THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1478 of 2004 ORDER: 1 Petitioners and two others were tried by the learned V Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur in C.C.No.227 of 1997 for the offences punishable under sections 365, 342 and 506 of IPC. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.7. On behalf of the defence Ex.D.1 was marked. The trial court, having assessed the said evidence, came to the conclusion that all the accused including the petitioners are guilty of the said offences and accordingly convicted and sentenced A.1 to A.5 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of ten days each for the offence punishable under section 365 of IPC; sentenced A.6 and A.7 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of ten days each for the offence punishable under section 365 r/w 34 of IPC; sentenced A.1 to A.5 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months each for the offence punishable under section 342 of IPC; sentenced A.1 to A.7 to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of ten days each for the offence punishable under section 506 of IPC. Questioning the said judgment dated 13.07.2000 the petitioners preferred Criminal Appeal No.376 of 2000 and the learned VII Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur vide his judgment dated 27.08.2004 by holding that A.6 and A.7 are not guilty of any of the offences for which they were tried and acquitted them, however, found the petitioners guilty of the said offences and accordingly dismissed the appeal in so far as the petitioners is concerned. Aggrieved thereby the petitioners preferred this revision. 2 The case of the prosecution in brief is that in view of the previous enmity, on 24.5.1997 at 8.00 p.m. when P.W.1 was going in the street in Brodipet, Guntur, A.1 to A.5 came to him and kidnapped him. On coming to know about the same, when the father of P.W.1 was going to police station, on the way the accused 5 and 6 threatened him with dire consequences. On the next day the father of P.W.1 went to the police station and lodged a report whereupon a case in Cr.No.81 of 1997 was registered and investigated into and after completion of investigation the police filed charge sheet. 3 When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner 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 petitioner is concerned. 4 In the light of the said submission, this court looked into the record. The appellate court dismissed the appeal on 27.08.2004 and the petitioners were taken into custody immediately. It is only after this revision was admitted and bail was granted on 30.08.2004, the petitioners came out of the jail. Thus the petitioners were in jail for a period of four days. From the record it appears that the petitioners were initially in jail for some period. During the pendency of this revision, petitioners 4 and 5 died and establishing the said fact their death certificates have been filed. In those circumstances, the case against them is abated. In so far as the other petitioners are concerned, it appears, there was a compromise entered into between the parties and in the light of the said compromise, a petition is filed by the complainant who was examined as P.W.1 an the petitioners herein. May be it is true that there was a compromise entered into between the parties but it shall be remembered that the offence punishable under section 365 of IPC is non-compoundable. Already they were convicted by the courts below and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. In those circumstances, this court is not inclined to get the said offence compounded. 5 However, having regard to the fact that the petitioners 1 to 3 were in jail for a period of about some period, and the alleged offence is of the year 1997, though this court is not inclined to get the said offence compounded, deems it proper and reduces the said sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year to that of the period which the petitioners had already undergone. 6 Excepting the above modification, this revision, in all other aspects, is dismissed. -------------- 11.02.2011 Kvsn