THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 828 of 2001. JUDGEMENT: This appeal is filed against the Judgement dt. 17.10.2000 in S.C.No. 369 of 1999 on the file of the learned Asst. Sessions Judge, Asifabad whereby and whereunder, the learned Asst. Sessions Judge convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 307 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- , in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. I have heard Ms.M.Hemalatha, legal aid counsel appearing for the appellant and Ms. Aruna for the Public Prosecutor representing the State. Brief facts of the prosecution case may be stated as under: The appellant/accused was suspecting one Madavi Bheemaiah (Lw.9) to be practising sorcery and witch-craft and using the same against Pw.4 who is the wife of Pw.3. Keeping this in mind, the appellant threatened the said Madavi Bheemaiah that he would kill him. On 1.3.1999 Pw.3 went to the house of Pw.2 (injured) who was the Sarpanch of the village and informed about the threat given by the appellant to his father-in-law on the ground that he was using sorcery against Pw.4. Thereupon, Pw.2, who was the Sarpanch of the village held a panchayat on the same day at about 6 p.m. by summoning the appellant. During the course of panchayat, Pws 3 and 4 reported to Pw.2 that the appellant threatened Bheemaiah to kill him stating he was using sorcery against Pw.4, then Pw.2 advised the appellant that there is no such thing as sorcery or witch-craft and he should not believe those superstitions, thereupon the accused grew wild and removed a knife from his waist and stabbed Pw.2 in his abdomen and caused bleeding injury. On the report lodged by Pw.2, the Police Rebbena registered a case in Cr.No. 33 of 1999 under Section 307 IPC and investigated into the matter and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was laid against the appellant. In order to prove the guilt of the appellant, the prosecution has examined Pws 1 to 11 and got marked Exs: P.1 to P.11 and M.Os. 1 to 4. The appellant did not examine any witness but Exs: D.1 and D.2 are marked on his behalf. The learned trial court, upon considering the entire material available on record, convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 307 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed the present appeal. I have gone through the entire evidence brought on record. Pw.2 who is the injured witness, and Pws 3 and 4 who were present at the time of incident and eye witnesses to the incident have categorically spoken about the fact of the appellant removing a knife from his waist and stabbing Pw.2 in his abdomen when he advised him not to believe sorcery or witch-craft. The evidence of Pws 2 to 4 is consistent, reliable and cogent with regard to the incident and it is not possible to take a different view to that of the trial court in so far as recording of conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 307 IPC. However, as regards the sentence imposed against the appellant, it appears to be severe and it is not commensurate with the criminal act done by the appellant. The appellant is a tribal and he had no enmity whatsoever against Pw.2 who was the Sarpanch of the village. When Pw.2 questioned the appellant in the panchayat as to why he threatened Bheemaiah suspecting to be practising sorcery, he grew wild and stabbed Pw.2 in his abdomen. The manner in which the offence was committed by the appellant goes to show that it was not pre-meditated. Considering all the aspects of the case, the trial court ought to have awarded a lesser punishment. Taking into consideration the fact that more than eleven years have lapsed from the date of offence and taking into consideration the fact that the appellant is a tribal and committed the offence in a spur of moment the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period, which the appellant had already undergone. With the above modification in the sentence, the appeal is partly allowed. __________________________ R.KANTHA RAO,J 26.8.2010. KRB. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 828 of 2001. JUDGEMENT: DT. 26.8.2010.