THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1537 OF 2004 ORDER: This criminal revision petition is filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. by the petitioner – Accused Meduthapally Saidulu against the judgment of the learned VI Additional Sessions Judge, (III F.T.C.) Warangal at Mahaboobabad, in Crl.A.No.68 of 2004, under which the conviction and judgment passed against the petitioner-accused in C.C.No.335 of 1999 dated 05.04.2004 by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mahaboobabad, Warangal, was confirmed. 2. Heard. 3. The relevant facts are as follows: There were disputes between the accused and one Digajerla Pattabhi of Bavojigudem village. On account of that the accused warned his community people not to attend coolie work in the fields of said Pattabhi, but no body cared. On 16.05.1999, the victim P.W.2 and others went to agricultural fields for coolie work. While they were returning after coolie work, the accused along with others questioned them as to why they attended coolie work. P.W.2 replied that he cannot question, then the accused grew wild and beat her with a stick on her left leg saying that inspite of his warning, they went to the field of Pattabhi for coolie work, unless their legs were broken they would not stop. On account of that P.W.2 suffered fracture of the leg. The blow was such violent that the broken bone came out along with flush. A complaint was given and a case in Cr.No.57 of 1999 of Maripeda Police Station was registered for the offence punishable under Section 326 IPC and investigated. Charge sheet was filed. The accused pleaded not guilty for the charge under Section 326 IPC framed against him. 4. On behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 8 were examined and Exs.P1 to P7 were marked. Out of the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution, P.W.1 is the son-in-law of P.W.2 the victim, who gave the complaint to the police and he is the eyewitness to the incident. P.W.2 is the victim herself. P.W.3 is the husband of P.W.2, who is also an eyewitness to the incident. P.Ws.4 to 7 turned hostile. P.W.8 is the Medical Officer, who examined P.W.2 and issued medical certificate Ex.P6 and deposed that P.W.2 sustained laceration, which exposed the bone. Radiologist report revealed that P.W.2 suffered compound fracture lower 1/3rd of the tibia and mid 1/3rd of tubla. Ex.P7 is the radiologist report. 5. On the basis of the evidence, the learned Magistrate convicted the petitioner under Section 326 IPC and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months and pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days. The appellate Court confirmed the conviction and sentence, though the conviction is modified to one under Section 325 IPC from 326 IPC. 6. Now, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that independent witnesses turned hostile. Inspite of that both the Courts have erroneously convicted the petitioner, that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 could not have been relied as all of them were related. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor contends that the evidence of P.W.2 the victim and evidence of P.W.3 her husbands, who was eyewitness to the incident clearly proves the prosecution case against the petitioner. 8. Now, the point for consideration is: Whether there are any grounds to allow the revision? 9. A reading of the deposition of P.W.2 the victim shows that her evidence itself is sufficient to convict the petitioner. She has spoken about the petitioner-accused questioning her and her husband for going to coolie work to the fields of Pattabhi and then beating up her saying that unless their legs are broken, they would not stop going to coolie work to Pattabhi’s fields. Chief- examination of P.W.2 is as follows: “I am a resident of Bavojigudem. I do coolie work. P.W.1 is my son-in-law. About more than 4 years back on one day I went to the field of Pattabhi for thrashing while returning from the field the accused stated to me that I am attending coolie work in the field of against his instructions and that I would mould myself if my leg was broken. So saying the accused beat with stick on my left leg I sustained fracture injury. Ch.Srinu, N.Yadagiri and Lingaiah and P.Uppalaiah were witnessed the incident. P.W.1 gave complaint to the police. Police referred me to Hospital. Police examined me and recorded my statement.” Her cross-examination reads as follows: “I gave complaint to the police. I do not know whether there are disputes between Pattabhi and the accused. At about 2.00p.m. I was returning from the field. The field of Pattabhi is very near to my house. It is not correct to say that the accused beat me and that I received injury when I fall in the agricultural well and I gave complaint at the instance of Pattabhi. The alleged incident was happened in front of the accused Midthapally Muthaiah.” 10. Thus, absolutely nothing is elicited in the cross- examination of P.W.2 to say that she is giving false evidence. Only a suggestion is made saying that the accused did not beat her and she received injuries by fall in the agricultural fields. It is not suggested to her as to what is the motive for her to falsely implicate the petitioner. The evidence of P.W.3 the husband of P.W.2 is corroborated with her. Though in his cross-examination it is elicited that the accused did not ask them not to attend coolie work in the fields of Pattabhi, with regard to the actual beating, nothing is elicited from the cross-examination of P.W.3 or to say that the witness had any motive to falsely implicate the petitioner. 11. In these circumstances, there are absolutely no grounds to interfere with the findings of the Courts below and the revision is liable to be dismissed, accordingly the same is dismissed. However, considering the fact that the incident has taken place in the year 1999, it may not be desirable to send the petitioner to jail again at this length of time as everybody including P.Ws.2 and 3 might have forgotten about the incident and they might be living peacefully in the village and now sending the petitioner to jail may give raise to fresh cause of action for disputes. 12. In the circumstances, the sentence is modified into fine of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees twenty five thousand only) in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. Out of the fine amount recovered, an amount of Rs.15,000/- be paid to P.W.2. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. 17th June 2010, Rns