IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 210 of 2006. Between: Panabaka Ravi … Petitioner V/s. State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad . … Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri G. VIJAYA SARDHI Counsel for the Respondents : Public Prosecutor THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION No. 2 1 0 OF 2006 O R D E R : This Criminal Revision is directed against the conviction and sentence passed by the Sessions Judge, Nellore in Criminal Appeal No.96 of 2002, dated 25-11-2005, confirming the judgment of the Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Gudur, in SC.No.136 of 2001, dated 18-6-2002 convicted the petitioner- accused under section 235 (2) of Cr.P.C. and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs.400/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months for the offence punishable under section 307 I.P.C. 2. The brief facts of the case for the disposal of the present Criminal Revision Case are as follows : PW-l is a resident of Nelaballi, Harijanawada to which the accused also belongs. Pullaiah and Peda Chengaiah are brothers of PW-l and they are accused in Cr.No.48/1998 for death of one Panabaka Krishnaiah, the brother of the accused. After the said incident, the accused bore grudge against PW-l and his brothers and wanted to wreck vengeance. On 27-3-2000 when PW-l was going to take toddy along with PWs. 2 and 3 and others, the accused armed with a Matchu Kathi beat PW- l on the left side of the neck and caused bleeding injury. When the accused attempted to again beat him, he thwarted it by raising hand. The accused left the weapon there and went away from the scene. PWs\. 5 and 6 also witnessed the incident. The injured was taken in a tractor to Doravarisatram and his statement was recorded and registered it as a case in Cr.No. 15/2000 under section 324 and 307 IPC and investigated into. During the course of investigation, the statements of the witnesses were recorded. PW-l was sent for medical examination. The panchanama of the scene was also conducted. The accused was arrested on 11-4-2000 and sent for remand. 3. The case was taken on file as PRC.No.35/2000 by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sullurpet and was committed to the Court of Sessions and later, it was made over to the Assistant Sessions Judge, Gudur. 4. On appearance of the accused, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge complied with the formalities as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C., and examined the accused alleging the substance of accusation. The accused denied the substance of accusation. A charge under section 307 IPC and in the alternative a charge under section 326 IPC was framed, read over and explained to the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. To substantiate the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined PWs.l to 8 and got marked Exs.P1 to P7 and MOs-l to 5. On behalf of the accused, no oral and documentary evidence was let-in. 6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., for the incriminating evidence appearing against him. On behalf of the accused, no defence evidence was adduced. After considering the evidence on record, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge found the accused guilty of the offence under section307 IPC and accordingly convicted and sentenced him. 7. On appeal, the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge was confirmed. Challenging the same, the present Criminal Revision is filed. 8. The point for determination is whether the judgment of both the courts below are true, correct and proper ? 9. The powers of the High Court exercising jurisdiction under section 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are truncated. Unless the finding is shown to be perverse or incorrect or illegal or not based on any evidence on record, then only the judgment under challenge needs interference. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant argued for some time and confined his arguments in connection with the quantum of sentence. 11. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that even accepting the evidence of injured, there is no iota of evidence to show that the appellant had intention to commit murder. Since after committing the injuries ran away from the place of occurrence, if he had intended to cause death no body had prevented him, he might have caused the death of the persons concerned. In view of the same, the offence alleged by the prosecution does not attract the offence under section 307 I.P.C. Even the evidence of PW.l is to be taken into consideration, it would only attract the offence under section 326 IPC. 12. After perusal of the entire evidence placed on record, this court also of the view that the conviction under section 307 I.P.C. is not sustainable in the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence, the conviction is modified into one under section 326 I.P.C. and sentence of imprisonment imposed by the courts below is hereby modified as six months rigorous imprisonment. However, the fine amount paid by the revision petitioner shall remain un-altered. 13. Subject to the above modification, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. __________________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO. 23-04-2010. I s L THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 210 OF 2006 Circulation Entry No. 1 4 Date: 23-04-2010 Computer No. 43 Court Master: I s L