THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1876 of 2004 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case, filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C., is directed against the judgment, dated 12.10.2004, in Criminal Appeal No.176 of 2002 on the file of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ongole, whereunder and whereby the judgment, dated 13.09.2002, in Sessions Case No.32 of 2001 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Addanki, was confirmed as regards the convictions and the sentences to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 307 IPC and also to suffer imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.100/-, in default to suffer imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 506 IPC. 2. The brief facts of the case that are necessary for disposal of the Criminal Revision Case may be stated as under: - The accused and P.Ws.1 and 2 are the residents of Elchur Village. The accused developed to have a sexual desire with P.W-1 and chased and threatened her, and when she refused to satisfy his lust, he threatened that he would kill her. Then, P.W-1 reported the matter to her husband-P.W-3, but due to fear of the accused, P.W-3 did not lodge any complaint. While so, on the intervening night of 8/9.05.2000, the accused went to the house of P.W-1, woke her up by calling her name and asked for sexual intercourse and when she refused, he tried to cut her neck with a knife and when P.W-1 tried to escape, he grew wild and stabbed her on the left breast, left side of her face and left thigh with a knife. When P.W-2, who is no other than the son of P.W-1, intervened, the accused also stabbed him on the left leg and left hand. When P.W-3-the husband of P.W-1, who was sleeping by the side of cot of P.W- 1, woke up, the accused ran away. Subsequently, P.W-3 shifted P.Ws.1 and 2 to the Government Hospital, Narasaraopet. P.W-8-Head Constable upon receipt of intimation from the hospital went to the hospital and recorded the statement of P.W-1 and registered the same as a case in Crime No.19 of 2000 for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 506 I.P.C. During the course of investigation, the Police altered the Section of law to Sections 307 and 509 I.P.C. and arrested the accused. P.W-7 is the doctor who treated P.Ws.1 and 2, issued wound certificates opining that they sustained simple injuries. After completion of the investigation, the Police filed the charge sheet. 3. Charges under Sections 307, 506 and 509 I.P.C., were framed against the accused, read over and explained to him in Telugu, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-8 on its behalf. 5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating evidence appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The accused denied the same and he did not let in any oral evidence, but marked Exs.D-1 and D- 2. 6. The trial Court after considering the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 coupled with the evidence of P.W-7-doctor came to the conclusion that the intention of the accused was to kill P.W-1 and accordingly, found him guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 506 IPC and convicted and sentenced him, as stated supra. On appeal, the said conviction and sentence was confirmed by the lower appellate Court. Challenging the same, the present Criminal Revision Case is filed. 7. Now, the point for determination is whether the judgments of both the Courts below are correct, legal and proper? 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused contended that the medical evidence would go to show that P.Ws.1 and 2 sustained only simple injuries; that it is not the intention of the accused to kill either P.W-1 or P.W-2; that the ingredients of Section 307 IPC are not attracted, at best, even if the prosecution case is to be accepted, the accused is liable to be punished only for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC; and therefore, he prays to set aside the conviction and sentence recorded against the petitioner. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State, contended that the concurrent findings of both the Courts below need not be interfered with in view of the fact that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is very clear that the accused went to the house of P.W-1, threatened her and tried to kill her when she refused to have sexual intercourse with him. There is no other reason for P.Ws.1 to 3 to foist a false case against the accused and hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the convictions and sentences recorded against the petitioner by both the Courts below. 10. There cannot be any dispute that the revisional powers of this Court under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., are truncated. Unless the findings are shown to be illegal, incorrect or improper, ordinarily, this Court would not interfere with the same. A finding can be said to be perverse if it is not based upon any evidence. Similarly, this Court would not sit over as if in an appeal to re-appreciate the evidence. However, to test whether the findings recorded by both Courts below are correct or not, it is necessary to refer to the evidence adduced by the prosecution. 11. P.W-7 is the doctor who examined P.W-1 on 09.05.2000 and found the following injuries: 1. A linear cu of 10 cm in length on front of neck transversely, red in colour. 2. An incised cut of 1 cm x ¼ cm x muscle deep transversely on left breast, edges sharp, red and bleeding. 3. An incised cut of 4 cm x 1 cm, into muscle deep in middle of left fore arm posteriorly red and bleeding. “ He opined that all the injuries are simple in nature and issued Ex.P-6-wound certificate. He also examined P.W-2 on the same day at about 5.30 pm and found the following injuries: - 1. An incised cut of 2 x ½ cm in bone deep on left elbow joint. Red in colour. 2. An incised cut of 4 cm x cm. Muscle deep transversely on left leg middle, edges sharp, red and bleeding.” He opined that both the injuries on P.W-2 are simple in nature and issued Ex.P-7 wound certificate. 12. It is not the case of the accused that P.Ws.1 and 2 sustained these injuries at some other place, in some other manner and in the hands of some other person. It is not shown that these injuries are self-inflicted. Therefore, it is established that P.Ws.1 and 2 sustained injuries as mentioned in Exs.P-6 and P-7-wound certificates, respectively. 13. Now, the question to be determined is as to whether those injuries were caused by the accused or not? 14. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 would go to show that on the intervening night of 8/9.05.2000, the accused went to the house of P.W-1, woke her up by calling her name and insisted her to have a sexual intercourse and when she refused, he attacked her with a knife. When P.W-2 interfered, the accused also attacked him and on hearing cries, P.W-3-husband of P.W-1 woke up and on seeing him, the accused ran away from the scene of occurrence. 15. The evidence, to constitute an offence under Section 307 IPC must disclose that the death of a human being was attempted and that death was attempted to be caused by or in consequence of the act of the accused and such act was done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the accused knew to be likely to cause death or that the accused attempted to cause death by doing an act known to him to be imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause death or such bodily injury as was likely to cause death, the accused having no excuse for incurring the risk of causing such death or injury. To find a person guilty of an offence under Section 307 IPC actual injuries on victim may not be necessary. 16. In the instant case, the accused is a resident of the same village as that of P.Ws.1 and 2. On earlier occasion, the accused allegedly developed a desire to have a sexual intercourse with P.W-1, but when she resisted, he threatened her. On the intervening night of 8/9.05.2000, the accused went to the house of P.W-1 and caused injuries to her with a knife when she refused to have sexual intercourse with him. If really, the intention of the accused was not to kill P.W-1, there is no need to carry a knife with him and to cause injuries to P.W-1. Therefore, from the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, it is clear that the accused is the assailant of P.Ws.1 and 2. There is no other reason for P.Ws.1 to 3 to foist a false case of this nature against the accused alleging that he caused injuries to P.Ws.1 and 2 in the absence of any enmity or grouse against him. Hence, the false implication of the accused in the present case can be ruled out. 17. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that P.Ws.1 and 2 sustained simple injuries, that cannot be the decisive factor in determining as to whether Section 307 IPC is attracted or not. The intention of the accused can be gathered from the circumstances like the nature of the weapon used in the commission of the offence, the part of the body on which the injury was inflicted, etc. According to the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, the weapon used by the accused is a knife and the parts of the body on which injuries were inflicted by the accused on P.W-1 are the neck and breast, which are the vital parts of the body. Therefore, if severe force had been used by the accused that would have resulted in the death of P.W-1. The weapon used by the accused i.e., knife in the commission of the offence and the parts of the body on which P.W-1 sustained injuries would clearly go to show that the intention of the accused was to kill P.W-1. Even if the intention of the accused was not to kill P.W- 1, he must be having knowledge that his act in causing stab injury on the breast and cut injury on the neck of P.W-1 with a knife is likely to cause her death. Therefore, the trial Court as well as the appellate Court, upon consideration of the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, rightly found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and by threatening the witnesses, he also committed the offence punishable under Section 506 IPC. 18. For the foregoing discussion, there are no grounds to interfere with the conviction recorded by the trial Court, as confirmed by the lower appellate Court. 19. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the accused is aged about 34 years at the time of the incident and that a decade has elapsed; that he has four female children, whose welfare has to be looked after by him, and he has to perform their marriages and hence, prayed that at least the sentence imposed on the petitioner be reduced. 20. Considering all these aspects, a lenient view can be taken with regard to the sentence imposed on the petitioner. Accordingly, the sentence of seven years rigorous imprisonment imposed on the petitioner is reduced to two years rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC, while maintaining the fine imposed and the conviction and sentence imposed for the offence punishable under Section 506 IPC. 21. Subject to the above observations, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. _____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 23rd July, 2008 dr