ORDER : 1. This Criminal Revision Case, under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘the Cr.P.C’), is filed by the petitioner, who was the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 76 of 2007, on the file of the Court of VI Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Markapur, Prakasam District (for short, ‘the learned Additional Sessions Judge’), challenging the judgment therein, dated 13.03.2008, where under the learned Additional Sessions Judge, dismissed the Criminal Appeal, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed against the accused in C.C. No. 163 of 2003, dated 12.07.2007, on the file of the Court of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Markapur (for short, ‘the trial Court’) for the offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘the IPC’). 2. The parties to this Criminal Revision Case will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the trial Court, for the sake of convenience. 3. The State, represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Dornala Police Station filed charge sheet in Crime No. 36 of 2003 under Section 324 IPC alleging in substance that PW.2 – Sivapuram Nageswaramma is the mother of PW.1 – Sivapuram Venkata Narayana, injured. They belonged to Nallaguntla village. PW.3 – Varikuntapati Subbamma is the sister of PW.2. There is illegal intimacy between the accused and wife of LW.5 – Bapanapalli Yesupadam. Hence, accused grew wild against LW.5 – Yesupadam. While so, on 01.06.2003 at 07:15 a.m. PW.1 and LW.5 were chitchatting in front of the hotel of PW.4 – Thatisetty Subbamma and they were laughing while taking tea. After some time, LW.5 left the hotel. Accused, who observed the chitchatting thought that they were discussing and laughing about his wife. Hence, he grew wild and went upon PW.1 and stabbed PW.1 on his neck, left side of the ribs and on his chin and caused bleeding injuries. The incident was witnessed by PWs.3, 4, 5, 7 and 8. They rescued him. Later, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Dornala by PWs.2 and 3. On receipt of phone call from PW.6 – Dr.C.Uday Kumar of Dornala, PW.9 – Sub-Inspector of Police, Dornala visited the hospital and recorded statement of PW.1. He returned to Police Station and registered the statement as a case in Crime No. 36 of 2003 and sent copies of FIRs to all the concerned. On receipt of phone call from PW.6 – Dr.C.Uday Kumar of Dornala, PW.9 – Sub-Inspector of Police, Dornala visited the hospital and recorded statement of PW.1. He returned to Police Station and registered the statement as a case in Crime No. 36 of 2003 and sent copies of FIRs to all the concerned. During investigation, he visited the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch and examined the witnesses. On 13.06.2003 at 08:00 p.m. he arrested the accused and sent him for remand. Medical Officer, who treated the injured, opined that the injuries are simple in nature. Hence, the charge sheet. 4. The learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Markapur took cognizance of the case and issued summons to the accused. After appearance of the accused, copies of case documents were furnished to him as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C. Then, by following the procedure with regard to examination of the accused under Section 239 Cr.P.C and after denial of the allegations of the prosecution by the accused, a charge under Section 324 IPC was framed and explained to him in Telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. In order to establish the guilt against the accused, the prosecution before the Court below examined PWs.1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-7 and during the course of cross-examination of PW.3, Ex.D-1 was marked. 6. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence for which he denied the same and stated that he has no defence evidence. 7. The learned Magistrate, Markapur, on hearing both sides and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, found the accused guilty of the charge under Section 324 IPC and convicted him under Section 248(2) Cr.P.C. After questioning him about the quantum of sentence, the learned Magistrate sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 324 IPC. 8. Felt aggrieved of the same, the un-successful accused filed Criminal Appeal No. 76 of 2007 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Markapur which came to be dismissed on merits. Challenging the judgment in the above said Criminal Appeal, dated 13.05.2008, the un-successful appellant filed the present Criminal Revision Case. 9. 8. Felt aggrieved of the same, the un-successful accused filed Criminal Appeal No. 76 of 2007 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Markapur which came to be dismissed on merits. Challenging the judgment in the above said Criminal Appeal, dated 13.05.2008, the un-successful appellant filed the present Criminal Revision Case. 9. Now, in deciding this Criminal Revision Case, the point that arises for consideration is as to whether the judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 76 of 2007, dated 13.05.2008, on the file of the Court of VI Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Markapur suffers with any illegality, irregularity and impropriety and whether there are any grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment? 10. POINT: Smt. Thajunnisa Shaik, learned counsel, representing learned counsel for the revision petitioner, would contend that the evidence of PWs.1, 3 and 8 is interested in nature. Most of the witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution. Both the Courts below erroneously believed the evidence of PWs.1, 3, and 8. There were no independent witnesses examined by the prosecution to prove the charge against the accused. If really, accused developed any animosity, he would have attacked LW.5 but not PW.1. Though it was alleged that accused stabbed PW.1 with a knife, prosecution did not explain anything as to why it was not seized as such it is fatal to the case of the prosecution. Learned counsel in support of her contention would rely upon the decision of the Madras High Court in Raja v. State, by Sub-Inspector of Police, Mahendramangalam1. She would further submit that the sentence imposed against the accused before the Court below is severe. 11. Sri Y. Jagadeeswara Rao, learned counsel, representing learned Public Prosecutor, would contend that PWs.1, 3 and 8 supported the case of the prosecution and they spoke about the attack made on PW.1 by the accused. Simply because some of the prosecution witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution, the evidence of PWs.1, 3 and 8 cannot be disbelieved. The nature of the injury received by PW.1 was proved by examining the Medical Officer. The citation relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner has no application to the case on hand as such he sought to dismiss the Criminal Revision Case. 12. PW.1 is no other than the injured. PW.2 is the mother of the injured. PW.3 is a direct witness to the occurrence. The citation relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner has no application to the case on hand as such he sought to dismiss the Criminal Revision Case. 12. PW.1 is no other than the injured. PW.2 is the mother of the injured. PW.3 is a direct witness to the occurrence. Admittedly, PWs.4 and 5 did not support the case of the prosecution. PW.6 – Medical Officer examined the injured and issued wound certificate. PW.7 did not support the case of the prosecution. PW.8 is another direct witness to the occurrence. PW.9 is the Investigating Officer. 13. Coming to the testimony of PW.1, he deposed that about 3 and half years back on one day at 07:30 a.m., he and LW.5 – Yesupadam were taking tea at a bunk in their village centre. After some time, LW.5 went aside. Accused came there and questioned him as to what they are talking about him and stabbed below his left armpit, neck and chin. At that time LWs.6 and 7, Mallaiah and Raja Venkata Narayana, rescued him. He sustained bleeding injury. On coming to know about the incident LWs.2 and 3 came there. They went to Dornala Government Hospital and took treatment. Sub-Inspector of Police came there and recorded his statement, which is Ex.P-1. 14. PW.2, mother of the injured, deposed that about two and half years ago at 07:15 a.m. through one Galaiah, she came to know that her son was stabbed by the accused at Nallaguntla bus stop with a knife. Then, she went there and found his son with bleeding injuries on his left flank, throat and chin. They took him to the Hospital. Police examined her. 15. Coming to the evidence of PW.3, direct witness to the occurrence, she deposed that about two and half years ago, PW.1 is suffering from fever. Then, she and PW.1 came to their village bus stop at 07:00 a.m. She brought him to the hotel. He was taking tea and while conversing with LW.5 about the ill-health of PW.1, accused came and stabbed PW.1 with a knife on his left armpit, throat and chin. When she raised cries, LW.6 – Mallaiah, pulled the accused aside. When the accused tried to further stab PW.1, LW.7 – Raja Venkata Narayana took him and after that he was shifted to Hospital. PWs.4, 5 and 7, admittedly, did not support the case of the prosecution. 16. When she raised cries, LW.6 – Mallaiah, pulled the accused aside. When the accused tried to further stab PW.1, LW.7 – Raja Venkata Narayana took him and after that he was shifted to Hospital. PWs.4, 5 and 7, admittedly, did not support the case of the prosecution. 16. PW.6 is the Medical Officer, who testified that on 01.06.2003 at 08:45 a.m. he examined PW.1 and found 1) stab injury at sternum size about 1 x ½ x ½ c.m., 2) stab injury at left chin ½ x ½ x ½ c.m. and 3) stab injury on left side of back in between 7th and 8th ribs 2 x ½ x ½ c.m. Ex.P-4 is the wound certificate. Injuries are simple in nature. 17. PW.8 is direct witness to the occurrence. She deposed that about two years back at about 07:00 a.m. she was at beedi bunk. There was a quarrel between PW.1 and accused and the accused stabbed him on his chin, throat and left side flank (abdomen) and caused bleeding injuries. She admonished the accused. PWs.5, 7 and she separated and rescued PW.1. The relatives of PW.1 came and shifted him to the hospital. 18. PW.9 is the Investigating Officer, who spoke about recording of statement of PW.1 by going to the Medical Officer, Pedda Dornala Hospital on receipt of phone call and registration of FIR and his examining the scene of offence and recording the statements of the witnesses and that his ASI, who is no more, arrested the accused and sent him for remand. After completion of investigation, charge sheet is filed. 19. As evident from the cross-examination of PWs.1, 2, 3 and 8, the injuries received by PW.1 are not in dispute. The defence of the accused before PW.1 is that due to political rivalry in their village, false case is foisted against the accused and that LWs.6 and 7 were planted witnesses. PW.1 deposed in cross-examination that there was gathering of people in the village centre. There were two political groups in the village i.e., TDP and Congress. He belongs to Congress. He does not know whether accused belonged to TDP. He reached to the hospital at 08:30 a.m. 20. Coming to the evidence of PW.3 in cross-examination, she denied that she stated before Police as in Ex.D-1 and that she is deposing false. 21. There were two political groups in the village i.e., TDP and Congress. He belongs to Congress. He does not know whether accused belonged to TDP. He reached to the hospital at 08:30 a.m. 20. Coming to the evidence of PW.3 in cross-examination, she denied that she stated before Police as in Ex.D-1 and that she is deposing false. 21. Coming to the evidence of PW.8, direct witness, in cross-examination she deposed that her house and the house of PW.1 are situated in the same bazaar. She saw the knife which is used by the accused and it is muredu. The shirt of PW.1 was tainted with blood. She denied that she is deposing false. 22. As evident from the grounds of Revision, it is also contended on behalf of the revision petitioner that PW.1 did not disclose the presence of PW.8 in the evidence. As seen from Ex.P-1, it is the statement given by PW.1 to Police. He categorically mentioned the presence of PW.8 as a witness to the occurrence. So, his omission to speak in the evidence as to the names of persons who witnessed the occurrence is not going to affect his testimony in any way. It is evident from the cross-examination of PWs.1, 3 and 8 that absolutely there are no doubtful circumstances to doubt their presence at the time of occurrence. PWs.1 and 8 are the residents of same locality. PWs.3 and 8 have no reason to depose false against the accused. The political differences suggested to PW.1 are not probabilized in any way. As evident from Ex.D-1, it in fact goes against the contention of the accused. According to Ex.D-1, PW.3 was a witness to the occurrence. Both the Courts below, by furnishing proper reasons, believed the evidence of PWs.1, 3 and 8. 23. The evidence of PW.1 has corroboration from Ex.P-1 and PWs.3 and 8. The ocular evidence of PW.1 has further corroboration from the evidence of PW.6- Medical Officer coupled with Ex.P-4 – wound certificate. 24. Admittedly, it is a case where the prosecution did not explain before the Court below as to the non-seizure of weapon of offence. In fact, the evidence of PW.6 goes to prove that the injuries received by PW.1 were of stab injuries which can be caused with knife only. 24. Admittedly, it is a case where the prosecution did not explain before the Court below as to the non-seizure of weapon of offence. In fact, the evidence of PW.6 goes to prove that the injuries received by PW.1 were of stab injuries which can be caused with knife only. So, when the nature of injuries received by PW.1 was proved to be with that of a knife, non-seizure of weapon of offence is not fatal to the case of prosecution. In fact, Investigating Officer was not cross-examined by the learned defence counsel as to non-seizure of the weapon of offence. 25. Turning to the decision of Raja v. State (1st supra), cited by learned counsel for the petitioner, it is a case where the accused was found guilty for the charge under Section 326 IPC and the allegations were that the injuries were caused with a crowbar. The prosecution did not clarify about the non-seizure of weapon in the commission of offence and even did not produce x-ray film alleged to have been taken to prove the nature of injuries. Analyzing the above, the Madras High Court interfered with the concurrent findings of the Courts below. In my considered view, the factual background in the above said case altogether stood on a different footing as such it would not support the case of the revision petitioner in any way. 26. Having regard to the above and in my considered view, the judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 76 of 2007, dated 13.05.2008, on the file of the Court of VI Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Markapur, Prakasam District does not suffer with any illegality, irregularity and impropriety. However, the fact is that the incident in question was happened in the year 2003. By then, the accused was aged about 25 years. The Court below imposed the punishment of Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-. The Criminal Appeal was filed by the accused in the year 2007, which was dismissed on merits. The present Criminal Revision Case is pending about 15 years. 27. Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the ends of justice will meet if the sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment imposed against the accused is modified to that of six (6) months. 28. The present Criminal Revision Case is pending about 15 years. 27. Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the ends of justice will meet if the sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment imposed against the accused is modified to that of six (6) months. 28. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed in part modifying the Rigorous Imprisonment of one year imposed against the accused in C.C. No. 163 of 2003, dated 12.07.2007 on the file of the Court Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Markapur to that of six (6) months and the rest of the judgment of the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Markapur in Criminal Appeal No. 76 of 2007 stands confirmed. 29. The Registry is directed to take steps immediately under Section 388 Cr.P.C. to certify the order of this Court along with the lower Court record, if any, to the Court below on or before 25.04.2023 and on such certification, the trial Court shall take necessary steps to carry out the remainder of sentence, if any, imposed against the petitioner/accused in C.C. No. 163 of 2003, dated 12.07.2007, on the file of the Court of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Markapur and report compliance to this Court. A copy of this order be placed before the Registrar (Judicial), forthwith, for giving necessary instructions to the concerned Officers in the Registry. Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.