IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD DATE. 20-04-2011. PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.493 of 2004 Between: Dhara Bhaskar Petitioner AND The State of A.P., rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. Respondent The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.493 of 2004 ORDER: This Criminal Revision case is filed by the petitioner-A.1 challenging judgment dated 17.11.2003 passed by III Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Cuddapah, in Criminal Appeal No.76 of 2001 on his file. The case of the prosecution is that the de facto complainant in the case (injured)/P.W.1-Gantala Shadrik, P.W.4-Gantala Purushotham, P.W.2-panditi Lazar, one Panditi Rosanna and accused are the residents of Pagidala Harijanawada of Rajupalem Mandal of Cuddapah District that there were disputes among them regarding a charcoal kiln in the village that on account of that the elder brother of A.1 by name Satya Raju was murdered pertaining to S.C.No.152 of 1995 pending in the Court of I Additional Sessions Judge Court at Cuddapa. It is further alleged that on 3.8.1995 P.Ws.1,2,4 and Rosanna attended the Court and were waiting outside the Court campus for a bus to go to their village, that then the A.1 armed with a hunting sickle went there along with A.2 in an auto from the western side and got down from it and then A.1 with the hunting sickle tried to hack the neck of P.W.1 and when P.W.1 raised his right hand to ward of the blow he received injury to his right hand wrist and then the hunting sickle fell down and then A.2 picked up the weapon and attempted to end the life of P.W.1 and then P.W.1 and P.W.4 ran into the Court hall of District Judge nearby and informed him about the incident, while P.W.2 and his father Rosanna ran towards Lakshmi Ranga Theatre. Further on receipt of telephone message, police recorded the statement of P.W.1 and registered it in Cr.No.18 of 1995 for the offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C. The accused were charged for offences punishable under Sections 324 and 307 I.P.C. which the accused denied and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in order to prove the offence examined PWs.1 to 6 and marked Exs. P-1 to P-5. No oral evidence was adduced but Ex. D1 was marked through P.W.5 for the defense. Considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution, learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Cuddapah held that the charges were proved but as the offence covered by Section 307 IPC is a major one sentenced them to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of five (5) years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for 2 months thereunder. Aggrieved by the same, the accused nos.1 and 2 in S.C.No.160 of 1997 preferred Criminal Appeal No.76 of 2001 which was partly allowed by learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Cuddapah, with the following observations: “setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed against A.2 and confirming the conviction against A.1 but modifying the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of paying the fine amount to suffer S.I for six months with a direction that out of the amount of Rs.5,000/- a sum of Rs.4,000/- should be paid to P.W.1 for the injuries and expenses sustained by him. ” Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner-A.1 preferred the present revision petition. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner-A.1 that the incident took place during day-light in the premises of the District Court, Cuddapah but no other eye witness was examined in the case and there was previous enmity between A.1 and the main prosecution witnesses and in-fact only simple injuries were received by the de facto complainant as per the medical evidence of P.W.3 and the prosecution failed to establish the case and the trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court failed to appreciate the matter properly and further in any case Section 307 I.P.C is not attracted. Both the Courts below, on proper appreciation of the evidence adduced including the evidence of P.W.1, upheld the prosecution version except with regards to the establishment of the ingredients of Section 307 I.P.C and there is no reason to interfere with the same findings of the lower Court. Therefore, it is to be seen whether the ingredients of Section 307 I.P.C are established. POINT: P.W.3-Smt.Dr.Kalyani Sarma, Civil Assistant Surgeon, SRRITC, Nallakunta, Hyderabad, deposed that she examined P.W.1 on 03.08.1995 at 1.50 p.m., and found the following injuries. 1. Lacerated injury of 6” in length x 2” wide x 1½ deep on his right forearm above his wrist. 2. A cut injury of ½” by ¼” x ¼” over right fore arm 3” above the injury No.1. which are simple in nature. If the prosecution claim that the accused attacked the deceased with an intention to kill him using such deadly weapon is true, then P.W.1 would have received grave injuries but not simple injuries. Further having received those injuries he could not have escaped from the accused and hence if the accused got any intention to kill P.W.1 then they would have succeeded. Therefore, it rules out the application of Section 307 I.P.C. and Section 324 I.P.C is applicable consequently. Taking into consideration the circumstances enumerated, it is reasonable to modify the sentence to six (6) months simple imprisonment against the accused no.1 for the offence punishable under Section 324 I.P.C. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed, and the conviction and sentence recorded under Section 307 I.P.C is set aside and conviction is recorded against A.1 under Section 324 I.P.C and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for six (6) months, out of which, period of detention already undergone by him shall be set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. ______________________________ JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY 20th April, 2011 Vjl