ORDER : This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner, who was the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.11 of 2008, on the file of VI Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Markapur, Prakasam District (“Additional Sessions Judge” for short), challenging the judgment, dated 31.03.2009, whereunder the learned Additional Sessions Judge, dismissed the Criminal Appeal modifying the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the appellant before the Assistant Sessions Judge, Darsi in S.C.No.303 of2007 as that of Section 324 of Indian Penal Code (“I.P.C.” for short) from that of Section 307 of I.P.C. for causing injuries to P.W.1, as such, sentenced the appellant to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months and sustained the conviction and sentence imposed against the accused before the Court below under Section 324 of I.P.C. insofar as causing injuries to P.W.2 is concerned. 2. The parties to this Criminal Revision Case will hereinafter be referred to as described before the trial Court for the sake of the convenience. 3. The Sessions Case No.303 of 2007, on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge, Darsi, arose out of a committal order, dated 20.04.2007 in P.R.C.No.5 of 2007 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Darsi. 4. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Mundlamur Police Station, filed a charge sheet pertaining to Crime No.117 of 2006 of Mundlamur Police Station, alleging in substance that during night of 25.11.2006 at 8-00 p.m., the accused attacked L.W.1- Nallabothu Raja Kumari with a sickle and cut her neck and also beat her on right hand with that sickle and tried to kill her. In the meantime, L.W.2-Mannam Subbayamma came for rescue of the victim. Accused also beat her with a stick on her head and back indiscriminately and also tried to kill her, as L.W.1 supported the cause of L.W.2 when the dispute arose between L.W.2 and the accused. On 25.11.2006 midnight both the victims came to Mudlamur Police Station with bleeding injuries and L.W.1 presented a report to L.W.13-Sub Inspector of Police, Mudlamur Police Station. He registered the same as a case in Crime No.117 of 2006 under Sections 324 and 307 of I.P.C. and took up investigation. He examined the victims during the course of investigation. On 25.11.2006 midnight both the victims came to Mudlamur Police Station with bleeding injuries and L.W.1 presented a report to L.W.13-Sub Inspector of Police, Mudlamur Police Station. He registered the same as a case in Crime No.117 of 2006 under Sections 324 and 307 of I.P.C. and took up investigation. He examined the victims during the course of investigation. On 26.11.2006 he visited the scene of offence, drafted observation report and prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence in the presence of L.W.10-T. Sudhakar and L.W.11-Kalava Lingaiah, the panchayatdars. He further examined the prosecution witnesses and recorded their statements. He arrested the accused on 30.11.2006 and forwarded to Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Darsi for judicial remand. He interrogated the accused by taking him to police custody on 11.12.2006 and pursuant to the disclosure statement given by the accused, he seized the sickle and stick which were used at the time of commission of offence by the accused under the cover of mahazarnama in the presence of L.W.10 and L.W.11. Later, the accused was handed over to judicial custody. The Medical Officer- L.W.12 examined L.W.1 and L.W.2 and issued wound certificates stating that the injuries found on L.W.1 and L.W.2 were simple in nature and would have been caused by a blunt object. After completion of investigation, L.W.12 filed the charge. 5. The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Darsi, took cognizance against the accused for the offences under Sections 324 and 307 of I.P.C. and after complying the provisions of Section 207 of Cr.P.C. with regard to furnishing of documents to the accused, committed the case to the Court of Sessions in P.R.C.No.5 of 2007. Thereupon, the case was assigned with the Sessions Case number and was made over to the Assistant Sessions Judge, Darsi, for disposal in accordance with law. 6. On appearance of the accused before the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Darsi, charges under Section 324 of I.P.C. for causing injuries to L.W.1 and Section 324 of I.P.C. for causing injuries to L.W.2 and further under Section 307 of I.P.C. for causing injuries to L.W.1, were framed and explained to him in Telugu, for which he denied the same and claimed to be tried. 7. Before the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Darsi, on behalf of the prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.9 were examined and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.11 and M.O.1 and M.O.2 were marked. 7. Before the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Darsi, on behalf of the prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.9 were examined and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.11 and M.O.1 and M.O.2 were marked. During the course of cross examination of P.W.2, Ex.D.1 was marked. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence let in, for which he denied the same and he did not let in any defence evidence. 8. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Darsi, on hearing both sides and on considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, found the accused guilty of the offences under Sections 324 and 307 of I.P.C. and after questioning him about the quantum of sentence, sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 307 of I.P.C. and further sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 324 of I.P.C. and that both the sentences shall run concurrently. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful accused filed Criminal Appeal No.303 of 2007 before the VI Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Markapur and the learned VI Additional Sessions Judge by virtue of the judgment, dated 31.03.2009 held that the evidence on record did not make any offence under Section 307 of I.P.C. for causing injuries to P.W.1 by the accused is concerned, as such, set aside the conviction under Section 307 of I.P.C. and sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 324 of I.P.C. for causing injuries to P.W.1 and confirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed by the Court below against the accused for causing injuries to P.W.2 and that both the sentences shall run concurrently. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful appellant in Criminal Appeal No.11 of 2008 filed the present Criminal Revision Case. 9. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful appellant in Criminal Appeal No.11 of 2008 filed the present Criminal Revision Case. 9. Now, in deciding this Criminal Revision Case, the point that arises for consideration is whether the judgment, dated 31.03.2009 in Criminal Appeal No.11 of 2008, on the file of VI Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Markapur, suffers with any illegality, irregularity and impropriety and whether there are any grounds to interfere with the same? Point:- 10. Sri U. Mani Varun, learned counsel, representing the learned counsel for the petitioner, would contend that except P.W.1 and P.W.2, other witnesses, who claimed to have witnessed the occurrence, did not support the case of the prosecution. The evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 is interested in nature. There is inconsistency between the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 with that of the medical evidence. According to the Medical Officer, injuries could be caused with blunt object. The case of the prosecution is that the accused caused injuries to P.W.1 with sickle and P.W.2 with a stick. The mediators for the alleged recovery of weapons did not support the case of the prosecution. The incident was said to be happened in a dark night, as such, P.W.1 and P.W.2 had no chance to identify the alleged assailant. The injuries received by P.W.1 and P.W.2 were self-infliction to implicate the accused. Hence, the Criminal Revision Case is liable to be allowed. 11. Sri Y. Jagadeeswara Rao, learned counsel, representing the learned Public Prosecutor, would contend that both the Courts below with sound reasons found the accused guilty of the act alleged against him in causing injuries to P.W.1 and P.W.2 and the learned Additional Sessions Judge as against the conviction under Section 307 of I.P.C. converted the conviction under Section 324 of I.P.C. by appreciating the evidence with care and caution, as such, the Criminal Revision Case is liable to be dismissed. 12. The case of the prosecution, according to the charge sheet, is bereft of necessary details as to the narration of offence. The charge sheet was a cryptic one. Under the circumstances, it is pertinent to look into the case of the prosecution according to Ex.P.1, report lodged by P.W.1. As seen from Ex.P.1, it is the report lodged by P.W.1. The case of the prosecution, according to the charge sheet, is bereft of necessary details as to the narration of offence. The charge sheet was a cryptic one. Under the circumstances, it is pertinent to look into the case of the prosecution according to Ex.P.1, report lodged by P.W.1. As seen from Ex.P.1, it is the report lodged by P.W.1. According to the contents, the accused on the previous day abused P.W.2 in filthy language and was beating her, as such, she (P.W.1) intervened and asked her to give police report. When the incident was brought to the notice of the police, police came to the village and searched for the accused. Keeping in view the same, on 25.11.2006 at 8-00 p.m., when P.W.1 was at the house, accused came there, questioned her that she supported the cause of Subbayamma, abused her in filthy language and stated that he would kill her, attacked her with sickle on right hand and neck and she received bleeding injuries and when L.W.2-Subbayamma came there, he also attacked her and caused injuries. When the neighbourers came there, he absconded. Ex.P.1 was lodged on 25.11.2006 at 11-30 p.m. So, insofar as the time of lodging of Ex.P.1 is concerned, there was no delay. 13. Admittedly, it is a case where P.W.1 and P.W.2 supported the case of the prosecution. P.W.1 deposed in substance that the offence took place on 25.11.2006. Previous day at 10-00 a.m., there was a quarrel between accused and Subbayamma with regard to watering to the fields. When the accused tried to beat Subbayamma, she (P.W.1) intervened. Subbayamma reported the issue to Mundlamur police. Police came there and enquired about the accused, but in vain. On 25.11.2006 at 8-00 p.m., accused came to her house, questioned her as to why she intervened, abused her in filthy language, hacked her with a sickle and caused injury in between the fingers. He thrown her on the ground and hacked her with sickle on her neck and caused bleeding injury. On her cries, Subbayamma came there for rescue and accused beat her with a stick on her head and caused bleeding injury. When the neighbourers came there, he ran away. She went to the police station and presented Ex.P.1. She was forwarded to the hospital. 14. On her cries, Subbayamma came there for rescue and accused beat her with a stick on her head and caused bleeding injury. When the neighbourers came there, he ran away. She went to the police station and presented Ex.P.1. She was forwarded to the hospital. 14. As evident from the cross examination part of P.W.1, the residences of P.W.1 and P.W.2 is just side by side. In cross examination, P.W.1 further spoken about the quarrel that took place between Subbayama and the accused. At the time of attack, she seen the sickle but she did not notice the shape of the sickle. There was no electricity at that time. She explained that when the accused tried to hack her, she put her right hand to ward the blow, as such, she received injury to her right hand fingers. On hearing cries, L.W.2-Subbayamma came there and she was also beaten by the accused. What all elicited as above during the course of cross examination of P.W.1 is nothing but reiteration of facts spoken by her in the chief examination. She denied that on account of land disputes between the accused and L.W.2- Subbayamma, accused was implicated falsely. She denied that the injuries were received by her by self-infliction. 15. Coming to the evidence of P.W.2, she deposed about the previous quarrel between her and the accused and the intervention made by P.W.1 previous day in the dispute between her and accused. She deposed that with regard to previous incident, she orally reported the matter to Mundlamur police and then police came and enquired the accused, who was not there. On 25.11.2006 at 8-00 p.m., when she was at her house, she heard cries of P.W.1. She went there. She found P.W.1 on the ground. Accused tried to cut her neck with a sickle. Then, she tried to rescue P.W.1, accused her with a stick on her head and also beat her on back elbow and right hand. When the neighourers came there, accused absconded. Then, P.W.1 and she went to the police station and P.W.1 reported the matter to the police. They were referred to the hospital. 16. During the cross examination, she deposed that on the date of first incident, she was watering to her garden land. The quarrel took place between her and the accused with regard to the water. Then, P.W.1 and she went to the police station and P.W.1 reported the matter to the police. They were referred to the hospital. 16. During the cross examination, she deposed that on the date of first incident, she was watering to her garden land. The quarrel took place between her and the accused with regard to the water. P.W.1 came to that place when the quarrel took place. Accused also slapped her (P.W.2) on her cheek and head. She deposed that she did not state as in Ex.D.1. According to Ex.D.1, it runs that she stated before the police that P.W.1 intervened in the incident having come to know about the same. But, this Ex.D.1 is not proved by examining the investigating officer. So, Ex.D.1 is of no use to the accused. What all the answers that are spoken by P.W.2 are also reiterating her chief examination. She denied that she managed the police and falsely implicated the accused. 17. As seen from the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 in cross examination the fact that they received bleeding injuries is not in dispute. The contention of the accused before the Court below that they were self-infliction cannot stands to any reason. It is a fact that P.W.3, P.W.5 and P.W.6 did not support the case of the prosecution. Their hostility is proved by virtue of the evidence of P.W.9, the investigating officer. 18. There is evidence of P.W.4 to the effect that the offence took place about 13 months ago. Accused beat P.W.1 at 8-00 p.m. at her house. He (P.W.4) was present at the time of accused causing injuries to P.W.1. Though he admitted in cross examination that P.W.1 is his sister-in-law and neighbor to P.W.1 but his evidence cannot be disbelieved on the ground that he was relative to P.W.1. The fact that he was neighbourer to the house of P.W.1 is not in dispute during cross examination. The evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 is totally convincing. They had no reason to implicate the accused falsely. 19. Though the injuries that were found on P.W.1 and P.W.2 according to evidence of P.W.8, the medical officer, could be caused with blunt object, the case of the prosecution cannot be disbelieved. The evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 is totally convincing. They had no reason to implicate the accused falsely. 19. Though the injuries that were found on P.W.1 and P.W.2 according to evidence of P.W.8, the medical officer, could be caused with blunt object, the case of the prosecution cannot be disbelieved. According to P.W.8, he found lacerated injury on the base of the thumb between index and thumb finger, lacerated injury on right forearm, lacerated injury on right collar bone and another injury on lower part of neck on front of P.W.1. He also found contusion on right upper arm of P.W.1. Insofar as P.W.2 is concerned, he found three contusions and one lacerated injury. As seen from the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, he held that causing cut injuries with a sickle would all depending upon the sharpness of the weapons. 20. Having gone through the medical evidence and ocular evidence, I do not found any glaring inconsistency between the ocular and medical evidence. It can only be when there is glaring inconsistency between the ocular and medical evidence, the case of the prosecution is to be viewed with eye of suspension. Under the circumstances, the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 had sufficient corroboration from the evidence of P.W.8, the medical officer, coupled with their wound certificates marked under Ex.P.8 and Ex.P.9. The investigating officer categorically spoken about the registration of F.I.R., examination of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and other witnesses and arrest of the accused and his subsequent interrogation and recovery of the weapons. The prosecution examined P.W.7, the Panchayat Secretary, who corroborated the evidence of P.W.9 with regard to the observation of the scene of offence and the recovery of material objects pursuant to the disclosure statement made by the accused. 21. Under the circumstances, I am of the considered view that the investigation was also on right lines. The prosecution examined P.W.7, the Panchayat Secretary, who corroborated the evidence of P.W.9 with regard to the observation of the scene of offence and the recovery of material objects pursuant to the disclosure statement made by the accused. 21. Under the circumstances, I am of the considered view that the investigation was also on right lines. The learned Additional Sessions Judge with reasons held that if really the accused had any intention to kill P.W.1, he would have done the same as there was sufficient time for him to do so and with such reasons, held that the allegations against the accused would attract the offence under Section 324 of I.P.C. insofar as the injuries caused to P.W.1 is concerned and acquitted him under Section 307 of I.P.C. There is no appeal filed by the prosecution regarding the findings of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in exonerating the accused under Section 307 of I.P.C. 22. Having regard to the above, I am of the considered view that the findings of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in dismissing the Criminal Appeal by modifying the sentence against the accused as that of Section 324 of I.P.C. from that of Section 307 of I.P.C., cannot be said to be illegal, arbitrary or with any impropriety. Therefore, virtually, for causing injuries to P.W.1, accused was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. For causing injuries to P.W.2, he was sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge. 23. So, this inconsistency as to the nature of imprisonment to be undergone by the accused is to be rectified by this Court. Apart from this, it is a case where the Criminal Revision Petition is pending since 06.04.2009. The learned Additional Sessions Judge in the circumstances of the case ought to have sentenced the appellant to undergo simple imprisonment instead of rigorous imprisonment because he did not disturb the findings of the Court below in sentencing the accused to simple imprisonment for one year for causing injuries to P.W.2. The learned Additional Sessions Judge in the circumstances of the case ought to have sentenced the appellant to undergo simple imprisonment instead of rigorous imprisonment because he did not disturb the findings of the Court below in sentencing the accused to simple imprisonment for one year for causing injuries to P.W.2. Having regard to the above, I am of the considered view that it is just and necessary even to reduce the sentence imposed against the accused under Section 324 of I.P.C. for causing injuries to P.W.1 to that of one year from that of two years. 24. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed in part only modifying the rigorous imprisonment of two years imposed against the accused by the learned VI Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Markapur to that of simple imprisonment for one year and the rest of the judgment in Criminal Appeal No.11 of 2008 shall holds good. 25. The Registry is directed to take steps immediately under Section 388 Cr.P.C. to certify the order of this Court to the trial Court on or before 08.05.2023 and on such certification, the trial Court shall take necessary steps to carry out the sentence imposed against the petitioner/accused and to report compliance to this Court. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.