THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Criminal Revision Case No.287 of 2009 Dated: 28.10.2009 Between Bitra Naga Mallikarjuna Rao. .. Petitioner. And State of A.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. .. Respondent. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Criminal Revision Case No.287 of 2009 Judgment: This revision arises out of the judgment dated 18.02.2009 passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, in Criminal Appeal No.206 of 2008, modifying the judgment dated 20.06.2008 passed in S.C. No.525 of 2007 by the Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Narsaraopet, and convicting the petitioner herein for the offence under Section 324 IPC instead of 307 IPC and sentencing him to undergo R.I for one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner and the de facto complainant have filed Crl.M.P. No.2141 of 2009 seeking permission to compound the offence, the same could not be processed, since Section 324 IPC has been made as not compoundable. He has relied on a judgment in Amar Nath Shukla vs State of Uttaranchal[1], wherein the accused was convicted for the offences under Section 436 and 147 IPC and a petition was filed by the wife of the de facto complainant to compound the offence, but the same could not be considered as the offence punishable under Section 436 IPC is not compoundable. However, considering the circumstances that the accused therein was a young married man having small kids and he was the only earning member of his family, the sentence of imprisonment was reduced to that of the period already undergone by him. In that case the accused was in jail for more than 7 months. In the light of the above referred decision, the learned counsel for the petitioner requested to reduce the sentence in this case also to that of the period already undergone by the petitioner herein. It is further submitted that the petitioner was in jail for a period of four months in this case. The briefly stated facts are as follows. The petitioner/accused and the victim girl Kum. Ponnam Suvarna are residents of Chilakaluripet. The victim girl worked as a Clerk in Bitra Cloth Shop near market center, Chilakaluripet. The petitioner and the victim girl were lovers. However, after some days, at the intervention of the elders, the victim was not responding to the accused though he was trying to contact her. Therefore, the accused developed grudge against the victim girl. It is alleged that on 16.09.2007 the accused asked the victim to talk with him and to follow him and when she refused, he grew wild and caused injuries with a blade on her right thigh, left cheek, left index finger, left hand and also on the right hand. On hearing her cries, when others came there, the accused ran away. The learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet, believing the evidence of PW.1, which is corroborated by the evidence of the Doctor PW.5, convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for a period of five years and also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer S.I. for a period of two months. However, the appellate Court, on re-appreciation of the evidence, came to the conclusion that though it is proved that the petitioner has caused injuries to PW.1, as there was no intention on the part of the petitioner to kill the injured victim girl the ingredients of Section 307 are not made out and the offence made out is only under Section 324 IPC, and accordingly, modified the conviction for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC instead of 307 IPC and sentenced the petitioner to undergo R.I. for one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-. I have gone through both the judgments. The Courts below have properly appreciated the evidence. There is nothing to interfere with the finding that the petitioner has committed the offence. Hence conviction is confirmed. However, the fact remains that the petitioner/accused and the de facto complainant victim girl have filed a petition seeking permission to compound the offence. The alleged offence took place on 16.09.2007. The petitioner was aged about 28 years as on the date of filing of the revision and he was in jail for about four months. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had stated before the trial Court that he has to maintain his wife, two minor children and his mother and that he is the sole bread winner in the family. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I consider it just and reasonable to reduce the sentence to that of the period already undergone by the petitioner/accused. Though the conviction of the petitioner/accused passed under Section 324 IPC is upheld, but the sentence is modified as indicated above. The petitioner/accused shall be set at liberty, if he is not required in any other case. The Criminal Revision Case is accordingly partly allowed. ______________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J. Date: 28.10.2009 Nsr [1] 2009 (11) SCALE 48