THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.964 of 2011 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner-accused against the judgment, dated 10.8.2010 made by the VIII Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Guntur, in Crl.A.No.375 of 2009 confirming the judgment dated 22.10.2009 made in C.C.No.809 of 2007 by the VI Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: The marriage between the petitioner-accused and V. Sree Lakshmi (P.W.2) was performed on 16.8.2000 and after their marriage, they lived happily only for one year and then, the petitioner-accused started harassing P.W.2 by addicting to bad vices. The petitioner- accused used to harass P.W.2 to bring more money from her parents and he used to commit theft in their joint family. Because of the said harassment, she went to the parents’ house and has been staying there along with her children. But the accused used to visit the house of P.W.2 and continued his harassment. On 5.11.2007 at about 8.45 p.m., the petitioner-accused came to P.W.2’s house in a drunken state and picked up a quarrel with her and when P.W.1, who is the mother of P.W.2, came to rescue of P.W.2, the accused beat P.W.1 with stick on head and caused injuries. On the report given by P.W.1, a case in Crime No.222 o 2007 was registered against the petitioner. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed and the same was taken cognizance as C.C.No.809 of 2007 by the trial Court. On appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the petitioner-accused guilty for the offences under Sections 498-A and 324 IPC and accordingly, sentenced him to suffer S.I for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer S.I. for one month for the offence under section 498-A IPC and also sentenced to suffer S.I. for six months for the offence under Section 324 IPC. The said judgment was questioned by way of filing an appeal in Crl.A.No.375 of 2009 before the VIII Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Guntur. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment of the trial Court. Questioning the said judgment, the petitioner filed the present revision. Learned Counsel for the petitioner-accused fairly conceded that this is not a fit case for interference, but having regard to the fact that the petitioner-accused has been in jail for a period of three months, a lenient view may be taken insofar as the sentence of imprisonment is concerned. Heard and perused the material available on record. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the nature of the offence committed by the petitioner-accused, I feel that the judgments of the Courts below do not warrant any interference. The material on record goes to show that the appeal was dismissed on 10.8.2010 and the petitioner was absent on that day. It appears that he surrendered before the trial Court on 18.1.2011 and eversince he has been in jail. Further, it is also born out from the record that after registration of the crime, the petitioner was taken into custody and remanded to judicial custody and thus, he was in jail for a period of 11 days. From the above, it is clear that the petitioner-accused has already undergone imprisonment for a period of more than three months. As the sentence imposed by the Courts below is only one year and six months for the offences under Sections 498-A and 324 IPC respectively and the petitioner has already undergone the imprisonment of about three months, this Court is of the view that this is a fit case wherein a lenient view can be taken. Accordingly, the sentence imposed by the Courts below against the petitioner-accused is reduced to the period already undergone. In the result, the sentence of simple imprisonment imposed against the petitioner-accused by both the Courts below for the offences under Sections 498-A and 324 IPC is reduced to that of the period, which the petitioner has already undergone, while maintaining the sentence of fine imposed by the Courts below for the offence under Section 498-A IPC. The petitioner is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other crime. Except to the above modification, in all other aspects the revision is dismissed. _______________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J 6th April, 2011 Nn THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.964 of 2011 6.4.2011