THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2119 of 2004 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the judgment dated 16.12.2004 made in Crl.A.No.70 of 2002 by the Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram. The case of the prosecution is as follows: The defacto-complainant-Smt. Datla Sridevi (P.W.1) is having a vacant site in S.No.227/1 in an extent of 156 sq. yards. She started construction of a house in the said site after obtaining permission from the panchayat on 31.1.1998. On 30.8.1998 P.W.1 was preparing construction of slab with masons viz., Landa Atchamnaidu (P.W.2) and Koranana Bangarayya (L.W.3). The masons were raising rafters in the vacant site situated near the site of P.W.1. At that time, the petitioners- A1 and A2 came there and objected for raising wooden rafters in their site and picked up a quarrel with P.W.1. During the course of the said quarrel, the petitioners with a criminal intention to dishonour P.W.1, trespassed into her house site, removed the wooden poles, pushed P.W.1 by placing hands on her chest and by pressing the breast. Thus, the petitioners outraged modesty of P.W.1. P.Ws.2, 3 and Pogiri Chandrayya witnessed the offence, intervened and rescued P.W.1 from the hands of the accused. On the report given by P.W.1- a case in Crime No.77 of 1998 on the file of Gajapathinagaram Police Station was registered against the petitioners. After completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed and the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gajapathinagaram took cognizance of the same for the offences under Section 447, 427, 354 r/w 34 IPC and numbered it as P.R.C.No.16 of 1998. After following the due procedure as contemplated under the provisions of Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate committed the same to the Court of Sessions, Vizianagaram and the learned District & Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram numbered the case as S.C.No.28 of 1999 and made over the same to the Court of Assistant Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram for disposal. On appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the petitioners-accused guilty of the offences under section 447, 427 and 354 IPC and sentenced each of them to suffer R.I. for two months for the offence under section 447 IPC; to suffer R.I. for one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer S.I. for three months for the offence under section 427 IPC and also sentenced to suffer R.I. for five years and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to suffer S.I. for six months for the offence under Section 354 IPC. Challenging the said judgment, the petitioners- accused preferred an appeal in Crl.A.No.70 of 2002 before the Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram. The learned Sessions Judge allowed the appeal in part and modified the judgment of the trial Court as follows: The conviction and sentence imposed for the offence charged under sections 447 and 354 IPC are set aside and the petitioners are acquitted for the said charges. The fine, if any, paid by the petitioners-accused for the offence under Section 354 IPC shall be refunded to them after expiry of appeal time. The conviction and the sentence passed for the offence under section 427 IPC is confirmed. Questioning the above judgment, the petitioners-accused 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 offence is of the year 1998. 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 were in jail for a period of two weeks, this Court is of the view that this is a fit case where a lenient view can be taken. Accordingly, the sentence imposed by the Courts below against the petitioners-accused for the offence under Section 427 IPC is reduced to the period already undergone, while maintaining the sentence of fine. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. But however, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year imposed against the petitioners-accused by the Courts below for the offence under Section 427 IPC is reduced to the period already undergone while maintaining the sentence of fine. _______________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J 31st March, 2011 Nn THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2119 of 2004 31.3.2011