IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY THE TWENTYNINETH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1249 OF 2002. Between: Pathrupally Ravi … Appellant V/s The State of Andhra Pradesh Represented by its Public Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad … Respondent Counsel for the appellant : Sri Pottigari Sridhar Reddy Counsel for the respondent : Addl.Public Prosecutor The court made the following : (Judgment follows 2nd page) THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1249 OF 2002. JUDGMENT : Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence recorded by the II-Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy district, in SC.No. 342 of 2001 dated 08-11-2002 whereby and whereunder the appellant was found guilty for the offence punishable under section 307 IPC and he was convicted under section 235 (2) Cr.P.C. and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months, this Criminal Appeal is filed. 2. The facts of the case are that four months prior to 06-08- 2001 PW-1 along with her husband PW-2 went to Diddi village to attend to her brother’s marriage. Accused, his brother-in-law Krishna and other caste people also attended to the said marriage. There was a quarrel between PW2 and Krishna at that time. Later when Krishna came to the house of accused, PWs 1 and 2 went to the house of accused and ascertained about the quarrel. At that time accused beat PWs 1 and 2. On 06-8-2000 at about 04:30 p.m. PW 2 went to the house of accused and ascertained about the presence of Krishna. Then accused came out of the house, armed with an axe and questioned PW-2 as to why he is enquiring about Krishna and tried to attack PW-2. PW-2 returned to his house. Accused followed PW-2 to the house of PW-2 and trespassed into the house of PW2 and beat him with an axe on his forehead. PW-2 fell down. Accused beat him with the handle of the axe on his left leg, thinking that PW2 died accused went away. PW.1, PW-3, PW-4,PW7 and Smt.Purnam Rangamma witnessed the incident. On the basis of Ex.P1 report lodged by PW-1 on 06-8-2000 at 5:30 p.m. PW-10 registered a case in Cr.No. 264/2000 for the offence under section 448 and 307 iPC and handed over the CD file to PW9 for investigation. PW9 send the injured PW-2 to CDR Hospital, Jeedimetla for treatment. PW9 visited the scene of offence, which is the house ofPW2 in Nehrunagar, Gajula Ramaram and conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence ofPW5 and Mangali Ramachander. He also examined PWs 1 to 4, 7 and others and recorded their statements.PW9 arrested the accused on 10-8-2000 at 07:00 a.m. and interrogated him in the presence of panchas PW6 and Bharathamma. In pursuance of the confession of accused, PW9 seized MO-1 axe. PW9 send the accused to court for the purpose of remand.PW8 who treated the injured opined that the injuries sustained by PW2 is grievous in nature and he issued medical certificate Ex.P5. On completion of investigation, PW9 filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence under section 307 IPC. 3. The learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Medchal on receipt of record took cognizance for the offence under section 307 IPC charge sheet assigned PRC.No.264 and 98 of 2000 on his file and complied the formalities as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C. and committed the same to the Court of Session, Sessions Division, Ranga Reddy district under section 209 (a) Cr.P.C. and under section 209 (c) Cr.P.C. submitted the record of the case and thereafter under section 209 (d) Cr.P.C. notified the Public Prosecutor of the commitment of PRC.No. 18 of 2001 to the Court of Session. 4. On receipt of records, the learned Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy district, made over the same to the Court of Assistant Sessions Judge, Medchal by assigning SC.No. 342 of 2001. 5. On appearance of the accused, the learned Assistant Sessions examined them under section 228 Cr.P.C. alleging the substance of accusation. The accused denied the same. Charge under section 307 IPC was framed, read over and explained to the accused. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined in all 10 witnesses; PWs 1 to 10 and marked Exs.P1 to P6. On behalf of the accused no oral and documentary evidence was adduced. 7. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. for the incriminating evidence appearing against him. The accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence. 8. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the learned trial Judge found the accused guilty for the offences punishable under section 307 IPC and convicted and sentenced him for the offence under section 307 iPC as stated hereinabove. 9. Aggrieved thereby, the accused filed the present criminal appeal. 10. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State. 11. Among the witnesses examined by the prosecution, PW-1 is the wife of the injured and PW-2 is the injured and PW-3 is the sister of the injured. All of them supported the prosecution and they deposed before the court in the manner in which the attack was made and how the injured sustained injuries. The facts of the case are not in dispute in view of the evidence adduced by the prosecution. The doctor also certified the nature of injuries sustained by the injured person. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge after evaluating the evidence placed on record convicted the appellant for the offence under section 307 iPC. 12. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that no offence is made out under section 307 IPC in view of the fact that the accused is not having any intention to cause death and there is no specific motive attributed to the accused. 13. Further it is seen from the record that after causing an injury on the left side of the forehead measuring 2” x 1”, the appellant herein caused an injury on the legs of the injured person. If it is the intention of the appellant to commit the crime of murder, he would have committed the same in the absence of any interference by the witnesses concerned. So, the manner in which the injuries caused by the appellant does not disclose the offence under section 307 of IPC. 14. Even though it is clarified that the injury is grievous in nature and the same is not given in the description of 320 IPC. In view of the same, this Court is of the view that the conviction under section 307 IPC is modified to the one under section 324 IPC. Accordingly the conviction is modified to one under section 324 IPC. As far as the sentence of imprisonment is concerned, this court is of the view that the sentence of imprisonment already undergone by the appellant will suffice to meet the ends of justice. 15. Hence, the appellant is convicted for the offence under section 324 IPC and the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone by him. As far as the fine amount is concerned, the same shall remain unaltered. 16. With the above modification in the sentence, the Criminal Appeal is disposed of. __________________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO. 29-11-2010 I s L THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1249 OF 2002 Circulation No. 16 Date: 29-11-2010 Court Master : I s L Computer No. 43