THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1898 of 2004 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the judgment dated 05.11.2004 made in Crl.A.No.140 of 2002 by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Prakasam District, Ongole. The case of the prosecution is as follows: The petitioners herein are the accused. A1 got suspicion that P.W.1-Anumala Srinivasa Reddy has got illicit intimacy with his sister viz., Nagamma. The said Nagamma left the village for about one month. A1 having suspected that P.W.1 is responsible for missing of his sister, he bore grudge against him and hatched up a plan with A2 to A6 to do away with his life. While so, on 25.1.2000, P.W.1 had been to the house of one Abburi Hanumantha Rao for collecting dues and while he was returning home at about 10.00 p.m., when he reached near the house of Tatiparthi Venkireddy, all the accused, who formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with a common object to kill P.W.1, attacked him with deadly weapons viz., axes, iron rods, sticks etc. In pursuance of their common object, A1 axed P.W.1 on his left ankle and thereby caused fracture, A2 beat him with a stick on his left portion of forehead; A3 beat him with iron roads on his both legs, A4 beat him with a stick on his left hand; A5 and A6 beat P.W.1 with iron roads on his back. P.W.2-Anumala Anjireddy, P.W.3 Ippala Ramireddy, P.W.4 Ippala Kotireddy and P.W.5 Ippala Seetharamireddy, who sat near the house of one Sanagala Venkateswara Reddy witnessed the entire occurrence, intervened and rescued P.W.1 from the hands of the accused. P.W.6-Anumala Venkayamma, wife of P.W.1 and L.W.7-Anumala Seetharavamma, mother of P.W.1 learnt about the occurrence. As there is no conveyance at that odd hours, P.W.7 went to the police station on the next day at 7 a.m., and presented a report. On the basis of such report, a case in Crime No.4 of 2000 was registered by S.I. of Ballikurava police station against the petitioners-accused. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed and the same was taken cognizance as P.R.C.No.19 of 2000 by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Addanki. The learned Magistrate committed the same to the Court of Sessions, Prakasam Division, Ongole. The learned District & Sessions Judge has made over the same to the Assistant Sessions Judge, Addanki for disposal in accordance with law. On appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found all the petitioners-accused guilty of the offence under Sections 307 and 148 IPC; further found A1 guilty for the offence under Section 326 IPC; A2 to A6 guilty for the offence under Section 324 IPC and accordingly, sentenced the petitioners-A1 to A6 to undergo R.I. for six years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default to suffer S.I. for two months for the offence under section 307 IPC; sentenced A1 to A6 to undergo R.I. for one year for the offence under Section 148 IPC; further sentenced A1 to suffer R.I. for four years for the offence under section 326 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer S.I. for one month under Section 326 IPC and further sentenced A2 to A6 to undergo R.I. for three years for the offence under Section 324 IPC. Challenging the said judgment, the petitioners-accused preferred an appeal in Crl.A.No.140 of 2002 before the I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ongole. The learned Additional Sessions Judge partly allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court for the offences under sections 148, 307, 326 and 324 IPC, but however, the appellate Court convicted and sentenced the petitioners-accused as follows: A1 to A6 are found guilty for the offence under section 147 IPC and they are sentenced to undergo RI for six months; A1 is found guilty for the offence under Section 325 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and also to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default, to undergo S.I. for two months for the said offence; A2 to A6 are found guilty of the offence under Section 325 r/w 149 IPC and they are sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of one year each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to undergo S.I. for two months each. Questioning the said judgment, the petitioners filed the present revision. Learned Counsel for the petitioners-accused fairly conceded that this is not a fit case for interference, but he requested to take a lenient view insofar as the sentence of imprisonment is concerned, having regard to the fact that the petitioners were in jail for a period of five days. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the nature of the offence committed by the petitioners-accused, I feel that the conviction recorded by the lower appellate Court do not warrant any interference. But however, having regard to the fact that the petitioners have been wandering around the Courts since 2000, this Court is of the view that this is a fit case where a lenient view can be taken. Accordingly, the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the lower appellate Court against the petitioners-accused under the counts stated above is reduced to the period already undergone, while enhancing the fine amount to Rs.5,000/-each. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. But however, the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the lower appellate Court under the counts stated above, is reduced to the period already undergone while enhancing the fine amount of Rs.1,000/- to Rs.5,000/- each. The enhanced fine amount of Rs.4,000/- each shall be paid by the petitioners-accused, within a period of four weeks from the date of a receipt of a copy of this order, in default, it is needless to observe that the petitioners shall undergo the sentence imposed by the lower appellate Court in this regard. It is also directed that the above said enhanced fine amount shall be paid to P.W.1 towards compensation. _______________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J 31st March, 2011 Nn THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1898 of 2004 31.3.2011