THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1835 of 2004 ORDER: 1 The petitioners herein being the accused 2 & 3 along with another were tried in C.C.No.278 of 1999 for the offence punishable under section 324 and 326 r/w 34 of IPC by the learned Additional Munsif Magistrate, Kandukur. The prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.14. The learned Magistrate having assessed the entire evidence both oral and documentary, convicted A.1 and A.3 for the offence punishable under section 324 of IPC, A.1 for the offence punishable under section 326 of IPC, A.2 for the offence punishable under section 324 r/w 34 of IPC and 326 R/w 34 of IPC, A.3 guilty for the offence punishable under section 326 r/w 34 of IPC and sentenced A.1 and A.3 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under section 324 of IPC, sentenced A.1 to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under section 326 of IPC, sentenced A.2 to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under section 324 r/w 34 of IPC and sentenced A.2 and A.3 to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under section 326 r/w 34 of IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Aggrieved by the said judgment the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.31 of 2004 and the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC), Ongole by his judgment dated 13.09.2004 while allowing the said appeal partly, modified the said sentences imposed on the accused by the trial court as under: a) The conviction and sentence of A.1 for the offence punishable under section 326 of IPC is set aside, b) The conviction and sentence of A.2 and A.3 for the offence punishable under Section 326 r/w 34 of IPC is set aside. c) The conviction and sentence of A.1 for the offence punishable under section 324 IPC is set aside. d) The conviction of A.2 and A.3 for the offence punishable under section 324 of IPC is upheld. e) A.2 and A.3 are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, they shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months each. f) A.1 is set at liberty and his bail bonds shall stand discharged. Refund fine amount to A.1 after revision time. As against the said judgment dated 13.09.2004, the accused 2 & 3 preferred this revision. 2 The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that A.1 and A.3 are sons of A.2. The complainant Marella Ramachary is neighbour of the accused and there are disputes between the accused and the complainant regarding site and placing of ‘thadika’. The accused failed to remove the said ‘thadika’ inspite of the decision of elders of the village. While so on 28.7.1999 at 8.00 am when the complainant removed the said ‘thadika’ the accused A.1 and A.2 came there. A.2 caught hold the shirt of the complainant and torn it while A.1 beat him with a stick on left shoulder. Meanwhile A.3 brought two persons. At that time P.Ws.2 and 4 came there. One of the persons brought by A.3 caught hold P.W.2 and another caught hold the de facto complainant. A.3 beat the complainant with iron rod on head. A.1 also sustained injury to his right middle finger while warding off the blow on the head. A.1 beat P.W.2 with stick above the left fore arm and also on head. A.3 caught hold the tuft of P.W.4 and pushed her. The persons brought by the A.3 indiscriminately beat P.W.4. In that connection the Kandukur police registered a case in Cr.No.49 of 1999 and investigated into and after completion of investigation, the police filed the charge sheet. 3 Heard both sides. 4 Having gone through the judgment impugned in this revision, this court is of the view that the said findings given by the appellate court needs no interference. The learned Judge while Re- appreciating the entire evidence, though found the Petitioners guilty of the offence punishable under section 324 of IPC, but, by taking a lenient view, instead of imposing sentence of imprisonment, sentenced them to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, they shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months each, which in my considered view, needs no interference. 5 Accordingly, this revision is dismissed. -------------- 28.01.2011 Kvsn