THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA Crl.R.C.No.264 of 2005 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the judgment, dated 17.02.2005 passed in Criminal Appeal No.47 of 2003 on the file of X Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) of Guntur at Narasaraopet, whereby the learned Sessions Judge allowed the appeal partly by setting aside the conviction and sentence against some of the accused imposed by the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet in S.C.No.120 of 2001. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present revision as under: That on 01.12.1999 at about 6 a.m. A.1 to A.14 formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and attacked PW.1 with sticks while he was in his cattle shed. A1, A7, A.10 and A.11 beat him with sticks and when PW.2 came to his rescue, A.10, A13 and other accused beat him and when PWs.3 to 5, PW.8 & PW.9 came there, A.1, A.3, A.12 and A.14 hurled country made bombs at them while A.14 was holding a bucket containing the country made bombs, causing injuries to PWs.3 to 5 and others. 3. PW.8 & PW.9 removed the injured to Government Hospital, Vinukonda. PW.1 was shifted to Government General Hospital, Guntur. That on the basis of statement of PW.1, a case as Crime No.161 of 1999 was registered against the accused for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 324 read with Section 149 I.P.C. and for the offences under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and a charge sheet was laid. 4. After conclusion of the trial and considering entire material both oral and documentary, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Narsaraopet found accused guilty of the alleged offences as stated in its judgment dated 21.1.2003. 5. Being aggrieved by the said conviction, they filed Criminal Appeal No.47 of 2003 before the X Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Guntur at Narasaraopet. The learned Sessions Judge after perusal of the entire material, partly allowed the appeal. The conviction of A.1 to 3, A.5 to A.8 and A.10 to A.14 for the offence under Section 148 IPC is set aside and they are acquitted for the said offence. A2, A5 and A.8 are acquitted for the offences under Section 324 and 326 read with Section 149 IPC. That A,2,A.3,A.5, A,7,A,10,A11,A12,A.13 and A.14 are acquitted for the offence under Section 326 read with Section 149 IPC. A3, A12 and A14 are acquitted for the offence under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act. The conviction, however, of A.1 for the offence under Section 326 IPC is confirmed. So also the conviction of A1 A3, A6, A7, A10, A11 and A12 confirmed for the offence under Section 324 IPC, so also that of A1, A3, A6, A7, A10, A11, A12, A13 and A14 for the offence under Section 324 IPC. 6. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 17.02.2005 passed in Crl. Appeal No.47 of 2003 by the X Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC) of Guntur at Narasaraopet, the present Criminal Revision Case is filed by A.1, A.3, A.6, A.7, A.10 to A.14. 7. Heard both sides. 8. It has been canvassed on behalf of the petitioners- accused that A1, A3, A12 and A14 alleged to have hurled bombs at PWs 2 to 4 causing them splinter injuries, however, it is to be seen in the evidence of mediators who are examined as PWs 10 and 11 that no traces of bombs and/ or remnants thereof were found at the scene of offence and that considering the evidence of PWs 10 and 11, the first appellate court has acquitted A1, A3, A12 and A14 for the offence under Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act. In this context, it is contended that while acquitting A.1, A3, A12, and A14 for the offence under Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, the Sessions Court ought to have acquitted them for the offences under Sections 148 and 324 of IPC. The said contention, in the opinion of this court, cannot be sustained as they along with other accused participated in the offence and caused simple injuries to PWs 2 to 4. So far as A6, A7, A10 and A13 are concerned, the learned counsel submitted that the sticks alleged to have been used by them are not dangerous weapons as their size is not spoken to by any of the witnesses or even the charge sheet is silent on this aspect. Therefore, he contended that their conviction for the offence under Section 324 of IPC is not warranted. The said contention of the learned counsel cannot be sustained in view of the evidence of PWs 1 and 3 to 5. The learned counsel submitted while justifying the acquittal of A2, A 4, A8 and A9 by the first appellate court that A1, A3, A12 and A14 were convicted, though, there is no sufficient material on record to warrant their conviction. He further submitted that the conviction of A1 for the offence under Section 326 of IPC is unreasonable and unwarranted and sought interference from this court therewith. So far as A5, A6, A7, A8, A9 and A11 are concerned, they are convicted for the offence under Section 324 of IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs.200/-, in default, simple imprisonment for one month. The learned counsel submitted that their conviction is also unwarranted and unreasonable and that it is on higher side, though, there is no sufficient material on record in support of it. Lastly, the learned counsel submitted that all the accused are agriculturists and that they are bread winners for their respective families and as such prayed that the appeal may be allowed by setting aside the conviction and sentence passed by the first appellate court against the petitioners/accused. 9. On the other hand, the learned public prosecutor supported their conviction and sentence confirmed by the first appellate court stating that PWs 1 and 3 to 5 have suffered splinter injuries at their hands. 10. The trial court framed two charges against the appellants-accused. The first being for the offences under Sections 148, 326 read with 149 of IPC and for the offence under Section 324 read with 149 of IPC against A.1 to A.14 and the second being for the offences under Section 324 of IPC and under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act against A1, A3, A12 and A14. 11. All the accused alleged to have attacked the prosecution party with sticks, stones and country made bombs. During the course of incident, they caused grievous injury to PW.1 and simple injuries to PWs 2 to 5, of course, specific overacts are attributed to the individual accused. 12. The defence took exception to the scene of offence and alleged that the prosecution party was the aggressive party and that the prosecution witnesses are planted for the purpose of creating false evidence. The first appellate court for want of sufficient evidence, has given a go by to the charges under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, observing that there is no evidence that the substance that was seized under Ex.P.5 was transmitted to PW.4 and that the explosives were of a nature not likely to endanger life and property. A1, A2, A3, A5 to A8 and A10 to A14 were acquitted of the charge under Section 148 of IPC and that A5 and A8 were acquitted for the charges under Sections 324 and 326 read with Section 149 IPC. A2, A3, A6, A7, A10, A11, A12, A13 and A14 were acquitted of the charge under Section 326 read with Section 149 of IPC. A1, A3, A12 and A14 were acquitted of the charge under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act. However, the charge and conviction under Section 326 of IPC against A1 and the charge and conviction under Section 324 of IPC against A1, A3, A6, A7, A10, A11, A12, A13, and A14 is confirmed. 13. The first appellate court has considered the facts and circumstances of the case appropriately and in the proper perspective considering the legal and factual position, it has convicted the accused that are indicted for various offences. As such, this court being a revisional court, is of the view that the first appellate court has not committed any error or irregularity while confirming the conviction of the petitioners-A1, A3, A6, A7, A10, A11, A12, A13 and A14 by the Assistant Sessions Judge (trial court) as already stated supra. As such, the impugned Judgment of the first appellate Court does not warrant interference from this court. 14. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. _______________ B.N.RAO NALLA,J 11-12-2009 Stp