THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Crl.Rc.No.1264 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: The revision petition is filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. against judgment made in Crl.A.No.291 of 2002 dated 9.4.2004 on the file of the VI Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Guntur setting aside judgment of conviction and sentence imposed in Sessions Case No.496 of 1999 dated 25.7.2002 on the file of Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Guntur. The prosecution case is as follows: P.W.1 is the eldest son of A3 and A4. A1 is the younger brother of P.W.1. P.W.4 is the wife of P.W.1. There are property disputes between P.W.1, and A1, A3 and A4. A2 is a friend of A1. Due to their disputes previously on 14.5.1988, A1 assaulted P.W.4 who is the wife of P.W.1 and he was convicted in that case. Due to that grudge and also out of family disputes, on 8.3.1998 at 7 p.m. when P.W.1 was at his house at Pericherla, all the Accused (A1 to A4) armed with deadly weapons went to the house of P.W.1 and attacked him with an intention to do away his life. Then P.W.1 escaped from their clutches and ran towards Kailasagiri Hills. Then A1, A2 and another person chased P.W.1 and they caught hold of him near Kailasagiri and assaulted P.W.1 indiscriminately inflicting serious injuries with an intention to kill him. P.Ws.2, 3 and 5 witnesses the incident and took P.W.1 to the Government General Hospital, Guntur. A Judicial Magistrate of First Class recorded his dying declaration which was marked as Ex.P1. On that basis, the case was registered in Cr.No.22 of 1998 of Medikonduru P.S. The case was investigated into and ultimately P.W.11 filed charge sheet. For the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 12 were examined and Exs.P1 to P17 and M.O.1 shirt of the deceased were marked. For the defence, none were examined, but Exs.D1 and D2 were marked. The trial Court after the consideration of the matter, found A1 and A2 guilty of the charge 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.1,000/- and in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months and A2 was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Further, the trial Court found A3 and A4 not guilty of the charge under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC and accordingly acquitted them under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C., whereas questioning the said judgment, A1 and A2 preferred the Crl.A.No.291 of 2002 before the learned VI Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur and the appellate Court on the consideration of the matter allowed the appeal setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court giving benefit of doubt in favour of A1 and A2. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the defacto- complainant preferred this revision. Heard the learned counsel for revision petitioner (defacto- complainant) and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record. P.Ws.2, 3 and 5, who were examined as eyewitnesses did not support the prosecution version and they were declared as hostile witnesses and during their cross-examination, relevant portions of their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were marked as Exs.P2 to P4 respectively. On the other hand, P.W.4-the defacto complainant, who is not an eyewitness to the incident, deposed in accordance with prosecution version. The appellate Court mainly disregarded the evidence of P.W.4 on the ground that she gave different versions and her evidence was not corroborated by medical evidence and no motive or intention on the part of the accused to cause the injuries to the deceased (P.W.1) was established, whereas on the other hand P.Ws.2, 3 and 5 examined to support his evidence were declared as hostile. I have gone through the record, I am of the opinion that the appellate Court properly examined the matter and there is no reason to interfere with its findings. Ultimately, the revision is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed. _________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Date: 4.7.2011 DA