THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR Crl. R.C.No.1397 of 2005 Date: 19.09.2011 Between: Kolli Satynarayana .. Petitioner/A.1 AND State of A.P., rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. .. Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR Crl. R.C. No.1397 of 2005 ORDER: The first accused preferred this revision questioning the conviction recorded by the appellate Court for the offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and also the compensation awarded in favour of PW.1 as payable by A.1, as recorded by the trial Court and confirmed by the appellate Court. 2. As many as six accused faced trial. They were charged for the offences under Sections 148, 326 and 324 read with Section 149 IPC. The prosecution examined five witnesses on its behalf. The accused in their turn examined the Civil Assistant Surgeon, Bhimavaram as DW.1. The trial Court considered that the prosecution failed to make out a case against A.2 to A.6 for any of the offences. The learned II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bhimavaram also considered that no case was made out against A.1 for the offence u/s.324 r/w Sec.149 IPC. He, however, considered that the offence u/s.326 IPC was made out against A.1 for causing grievous injury to PW.1. He, accordingly, recorded conviction against A.1 for the offence u/s.326 IPC and sentenced him to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years. He also directed A.1 to pay compensation of ` 5,000/- to PW.1. 3. A.1, who was the only convicted accused in the case, preferred appeal before the Sessions Court. The learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Bhimavaram converted the conviction u/s.326 IPC as a conviction u/s.324 IPC against A.1. He also imposed fine of ` 1,000/- for the offence u/s.324 IPC. Needless to state that the imprisonment of two years for the offence u/s.326 IPC automatically stood cancelled, as the accused was acquitted for the offence u/s.326 IPC. Aggrieved by the same, A.1 preferred the present revision. 4. Sri K.V.L. Narasimha Rao, learned counsel for A.1 contended that the confirmation of the compensation as recorded by the trial Court and confirmed by the appellate Court is unjust and that compensation is liable to be set aside. He further contended that the appellate Court incorrectly appreciated the evidence of PW.2 by accepting the evidence of PW.2 while the trial Court considered that PW.2 was an unreliable witness. In that view of the matter, he sought for an acquittal of A.1 altogether. 5. The appeal is a continuation of the trial of the case. It is true that the State did not prefer any appeal against the judgment of the trial Court acquitting A.2 to A.6. The question of State, in fact, preferring an appeal against A.1 before the Session Court would not arise where the trial Court convicted A.1 for the offence u/s.326 IPC. Even otherwise, the appellate Court is the last fact finding Court. It shall reassess the evidence wholly and shall arrive at a conclusion independently. In the process of doing so, the learned Sessions Judge would appear to have concluded that PW.2 was a trustworthy witness as against the view expressed by the trial Judge that PW.2 was a doubtful witness. I, therefore, do not agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/A.1 that A.1 deserves to be acquitted disbelieving the evidence of PW.2. At any rate, the conviction of A.1 by the appellate Court was not solely on the basis of PW.2, but on the basis of said circumstances as well. The conviction of the accused by the appellate Court for the offence u/s.324 IPC and the imposition of fine at ` 1,000/-, therefore, do not deserve to be interfered with. 6. The finding of the appellate Court regarding the compensation of ` 5,000/- awarded by the trial Court in favour of PW.1 is curious. The trial Court considered that PW.1 suffered from disability on account of the injury sustained in the hands of A.1 and that compensation in favour of PW.1 might balance the equation to some extent. Consequently, the trial Court awarded compensation at ` 5,000/- in favour of PW.1. It may be noticed that the trial Court found A.1 guilty of the offence u/s.326 IPC for causing grievous injuries to PW.1 with a deadly weapon. In that background, the trial Court awarded compensation at ` 5,000/- in favour of PW.1. 6. On the other hand, the appellate Court considered it appropriate to convict A.1 for the offence u/s.324 IPC only. The prosecution/PW.1, therefore, cannot claim that PW.1 was suffering from disability on account of the injuries caused to PW.1 by A.1. Consequently, the confirmation of the award of compensation by the appellate Court in favour of PW.1 is unjust. The compensation portion of the judgment of the appellate Court deserves to be set aside in this background. 7. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed, so far as the conviction recorded by the appellate Court and the sentence and fine imposed against revision petitioner/A.1 is concerned. The revision is allowed, so far as the compensation awarded against A.1 in favour of PW.1 is concerned. The compensation so awarded is found to be incorrect and is, accordingly, set aside. If PW.1 already received the compensation, it shall be remitted to the trial Court within one month on notice from A.1 to PW.1. A.1 shall be entitled to withdraw the compensation amount, if already deposited by him. ________________ K.G. SHANKAR, J Date: 19.09.2011 Isn