THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.780 of 2011 BETWEEEN: 1.A.Venkateswarlu & another. … Appellants AND 1. The State of A.P.& 4 others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.780 of 2011 JUDGMENT: The de facto complainants/PWs 1 and 2 intend to file this appeal against judgment passed by the lower Court, whereby A1, A3 and A4 were convicted for the offence under Section 324 I.P.C. instead of the offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C. Eighteen days of custody during investigation was imposed as substantive punishment and it was given set-off by the lower Court. 2. Both the parties are adjacent land owners. PW2 is related to the accused. Admittedly there are land disputes between the parties. The trouble arose when the accused were doing agricultural operations and were meddling with the bund. The weapons with which the accused were armed were sickle and spade, which are agricultural elements. It is evidence of PW1 that he sustained injury in between thumb and index finger when A1 aimed a blow on his head with sickle. PW2 sustained injuries on head with spade. The lower Court believed the attack of the accused party against the injured, but found that there was no intention to kill PWs 1 and 2. This was not an attack which was pre-planned. The incident developed at the scene itself when PWs 1 and 2 questioned the accused. Simply because sickle is used as against head of PW1, one cannot jump to the conclusion that A1 intended to kill PW1. If really A1 intended to kill PW1, PW1 would have sustained more severe injury than an incised injury on the left hand between thumb and index finger. If any aggressive force is used with weapons like sickle and spade, they would have caused severe injuries by way of injuries to bone or cutting off the fingers. Having regard to nature of injuries sustained by PWs 1 and 2 and circumstances in which the incident occurred, the lower Court rightly found that the accused were guilty of the offence under Section 324 I.P.C. and not Section 307 I.P.C. There are no grounds either on facts or in law to interfere with the finding of the lower Court. 3. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. _____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J Dated:25.07.2011 ysk THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJUL CRIMINAL APPEAL No.780 of 2011 DATED:25.07.2011 ysk