THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.200 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: 1 This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 09.01.2006 in S.C.No.846 of 2004 on the file of the court of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Huzurabad whereby the appellant herein along with others was tried for the offence punishable under section 395 of IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and also to pay a fine of Rs.200/-, in default of payment of fine he shall suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. 2 Brief facts are that on 29.03.2003 at about 00.30 AM five unknown persons in the age group of 25 to 30 years broke open the lock and entered the house and posed themselves as Naxalites and tied his hands with shirt, threatened at the point of sticks and knives and also his wife and daughter with sticks and knives and thereafter robbed gold and silver ornaments and other valuable articles from the house of P.W.1. The said persons also beat P.W.1 and his wife to open the almyrah and thereafter the culprits confined PW.1 and his family members in bath room and had also stolen the articles. In that connection a case in Cr.No.49 of 2003 under section 395 of IPC was registered by police Huzurabad and investigated into. Later on receipt of information that the appellant and others were arrested the appellant was produced on P.T. warrant on 19.12.2003 before the court. During the course of interrogation the appellant and others confessed about the commission of the offence and part of the stolen property was also seized from them. After completion of investigation the police filed the charge sheet, which was taken on file as PRC No.70 of 2004 by the learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Huzurabad and after committal the same was numbered as S.C.No.846 of 2004. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 12 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P6 and M.Os.1 to 4. 3 When the matter is taken up for hearing, Smt. A. Gayathri Reddy, the learned counsel for the appellant fairly conceded that this is not a fit case for interference, but, however, requested this court to take a lenient view having regard to the fact that the appellant is in jail for more than seven years as on today. 4 In the light of the said submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, this court looked into the record. Apparently the appellant was arrested on 07.10.2003 and every since he is in jail. 5 Having regard to the fact that the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the trial court on the appellant is rigorous imprisonment for ten years and the appellant has been in jail for the last more than seven years, this court is of the view that the said sentence of rigorous imprisonment of ten years imposed on the appellant by the court below can be reduced to that of the period already undergone by him. 6 Accordingly, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of ten years imposed on the appellant - A.3, by the court below in S.C.No.846 of 2004 is reduced to that of the period which the petitioner had already undergone. 7 Excepting the said modification in respect of imprisonment, in all other aspects, this appeal is dismissed. ----------------- Sri T.G.K, J. 18.02.2011 Kvsn