HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRL.R.C.No.1952 of 2003 JUDGMENT: This criminal revision case is directed against the judgment of the learned VII-Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, in Crl.A.No.352 of 2000, dated 24.11.2003, whereby the learned Judge, while setting aside the conviction and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and fine of Rs.200/-, in default, simple imprisonment for a period of two months for the offence punishable under Section 307 of I.P.C. imposed against the revision petitioner- A1 by the learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Guntur in S.C.No.438 of 1996 dated 10.07.2000, found the revision petitioner- A1 guilty for the offence punishable under Section 324 of I.P.C. and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.200/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The brief facts of the case are that A-1 had illicit intimacy with P.W.5 and on account of the same there were disputes between P.W.1 and the accused. On 30.07.1995 at 12.00 noon P.W.1 went to the house of P.W.5 to fetch his cycle and at that time A2 came there and beat P.W.1 with a stick on his right side of head; A3 beat P.W.1 with a pounder on his right hand; A4 beat with a stick on the right eye of P.W.1 and A1 stabbed with a knife thrice on the right thigh of P.W.1. Subsequently P.W.1 lodged a complaint before the police and basing on which a case in Crime No. 95 of 1995 of Mangalagiri Town Police Station was registered under Sections 307, 324 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. and the accused were tried for the said offences. The prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and got marked Exs.P1 to P8 to prove the guilt of the accused. On a perusal of the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, the trial Court found A1 guilty of the offence punishable under Section 307 of I.P.C. and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as stated supra. A2 also found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 307 of I.P.C. and convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and also to pay a fine of Rs.200/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for two months. A3 and A4 also found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of I.P.C and convicted and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years each and also to pay a fine of Rs.200/- each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for two months each. In an appeal preferred by the revision petitioner-A1 against the said conviction and sentence, the learned VII-Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, while setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court for the offence under Section 307 of I.P.C., found the revision petitioner-A1 guilty for the offence punishable under Section 324 of I.P. and convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.200/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner- A1 preferred this criminal revision. Heard both sides. Having considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and having perused the judgment delivered by the appellate Court, this Court of the view that the appellate Court had rightly applied its mind and came to the conclusion that the revision petitioner-A1 was guilty of the offence punishable under Section 324 of I.P.C. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has also not shown me anything, which would discredit the evidence. Hence the conviction and sentence passed by the appellate Court against the revision petitioner-A1 is upheld. I see no merit in the revision. As regards the sentence, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the revision petitioner-A1 had undergone substantive sentence of imprisonment for a period of two months during the course of trial and also after the appellate Court pronounced the judgment and hence the sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. Since the occurrence took place as early as in the year 1995 and the revision petitioner had already undergone the sentence of about two months, this Court is of the view that it is suffice to reduce the sentence of imprisonment of one year, as was imposed by the appellate Court, to that of the period already undergone by the revision petitioner-A1, while maintaining the sentence of fine imposed against him. The petitioner is directed to be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other crime With the above modification in the sentence, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. _______________________________ (GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J) 04.06.2010 Gsn.