P. S. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) THE sole accused upputuri Ramaiah, aggrieved of the judgment of the Principal Assistant Sessions judge, Narasaraopet dated 30. 8. 1997, in s. C. No. 103 8/94, had preferred this criminal appeal. ( 2 ) THE facts in brief of the episode of the prosecution are as hereunder : ( 3 ) THE appellant-accused and PW-1 nallapati Anjaneyulu are residents of jonnalagadda Village and the said Nallapati anjaneyulu is said to have illicit intimacy with the mother of the accused and the accused bore grudge against him. It is also the case of the prosecution that the accused was waiting for an opportunity to do away with the life of the said Anjaneyulu for the reason referred to supra. On 2. 9. 1994 at about 8 a. m. , while the said Anjaneyulu after having tea with Katla Prasada Rao was proceeding towards the village along with his bicycle from the Bus Stand centre, the accused came in the opposite direction armed with an axe and pushed him, as a result of which, the said Nallapati Anjaneyulu and the bicycle fell down. The accused hacked Nallapati Anjaneyulu with an axe on his head. As a result, the said axe got stuck in the head of Anjaneyulu. Anjaneyulu raised cries. Nallapati Venkateswarlu, Nallapati jagan Mohan, Vemparala Venkateswarlu and Katla Prasada Rao rushed to his rescue and on seeing them, the accused ran away. Then, the injured was shiftedto Government hospital, Narasaraopet in an autorickshaw and on the way his son Mallikarjuna Rao also joined him. Anjaneyulu was examined by the doctor at the Government Hospital, narasaraopet who gave intimation to the police as well as the Magistrate. The i Additional Munsif Magistrate, Narasaraopet recorded the Dying Declaration of anjaneyulu and basing on the copy thereof, the police have registered a case in cr. No. 97/94 and had taken up investigation. Subsequent thereto, Anjaneyulu was referred to the Government Hospital, Guntur, and he was taken to Government General Hospital, guntur. But the doctor there had expressed his inability to remove the axe from the head of Anjaneyulu and so referred him to osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad. However, the injured was taken to a private nursing home of Dr. CJagannadham at guntur who is a Neurologist who performed an emergency operation and removed the axe from the head of Nallapati Anjaneyulu. But the doctor there had expressed his inability to remove the axe from the head of Anjaneyulu and so referred him to osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad. However, the injured was taken to a private nursing home of Dr. CJagannadham at guntur who is a Neurologist who performed an emergency operation and removed the axe from the head of Nallapati Anjaneyulu. During the course of investigation, the witnesses were examined and the axe and also blood stained clothes were seized in the presence of mediators under a cover of mediatomama. The doctor who treated the injured was of the opinion that the injury was grievous in nature. The accused was arrested on 13. 4. 1994 and was sent to remand and on completion of investigation charge-sheet was filed. The I Additional munsif Magistrate, Narasaraopet, committed the case to the Court of Session, and the court of Session made over the same to the court concerned, which had tried and disposed of the matter in accordance with law. Upon consideration of the material, the court framed charges under Sections 307 and 326 I. P. C and the said charges were denied by the accused pleading not guilty. ( 4 ) THE prosecution had examined pws. l to 13 and marked Exs. P-1 to P-12. M. Os. l to 5 also were marked. The learned judge on appreciation of the evidence available on record arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution was able to prove the charge against the accused under Section 307 i. P. C beyond all reasonable doubt, and after hearing the accused on the quantum of sentence, imposed rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred. ( 5 ) MR. C. Padmanabha Reddy, learned senior Counsel representing the appellant-accused made the following submissions : ( 6 ) THE learned Counsel would submit that even from the evidence available on record, it is clear that the village is a faction ridden village divided on political lines, and the evidence of PW-7 also would disclose that there are differences between PW-8 and the son of PW-1 and the college management who again belong to the rival groups and due to enmity the case was foisted. The learned Counsel also had pointed out to the evidence of PWs 5 and 6 and had submitted that PW-7 was declared hostile. The accused was aged about 19 years on the date of offence, and the evidence of PWs. l to 4 cannot be believed, and another Muvva bhushaiah was not examined and in Ex. P-1 axe was not specified, and the said axe was not sent to Forensic Science Laboratory to connect the same with the commission of the offence. The learned Counsel would point out that PW-6 is only a private doctor. Even otherwise, the case sheet was not produced. The version of PW-1 itself is doubtful. The learned Counsel also had pointed out to certain discrepancies relating to the incident, and how it happened and taking PW-1 in an auto from Jonnalagadda to Narasaraopet and other aspects like distance of the houses from the scene of offence and other details. The learned Senior counsel ultimately concluded that on the material available on record, it is clear that the accused bore grudge against PW-1 due to the suspicion of illicit intimacy with his own mother and this is a matter to be taken into consideration while imposing punishment. ( 7 ) ON the contrary, the learned additional Public Prosecutor had taken this court through the evidence available on record and would point out that even in ex. P-1 it was specifically stated "he hacked me while I was on Jonnalagadda road". Hence, mere non-mentioning of the axe will not throw any doubt on the version of the prosecution. The learned Additional Public prosecutor also would submit that when other witnesses were examined, mere non-examination of Muvva Bhushaiah may not alter the situation in any way. Even if pw-7 was declared hostile, the other evidence available on record is sufficient. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also had taken this Court through the findings recorded by the learned Judge, and had concluded that by the evidence of PWs. 1 to 13 and Exs. P-1 to 12 and m. Os. l to 5, the prosecution was able to establish the case beyond all reasonable doubt and hence the said findings need not be disturbed. ( 8 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public prosecutor. 1 to 13 and Exs. P-1 to 12 and m. Os. l to 5, the prosecution was able to establish the case beyond all reasonable doubt and hence the said findings need not be disturbed. ( 8 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public prosecutor. ( 9 ) THE Principal Assistant Sessions judge, Narasaraopet had framed the following charges:firstly : that you, on or about the 2nd day of september, 1994 at about 8. 00 am, when nallapati Anjaneyulu (L. W. I) after taking tea with Katla Prasada Rao (L. W. 5) was proceeding towards village Jonnalagadda with his cycle from Bus Stand centre, you came in opposite to Nallapati Anjaneyulu (L. W. 1), armed with an axe with an intention to kill Nallapati Anjaneyulu (L. W. 1), and under such circumstances viz. , you pushed him, due to which the cycle of Nallapati anjaneyulu (L. W. I), fell down on one side and Nallapati Anjaneyulu (L. W. I) fell down on road margin, when you hacked nallapati Anjaneyulu (L. W. I) with an axe on his head due to which the axe stuck into the skull of Nallapati Anjaneyulu (L. W. 1), that if by that act you had caused the death of Nallapati Anjaneyulu, (L. W. 1), you would have been guilty of attempt to murder and that you thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian. Penal Code and within my cognizance. SECONDLY and Lastly : that you, on or about the same day, time and place, during the course of same transaction, in Charge No. 1 above, voluntarily caused grievous hurt to Nallapati Anjaneyulu (L. W. 1) to wit, by means of axe which is an instrument for hacking Nallapati Anjaneyulu (L. W. 1) with an axe on his head due to which the axe stuck into the skull of Nallapati anjaneyulu (L. W. 1), and that you thereby committed an offence punishable under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance. ( 10 ) PW-1 is the victim-injured. PW-1 deposed that he received injuries more than two years ago. ( 10 ) PW-1 is the victim-injured. PW-1 deposed that he received injuries more than two years ago. On that day, at about 8 a. m. , the offence occurred in front of hotel of muwa Bhushaiah of Jonnalagadda Village and at that time, he went to the hotel to have a cup of coffee along with Katla prasada Rao and he was following Katla prasada Rao at a distance taking his cycle with him and the accused came in opposite direction and pushed him with force and he fell on one side and the cycle fell on the other side. Immediately, the accused took out an axe and hacked PW-1 on the right side of his head, and the head of the axe embedded itself at the place of impact on the head of PW-1. Immediately, he raised cries and on hearing the same, Venkateswarlu (P. W. 2), Jaganmohanrao (P. W. 3) came running towards him who were sitting very nearby and they tried to apprehend the accused, but he escaped. PW-1 was having bleeding injury, and the persons who were present at the scene brought PW-1 to government Hospital, Narasaraopet in an auto-rickshaw. He gave statement before the magistrate marked as Ex. P-1 and at that time, he was not in a position to sign and hence his thumb impression was taken and later, he was taken to Government Hospital, guntur along with axe embedded in his head and on the next day of the occurrence, his statement was recorded by police in the hospital. PW-1 also deposed that the accused attacked him thinking that he had illicit intimacy with his mother. This witness was cross-examined and certain questions were put to him relating to the presence of bhushaiah and it was suggested that the accused did not attack him, and some villagers found him lying unconscious and thereby he was brought to the hospital. PW-1 stated that he did not state before police that Katla Prasada Rao was going ahead of him when this incident occurred. He also deposed that his son and his younger brother and other family members came to the scene hearing about the incident. But, however, he deposed that he had no knowledge about certain other aspects. He also deposed that he did not state in his statement before Magistrate in Ex. He also deposed that his son and his younger brother and other family members came to the scene hearing about the incident. But, however, he deposed that he had no knowledge about certain other aspects. He also deposed that he did not state in his statement before Magistrate in Ex. P-1 that attack occurred when he was taking a cycle, and his blood stained clothes were seized by the police. He also deposed that except V. Venkateswarlu, all other witnesses cited by him are related to him. ( 11 ) PW-2 deposed about the incident that he was sitting near the hotel of bhushaiah and was talking to Jagan mohan Rao regarding purchase of she buffaloes and in the meantime, on hearing the cries of PW-1, PW-2 along with Jagan mohan Rao rushed there and they saw pw-1 falling down and the accused giving a blow with an axe on the right side of pw-1 s head. The head of the axe got itself embedded in the head of PW-1 and the accused ran away from the scene. They brought PW-1 to Government Hospital, narasaraopet and thereafter to Guntur, and he was examined by police. In the cross- examination, as usual some attempt was made to show that there are factions in the village. No serious infirmities as such could be elicited. ( 12 ) PW-3 is yet another witness who deposed that he knew PWs. l and 2 and about two years ago, in the morning at about 8 a. m. , when he had gone to have a cup of coffee to Bhushaiah s hotel at jonnalagadda, and after having coffee, pws. 2 and 3 were discussing about purchase of she-buffaloes by sitting on a stone pial near the hotel and they noticed Prasadrao going ahead of PW-1 following him by pushing his cycle and in the meantime, the accused arrived there and pushed PW-1. The cycle fell on a side and PW-1 fell to other side and then, immediately, the accused hacked PW-1 with an axe on the right of the head and then they raised cries, and tried to apprehend the accused, but he ran away. They engaged an auto-rickshaw and brought PW-1 to Government Hospital, narasaraopet. The axe was embedded in the head of PW-1. There was heavy bleeding and the clothes were also blood stained, and he was examined by police. They engaged an auto-rickshaw and brought PW-1 to Government Hospital, narasaraopet. The axe was embedded in the head of PW-1. There was heavy bleeding and the clothes were also blood stained, and he was examined by police. This witness also was cross-examined and he had deposed that he stated before police that the axe was implanted on the right side of the head, and he cannot say who paid the fare of the auto and no serious infirmities as such had been pointed out in the cross-examination of this witness. ( 13 ) PW-4 is yet another witness who deposed that he was at the hotel for having a cup of tea and he saw PW-1 falling on the ground and noticed the accused hacking PW-1 with axe on the right side of pw-1 s head which got embedded in the head of PW-1, and the accused running away. All of them brought PW-1 in an auto-rickshaw to the Government Hospital. In cross-examination, he deposed that PW-1 along with cycle fell on the southern side and number of persons in that area gathered at the scene and nobody assisted in treating pw-1 or took him to the hospital and the house of PW-1 was about 200 yards from the scene of offence. No doubt, some comment was made by the learned Senior counsel on the basis of these topographical features that the evidence is not natural and the same is artificial. But on an overall appreciation of the evidence of the witnesses referred to supra, this Court is not inclined to accept the said contention. ( 14 ) PW-5 is the Civil Assistant surgeon, Government Hospital, who had examined PW-1 on 2. 9. 1994 at 8. 55 a. m. , found following injuries:"a lacerated injury on occipital area with axe edge inserted into scalp layers. It is not possible to remove as there may be severe bleeding. The patient is referred to G. G. H. , guntur for further treatment. According to x-ray No. 2366/94 of G. G. H, Guntur dated 2-9-1994, X-ray scalp A. P. Lateral view shows fracture of right parietal bone with axe in the skull layers. It is not possible to remove as there may be severe bleeding. The patient is referred to G. G. H. , guntur for further treatment. According to x-ray No. 2366/94 of G. G. H, Guntur dated 2-9-1994, X-ray scalp A. P. Lateral view shows fracture of right parietal bone with axe in the skull layers. "this witness also deposed that he is of the opinion that the injuries are of grievous nature, and the cause of injury is due to hacking with an axe and he sent intimation to the Magistrate to record dying declaration and Ex. P-2 is the wound certificate issued by him, and Ex. P-3 is the intimation given by him to the Magistrate and in his presence, the Munsif Magistrate recorded the dying declaration. Nothing serious had been elicited in the cross-examination of this witness. ( 15 ) ). PW-6 is the doctor of a private nursing home and a Neurosurgeon who had examined PW-1 and at the first time of his examination, he saw axe in the head of pw-1 and as it cannot be removed without any operation, an emergency operation was conducted and the axe was removed by opening the skull bone, and repaired the damaged brain, and the patient was referred to Government Hospital, Hyderabad, but the relatives of the patient brought pw-1 to his hospital for immediate operation available then. This witness was cross-examined. ( 16 ) PW-7, a resident of Jonnalagadda, was declared hostile since he deviated from the original statement. PW-8 is the son of PW-1 and a Physics Lecturer and he deposed that while he was at the house, pw-7 came to his house and informed him that the accused hacked his father, and his father was being taken to hospital in an auto and then he proceeded on his scooter and joined him on the way and took him to the Government Hospital. This witness had deposed in detail the other details relating to the incident. No doubt, this witness speaks about all post incident events only. ( 17 ) PW-9 a resident of Jonnalagadda who is younger brother of PW-1 and he had narrated the details. PW-9 deposed that he was present in the village on 2. 9. This witness had deposed in detail the other details relating to the incident. No doubt, this witness speaks about all post incident events only. ( 17 ) PW-9 a resident of Jonnalagadda who is younger brother of PW-1 and he had narrated the details. PW-9 deposed that he was present in the village on 2. 9. 1994 at the scene of offence when police observed the scene of offence and seized blood stained earth from the scene, one Vupputuri veeraraghavulu also was present along with him on that day. An observation report was also drafted at the scene of offence and in their presence, which is Ex. P-5. On the next day, i. e. , on 3. 9. 1994, this witness and Veera Raghavulu were present in the hospital and PW-6 and the Sub-Inspector of Police seized blood stained clothes and the axe in their presence under the cover of mediatornama, Ex. P-6. He signed in Exs. P-5 and P-6 along with another mediator veera Raghavulu. M. O-1 is blood stained earth M. O-2 is control earth seized by the police at the scene of offence. M. O-3 is axe seized by police. M. O-4 is blood stained shirt and M. O-5 is blood stained lungi. Exp-5 was drafted there in the hospital of PW-6. This witness was cross- examined. ( 18 ) PW-10 is the Munsif Magistrate who deposed that on receiving requisition from Government Hospital, Narasaraopet for recording dying declaration of PW-1, immediately, he proceeded to Government hospital at 9. 15 a. m. , and commenced recording the statement of PW-1 and he had taken all precautions and having been satisfied that the declarant was conscious and in a position to give a statement, he recorded the statement. Ex. P-1 is the said statement. He deposed about endorsement of PW-5 on Ex. P-5 and Ex. P-7 is the intimation received by him from the hospital. No doubt, he admits that Ex. P-1 does not disclose about the presence of axe either in the right occipital region or in the right parietal region. ( 19 ) PW-11 is the Inspector of Police who had taken up investigation in Cr. No. 97/ 94 under Section 307 I. P. C, and verified the investigation of Head Constable 2176. No doubt, he admits that Ex. P-1 does not disclose about the presence of axe either in the right occipital region or in the right parietal region. ( 19 ) PW-11 is the Inspector of Police who had taken up investigation in Cr. No. 97/ 94 under Section 307 I. P. C, and verified the investigation of Head Constable 2176. He deposed that he visited the village jonnalagadda and examined the witnesses and also visited the scene of offence and verified the investigation of the Head constable. He had deposed about seizure, mediatornama and all other details in detail. Certain minor contradictions elicited had been put to the Investigating Officer. ( 20 ) PW-12 is the Head Constable who deposed about receiving of intimation from government Hospital, Narasaraopet, i. e. , ex. P-3 and proceeding to Government hospital and found PW-10 recording dying declaration, Ex. P-1, from PW-1 and requested PW-10 for furnishing a copy and on his furnishing copy, the crime was registered under Section 307 I. P. C and issued ex. P-8 F. I. R and sent the same to the Court, and then recorded the statement of PW-1 and sent him to Government General hospital, Guntur through Police Constable 2589 and then proceeded to Jonnalagadda village, the scene of offence and got drafted an observation report as per Ex. P-5 at the scene of offence in the presence of pw-9 and another. He also deposed about examination of the witnesses and handing over the investigation to PW-11. This witness was cross-examined about the events, which he had narrated. ( 21 ) PW-13 is the Assistant Radiologist of the Government General Hospital, Guntur. He deposed that on 2. 9. 1994, PW-1 was referred to X-ray Department by C. M. O. of government General Hospital, Guntur for x-ray examination of skull. Accordingly, x-ray skull, A. P and lateral views, were taken. X-ray No. 2366/94, dated 2. 9. 1994 reveals fracture of right parietal bone with axe in the skull. Ex. P-10 is the A. P view of the skull with axe. Ex. P-11 is lateral view of the skull with axe. Ex. P-12 is the cover containing his opinion. He had communicated his opinion to the Local Medical Officer, government Hospital, Narasaraopet. ( 22 ) IN the light of the above evidence, the evidence of PWs. Ex. P-10 is the A. P view of the skull with axe. Ex. P-11 is lateral view of the skull with axe. Ex. P-12 is the cover containing his opinion. He had communicated his opinion to the Local Medical Officer, government Hospital, Narasaraopet. ( 22 ) IN the light of the above evidence, the evidence of PWs. 1 to 4 and the medical evidence of PWs 5 and 6 and also the seizure of the material objects, the registration of the case and the details of the investigation spoken by both PWs. 11 and 12 well supported by the evidence of PW-13, assistant Radiologist, and also Exs. P-1 to P-12 and M. Os. l to 5 which had been well proved, the learned Judge had recorded convincing reasons and ultimately convicted the accused and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. In the light of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the findings recorded by the learned Judge deserve no disturbance at the hands of this Court and accordingly the said findings are hereby confirmed. ( 23 ) THE learned Senior Counsel would submit that this is a pathetic case where the appellant/accused, an unfortunate young boy of 19 years, developed grudge against pw-1 on the ground that he has illicit intimacy with his mother and this aspect may have to be taken into consideration while imposing the quantum of punishment. There cannot be any controversy that this young gentleman had just attained majority and as an young person, even as per the version of the prosecution, he bore grudge against PW-1 only on the ground of illicit intimacy which he had been carrying on with his mother and due to that only it appears that the appellant/ accused made an attempt on the life of pw-1. Taking this aspect into consideration, the sentence of imprisonment imposed is modified to rigorous imprisonment for five years. As far as the imposition of fine is concerned, the same is hereby confirmed. The sentence is modified as referred to supra. The bail bonds of the appellant/ accused are hereby cancelled. The appellant/ accused shall serve the remaining sentence. ( 24 ) THE criminal appeal is dismissed subject to the above modification of sentence.