THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINALAPPEAL No.611 of 2009 JUDGMENT: On the basis of a complaint given by P.W-1, a case in Crime No.67 of 2006 of Kothapatnam Police Station was registered under the heading of “woman missing” under Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code. During the course of investigation, it came to light that the appellant killed the deceased. As the appellant was apprehended in connection with another crime, he was produced before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ongole, in connection with this Crime, on 26.03.2007 and immediately, he was remanded to judicial custody. After completion of investigation, the Police filed a charge sheet and the same was committed by the committal Court and it was numbered as Sessions Case No.328 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the Sessions Judge, Ongole and the appellant was tried by the Sessions Judge for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. The facts of the case in brief are that after marriage of the appellant herein, who is A-1 with the deceased they lived happily for about two years at Kothapatnam. There were ill-feelings between A-1 and A-2 on one hand and their maternal uncle Koduri Yanadi Reddy on the other hand with regard to boundaries of house sites and lands. While so, one Anjaneyulu-younger brother of A-1 and A-2 died due to fall in Musi Drain near Madanuru Village, but A-1 suspected that his maternal uncle Koduri Yanadi Reddy was responsible for the said death and bore grudge against him. In pursuance of the same, on 30.04.2003 at about 3.30 hours, both A-1 and A-2 stabbed and killed their maternal uncle Koduri Yanadi Reddy with knives and axes. In this connection a case in Crime No.25 of 2003 was registered against them for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 IPC. Later, A-1 shifted to Bapatla, lived there for a period of one month and again returned to Kothapatnam at the request of the deceased. At that juncture, A-1 found his wife talking to his rivals, but the deceased did not inform the same to A-1, as such, A-1 got suspicion on her and had a wordy altercation with her, slapped on her face with hand, resulting which the deceased breathed her last instantaneously. Later, A-1 and A-2 in order to screen the evidence, buried the dead body of the deceased in their house and fled away from the village. Later, in the year 2006, the Police apprehended A-1 and A-2 and were sentenced to life imprisonment in connection with the murder of their maternal uncle and when P.W-1 went to A- 1 and asked him about the whereabouts of the deceased, he did not respond properly. Hence, P.W-1 presented a report to the Police which was registered under the head of “woman missing”. During the course of investigation, the Police, basing on the confessional statements of both the accused, exhumed the body of the deceased, conducted inquest over the skeleton remains, seized certain articles from the skeleton, got the autopsy conducted by P.W-12, etc and after completion of the investigation, filed a charge sheet against A-1 and A-2. During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 18 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-17 were marked, besides M.Os.1 to 12. On behalf of the accused, none was examined, but Exs.D-1 and D-2 were marked. Apart, from the above, Exs.C-1 to C-3 were also marked by the Court. The learned Sessions Judge having analysed the entire evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the appellant-accused No.1 is not guilty of the offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC, but, however, found him guilty of the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-I IPC and accordingly, vide judgment dated 26.03.2009, sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The same was questioned by the accused in this Revision. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner-accused and learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the second respondent-State. Learned counsel for the petitioner, fairly conceded that it is not a fit case for interference, but, however, requested this Court to take a lenient view having regard to the fact that the ever since the date of the arrest i.e., on 26.03.2007, the appellant is in jail. May be true, that the trial Court as well as this Court refused to grant bail to the appellant and as a result, he is in jail from 26.03.2007, i.e, for the last more than about 3 ½ years, but the sentence imposed on him by the trial Court for the said offence punishable under Section 304 Part-I IPC is rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years. Hence, this Court is unable to reduce the said imprisonment to that of the period already undergone by the appellant. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of ten years imposed on the appellant by the Court below be reduced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of six years, while maintaining the sentence as regards the fine amount. With the above modification in the impugned order, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. ___________________________________ JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA 09th November 2010 dr