IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO : 892 of 2008 (Criminal Revision case under Section:_______ against the Judgement in CRL.A NO : 90 dated 18/03/2008 on the file of the Court of the VI ADDL.SESSN.JUDGE(FTC) COURT, PRAKASAM AT ONGOLE to setaside the Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Assistant Sessions Judge, at markapur, in Sessions Case No.67 of 2003, dated 20.08.2007 and confirmed by the Hon'ble Court of Sessions, Prakasam Division at Markapur in C.A.No. 90 of 2007, dated 18.3.2008 and be pleased at allow this revision and be pleased to acquit the petitioner/accused,preferred against the order in SC 67 2003 dated 20/08/2007 on the file of the Court of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Markapur) Between: Palakayala Jyothi @ Kavitha, W/o. Jeevan, R/o. Juvvalapalli Village, Kolluru Mandal, Guntur District. ..... PETITIONER AND The State, through the Sub- Inspector of Police, Cumbum P.S., rep by Public Prosecutor, High Cout of A.P., Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.SURENDER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following : PSR, J. Crl.R.C.No. 892 of 2008 Judgment This revision case is filed against the judgment of the learned VI Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Prakasham Division at Markapur in C.A.No. 90 of 2007, which, in turn was filed against the judgment of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Markapur in S.C.No. 67 of 2003. The sole petitioner, who was the sole accused in S.C.No. 67 of 2003, was convicted for the offence under section 328 IPC and sentenced to under go rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs.500-00 in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month and also convicted for the offence under section 324 IPC and sentenced to suffer one year rigorous imprisonment. On appeal, the same was confirmed by the learned appellate Judge. 2. The prosecution case is that PWs 1 and 2 are wife and husband and working as Teachers at Madanapullalacheruvu and Besthavaripeta villages respectively, and residing in Darga village. The accused originally belongs to Juvvalapalem village, Kolluru Mandal of Guntur District. They engaged the accused as their maid servant on a salary of Rs.500-00 per month, apart from boarding and lodging. On 10-8-2003, on the occasion of Ganesh festival, PW-1, the victim, wore valuable gold ornaments. On seeing that the accused thought of steeling them and was waiting for an opportunity. On 14.9.2003, second Saturday, PW-2, husband of PW-1 went to Ongole Headquarters on personal work and PW-1 was alone in the house. At that time, the accused, in pursuance of her plan, gave butter milk mixed with five anxit tablets to PW-1, who consumed half of that quantity saying that it is bitter and left the remaining half. After consuming the said buttermilk, PW-1 became semi-conscious and fell on the cot. Then the accused tied her legs and hands with cotton rope, pressed her mouth with coconut rope, fisted on her chest; bit on her right upper hand, closed her mouth and pressed her throat with hands with an intention to kill her. PW-1 became conscious, threw the accused aside and started shouting and loosened the ropes. Meanwhile neighbours came there and on seeing them; the accused ran away and was found hiding in a heap of red-gram sticks from where she was brought by PWs-3 to 6. 3. PW-2, on information, returned home; the brother of the accused was also sent for and a complaint was given to police. 4. The accused pleaded not guilty for the charges under sections 328, 324, 307, 381 read with 511 IPC. 5. On behalf of the prosecution PWs 1 to 12 were examined and Exs P-1 to P7 were marked, apart from MOs 1 to 4. When examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied the incriminating material appearing against her in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses; but the accused got marked DWS 1 to 3, the contradictions in the evidence of PWs 3 to 5, on her behalf. 6. On the basis of the material on rerecord, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge found the accused guilty, convicted and sentenced her, as already referred to, which was confirmed by the appellate court. 7. The defence before the trial court was that there is no dispute about the accused being employed by PWs 1 and 2, as maid servant; but it was contended that PW-1 was suspecting illegal intimacy between PW-2 and the accused and therefore she falsely implicated the accused to get rid of her, which contention was rightly not accepted by both the courts below. 8. The point that arises for consideration is whether there are any grounds for allowing the revision case? 9. It is a case where the accused was caught red-handed. Apart from oral evidence of PW-1, the victim and PWs – 3 to 6, neighbours who came there on hearing the shouts of PW-1, there is medical evidence showing that the victim suffered injuries on her mouth and neck etc., on account of the accused tying her with ropes. The contention that PW-1 suspecting illegal intimacy between her husband (PW-2) and the accused, she has falsely implicated the accused, is very difficult to accept, in view of the overwhelming oral and circumstantial evidence.. 10. In this revision no question or law or no material to show that the trial court or the appellate court substantially went wrong in appreciating the evidence, is brought to my notice. As already referred to, it is a case where the accused was caught red-handed; there is supporting material, apart from the evidence of PW-1 to show that immediately the accused was caught; further the accused also made extra judicial confession before PWs 4 to 6 and there is medical evidence corroborating the prosecution case. 11. In all these circumstances, there are absolutely no grounds to allow the revision case and it is accordingly dismissed. 12. The conviction of the petitioner/accused for the offences under sections 328 and the 324 IPC are confirmed. But, the sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment imposed on the petitioner/accused for the offence under section 328 IPC is reduced two years rigorous imprisonment; while confirming the sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment imposed on the petitioner/accused for the offence under section 324 IPC. The sentence of fine is confirmed. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. The period of detention already undergone by the petitioner/accused shall be given set off under section 428 Cr.P.C.7. _______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. Dated: 18---03---2010. *BVS