IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD Dated the 16th day of April, Two thousand and ten. Present: The Hon’ble Sri Justice P. Swaroop Reddy Crl.R.C.No. 915 of 2009 Between: Uppu Srinivasa Reddy …Petitioner/A3 And The State of AP Represented by the Public Prosecutor ….Respondent PSR, J. Crl.R.C.No. 915 of 2009 Judgment This revisions filed by the petitioner (A3) against the judgment of the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar in Crl.A.No. 58 of 2003. 2. The facts are as follows – The petitioner (A-3) along with three others entered the house of the complainant, Maddi Rajesham on 25.2.1996 at 8.30 PM and robbed cash of Rs.10,000-00; gold chain weighing two tolas and other gold ornaments, posing themselves to be extremists. The value of the stolen property was Rs.45,000-00. On a complaint given by the complainant a case in Cr.No.40 of 1996 for the offences under section 392 IPC and S. 25 (1) (a) of the Indian Arms Act of P.S., Jammikunta was registered and investigated into. The accused along with other accused were arrested on 31.12.1996 and stolen property was recovered from him. 3. Charges under section 457 and 392 IPC were framed against the present accused and two other accused. The accused pleaded not guilty. 4. On behalf of the prosecution PWs-1 to 13 were examined and Exs P-1 to P-12 were marked, apart from MOs 1 to 4. On the basis of the material on record, the present petitioner (A-3) and two others were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.600-00 each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for twenty days each for the offence under section 457 IPC and similar period for the offence under section 392 IPC; as against the same, the petitioner and two other accused filed Crl.A.No. 58 of2003, which the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar dismissed and as against the same, the present revision is filed by A-3. 5. Now the point that arises for consideration is whether there are any grounds for allowing the revision. 6. It is a case where the present petitioner and two others entered the house of the complainant (PW-1), while he was watching TV in the house along with family members, posing themselves as extremists and robbed of cash and gold ornaments. The complainant (PW-1) and his wife (PW-2) identified the accused, during the test identification parade. These witnesses – PWs 1 and 2 had ample opportunity of seeing the accused at the time of offence and there was also recovery of stolen property from the present petitioner. That being the case, it cannot be said that appreciation of evidence by both the courts below is perverse. No other irregularity or illegality is brought to my notice to hold that the conviction of the petitioner is erroneous in any way. 7. In all these circumstances, there are absolutely no grounds to allow the revision case and it is accordingly dismissed. 8. However, the conviction of the petitioner/Accused (A-3) for the offences under sections 457 and 392 IPC is confirmed. But, the sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment imposed on the petitioner/ accused for the offences under section 457 and 392 IPC by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Huzurabad in C.C.No. 165 of 1997, as confirmed by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar in Crl.A.No. 58 of 2003 is reduced to rigorous imprisonment of two and half years under each count; while confirming the sentence of fine imposed under each count. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. The period of detention already under gone by the petitioner accused shall be given set off under section 428 Cr.P.C. _______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. April 16, 2010. *BVS