HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1137 OF 2004 DATED 6th JULY, 2010. BETWEEN Kurra Srinivasa Rao and ors …..Petitioners/Accused 1 to 5 & 7 and The State of AP, Rep. By its Public Prosecutor …Respondent HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1137 OF 2004 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case under Sections 397 and 401 of the Cr.P.C. is ﬁled aggrieved by the judgment dated 5.7.2004 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 219 of 2003 by the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur conﬁrming the conviction and sentence recorded against the petitioners/Accused for the oﬀence punishable under Sections 148, 452 r/w 149 IPC in the order dated 9.5.2003 in C.C.No. 72 of 1996 by the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that the ﬁrst petitioner is the resident of Padavalapudi village and petitioners 2 to 6 are his friends. The ﬁrst petitioner fell in love with P.W.2 and very keen to marry her. Her father P.W.3 was not willing for their marriage, as such P.W.2 did not inform their love aﬀair to her father. In the month of May, 1995, P.W.2 requested the ﬁrst petitioner to disconnect his relationship with her as she completed her studies, then the ﬁrst respondent grew wild. Thereafter, P.W.2 stopped to talk with the ﬁrst petitioner. While so, on 8.10.1995, the ﬁrst petitioner came to Padavalapudi and was lurking in front of her house, on that P.W.1 along with P.W.5 and others questioned him about his behaviour, then the ﬁrst petitioner challenged them to come again on the next day. On 15.10.1995 along with his friends, the ﬁrst petitioner came to see the end of P.W.2. At about 9.00 PM the ﬁrst petitioner and another armed with deadly weapons, violently kicked the iron gate of the house of the P.W.3 and trespassed into the premises. They also pushed P.W.6 violently, who fell down on the ground and on seeing the situation, P.W.1 rushed inside the house and closed the doors. The petitioners knocked the doors with iron rods and sticks violently. On receiving the complaint from P.W.1, the police registered the same as case under Sections 147, 148, 452 and 509 r/w 149 IPC and investigated into. Thereafter the police apprehended the accused and after ﬁling the charge sheet, the trial Court took the cognisance of the case on ﬁle for the oﬀence under Sections 147, 148, 452 and 509 r/w 149 IPC against the accused. The trial Court on a full-ﬂedged trial and appreciation of the evidence on record found the accused guilty of the oﬀence punishable under Sections 148, 452 r/w 149 of IPC and accordingly convicted and sentenced the accused to undergo S.I. for one year and to pay a ﬁne of Rs.1000/- each, in default to suﬀer S.I. for three months for the oﬀence under Section 148 IPC and further sentenced them to suﬀer S.I. for two years and pay ﬁne of Rs.2000/- each, in default to suﬀer S.I. for six months for the offence under Section 452 r/w 149 IPC. On appeal being Criminal Appeal. No. 219 of 2003 preferred by the petitioner/accused, the lower Appellate Court, on appreciation of the evidence on record, dismissed the appeal conﬁrming the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court. Hence this revision. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. It is needles to state that the powers of the High Court in exercising its jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. are truncated and unless the ﬁnding recorded by the Court below is shown to be perverse or incorrect or illegal or not based on any evidence on record, the judgment under challenge needs interference. However, on hearing the learned Counsel appearing on either side, it came to light that the ﬁrst petitioner married another woman and P.W.2 married another person and they are leading happy married life. In that view of the matter, there is no need, or, just and proper, to order the petitioners to suffer the remaining sentence imposed by the Courts below at this stage. As such, the sentence imposed against the petitioners is modiﬁed to the extent of sentence already undergone Subject to the above modiﬁcation in sentence, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. ----------------------------------- JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO DATED 6th July, 2010. Msnr.