THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1734 of 2007 AND CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1730 of 2007 AND CRIMINAL APPEAL No.571 of 2008 AND CRIMINAL APPEAL No.125 of 2008 COMMON JUDGMENT: Appellants in Criminal Appeal No.1734 of 2007 were tried as A-1 and A-3 in S.C.No.285 of 2006 and appellants in Criminal Appeal Nos.571 of 2008, 125 of 2008 and 1730 of 2007 were tried as A-2, A-5 and A-6 respectively in S.C.No.33 of 2006 by the learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge (FTC) Luxettipet, Adilabad District for the offence punishable under Section 395 of IPC. The said two Sessions Cases arise out of Crime No.179 of 2002 on the file of Luxettipet Police Station. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 12 and exhibited Exs.P.1 to P.32 and M.Os.1 to 5. The trial Court, after full fledged trial, found the appellants guilty of the offence punishable under section 395 of I.P.C and accordingly, vide its common judgment dated 29.01.2007, convicted and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and also to pay a fine of Rs.200/- each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months. The said common judgment dated 29.01.2007 was questioned by way of filing these four Criminal Appeals. Hence these four Criminal Appeals are disposed of by way of this common judgment. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on the intervening night of 08/09.12.2002 at about 1.45 A.M. six unknown offenders armed with sticks and knives trespassed into the house of one Gollapalli Sridharacharyulu (P.W.1) by breaking the doors with a boulder and snatched one gold Pusthela thadu weighing two tulas, one gold Chandraharam weighing two tulas from his mother, one gold chain weighing one tula from his brother, one gold Pusthela thadu weighing two tulas from one Shobha and also robbed away the gold Nanu weighing two tulas of his mother along with a net cash of Rs.4,000/- kept in the almirah by threatening the inmates of the house and thereafter fled away with the booty. On the basis of report of P.W.1, a case in Crime No.179 of 2002 was registered under section 395 of I.P.C. During the course of investigation a gang of nine dacoits were apprehended by the police, Mandamarri at Mandamarri railway station on 07.10.2003 in Cr.No.36 of 2003 of that police station and during the course of interrogation by the Inspector of Police, Mandamarri, the accused 1 to 9 in that case confessed the commission of this offence and other offences along with A.10 to A.12 and in pursuance of such confession made by A.1 to A.9, the Circle Inspector of Police, Mandamarri recovered the stolen properties under the cover of panchanama. After completion of investigation, the Inspector of Police, Luxettipet filed the charge sheet against the accused under Section 395 of I.P.C. Heard both sides. Learned Counsel for the appellants fairly conceded that this is not a fit case for interference, but, however, she requested this Court to take a lenient view in so far as the sentence imposed on the appellants is concerned. She further submitted that the appellants were apprehended on 07.10.2003 and from then onwards, they are in jail. In that view of the matter, this court directed the learned Additional Public Prosecutor to get instructions. On instructions the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the appellants have been languishing in jail from 07.10.2003. From the above it is clear that the appellants-A1, A2, A3, A5 and A6 had already undergone a total sentence of more than seven years, whereas the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the appellants is only ten years. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the view that a lenient view may be taken in so far as the said sentence of imprisonment is concerned. Accordingly, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of Ten years imposed against the appellants-A1 and A3 in S.C.No.285 of 2006 and the appellants-A2, A5 and A6 in S.C.No.33 of 2006, for the offence punishable under section 395 of IPC, by the learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Luxettipet, Adilabad District, vide his common judgment dated 29.01.2007, is reduced to that of the period, which the appellants-A1, A3, A2, A5 & A6 have already undergone. The appellants herein are directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other crime. Except the above modification in the sentence of imprisonment, in all other aspects, these four Criminal Appeals are dismissed. ----------------------------------------------- GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J. 25th October 2010 Gsn