ORDER:

The Criminal Revision Case is filed against the Judgment dated

14.12.2007 in Criminal Appeal No.138 of 2006 on the file of the IV Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Nellore, by and under which the conviction and sentence imposed against the petitioner/accused by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Kovvur in SC.No.174/2005, dated 19.10.2006 for the offence under Section 307 IPC was set aside and convicted the accused under Section 326 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the State.

The case of the prosecution in brief is that the petitioner/accused and PW 1 are husband and wife and their marriage was solemnized about 10 years back from the date of incident. Two months prior to the incident, the petitioner/accused was not looking after the welfare of his wife PW 1 properly and suspecting her fidelity. With an evil intention, on 17.09.2004 the petitioner/accused brought his wife PW 1 to their relatives house at Kovvur and on the same day at 10 p.m. when PW 2 was arranging hot water for his bath, the petitioner/accused poured acid on PW 1, due to which, PW 1 sustained burn injuries on her neck, chest and backside. PW 1 gave report to the police, basing on which, a case in Cr.No.123/2004 of Kovvur P.S.was registered initially under section 324 IPC, and subsequently, the section of law was altered to Section 323 and 307 IPC and after completion of investigation, the police filed charge sheet. The learned jurisdictional Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Session, Nellore Division, which in turn made over to the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Kovvur.

Before the trial Court, the accused was examined and charges under section 324 and 307 IPC were framed against the accused, for which he pleaded not guilty.

During the course of trial, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 9 and marked Exs.P1 to P6. The accused denied the evidence on record and on his behalf Exs.D1 to D3 were marked.

On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court while observing that the offence under Section 307 IPC is more grievous offence than the offence under Section 324 IPC, found the petitioner/accused guilty of the offences under Section 307 IPC, convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 (seven) years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months.

Challenging the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, the petitioner/accused preferred appeal Crl.A.138/2006 before the appellate Court. The learned Sessions Judge on re-appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, set aside the conviction and sentence recorded under section 307 IPC, however, convicted the accused under Section 326 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner/accused filed the present criminal revision case.

The point that arises for consideration in this revision is whether the conviction and sentence imposed by the Courts below against the revision petitioner/accused is sustainable, or whether it needs interference.

Mylapuri Lata/PW.1 was married to the petitioner/accused in or around 1994. Even otherwise, PW.1 and the accused were related to each other. PW.3 – Subbamma is the maternal grandmother of PW.1 and the paternal grandmother of the accused. The accused and PW.1 had a son and daughter. The accused was a tailor by profession. According to PW.1, the accused was a man of suspicious nature and used to frequently abuse and quarrel with her. Several times they had disputes. The accused used to quarrel with her and used to send her away to her paren