THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1770 OF 2002 O R D E R: The criminal revision case filed under Sections 397 & 401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment dated 21.11.2002 in Crl.Appeal No.131 of 2001 on the file of VII Additional Sessions Judge, Madanapalle, whereunder and whereby, the conviction of the petitioner of the offence under Section 324 I.P.C., and sentence of Simple Imprisonment for six months recorded in judgment, dated 11.06.2001 in S.C.No.354 of 1991 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge, Madanapalle, Chittoor District were confirmed. 2) The brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of the present criminal revision case may be stated as follows: On 06.08.1997 at about 8.00 p.m., the accused were digging trenches for laying foundation in the disputed site. When the complainant questioned and objected the accused, then all the accused abused PW.1 and A-2 beat him with a billhook and caused bleeding injury on the left side of his head. On seeing the attack on PW.1, PW-2 came there to rescue PW-1. Then A-2 beat PW-2 on the left side of the head and left cheek and caused bleeding injury. On seeing it, PW-3 came to the rescue of PWs.1 & 2 and she was also beaten by A-2 with the same weapon on the backside of her head. Thereafter, the accused hurled stones on PW-3 and caused injuries to her. On 06.08.1997 at about 9.30 a.m., the Sub-Inspector of Police, Peddamanyam Police Station registered the case on the statement of PW-1. All the injured were sent to the Government Hospital, Madanapalle. The Doctor examined them and issued Wound Certificates. The police observed the scene of occurrence and seized blood stained billhook and other incriminating material and arrested the accused on 17.08.1997 and after completion of investigation, the police filed charge sheet for the offences under Sections 307, 324, 326 read with 34 I.P.C., against A-1 to A-4. 4) The learned Assistant Sessions Judge framed charge for the offence under Section 307 against A-1 to A-4; under Section 324 I.P.C., against A-2, under Section 326 I.P.C., against A-2 and under Section 324 and 326 read with 34 I.P.C. against A-1, A-3 & A-4, and when the charges were read over and explained to the accused, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5) To substantiate the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 9 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-9, besides case property Mos.1 to 8. On behalf of the accused, no oral evidence was adduced, but Exs.D-1 to D-4 were marked. 6) After going through the evidence placed on record, the trial court found that the charges levelled against the accused are proved, accordingly convicted the accused for the offences under Sections 324, 326 read with 34 & 307 I.P.C. On appeal, the conviction and sentence passed against the accused were set aside. A-2 alone was found guilty for the offence under Section 324 I.P.C. Challenging the same, the present criminal revision case is filed by A-2. 7) Now the point for determination is whether the judgments of both the courts below are correct, legal and proper. 8) The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is no evidence to show that A-2 caused bleeding injuries to PWs.1 to 3; that there was a dispute between PW.1 and the accused with regard to the house and that having given a benefit of doubt to A-1, A-3 & A-4, the same benefit of doubt should have been extended to the present petitioner/A-2 and hence, he prays to set aside the conviction and sentence. 9) On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor contended that concurrent findings of both the courts below need not be interfered with, unless the findings are not based upon proper appreciation of evidence on record and that the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 is very clear that A-2 beat them with a dangerous weapon like billhook and therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court as confirmed by the appellate court. 10) There cannot be any dispute that the revisional powers of this Court under Sections 397 & 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are truncated one. Unless the findings are not based upon proper appreciation of evidence or in-admissible evidence was taken into consideration or legally admissible evidence was discarded or perverse findings were given or mis-carriage of justice was caused, the revisional powers shall not be exercised. So, unless the judgments of both the courts below are perverse, the revisional powers shall not be exercised. In a revision, this court cannot sit as if in an appeal and re-appreciate the evidence. 11) It is not in dispute that PWs.1 to 3 sustained injuries. They are injured witnesses. There is a dispute between PW-1 and the accused with regard to the site. On 06.08.1997 at 8.00 a.m., when the accused were digging the earth for the purpose of laying foundation, the quarrel ensued into between PW-1 and the accused. When PW-1 objected the action of the accused, in the first instance, he was beaten by A-2 and when PWs.2 & 3 intervened, they were also beaten. 12) PW-6 is the Doctor, who examined PW-2 and found as many as five injuries. Ex.P-2 is the Wound Certificate issued by the Doctor. Out of six injuries, five injuries are grievous in nature. His opinion is based upon the opinion of the Radiologist. The trial court did not consider that part of the evidence because the X-rays taken by the Radiologist were not marked and the Radiologist was not examined. As there was no legally admissible evidence with regard to PW-2 sustaining fracture, the benefit of doubt was given. But as seen from the evidence of PW-6, it is clear that PW-2 sustained grievous injury on the vital part of head. PW.3 sustained simple injuries. It is not the case of the accused that these witnesses sustained injuries at some other place, in some other transaction, at the hands of some other persons. The presence of PWs.1 to 3 at the place of incident is established beyond all reasonable doubt. They have every reason to question the accused as to why they were digging the land. So, for that reason, there was every possibility for the accused to attack the prosecution witnesses. If really A-2 was not the assailant, there is no other reason for PWs.1 to 3 to foist a false case against him. The incident has taken place in a bright day light. So, the mistaken identity of the assailants can be ruled out immediately after the incident. 13) Ex.P-1 is the statement given by PW-1. The recitals in the earliest version in Ex.P-1 are completely in corroboration with the evidence of PW-1. The evidence of PW-1 stating that A-2 hacked him with a billhook on his head and other parts of the body remained unchallenged. Further more, with regard to sustaining injuries, the evidence of PW-2 is completely in corroboration with the medical evidence. For the reason that X-rays were not marked and the Radiologist was not examined, the trial court acquitted him for the charge under Section 326 I.P.C, but the fact remains that PW-2 sustained grievous injuries at the hands of A-2. Whoever voluntarily causes hurt by means of a dangerous weapon is an offence punishable under Section 324 I.P.C. 14) No doubt, A-1, A-3 and A-4 were acquitted basing on the evidence adduced by the prosecution. That does not mean that the same benefit of doubt should be given to A-2 also. The law is well settled that when the evidence consists of truth and falsehood, the truth can be separated from the falsehood and the court can act upon the true version. It is also well settled that when the truth and falsehood are inextricably, mixed up with eachother, it is not possible to separate truth from falsehood, the only course open to the court is to reject the entire evidence. In this case, the true version of incident as spoken to by PW-2 is consistent from the beginning and his evidence coupled with the evidence of PW-2 and PW-3 would clearly go to show that A-2 hacked not only PW-2, but also caused simple injuries to PWs.1 and 3. The weapon used is billhook, which was seized by the police at the time of observation and it can be said to be a dangerous weapon. When A-2 voluntarily caused hurt to PWs.1 to 3, it is an offence punishable under Section 324 I.P.C. All these aspects have been considered by both the courts below and arrived at a correct conclusion that A-2 caused injuries to PWs.1 to 3 with a dangerous weapon. Hence, the findings of both the courts below are based upon proper appreciation of evidence. None of the findings is shown to be incorrect or perverse. 15) The criminal revision case is, therefore, dismissed. ____________ K.C.BHANU J., Dt.03.07.2009 tjs