IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1891 of 2003 Between: Roopani Lingaiah, (A-1) S/o. Yellaiah, aged 20 years, R/o.Nemmani (V), Narketpally (M), Nalgonda District …Appellant/Petitioner/Accused AND The State through Rep by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyd. …Respondent/Complainant The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1891 of 2003 ORDER: 1. This Criminal Revision Case under Section 397 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) is directed against the judgment dated 09.12.2003 made in Crl.A.No.150 of 2002 on the file of the III Additional Sessions Judge, I Fast Track Court at Nalgonda, whereunder and whereby, the conviction of petitioner – A1 of the offence punishable under Section 326 of I.P.C. and a sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three months as imposed in C.C.No.738 of 2001, dated 20.06.2002 by the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (for Prohibition and Excise Offences), at Nalgonda were confirmed. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of the present revision may be stated as follows: On 22.02.2001, at about 10:30 A.M., while P.W.1 was proceeding in his auto on the road in Nemani Village and reached the house of one Chakali Maraiah, A-2 asked his auto to be stopped. He stopped the auto. In the meanwhile, A-1 and A-3 came there. A-2 caught hold of his neck and fisted on his face, as he was not listening to the directions by his brother-in- law – A-3. Then, A-1 took up a knife and stabbed him on the left side of the abdomen and caused injuries. When A-4 told him not to stab, again A-1 stabbed P.W.1 with a knife over the right shoulder on the backside of his chest. Then, P.W.1, soon after the incident, went to his house in the same auto and informed about the incident to his relatives and they all proceeded to the Police Station and lodged Ex.P.1 – complaint. Basing on Ex.P.1 – Complaint, the police registered a case and sent P.W.1 to Kamineni hospital. From there, he was shifted to Nizam’s Institute of Medical Sciences (NIMS) Hospital. P.W.1 was in the NIMS hospital for one month. P.W.7 – the Doctor who examined P.W.1, found two stab injuries and that the injury No.1 i.e. an oblique wound in the right infra scapula region measuring 1x ½ x3” is grievious in nature. After completion of investigation, Charge-sheet was filed. 3. A charge under Section 326 I.P.C. against the accused was framed, read over and explained to them, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate the charge, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 7 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.5, besides case property – M.O.1. No evidence, either oral or documentary, was adduced on behalf of the accused. 5. After considering the evidence on record, the trial Court found A-1 guilty of the charge under Section 326 of I.P.C. and accordingly, convicted A-1 as above. On appeal, the appellate Court has confirmed the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court. Challenging the same, present Criminal Revision Case is filed. 6. Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 326 of I.P.C. and whether the judgment of the trial Court is correct, legal and proper? 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the Doctor has not stated that the injury on the right shoulder was not said to have been caused with a knife, that the evidence of P.W.1 would go to show that he was stabbed on the abdomen and there was no such injury on the abdomen. That, therefore, he contends that it is not safe to place an implicit reliance on the evidence of P.W.1 and hence he prays to set aside the conviction and sentence recorded against the petitioner. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor contended that the evidence of P.W.1 is very clear that the injuries were caused by A-1, that P.W.1 was admitted in the hospital for more than 21 days, that none of the findings is shown to be illegal or incorrect and hence, she prays to dismiss the Criminal Revision Case. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Prabir Mondal & Anr. V. State of West Bengal[1]. Paragraph 19 of the judgment reads as under. “19. As pointed out by Mr.Ghosh, the manner in which the alleged incident is supposed to have taken place does not fit in with the injuries received by the complainant. The most glaring inconsistency is the story of the complainant’s having held the blade of the knife, alleged to have been used in the commission of the offence, with both hands and thereby suffering incised injuries on his left palm. The injury report shows that the complainant did not have any incised injury or any other injury on his let palm and the injury to his right palm was not of an incised nature, but a bruise which could have been caused by a blunt instrument. Moreover, the knife, which was seized and was alleged to have been used for the commission of the offence, was never sent for forensic examination so as to connect it with the offence. Furthermore, the other sharp-cutting implements, which were also seized, were also not sent for such examination. Even the mat, which had bloodstains on it, was not sent for such examination and it could, therefore, not be proved as to whether the bloodstains thereon were of human or animal origin. Coupled with the above is the fact that on going to the hospital in the night of medical treatment, the complainant did not even disclose to the doctor as to how he had sustained the injuries. The doctor was, therefore, not at all aware of any such incident, as presented by the prosecution, having been committed. Coupled with the above is the fact of the delay in lodging the FIR after consultation with the local villagers. Therefore, chances of fabrication in the FIR cannot be ruled out.” The above decision has no application to this case, because, there is no conflict with regard to the evidence of P.W.1 with that of medical evidence. 10. There cannot be any dispute that the powers of the Revisional Court under Sections 397 and 401 of I.P.C. are truncated. Unless the findings are shown to be incorrect, illegal or improper, ordinarily, this Court would not interfere with the same. This Court cannot sit over as it is an appeal, and re- appreciate the evidence. 11. The entire case rests upon the solitary testimony of P.W.1 with regard to the accused causing injuries to him. When the evidence of solitary witness is found to be true, trustworthy and reliable, there is no legal bar for the Court to base a conviction. P.W.7 is the Doctor who examined P.W.1. He found two stab injuries on P.W.1 and that injury No.1 i.e., an oblique wound in the right infra scapula region measuring 1x ½ x3”, is grievous in nature. Ex.P.5 is the certificate issued by him. He opined that it could be possible when a person comes into contact with a broken glass piece. He has not stated in Ex.P.5 – certificate, that injury No.1 would be possible with a sharp edged weapon, but he stated that it could be possible with a sharp-edged broken glass piece. That means, an inference can also be drawn that knife is a sharp-edged weapon. Hence, it can be inferred that a knife, which is a sharp-edged weapon, can cause the said injury like an oblique wound in the right infra scapula region measuring 1x ½ x3” i.e. injury No.1 in Ex.P.5. Knife is a dangerous weapon and can cause an injury like the above one. 12. Initially, P.W.1 was admitted in the Kamineni Hospital, and thereafter, he was referred to NIMS Hospital. At NIMS Hospital, he took treatment for more than 21 days and was unable to perform his ordinary duties. Though P.W.1 stated that he received stab injuries in the abdomen, P.W.7 – the doctor who examined P.W.1 did not find any stab injury on the abdomen. The incident is said to have taken place on 22.02.2001, whereas, P.W.1 was testifying after a lapse of six months i.e. in the month of September 2001. Therefore, some discrepancies are bound to occur, even in the case of witnesses who are made to depose about the incident, which took place about seven to eight months back. On that ground, it cannot be said that P.W.1 is not the witness of truth. Also, there is absolutely no reason for P.W.1 to foist a false case against the accused. Except giving some suggestions, nothing has been elicited to discredit the testimony of P.W.1. That is the reason why the trial Court, as well as the appellate Court had rightly placed reliance on the evidence of P.W.1, and convicted the petitioner. None of the findings of the trial Court as well as the appellate Court is found to be incorrect, illegal and improper. Hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the conviction of the petitioner. 13. With regard to sentence, considering the facts that the incident took place a decade back, that the petitioner was a young boy aged about 20 years at the time of incident, that since he was a adolescent offender, the trial Court ought to have examined the case with reference to the provisions of the A.P. Boarstal Schools Act, 1926. Both the Courts below have not considered this aspect. Had he been sent to the Boarstal School as admittedly he was aged about 13 years on the date of incident, he would have come back by this time. Therefore, a lenient view can be taken with regard to the sentence. Therefore, the sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for one year imposed by the trial Court and as confirmed by the appellate Court, is reduced to Rigorous Imprisonment for six (06) months while maintaining the fine amount with default sentence. 14. With the above modification of sentence, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. ________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU December 14, 2009 BVV [1] 2009 AIR SCW 6674