THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1949 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: On 16.10.2001, at about 6.45 pm, P.W-1 presented a complaint in Seethanagaram Police Station alleging that his 11 year old mentally retarded daughter was raped by the accused and the same was informed to him by P.W-2. The same was registered as case in Crime No.59 of 2001 and after completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed. The learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Rajahmundry, took cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f) IPC against the accused and conducted trial of the case. During the course of trial, the de facto complainant was examined as P.W-1 and one Chittemma was examined as P.W- 2 and Exs.P-1 and P-11 were marked, besides M.Os.1 and 2. The learned Sessions Judge, having considered the said oral and documentary evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the accused is guilty of the said offence and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months. The said judgment was questioned by filing Criminal Appeal No.311 of 2002 and the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry, by his judgment, dated 22.09.2004, after reassessing the entire evidence on record, confirmed the judgment of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Hence, the petitioner approached this Court and filed this Revision. When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that it is not a fit case for interference, but, however, submitted that the petitioner was in jail for a period of about two months and requested this Court to take a lenient view. In the light of the said submission, this Court looked into the record. Apparently, the impugned judgment was pronounced on 22.09.2004 and immediately, he was sent to jail to suffer the imprisonment imposed on him. Subsequently, by virtue of the bail granted by this Court on 23.11.2004, he was released from the jail. Thus, it is evident that the petitioner was in jail for about two months. Hence, this Court is of the view that a lenient view can be taken. __________________________________ JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA 27th January 2011 DR