THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO Crl RC No. 1152 of 2011 ORDER: This revision is preferred against the orders passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, East Godavari District, Rajahmundry in Crl A No. 283 of 2010 which in turn was directed against the order of conviction and sentence handed down to the petitioner in SC No. 22 of 2010 by the learned I Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Rajahmundry. The petitioner has been charged for an offence under Section 307 IPC. He was found guilty of the offence under Section 326 IPC and the court at the first instance imposed a punishment of rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and also ordered him to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. It is stated that the petitioner has already paid the fine amount and it was also brought out that wisdom prevailed later on and a compromise was entered between the petitioner and the de facto complainant, who is none other than his elder brother. Taking all the material on record, the learned Sessions Judge while upholding the conviction, reduced the punishment to that of rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. So far as fine amount is concerned, it was confirmed. It is submitted that in view of the material on record coupled with subsequent developments, referred to supra, it is a fit case where the petitioner should not have been handed down a severe punishment of rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. In fact, he has already suffered incarceration for a period of three months prior to the conviction in the sessions case, and thereafter, for a period of another 15 days. To bring home the charge, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 12 and got marked Exs. P1 to P15 and MOs 1 to 3. PW1 is the de facto complainant cum victim of the assault. PW2 is the other brother with whom also the petitioner herein has developed differences over a mango garden. PWs 3 to 7 did not support the prosecution. PW8 received the hospital intimation. PW9 is the Civil Assistant Surgeon who treated PW1 upon admission in the hospital, for the injuries sustained. PW10 is the local VRO who signed Ex.P11 seizure report of the knife MO1. PW11 is the photographer, whereas PW12 is the Investigating Officer. In view of the injuries 1, 2 and 4 noted in Ex.P8 as simple in nature and in view of lack of adequate evidence, the petitioner/accused was convicted for an offence under Section326 IPC instead of Section 307 IPC. In view of the fact that the petitioner has asserted that he has compromised with his elder brother, the de fa c to complainant and upon consideration of the evidence on record, I consider it appropriate that the ends of justice would meet if the amount of fine is increased to Rs.2,000/- instead of Rs.1,000/- and reduce the period of imprisonment to the one already undergone. The petitioner be granted time to pay additional fine amount of Rs.1,000/- up to 31st May 2011. The period of rigorous imprisonment should be confined to the extent of the period of imprisonment already undergone. With this modification, after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor, the order passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge is modified. Upon payment of the additional fine amount of Rs.1,000/-, the petitioner shall be set at liberty, if he is not required in any other case. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed in part. --------------------------------- Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J Kvr/lnl/knk 24th May 2011 Note: Issue CC in (3) days (b/o) knk