This single-judge criminal revision dismissed. The court refused to interfere with the Sessions Judge's decision to confirm conviction but reduce the imprisonment sentence to the period already undergone, citing the six-year lapse since the offence and the nature of injuries.
The criminal revision case is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRL.R.C.No.905 of 2002
JUDGMENT:
This criminal revision case is directed against the judgment of the learned III-Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool, in Crl.A.No.75 of 1997, dated 14.11.2000, whereby the learned Judge, while confirming the conviction and sentence of fine, reduced the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the respondents 1 to 3/A1 to A3 by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Nandikotkur, in S.C.No.217 of 1996 dated 26.06.1997, to that of the period already undergone by them.
The brief facts of the case are that there were illfeelings between the petitioner-complainant, who was examined as P.W.1, and the accused. On 18.10.1994 at about 11 P.M. when P.W.1 came out of his office i.e., Andhra Jyothi Daily News Paper along with P.Ws.2 to 4 to go to his house, A1 to A3 came there and accosted P.W.1 and then A1 dealt a blow with an iron rod on the head of P.W.1 causing bleeding injuries; A2 and A3 beat P.W.2 with an iron rod on his head and right hand causing bleeding injuries. Subsequently P.W.1 lodged a complaint before the police and basing on which a case in Crime No. 94 of 1994 of Atmakur Police Station was registered under Sections 307, 324 read with Section 109 and 34 of I.P.C. and the accused were tried for the said offences.
The prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and got marked Exs.P1 to P7 and M.Os.1 and 2 to prove the guilt of the accused. Ex.D1 was marked on behalf of the accused. On a perusal of the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, the trial Court found A1 to A3 guilty of the offence punishable under Section 324 of I.P.C. and
accordingly convicted and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years each and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months. A2 was also found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. and was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. However, A4 was found not guilty for the offence with which he was charged and he was acquitted for the said charge.
In an appeal preferred by the respondents 1 to 3/A1 to A3 against the said conviction and sentence, the learned IIIAdditional Sessions Judge, Kurnool, while confirming the conviction and sentence of fine awarded by the trial Court, reduced the sentence of imprisonment awarded against the accused to that of the period already undergone by them. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner-complainant (P.W.1) preferred this criminal revision.
Heard both sides.
Having considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and having perused the judgment delivered by the Courts below, this Court is of the view that this is not a fit case to interfere with the findings recorded by the Courts below. Both the Courts below concurrently held that the respondents 1 to 3 herein (A1 to A3) were guilty of the offences with which they were charged. However, the appellate Court, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case i.e., nature of the offence that took place about six years back and also in view of the nature of injuries sustained by P.Ws.1 and 2, took a lenient view and reduced the sentence of
imprisonment awarded by the trail Court against the respondents 1 to 3/A1 to A3 to that of the period already undergone by them, while maintaining the sentence of fine imposed against them. I see no merit in the revision. The Criminal Revision Case is accordingly dismissed.
_______________________________ (GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J)
23.09.2010 Gsn.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the revision court should interfere with the appellate court's decision to reduce the imprisonment sentence to the period already undergone.
Whether the findings of guilt below regarding offences under Section 324 and 34 IPC should be disturbed in the revision.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
PETITIONER (COMPLAINANT/P.W.1)
A1 TO A3 (RESDENTS 1 TO 3)
GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
