THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.406 OF 2003 ORDER: 1. This revision, under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 {for short “Cr.PC.”}, is directed against the judgment, dated 21.03.2003, in Crl.A.No.202 of 2002 on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Chittoor, at Madanapalle. 2. The facts of the case in brief are as under. There is a dispute in respect of Ac.1.40 cents of land in S.No.673/6 near Basinikonda and Civil suit in O.S.No.55/91 was pending in Sub-Court, Madanapalle. The Court appointed P.Srinivasulu Babu-Advocate, as commissioner, to inspect the land and submit report. Accordingly, on 06.12.1998 at about 11 am when he was inspecting the land in the presence of witnesses, A1 to A3 came and picked up a quarrel with the de facto complainant. A1 took a stone and beat him on the mouth. As a result, he sustained injury resulting loss of tooth and injury on the upper lip on the left side. One injury said to be grievous in nature, as per the medical evidence. The accused beat Bhagyavathi and Vanisree with hands when they interfered and caused simple hurt to them. On the report of de facto complainant, police registered a case in crime No.145 of 1998 and after completion of investigation, filed charge sheet. 3. Charges under Sections 326 IPC against A1, 326 read with 34 IPC against A2 and A3 and 323 IPC against A1 to A3 were framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate the charges, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P1 to P9. 5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. They denied the same. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused, except marking Exs.D1 to D4. 6. The trial Court, after considering the evidence, vide judgment dated 26.08.2002 in C.C.No.368 of 1998, while acquitting A1 to A3 of the offence punishable under Section 323 IPC, convicted A1 of the offence punishable under Section 326 IPC and A2 and A3 of the offence punishable under Section 326 read with 34 IPC and accordingly, sentenced A1 to A3 to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment {“RI” for brevity} for a period of one year each and also to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months each. on appeal by the accused, the learned Sessions Judge, vide impugned judgment partly allowed the appeal by reducing the sentence from one year RI to six months RI while maintaining the fine amount. Aggrieved thereby, the present revision case is filed. 7. Now, the point for determination is whether the judgments of both the Courts below are correct, legal and proper. 8. Learned Senior Counsel, Sri C.Padmanabha Reddy, appearing for the petitioners contended that absolutely there is no evidence to show that there was a preplan or prior meeting minds of all the accused persons to commit an offence and that P.Ws.2 and 3 did not speak about A1 causing injury to P.W.1 and the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is interested and hence, prays to set aside the same. 9. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that the concurrent findings of the Courts below are not shown to be illegal. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, coupled with the evidence of the doctor, it is clear that all the accused with a common intention committed the offence and there are no grounds to interfere with the judgments under challenge. 10. There cannot be any dispute that the powers of this Court under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.PC. are truncated. Unless the findings are found illegal or improper or incorrect, ordinarily, this Court will not interfere with the same. The findings are said to be perverse, if they are not based upon any evidence. To know whether the findings are correct or not, it is necessary to refer to the evidence adduced by the prosecution. 11. P.Ws.2 and 3 are brother and mother respectively of P.W.1. The allegation is that, when P.W.5 inspected the disputed site in pursuance of warrant issued by the competent Court in a civil suit, the accused grew wild and caused injuries to P.W.1. Simply because, P.Ws.1 to 3 are closely related, it does not mean that their evidence has to be disbelieved on that ground. If there are any inherent infirmities in their evidence, then only their evidence has to be scrutinized carefully and cautiously to cull out the truth. The presence of P.W.5 at the scene of occurrence is not in dispute. Though he did not support the case of the prosecution, but it does not mean that the entire evidence of P.W.5 would efface from the record. Such part of his testimony, which inspires confidence, can be used to corroborate the other evidence, if any, available on record. He categorically stated that there was a scuffle between A1 to A3 on one hand and P.W.1 on the other hand. In that scuffle, A1 to A3 pushed P.W.1 and later, he found oozing of blood from his mouth. He has not stated that A1 beat him with a stone on the mouth. For that reason, the prosecution declared him hostile. The fact that P.W.1 sustained injury is not seriously disputed before the Courts below even by the accused. 12. P.W.6 is the doctor, who examined P.W.1 and found a lacerated injury on upper lip of left side near the angle of mouth of ½ x ¼ muscle deep. Ex.P4 is the wound certificate, wherein it is mentioned that P.W.1 was feeling dental pain. Therefore, he was referred to the Dental Surgeon. P.W.8 is the Dental Surgeon, who gave opinion, as per X-ray dated 14.12.1998, that a fracture of right lower canine was found. Therefore, from the evidence of P.W.8, coupled with the evidence of P.W.6 and the X-ray report, Exs.P8 and P9, it is clear that P.W.1 sustained a small fracture on the tooth. It cannot be disputed that any facture in a body is a grievous hurt within the meaning of Clause (7) of Section 320 IPC. Whether the said injury was caused by A1 or not, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is very clear that it is caused with a hit by a stone. The fact that P.W.1 sustained injury is not disputed. The fact that there was a scuffle among them is not in dispute. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that because benefit of doubt was given to A1 to A3 for the offence punishable under Section 323 IPC for causing simple injuries to P.Ws.2 and 3, there cannot be any sharing of common intention by A2 and A2 with A1 to cause injury to P.W.1. 14. Section 34 IPC deals with constructive liability. If an act is done by several persons in pursuance of their common intention of that act, they are liable. The sharing of common intention is within the knowledge of the accused. That intention of accused may not be known to the prosecution. In view of the fact that the intention is locked up in the mind of the accused, law permits that the common intention can be inferred from the circumstances appearing from the proved facts of the case. All the accused went to the scene of occurrence jointly and that there was a scuffle between P.W.1 and the accused. They went to the extent of obstructing the Court Commissioner, who went there to note down the physical features. Because there were no injuries found on the body of P.Ws.2 and 3, the trial Court has not placed reliance on their evidence with regard to A2 and A3 causing injuries to them. But it is clear from evidence, accused participated in the commission of offence. Admittedly, there was a scuffle between the accused and P.W.1. Ex.P2, the memo filed by the advocate commissioner on the next day of the incident, would clearly show that there was a scuffle between the accused and P.W.1. The trial Court, after elaborate consideration of the evidence on record, rightly found them guilty under Section 326 read with 34 IPC and that finding need not be interfered with. None of the findings is shown to be illegal or incorporated or improper. Therefore, the conviction recorded by the trial Court, as confirmed by the appellate Court, is confirmed. 15. With regard to the sentence, it seems both the accused and the prosecution witnesses are related to each other. As a matter of fact, A1 filed a civil suit for partition of properties and that was pending. Eleven {11} years have elapsed from the date of the incident. There cannot be any dispute that the sentence must be in proportionality with the severity of the crime. There was a small fracture of tip of lower right side canine. No untoward incident is brought to the notice of this Court after the offence. Therefore, considering the nature of injury and the nature of relationship between the parties, a lenient view can be taken with regard to the sentence and the period of imprisonment undergone by the accused would be appropriate sentence but fine can be enhanced. 16. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed and the accused are sentenced to undergo imprisonment, which was already undergone by them. The fine imposed by the trial Court i.e., Rs.2,000/- is enhanced to Rs.5,000/- {Rupees five thousand only} to be paid by each accused and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two {2} months each. Out of the said amount of fine paid, an amount of Rs.5,000/- {Rupees five thousand only} shall be paid to P.W.1. _____________ (K.C.BHANU, J) 8th December 2009 RRB