THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.861 of 2004 JUDGMENT: After investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the petitioner herein in Crime No.114 of 1997 of Markapur Town Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. The Assistant Sessions Judge, Markapur, took cognizance of the said offence and numbered it as S.C.No.417 of 1998. During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 12 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-11 were marked. On behalf of the defence, none was examined nor any documents were marked. The learned Judge having analysed the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, came to the conclusion that the accused is not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC, but, however, found him guilty of the offence punishable under Section 326 IPC and accordingly, by his judgment, dated 26.06.2000, convicted and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one year. The said judgment was questioned by the petitioner-accused by filing Criminal Appeal No.97 of 2000 and the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Ongole, vide judgment dated 30.04.2004, while concurring the findings recorded by the trial Court, dismissed the appeal. Challenging the said judgment, the petitioner approached this Court and filed this Revision. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: - The accused on one hand and the de facto complainant (P.W-1) and his father-P.W-2 on the other are not in talking terms due to cattle disputes. While so, on 08.08.2007, at about 8.30 pm., P.W-1 went to his cattle shed and found the son of the accused beating his buffalo with a stick, when P.W-1 questioned the son of the accused about the same, he stated that he beat the buffalo since it drank kudithi of his tub, and some altercation took place and that, in the meanwhile, the accused came upon P.W-1 and beat him on his right forearm, head and left knee with a crowbar, as a result of which, P.W-1 fell on the ground and that on receipt of medical information from the hospital, the Police concerned recorded the statement of P.W-1 and investigated into the matter, after completion of which, the charge sheet was filed against the accused initially for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC and after receipt of wound certificate, changed the section of law into 324 IPC. 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 about two weeks months and requested this Court to take a lenient view. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. In the light of the said submission, this Court looked into the record. Apparently, the impugned judgment was pronounced on 30.04.2004 and immediately, the petitioner was sent to jail to suffer the imprisonment imposed on him. Subsequently, by virtue of the bail granted by this Court on 11.05.2004, he was released from the jail. Thus, it is evident that the petitioner was in jail for quite some time, and that apart, as the said offence is alleged to have taken place in the year 1997, i.e., about 13 years ago, this Court is of the view that a lenient view can be taken. Accordingly, the sentence of simple imprisonment for four years imposed on the petitioner by both the Courts below for the offence punishable under Section 326 IPC is reduced to that of the period already undergone by him, while maintaining the sentence of fine. However, the petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards compensation to the de facto complainant by name Cheemalamarri Musalareddy. The said compensation is in addition to fine amount which was already imposed on the petitioner-accused by both the Courts below. The compensation shall be paid by the petitioner-accused to the de facto complainant by name Cheemalamarri Musalareddy within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which, he shall suffer the imprisonment imposed on him by both the Courts below. Except the said modification in the sentence of imprisonment, in all other aspects, this Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed. ___________________________________ JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA 24th March 2011 DR