KARETI VENU Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision case is preferred by the petitioner-accused 30-07-2002 against the judgment dated ^D:Ur200Vpassed in Crl.A.No.464 of 2000 by the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, confirming the judgment dated 28-08-2000 passed in C.C.No.112 or' 1999 by the I Additional Munsif Magistrate, Tenali, wherein the petitioner-accused was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for four months for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and also ordering to paid the said fine amount to PW-1 towards compensation under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

(2.) The facts that are necessary for disposal of the criminal revision case are as follows: The sister of the accused was married to the cousin of one Mediboina Srinivasa Rao (hereinafter called as the deceased) and there were disputes between husband and wife. The accused presumed that the deceased is responsible for the quarrels and as such developed grouse against the deceased. It is further alleged that on 16-12-1998 at about 8-30 A.M. when the deceased was going towards Railway Station, Tenali to go to office, on the way i.e., near park at the turning at Pinapadu, the accused due to grouse poured acid on the face of the deceased and beat him with an iron rod. PWs.2 and 3 witnessed the incident. On coming to know the same, PW-1, who is the father of the deceased, rushed to the spot and shifted him to the Hospital. Based on the statement given by PW-1, the Station House Officer, III Town Police Station, Tenali, rsgistered a case in Crime No.221 of 1998 and after completion of investigation laid charge sheet against the accused. On appearance of the accused, the learned Magistrate framed a charge under Section 324 of IPC against the accused, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To establish its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P1 to P12 and on behalf of defence Ex.D1 was marked. On appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, the learned Magistrate found the petitioner-accused guilty of the offence with which he was charged and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as stated supra.The learned IV Additional Sessions Judge on re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record confirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner-accused has come up with the present criminal revision case.

(3.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner-accused, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the impugned judgments as well as the other material on record.