THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.241 of 2004 JUDGMENT: The petitioners herein were tried as Accused Nos.1 and 2 respectively by the learned II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Tenali, in C.C.No.278 of 1999, and on analysis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned Magistrate, by his judgment dated 02.07.2002, while holding Accused No.3 not guilty, however found the petitioners herein/Accused Nos.1 and 2 guilty of an offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years each and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for one month each. As against the said judgment, accused Nos.1 and 2 preferred appeal being Crl.A.No.277 of 2002 before the X Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Guntur, who, after considering the matter in detail, by his judgment dated 13.02.2004, while holding that accused Nos.1 and 2 are guilty of the offence for which they were charged, however, considering their ages and also that Accused No.2 is a student, reduced the sentence to three months each and confirmed the fine amount. Aggrieved thereby, accused Nos.1 and 2 preferred the present Criminal Revision Case. The case of the prosecution, succinctly, is as follows:- Pw.1-Bollimuntha Seetharamaiah and PW.2-Bollimuntha Venkata Subbamma are the father and mother of PW.3-Bollimuntha Satyanarayana. Accused No.3, who is the wife of PW.3, is the sister of Accused Nos.1 and 2. On 27.08.1999 at about 12.00 noon, Accused No.2, who is the brother-in-law of PW.3, went to the house of PW.1 and picked up a quarrel and beat him with knife and pressed his neck. On the same day at about 3.00 p.m., Accused Nos.1 and 2 beat PW.1 with knife, due to which he received cut injuries on his fingers and also head, and when PW.2 came to rescue PW1, Accused No.1 beat her on her back and on the left hand near wrist with the back side portion of the knife. Accused No.3 instigated Accused Nos.1 and 2 to beat P.Ws.1 and 2. On the complaint lodged by PW.1, a case in Crime No.43 of 1999 was registered by Kollipara Police Station, against Accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offence punishable under Section 324 read with 34 of IPC. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet was laid before the learned II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Tenali, who has taken the same on file as CC.No.278 of 1999 against Accused Nos.1 to 3, for the offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 of IPC. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and marked Exs.P1 to P4. On behalf of defence, D.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and documents Exs.D1 to D3 were marked. On consideration of the entire oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found Accused No.3 not guilty, however found Accused Nos.1 and 2 guilty for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC and, accordingly, by judgment dated 02.07.2002, convicted Accused Nos.1 and 2 and sentenced them as stated supra. Assailing the same, Accused Nos.1 and 2 preferred appeal being Crl.A.No.277 of 2002 before the X Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Guntur, who, after considering the matter in detail, while confirming the conviction, reduced the sentence imposed by the trial Court referred to supra. Aggrieved thereby, Accused Nos.1 and 2 preferred the present Civil Revision Case. With regard to petitioner No.2-Accused No.2, the learned counsel for the petitioners tried to impress upon this Court stating that if Accused No.2, who is a student, is convicted, there is possibility of his not securing any job and his career will be spoiled. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioners were in jail for about five days and, as such, requests this Court to take a lenient view against the petitioners. No doubt, if a person is convicted of an offence which involves moral turpitude, it can definitely be said that it affects his career, but in the case on hand, Accused No.2 was in jail for five days and the offence for which he was tried is under Section 324 of IPC, which does not involve moral turpitude. Further, on perusal of the judgments of both the Courts below and hearing the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, this Court is of the view that the prosecution was able to prove the guilt of the petitioners beyond all reasonable doubt, and therefore, the trial Court has rightly convicted them for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC, and the appellate Court, while confirming the conviction has rightly reduced the sentence to three months each, which requires no interference. However, considering the fact that the alleged offence took place on 27.08.1999 and the petitioners were in jail for about five days, this Court is of the considered view that the sentence imposed against the petitioners can be reduced to that of the period already undergone by them. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed, maintaining the conviction imposed on the petitioners, but reducing the sentence of imprisonment imposed on them to that of the period already undergone by them. So far as the fine amount is concerned, it needs no interference. _________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA,J 15.11.2010 v v