THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO CRL.R.C.323 OF 2009 ORDER This revision is filed against the judgment dated 26-02-2009 in Crl.A.No.168 of 2008 of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, confirming the judgment dated 11.04.2008 passed in C.C.No.526 of 2005 on the file of the Court X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, whereby and whereunder the revision petitioner (Accused No.2) herein and two other accused were found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 353 IPC and were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months each. The case of the prosecution is that on 15-01-2004 at about 5.30 P.M when PW.1 was performing his duties as a police constable and regulating the traffic at Allugaddabavi “T” Junction, the accused seems to have attacked him with hands and beat him. Thereafter, a complaint was given by PW.1 and case was registered and investigated and accused were prosecuted. The accused pleaded not guilty. On behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 4 were examined and marked Exs.P-1 to P-3. After considering the evidence on record, the lower court has accepted the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and convicted the petitioners/accused and sentenced them accordingly. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal and the first appellate court also confirmed the judgment of the trial court. Hence the present revision. Now the point that arises for consideration is;- Whether the conviction and sentence imposed by the lower courts below is legal and sustainable? POINT:- The contention of the counsel for the revision petitioner is that no offence under Section.353 IPC is made out. However, in the evidence of PW.2, who is practicing Advocate, it goes to show that PW.1 was attacked by four persons and he received injuries and later PW.2 took PW.1 to the hospital. He also identified Accused No.1 as a person that was present there. Therefore, the evidence of PW.2 supports the version of PW.1 about the performing of his duties as a Traffic Constable and the accused persons attacked him. There are said to be injuries which are proved by the evidence of Pw.3. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 has rightly accepted by the courts below. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a daily earner and the sentence of imprisonment is on higher side and mercy may be shown. Therefore, taking into consideration the plea and also the fact that for about three(3) weeks the revision petitioner/A-2 is said to be in jail, the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the sentence already undergone by him and he is further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-(Rupees Two Thousand only) in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed in part. _______________________ N.R.L. NĀGESWARA RĀO,J 30-11-2011 TSNR