The court upheld the conviction for causing injuries but modified the sentence to a fine, considering the elapsed time and nature of injuries.

JUDGMENT:

Assailing the judgment dated 04.06.2012 in Crl.A.No.92 of 2011 on the file of the Court of learned Principal Sessions Judge at Kurnool, confirming the conviction and sentence passed against the accused by the judgment dated 06.06.2011 in C.C.No.759 of 2009 on the file of the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Kurnool, for the offences under Section 324 and 324 r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”), the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 filed the present criminal revision case under Section 397 r/w.401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

2. The revision case was admitted on 07.06.2012 and the sentence imposed against the petitioner was suspended, vide orders in Crl.R.C.M.P.No.1278 of 2012.

3. The shorn of necessary facts are that:

i). P.W.1 and accused are residents of Budavarpeta of Kurnool town. In view of the quarrels between them, on 18/19.06.2009 at about 12.30 a.m., while P.W.1 was sleeping along with family, accused and one more juvenile went to the house of P.W.1 and knocked the door with hands and legs. When they opened the door, accused and said juvenile picked up quarrel on the pretext of falling of their motorcycle and abused them in filthy language. They beat P.Ws.1 and 2, L.W.2 G.Galenna and L.W.7 G.Suneetha with hands and legs by ignoring the fact that L.W.7 is pregnant. When P.W.3 intervened to rescue them, accused No.2 caused injury to him. In the meanwhile, when P.Ws.4 and 5 returned to home after watching second show, accused No.3 beat P.W.4 with a pestle on the back side of his head and accused have beat P.W.5 also. On hearing cries, P.w.6 and others came to spot and then accused left the place.

ii). Basing on the Ex.P.1 report of P.W.1, P.W.8-Head Constable, III Town Police Station, Kurnool, registered a case in Cr.No.219 of 2009 under Section 324 r/w.34 of IPC and investigated into.

4. After completion of investigation, P.W.9 laid charge sheet and the same was numbered as C.C.No.759 of 2009 on the file of the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Kurnool, after full-fledged trial, found the accused Nos.1 and 3 are guilty of the offence under Section 324 of IPC as well found the accused No.2 is guilty of the offence under Section 324 r/w.34 of IPC, vide judgment dated 06.06.2011, sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment of three (3) months each and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment of two (2) months each. However, they found the accused not guilty of the offence under Section 323 of IPC.

5. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 preferred an appeal, vide Crl.A.No.92 of 2011, before the Court of learned Principal Sessions Judge at Kurnool and the same was dismissed, vide judgment dated 04.06.2012, by confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court against the accused.

6. Against the said judgment of the first Appellate Court, the present criminal revision case was preferred by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3.

7. Heard Sri G.Sravan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 and Miss P.Akhila Naidu, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State.

8. Now the point that arises for determination in this revision is “whether there is any manifest error of law or flagrant miscarriage of justice in the findings recorded by the Trial Court as well first Appellate Court?”

9. Sri G.Sravan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 submits that the testimony of P.Ws.1 to 6 is interested in nature, thereby, cannot be believed; that no independent witness was examined to corroborate their testimony; that the Trial Court as well Sessions Court failed to appreciate the material on record in a proper perspective, erroneously convicted the petitioners for the said offence and the same is liable to be set aside.

10. Per contra, Miss P.Akhila Naidu, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State submits that the testimony of P.Ws.1 to 5 establ