THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR Crl. R.C.No.1468 of 2005 Date: 20.09.2011 Between: Atuluri Varalaxmi … Petitioner AND Potuluri Venkataramana and 3 others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR Crl. R.C.No.1468 of 2005 ORDER: The revision petitioner is PW.1. PWs.2 and 3 are respondents 3 and 4 herein. The sole accused is the first respondent herein. 2. PW.1 lodged a complaint against the sole accused through Ex.P.1. However, the charge sheet itself was laid by police alleging that the accused committed the offence under Sections 324 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The case was taken on file. After recording the evidence of nine witnesses and marking 10 documents, the learned Judicial Magistrate of Fist Class, Nuzvid considered that the case under Sections 324 and 323 IPC were made out against the accused. It was considered that the offence u/s.324 IPC on two counts and the offence u/s.323 IPC on one count were proved against the accused. The learned trial Judge sentenced the accused to Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months on two counts for the offence u/s.324 IPC for causing simple hurt to PWs.1 and 3 with deadly weapons. He directed that the sentences should run concurrently. That apart, the trial Court imposed fine of ` 1,000/- on each of the count u/s.324 IPC and also imposed fine of ` 500/- for the offence u/s.323 IPC for causing simple hurt to PW.2. Appropriate default sentences were ordered. The learned trial Judge directed that ` 500/- out of the amount of fine imposed against the accused for the offence u/s.324 IPC shall be paid to PWs.1 to 3. He also directed that ` 250/- shall be paid to PW.2 out of the fine amount of ` 500/-. The amounts were payable to PWs.1 to 3 by way of compensation u/s.357 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 3. Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court, the sole accused preferred appeal. The learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Manchilipatnam confirmed the conviction recorded by the trial Court. He, however, modified the sentence to fine only and set aside the imprisonment recorded by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner preferred this revision. 4. The only point urged is that the sole accused deserves to be imprisonment for a period of six months as determined by the trial Court. 5. The accused was 25 years old at the time of the commission of the offence. The offence occurred in August, 1998, more than 13 years ago. The sentence recorded against the accused was modified by the appellate Court taking into consideration the period between the date on which the offence occurred and the date of the judgment of the appellate Court. Now, where 13 years had elapsed, I am not inclined to reverse the finding of the appellate Court sending the accused again to jail. In this background, where the offence occurred in August, 1998, the finding of the appellate Court stands confirmed. 6. The Criminal Revision Case is, accordingly, dismissed. ________________ K.G. SHANKAR, J Date: 20.09.2011 Isn