The court emphasized the significance of injured witnesses' testimony in convicting and modifying sentences, reaffirming the stance that reliance on interested witnesses is acceptable if corroborated by credible evidence.

ORDER :

Y. Lakshmana Rao, J.

The revision was preferred under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘the Cr.P.C.,’) against the judgment dated 06.05.2010 passed by the learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari District at Rajahmundry in Criminal Appeal No.197 of 2009, where under the appeal was partly allowed reducing the sentence from rigorous imprisonment for one year to simple imprisonment for three months while enhancing the payment of fine from Rs.500 to Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) against the judgment passed by the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ramachandrapuram.

2. The revisionist No.2 Janipella Kanthamma died on 14.07.2001 and accordingly the case against her was abated.

3. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

4. Sri K. Gani Reddy, the learned counsel for the revisionists submits that learned Appellate Court and the Trial Court had placed much reliance on the evidence of interested witnesses and arrived at wrong conclusions; the conviction was passed on the presumptions and assumptions which are against law; as the revisionist was neighbour to accused No.1, he was dragged into the case with false allegations; there was ambiguity in the narrations of the prosecution witnesses; the persecution could not examine any independent witnesses and there were several self-contradictions in the depositions of the witnesses of the prosecution; all the witnesses in the case are planted to suit the false allegations of PW.1; the learned Trial Court had, instead of disbelieving the evidence of the interested witnesses, given much weight to those versions in utter violations of the evidence available on record; the learned Appellate Court ought to have seen that there was no evidence to support the case of the prosecution and acquitted the petitioners. Hence, it was urged to allow the Revision.

5. Per contra, Mr. Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that the evidence of material witnesses corroborated with each other and is consistent; wound certificates disclosed that PW.1 and PW.2 suffered injuries in the hands of the accused; the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts and that is the reason why the learned Trial Court rightly convicted and sentenced the accused; the learned Appellate Court also confirmed the same and thus, prayed to dismiss the revision petition as there are no grounds warranting any interference since there was no material irregularity concerning the procedure and misreading of the evidence.

6. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further submitted that as can be seen from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, their evidence is corroborating and inspiring the confidence to sustain conviction since the oral evidence and documentary evidence are supporting the case of the prosecution; the learned Trial Court and also the Appellate Court had rightly appraised the facts of the case and came to correct conclusion; there was no concrete material to disbelieve the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and nothing significant was elicited from the direct and injured witnesses to spurn their evidence.

7. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced. I have perused the material on record.

8. Now the point for consideration is, whether the judgment in Crl.A.No.197 of 2009 dated 06.05.2010, passed by the learned First Additional District and Sessions Judge, East Godavari District at Rajahmundry, is correct, legal, and proper with respect to its finding, sentence, or judgment, and there are any material irr