JUDGMENT:

This Criminal Appeal is preferred by the appellant/accused against the Judgment dated 28.09.2007 passed in S.C.No.283 of 2006, by the Court of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Ranga Reddy District, whereby the learned Judge convicted the appellant/accused for the offence under Section 307 IPC and accordingly sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of five years.

The case of the prosecution, as recorded by the Court below, is as follows:

That the accused Satyanarayana is the paternal uncle of the complainant by name G.Balakrishna. The accused and the complainant have acquired a house in a partition. The accused is residing in ground portion and the family of the de facto complainant is residing in two rooms situated on the upstair of the house of the accused. The accused is trying to evict the de facto complainant and his family from the said two rooms with an intent to occupy the same. The accused threatened the complainant that he would see the end of his family. On 08.04.2006, at about 10 p.m., the accused intentionally picked up quarrel with the mother and maternal aunt of the de facto complainant by name Chandrakala and Susheela respectively. By that time the de facto complainant and his brother by name Prabhu interfered and on that the accused picked up a knife and stabbed the de facto complainant on his stomach and on that he received bleeding injuries and while the mother of de facto complainant tried to snatch the knife from accused, she also received injury on her hand and his investigation clearly established the fact that the accused, with an intent to kill the de facto complainant, attacked on him with knife and caused bleeding injuries and thereby committed the offence under Section 307 IPC and therefore, he filed the charge sheet to convict the accused according to law.

To substantiate the case of the prosecution, during the course of trial, P.Ws.1 to 9 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.7 and M.O.1 were marked. On behalf of the accused, D.W.1 was examined and no documents were marked.

P.W.1 is the de facto complainant and the injured. He deposed that the accused is his junior paternal uncle, that the accused consumed liquor and vomited and on that his grand mother washed that place and at that time the accused beat his mother and that while beating his relatives by the accused, P.W.1 along with his brother came there and questioned the accused, that there was exchange of words among them and in the meanwhile, the accused stabbed on his stomach on left side. P.W.2, who is the mother of P.W.1, also deposed on the same lines of P.W.1 and supported the case of the prosecution. P.W.3 is the Mediator. He deposed that he witnessed the quarrel between the accused and P.W.1, and they beat each other and he asked the accused why they were quarrelling with each other and on that the accused replied that it is his family dispute and not to interfere in that dispute and on that he kept quite and at that time, the accused stabbed P.W.1 on his stomach with knife. P.W.4, who is the younger brother of P.W.1, also supported the case of the prosecution. P.Ws.5 and 6 are the mediators of scene observation report and seizure of the knife. P.W.7 is the then Sub Inspector of Police, who conducted the investigation. P.W.8 is the then Doctor, who examined P.W.1 in Osmania General Hospital. He deposed that the injury is a penetrating injury caused with sharp edged object. P.W.9 is CMO of the Osmania General hospital, who issued the wound certificate, marked as Ex.P.6 and Medico Legal Record, Ex.P.7.

On appreciation of the above evidence, the trial Court found the appellant/accused guilty and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as stated above. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred by the appellant/accused.

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/accused and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the entire material available on record.

The point for consideration i