VADDE SOWRI RAJU Vs. STATE OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 22/9/2000 this revision petitioner along with one of his associates, after due trial before learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Guntur were convicted of attempted murder/Sec. 307 I.P.C. in S.C.No.644 of 1998. This revision petitioner was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and was directed to pay a fine of Rs.500.00 with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for three months. His appeal against it was given due hearing by learned VII Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur and by a judgment dtd. 29/4/2005 in Crl.A.No.397 of 2002 the learned appellate Court found no merit in the appeal and it agreed with the findings and conclusions and sentence arrived at by the trial Court and confirmed the judgment of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. It is in challenge to it, this revision is filed under Ss. 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. questioning the correctness and legality of findings and sentence of the Courts below.

(2.) Learned counsel, in defence of the revision petitioner, argued that the judgments impugned were products of premises and surmises and they failed to appreciate evidence in proper perspective. That the dispute was between the victim and A.1 (not a party to this revision) and the present revision petitioner/A.2 did not have any common intention along with A.1. Evidence concerning scene of offence and the evidence of other witnesses had no corroboration. Benefit of doubt ought to have been given to the revision petitioner. The sentence inflicted is excessive. On these premises, learned counsel prays this Court to upset the impugned judgments and acquit the revision petitioner.

(3.) In the Courts below it was a case on police report and the State is the respondent here and in prosecution of the respondent 's endeavour, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that the evidence on record had fully demonstrated the culpability of this revision petitioner and his associate and the evidence of the victim, who luckily survived the attack, found full corroboration from the direct eye witnesses and the medical evidence and both the Courts below appropriately appreciated the evidence and reached to correct conclusions and inflicted penalty that is proportionate and submits that there could be no justification to interfere with the well reasoned decisions of the Courts below.