HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1095 OF 2005 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is preferred by the petitioners- A.1 to A.8 and A.10 against the judgment, dated 08.07.2005, rendered in Criminal Appeal No.29 of 2003 by the VI Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Nizamabad at Kamareddy. 2. The petitioners were prosecuted in C.C.No.179 of 2001 for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 326 r/w 34 IPC. After due trial, the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kamareddy, convicted the petitioners-A.1 to A.8 and A.10 under Section 248 (2) Cr.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months each and to pay a fine of Rs.300/- each for the offence punishable under Section 324 r/w 34 IPC and further sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months each and to pay a fine of Rs.400/- each for the offence punishable under Section 326 r/w 34 IPC and in default of payment of fine amounts under each count of offences, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month each and further directed that the sentences under main counts of offences and default clause shall run concurrently, vide judgment, dated 26.03.2003. 3. As against the said conviction, the petitioners filed Criminal Appeal No.29 of 2003 on the file of the VI Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Nizamabad at Kamareddy and the learned Sessions Judge, having gone through both the oral and documentary evidence, upheld the conviction and sentence recorded against the petitioners by the learned Magistrate, vide judgment, dated 08.07.2005. Challenging the same, the petitioners preferred this revision. 4. Heard both sides. 5. After arguing for sometime, learned counsel for the petitioners by not pressing the main prayer confined his arguments to the extent of imposition of sentence and requested the Court to show some indulgence on the petitioners. 6. In view of the said submission and also the fact that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court have given concurrent findings, this Court is of the view that merits of the prosecution case and impugned judgment need not be adjudicated. 7. It is represented that the petitioners are the sole breadwinners of their families and have to look after the welfare of their family members. Admittedly, the offence took place in the year 2001 and for all these years the petitioners suffered humiliation. In these circumstances, this Court is inclined to show some lenience towards the petitioners. 8. Accordingly, the conviction recorded against the petitioners by the trial Court for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 426 r/w 34 IPC as confirmed by the appellate Court is confirmed and the sentence of imprisonment is modified to that of the period already undergone by the petitioners-A.1 to A.8 and A.10. As far as the fine amount is concerned, apart from the total fine amount of Rs.6,300/- imposed by the trial Court, the petitioners are directed to pay additional fine amount of Rs.6,300/- (Rupees Six thousand three hundred only) before the trial Court on or before 20.02.2011, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month each. 9. In all other respects, the impugned judgment shall stand confirmed. 10. With the above modification, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. _________________ RAJA ELANGO, J 9th December, 2010 cbs HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1095 OF 2005 DATE: 09.12.2010 Between : Debbeti Pedda Rajaiah and others … Petitioners/ A.1 to A.8 & 10 and State of A.P. ..Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1095 of 2005 (Disposed of) 9th December, 2010 cbs