THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1893 OF 2003 ORDER: 1 The petitioner herein was tried for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Jangaon in S.C.No.673 of 1997. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, having assessed the entire evidence on record i.e. P.Ws. 1 to 12 and Exs.P1 to P7, came to the conclusion that the petitioner is guilty of the offence punishable under section 326 of IPC and accordingly sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months. The same was questioned by the petitioner in Criminal Appeal No.66 of 2002 and the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal, while dismissing the said appeal, confirmed the said sentence. The same is questioned in this revision. 2 The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the petitioner and the victim i.e. P.W.4 are brothers and got partitioned family lands long back. Subsequently they purchased two pieces of lands, one acre each, adjacent to each others and that there was a boundary dispute between them so also frequent quarrels whenever cattle of them trespassed in each others lands for grazing purpose. On 25.12.1999 at about 2.00 PM while the victim i.e. P.W.4 was ploughing in his land with a gorru belonging to the petitioner which was brought by the servant of P.W.4 on the instructions of P.W.4 thinking that it was of one Lambadi Panthulu, the petitioner came in a highly enraged mood and beat the victim P.W.4 on his neck from back side due to which he fell down with bleeding injury. Even thereafter the petitioner beat the victim with blunt portion of the axe on his back indiscriminately. When the wife of the injured i.e. P.W.2 and other eye witnesses i.e. P.Ws.3, 5 and 6 came and raised hue and cry, the petitioner fled away with the axe. 3 Hard both sides. 4 The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is absolutely no evidence to hold that the petitioner had committed the said offence and according to him the alleged eye witnesses are planted by the investigating agency and they are interested in the prosecution. 5 Per contra, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the courts below have given cogent reasoning in holding that the petitioner is guilty of the offence and the said finding of both the courts below does not call for any interference. 6 P.W.4 is the victim in this case. P.W.1 is his son and P.W.2 is his wife. P.Ws.3, 5 and 6 are eye witnesses to the incident. But, however, P.W.3 did not support the case of the prosecution. Even if it is accepted that the prosecution has planted the witnesses, it can at best be said that P.Ws.1 and 2 are interested in P.W.4. According to the case of the prosecution, P.Ws. 5 and 6 have nothing to do either with the petitioner or with the victim i.e. P.W.4. According to them, while they were going towards their agricultural well through the field of the victim, they saw the incident. According to them, they heard the cries of P.W.4. These two witnesses have in unequivocal terms deposed that the petitioner beat P.W.4 with an axe and the said evidence is corroborated by the evidence of P.W.7 the doctor. In fact, to one of the suggestions put by the petitioner that the said injury, which the victim had sustained, can be caused due to fall on a short edged blade, the doctor negatived the same. The evidence of P.Ws.5 and 6 coupled with the evidence of P.W.7, this court is of the firm view that the alleged incident has happened only in the way as spoken to by the prosecution witnesses. 7 In the light of the above, this court sees no merits in this revision and hence the same is liable to be dismissed. 8 Apparently, the petitioner and the victim are brothers and they have some land disputes. Further, the alleged incident took place on 25.12.1999 i.e. 11 years back. 9 For the above reasons, this court takes lenient view and reduces the said sentence of five years to 18 months. Excepting the said modification, in all other aspects, this revision is dismissed. The petitioner is directed to be taken into custody for serving the remaining period of sentence. The remand period, which the petitioner had already undergone, is given set off under section 428 of Cr.P.C. -------------- 04.06.2010 Kvsn