SAKUNALA MANGESWARA RAO Vs. KOLLAPALLI SUBBA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the de facto complainant. On the complaint submitted by him the prosecution initiated proceedings against A1, the 1st respondent, A2 and A3, alleging offence under Section 307 IPC against them. The same came to be tried as Sessions Case No.294 of 1995 in the Court of Assistant Sessions Judge, Razole. The trial Court through its judgment dated 14-5-1996 acquitted A-2 and A-3, but convicted A1 of the offence under Section 307 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-. Aggrieved thereby, A1 filed Criminal Appeal No.108 of 1996 in the Court of I Additional Sessions Judge, Rajahmundry. The lower appellate Court through its Judgment dated 3-8-2000 had acquitted the accused of the offence under Section 307 IPC and set aside the sentence. However, it convicted him for the offence under Section 324 IPC and sentenced him for imprisonment for the period already undergone, and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-. In default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. The same is challenged in this petition.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that there was ample evidence to sustain the conviction and sentence against A1 and the trial Court was fully justified in convicting and sentencing him. He submits that the lower appellate Court had interfered with the same without any basis.

(3.) Sri M. Lakshmana Sarma, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.1 submits that even if the entire evidence on record was taken on its face value, it did not disclose any offence under Section 307, and as such, the lower appellate Court had set aside the conviction and sentence under Section 307 IPC.