THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.358 OF 2011 ORDER: 1 This revision is directed against the judgment in C.C.No.264 of 2009 on the file of the court of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tenali as confirmed by the learned XI Additional District Judge (FTC), Guntur at Tenali in Criminal Appeal No.331 of 2010 dated 25.01.2011 by the Petitioners who faced trial for the offences punishable under sections 324 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC. 2 The case of the prosecution in brief is that P.W.1 gave loan of Rs.30,000/- to the first Petitioner. Thereafter there were petty quarrels between them. On that the first Petitioner grew wild against P.W.1 to avoid the debt and hatched a plan and in pursuance of the said plan, on 06.05.2009 at 11.30 p.m. in drunken state and beat the father P.W.1 who sat in front of his house by hands and legs and poured acid on his left hand causing injuries. When P.W.1 went in rescue to his father, the Petitioners also beat him with sticks and axe causing both swelling and bleeding injuries on his head and escaped. In that connection a case in Cr.No.49 of 2009 was registered for the offences punishable under sections 324 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC and after completion of investigation the police filed charge sheet. 3 During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.6. Having analysed the said evidence, the trial court came to the conclusion that the prosecution proved the guilt of the Petitioners – accused for the charged offences and accordingly convicted and sentenced them to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.300/- each for the offence punishable under section 324 r/w 34 of IPC and further convicted and sentenced the Petitioners to suffer simple imprisonment for six months and also to pay a fine of Rs.300/- each for the offence punishable under section 506 r/w 34 of IPC, in default of payment of fine, they shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month each for each of the offences. However, the substantive sentences of imprisonment are ordered to run concurrently. Questioning the said judgment dated 24.06.2010, the Petitioners preferred Criminal Appeal No.331 of 2010 and the learned XI Additional District Judge (FTC), Guntur at Tenali, while concurring with the findings given by the trial court, however, modified the said sentence simple imprisonment of one year to that of six months imposed for the offence punishable under section 324 of IPC and maintained the rest of the conviction and sentences. As stated supra, the said judgment dated 25.01.2011 is questioned in this revision. 4 The learned counsel for the petitioners fairly conceded that this is not a fit case for interference, but, however, requested the court to take a lenient view in so far as the sentence is concerned. 5 In the light of the said submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners this court looked into record. The appeal was dismissed on 25.01.2011 and the petitioners were taken into custody on the same day. According to the counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners as under trial prisoners were in jail for two days. As the offences for which the petitioners were convicted are only under sections 324 and 506 of IPC, the as the petitioners were in jail for a period of about 5 or 6 days, this court is of the view that a lenient view can be taken. 6 Accordingly, the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioners by the learned XI Additional District Judge (FTC), Guntur at Tenali is modified and the said sentence of six months imposed on the petitioners for the offences punishable under sections 324 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC is reduced to that of the period, which the petitioners had already undergone. However, the fine amount of Rs.300/- each imposed for each of the offences is enhanced to Rs.2,000/- each. Excepting the said modification, in all other aspects, this revision stands dismissed. -------------- 27.01.2011 Kvsn