THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR Crl. R.C.No.1368 of 2005 Date: 25.08.2011 Between: Shaik Rahamthullaiah .. Petitioner/accused AND State of A.P., Rep.by P.P. .. Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR Crl. R.C. No.1368 of 2005 ORDER: The accused, who laid this revision, was charge sheeted before the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Kovur, Nellore District. The trial Judge framed charges under Sections 307, 326 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). As many as seven witnesses were examined by the prosecution. Considering the entire evidence, the learned trial Judge held that the case under Sections 307 and 326 IPC was not made out and acquitted the accused of those two charges. 2. The learned trial Judge, however, considered that the offence u/s.324 IPC was made out. Holding that a lenient view deserves to be taken against the accused, the learned trial Judge sentenced him to Rigorous Imprisonment (R.I.) for a period of three months. He did not impose any fine. Aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal in respect of the offences under sections 307 and 326 IPC, the State preferred Criminal Appeal No.127 of 1998 before this Court, as an appeal against acquittal. Through the judgment dated 30.01.2004, the Criminal Appeal was dismissed in subsistence holding that the trial Court was correct in acquitting the accused for the offences under Sections 307 and 326 IPC. 3. However, this court awarded compensation at Rs.2,000/- in favour of PW.2 u/s. 357 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) payable by the accused. Unfortunately, this Court did not award any default sentence, at the time of disposal of the Criminal Appeal No.127 of 1998, but recorded that in the event the accused failed to pay the compensation as directed by it, the compensation should be realized by resorting to the provisions of Cr.P.C. 4. Thereafter, the accused preferred Crl. Appeal No.64 of 1997 before the Sessions Division, Nellore. The I Additional Sessions Judge, Nellore dismissed the appeal. The learned Sessions Judge, however, referred to the compensation of Rs.2,000/- imposed by this Court through Crl. Appeal No.127 of 1998. 5. Questioning the judgment of the Crl. Appeal No.64 of 1997 by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Nellore, this revision is laid. 6. The trial Court as well as the appellate Court thoroughly considered the circumstances of the case and the evidence of eyewitnesses and concluded that the prosecution brought home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. There are no circumstances to differ with the view of the trial Court and the appellate Court. The guilt of the accused certainly is established beyond reasonable doubt for the offence u/s.324 IPC. The revision is liable to be dismissed, inasmuch the revision relates to the conviction of the accused. 7. Regarding the quantum of punishment, it may be recalled that the accused was sentenced to R.I. for a period of three months. After the judgment in the appeal, the accused would appear to have been in jail for one month and one day. He also would appear to have been in remand for a few days at the time of the trial before the case was committed to sessions. Where the accused was 43 years old at the time of the commission of the offence and where the offence was committed more than 16 years ago on 20.03.1995, I consider it appropriate to release the accused without any further rigor of undergoing imprisonment. I, therefore, consider that the imprisonment already undergone by the accused is sufficient in the facts and circumstances of the case. However, compensation was awarded against the accused as payable to PW.2 through the Crl. Appeal No.127 of 1999. The payment of compensation would arise in the event of imposition of fine and ordering the payment of the same to the victim. I, therefore, deem it appropriate to hold that the compensation awarded by this Court through the judgment in Crl.Appeal No.127 of 1998 was fine indeed and that it should be recovered and paid to PW.2. In view of the provisions of Cr.P.C., I consider that a sentence of Simple Imprisonment (S.I.) for a period of one month deserves to be imposed against the accused in the event the fine is not paid by him. 8. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed so far as the conviction recorded by the trial Court and confirmed by the appellate Court is concerned. The revision is allowed so far as the conviction recorded by the trial Court and confirmed by the appellate Court are concerned. So far as sentence is concerned, the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone. The compensation is converted into fine of Rs.2,000/- which the petitioner/accused shall pay, in default of payment of which, the petitioner shall undergo S.I. for a period of one month. After payment of compensation, the same shall be paid to PW.2 as compensation as directed by this Court, through judgment in Crl. Appeal No.127 of 1998. ________________ K.G. SHANKAR, J Date: 25.08.2011 Isn