HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.215 of 2005 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is preferred by the petitioner- accused against the judgment, dated 24.01.2005, rendered in Criminal Appeal No.26 of 2002 by the VI Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Narsapur. 2. The petitioner-accused was prosecuted in C.C.No.66 of 2000 for the offence punishable under Section 326 IPC. After due trial, the learned Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narsapur, convicted the petitioner under Section 248 (2) Cr.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 326, vide judgment, dated 29.01.2002. 3. As against the said conviction, the petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No.26 of 2002 on the file of the VI Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) at Narsapur and the learned Sessions Judge, having gone through both the oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the appeal, but reduced the sentence of imprisonment recorded against the petitioner by the learned Magistrate, from three years to two years, vide judgment, dated 24.01.2005. Challenging the same, the petitioner preferred this revision. 4. Heard both sides. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner-accused has submitted that to substantiate that the injured lost his eye sight, no documentary proof is filed before the Court. However, after arguing for sometime, the learned counsel by not pressing the main prayer confined his arguments to the extent of imposition of sentence and requested the Court to show some indulgence on the petitioner. 6. In view of the said submission and also the fact that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court have given concurrent findings, this Court is of the view that merits and demerits of the prosecution case and the impugned judgment need not be adjudicated. 7. It is represented that the petitioner is the sole bread winner of his family and has to look after his old parents and he has suffered considerable period of time in jail. Admittedly, the offence took place in the year 2000 and for all these years the petitioner suffered humiliation. In these circumstances, this Court is inclined to show some lenience towards the petitioner. 8. Accordingly, the conviction recorded against the petitioner-accused by the trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 326 IPC as confirmed by the appellate Court is confirmed and the sentence of imprisonment is modified to that of the period already undergone by the petitioner-accused. As far as the fine amount is concerned, apart from the fine amount of Rs.5,000/- imposed by the trial Court, the petitioner is directed to pay additional fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) before the trial Court on or before 06.02.2011, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months. 9. In all other respects, the impugned judgment shall stand confirmed. 10. With the above modification, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. _________________ RAJA ELANGO, J 27th December, 2010 cbs HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.215 OF 2005 DATE: 27.12.2010 Between : Adhikari Rambabu … Petitioner/ Accused and State of A.P. ..Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.215 of 2005 (Disposed of) 27th December, 2010 cbs