THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.344 of 2003 JUDGMENT: After investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the second respondent herein in Crime No.233 of 1997 of Undrajavaram Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Tanuku, took cognizance of the said offence and numbered it as S.C.No.302 of 1997. During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 13 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-11 were marked, besides M.Os.1 to 5. On behalf of the defence, none was examined, but Ex.D-1 was marked. The learned Sessions Judge having analysed the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, came to the conclusion that the accused is guilty of the said offence and accordingly, by his judgment, dated 29.01.1999, convicted and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. The said judgment was questioned by the second respondent herein-accused by filing Criminal Appeal No.27 of 1999 and the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari Division, Eluru, vide judgment dated 14.06.2002, dismissed the appeal, confirming the conviction imposed on the second respondent-accused by the trial Court. However, the learned Sessions Judge was pleased to reduce the sentence of rigorous imprisonment to that of the period of imprisonment already undergone by him. Challenging the said order of conviction, the petitioner-de facto complainant respondent approached this Court and filed this Revision. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: - The accused and P.W-1 are step brothers and there are ill-feelings and bickering between them with regard to their properties. While so, on 01.05.1997, at about 7.30 pm., when P.W-1 was coming from the fields on the cycle carrying milk kaavidi, the accused attacked P.W-1 with an axe and hacked him on his right shoulder and caused bleeding injury. He also hacked on his back shoulder, as a result P.W-1 fell down. Subsequently, the Police registered the complaint on the basis of the statement of P.W-1 and investigated into the case and after completion of investigation, filed the charge sheet. Learned counsel for the petitioner-de facto complainant contended that the lower appellate Court having found the second respondent herein-accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC ought not to have reduced the sentence of imprisonment imposed on him by the trial Court to that of the period already undergone by him. On a perusal of the impugned judgment rendered by the lower appellate Court, it is clear that the Court though found the accused guilty of the said offence alleged against him took a lenient view having regard to the fact that the accused is an agriculturist and is aged about 42 years and accordingly, reduced the sentence of imprisonment to that of the period of imprisonment already undergone by him, while maintaining the conviction for the said offence. Further, it is to be seen that this is a Revision filed by t h e de facto complainant seeking to enhance the sentence imposed on the second respondent-accused by the Courts below through the impugned judgment. Even if this Court comes to a conclusion that the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the second respondent- accused by the Court below is to be enhanced, this Court cannot alter the same. At best, this Court can remand the matter to the Court below for passing further orders. As the impugned judgment was rendered by the Court below on 14.06.2002, at this length of time, i.e., after a lapse of about 8 ½ years, this Court is not inclined to remand the matter to the Court below and accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. ___________________________________ JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA 03rd February 2011 DR