THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.785 of 2004 Dated:21.06.2011 Between: Pulicherla Bhommaih ……Petitioner And: State of A.P., rep. By its PP., High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. …..Respondent. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.785 of 2004 ORDER: This revision is filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C against judgment dated 05.11.2003 delivered by the Sessions Judge, Karimnagar in Crl.A.No.119 of 2000, confirming conviction and sentence awarded by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Karimnagar in S.C.No.189 of 1998 2001 dated 18.10.2000, whereby the petitioner herein was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of paying it to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months for offence punishable under section 307 IPC and he was further sentenced to undergo RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of paying it to undergo RI for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC with a direction to run both the sentences shall run concurrently. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The defacto-complainant in the case Pdala Rajaiah is the resident of Gangadhara and was living on agriculture. While so, on 7.8.1997 at about 2.20 a.m., Lachaiah, the father of the defacto- complainant while attending the calls of nature, the accused went and stabbed on his back twice with a knife. On hearing his cries, the defacto-complainant rushed there and when he tried to rescue his father, then the accused stabbed on his left hand, neck and on right shoulder with the same knife and caused bleeding injuries. The petitioner did so with an intention of kill them. The petitioner pleaded not guilty of the charges. In order to establish the charge, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 13 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.7 and M.Os.1 and 2 . Considering the oral and documentary evidence, the trial court convicted and sentenced the petitioner whereas the appellate court confirmed the same. In spite of posting the matter under the caption of ‘for orders’, no representation has been made on behalf of the appellant. Heard learned Public Prosecutor. Now the point that arises for consideration is whether there are sufficient grounds to allow the petition or to modify the sentence as prayed for? I have perused the record. On the perusal of the record, it is clear that both the courts below examined the matter properly and arrived at correct conclusions and hence there is no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings given by both the courts below. Accordingly, the criminal revision case is dismissed. ________________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY,J. Date: 21.06. 2011 GK. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.785 of 2004 Date: 21.06. 2011 Gk.