THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.957 OF 2011 Between: Pamarthi Satya Ravi …. Appellant and The State of A.P., rep. By its public Prosecutor and another …. Respondents This court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.957 OF 2011 ORDER: 1. Petitioners herein were tried as accused by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hindupur in C.C.No.87 of 2006, dated 23.11.2010, for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 326 and 326 r/w 34 of IPC. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.5. The trial court having assessed the entire evidence on record found all the accused guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 324, 326 and 326 r/w 34 of IPC and accordingly, A1 was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Section 326 IPC; A2 was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC; and A2 was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Section 326 r/w 34 IPC.. Aggrieved by the said judgment, all the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.167 of 2010 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hindupur. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, while dismissing the said appeal, however, converted the conviction and sentence imposed against A1 for the offence under Section 326 IPC into an offence under Section 324 IPC and confirmed the conviction and sentence recorded against A2 for the offence under Section 324 IPC. Questioning the same, the accused preferred this revision. 2. Facts in brief are that there are ill feelings between the petitioners/accused and P.W.1-the injured/de facto complainant with regard to grazing of cattle of the accused in the land of P.W.1. In that regard, galata took place between P.W.1 and Gangamma mother of the petitioners. On 29.08.2005 at about 08:00 AM while P.W.1 was attending in his fields, A1 to A3 came to P.W.1 with common intention armed with sickles, sticks and stones and beat P.W.1 on his head, left thigh and right hand causing bleeding injuries on head, contusion on left thigh and right hand. P.Ws.3 and 4 witnessed the incident. On the basis of the statement of P.W.1, a case in crime No.32 of 2008 under Section 324 read with 34 IPC of Chilamathur Police Station was registered by P.W.6, A.S.I. P.W.6 took up investigation and after completion of investigation, his successor filed charge sheet. 3. When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners fairly conceded that this is not a fit case for interference, but, however, he requested this court to take a lenient view insofar as the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioners is concerned. 4 Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, this court perused the entire record. The appellate court dismissed the appeal on 21.03.2011 and immediately the petitioners were taken into custody. Thus, from the last seven days the petitioners were in jail. Having regard to the fact that the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioners is only for a period of six months and also in view of the fact that the petitioners have already served a sentence of seven days by now, and inasmuch as the alleged offence took place on 29.08.2005, this Court is of the considered opinion that a lenient view can be taken insofar as the said sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioners by the courts below is concerned. 5 In the result, the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioners by the courts below is reduced to that of the period, which the petitioners have already undergone and the petitioners shall be released forthwith if not required in any other crime. Excepting the above modification, in all other aspects, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. ______________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA 28.03.2011 lmv