THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA Crl.R.C.No.262 of 2005 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the judgment, dated 28.01.2005 in Sessions Case No.165 of 2004 on the file of III Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, whereby the learned Sessions Judge convicted A1 and A2 for the offence under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC. 2. The prosecution case is that due to property disputes, A1 and A2 bore grudge against PW.1 and her husband. On 27.5.1997 at about 12.00 noon A.1 and A.2 assaulted PW 1 and her husband with sticks causing injuries. 3. During the trial, PWs 1 to 6 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P4 were marked. No defence witnesses were examined. PW.1 is none other than the victim who is stepmother of A1 and A.2. 4. After conclusion of the trial, A.1 and A2 were convicted for the offence under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default, simple imprisonment for three months each, while acquitting them for the offence under Section 307 read with 34 IPC. As against the said conviction and sentence, the present Criminal Revision Case is filed. 5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners –A1 and A2 submitted that there was no property dispute at all between A1 and A2 on one hand and PW.1 and her husband on the other. In fact, the family properties stand in the name of A.1 and his maternal uncle and that property disputes existed between PW.1 and her husband on account of which there was a quarrel between them, during the course of which they pushed each other and they fell down and sustained injuries. That A1 and A2 removed them to hospital of PW.2. 6. PW2 and PW.6- medical officers stated in their evidence to the effect that PW.1 and her husband suffered superficial injuries due to accidental fall and that taking advantage of the said incident and having grudge against A1 and A2, PW1 and her husband conveniently preferred false case against them two days after the incident i.e. 29.5.1997. 7. No defence witnesses were examined. PW.3 was not an eye witness to the incident. Whereas PW.4 is the Investigating Officer who investigated the case and PW.5 is the Sub- Inspector of Police who laid charge sheet. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that except the evidence of PW.1, who is defacto complainant, there is no evidence against A1 and A2 to warrant conviction under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC. As such he submitted that the trial court ought not to have convicted them for the said offence while acquitting them for the offence under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC. Lastly he submitted that the impugned conviction and sentence of A1 and A.2 for the offence under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC passed by the trial court may be set-aside and both the accused may be acquitted of the said offence by allowing the Criminal Revision Case. 8. The learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned order of the trial court for convicting the revision petitioners-A1 and A2 for the offence under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC. 9. On perusal of Ex.P.1 complaint and Exs.P.3 and P.4 wound certificates discloses that PW.1 and her husband suffered fracture injuries at the hands of A1 and A2. Even the evidence of PW.6- Dr.M.V.Ramana corroborates the same. Therefore, the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners cannot be accepted. It is clearly recorded in Exs.P.3 and P.4 wound certificates in the case history that A1 and A2 attacked PW.1 and her husband and caused fracture injuries. 10. In the above circumstances, this court is of the view that the trial court by taking a lenient view convicted both the accused for the offence under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC, while acquitting them for the offence under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC. 11. Hence, the criminal revision case fails and the same is dismissed. _______________ B.N.RAO NALLA,J 26 -11-2009 Stp