THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA Crl.R.C.No.292 of 2005 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the judgment, dated 11.01.2004 passed in Criminal Appeal No.41 of 2003 on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Nalgonda whereby the conviction and sentence of sole accused passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Nalgonda by judgment dated 03.04.2003 in S.C.No. 412 of 2002 was confirmed. 2. The facts in brief are that PW.1 victim and the revision petitioner are residents of Kanagal village. PW.1 is a young widow living alone with her minor daughter and son; that the petitioner-accused developed intimacy since six months prior to the offence and that as his marriage was settled, he suspected that PW.1 victim may raise objections. Therefore, he decided to do away with her life. 3. That on 20-3-2002 at about 8.30 p.m. the accused went to the house of PW.1, quarrelled with her, poured kerosene on her person and set her ablaze ; that when she ran out of the house and raised cries, PWs 2 and 3 came to her rescue and extinguished the flames by wrapping a rug on her body. Neighbours took her to Police Station where after preferring Ex.p.1 complaint she was referred to District Head Quarters hospital for treatment. 4. The prosecution examined PWs 1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.7 and M.Os 1 to 3 in support of its case. However, no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked on behalf of the defence. 5. PW.1, victim has reiterated the contents of Ex.P.1 complaint and thereby supported the prosecution case fully. She has clearly stated that when she raised cries, PWs 2 and 3 came and rescued her by covering a rug and that meanwhile the accused ran away fromthere. However, a perusal of the evidence of PWs 2 and 3 reveals that they turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case at all. PW.6, Assistant Civil Surgeon who examined PW.1, found burn injuries on her face, upper limbs and upper part of back and that she suffered 25% burn injuries. He issued Ex.P.4 wound certificate. 6. PW.4 is the father of PW.1. He was not an eye witness to the incident. Rest of the witnesses are those connected with the scene of offence Panchanama and the investigation etc. Therefore, the only evidence in support of the prosecution case is that of PW.1 victim and that too without any corroboration from any of the rest of the witnesses except her father PW.4 who only stated that when he saw his daughter in the hospital she told him that she suffered burn injuries at the hands of the accused. The defence could not succeed in its attempt to break the witness. It was suggested to her that since she had disputes with her in-laws and since the accused refused to carry her, she got frustrated in life, resorted to self immolation and that the accused did not promise to marry her and he did not enjoy her physically. However, PW.1 has denied both the suggestions and that other than the said suggestion, the defence has not brought on record any other evidence in order to discredit the evidence of PW.1. 7. It appears that since soonafter the incident, PW.1 preferred a police complaint Ex.P.1 and she was also treated for her burn injuries and as such her evidence appears to have inspired confidence in both the courts below. 8. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner raised self-same contentions as were raised before the courts below. The learned Public Prosecutor supported the prosecution case stating that it is settled law that even the sole testimony of witness if trustworthy and inspires confidence, it can be believed and acted upon. 9. In the above circumstances, the revision court is of the view that the first appellate court has not committed any error or irregularity in confirming the conviction of the revision petitioner for the offence under Section 307 IPC. The trial court convicted him for the said offence and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. However, having regard to age of the revision petitioner and having regard to the fact that during the course of her evidence PW.1 stated that the accused was in a drunken condition at the time of the incident and also having regard to the fact that PW.1 was a widow aged 10 years more than the petitioner-accused and having two children and also having underwent family planning operation, it may be that because of the said circumstances, the petitioner accused must have refused to marry her. That the gist of the matter as per Ex.P.1 complaint and as per the evidence of PW.1 is that the petitioner-accused had illicit intimacy with PW.1 for about six months. It is only when his marriage was proposed with some one else, PW.1 refused to give him physical access and on that account, the petitioner accused went to her house in a drunken condition and had a quarrel with her questioning as to why she is refusing to have physical contact with him, during the course of which the incident has taken place. 10. In the circumstances, the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused are not acceptable to this court and as such the revision petition fails and the same is dismissed. However, while dismissing the revision petition, having regard to the aforesaid facts, this court is of the view that the quantum of sentence may be modified and/or reasonably reduced. Hence, the same is modified and reduced to 2 years instead of five years and pay of fine of Rs.1,000/-instead of Rs.3,000/- and default sentence of six months instead of one year. Thus, the Revision Petition stands disposed of. _______________ B.N.RAO NALLA,J 11-12-2009 Stp