IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1144 OF 2010 BETWEEN: Karri Seshagiri Rao S/o. Kameswara Rao and others …. Petitioners AND State of A.P., rep. by the Public Prosecutor. …. Respondent HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1144 OF 2010 ORDER: The petitioners 1 to 7 / A-1, A-2, A-4 to A-8 were tried before Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Tekkali for offences under Sections 326, 323, 506 (Part-II)/34 IPC in C.C. No.90 of 2006. After trial, the Magistrate convicted A-1, A-2 and A-4 for offences under Section 324/34 IPC and imposed fine of Rs.1,000/- each; and convicted A-5 to A-8 for offence under Section 323/34 IPC and imposed fine of Rs.500/-. In the Criminal Appeal No.32 of 2009, the II Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Srikakulam confirmed the said convictions and sentence passed against the petitioners. Before the Magistrate, the prosecution could not prove grievous nature of injuries by filing X-rays and by examining Radiologist. 2. PW-1 is the injured. PW-5 is his wife. Both the Courts below relied upon evidence of PWs.1 and 5 for proof of the above offence, for which convictions were recorded. Other alleged eyewitnesses turned hostile to the prosecution. PW-5 is an interested witness, as she happened to be wife of the injured PW-1. Apart from PW-5’s evidence, there is evidence of the injured PW-1 himself. Simply because there is relationship between PWs-1 and 5, evidence of PW-5 cannot be brushed aside on that count alone. Both the Courts below scrutinized evidence of PW-5 carefully and found that her evidence is reliable. 3. It is further contended by the petitioners’ counsel that the prosecution could not prove that PW-1 was having any lands near scene of offence. According to PWs.1 and 5, the offence took place when PW-1 was bailing out water to his land from Suridu Koneru Tank. Assuming for a moment for the sake of argument, the prosecution did not establish PW-1 having any land near the scene of offence, it is no ground for disbelieving PW-1’s evidence. PW-1 owning land near the scene of offence is not a fact in issue much less a relevant fact in a criminal case pertaining to bodily injuries to the victim. According to PW-1, though he does not own any land near scene of the offence, he has got mortgaged land in his possession near the scene of offence. 4. Both the Courts below considered evidence on record in the right perspective and came to right conclusion in favour of the prosecution and convicted the petitioners for appropriate offences. This Court does not find any legal infirmity in the judgments rendered by the Courts below. 5. In the result, the revision petition is dismissed. __________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J June 29, 2010 KTL