HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1522 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the accused, Mothukuri Rajaiah, assailing the judgment in Criminal Appeal No.135 of 2003 dated 02-09-2004 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Warangal, confirming the conviction and sentence of the petitioner by the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Warangal, vide judgment dated 23-12-2003 in S.C. No.105 of 2002, for the offences under Sections 307 & 448 IPC. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows: (a) The petitioner is none other than the brother-in-law of the son of the victim – PW.1 being the brother of the wife of PW.1’s son. It is perhaps relevant to mention here itself that petitioner’s sister (hereinafter referred to as deceased), who is wife of the son of PW.1, died subsequent to the incident in question by committing suicide and PW.1 and his son are facing criminal charge for the same. (b) According to the case of the prosecution, on account of disputes between the deceased and her husband, PW.1 and PW.1’s wife, the deceased went away to her parents’ house and some galata was going on and during that period, petitioner has allegedly gone to the house of PW.1 on 24-08-2001 at about 2-00 PM, tied a rope around the neck of PW.1, pulled him out of the house and stabbed in his stomach causing small injury. On a complaint, a case in Crime No.124 of 2001 was registered and investigated into. Charge sheet was filed against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 448, 328 & 307 IPC. 3. For the charges framed against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 448, 328 & 307 IPC, he pleaded not guilty. 4. To prove its case, prosecution got examined PWs.1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-5 apart from material objects MOs.1 & 2. On behalf of the petitioner, no oral evidence was adduced but Ex.D-1, Statement of PW.3 under Section 161 Cr.P.C., alone was marked. 5. Based on the evidence, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge found the petitioner guilty of the offences under Sections 448 & 307 IPC and accordingly sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and one year respectively directing to run the same concurrently. Challenging the same, petitioner preferred appeal and the same was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge confirming the judgment of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge. Aggrieved of the same, this revision is filed by the petitioner. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the material on record. 7. Now the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is falsely implicated in the case and that no offences under Sections 448 & 307 IPC are constituted. 8. The contention of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor is that admittedly there is enmity between the petitioner and PW.1 etc., as there were disputes between them on account of alleged harassment of the deceased, who is sister of the petitioner and wife of PW.1’s son, by PW.1, his wife and son. Such being the case, the petitioner might have attacked PW.1 and there is no reason for PW.1 to falsely implicate him in this case and the evidence on record clearly shows that the petitioner trespassed into the house of PW.1 during night, attacked PW.1 by tying a rope around his neck, pulling him out and stabbing him in the stomach, as such, the offences under Sections 448 & 307 IPC are constituted and absolutely there are no grounds to interfere with the findings of both the Courts below. 9. Now the point for consideration is whether there are any grounds for allowing this revision ? 10. On facts, the evidence of PW.1, the victim, and supporting evidence of the other witnesses, would show that the incident has taken place and there is motive for the petitioner to attack PW.1 as undisputedly there was allegation of harassment of the deceased, who is sister of the petitioner and wife of PW.1’s son, by PW.1, his son and wife as she (deceased) deserted the matrimonial house and came to her parents’ house and a panchayat was to be convened in that connection shortly before the incident in question. Though the incident has taken place during night, there is no difficulty in identifying the petitioner as he is close relative to PW.1 and has seen him several times. 11. The evidence of PW.4, the medical officer, shows that PW.1 suffered two grievous injuries i.e., (1) an abrasion of 1 x 12 cms. on the back of the neck and (2) a stab injury measuring 1 x 1 x 0.2 cms. on the anterior part of the abdomen. However, it is not clear as to on what basis the medical officer opined that the above injuries are grievous. Obviously, both the injuries are simple in nature. It is also doubtful as to whether injury No.2, an abrasion measuring 1 x 1 x 0.2 cms. could have been caused with a knife at all. Perhaps, some small sharp edged weapon was used or it might have been caused with the nails in the scuffle. The injury around the neck of PW.1 could have been caused, when the 2 rope was tied. Further, obviously, the rope was used only for dragging PW.1 out of the house. In case, the petitioner was having the intention of killing PW.1, when he was accompanied by two other persons and when he tied rope around his (PW.1) neck and dragged him out, it would not have been difficult for him to kill him. Hence, it has to be concluded that the petitioner never had any intention to kill PW.1. Thus, no offence under Section 307 IPC is constituted. 12. However, from the evidence on record, it is clear that the petitioner entered the house of PW.1, tied a rope around his neck, dragged him out of the house and caused injury in his stomach. Thus, it is established that the petitioner trespassed into the house of PW.1, as such, the offence under Section 448 IPC is constituted and for the injuries caused to PW.1, at the most offence under Section 324 IPC is constituted. 13. In these circumstances, conviction of the petitioner for the offence under Section 307 IPC can be converted into one under Section 324 IPC and is accordingly converted confirming the conviction for the offence under Section 448 IPC. 14. Considering the circumstances, particularly in view of the fact that the sister of the petitioner died subsequent to the incident in question on account of matrimonial disputes and alleged harassment by PW.1 and his wife and son and in view of the simple injuries suffered by PW.1, sentence of the petitioner deserves to be reduced to fine, which would be appropriate. 15. Accordingly, sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment of the petitioner for the offences under Section 448 IPC is reduced to fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) and for the offence under Section 324 IPC, the petitioner is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- setting aside the sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment imposed for the offence under Section 307 IPC. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner is directed to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month under each count. 16. With the above modifications, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. ____________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J June 17, 2010. PV