HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 932 OF 2004 DATED 29th JUNE, 2010. BETWEEN P.Sivaram Raju …..Petitioner/Accused and The State of AP, Rep. By its Public Prosecutor …Respondent HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 932 OF 2004 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case under Sections 397 and 401 of the Cr.P.C. is ﬁled aggrieved by the judgment dated 2-6-2004 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 179 of 2003 by the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Tanuku, conﬁrming the conviction and sentence recorded against the petitioner/Accused for the oﬀence punishable under Section 324 IPC in the order dated 19.9.2003 in S.C.No. 255 of 2002 by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Tanuku. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 2.4.2002 at about 4.00pm the accused went to his agricultural ﬁelds to look after his crop and at that time P.W.1 while attending his business activities noticed the crop of the accused which fell on the bund of P.W.1 and asked the accused to remove the same. Immediately the accused in a pre-determined manner, picked-up a sickle and made an attempt to kill P.W.1 by inﬂicting bleeding injuries on the left side of the neck, left occipital region, right fore arm and at left ear, forcibly. The same was witnessed by P.Ws. 2 and 5 to 7 and then the accused ﬂed away from the scene of occurrance. P.W.2 lifted the P.W.1 to Govt. Hospital, Tanuku for treatment on the same day. Based on the same, the police registered a case in Cr.No. 23 of 2002 under Sections 324 and 506 (2) of the IPC and investigated into. Thereafter on the night of 8.4.2002 at about 11 PM the accused after having released on bail, once again attacked the house of P.W.1 with knife and threatened the inmates with dire consequences, which was the subject matter of Cr.No. 25 of 2002 under Section 447, and 56(2) IPC. After completing the investigation, the police ﬁled charge sheet into the Court. The trial Court took the cognisance of the oﬀence under Section 307 IPC against the accused and proceeded with trial. The trial Court on a full-ﬂedged trial and appreciation of the evidence on record found the accused guilty of the oﬀence punishable under Section 324 IPC, but not for the charge under Section 307 IPC and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for three years for the oﬀence under Section 324 IPC and to pay a ﬁne of Rs.2000/-, in default to suffer S.I. for one month. On appeal being Criminal Appeal. No. 179 of 2003 preferred by the petitioner/accused, the lower Appellate Court, on appreciation of the evidence on record, dismissed the appeal conﬁrming the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court. Hence this revision. It is needles to state that the powers of the High Court in exercising its jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. are truncated and unless the ﬁnding recorded by the Court below is shown to be perverse or incorrect or illegal or not based on any evidence on record, the judgment under challenge needs interference. In the present case, on a perusal of the evidence available on record and on hearing the learned Counsel appearing on either side, this Court ﬁnds no illegality or irregularity or perversity in the ﬁndings recorded by the Court below so as to interfere with the same. However, the learned Counsel for the petitioner conﬁning his argument to the inﬂicting of the sentence, submitted that the petitioner has suﬀered a stigma of conviction in the society; that the entire incident took place in a spur of moment; that the entire incident took place in the year 2002 and after lapse of a decade, if the petitioner is sent to judicial custody, the same may cause prejudice to him and that the petitioner is now aged about 60 years, and he has to look after his family members as he being the breadwinner. Hence, the learned Counsel submitted that the petitioner can be shown some lenience insofar as the sentence ordered by the Court below is concerned. As there is no serious objection from the side of the learned Public Prosecutor, this Court, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence available on record, and submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, thought it ﬁt to show some lenience on the petitioner. Considering the same, the conviction recorded by the Courts below is conﬁrmed, however, sentence recorded against the petitioner/accused is set aside and in its place, this Court directs the petitioner to pay a ﬁne of Rs.10,000/- apart from the ﬁne amount already imposed by the Courts below, within a period of four weeks from the date of copy of this order is made ready. Subject to the above modiﬁcation in sentence, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. ----------------------------------- JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO DATED 29th JUNE, 2010. Msnr.