THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1081 of 2004 Dated:17.06.2011 Between: K. Pedda Ramudu ……Appellant And: State of A.P., rep. By its PP., High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. …..Respondent. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1081 of 2004 JUDGMENT: This revision is filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C against judgment dated 31.03.2004 delivered by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Mahaboobnagar at Gadwal in Crl.A.No.115 of 1998 confirming conviction and sentence awarded by the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Gadwal in C.C.No.139 of 1997 dated 9.9.1998, whereby the petitioner herein was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC and to pay fine of Rs.200/- and in default of payment to suffer simple imprisonment for three months for offence punishable under Section 504 IPC. The brief facts of the case are as follows: On 30.1.1997 at 11.30 hours Kurva Pedda Ramulu lodged a report that on the same day at about 7.30 a.m while he was grazing his sheep near Bhogamoni Bhavi at about 7.30 hours, A.1 and A.2 beat with stones and a stick on his head and caused bleeding injuries keeping previous grudges in mind and also on a complaint that the sheep of Kurva Pedda Ramulu grazed in their fields and on hue and cries Kurva Chinthalanna and Jurva Jayanna intervened and on their intervention A.1 and a.2 left the injured. In order to establish the charge, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.5 and M.O.1. Considering the oral and documentary evidence, the courts below convicted the petitioner/appellant to suffer simple imprisonment of six months and to pay fine of Rs.200/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment of three months. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the present revision is filed by the appellant. In spite of posting the matter under the caption of ‘for orders’, no representation has been made on behalf of the appellant. Heard learned Public Prosecutor. Now the point that arises for consideration is whether there are sufficient grounds to allow the petition? 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. In the result, the criminal revision case is dismissed. ________________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY,J. 17th June, 2011 GK. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1081 of 2004 Date:17.06.2011 Gk.