IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 7 3 of 2006. Between: Chowdam Madava … Petitioner V/s. State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad . … Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri C. Praveen Kumar Counsel for the Respondents : Public Prosecutor THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION No. 7 3 OF 2006 O R D E R : This Criminal Revision is directed against the conviction and sentence passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur in Criminal Appeal No.190 of 2002, dated 05-12-2005, confirming the judgment of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Proddatur, in SC.No.236 of 2000, dated 20-6- 2002 convicted the petitioner-accused under section 235 (2) of Cr.P.C. and modified the sentence imposed by the trial court of reducing two years instead of five years i.e., to undergo sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three years and the fine amount imposed by the trial court was confirmed for the offence punishable under section 307 I.P.C. 2. The brief facts of the case for the disposal of the present Criminal Revision Case are as follows : About three months back LW-l arranged marriage alliance to accused and his younger sister with one Venkata Subbamma and Karumuru Subbarayudu. After marriage the accused felt that his wife is elder than him and he suspected LW-l responsible for the above marriage by telling falsehood, cheated and spoiled his life. He started threatening LW-l and he decided to do away LW-l as a retaliation for spoiling his life by performing his marriage with a woman, who is elder than him. On 17-3-2000 at about 07:00 hours LW-l was returning towards his village Dommara Nandyala after calls of nature, when he reached near cross-road on Uppalapadu road, the accused being armed with a sickle, came from behind abused him indecently, challenged that he is going to kill him and he hacked LW- l on his head, forehead (right side), left palmer region etc., and caused severe bleeding injuries, LW-3 present near the scene witnessed the occurrence, rushed to the spot by raising cries and the accused fled away by abandoning the blood stained sickle at the scene of offence itself. The timely intervention of LW-3 averted possible murder of LW-l in the hands of accused. LW-1 went to the house of LWs 4 and 5 and laid on a cot. LW- 2 learnt about this offence, rushed and shifted LW-l to Government Hospital, Jammalamadugu for treatment. On the complaint of LW-l on 17-3-2000 at 10:00 hours a case in Cr.No.8/2000 under section 324, 3-7 IPC was registered at Mylavaram Police Station by Sub-Inspector of Police and investigated into and also arrested him on 14-4-2000 in Moragudi bus stop and sent for remand. The Medical Officer, who examined the injuries and issued would certificate and opined that the injuries 1 and 2 found on the person of LW-1 are grievous in nature, while the remaining injuries are simple in nature. Hence, the charge. 3. The case was taken on file as PRC.No. 48 of 2000 by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jammalamadugu and committed to the Court of Sessions and later, it was made over to the Assistant Sessions Judge, Proddatur, Kadapa district. 4. On appearance of the accused, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge complied with the formalities as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C., and examined the accused alleging the substance of accusation. The accused denied the substance of accusation. A charge under section 307 and 326 IPC were framed, read over and explained to the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. To substantiate the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined PWs.l to 8 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6 and MOs-l to 7. On behalf of the accused, no oral and documentary evidence was let-in. 6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., for the incriminating evidence appearing against him. Accused denied the substance of accusation. On behalf of the accused, no defence evidence was adduced. After considering the evidence on record, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge found the accused guilty of the offence under section307 IPC and accordingly convicted and sentenced him. 7. On appeal, the conviction recorded by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge was confirmed and modified the sentence imposed by the trial court of reducing two years instead of five years i.e., to suffer sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment and the fine amount imposed by the trial court remained unaltered. Challenging the same, the present Criminal Revision is filed. 8. The point for determination is whether the judgment of both the courts below are true, correct and proper ? 9. The powers of the High Court exercising jurisdiction under section 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are truncated. Unless the finding is shown to be perverse or incorrect or illegal or not based on any evidence on record, then only the judgment under challenge needs interference. 10. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner-accused submitted that the evidence of injured witness is with full of discrepancies and the said witness cannot be called as an eye-witness to the occurrence concerned. 11. PW-2 is not an eye-witness to the occurrence as admitted by the prosecution. PW-3 has not supported the case of prosecution. No independent witness supported the case of prosecution. This Court perused the entire record and the evidence adduced by the prosecution. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner that PW-1 deposed before the Court in the cross-examination that he has stated the name of the person, who caused injuries instead of the Revision Petitioner s0me other person and subsequently changed his version that due to unconsciousness state that he could not remember what he has stated before the Police. 12. The evidence of PW-2 admittedly is that he is not an eye-witness and he further submitted before the Court that PW-3 informed that accused caused injury on PW-1. So the evidence of PW-2, who set the law in motion on the information given by PW-3. 13. Whereas the evidence deposed by PW-3 is that he has not supported the version of PW-2 and further states that he has not informed regarding the involvement of accused to PW-1. 14. In view of the above said fact, none of the witnesses, who claims tobe an eye-witness to the case of prosecution supported the case of prosecution by adducing evidence to inspire confidence of this court and further motive alleged by the prosecution is that accused was having animosity against PW-1 since he arrangedthe marriage to the accused with an elderly lady, which is flimsy in nature. 15. This Court is of the view that whether motive is flimsy or not to be decided on the basis of the facts and circumstances and also the nature and social, educational status of the person concerned. Rejecting the arguments regarding attributing motive portion, this court is of the view that when the evidence adduced in connection with the commission of crime is tainted with and cannot be believed totally, since because all the witnesses were not cogently deposed regarding the occurrence concerned. In view of the same, the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court confirmed by the appellate court is liable to be set aside and accordingly the same is set aside. The Revision Petitioner-accused is hereby acquitted. 16. In the result, the Criminal Revision is allowed. __________________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO. 23-04-2010. I s L THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 7 3 OF 2006 Circulation Entry No. 1 3 Date: 23-04-2010 Computer No. 43 Court Master: I s L