Criminal Revision Case No. 1928 of 2004 · High Court · 2004

This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the judgment, dated 05.11.2004, passed by the X Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Visakhapatnam at Anakapalle in Crl.A.No.86 of 2003, wherein and whereby the judgment, dated 23.12.2003, passed in S.C.No.71 of 2002 on the file of the Sessions Court, Visakhapatnam Division at Anakapalle, convicting and sentencing the petitioner-accused to suffer rigorous imprisonment of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC was

confirmed. The succinct facts of the prosecution case are that there long standing disputes pertaining to coconut surrounding the houses of the accused and P.W-2 and that on

28.09.2001, the accused visited the house of his father along with his wife from Visakhapatnam and came to know about that dispute. Then, the accused went to the house of P.W-1 and picked up a quarrel with P.W-2. When the mother and other family members of P.W-2 intervened questioning about his high handedness, the accused brought an empty beer bottle and break the same by hitting a nearby cement bund and attempted to stab the mother of P.W-2 but she escaped. Then the accused stabbed P.W-2 on his intestine. In this connection, on a report given by P.W-1, a case was registered against the accused and after completion of investigation into the same, the charge sheet was filed. During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 9 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-4 were marked, besides marking M.Os.l and 2. On behalf of defence, Ex.D-1 was marked, but none was examined. The trial Court after analyzing the entire evidence on record, found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him, as stated supra, which was confirmed in the appeal.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the material papers on record. When the matter is taken up, learned counsel for the petitioner-accused fairly conceded that this is not a fit case for interference, but, however, requested this Court to take a lenient view having regard to the fact that the petitioner has been in jail for about a week. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and also on perusal of the material on record, is evident impugned judgment was pronounced on 05.11.2004 and immediately, the petitioner was taken into custody and only by virtue of the bail granted by this Court on 11.11.2004 he was released from the jail. Thus, as on today, the petitioner suffered a sentence of about one week. Hence, this Court is of the view that a lenient view can be taken. Accordingly, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of five years for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC imposed on the petitioner-accused by both the Courts below is reduced to two years, while maintaining the sentence of fine. Except the said modification the sentence of imprisonment, in all other aspects, this Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed. ___________________________________ JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA 27th January 2011 DR