THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1577 OF 2010 ORDER: 1 Petitioner herein and his wife were tried by the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Guntur in S.C.No.70 of 2009 for the offences punishable under section 307 r/w 34 of IPC. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.9. Though no oral evidence is adduced, Ex.D.1 to D.3 are marked on behalf of the defence. Having analysed the said evidence, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the petitioner and his wife are guilty of the offence for which they were tried and accordingly sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years each and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default of payment of fine, they shall suffer simple imprisonment for three months each. Petitioner and his wife questioned the said judgment dated 08.12.2009 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge by way of Criminal Appeal No.434 of 2009 and the learned VII Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Guntur by his judgment dated 16.08.2010 while dismissing the said appeal reduced the said sentence of five years rigorous imprisonment to three years. Questioning the same, the first accused preferred this revision. 2 The case of the prosecution is as follows: Petitioner is the younger son of P.W.1. During the year 2002 P.W.1 constructed two-portioned building opposite to water tanks, Guntur. The petitioner and his wife along with their children are residing in the 2nd portion of the said house. Previously P.W.1 executed documents in favour of the petitioner with respect to the house with a hope that he may look after his welfare. Later the petitioner tried to dispose of the house on his own accord. On coming to know the same, P.W.1 got the property re-registered in his name and due to ill health he proposed to dispose of the property to one Apparao and took an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- towards advance. Thereupon the petitioner and his wife used to threaten P.W.1 with dire consequences not to dispose of the said house to any body. Further, the petitioner demanded P.W.1 to dispose of the house and give the balance amount of Rs.6,50,000/- to him. In the course of said dispute, P.W.1 disconnected power supply and water supply to the portion of the petitioner. Then the petitioner and his wife hatched a plan to do away with the life of P.W.1 and in order to gain the entire property in their favour, on 31.10.2008 at about 12.30 noon when P.W.1 was present in front of his house, the petitioner and his wife came there, picked up a quarrel and when the wife of the petitioner caught hold of P.W.1 firmly, the petitioner brought sharp edged knife from the house and stabbed P.W.1 indiscriminately and inflicted severe bleeding injuries. In that connection a case in Cr.No.299 of 2008 was registered and after completion of investigation a charge sheet was laid for the offence punishable under section 307 r/w 34 of IPC and the same was registered as PRC No.45 of 2008 and after committal the same was numbered as SC No. 70 of 2009. 3 When the matter is taken up for admission, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the parties are very closely related and the accusation against the petitioner is that he attacked his father, but, however, there was a compromise between the parties and in view of the said compromise the father and the son are living together in the same house. He further contended that though this fact was brought to the notice of the appellate court, the appellate court, instead of setting aside the entire sentence, reduced the same to three years only. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner was in jail for a period of more than five months. 4 In the light of the said submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner this court looked into the judgment passed by the appellate court. In para No.23 of its judgment, the appellate court observed as follows: “It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the parties have compromised the matter and they have been residing in the same house amicably and a lenient view may be taken against the convict. As seen from the case record and the evidence of P.W.1, the accused came for compromise with P.W.1 and there was a compromise in the village and in pursuance of such compromise only P.W.1 was recalled on petition and he was further cross examined” 5 From the above observations made by the appellate court, it is clear that there was a compromise entered into between the parties. After all the relationship between the petitioner and the complainant who was examined as P.W.1 is son and father and the father has agreed for the compromise. Though the offence punishable under section 307 of IPC is non-compoundable, court can take a lenient view. It is also clear from the record that the petitioner was taken into custody on 01.11.2008 and thereafter he came out from the jail pursuant to the order passed in a bail petition on 13.03.2009. Again when the appeal was dismissed by the appellate court on 16.08.2010 the petitioner was taken into custody and as on date the petitioner is in jail. The total period, from the above, works out to 156 days. As there was a compromise between the parties and they are living amicably in the same house, and inasmuch as the petitioner had already suffered a sentence of 156 days i.e. more than five months, this court is of the view that the said sentence of three years as imposed by the appellate court can be reduced to that of the period already undergone. 6 Accordingly the said sentence of imprisonment of three years imposed against the petitioner – Poojala Venkata Ramana by the learned VIII Additional District & Sessions Judge, (FTC), Guntur in C.A.No.434 of 2009 for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC is reduced to that of the period already undergone by him. The petitioner is directed to be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other crime. Except the above modification in all other aspects this revision is dismissed at the stage of admission. --------------- 08.09.2010 Kvsn