IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1933 OF 2010 DATED:08.10.2010 Between: Harijana Koteswara @ Koti … Petitioner And State rep. by Public Prosecutor High Court of A.P., Hyderabad … Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1933 OF 2010 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the judgment dated 27.4.2010 passed by the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Kurnool, in Criminal Appeal No.49 of 2009, in sentencing the petitioner/accused No.3 to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 411 of Indian Penal Code (IPC), confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Dhone, in C.C. No.224 of 2007, vide judgment dt.17.3.2009. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 31.8.2007 as usual, the defacto complainant – P.W.1 tied his four rams in front of his house. On the next day morning, the said rams were found missing. He searched for the same in the surrounding place and on 01.9.2007 he reported the matter to the Police. On the said complaint of P.W.1, Sub- Inspector of Police, Jaladurgam Police Station – P.W.4 registered a case in Crime No.43 of 2007 against unknown offender for the offences punishable under Sections 379 and 411 of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC and issued First Information Report. P.W. 4 examined and recorded the statements of witnesses, visited the scene of offence and drawn rough sketch of the scene of offence. On the same day, on 01.9.2007 at 2.00 p.m., he arrested the accused Nos.1 to 3 near Gopal Nagar bus-stage while they were in possession of four rams and on interrogation, they confessed to have committed the offence and in pursuance of their confession/disclosure statement, the said Investigation Officer seized the said four rams under cover of a panchanama in the presence of mediators, called the said complainant, who identified in an identification parade in the prsence of Sarpanch of Utakonda Village – P.W.2 that the said rams belong to him. Thereafter, the said rams/livestock were handed over to the de facto complainant – P.W.1 under proper acknowledgement and the accused were sent to the concerned Court for judicial custody. After completion of investigation, Sub-Inspector of Police – P.W.4, filed charge sheet against accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences under Sections 379 and 411 of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC. The petitioner and two others were tried in C.C. No.224 of 2007 by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Dhone, for the offence punishable under Sections 379 and 411 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Section 34 of IPC. On behalf of the prosecution the trial Court examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and marked Exs.P.1 - complaint by P.W.1, Ex.P.2 – Acknowledgement, Ex.P.3 – Panchanama, Ex.P.4 - Identification Panchanama, Ex.P.5 - Signature of P.W.3, Ex.P.6 – F.I.R. in Cr. No.43 of 2007 and Ex.P.7 - rough sketch of scene of offence. No witness was examined and no document was marked for the defence. The trial Court, having analyzed the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 and Exs.P.1 to P.7, vide its judgment dated 17-03-2009 came to the conclusion that the petitioner is guilty of the offence punishable under Section 411 of IPC only, and accordingly sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. The said judgment was questioned by filing Criminal Appeal No.49 of 2009 before the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Kurnool, and the learned Sessions Judge, vide judgment dated 27.04.2010, while concurring with the findings of the trial Court, dismissed the appeal. As the petitioner was absent on the date when the appellate Court pronounced the judgment, non- bailable warrant (NBW) was issued. Pursuant to the NBW, the petitioner was arrested on 05.10.2010 to serve the remaining sentence imposed by the Courts below. Hence, this revision before this Court. Learned Counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that it is not a fit case to interfere. He, however, requested to take a lenient view. Having regard to the fact that the alleged offence is of the year 2007 and the petitioner was arrested on 05.10.2010 and the sentence of imprisonment imposed for the offence punishable under Section 411 of IPC is only six months, this Court is of the view that the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the Courts below can be reduced to the period of imprisonment the petitioner has already undergone. In the result, the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the petitioner herein is reduced to that of the period, which the petitioner has already undergone. The petitioner is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other crime. Except the above modification in all other aspects the revision is dismissed. ________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J 08.10.2010 bnr