THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1954 of 2004 JUDGMENT: After investigation, a charge sheet was filed against 11 persons in Crime No.49 of 1999 of Thullur Police Station for the offences punishable under sections 147, 148, 307, 324, 326 and 354 read with 149 IPC. The Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mangalagiri, took cognizance of the said offences and it was numbered as C.C.No.303 of 2000. During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 9 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-6 were marked. On behalf of the defence, none was examined nor any documents were marked. The learned Magistrate having analysed the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, came to the conclusion that the accused are guilty of the said offences and accordingly, by his judgment, dated 09.10.2003, and sentenced all the accused to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month each for the offence punishable under Section 148-A IPC; sentenced A-1 and A-2 to suffer simple imprisonment for six months each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months each for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC and further, sentenced A-4 to suffer simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. The said judgment was questioned by the petitioners herein-accused Nos.2 and 4 and another accused-A-1 by filing Criminal Appeal No.411 of 2003 and the learned XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Guntur, vide judgment dated 22.11.2004, partly allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed on A-2 and A-4 for the offence punishable under section 148 IPC, however, the conviction and sentence imposed on A-2 and A-4 for the offence under Section 324 IPC is confirmed. Challenging the said judgment, the petitioners-Accused Nos.2 and 4 approached this Court and filed this Revision. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: - There were long standing disputes between the accused and the de facto complainant in connection with flowing of drainage water in front of the house of A-1, due to which, A-1 to A-4 have been waiting for an opportunity to attack the de facto complainant to do away his life. While so, on 14.10.1999, at about 9.30 pm., when the de facto complainant was sitting in front of his house, the accused attacked him and beat him with sticks and some of the accused also threw chilli powder into his eyes. The said incident was witnessed by other witnesses. On receipt of phone message, the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Thullur Police Station, proceeded to the Government Hospital, Guntur, examined and recorded the statement of the de facto complainant and registered the same as a crime and investigated into it. After receipt of the wound certificate, examining and recording the statement of the witnesses, etc, the charge sheet was filed. When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners fairly conceded that it is not a fit case for interference, but, however, submitted that the petitioner was in jail for quite some two days after disposal of the appeal and also were lodged in jail for quite some time after registration of the crime, and requested this Court to take a lenient view and acquit the petitioners. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. In the light of the said submission, this Court looked into the record. Apparently, the impugned judgment was pronounced on 22.11.2004 and immediately, the petitioners were sent to jail to suffer the imprisonment imposed on him. Subsequently, by virtue of the bail granted by this Court on 24.11.2004, they were released from the jail. Thus, it is evident that the petitioners were in jail for quite some time, and that apart, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners were in jail for some time after registration of the crime. Hence, this Court is of the view that a lenient view can be taken. Accordingly, the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 4 by the lower appellate Court for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC, is reduced to that of the period already undergone by them, while maintaining the sentence of fine. Except the said modification in the sentence of imprisonment, in all other aspects, this Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed. ___________________________________ JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA 27th January 2011 DR