THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1940 of 2004 JUDGMENT: The petitioner and two others are accused in Crime No.25 of 1999 of Kollipara Police Station. The said crime was registered on the report given by the de facto complainant, who was examined as P.W-1, against the petitioner and others for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 307 and 324 IPC. The said police recorded the statements of all the witnesses, completed the investigation and filed the charge sheet in the Court of II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Tenali, and the same was committed to the Sessions Court for the reason that the matter is to be tried only by the Sessions Court. It was numbered as S.C.No.265 of 2000 before the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Tenali. During the course of trial, the injured- de facto complainant was examined as P.W-1 and some more witnesses-P.Ws.2 to 6 were examined and further, the official witnesses were examined as P.Ws.7 to 11 and the prosecution also exhibited Exs.P-1 to P-11, besides M.Os.1 to 5. The defence marked Ex.D-1-the contradiction in 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W-3, but none was examined. The learned Sessions Judge having analysed the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, on record, came to the conclusion that the accused are guilty of the said offences and by his judgment, dated 05.03.2001, sentenced the petitioner to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. So far as the other accused i.e., A-2 and A-3 are concerned, in view of the nature of injuries inflicted by the said accused, the learned Sessions Judge found them guilty of the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month each. The same was questioned by the petitioner herein and the remaining accused by filing Criminal Appeal No.157 of 2001 on the file of the VIII Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Guntur, who having reassessed the entire evidence which was brought on record by the prosecution agreed with the findings recorded by the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Challenging the said judgment, dated 12.07.2004, the other accused i.e., A-2 and A-3 filed one Criminal Revision Case and the petitioner herein, who is A-1, filed the present Criminal Revision Case. The case of the prosecution in brief is that there were ill- feelings and grudge between P.W-1 and the accused; that on the intervening night of 13/14-06-1999, at about 12.15 am., the accused went to the house of P.W-1 intentionally to kill him with deadly weapons and stabbed him with knives while he was sleeping on a cot in front of the house and caused severe bleeding injuries; that in this connection, a case was registered against the accused; that after completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the accused. It is mainly contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner herein stands on the very same footing as that of the other accused i.e., A-2 and A-3, but the trial Court while convicting those accused only for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC, convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. It is his further submission that as per the case of the prosecution, the crime weapon is a knife, whereas the doctor who was examined as P.W-7 and treated P.W-1 stated that the injuries might have been inflicted with a heavy cutting weapon. In the light of the said discrepancy with regard to the crime weapon, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner the trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court ought not to have convicted the petitioner as if he has committed the offence under Section 307 IPC. It is his further submission that P.W-1 is the only eye- witness to the occurrence and at the time of offence, admittedly, P.W-1 was sleeping and he has no occasion to know who the real culprits are and prayed to acquit the petitioner. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the said submissions and contended that the Courts below have rightly appreciated the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in holding that the petitioner is guilty of the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and as such, it is not a fit case for interference. In the light of the said evidence, this Court looked into the evidence let in during the course of trial. It is true that P.W-1 is the only eye-witness to the occurrence and he is the injured person. According to him, on the date of the incident, after he had dinner he was sleeping outside the house on a cot. The inmates were not present in the house. He alone was present in the house. At about 12 in the midnight, all the three accused were armed with knives and that A-1 hacked on the upper portion of right chest, A-2 hacked him underneath of his left jaw and A-3 hacked him below the right side of the neck. He sustained 7 or 8 injuries. The neighbours of P.W-1 came there and shifted him to Government Hospital, Tenali. He further stated that one week prior to the date of the incident, the accused were creating nuisance in a drunken state. When he questioned them, they abused and threatened him. Even on the earlier occasion, disputes arose between him and the accused with regard to the catching of fish. The accused attacked him with an intention to do away with his life. The said evidence of P.W-1 as regards the said act of hacking by the accused is totally corroborated by the evidence of the doctor who was examined as P.W-7. P.W-7-doctor deposed that P.W-1 was brought to him at about 2.35 am on 14.06.1999 and he examined him and found the following injuries: - 1. lacerated injuries of 10 x 2 x 2 over the upper part of chest below the right clavical. 2. incised wound of 2 x /2 x ½ inch over the left cheek. 3. incised wound of 1 x ½ x ¼ inch over the left of the nose. 4. incised wound of 1 x ½ x ½ inch over the left side of upper lip. 5. incised wound of 3 x 2 x 2 inch over the left side of chin extending the under surface of chin. 6. incised wound of 2 x ¼ x ½ inch adjacent to injury No.5. 7. incised wound of 1 x ¾ x 1 inch over the middle of lower frontal region. 8. incised wound of 2 ½ x 1 x 1 over the left shoulder.” No doubt, it is true that the said doctor stated that the said injuries must have been caused by a heavy cutting weapon and injury No.1 is grievous in nature. The case of the prosecution, as culled out from the evidence, is that the said injury was inflicted by the petitioner herein. Further, the other evidence clearly establishes that there is a motive to the petitioner to inflict such a grievous injury. According to P.W-4, four days prior to the date of offence, the petitioner approached him in a drunken state and committed nuisance when he was selling sodas. Then, P.Ws.1 and 6 intervened and pacified the matter, on account of which, the petitioner threatened P.W-1 that he will stab him. From the said evidence, the Court can get a clue that there is a motive for the petitioner to commit the said offence. In those circumstances, this Court is thoroughly satisfied that the Courts below have rightly concluded that the petitioner is guilty of the said offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that A-2 and A-3 filed a Revision against the said sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months imposed on them by the Courts below for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC and this Court had taken a lenient view and reduced the said sentence to that of the period already undergone by them. May be, it is true, but that cannot be a yardstick to reduce the quantum of sentence imposed on the petitioner herein. Accused Nos.2 and 3 were convicted only for a period of six months, whereas the petitioner herein was convicted for the offence under Section 307 IPC and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years. In those circumstances, it cannot be said that the said view i.e., reducing the sentence to that of the period already undergone, can be taken towards the petitioner also. However, having regard to the fact that the alleged offence is of the year 1999 i.e., the offence was alleged to be committed on 13/14-06- 1999, i.e., about 11 years back, this Court is of the view that a lenient view can be taken and the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years imposed on the petitioner can be reduced to one year. However, the fine imposed on him by the Courts below is enhanced from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only). The said fine amount shall be paid by the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, in default, the petitioner shall suffer the sentence imposed on him by the Courts below With the above modification, this Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed. ___________________________________ JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA 28th January 2011 DR