THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1950 of 2004 JUDGMENT: The petitioner herein is accused in Crime No.156 of 2002 of Medikonduru Police Station. The said crime was registered on the report given by the de facto complainant, who was examined as P.W-1, against the petitioner for the alleged offence punishable under Section 324 IPC. The said police recorded the statements of P.Ws.1, 2, 3 and 5, prepared rough sketch of scene of offence and after completion of the investigation, filed the charge sheet in the Court of VII Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur, and the same was numbered as C.C.No.315 of 2003. During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 6 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-5 were exhibited. On behalf of the defence, neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced. The learned Magistrate having analysed the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, on record, came to the conclusion that the accused are guilty of the said offence and accordingly, by his judgment, dated 27.01.2003, convicted and sentenced the petitioner to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC. The same was questioned by the petitioner herein by filing Criminal Appeal No.74 of 2004 on the file of the XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Guntur, who having reassessed the entire evidence which was brought on record by the prosecution agreed with the findings recorded by the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Challenging the said judgment, the petitioner filed the present Criminal Revision Case. The case of the prosecution in brief is that one Syed Sufia Bi is the sister-in-law of P.W-1 and she was running a hotel in Mandapadu Village. The accused used to visit the said hotel frequently and chit-chat with Syed Sufia Bi, for which P.W-1 objected. Due to which, the accused bore grudge against P.W- 1 and was waiting for an opportunity. While so, on 24.12.2002, at about 4 pm., P.W-1 went to the shop of one Marthamma on his cycle and at that time, the accused took away the cycle of P.W-1, without any permission and when P.W-1 questioned the accused, the accused picked up a stout stick and beat P.W-1 on his head and other parts of the body causing bleeding injuries. Immediately, P.W-1 went to the Police Station and gave a report-Ex.P-1, which was registered and after completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed. When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner-accused fairly conceded that this is not a fit case for interference, but, however, requested this Court to take a lenient view having regard to the fact that the petitioner was in jail for four days. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and also on perusal of the material on record, it is evident that the impugned judgment was pronounced on 19.11.2004 and immediately, the petitioner was taken into custody and only by virtue of the bail granted by this Court on 23.11.2004 he was released from the jail. Thus, the petitioner suffered a sentence of about four days. Hence, this Court is of the view that a lenient view can be taken. Accordingly, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of six months for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC imposed on the petitioner-accused by both the Courts below is reduced to that of the period already undergone by him, 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