THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.520 OF 2004 ORDER: 1 On the basis of a report given by the petitioner herein, who was examined as P.W1, a case in Cr.No.245 of 2000 was registered by Kothapeta Police against the respondents herein for the offence punishable under Section 324 r/w 34 of IPC. After framing charges under Section 324 and 324 r/w 34 of IPC against the respondents herein, the learned Magistrate took a view that the alleged offence falls under section 326 of IPC and accordingly altered the charge under section 216 Cr.P.C. and framed charges against the respondents under Section 326 and 326 r/w 34 of IPC. During the course of trial, the petitioner, as stated supra, was examined as P.W.1 and five more witnesses were examined on her behalf. The prosecution also got marked Exs.P.1 to P.4. On an analysis of the entire evidence, the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the said evidence does not satisfy the ingredients of Section 326 of IPC, but, however, found the respondents guilty of the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC and accordingly sentenced the first respondent to pay a fine of Rs.1,500/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months and sentenced the second respondent to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of four months. The trial court further observed that out of the total fine amount of Rs.3,500/- an amount of Rs.2,000/- shall be paid to P.W.1 towards compensation under section 357 Cr.P.C. Against the said judgment the State has not preferred any appeal against the said judgment, but, however, P.W.1 who is the de facto complainant in the said case, invoking the jurisdiction of this court under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C, filed the present revision seeking enhancement of the punishment imposed on the respondents. 2 The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 03.09.2000 at 10.00 PM both the respondents with a common intention of beating P.W.1 started abusing her for which P.W.1 questioned the respondents. Then the first respondent caught hold of tuft of hair of P.W.1 and threw her down. Second respondent beat her with hands and legs and he also beat her with a stick on her left leg, left side of back and right hand fore finger. Later she was shifted to the Government General Hospital, Guntur and was admitted there. In that connection a case in Cr.No.245 of 2000 was registered for the offence punishable under section 324 r/w 34 of IPC and investigated into and after completion of investigation the police filed the charge sheet. 3 Heard both sides. 4 The powers of this court under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C are very limited. If the trial court comes to the conclusion that the accused are guilty of the offence for which they were tried, it is purely discretion of the said court to impose any sentence at its discretion. In the case on hand, the trial court found the respondents guilty of the offence punishable under section 324 and 324 r/w 34 of IPC for which the maximum punishment that can be imposed is imprisonment for three years or with fine or with both. As stated supra, it is for the trial court, depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case and gravity of the offence committed, to decide as to whether the accused shall be sentenced to undergo imprisonment or they may be imposed some fine amount or with both. Here, though the trial court found the respondents guilty of the offence punishable under section 324 of IPC, but, however, taking the overall situation into consideration, exercising its discretion, sentenced them to pay only fine. The said discretion, in my considered view, cannot be said to be arbitrary. Accordingly I see no merits in this revision and thus the same is dismissed. -------------- 07.06.2010 Kvsn