IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD DATE. 22-06-2011. PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.899 of 2004 Between: 1. Kola Moshe 2. Kola Yesobu Petitioners/A.1 & A.7 AND The State of A.P., rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. Respondent This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.899 of 2004 ORDER: This Criminal Revision case is preferred by the petitioners(A.1 & A.7) challenging judgment dated 04.05.2004 passed by the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur, in Criminal Appeal No.163 of 2003, whereby and whereunder conviction and sentence imposed in C.C.No.234 of 2001 dated 24.03.2003 by the II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Gurazala, were confirmed. The case of the prosecution is that in view of previous enmity between the accused and P.W.1-Ganipalli Yesobu, on 02.11.2001 at 8.30 p.m., while P.W.1 was standing infront of a church at Madigapalli, Madugula village, A.1 to A.8 in the case suddenly attacked P.W.1 and A.1 axed on the head of P.W.1, A.2 and A.3 hurled stones against P.W.1, A.4 to A.6 and A.8 beat P.W.1 with sticks, and A.7 beat with crow bar on the left hand wrist of P.W.1 as a result of which P.W.1 sustained bleeding injuries. The incident was witnessed by P.Ws.2 to 4 viz., Ponnala Annamma, Sathuluri Daveedu and Peripogu Manikya Rao who shifted the injured to the Government Hospital, Gurazala for treatment. On intimation, P.W.7- A.S.I, Gurazala P.S., visited the hospital and recorded the statement of P.W.1 and registered the case in Cr.No.142 of 2001 under section 324 read with 34 IPC on the file of Gurazala and the Sub-Inspector of police there took up and conducted the investigation of the case and filed charge sheet. The petitioners(A.1 & A.7) along with the other accused in the case were tried for offences punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 I.P.C and the petitioners (A.1 & A.7) were found guilty of committing the offence and were accordingly convicted under Section 248(2) Cr.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each and in default of paying the fine to suffer S.I for one month while the other accused i.e., A.2 to A.6 and A.8 were found not guilty and were acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. of the charge. Further a direction was given to set of their(A.1 & A.7’s) remand period if any under Section 428 Cr.P.C. whereas aggrieved by the same, they (A.1 & A.7) preferred the Criminal Appeal No.163 of 2003 whereby the learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur, on consideration of the material available on record, confirmed the judgment of the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners(A.1 & A.7) has preferred the present criminal revision case. For the sake of convenience, I refer the parties as arrayed before the trial Court. Heard. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that the trial Court gave benefit of doubt to the Accused Nos.2 to 6 and 8 and accordingly acquitted them in respect of the charge leveled against them and as per the prosecution evidence the first accused in the case dealt blows against the de-facto complainant by means of an axe, A.7 beat the de facto complainant with crow bar and the other accused hurled stones on the de facto complainant and as per the medical evidence of P.W.6, the defacto complainant received three simple injuries which is corroborated by Ex.P.6- wound certificate and only P.Ws.1 & 2 supported the prosecution version but the evidence of P.Ws.1 & 2 does not corroborate with the medical evidence about the injuries received and no weapon was recovered from the possession of A.1 & A.7 and the courts below failed to appreciate the evidence properly and arrived at incorrect conclusions. It is also represented by him that totally A.1 & A.7 were in judicial custody for 30 days. It is also represented by him that if the convictions imposed by the Courts below are confirmed the sentence may be reduced to the period of detention already undergone by them. I have gone through the record and both the Courts below on proper appreciation of the evidence adduced upheld the charges leveled against the petitioners (A.1 &A.7 in the case) and the discrepancies pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners are only minor in nature and it is something unbelievable that even though somebody else committed the offence a false case was foisted against all the accused or at-least A.1 & A.7. As I see no infirmity in the judgments passed by the Courts below, the revision case is not tenable. But taking into consideration the fact that the petitioners have been wandering around the Courts wasting their valuable time and money, I feel that it is a fit case where the sentence can be reduced. Accordingly the sentence imposed on the petitioners (A.1 & A.7) to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 324 I.P.C. imposed by the trial Court and confirmed by the appellate Court is modified and reduced to the period of detention already undergone by the petitioners (A.1 & A.7) while retaining the fine clause. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed subject to the above modification. ______________________________ JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY 22nd June, 2011 VJL