THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.113 of 2005 ORDER:- This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the impugned order of the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Anantapur, dated 07.09.2004 in Criminal Appeal No.113 of 1997, whereunder and whereby the learned Sessions Judge, confirmed the order of conviction and sentence of the petitioner/A1 (since A.2 died his case was abated) for the offence under Section 325 IPC passed by the learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Anantapur in Sessions Case No.206 of 1997. The case of the revision petitioner is that he was alleged to be a rowdy element and used to tease girls. 5 (five) or 6 (six) days prior to 25.03.1996 P.W.5 happened to be present near the Sweet Shop of one K. Narayanamma where he offered a rose flower to her (PW.5) and she refused to take it and went into the sweet shop. That on 25.03.1996 at about 2.00 p.m.,P.W.5 along with P.W.6 happened to be at the shop of one Shaik Begum at Indiragandhinagar in Anantapur, A1 wished P.W.5 “how are you” and on her non response, he patted her on her back. That P.W.5 informed about the incident to her family members. That P.Ws. 2 and 3 went to the house of A1 to reprimand him, P.Ws 1 and 4 also joined P.W.2 and 3 in the house of A.1. Then, A.1 enraged with anger proclaimed that who will come to the rescue of P.W.1, if he (A1) kills him (P.W.1), saying so, he stabbed P.W.1 on his abdomen with a knife causing bleeding injury with an intention to kill him. That P.Ws. 2 to 4 rescued P.W.1. That A.2, father of A1, who is no more now and who was present in the house, armed with a sickle threatened P.Ws. 1 to 4 and chased them out of the house. P.W.1 preferred a complaint, basing on which, II Town Police Station, Anantapur registered a case in Crime No.76 of 1996 for the offences under Sections 354, 326 and 307 read with Section 34 IPC. The prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 8 and got marked Exs.P1 to P.4 and M.Os. 1 and 2 in support of its case whereas no witnesses were examined on behalf of the accused. However, EXs.D1 to D5 were marked. Taking into consideration the evidence of P.W.1, who is the defacto complainant and P.Ws. 2 to 4, who are the eye witnesses to the incident and also the other material brought on record by the prosecution, the learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Anantapur, found the petitioner/A1 guilty for the offence under Section 325 IPC though he was tried for the offence under Section 307 IPC and basing on the material on record, convicted and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default, simple Imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 325 IPC. The petitioner/A1 preferred appeal before the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Anantapur. After hearing both sides and after considering the impugned judgment of the trial Court as well as the other material on record including the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, confirmed the impugned order of conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner/A1 by the learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Anantapur in S.C.No.206 of 1997 by order dated 26.11.1997. Heard both sides. It is the case of the revision petitioner/A1 that the place of the offence is uncertain. That the prosecution witnesses P.Ws 1 to 4 have given different versions as to the manner of occurrence of the incident. That the prosecution failed to bring on record as to non-seizure and non-production of the crime weapon. It is the further case of the revision petitioner/A1 that the trial Court was not justified in finding him (A1) guilty for the offence under Section 325 IPC inasmuch as none of the prosecution witnesses have testified to be an eyewitness to the stabbing incident. That the trial Court relied on the self-serving statement of P.W.1 only and the said statement is not corroborated by any other witnesses. The revision petitioner/A1 found fault with the Appellate Court confirming the impugned order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. It is the case of the revision petitioner/A1 that the Appellate Court is also not justified in relying on the suggestions put to the prosecution witnesses in their cross- examination and therefore, he prays to take a lenient view. At this stage, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/A1 submits that the revision petitioner/A1 was quite young, aged about 20 years at the time of the alleged incident. That without admitting the prosecution case and for the sake of argument even if it is assumed that the petitioner/A1 in the heat of the moment has committed the alleged offence, the sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for two years imposed by the trial Court is harsh and suggested the Court for taking lenient view and modifying the sentence appropriately. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the appellate Court ought to have considered the fact that P.Ws 1 to 4 are inter-related. P.W.1 is the paternal uncle of P.W.5 (victim). P.W.2 is her mother. P.W.3 is her maternal uncle and P.W.4 is the wife of P.W.2. Therefore, they are all related and interested witnesses. Moreover, it is only the P.W.1, who corroborated the evidence of P.W.5 in his chief-examination. However, his version is something different in his cross-examination, which amounts to hearsay and P.Ws 2, 3 and 4 also gave different versions whereas P.W.6 was not present at the time of the incident. P.W.7 is a medical witness and P.W.8 is the Police Officer. However, the fact remains that P.W.1 came out of the house of the accused with a bleeding injury on his person and the accused was alleged to have been seen holding the knife in his hand by P.Ws 2, 3 and 4. That having regard to the factual situation as to the scene of the offence, the case of the petitioner/A1 could be believed to some extent. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner/A1 was aged about 20 years at the time of the incident and may be due to the immaturity and other factors like being in love with P.W.5 etc., a lenient view may be taken as suggested by the learned counsel for the petitioner/A1. In the circumstances, this revisional Court finds that the conviction and sentence imposed on the revision petitioner/A1, Rigorous Imprisonment for two years is harsh and the same requires to be modified and reduced to Rigorous Imprisonment for one year in the place of Rigorous Imprisonment for two years while maintaining the sentence to pay the fine amount. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. However, the sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment of two years imposed against the petitioner/A1 is modified and reduced to Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and the sentence of fine is confirmed. _________________ B.N.RAO NALLA,J Dated: 19.02.2010 Bud