G SHYAM Vs. STATE OF A P HYD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is filed by Appellant/Accused No. 1 against the judgment of the learned IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in Sessions Case No. 116 of 1993, dated 17-9-1993.

(2.) The appellant was convicted under Section 307 IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 4 years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine to suffer Simple Imprisonment for two months. He was also convicted for the offence under Section 333 EPC to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- in default of payment of fine to suffer Simple Imprisonment for one month. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. It was further directed that the remand period if any undergone by the Accused No. 1 shall be set off against the sentence. There are four accused in the Sessions Case No. 116/1993. However, the case against Accused No.4 was separated. A2 and A3 were acquitted. In this case we are concerned with A-1 who is the appellant.

(3.) The case of the prosecution is that on 7-9-1990 at about 11 p.m. the Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Chaderghai (PW1) received information that at Rice Mill area of Malakpet, some people were stopping the vehicles at knife point and therefore PW1 and P.C.No.3799 (PW2) went to the spot and found Accused No. 1 to 4 creating panic in the area. When PW1 accosted them, they tried to pounce upon the complainant with knife and A1 stabbed him and inflicted injuries on both the hands and they fled away. Subsequently, they were apprehended and charge under Section 307 EPC was framed against the Appellant/A1 and against Al to A3 charges were framed under Section 307 IPC Read with Section 34 IPC. A separate charge was also framed under Section 333 IPC against all the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty. The case against A-4 was split-up and takenup separately. Prosecution examined 8 witnesses PWs-1 to 8 and marked Exs.Pl to P7 and M.Os.1 to 7. The learned Sessions Judge found that the charges framed against the Appellant/ A-1 under Section 307 IPC and also under Section 333 IPC are established and consequently sentenced for Rigorous Imprisonment for 4 years and fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 307 IPC and Rigorous Imprisonment for 6 months and fine of Rs.200/- for the offence under Section 333 IPC. PW2 is the Police Constable, who accompanied the P.W-1 to the place of occurrence. They had stated that the accused were creating panic and were holding knives. They were also identified as rowdies of the area. When they went to catch the accused, they tried to run away, but however in the meanwhile A-l stabbed P.W-1 causing bleeding injuries. Thereafter A-l and A-2 ran away. P.W-1 was taken to hospital. The information was given to the police station, PWs.3 to 5 are the Panch witnesses. PW6 is the Medical Officer, who narrated the various injuries sustained by PW1 and they were identified as grievous injuries. PW7 is the Sub-Inspector of Police, who registered the F.I.R. and thereafter the further investigation was taken up by the Inspector of Police PW8 The Investigating Officer PW8 stated that he visited the scene of offence and recorded the statements of PW2. He also examined certain witnesses and recovered knives from the possession of A1 and A2. The learned Sessions Judge basing on the evidence of PW1 and coupled with the other relevant evidence found A1 guilty of the offences while A2 and A3 were acquitted by a judgment dated 17-9-1993 in S.C.No.116/93. The said judgment is assailed before this Court by the Appellant.