THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1040 of 2005 ORDER: This revision is preferred questioning the judgment dated 9.5.2005 in Criminal Appeal No. 154 of 2003 passed by learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Markapur, Prakasam district confirming the judgment dated 5.11.2003 in C.C. No. 29 of 1999 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Giddalur insofar as it related to accused no.1/revision petitioner herein. The case of the prosecution is that on 22.2.1998 while accused 1 to 3 were getting the disputed land ploughed by tractor, P W 1 and 2 objected for the same and accused in angry beat P.Ws 1 and 2 with sticks. Then, P.W.1 and 2 presented a written report to the Kamarole police and a case was registered against the accused under sections 324 read with section 34 of IPC. After conducting regular trial, the trial Court vide its judgment dated 5.11.2003 convicted and sentenced accused nos.1 and 2 to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each in default shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month for offence under section 324 of IPC. Accused no.3 is directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and directed to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- for offences under Section 324 read with section 34 of IPC in default shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month. As against the said judgment, an appeal is preferred and the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Markapur by its judgment dated 9.5.2005 in Criminal Appeal No. 154 of 2003 found accused 2 and 3 not guilty of the offence punishable under section 324 IPC and conviction imposed by the trial Court against them was set aside. Further, accused no.1/revision petitioner herein was found guilty for the offence punishable under section 324 of IPC and the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court was confirmed. Hence, the present criminal revision case. Learned counsel for petitioner after arguing the matter on merits for some time submitted that the matter is pending since 1998 and that the accused has already suffered imprisonment for two months and he is the only bread winner for the family and prayed this Court to take a lenient view. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of case, this Court is of the view that there is no reason warranting interference with the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below. However, taking into consideration the fact that the matter is pending since 1998, it is felt appropriate that a lenient view can be taken in the matter. Hence, while confirming the conviction, the sentence is modified and reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by the petitioner. The sentence of fine imposed by the Court below is not interfered with. Subject to above modification, the Criminal Revision case is disposed of. _____________ RAJA ELANGO,J DATE:20.1.2011 TVK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1040 OF 2005 Date: 20.1.2011