THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1016 of 2004 O R D E R: This Criminal Revision Case is directed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3 and 5 and 6 against the order of conviction passed by the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Tirupati, vide judgment dated 09.06.2004, in Criminal Appeal No.259 of 2002 for the offence punishable under Section 395 r/w 397 IPC. The brief facts of the case are as follows: On 20.10.2000 at about 3.30 A.M. A.1 to A.7 went to S.V.Petrol bunk near Perumallapalli in Tata sumo vehicle bearing No.K.A. 34 K 2466 and asked the pump boy to fill 6 liters of diesel. Accordingly he filled and after that all the accused gained entrance into the cash room, armed with deadly weapons like knives under the pretext to pay a cash of Rs.107/- for the cost of diesel. They threatened by pointing knives on them and further to open the cash locker. Then accused robbed the cash of Rs.80,000/- from the locker of the petrol bunk and escaped with the booty by putting them in the room and locked towards Tirupati. They also cut the Telephone connection and took away the telephone and threw the same some where on the way to the Lodge, Tirupati where they stayed. After vacating the room, all the accused left Tirupati and escaped. Basing on the complaint of PW.1 a case was registered in Crime No.193 of 2000. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that even according to the evidence adduced by the prosecution, no offence made out under Section 397 IPC, since the petitioners-accused herein not caused any injury to any of the witnesses. Section 397 IPC attracts only if there is an attempt to commit murder or an attempt to cause grievous injury. On perusal of the record, it is seen that a person who is arrayed as A.7 caused injury to PW.1. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also submitted that injury caused to PW.1 by A.7 who is not the petitioner before this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioners fairly submits that an offence under Section 395 IPC attracts in view of the evidence adduced by the accused and also the finding of the trial Court clearly shows that the offence was committed by them. Hence, this Court is of the view that the petitioners can be acquitted from the offence under Section 397 IPC and it is proper to convict the accused under Section 395 IPC. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence under Section 397 IPC is set aside and the petitioners-accused are convicted for an offence punishable under Section 395 IPC and the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to three years. With the above modification, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. The petitioners-accused are directed to surrender before the trial Court within four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. On their failure, the respondent-Police is directed to secure the petitioners-accused and produce them before the Court to suffer the remaining sentence. __________________ RAJA ELANGO, J 6th July, 2010. PNV