HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 622 of 2003 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision is directed against the judgment of the learned II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Srikakulam made in Criminal Appeal No. 116 of 1997, dated 27.1.2003. The case of the prosecution is that there are ill-feelings existing between the petitioner and the respondents-accused with regard to panchayat elections. While so, on 12.6.1995, at about 11.30 hours, P.W.1 along with P.Ws. 2 to 4 were proceeding to Mandal Office for filing nomination by PW.4 for the post of Sarpanch, the accused called them to the house of A5 where they asked the petitioner to withdraw the proposal of filing nomination by P.W.4. When P.w.1 expressed his reluctance, the accused felt offended and proclaimed that they will spend even Rs. 50.00 lakhs and exhorted to kill him; that A5 beat him with a knife on his head, A6 beat him with a knife on the palm of his hand, A2 beat him with a knife on the wrist of his left hand; A1 beat him with a spear on his left and right shoulder. Then,A6 hacked P.W.2 with a knife on his right hand and A1beat P.w.2 with a knife on his head and A9 hacked P.w.2 with a knife on his left hand; that A6 hacked P.W.4 with a knife on the palm of her left and that P.W.4 was beaten with stout sticks and knives on his head and face. On the basis of the complaint lodged by P.w.1, case in Crime No. 53 of 1995 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 307 read with 34 I.P.C., and submitted the F.I.R. with all copies to all the concerned. Thereafter, P.W.11, recorded the statements of P.Ws. 1 to 3 and seized blood stained clothes and the material objects 1 to 4 under Ex.P3, mediators report in the presence of P.W.8 and another and sent the injured to the Government Hospital, Amadalavalasa where P.W.10 the doctor examined P.Ws. 1 to 4 and referred P.w.3 to the District Head Quarters Hospital for x-ray. Then P.w.9, the Radiologist took x rays under Exs. P5 and P6 of P.W.2 and sent the same to P.W.10, who thereafter, issued wound certificates under Exs. P8 to P11. According to the doctor, P.W.2 sustained a fracture on his right shoulder and that injury is grievous in nature and the other injuries on the person of P.w.s 1 to 4 are simple in nature. He also opined that the age of the injuries was 24 hours prior to his examination and might have been caused with a sharp edged weapon like spears and knives. Thereafter, P.W.11, visited the scene of offence on 13.6.1995 and prepared a rough sketch under Ex.P13. P.w.11, thereafter examined the witnesses and recorded their statements and thereafter, arrested Accused Nos. 5 to 7. He also recovered the material objects 5 to 7 from Accused Nos. 5 and 6. On completion of investigation, P.W.12, the successor of P.W.11 filed charge sheet against the accused. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 12 and got marked Exs. P1 to P16, besides, case properties under M.Os. 1 to 7. On behalf of the defence, D.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined and got marked Exs. D1 to D7. Having analysed the evidence, the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, found the Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 5 to 9 guilty of the offences under Sections 307 read with 34 I.P.C.; A6 for the offence under Section 326 of I.P.C. and A1,A2 and A6 to A9 for the offence under Section 324 of I.P.C. and accordingly convicted them of the said offences. He, however, acquitted A3 and A4. For the offence under Section 307 read with 34 of I.P.C., the learned Judge sentenced A1, A2 and A5 to A9 to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years each and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months each; further sentenced A1,A2 and A6 to A9 to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months each for the offence under Section 324 of I.P.C. and A6 was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years for the offence under Section 326 of I.P.C. and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months. It also ordered that an amount of Rs.4200/- out of the fine amount to be recovered for the offence under Section 307 read with Section 34 I.P.C., be paid to P.Ws. 1 to 4- injured and Rs.1,000/- out of the fine amount to be paid by A6 to be paid to P.w.2, as compensation. Challenging the said judgment of the trial Court, the accused filed Criminal Appeal No. 116 of 1997 before the learned II Additional District & Sessions Judge Srikakulam. The learned District Judge, through his judgment dated 27.1.2003 allowed the appeal in part holding thus: “In the result, I find the appellants 2 and 3/accused 1 and 5 guilty for the offence under section 324 I.P.C. and convict and sentence them to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each for that offence and I also find the 4th appellant/6th accused guilty for the offence under Section 326 of I.P.C. and convict and sentence him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for that offence. The fine amount is already paid by the above appellants/accused in the lower court and so, order regarding default sentence for non-payment of fine is not passed. Rs.1,000/- out of the fine amount, is ordered to be paid to P.w.2 as compensation. The fine amount paid by the appellants for their other offences is ordered to be refunded to them. The other convictions and sentences imposed upon the appellants/accused and other order regarding payment of compensation to the prosecution party are set aside. The conviction upon 4th appellant/accused No.6 is confirmed and the sentence imposed upon him is modified. The conviction imposed upon appellants 2 an 3/accused 2 and 5 are altered into Sec.324 I.P.C. from Sec.307 read with 34 IPC and sentence imposed upon them is modified. The appeal is thus partly allowed with the above modification in the conviction and sentences.” The State has not chosen to file any appeal or revision against the judgment of the learned District & Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No. 116 of 1997, dated 27.1.2003. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. In my considered view, the appellate Court is justified in modifying the sentence imposed by the trial Court and the same needs no interference. Further, the petitioner- complainant filed the present revision seeking enhancement of sentence imposed on the respondents-accused. The scope for enhancement of sentence is very much limited. Even if this Court ultimately holds that the judgment of the lower appellate Court modifying the sentence is not correct, the maximum that can be done is to remand the mater to the lower appellate Court and this Court cannot impose any other sentence than what is already imposed as the alleged offences have taken place in the year 1995. In the light of the above, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the judgment of the lower appellate Court dated 27.1.20003 made in Criminal Appeal No. 116 of 997. The revision petition is liable to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed. ____________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA,J Date:5th August, 2010 pnb