IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD CRL.A.NO.501 OF 2004 Date:25.11.2011 Between:- Malleswarapu Govindu ..Appellant/Accused And State of A.P., rep.by Public Prosecutor, A.P. High Court, Hyderabad. .. Respondent JUDGMENT:- This appeal is directed against the conviction sentence passed in Sessions Case No.215 of 2003 by the Assistant Sessions, Ramachandrapuram on 19.01.2004. 2. The appellant herein was prosecuted for an oﬀence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C. alleging that on 21.04.2003, at 7.30 p.m., while P.W.1 was standing near Ramalayam Bus Stand and chit chatting with others, accused hacked him three times on his left hand wrist and palm and he sustained multiple injuries and thereafter, P.W.2 has shifted him to the Chanukya Nursing Home for ﬁrst aid and thereafter, to Government General Hospital, Kakinada for treatment where P.W.9 has examined him and issued the wound certiﬁcate. P.W.10, on receipt of the complaint from the Out Post of Kakinada Government Hospital, registered a case in Crime No.29 of 2003 under Section 324 I.P.C. and after receipt of the wound certiﬁcate, altered the section of law to 307 I.P.C. and filed charge sheet. 3. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge has framed the charges under Sections 326 and 307 I.P.C. against the accused and found the accused guilty for the charge under Section 307 I.P.C. 4. In order to establish the oﬀence, Prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 10 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-8 and M.O.1. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused in defence. 5. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, after taking into consideration of the said oral and documentary evidence, found the accused guilty for the oﬀence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C. and convicted him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 7 ½ years and to pay a ﬁne of Rs.500/-, in default, to suﬀer Simple Imprisonment for a period of one week. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the present appeal is filed by the accused. 6. Now the point that arise for consideration is whether the prosecution could able to establish the oﬀence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C. against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt? 7. The appellant’s counsel pleaded that the date of oﬀence at time of oﬀence was not established by the Prosecution and there is a discrepancy with regard to the examination of the injured by Doctor and no complaint was lodged by P.W.2 even though he has taken the injured to a private nursing home by passing through the Police Station of Rayavaram and he further pleaded that in the previous incident that occurred between P.W.1 and the wife of the accused, a panchayat was held and a ﬁne of Rs.8000/- was imposed on the accused and as he could not pay the said ﬁne of Rs.8000/-, foisted the false case against the accused. 8. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor pleaded that the evidence of P.W.1 supported by evidence of P.Ws.4, 5 and 9 establishes the date of incident, nature of incident and the nature of injuries sustained by P.W.1 and the manner in which the accused attacked P.W.1 clearly shows the intention on the part of the accused to kill P.W.1. Thus, the lower Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused for the oﬀence under Section 307 I.P.C. 9. It is the case of the Prosecution that prior to the alleged incident, on 21.04.2003, at 7.30 p.m., P.W.1 has gone to the house of the accused and tried to wake up his wife and the accused came there and caught hold of him and tried to beat him and due to the intervention of P.W.3, let oﬀ the accused and thereafter, the matter was placed before the Community Sangam and the community elders have imposed a ﬁne of Rs.8000/- on P.W.1 and time was granted till 01.05.2003 and subsequently, on 21.04.2003, when P.W.1 was near Rayavaram Bus Stand, the accused attacked him. There is no dispute with regard to the incident that has taken place at the house of the accused prior to this incident and also imposing of ﬁne by the community elders. More over, the same was supported by the evidence of P.Ws.3, 6 and 7. According to the Prosecution, the motive of the accused is that P.W.1 has tried to wake up his wife in his absence while she was sleeping in his house. As the matter was already settled by the caste elders by imposing a ﬁne, that cannot be taken as a motive for the accused to commit the offence. 10. With regard to the occurrence of the incident, P.W.1 has categorically stated that on the date of incident, he went to labour work at Koppavaram Village and returned at 6 p.m. and went to Kala Sathi Babu to enquire about the work for the next day and when he was near the bus stand at Settibalija Ramalayam, the accused came with a knife and tried to hack him on his neck and he obstructed with his left hand and received a cut blow below the thumb and the accused again hacked and it fell on the middle of the left palm. The ﬁrst blow also cut in the middle of the hand above the wrist. The third hit caused injury on the left side of his stomach. According to him, P.Ws.5 and 6 were also present along with him at the time of the incident. P.W.2 has shifted him from Chanukya Hospital of Rayavaram to Government Hospital, Kakinada for treatment. There the police came to the hospital and recorded his statement, which is Ex.P-1. The occurrence of the incident was established by the evidence of independent witnesses-P.Ws.4 and 5. With regard to the nature of injuries sustained by P.W.1., P.W.9, the Doctor who treated P.W.1, has examined him on 21.04.2003 at 9.40 p.m., and found the following injuries: 1) A bifurcated lacerated injury bleeding 8x2” bone deep present on left palm. 2) Lacerated bleeding injury 6”x1/2” bone deep curved in the lower end of left palm. 3) Lacerated bleeding injury muscle deep curved 4x4 inches skin flap on left fore arm ventrally. 4) 4 cm laceration on left loin 5) Contusion with small abrasion on left side of fore head. The X ray shows dislocation of 1st metacarpal bone and he opined that the injuries are grievous in nature. The shifting of P.W.1 to the hospital was established from the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5. The injuries sustained by P.W.1 are established from the evidence of P.W.9. According to the Investigating Oﬃcer-P.W.10, he has conducted the scene of oﬀence panchanama but nothing was seized from the scene of oﬀence and he arrested the accused in the presence of P.W.8 and as per his contention, seized M.O.1-knife, which was used by the accused in commission of the oﬀence. P.W.8 also supported the version of the Investigating Oﬃcer with regard to the arrest of the accused and seizure of M.O.1. Therefore, the Prosecution could able to establish about the injuries sustained by P.W.1 in the hands of the accused. 11. The next point to be considered is whether the accused has got any intention to kill P.W.1 or not. Admittedly, there is a dispute between accused and P.W.1 prior to this incident and the said dispute has been settled before the Panchayat and ﬁne was already imposed on P.W.1. P.W.1, in the cross examination, admitted that the accused never threatened to kill him previously and there is no galata or exchange of words between him and the accused prior to the incident and there is no previous enmity between them. Therefore, the Prosecution could not establish that the accused has got any intention to cause the death of P.W.1 by attacking him. More over, the injuries sustained by P.W.1 are not on vital parts. Since P.W.1 has sustained grievous injuries, the Prosecution could able to establish the oﬀence punishable under Section 326 I.P.C. against the accused. Hence, the accused is convicted for the oﬀence punishable under Section 326 I.P.C. instead of Section 307 I.P.C. 12. With regard to the quantum of sentence, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge has convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 7½ years and to pay a ﬁne of Rs.500/-. The appellant’s counsel has pleaded that the accused was in judicial custody from the date of his arrest i.e., 27.04.2003 till he was released by this Court after ﬁling of this appeal and as per the records, the accused was ordered to be released on bail on 18.03.2004. Therefore, the accused was in judicial custody for more than a year and even after ﬁling of the appeal, Non Bailable Warrant was issued to the accused and he was arrested and remanded to judicial custody and is undergoing sentence since last two months. In view of the nature of the oﬀence committed by the accused and his already undergone more than one year two months of sentence, I hold that the accused suﬀered suﬃcient sentence for the oﬀence committed by him. 13. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed and the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant/accused in the judgment, dated 19.01.2004, in Sessions Case No.215 of 2003 on the ﬁle of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Ramachandrapuram for the oﬀence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C. is modiﬁed to that of an oﬀence punishable under Section 326 I.P.C. and limited the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone by the accused. Therefore, the accused shall be released forthwith, if he is not required in any other case. ______________________ P.DURGA PRASAD, J 25th November, 2011 AMD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD CRL.A.NO.501 OF 2004 Date:25.11.2011 AMD