HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1226 OF 2005 Date: 23-09-2011 Between: A. Satya Surya Narasimha Murthy. - - - Petitioner/ De-facto Complainant. Versus Devalla Venkata Rao, three others and The State of A.P., Rep. By its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. - - - Respondents/ Accused. This Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1226 OF 2005 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is preferred by the Petitioner- De-facto Complainant against judgment, dated 14-06-2004, rendered in Criminal Appeal No.37 of 2000 by the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Narsapur, West Godavari District preferred against conviction and sentence imposed in C.C. No.37 of 1995 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Palakol. 2. For convenience sake, I refer the parties as arrayed in the Calender Case. 3. A-1 to A-4 were prosecuted in Calender Case No.37 of 1995 for the offences punishable under Sections 326 and 324 read with Section 34 I.P.C. before the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Palakol, West Godavari District, who after necessary trial convicted A-1 for the offence punishable under Section 326 IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for two years and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of the fine amount to undergo S.I. for six months and further convicted A-2 to A-4 for the offence punishable under Section 324 I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for one year each and further convicted A-1 to A-4 for the offences punishable under Sections 326, 324 read with 34 I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of the fine amount to undergo S.I. for two months each vide judgement dated 20-01- 2000, following which, A-1 to A-4 preferred the Criminal Appeal No.37 of 2000 on the file of learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Narsapur, West Godavari District, who dismissed the Criminal Appeal confirming the conviction of A-2 to A-4 for the offence punishable under Section 324 I.P.C. but modifying the sentence by setting aside the sentence of imprisonment and directing to pay a fine of Rs.1,500/- each in addition to the fine already imposed and in default, to suffer S.I. for three months each. Further, he set aside the conviction and sentence imposed against A-1 for the offence punishable under Section 326 I.P.C. and instead convicted him for the offence punishable under Section 324 I.P.C. and sentenced him there under also to pay a fine of Rs.1,500/- in addition to the fine already imposed and in default, to suffer S.I. for three months. Further, he set aside the conviction and sentence imposed against A-2 to A-4 for the offence punishable under Sections 326, 324 read with Section 34 I.P.C. 4. Aggrieved by the same, the present Criminal Revision Case is filed by the De-facto Complainant on the ground that even though sufficient evidence was placed in order to convict and sentence A-1 and the trial Court imposed the conviction and sentence against him properly, for the offence punishable under Section 326 I.P.C. the Appellate Court set aside or modified it to one under Section 324 I.P.C. sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs.1,500/- only in addition to the fine already imposed and in default of payment of the fine amount to suffer S.I. for three months and hence, the same findings of the Appellate Court are liable to be set aside. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the De-facto Complainant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the Respondents - State. 6. The prosecution version in brief is as follows : The Sub- Inspector of Police, Poduru P.S. laid charge sheet against A-1 to A-4 alleging that there were disputes between A-1 to A-4 on one side and PWs.1 to 3 on the other side regarding use of joint puntha passing in between their lands. While so, on 12-01-1995 at about 06-00 a.m. when PWs. 1 to 3 were proceeding on the disputed puntha to go to their lands A-1 to A-4 with a common intention obstructed PWs.1 to 3 from proceeding on the puntha and in furtherance of their common intention A-1 to A-4 beat PWs.1 to 3 with sticks and caused death injuries. PW.1 sustained grievous injuries while PWs.2 and 3 sustained simple injuries thereby. On the statement of PW.1 the case was registered in Crime No.1 of 1995 under Section 324 read with Section 34 I.P.C. against A-1 to A-4 by the Sub-Inspector of Police (PW.7) who took up and completed the investigation of the case. PWs.1 to 3 were referred to Community Hospital, Palacole for treatment and PW.6 Medical Officer who examined PWs.1 to 3 issued wound certificates opining that PW.1 sustained grievous injury while PWs. 2 and 3 sustained simple injuries respectively. 7. Further, On behalf of the prosecution PWs. 1 to 7 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-10 were marked and on behalf of the Accused Exs.D-1 to D-5 were marked and none were examined on their behalf. 8. The main question here is whether injury No.11 as shown in Ex.P-3 Wound Certificate of PW.1 was grievous or not? 9. According to PW.6, Medical Witness, Assistant Professor of Plastic Surgery to whom the matter was referred, gave opinion that it was a grievous injury. But, to that affect no documentary evidence was placed. PW.6 also did not give any independent opinion about it. Hence, the said evidence of PW.6 cannot be taken into consideration here. Therefore, that injury and the ingredients of Section 326 IPC are not established here. The Appellate Court considered the matter properly and there is no reason to interfere with its findings. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. __________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Date:23-09-2011. Dsh THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY 83 CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1226 OF 2005 September, 23, 2011 DSH