HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.799 OF 2010 DATE: 21.06.2010 Between: Buduma Veeraiah …….Petitioner And: The State of AP., rep. by PP and another ……Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.799 OF 2010 ORDER: The defacto-complainant is the revision petitioner. The respondents 2 and 3 who are A-1 and A-2 were charged by the lower court for offences punishable under Sections 326 and 325/34 IPC respectively. After considering evidence of P.Ws.1 to 6 and Exs.P-1 to P-5, the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Mahabubabad in C.C.No.93 of 2008 convicted A-1 for offence under Section 324 IPC and A-2 for offence under Section 324/34 IPC. The lower court imposed fine of Rs.2,000/- on A- 1 and fine of Rs.1,500/- on A-2. Even though the lower court relied upon P.Ws. 1 to 3 for recording conviction, the lower court pointed out that the prosecution has failed to adduce legal evidence regarding grievous injury sustained by P.W.1. The prosecution though examined P.W.4 who is Medical Officer who gave Ex.P-2 wound certificate of P.W.1 basing on Ex.P-3 radiology report, did not examine the radiologist who issued the report regarding the alleged fracture sustained by P.W.1, the prosecution also did not file X-ray taken on P.W.1 to prove grievous nature of his injury. In the absence of production of legal evidence for proof of grievous nature of injury, the lower court rightly recorded conviction against A-1 and A-2 for offence under Section 324/34 IPC. In so far as sentencing pattern is concerned, the lower court took note of advanced age of A-1 to impose fine only instead of sentence of imprisonment. A-1 is stated to be a person aged 70 years. It is A-1 who is stated to have inflicted injury on P.W.1’s wrist with butt end of axe by snatching the same from P.W.1. A-2 was not holding any weapon much less did anything against P.W.1. He is stated to have fisted P.W.2. Further, the incident is result of certain land dispute between the parties. Having regard to all the circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that sentence imposed by the lower court on A-1 and A-2 is lenient. This Court does not find any reasons to interfere with sentencing of A-1 and A-2 and also regarding conviction of A-1 and A-2 for offence under Section 324/34 IPC. In the result, the revision petition is dismissed. However, the lower court is directed to pay fine amount of Rs.3,500/- (Rupees three thousand and five hundred only) paid by A-1 and A-2 to P.Ws.1 and 2 respectively towards compensation. ___________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J. Date:21.06.2010. GK. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.799 OF 2010 Date:21.06.2010 Gk.