ORDER:

1. Questioning the correctness of his conviction, the sole accused preferred this criminal revision case under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. seeking to set aside the judgments of the Courts below. The sole respondent herein is the State.

2. The revision petitioner was prosecuted on the report filed by the police for a charge under Section 324 I.P.C. on the allegation that using an iron rod he inflicted injuries on the body of his wife/PW.2 and his brother-in-law/PW.1. The said case was tried as C.C.No.361 of 2006 by the learned VI Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur and the accused was found guilty for the offence under Section 324 I.P.C. and by a judgment dated 09.09.2008 he was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year on two counts for inflicting injuries on two individuals. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

3. Aggrieved by it, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.300 of 2008. Learned Special Sessions Judge-cum-IV Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur duly heard the appeal and by a judgment dated 27.04.2009 it agreed with the finding of guilt recorded by the trial Court but on facts it reduced the sentence from one year to four months. With that modification, the said appeal was disposed of.

4. Aggrieved of it, the accused preferred this revision stating that the Courts below committed error in appreciating the evidence and law and reached to incorrect conclusions. In the grounds of revision, it is stated that the investigating agency did not seize the weapon of offence and did not exhibit the same and there was no independent witness to support the case of prosecution and the evidence available on record was that of the interested witnesses and even that evidence is inconsistent and there was omission of examination of a crucial witness by prosecution and therefore, the guilt of the accused was not established beyond reasonable doubt, but the Courts below wrongly held otherwise. It is further contended that the sentence of imprisonment is excessive. It is for these reasons, the revision petitioner seeks to upset the judgments of the Courts below and acquit him of the charge.

5. When this matter was coming up for hearing on 28.10.2022, 01.12.2022, 27.12.2022 and 25.01.2023 learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner sought for time to argue the revision and on all those occasions time was granted and the matter stood posted finally on 07.02.2023. On that day none appeared for revision petitioner to argue the case. Thus, despite availing all the opportunities to submit arguments, the revision petitioner failed to have any argument submitted on his behalf. On 07.02.2023 learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State submitted his arguments wherein he supported the judgments of the Courts below and stated that there are no merits in this revision as the evidence was properly appreciated by the Courts below and they reached to appropriate conclusions and the sentence inflicted was on lower side and sought for dismissal of the revision.

6. Revisional jurisdiction is to preserve the power of the Court to do justice in accordance with the principles of criminal jurisprudence. If there are findings or decisions of the Courts below which are perverse or untenable in law or grossly erroneous or glaringly unreasonable or where the decision was based on no material or where the material facts are wholly ignored or where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously, this Court sitting in revision can interfere with the judgments of the Courts below vide Sanjaysinh Ramarao Chavan v. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke, 2015 (3) SCC Online SC 123.

7. Considering the scope of a criminal revision and considering the contentions raised by the revision petitioner, the point that falls for consideration is:

Whether the judgments of the Courts below failed to notice the fundamental principles of criminal law and perversely recorded th