IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRL.R.C.NO.313 OF 2003. Date:11.02.2010 Between:- Satyavarapu Sreenu ..Revision petitioner/Accused No.3 And The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Public Prosecutor. .. Respondent ORDER:- This Criminal Revision Case by the petitioner-A-3, under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (‘Cr.P.C.’, for brevity) is directed against the judgment, dated 27.11.2001, made in Criminal Appeal No.7 of 1999 on the file of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam whereunder and whereby the conviction of the petitioner/A-3 of the offence punishable under section 411 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘I.P.C.’, for brevity) and sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment of three years, as imposed in the judgment, dated 09.02.1999, made in C.C.No.71 of 1996 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Narsipatnam, were confirmed. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of the prosecution case may be stated as follows: In between 10.08.1995 and 13.08.1995, during night time, in the absence of inmates in the house, some unknown culprits entered into the house of P.W.1 by breaking open the locks of the front door and committed theft of gold and cash, and basing on the report given by P.W.1., the police registered the case. During the course of investigation, the police arrested the accused and seized certain properties from the possession of accused. After completion of investigation, the police filed the charge sheet against A-1 to A-4. 3. When the charges under Sections 457, 380 or 411 I.P.C. were framed, read over and explained to the accused, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-5, besides case properties M.Os.1 to 7. 5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. They denied the same and reported no evidence. 6. The trial Court accepted the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and found A-1 to A-4 guilty of the offence punishable under Section 411 I.P.C., and accordingly, convicted and sentenced them as stated above, while acquitting them of the offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 I.P.C. On appeal by the petitioner/A-3, the appellate Court dismissed the same confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court. Challenging the same, the present revision is filed by petitioner/A-3. 7. A-1 and A-2 in the said case filed Criminal Revision Case No.101 of 2003, and A-4 filed Criminal Revision Case No.543 of 2003, before this Court challenging their convictions and sentences. This Court, by its common Judgment dated 20.02.2006, while confirming the conviction of the petitioners therein of the offence punishable under Section 411 I.P.C., reduced the sentence of imprisonment from three years to one year. The present petitioner is A-3. The case against A-3 also stands on the same footing as that of A-1, A-2 and A-4. As this Court has taken a lenient view with regard to the sentence against A-1, A-2 and A-4, the same can be extended to the present petitioner also. 8. Therefore, while confirming the conviction of the petitioner of the offence punishable under Section 411 I.P.C., the sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment of three years is reduced to one year. The period of detention, if any, already undergone by the petitioner during investigation, trial and after conviction shall be given set of under section 428 Cr.P.C. 9. With the above modification of sentence, the revision petition is dismissed. _​_______________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 11th February, 2010 AMD