IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRL.R.C. No.369 OF 2004 Date:23.06.2011 Between: Bhushanpally Venkatesh and 2 others. .... Petitioners. And: The State of A.P., rep. By PP., High Court of A.P., ....Respondent. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.369 of 2004 JUDGMENT: This revision is filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C against judgment dated 27.01.2004 delivered by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District in Crl.A.No.94 of 2003, confirming conviction and sentence awarded by the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, R.R District in S.C.No.384 of 2002 dated 06.08.2003, whereby the petitioners herein were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay fine of Rs.100/- each and in default of it to suffer simple imprisonment for one week for offence punishable under Section 307 read with 34 IPC. The brief facts of the case are as follows: On 02.01.2001, the appellants went to the hotel of P.W.2, and had tea for a value of Rs.16/-, but paid only Rs.8/-. On the same day at about 6.30 p.m., P.Ws.1, 2 and 7 were returning home. When they were proceeding near PYR Hospital turning Jeedimetla, A.2 beat with an axe on the head and shoulder of P.W.2 and A.1 took the axe from the hands of A.2 and he beat on the head of P.W.2 and attempted to murder him and for long time he was in serious condition. A.3 also attacked P.W.2 with a blade and thereafter A.1 to A.3 fled away from the scene of offence. In order to establish the charge, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.8 and M.Os.1 to 4 . Whereas considering the oral and documentary evidence, the appellate court confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court, aggrieved by that the appellants herein has filed this revision. In spite of posting the matter under the caption of ‘for orders’, no representation has been made on behalf of the appellants. Heard learned Public Prosecutor. Now the point that arises for consideration is whether there are sufficient grounds to allow the petition or to modify the sentence as prayed for? I have perused the record. On the perusal of the record, it is clear that both the courts below examined the matter properly and arrived at correct conclusions and hence there is no reason to interfere with the findings given by both the courts below. Accordingly, the criminal revision case is dismissed. ________________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY,J. 23rd June, 2011. GK. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.369 of 2004 Date:23.06.2011 Gk.