The appellate court's modification of conviction from Section 307 to Section 324 IPC was justified due to insufficient evidence of grievous injury, upheld by the revisional court.

ORDER :

1. This Revision is arising out of judgment dated 12.07.2007 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 186 of 2006 on the file of the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Tanuku, wherein the learned Judge has partly allowed the appeal modifying the conviction and sentence imposed against the revision petitioner/accused for the offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C. to 324 I.P.C. and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for eight months in the judgment dated 13.10.2006 in S.C. No. 93 of 2005 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Tanuku.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:

Since long time, there are boundary disputes of cultivation lands between the complainant and the accused. Due to unsettled civil litigation's, the accused bore grudge against the complainant and waiting for an opportunity to do away the life of the complainant. On 05.02.2004, while the complainant was returning to his house and reached vinayaka temple at 7.30 p.m. the accused made rampageous attack with knife on him and stabbed him over his abdomen at left side by uttering and abusing, due to which complainant fell down. On hearing cries, four persons rescued the injured from the hands of accused. Later, the son of complainant admitted him in Government Hospital, Tanuku, for treatment. On hospital intimation, the Sub-Inspector of Police, recorded the statement of the complainant and basing on the same, a case was registered under Section 307 I.P.C. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed.

3. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined PW-1 to PW-10 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P23 and MO.1 to MO.6. On behalf of the accused, neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced.

4. The trial Court convicted the accused for the offence under Section 304A IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/-.

5. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the accused preferred an appeal before the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Tanuku. Vide judgment dated 12.07.2007, the learned Sessions Judge, partly allowed the appeal modifying the conviction and sentence imposed against the accused from 304-A I.P.C. to 324 I.P.C. and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for eight months.

6. Being aggrieved by the acquittal of the accused/1st respondent, the present revision has been filed by the petitioner/complainant.

7. Heard Sri. Maruti Shankar, learned Counsel representing Sri. Ch. Dhanamjaya, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, Sri. G. Vijaya Babu, learned counsel for the 1st respondent, who appeared through video conference and Sri. Naidana Sravan Kumar, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the 2nd respondent-State.

8. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the appellate court erred in altering section from 307 I.P.C. to 324 I.P.C. without any basis. The material evidence placed before the trial Court i.e. PWs. 1 to 10 coupled with Exs.P1 to P23 clearly shows that the accused caused grievous injuries with an intention to kill the petitioner and the same is prove by the evidence of Doctor (PW-8), warranting conviction. The appellate court erred in disbelieving the evidence of the prosecution to the extent of under Section 307 I.P.C. and coming to the conclusion that non-examination of the expert, who treated PW-1 is fatal to the case of the prosecution and it is not at all necessary to examine the expert when the offence is proved and established. The evidence of PWs. 3 to 5 clearly established that the accused caused injuries on the body of the petitioner/complainant by stabbing on the vital parts with an intent to kill the complainant and hence, modification of conviction and sentence by the appellate court is liable to be set aside.

9. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent/accused submits that the appellat