence of PW-1 discloses that the disputed land was in possession of A-1 and to that effect, a finding was recorded by the learned trial court. Therefore, the learned trial court rightly acquitted all the accused for the charge under Section 447 I.P.C., and the learned VII Additional District & Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court) Visakhapatnam, confirmed the same after perusing the pattadar pass book and other documents relating to the land, which were claimed by the first accused. The contents of Ex.P-1 statement of PW-1 basing on which F.I.R. was registered, does not contain any offence committed by A-2 to A-4. Further, the testimony of PWs.1 to 5 who are stated to be the eye witnesses is to the effect that A-2 to A-4 were seen by them in front of Paradesakamma Temple while PWs.1 to 5 and Yedla Kumar were proceeding to the land with the load of country manure on the tractor. Therefore, there is absolutely no evidence indicating the involvement or instigation of A-2 to A-4 to commit the offence in the version of the eye witnesses. Therefore, both the courts below rightly recorded acquittal of A-2 to A-4. The eye witnesses PWs.1 to 5 have categorically spoken to the fact of A-1 snatching away the knife and hacking PW-1. It is seen from the record that the right leg of PW-1 was amputated below the knee because of formation of gangrain. The learned counsel for A-1 would submit that the injuries said to have been caused by A-1 is not the direct cause of amputation of the leg of PW-1. Further, as noticed by both the courts below, the disputed land was admittedly in possession of A-1 and he also adduced some documentary evidence before the first appellate court regarding his rights and possession over the said land. Therefore, it seems that PW-1 and other prosecution witnesses by going over the land on a tractor with the load of manure, provoked A-1 and therefore, A-1 committed the alleged offence under sudden provocation. Since the land is admittedly in possession of A-1 and a dispute is pending before the civil court, PW-1 and his people ought not to have entered into the said land. I do not accede to the contention of the learned counsel for the accused that because PW-1 and his people loaded the country manure in the tractor and unloaded it in the land of A-1, he might have attacked PW-1 with a knife and caused grievous injury to his right leg. Therefore, the learned trial court rightly convicted A-1 for the offence under section 326 I.P.C. For all these reasons, the conviction recorded by the trial court against A-1 for the offence under Sec5ion 326 I.P.C. is confirmed. As regards the sentence, it is required to be noticed that the offence took place in the year 1995 and A-1 had been in jail due to the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court, which was confirmed by the learned VII Additional Sessions Judge, Chodavaram and in the circumstances of the case, the sentence of imprisonment passed by the trial court is modified to that of the sentence of imprisonment already undergone by A-1 in connection with this case as sufficient. As regards the fine imposed by the trial court directing A-1 to pay compensation of Rs.15,000/- apart from fine of Rs.5,000/- to PW-1, which was confirmed by the appellate court is hereby confirmed. On failure by A-1 to pay the compensation to PW-1, the said amount shall be recovered from him in accordance with law. For the aforesaid reasons, Criminal Appeal No.757 of 1999 filed by the State is dismissed and the Criminal Revision Case No.6 of 1993 filed by the revision petitioner is partly allowed. _______________ R.KANTHA RAO J., Dt.05.08.2010 tjs