HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1542 of 2011 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is preferred by the Petitioner- Accused No.5 against judgment, dated 25.04.2011, rendered in Criminal Appeal No.449 of 2010 on the file of XIII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet, Guntur District, confirming conviction and sentence imposed in S.C.No.167 of 2010 on the file of Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet. 2. The Petitioner/Accused No.5 along with four other accused was prosecuted in S.C.No.167 of 2010 for the offence punishable under Section 395 of I.P.C. After due trial, the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet, convicted the accused under Section 235 (2) Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under section 395 of I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- by each accused and in default of payment of the fine amount to undergo Simple Imprisonment for thirty days by each accused, vide judgment, dated 15.09.2010. Aggrieved thereby, Accused No.5 filed Criminal Appeal No.449 of 2010, whereby the learned XIII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet, Guntur District, on the consideration of the material available on record, confirmed the judgment of the trial court, and aggrieved by that, the present Criminal Revision Case is filed by Accused No.5. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/A-5 and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the Respondent – State. 4. After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the petitioner/A- 5 has not pressed the main prayer and confined his arguments only to reduce the sentence by showing some indulgence in favour of the petitioner/A-5. 5. In view of the said submission and also the fact that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court gave concurrent findings against the petitioner/A-5 for the offence under Section 395 IPC, this Court is of the view that the merits of the prosecution case and the impugned judgment need not be adjudicated. 6. Admittedly, the offence took place in the year 2008 and for all these years, the petitoner/A-5 must have suffered humiliation by attending various Courts in connection with this case and lost valuable part of his life and might have also incurred lot of expenditure correspondingly. In these circumstances, this Court is inclined to show some mercy upon the petitioner/A-5. 7. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence recorded against the petitioner/A-5 by the trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 395 of I.P.C. and as confirmed by the appellate Court is further confirmed, but the sentence of imprisonment is modified and reduced to Rigorous Imprisonment of two years, while keeping the fine clause and material objects clause intact. The period of detention, if any, undergone by the petitioner/A-5 in this case shall be given set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. With the above modification, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. _________________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO 27th August, 2011 cbs HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1542 of 2011 27th August, 2011 cbs