ORDER:

This Criminal Revision Case is preferred against the concurrent Judgments of conviction and sentence passed against the revision petitioner/accused in Criminal Appeal No.38 of 2007, dated 14.05.2009 on the file of Sessions Judge, Anantapur, wherein the judgment of the trial Court in S.C.No.299 of 2005 dated 01.03.2006, whereby conviction and sentence passed against the accused for the offenses punishable under Section 307 & 324 of IPC was confirmed.

2. The revision petitioner herein was the accused before the Trial Court, the respondent herein was the State represented by learned Public Prosecutor.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred as they are arrayed before the Trial Court.

4. The case of the prosecution succinctly:

a) The sole accused in the instant case is the wife of the defacto complainant/PW1. PW.2 Rajesh is the son of the accused. The marriage of the accused and defacto complainant took place about 11 years preceding to the incident. She used to frequently visit her parents’ house at Maddalapuram village. She used to quarrel with her husband. About four weeks prior to the incident, the accused was brought back to the matrimonial house by mother-in-law and brother-in-law.

b) On 28.11.2004 at the early hours at 4.00 A.M., the accused dealt a blow against her husband/PW1 with an axe, with an intention to kill him. He sustained injury. PW2 who is their son on hearing the cries of his father rushed to the scene and tried to intervene, she also attacked her son/PW2 with the same axe and caused injuries to his hands. She also threw a boulder on her husband. PW4 who is the brother of PW1 and his mother Vannuramma rushed to the scene and found PW1 and PW2 with injuries and shifted them to Government General Hospital Anantapur.

c) PW7 recorded the statement of PW1 on the very same day at 2.00 P.M vide Ex.P1. PW6 on receipt of Ex.P1 registered a case against the accused vide Ex.P5. PW6 during the course of investigation, visited the scene of offence and drew a rough sketch for the scene vide Ex.P7 observed the scene in the presence of mediators vide Ex.P8 and seized a M.O.2. PW.6 arrested the accused dated 02.12.2004 at her parents’ village.

5. The learned trial Judge framed charges against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 324 IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 7 witnesses were examined to substantiate the case of the prosecution and the Exs.P1 to P8 were the documents marked apart from placing the M.Os 1 to 5 before the Court. The defence got marked Exs.D1 to D4.

a) The accused denied the incriminating material deposed by the prosecution witness against her. But she did not choose to adduce any evidence on her behalf.

b) After hearing both the counsels on appreciation of evidence on record, the learned trial judge found the accused guilty of the charge under Sections 307 and 324 I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer undergo simple Imprisonment for a period of two years and pay fine of Rs.200/- for the offence under Section 307 of I.P.C. and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days. The accused was also sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months for the offence punishable under Section 324 of I.P.C. Both sentences shall run concurrently.

6. Having been aggrieved by the impugned judgement of conviction and sentence passed against the accused she preferred Criminal Appeal No.38 of 2007 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Anantapur, which was dismissed confirming the judgement of the trial Court in all aspects.

7. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment the accused preferred the present the Criminal Revision Case on the grounds that:

a) Learned trial Judge failed to observe the discrepancy in the evidence of prosecution witnesses.

b) The conviction cannot be recorded basing on the un-corroborative testimony of PW1 and PW2.

c) The learned judge misread the judgments cited on behalf the accuse