JUDGMENT:

This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the judgment dated 04.05.2012 in Crl.A.No.102 of 2011, on the file of II Additional Sessions Judge, Nalgonda at Suryapet, confirming the judgment dated 28.07.2011 passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge at Suryapet in S.C.No.437 of 2010.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State.

3. The revision petitioner was convicted by the Assistant Sessions Judge for the offence under Section 307 of IPC. The case against the revision petitioner is that he attacked P.W.3 with a cricket bat which was marked as M.O.1, causing injuries on his head. As a result of the attack, P.W.3 received laceration injury over left parietal region which was simple in nature. However, there was a crack over the said area of the bone which was stated as grievous in nature by the Doctor and accordingly, Ex.P.6-wound certificate was given. On the basis of the evidence of eye witnesses, injured and the Doctor’s evidence, learned Assistant Sessions Judge found that he had an intent to cause death of P.W.3 and having knowledge, he had attacked with a cricket bat. Accordingly, conviction was recorded under Section 307 of IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment of 3 years.

4. The conviction was questioned before the learned Sessions Judge. Having considered the evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge concurred with the findings of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge and confirmed the conviction.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revision petitioner would submit that the incident happened on 04.07.2010 in the evening whereas the complaint was lodged on the next day. The said delay in lodging the complaint was not explained. Further, the evidence of the Doctor runs contrary to the version of the eye witnesses and the injured. The Doctor had examined P.W.3 after the incident on the next day. According to his opinion, injuries are 2-3 hours old and if the injuries are 2-3 hours old, the version of P.W.3, injured and other eye-witnesses cannot be believed.

6. The said opinion of the Doctor that the injuries were 2- 3 hours old cannot be made basis to disbelieve the evidence of eye-witnesses. Even according to the Doctor, it is opined that exact time cannot be stated. Even assuming that there is discrepancy in between eye-witnesses account and the medical evidence, ocular evidence has to be considered.

7. According to the prosecution case, the accused attacked P.W.3 for the reason of P.W.3 teasing the sister of accused. Enraged by the conduct of P.W.3 in following and teasing his sister, it was alleged that the accused had attacked P.W.3.

8. I do not find any reason to set aside the conviction. Adequate reasons were given by the Courts below. Further injured/P.W.3 himself had stated that it was the accused who had attacked him. The incident is of the year, 2010 and the accused had attacked P.W.3 for the reason of complaint made by his sister. In the said circumstances of P.W.3 receiving one grevious injury, sentence of imprisonment can be reduced. Accordingly, the Revision is partly allowed reducing the sentence of 3 years imprisonment imposed by the trial Court and confirmed by the Sessions Court to 6 months. The trial Court shall cause appearance of the accused and send him to prison to serve out the remaining part of sentence imposed. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

_________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 14.06.2024 dv