THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1016 of 2017

JUDGMENT:

This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the State,

seeking enhance of the sentence passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Nalgonda, in S.C. No. 416 of 2013 dated 03.08.2016, whereby the respondent/accused No.1 was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’) and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo Simple

Imprisonment for a period of six months.

2. In spite of service of notice, the respondent/accused No.1 has not chosen to enter appearance in the present

appeal.

3. Mr.M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for appellant/State, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the trial Court,

without properly appreciating the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution, convicted respondent/accused No.1 for the offence under Section 307 of the IPC. The trial Court ought to have awarded major sentence of rigorous imprisonment, considering that the prosecution proved and established that accused No.1 committed the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC. He further submitted that the trial Court did not award any compensation to the victim as required under Section 357 Cr.P.C., despite the fact that the victim had sustained grievous injuries at the hands of accused No.1. Hence, accused No.1 is liable for enhancement of the sentence.

4. Having considered the submissions made by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and after perusal of the impugned judgment, it reveals that even according to the evidence adduced by the prosecution, including Exs.P2 and P4, the victim sustained simple injuries.

5. In view of the above said evidence and also the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rais @ Taun and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh1 and also in Bir Singh and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh2, the trial Court below rightly came to a conclusion that the accused No.1 is convicted for the offence under section 307 of the IPC and also sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 2 years and to pay fine amount of Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for Six months.

6. Even according to the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, the accused No.1 has not filed any appeal against the judgment passed by the trial Court and he has undergone the sentence imposed by the trial Court.

7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any

1 Crl.A.Nos.1363-1365 of 2010

2 AIR 1978 SC 59

grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court.

8. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.

_______________________ J. SREENIVAS RAO, J Date: 20.11.2025 Pav