THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALAKRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.723 of 2002 DATED: 15-07-2010 ORDER: This revision is filed by the petitioner herein, questioning the judgment, dated 14-07-2000, passed in S.C.No.214 of 1996 by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Kadiri. 2. The brief facts are that on account of the ill-feelings between the de facto complainant-P.W.1 and the respondents herein, with regard to setting of fire to the hay of the accused by P.W.1 and others, on 14-05-1995, while P.W.1 was standing at the bus stop to go to his village, the respondents herein, armed with deadly weapons, attacked him and A1 hacked him on head twice with a sickle; A2 hacked on the head; A3 hacked on the right shoulder and A4 hacked on his left shoulder as a result of which, he received injuries to his little finger and thumb of left hand. P.Ws.2 and 3, who witnessed the occurrence, shifted P.W.1 to government hospital, Kadiri and the de facto complainant-P.W.l gave a complaint to the Station House Officer, Talupula police station, based on which a case in Cr.No.17 of 1995 was registered against the respondents herein for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 324, 326 and 307 r/w 149 IPC. During the course of investigation, accused were arrested on 23-05-1995 and after investigation, charge sheet was filed before the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadiri, who in turn committed the same to the Court of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Kadiri wherein it was numbered as S.C.No.214 of 1996 and the learned Sessions Judge, having analyzed the entire evidence of the prosecution, came to the conclusion that A1-1st respondent herein is guilty of the offence under Section 307 IPC and accordingly sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for four months. However, he found the other accused not guilty of the said offences and accordingly acquitted them, vide judgment, dated 14-07-2000. Aggrieved thereby, the de facto complainant- P.W.1 filed the present revision stating that the said sentence is inadequate. 3. During the course of trial, P.Ws.1 to 7 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P5 were marked. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents- accused. 4. On an analysis of the entire evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the petitioner herein proved the guilt of the 1st accused-1st respondent herein and accordingly sentenced him as stated supra. It is always open for the trial Court to impose the sentence on the basis of the evidence let in during the course of trial. Further, the accused-respondents herein, in my considered view, must have approached the appellate Court and filed an appeal and it is not known as to what happened to the said appeal. Apart from that, notices are also not served on the respondents even after eight years. For all these reasons, I see no merits in the revision. 5. Accordingly, Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. _______________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA,J 15th July, 2010. Tsy