HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRL.R.C.No.1396 of 2004 JUDGMENT: This criminal revision case is directed against the judgment of the learned V-Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal, in Crl.A.No.187 of 2001 dated 26.02.2004 confirming the conviction and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and a fine of Rs.500/- in default, simple imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 376 (1) of I.P.C. and also rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, simple imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 452 of I.P.C., imposed against the revision petitioner-accused by the learned I-Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Warangal, in S.C.No.45 of 2001 dated 18.09.2001. The said sentences were directed to be run concurrently. It is the case of the prosecution that on 01.05.2000 at about 3.00 P.M, the accused trespassed into the house of the victim girl by name Singarapu Rama, who was examined as P.W.2, at Gannaram village, gagged her mouth with hand, forcibly took her to the corner of the room, removed her clothes and committed rape on her. Thereafter, P.W.1, who is the father of the victim girl, lodged a complaint before the Sub Inspector of Police, Rayaparthy police station, who in turn registered the same as a case in Crime No.54 of 2000 and after completion of investigation he filed a charge sheet against the accused under Sections 452 and 376 (1) of I.P.C. The prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 16 and got marked Exs.P1 to P10 and M.Os.1 to 7 to prove the guilt of the accused. On behalf of the accused, D.W.1 was examined. On perusal of the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, the trial Court, found the revision petitioner- accused guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 452 and 376 (1) of I.P.C. and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as stated supra. In an appeal preferred by the revision petitioner- accused against the said conviction and sentence, the learned V-Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal, confirmed the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner-accused preferred this criminal revision. Heard both sides. Learned Counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that this is not a fit case to interfere with the findings recorded by the trial Court as well as the appellate Court, but, however, he requested this Court to take a lenient view in so far as the sentence imposed on the petitioner is concerned since the petitioner was taken into custody soon after dismissal of the appeal by the appellate Court on 26.02.2004 and that the petitioner had undergone imprisonment for a period of six years ten months. On perusal of the entire evidence on record, this Court is of the view that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court have given sufficient and cogent reasons in convicting the petitioner-accused. Therefore, no interference is warranted as far as conviction is concerned, but with regard to the quantum of sentence, it is clear from the record that the criminal appeal was dismissed by the appellate Court on 26.02.2004 and the petitioner-accused was taken into custody on the same day itself and since then he is in jail. So it is clear from the record that the petitioner-accused is in jail for a period of about Six years ten months. From the above it is clear that the petitioner-accused had already undergone a total sentence of more than six years ten months, whereas the substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner-accused is only seven years. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the view that a lenient view can be taken by reducing the said sentence of imprisonment to that of the period already undergone by the revision petitioner-accused. In the result, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years for the offence punishable under section 452 of I.P.C. and also the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years for the offence punishable under Section 376 (1) of I.P.C. imposed against the revision petitioner-accused by the learned I-Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Warangal, in S.C.No.45 of 2001 by judgment dated 18.09.2001, as confirmed by the learned V-Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal, in Crl.A.No..187 of 2001, by judgment dated 26.02.2004, is reduced to that of the period, which the petitioner-accused has already undergone. The petitioner-accused is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other crime. Except the above modification in the sentence of imprisonment, in all other aspects the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. _______________________________ (GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J) 13-12-2010 Gsn.