THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL APPEAL No.276 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: 1 Appellant herein along with others was tried as accused by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Markapur in S.C.No.45 of 2008 for the offences punishable under sections 457, 395, 395 r/w 34, 506 and 412 of IPC. During the course of trial the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 21 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.24 and M.Os1 to 20. On behalf of the defence Exs.D.1 to D.7 were marked. The trial court having assessed the entire evidence, found the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under section 457 of IPC and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and shall also pay fine of Rs.200/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months. The trial court further convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under section 395 r/w 34 of IPC and accordingly sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and also to pay a fine of Rs.300/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months. The trial court further convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under section 412 of IPC and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and also to pay a fine of Rs.300/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Questioning the said judgment dated 08.11.2009 the fifth accused in the said case preferred this Criminal Appeal. 2 Facts in brief are that on 25.01.2003 all the accused in the said case went to the house of Onteddu Chnna Pitchi Ranga Reddy during night time and posing themselves as naxalites demanded him to pay Rs.1,50,000/- and later extorted some money and gold ornaments by threatening the inmates of the house with dire consequences that they put bombs around the house and stated that they will return the ornaments only if the said amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was paid to them. Subsequently on 27.01.2003 on the instructions of the accused the complainant took an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to Cumbum Railway Station where the accused took away the said amount but did not return the ornaments. Again on 09.02.2003 on the demand of the accused the complainant sent the balance amount of Rs.50,000/- to the accused, but the accused having taken away the said amount did not return the ornaments. Thereafter, on the complaint given by the complainant a case in Cr.No.13 of 2003 was registered for the offences punishable under sections 452, 386, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and investigated into. During the course of investigation the appellant and some other accused in the said case were apprehended on 13.04.2003 and part of the stolen property was seized from them and after completion of investigation the charge sheet was filed. 3 When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant fairly conceded that this is not a fit case for interference, but, however, he requested this court to take a lenient view in so far as the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the appellant is concerned since the appellant was in jail for a period of more than five years. Having regard to the said submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant, this court directed the learned Additional Public Prosecutor to get instructions in this regard. On instructions the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the appellant was taken into custody on 13.04.2003 and he was released on bail on 13.08.2007. Subsequent to the trial court convicting the appellant for the charged offences on 06.11.2009, the appellant was committed to prison and no bail was granted by this court and as on today he is in jail. From the above, the appellant has already served a sentence of five years and four months. As the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the trial court is seven years and since the appellant has already served a sentence of five years and four months, this court is of the view that lenient view can be taken in so far as the said sentence of imprisonment imposed on the appellant by the court below is concerned. 4 In the result, the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the appellant – A.5 by the court below is reduced to that of the period, which the appellant has already undergone and the appellant shall be released forthwith if not required in any other crime. Excepting the above modification, in all other aspects, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed. -------------- 28.03.2011 Kvsn