ORDER : 1. This Revision is arising out of judgment dated 12.07.2007 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 186 of 2006 on the file of the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Tanuku, wherein the learned Judge has partly allowed the appeal modifying the conviction and sentence imposed against the revision petitioner/accused for the offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C. to 324 I.P.C. and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for eight months in the judgment dated 13.10.2006 in S.C. No. 93 of 2005 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Tanuku. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: Since long time, there are boundary disputes of cultivation lands between the complainant and the accused. Due to unsettled civil litigation's, the accused bore grudge against the complainant and waiting for an opportunity to do away the life of the complainant. On 05.02.2004, while the complainant was returning to his house and reached vinayaka temple at 7.30 p.m. the accused made rampageous attack with knife on him and stabbed him over his abdomen at left side by uttering and abusing, due to which complainant fell down. On hearing cries, four persons rescued the injured from the hands of accused. Later, the son of complainant admitted him in Government Hospital, Tanuku, for treatment. On hospital intimation, the Sub-Inspector of Police, recorded the statement of the complainant and basing on the same, a case was registered under Section 307 I.P.C. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. 3. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined PW-1 to PW-10 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P23 and MO.1 to MO.6. On behalf of the accused, neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced. 4. The trial Court convicted the accused for the offence under Section 304A IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/-. 5. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the accused preferred an appeal before the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Tanuku. Vide judgment dated 12.07.2007, the learned Sessions Judge, partly allowed the appeal modifying the conviction and sentence imposed against the accused from 304-A I.P.C. to 324 I.P.C. and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for eight months. 6. Vide judgment dated 12.07.2007, the learned Sessions Judge, partly allowed the appeal modifying the conviction and sentence imposed against the accused from 304-A I.P.C. to 324 I.P.C. and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for eight months. 6. Being aggrieved by the acquittal of the accused/1st respondent, the present revision has been filed by the petitioner/complainant. 7. Heard Sri. Maruti Shankar, learned Counsel representing Sri. Ch. Dhanamjaya, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, Sri. G. Vijaya Babu, learned counsel for the 1st respondent, who appeared through video conference and Sri. Naidana Sravan Kumar, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the 2nd respondent-State. 8. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the appellate court erred in altering section from 307 I.P.C. to 324 I.P.C. without any basis. The material evidence placed before the trial Court i.e. PWs. 1 to 10 coupled with Exs.P1 to P23 clearly shows that the accused caused grievous injuries with an intention to kill the petitioner and the same is prove by the evidence of Doctor (PW-8), warranting conviction. The appellate court erred in disbelieving the evidence of the prosecution to the extent of under Section 307 I.P.C. and coming to the conclusion that non-examination of the expert, who treated PW-1 is fatal to the case of the prosecution and it is not at all necessary to examine the expert when the offence is proved and established. The evidence of PWs. 3 to 5 clearly established that the accused caused injuries on the body of the petitioner/complainant by stabbing on the vital parts with an intent to kill the complainant and hence, modification of conviction and sentence by the appellate court is liable to be set aside. 9. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent/accused submits that the appellate court closely perused the evidence and categorically given the reasons for altering the conviction and the sentence. The disputes between the complainant and accused are established and the alleged injuries attract the ingredients of Section 324 IPC. He submits that Section 307 I.P.C. is concerned, no expert is examined to speak the so called injuries said to be received by the petitioner/complainant. The appellate court in detail stated the reasons for modifying the conviction and sentence and there was no arbitrary, perversity in the judgment of the appellate court and the trial court ignored the material evidence. He submits that Section 307 I.P.C. is concerned, no expert is examined to speak the so called injuries said to be received by the petitioner/complainant. The appellate court in detail stated the reasons for modifying the conviction and sentence and there was no arbitrary, perversity in the judgment of the appellate court and the trial court ignored the material evidence. The findings recorded by the appellate court based on evidence cannot be interfered with. He further submits that the revisional court cannot be exercised its jurisdiction in a routine manner and re-appreciation of evidence has been disapproved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various cases, thereby there are no compelling circumstances to alter the conviction or sentence ordered by the appellate court and this Court need not be interfered with the impugned judgment. 10. The point that arises for consideration in this revision is: “Whether there is any flaw in the findings recorded by the appellate court in altering the conviction as well sentence passed against the accused?” 11. Before adverting the matter, it is relevant to state the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sheetala Prasad v. Sri. Kant, 2010 (2) SCC 190 The High Court was exercising the revisional jurisdiction at the instance of a private complainant and, therefore, it is necessary to notice the principles on which such revisional jurisdiction can be exercised. Sub- Section (3) of Section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure prohibits conversion of a finding of acquittal into one of conviction. Without making the categories exhaustive, revisional jurisdiction can be exercised by the High Court at the instance of private complainant (1) where the trial court has wrongly shut out evidence which the prosecution wished to produce, (2) where the admissible evidence is wrongly brushed aside as inadmissible, (3) where the trial court has no jurisdiction to try the case and has still acquitted the accused, (4) where the material evidence has been overlooked either by the trial court or the appellate court or the order is passed by considering irrelevant evidence and (5) where the acquittal is based on the compounding of the offence which is invalid under the law. 12. 12. The above principle is followed in Menoka Malik v. State of West Bengal, 2019 (18) SCC 721 to hold that the High Court can exercise its revisional jurisdiction in a revision petition filed by the first informant where the trial court overlooked material evidence. 13. In this back drop, this court closely perused the evidence before the trial Court and consideration made in the Supreme Court. The sessions court in criminal appeal had elaborately discussed about the evidence of PWs. 1 to 5 and thereafter, the evidence of PWs. 8 and 9 and the reasoning given at Para-23 is as follows: “23. On perusal of the above evidence, it is discloses that there were disputes between PW-1 and accused. But as per First Information Report there are no dispute between accused and PW-1 prior to the incident. The accused was not having land by the side of PW-1's land. But his father having land. The evidence of PW-1 corroborated by PWs 3 to 5 about the incident and injuries. PW-8 stated that PW-1 sustained 5 lacerated injuries and one cut injury. He referred PW- 1 to Government Hospital, Kakinada for expert medical treatment because small intestine came out of the abdomen. On the basis of expert opinion by doctor M.N.Somayajulu, Government General Hospital, Kakinada PW-8 issued his opinion that the injuries 1 and 2 are grievous in nature. But Doctor M.N.Somayajulu was not even cited as witness and opinion of the said doctor was not marked. There is no evidence that how many days PW-1 was treated as in patient in the hospital. In this case the accused also sustained injuries. PW-9 examined the accused and issued Ex.P21 wound certificate. Prosecution witnesses i.e. PWs 1, 3 to 5 did not stated the injuries sustained by the accused. There is no evidence to show that PW-1 sustained fatal injuries on vital organs. PW-2 is not eye witness to the incident. PW-3 in his cross examination stated that on the day of incident he came to know that the accused and PW-1 are having land disputes at the temple and that the father of the accused approached to P.Nehru. within one minute after the incident, he went to the place of incident and distance of his house to the place of incident is 30 yards. At the time of crying by PW-1 then he was coming from his house. within one minute after the incident, he went to the place of incident and distance of his house to the place of incident is 30 yards. At the time of crying by PW-1 then he was coming from his house. By that time somulu was also on the way but he reached first to the place of the incident. MO.1 is not double edged weapon. PW-4 in his cross examination stated that he did not stated to the police that PW-1 and the accused were having misunderstandings and that there is light from the near by houses and that he can identified the knife and about its measurements. They did not tried to caught hold the accused even though they are four persons. There is no electricity to the ramalayam. PW-5 in his cross examination admitted that he did not stated to police that they covered the injury with a towel of PW-1 there is no electricity to the ramalayam. PW-8 in his cross examination stated that there are no holes on the banian (MO.3). He further admitted that the signatures or thumb marks of the accused were not obtained on Exs.P18 and P19. IF PW-1 sustained major injuries or abdomen there must be holes on MO.3. PW-10 in his cross examination admitted that PW-1 did not stated in Ex.P1 statement that his small intestines came out due to stabbing. He did obtained signatures of the accused on Exs.P18 and P10. He further submitted that he did not send MO.6 to RFSL to know whether it is human blood or not and also MO.1. He did not examined Dr. M.N.Somayajulu who treated PW-1 AT Government Hospital, Kakinada and on whose opinion Ex.P20 was issued. In this case MOs are not sent FSL or RFSL for chemical examination. Our Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Gorantla Sreenu v. State of Andhra Pradesh 2005 (2) ALT (Cri) 228 (A.P.) wherein it was held that though the doctor who conducted surgery was not examined and other reports were not marked. PW-7 deposed about causing of the injuries, in the facts and circumstances of the case, taking the nature of injuries into consideration and absence of evidence of surgeon, the Hon'ble High Court of A.P of the considered opinion that at the best the appellant/accused be convicted under Section 324 IPC. In this case in hand Dr. PW-7 deposed about causing of the injuries, in the facts and circumstances of the case, taking the nature of injuries into consideration and absence of evidence of surgeon, the Hon'ble High Court of A.P of the considered opinion that at the best the appellant/accused be convicted under Section 324 IPC. In this case in hand Dr. M.N. Somayajulu, who is the expert who gave treatment to P.W.1 at Government General Hospital, Kakinada and gave opinion was not examined and the opinion of the said doctor was not marked the above facts are applicable to this case. In the facts and circumstances of the case, taking the nature of injuries into consideration and absence of evidence of expert the Section 307 is altered into Section 324 IPC. According the conviction and sentence recorded as against the appellant/accused is hereby set aside and the appellant convicted under section 324 IPC and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to undergo S.I. for 8 months....” 14. From the above, it is very clear that there may be disputes between PW-1 and PW-2 but FIR is silent as well PW-8, who treated PW-1 stated that he found five lacerated injuries and one cut injury and on the basis of the expert opinion, he issued Ex.P20-wound certificate stating that the injuries 1 and 2 are grievous injuries. It is the specific case of the prosecution that the small intestines came out of the abdomen and according to PW-8 he has given opinion basing on reports made by M.N.Somayajulu, Government General Hospital, Kakinada. For the better reasons known to the prosecution, the said expert by name M.N. Somayajulu, who treated PW-1 in Kakinada hospital, was not even cited as witness nor his opinion was obtained, to prove the injuries of PW-1. It is also relevant and require to state in order to find injuries said to be grievous, Section 320 IPC comes into picture. There is no evidence to show how many days PW-1 was in-patient in the hospital. In order to establish the grievous hurt, the prosecution has to prove from the medical record even in order to attract Section 320(8), it is necessary to prove that any hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer to be during the space of twenty days in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits. 15. In order to establish the grievous hurt, the prosecution has to prove from the medical record even in order to attract Section 320(8), it is necessary to prove that any hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer to be during the space of twenty days in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits. 15. In this case neither prosecution nor PW-1 stated how many days he was in-patient in the hospital. There is no evidence to show that PW-1 sustained fatal injuries on vital organs because there is no medical evidence. As already stated above Dr. M.N. Somayajulu, Government General Hospital, Kakinada, who said to have treated PW-1 was not examined nor his statement was obtained by the prosecution is one more incident. It can be noted that one P.Nehru, who said to have taken PW-1 to the hospital also not examined by the prosecution for the reasons best known to it. Besides there are many inconsistencies between the chief examination and cross examination of PWs. 1 to 5. One more incident, which can be noted in the evidence of PW-8 is that MO.3-white colour handloom baniyan was with blood stains whereas he stated in his cross examination that there are no holes to banian of PW-1. If really PW-1 sustained major injuries on abdomen, there must be holes on MO.3. Besides there are many omissions, which are elicited from the evidence of PW-10 which will doubt the case of prosecution. Further, PW-1 did not state before the police his small intestines came out due to stabbing by the accused. 16. Taking all the above said facts into consideration, the appellate court came to the conclusion that the evidence on record before the trial court is not sufficient to convict the accused under section 307 IPC, thereby modified the conviction rather altered into Section 324 IPC. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence recorded against he accused by the trial court was set aside by the appellate court and convicted the accused under section 324 IPC. This court also concurs with the findings as well as reasons made by the appellate court for coming to such conclusion and there are no other grounds rather material to interfere with the findings made by the appellate court in the impugned judgment. 17. This court also concurs with the findings as well as reasons made by the appellate court for coming to such conclusion and there are no other grounds rather material to interfere with the findings made by the appellate court in the impugned judgment. 17. This Court also considers the submission made the learned counsel for the accused/1st respondent that PW-1 is aged about 90 years, he is hale and healthy and he is not suffering with any with any ill health caused during the attack of the accused. 18. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the view that there are no merits in this revision and is liable to be dismissed. 19. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the judgment dated 12.07.2007 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 186 of 2006 passed by the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Tanuku. 20. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. 21. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed.