THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1228 of 2009 JUDGMENT: 1. This Criminal Appeal, is filed challenging the judgment dated 24.08.2007 in Sessions Case No.7 of 2005 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Gudur, Nellore district, whereunder and whereby the trial Court convicted respondent no.1/A.1 of the offence punishable under Section 324 I.P.C. and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months, while acquitting him of the charges under Sections 307 and 506 I.P.C. and also acquitting respondents 2 and 3/ A.2 and A.3 of the charges under Sections 307, 324 and 506 read with 34 I.P.C. State preferred the present appeal for enhancement of sentence imposed against the respondent no.1/A.1 and against the acquittal. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The dispute is only trivial in nature. There was no prior acquaintance of the accused with the defacto complainant. During festival in a temple, (TIRUNALA), a small quarrel ensued between the defacto complainant and A.1, and A.1, having lost self-control, caused the injury, which, according to the Doctor, is simple in nature. The injury sustained by the victim is small cut injury ½ cm on the proximal part of right thumb. A.1 has not taken any undue advantage of the situation. In the absence of any intervening circumstances, he has not repeated the attack on the defacto complainant. The case was registered for the offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C. and A.1 was arrested on 16.3.2004. So, for some period, he was in judicial custody. A.1 is a poor labourer and he was having children, and he is repenting for the alleged incident. 4. There cannot be any dispute that, sentence should be in proportionate with the severity of the crime committed. There is no severity in the crime. A small cut injury is caused by A.1 to P.W.1. So, after recording satisfactory reasons, the trial Court rightly sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-. Under no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the sentence, as imposed by the trial court as against A.1 for the offence under Section 324 I.P.C., is inadequate. Therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the sentence imposed by the trial Court against A.1. Further more, there is no evidence to prove the other charges leveled against A.1 and so he was rightly acquitted of the same. 5. Insofar as the respondents 2 and 3/A.2 and A.3 are concerned, there is no evidence to show that they caused any injury or that they shared common intention with A.1 so as to commit the offence. The trial Court, after appreciating the evidence on record in right perspective, acquitted them, and hence, the judgment under challenge needs no interference. 6. The Criminal Appeal is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed confirming the judgment dated 24.08.2007 in Sessions Case No.7 of 2005 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Gudur, Nellore district. ---------------------- (K.C.Bhanu, J.) 14.10.2009 DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1228 of 2009 Date: 14.10.2009 Between: State of A.P. rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad …Appellant And G.Chandraiah & two others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1228 of 2009 14.10.2009