THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1067 OF 2005 ORDER: This revision is preferred questioning the judgment dated 1.7.2005 in Criminal Appeal No. 161 of 2000 passed by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC) Srikakulam dismissing the appeal and confirming the conviction passed vide judgment dated 24.11.2000 in C.C. No. 13 of 1998 by the learned Judicial magistrate of First Class, Kotabommali, Srikakulam district. The allegation against the accused is that on 2.9.1997 at about 7.00 p.m., they have beat the prosecution witnesses and caused grievous injuries. Based on a complaint a case in Crime No. 38 of 1997 was registered against them and on completion of the investigation a charge sheet was filed and case was taken on file for the offences punishable under section 323, 324, 326 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The prosecution in support of its case examined P.Ws.1 to 11 and marked Ex.P.1 to P.10 whereas the defence marked Ex.D.1 to D.9. The trial Court, on considering the evidence available on record, held that accused no.9 is guilty of charge under section 326 of IPC, accused Nos. 1 to 8 and 10 to 12 and accused Nos.2,3,8 and 10 are guilty for the offence under section 324 of IPC and accordingly they are all convicted under section 248 (2) of Criminal Procedure Code . Further held that accused Nos. 3 and 8 are not guilty for the charge under section 323 of IPC and also accused no.13 is not guilty for the charge under section 323 read with section 34 of IPC and accordingly they were acquitted under section 248 (1) of Criminal Procudure code. Therefore A.1, A.4 to A.7, A.11 and A.12 are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and also to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. A.2, A.3, A.8 and A.10 are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for each count and also to pay fine of Rs.1000/- for each count, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and sentence for the two counts shall run concurrently. A.9 is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and also to pay fine of Rs.2000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Against the said order, the accused/appellants herein filed an appeal in Criminal Appeal No. 161 of 2000 and the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC) Srikakulam partly allowed the appeal holding that there is no reason to interfere with the fine, however, as regards imprisonment against accused no.9 for the offence under section 326 of IPC is reduced and converted into section 324 of IPC and sentence is modified to six months rigorous imprisonment. The conviction under section 324 of IPC against accused 1 to 8 and 10 to 12 is modified to section 323 of IPC and they were sentenced to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment for each count as imposed by the trial court and except modifying the sentence, the rest of the judgment of the trial Court is confirmed. It was further ordered that out of the fine amount a sum of Rs.1500/- to P.W.5, Rs. 1000/- to P.W.3 and Rs.500/- each to P.Ws 4,6, and 7 shall be paid as compensation under section 357 of Criminal Procedure Code. Questioning the said judgment, the present revision petition is filed. Learned counsel for petitioner after arguing the matter on merits for some time, prayed this Court to take a lenient view having regard to the fact that the matter is pending since 1997. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of case, this Court is of the view that there is no reason warranting interference with the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below. However, taking into consideration the fact that the alleged incident took place in the year 1997 and the matter is since then pending, it is felt appropriate that a lenient view can be taken in the matter. Hence, while confirming the conviction, the sentence is modified and reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by the petitioner. The fine imposed by the Court below needs no interference and the same is confirmed. Subject to above modification, the Criminal Revision case is disposed of. _____________ RAJA ELANGO,J DATE:20.1.2011 TVK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1067 OF 2005 Date: 20.1.2011