The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on credible testimony of prosecution witnesses and medical evidence to establish guilt, and the non-fatal nature of non-seizure of the weapon of offence in the prosecution's case.

ORDER :

1. This Criminal Revision Case, under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘the Cr.P.C’), is filed by the petitioner, who was the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 76 of 2007, on the file of the Court of VI Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Markapur, Prakasam District (for short, ‘the learned Additional Sessions Judge’), challenging the judgment therein, dated 13.03.2008, where under the learned Additional Sessions Judge, dismissed the Criminal Appeal, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed against the accused in C.C. No. 163 of 2003, dated 12.07.2007, on the file of the Court of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Markapur (for short, ‘the trial Court’) for the offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘the IPC’).

2. The parties to this Criminal Revision Case will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the trial Court, for the sake of convenience.

3. The State, represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Dornala Police Station filed charge sheet in Crime No. 36 of 2003 under Section 324 IPC alleging in substance that PW.2 – Sivapuram Nageswaramma is the mother of PW.1 – Sivapuram Venkata Narayana, injured. They belonged to Nallaguntla village. PW.3 – Varikuntapati Subbamma is the sister of PW.2. There is illegal intimacy between the accused and wife of LW.5 – Bapanapalli Yesupadam. Hence, accused grew wild against LW.5 – Yesupadam. While so, on 01.06.2003 at 07:15 a.m. PW.1 and LW.5 were chitchatting in front of the hotel of PW.4 – Thatisetty Subbamma and they were laughing while taking tea. After some time, LW.5 left the hotel. Accused, who observed the chitchatting thought that they were discussing and laughing about his wife. Hence, he grew wild and went upon PW.1 and stabbed PW.1 on his neck, left side of the ribs and on his chin and caused bleeding injuries. The incident was witnessed by PWs.3, 4, 5, 7 and 8. They rescued him. Later, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Dornala by PWs.2 and 3. On receipt of phone call from PW.6 – Dr.C.Uday Kumar of Dornala, PW.9 – Sub-Inspector of Police, Dornala visited the hospital and recorded statement of PW.1. He returned to Police Station and registered the statement as a case in Crime No. 36 of 2003 and sent copies of FIRs to all the concerned. During investigation, he visited the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch and examined the witnesses. On 13.06.2003 at 08:00 p.m. he arrested the accused and sent him for remand. Medical Officer, who treated the injured, opined that the injuries are simple in nature. Hence, the charge sheet.

4. The learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Markapur took cognizance of the case and issued summons to the accused. After appearance of the accused, copies of case documents were furnished to him as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C. Then, by following the procedure with regard to examination of the accused under Section 239 Cr.P.C and after denial of the allegations of the prosecution by the accused, a charge under Section 324 IPC was framed and explained to him in Telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. In order to establish the guilt against the accused, the prosecution before the Court below examined PWs.1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-7 and during the course of cross-examination of PW.3, Ex.D-1 was marked.

6. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence for which he denied the same and stated that he has no defence evidence.

7. The learned Magistrate, Markapur, on hearing both sides and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, found the accused guilty of the charge under Section 324 IPC and convicted him under Section 248(2) Cr.P.C. After questioning him about the quantum of sentence, the learned Magistrate sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Impriso