Conviction under Section 324 IPC upheld based on evidence, while the charge under Section 307 IPC was invalidated due to lack of intent, leading to a reduced sentence based on the time elapsed since the incident.

ORDER :

V. SRINIVAS, J.

Assailing the Judgment, dated 09.03.2011 in Crl.A.No.127 of 2009 on the file of the Court of learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Srikakulam, modifying the conviction and sentence passed against the A1 and A2 by the judgment dated 10.08.2009 in Sessions Case No.150 of 2008 on the file of the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Srikakulam, to that of the offence under Section 324 of INDIAN PENAL CODE (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”), the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 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 11.03.2011 and the sentence imposed against the petitioners was suspended, vide orders in Crl.R.C.M.P.No.883 of 2011.

3. The shorn of necessary facts are that :

i). On 21.11.2007 morning, the defacto complainant along with her brother Narasimhappadu and her son Konna Kittayya went to their lands to provide water to the ground-nut crop and at about 12 noon all the accused armed them with sticks, knives and katuva borigas, due to which, they sustained injuries.

ii). Basing on the Ex.P.1 report of P.W.1, S.I of Police, Laveru Police Station, registered a case in Cr.No.147 of 2007under Sections307, 324 and 323 read with 23 IPC and investigated into.

4. After completion of investigation, P.W.10 laid charge sheet and the same was numbered as S.C.No.150 of 2008 on the file of the Court of learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Srikakulam, and after full-fledged trial, found the accused guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 307 , 326, 324 and 323 read with 34 IPC and accordingly sentenced them.

5. Aggrieved by the same, the A1 to A8 preferred an appeal, videCrl.A.No.127 of 2009 on the file of the Court of learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Srikakulam, which was modified sentencing the petitioners/A1 and A2 to undergo SI for a period of one year for the offence under Section 324 IPC and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- each, i.d.s.i., for three months, instead of Section 307 read with 34 IPC. Further, the conviction against the A3 and A5 is set aside and conviction against A4 is modified into conviction under Section 323 IPC and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.3000/-. Conviction against A6 to A8 for the offence punishable under Section 323 IPC is set aside.

6. Against the said judgment of the first Appellate Court, the present criminal revision case was preferred by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2.

7. Heard Sri A. Ravi Shankar, learned counsel for the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 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 A. Ravi Shankar, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is highly interested. There are no specific overtacts attributed against the petitioners herein with respect to the injuries sustained by the defacto complainant. PW10 Investigating officer has specifically stated that PW4 have not stated before him that A1 to A4 beat PW2 either on his right leg or left leg, left year and left shoulder; thereby, the prosecution utterly failed to prove the offences alleged against the petitioners; that the Trial Court as well Sessions Co