THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1493 of 2004 ORDER: 1 Petitioners and five others were tried by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Addanki in C.C.No.160 of 1999 for the offences punishable under sections 326 and 324 of IPC. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.7. The trial court, having assessed the said evidence, found A.1 to A.3 guilty of the offence punishable under section 324 of IPC, A.5 guilty of the offence punishable under section 326 of IPC and A.4 and A.6 guilty of the offence punishable under section 323 of IPC and accordingly convicted A.1 to A.3 to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months, convicted A.5 to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months and convicted A.4 and A.6 to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months each and further observed that out of the fine amount of Rs.3,000/- paid by the accused 1 to 3, the same shall be paid to P.W.1 towards compensation at the rate of Rs.1,500/- each. Questioning the said judgment dated 20.07.2001 the accused 1, 2, 3 and 5 preferred Criminal Appeal No.144 of 2001 and the learned VI Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C), Ongole vide his judgment dated 20.08.2004 by holding that A.2 is not guilty of the offence punishable under section 324 of IPC and accordingly acquitted him. However, the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioners herein by concurring with the finding of the trial court. Aggrieved thereby the petitioners preferred this revision. 2 The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 11.3.1999 at about 5.00 p.m when P.W.2 who is the wife of P.W.1 was proceeding towards fields in order to get grass, A.1 behaved with her indecently. P.W.2 informed about the same to P.W.1 on her return. On 12.3.1999 at 6.00 a.m. when A.1 came to the shop of P.W.1 for purchasing tomatoes, P.W.1 questioned A.1 about his misbehavour. Then the first accused grew wild and picked up a quarrel with P.W.1 and that A.2 to A.6 who noticed the said galata, came there armed with sticks in support of A.1. A.2 beat P.W.1 with a stick on his head, A.5 beat P.W.2 with a stick on her hand and caused fracture. A.1 beat P.W.1 with a stick on his head, A.4 and A.6 beat P.Ws.1 and 2 with their legs. In that connection a case in Cr.No.6 of 1999 was registered and after completion of investigation the charge sheet was filed. 3 When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners fairly conceded there are no merits in this revision and that the judgments of the courts below need no interference, however, requested the court take a lenient view in so far as the said sentence imposed on the petitioners is concerned. 4 In the light of the said submission, this court looked into the record. The appellate court dismissed the appeal on 20.08.2004 and the petitioners were taken into custody immediately. It is only after this revision was admitted and bail was granted on 01.09.2004, the petitioners came out of the jail. Thus the petitioners were in jail for a period of ten days. Having regard to the fact that the petitioners 1 to 3 were in jail for a period of ten days, and the alleged offence is of the year 1999, this court is of the view that a lenient view can be taken. 5 Accordingly, the said sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioners by the courts below is reduced to that of the period which the petitioners had already undergone. 6 Excepting the above modification, this revision, in all other aspects, is dismissed. -------------- 17.02.2011 Kvsn