ORDER:

Assailing the judgment dated 26.10.2010 in Crl.A.No.72 of 2009 on the file of the Family Court-cum-Additional District & Sessions Court, East Godavari at Rajahmundry, modifying the conviction and sentence, imposed by the judgment dated 28.04.2009 in C.C.No.1515 of 2006 on the file of the Court of learned V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajahmundry, from the charge under Section 326 Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) to the offence under Section 325 IPC and convicted the accused for the said offence, the petitioner/accused filed the present criminal revision case under Section 397 r/w.401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”).

2. The revision case was admitted on 03.11.2010 and the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the petitioner was suspended, vide orders in Crl.R.C.M.P.No.3018 of 2010.

3. The shorn of prosecution case is that:

i). On 21.02.2005, accused questioned P.W.2 as to why he propagating in the village that his wife left his company and went to parental home and picked up quarrel with him. Again on 23.02.2005 at about 08.00 p.m., when P.W.1 and his brother were going to sell the milk, accused stopped them and picked up quarrel. Then neighbors came there and pacified the matter.

ii). On the same day at about 11.30 p.m., while P.W.1 was returning to home, accused stopped him and bet him with a stick on the left hand. Then P.W.1 was shifted to Government Hospital and recorded his statement by the Head Constable, Outpost Police Station and sent the same to Seethanagaram Police Station and the same was registered as a case in Cr.No.21 of 2005 by P.W.5-ASI and investigated into.

4. After completion of investigation, P.W.8-S.I. of Police, laid charge sheet and the same was taken on file and numbered as C.C.No.1515 of 2006 on the file of the Court of learned V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajahmundry and after full-fledged trial, the trial Court found the petitioner guilty of the charge under Section 326 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two (2) years and also pay fine of Rs.500/-, in-default to suffer simple imprisonment of one (1) month.

5. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the revision petitioner preferred an appeal, vide Crl.A.No.72 of 2009, before the Family Court-cum-Additional District & Sessions Court, East Godavari at Rajahmundry, and the said appeal was partly allowed modifying the sentence from the charge under Section 326 IPC to the offence under Section 325 IPC and accused is convicted for the said offence and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one (1) year and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment of three (3) months, instead of the sentence imposed by the trial Court with a benefit of, set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C.

6. Against the said judgment of the first Appellate Court, the present criminal revision case was preferred by the petitioner/accused.

7. Heard Sri Y.Sudhakar, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused and Sri S.Dheera Kanishk, learned counsel attached to the office of State Public Prosecutor 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 Y.Sudhakar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that P.Ws.1 to 3 are interested witnesses, in particularly, P.Ws.2 and 3 are much interested, because P.W.2 is elder brother and P.W.3 is relative of P.W.1 and Courts below ought to have disbelieved their testimony; that no independent witness was examined to prove the commission of alleged offence by the accused, which is fatal to the prosecution case; that there is no corroboration to the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 and there are material discrepancies in between their testimonies; that the evidence on record solely is not sufficient to c