Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1196 (AP)

Rajulapati Komala Devi v. Kagitha Ram Babu

2013-12-19

S.RAVI KUMAR

body2013
JUDGMENT S. Ravi Kumar, J. 1. This revision is preferred against the judgment dated 29-09-2006 in Criminal Appeal No. 36 of 2004 on the file of I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Krishna District whereunder conviction passed by the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Gudivada in C.C. No. 1292 of 2000 dated 24-02-2004 was confirmed but modified the sentence of simple imprisonment for six months in to fine of Rs. 1,000/- in addition to the fine already imposed by the trial Court and ordered out of the fine amount, the victim shall get Rs. 1,000/- as compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C. Aggrieved by the modification of sentence by the appellate Court, the victim preferred present revision. 2. On a report of Sub-Inspector of Police, Gudlavalleru, Judicial First Class Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and after appearance of the accused, copies of the charge sheet and documents were served on him and a charge under Section 326 was framed against the accused for which he pleaded not guilty and thereafter trial was conducted. During trial, six witnesses were examined and 5 documents were marked on behalf of prosecution and no evidence is adduced either oral or documentary on behalf of accused. On a overall consideration of oral and documentary evidence, trial Court found the accused guilty for the offence under Section 325 IPC and sentenced him to suffer six months imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/-. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, accused preferred appeal to the Court of Sessions, Krishna at Machilipatnam and I Additional Sessions Judge, Machilipatnam, who heard the appeal, confirmed the conviction but reduced the sentence by modifying it. The appellate Court converted sentence of imprisonment also additional into fine and awarded additional fine amount of Rs. 1,000/- and directed that the said amount shall be paid to P.W. 1 as compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C. 3. Heard both sides. 4. Now the contention of Advocate for revision petitioner is that punishment prescribed for offence under Section 325 IPC is both sentence and fine therefore converting sentence into fine by the appellate Court is illegal. 1,000/- and directed that the said amount shall be paid to P.W. 1 as compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C. 3. Heard both sides. 4. Now the contention of Advocate for revision petitioner is that punishment prescribed for offence under Section 325 IPC is both sentence and fine therefore converting sentence into fine by the appellate Court is illegal. To appreciate contention of Advocate for revision petitioner, it is necessary to look into the punishment prescribed for the offence under Section 325 IPC, which reads as follows: "Punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt.- Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 335, voluntarily causes grievous hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine." 5. From a reading of above provision, it is clear when a voluntary grievous hurt is proved, the accused shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 7 years and also fine. So here there is no option for the Court to impose fine only. It is mandatory on the part of the Court to give imprisonment for the period which may extend up to 7 years. Here the trial Court sentenced the accused for a period of six months and that sentence of six months imprisonment is converted into fine by the appellate Court, which is contrary to the above referred provision. On the face of it, the order passed by the appellate Court converting the sentence of six months into fine is illegal therefore, that part of order is liable to be aside. 6. In the result, the revision is disposed of and the order of the appellate Court in respect of sentence imposed against the revision petitioner is set aside and matter is remitted back to the appellate Court to pass orders on sentence, after hearing both sides. 7. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions if any pending in this Criminal Revision Case shall stand dismissed.