Modification of conviction requires evidence consistency; appellate courts must ensure convictions align with the facts presented without assuming the trial court's findings are absolute.

ORDER :

1. The Criminal Revision Case, under Section 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "Cr.P.C.‟) is filed on behalf of the petitioner/accused assailing the Judgment dated 20.03.2009 passed in Crl.A.No.313 of 2007 on the file of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, East Godavari, at Amalapuram (for short, 1 ^st Appellate Court‟), whereby the 1 ^st Appellate Court partly allowed the appeal by modifying the Judgment and conviction and sentence imposed against the petitioner/accused for the offence under Section 324 of INDIAN PENAL CODE ,1860 (for short, IPC‟) instead of Section 326 of IPC vide Judgment dated 31.10.2007 passed in C.C.No.87 of 2005 on the file of the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kothapeta (for short, „the Trial Court‟).

2. The parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed in C.C.No.87 of 2005.

3. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that:

On 28.05.2004 at about 6.00 A.M., the accused, armed with a stick, pounced upon P.W.1, Ch. Syamalavathi was at her house situated in Utchilivaripeta, beaten indiscriminately and also threatened with dire consequences, and she sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, P.W.1 went to P. Gannavaram and presented a report to the Sub Inspector of Police. On the strength of the said report, he registered a case in Crime No.46 of 2004 under Section 325 and 506 of the IPC. During the course of the investigation, the Sub Inspector of Police arrested the accused on 30.05.2004 and sent him to judicial custody.

4. The learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kothapeta, took cognizance against the accused under Sections 325 and 506 I.P.C. On the appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5. The accused was examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C., and he denied the commission of the offence. A charge under Section 326 of IPC against the accused was framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. During the course of the trial, on behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 9 were examined and Exs.P1 to P9 and M.Os.1 to 3 were marked. After the closure of the evidence of prosecution, the accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. concerning the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence let in by the prosecution, for which he denied the same, and he stated that he had no defence witnesses on his behalf.

7. The trial Court on hearing both sides and on considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, found the accused guilty for the offence under Section 326 of IPC and he was convicted and sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and also sentence to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 326 of IPC vide its Judgment, dated 31.10.2007 in C.C.No.87 of 2005.

8. Felt aggrieved of the aforesaid conviction and sentence, the unsuccessful accused filed Criminal Appeal No.313 of 2007 before the 1^st Appellate Court and the 1^st Appellate Court partly allowed the Appeal by modifying the conviction and sentence imposed against the accused for the offence under Section 326 of IPC to Section 324 of IPC and he was sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for six months and directed to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, out of it, a sum of Rs.4000/- shall be paid to P.W.1. In default of fine, the accused shall undergo Simple