HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRL.R.C.NO.1898 OF 2002 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the conviction and sentence dated 27.08.2002 passed by the II- Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, in Sessions Case No.1098 of 2000. Respondents 1 and 2 herein i.e., A1 and A2, who were tried for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of I.P.C, were not found guilty of the said offence, but, however, were found guilty of the offence under Section 304 Part-II I.P.C and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of Ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 27.05.2000 at 6 A.M. the revision petitioner-P.W.1 lodged a written complaint stating that on 26.05.2000 at about 1945 hours, his brother Srinivas was murdered by A1 and A2 with a knife in front of Shama Laboratory near Ramakrishna talkies, N.T.P.C. on account of some petty quarrel arose with regard to conducting of cricket tournament. On the basis of said report, the Sub Inspector of police, N.T.P.C. registered a case in Crime No.32 of 2000 under Section 302 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. After completion of investigation, the Inspector of Police, Ramagundam filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. A charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. was framed against the accused for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined P.Ws.1 to 15 and got marked Exs.P1 to P18 and M.Os.1 to 6. On behalf of the defence, Exs.D1 to D5 were marked. Learned II- Additional Sessions Judge, on appreciation of entire evidence, both oral and documentary, held that the facts of the case would not bring the guilt of the accused within the ambit of offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. but it was a case under Section 304 Part-II of I.P.C. and accordingly convicted and sentenced respondents 1 and 2 herein i.e., A1 and A2 as stated supra. Being not satisfied with the said conviction and sentence, the revision petitioner-P.W.1 preferred this revision. Heard both sides. It is really unfortunate that a revision of this nature has been filed. According to the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner, all the prosecution witnesses, who supported the prosecution during the trial, categorically stated that the accused stabbed the deceased with a knife indiscriminately till the deceased died, which goes to show that the accused had an intention and motive to kill the deceased and as such respondents 1 and 2 herein are liable to be convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. Despite the same, the Court below has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to discharge the burden of proving the fact that A1 and A2 had any intention to kill the deceased. Though the Court below came to the conclusion that the respondents 1 and 2 herein i.e., A1 and A2, are not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302. read with Section 34 of I.P.C, but, however, came to the conclusion that they are guilty of the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II I.P.C and accordingly convicted and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of Ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each. The said finding of the Court below, in my considered view, can definitely said to be adequate. This Court is not inclined to accept the aforesaid contention of the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner. Even if this Court comes to the conclusion that it is a fit case for interference the maximum that can be done is to remand the matter to the trial Court for fresh disposal. Such interference is not automatic and shall be in rarest of rare case. Therefore, this Court is of the view that this revision is not one of such rarest of rare case where such interference is required. The trial Court having gone through the entire material placed on record had rightly found the respondents 1 and 2 herein guilty of the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II of IPC instead of 302 of IPC. Therefore, the conviction passed by the trial Court is justified and no interference is required. I find no merit in this revision. The Criminal Revision Case is accordingly dismissed. ___________________________ (GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J) 15-07-2010 Gsn.