Telangana High Court
Nyamathabad Chandrasekhar, ... vs The State Of Ap Rep By Its Pp ... on 5 January, 2023
Bench: K.Surender
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2110 of 2006
JUDGMENT:
1. The petitioner is questioning the finding of guilt by the
Assistant Sessions Judge, Bodhan, vide judgment in
S.C.No.591 of 2001 dated 19.08.2003, which was confirmed
by the V Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court),
Nizamabad, vide judgment in Criminal Appeal No.64 of 2003,
dated 14.12.2006 for the offence under Section 307 of IPC.
2. The case of P.W.2/injured is that he was Butcher by
profession. The Thimmapur Village Committee called him to
sell Mutton and Chicken in their village and provided
premises. Having agreed for the same, Rs.1,800/- was paid to
the Committee. Three days thereafter, the petitioner herein
approached the committee people and offered Rs.5,000/-
towards lease amount, but the Committee people refused. The
petitioner was angry that his proposal was not accepted by the
committee. The petitioner came back to the village and while
P.W.2 was talking to the father of the petitioner, the petitioner
took out knife from side pocket and stabbed five times in the
stomach and chest, as a result of which PW2 sustained
bleeding injuries and fell on the ground and became
unconscious. He was taken to the hospital for treatment.
Having received the complaint about the attack, police
investigated and filed charge sheet for the offence under
Section 307 of IPC.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the eye
witness P.W.4 turned hostile to the prosecution case and on
the basis of the sole testimony of P.W.2, conviction was
recorded by the trial Court, which is erroneous. He relied on
the judgment of this court in the case of Jonrolla Raju and
another v. State of A.P1. In the said judgment, the recovered
weapon was not sent for chemical analysis to find out whether
it contained human blood nor was shown to the Doctor for his
opinion that such material object can cause injury which is
found on the victim. In the said circumstances, the confession
2004(3) ALD (NOC) 185
and the circumstantial evidence in the case could not be
proved and conviction was set aside.
4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the
concurrent findings of conviction cannot be interfered with by
this Court in Revision.
5. The evidence of P.W.2, who is an eye witness and injured
cannot be disbelieved. There is no reason why P.W.2 would
make a false allegation against this petitioner. The statement
of P.W.2 corroborates with the complaint filed. Only for the
reason of P.W.6 turning hostile who is a witness to MO1
recovery proceedings, will not in any manner dilute the case of
the prosecution.
6. There are no grounds to interfere with the finding of guilt
against the petitioner. However, according to the evidence of
P.Ws.1 and 3, there was lot of noise and fighting that
happened in between the petitioner and P.W.2 in the presence
of several others. The attack on P.W.2 appears to be the result
of the fight which ensued in between them. For the said
reason of the Petitioner reacting to the altercation and causing
injuries, this Court deems it appropriate to convict the
petitioner for the offence under Section 325 of IPC for causing
grievous hurt as intention to cause death is not forthcoming in
the facts of the present case.
7. In the result, the conviction of the petitioner under
Section 307 of IPC is set aside and he is convicted for the
offence under Section 325 of IPC for causing grievous injuries.
The petitioner is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for a period of six months. The remand period if any, shall be
set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.
8. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed in
part. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any,
shall stand closed.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 05.01.2023
kvs
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2110 OF 2006
Dt. 05.01.2023
kvs
