HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1729 of 2004 O R D E R: This is technically a case u/Sec.307 IPC, but in reality is a case u/Sec.509 IPC. The sole accused was convicted by the learned IV Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District for the offence u/sec.307 IPC. The accused was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and fine of Rs.1,000/- with appropriate default sentence. 2. The learned Principal Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District confirmed the conviction recorded against the accused in the appeal. He however, reduced the sentence to three years rigorous imprisonment and maintained the fine recorded against the accused. Not satisfied with the findings of the appellate court, the accused preferred revision contending that the accused is not guilty and deserves to be acquitted. 3. The case of the prosecution may be stated at this stage. The offence occurred on 30.9.2003. About four months prior to the date of offence, the accused got himself introduced to P.W.1. P.W.2 is the husband of P.W.1. P.Ws.3 and 5 are the daughter and son of P.Ws.1 and 2. P.W.4 is the sister of P.W.2. The accused has been allegedly ringing the house of P.W.1 time and again and was demanding to speak to P.W.4. It would appear that the accused had an intention to make advances at P.W.4 and that he was using the acquaintance of P.W.1 to achieve his goal by telephoning her. 4. It is the case of the prosecution that as P.W.1 was feeling irritated over the conduct of the accused in ringing the house time and again, P.W.1 along with her husband P.W.2 and her sister-in-law P.W.4 went to the house of accused to complain to the parents of the accused about his conduct. What transpiring at the house of the accused is irrelevant for the purpose of this enquiry. 5. When P.Ws.1 and 2 left their house in the evening to go over to the house of the accused, they kept P.W.3, who was about 17 years old and P.W.5 who was five years old in the house, locked the house from out side and went to the house of the accused. The case of the prosecution is that the accused crawled into the locked house from the balcony and attempted to kill P.W.3 with M.O.2 knife. P.Ws. 3 and 5 raised alarm when the accused was attempting to kill P.W.3. It is the further case of the prosecution that P.W.6 watchman of the premises and others noticed the accused running away from the complex where the house of P.W.1 is situate. Subsequently, P.W.1 lodged a police compliant against the accused. P.W.3 was later treated by a doctor on 8.10.2003 at which time Ex.P3, medical certificate was issued. 6. It is the case of the leaned counsel for the accused that when the offence occurred on 30.9.2003, the question of the doctor treating P.W.3 on 8.10.2003 would not arise at all. I agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the accused and hold that the medical certificate under Ex.P3 has not been proved by the prosecution. 7. Be that as it may, the case of the prosecution is that the accused attempted to kill P.W.3. P.Ws.3 and 5 alone could be the eye-witnesses to the incident. Both of them spoke about the incident. P.Ws.3 and 5 categorically stated that the accused entered the house and attempted to kill P.W.3 with the help of M.O.2 knife. Their evidence is partly corroborated by P.W.6, who saw the accused running away from the scene of offence. The evidence of P.Ws.3 and 5 as corroborated by P.W.6 is sufficient to conclude that the incident occurred as alleged by the prosecution. At the same time, the medical certificate disproved the case of the prosecution to the extent of the injury upon the person of P.W.3. Thus this is a case where the intended attack by the accused against P.W.3 is made out. The actual attack and the nature of the injury caused by the accused to PW.3 however are not made out. I am constrained to hold that the P.W.3 did not sustain any injury although there was an attack upon P.W.3 by the accused. 8. Whether any injury is caused or not, so long as the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 5 is consistent, the case of prosecution that the accused attempted to murder P.W.3 is made out. The trial court and the appellate court therefore, are perfectly justified in concluding that the accused was guilty of the offence u/sec.307 IPC. 9. Regarding the quantum of sentence, it may be recalled that the trial court convicted the accused to rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years. The appellate court reduced the rigorous imprisonment to a period of three years. The accused was described to be about 18 years old at the time of commission of offence. Added to it, the injury upon P.W.3 was not proved. Even according to prosecution, the injury sustained by P.W.3 was only a simple injury. I therefore, consider, taking the age of the accused and the nature of the injury caused by him into consideration that it would be just and proper to reduce the imprisonment to rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months, maintaining the fine recorded by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court. 10. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed. So far as the conviction recorded by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court is concerned, in as much as the question is regarding the sentence, the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months together with fine and default sentence as recorded by the trial court. The accused/revision petitioner is indeed entitled to the benefit of the provisions u/sec.428 Cr.P.C. _____________ K.G.SHANKAR,J Dt. 15.7.2011 Mjl/*