THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1687 of 2007 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 09.01.2006 in S.C.No.846 of 2004 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge,Huzurabad, whereby the appellants-A1, A2 & A4 and two other accused were convicted for the offence punishable under section 395 of I.P.C. and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and also to pay a fine of Rs.200/- each, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on the night of 30.03.2003 at about 1.00 A.M. five unknown offenders armed with sticks and knives trespassed into the house of one Chada Kondal Reddy, Parkal cross roads, Huzurabad (P.W.1) by breaking the doors with boulders, tied the hands of P.W.1 and snatched one gold chain weighing two tulas, one gold ring weighing 1/4th tula from him, gold pusthelathadu weighing 3 ½ tulas from the neck of his wife and gold bangles, gold ring and gold chain from the neck of his daughter with locket of Lord Venkateswara weighing 3/4th tula and also robbed away the silver waist chain weighing 15 tulas, cell phone and C.E player kept in the almirah by threatening the inmates of the house at the point of sticks and knives. On the basis of the complaint given by P.W.1, a case in Crime No.49 of 2003 under Section 395 of I.P.C. was registered against the accused. During the course of investigation the accused were apprehended by the police and on interrogation they confessed the commission of this offence and other offences and in pursuance of such confession, the Police recovered the stolen properties under the cover of panchanama. After completion of investigation, the Inspector of Police, Huzurabad filed the charge sheet against the accused under Section 395 of I.P.C. The prosecution in order to prove its case against the accused examined P.Ws.1 to 12 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6 and M.Os.1 to 4. The trial Court on appraisal of entire evidence, both oral and documentary, held that the prosecution has proved the case beyond all reasonable doubt against the accused and accordingly convicted and sentenced them as stated supra. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the accused 1, 2 and 4 filed the present criminal appeal. Heard both sides. Learned Counsel for the appellants fairly conceded that this is not a fit case for interference, but, however, she requested this Court to take a lenient view in so far as the sentence imposed on the appellants is concerned. She further submitted that the appellants were apprehended on 16.10.2003 and from then onwards, they are in jail. In that view of the matter, this court directed the learned Additional Public Prosecutor to get instructions. On instructions the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the appellants have been languishing in jail from 16.10.2003. From the above it is clear that the appellants-A1, A2 and A4 had already undergone a total sentence of more than seven years whereas the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the appellants is only ten years. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the view that a lenient view may be taken in so far as the said sentence of imprisonment is concerned. Accordingly, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of Ten years imposed against the appellants-A1, A2 & A4 herein for the offence punishable under Section 395 of I.P.C, by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Huzurabad, in S.C.No.846 of 2004, by his judgment dated 09.01.2006, is reduced to that of the period, which the appellants-A1, A2 & A4 have already undergone. The appellants herein are 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, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed. ----------------------------------------------- GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J. 25th October 2010 Gsn