THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1548 of 2010 JUDGMENT: The petitioners herein were tried by the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class For Prohibition and Excise Offences at Sangareddy in C.C.No.77 of 2009 for the offences punishable under Sections 325 and 324 read with 34 IPC. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 10 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-12 besides marking M.Os.1 and 2. The learned Magistrate having analysed the entire evidence by his judgment, dated 26.11.2009, found the petitioners guilty of the said offences and accordingly, sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 325 read with 34 IPC and further, sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each for the offence punishable under Section 324 read with 34 IPC. He further directed that both the sentences shall run concurrently. The said judgment was questioned by filing Criminal Appeal No.94 of 2009 and the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, dismissed the said appeal concurring with the said findings of the trial Court. Hence, the petitioners approached this Court and filed this Revision. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows: - The de facto complainant lodged a complaint stating that about seven months back, his son-Raju and the niece of A-1 and A-6 fell in love and in that connection, a quarrel took place between them. Keeping the same in mind, on 26.06.2008, A-5 and A-6 beat his son Raju and when he was about to complain to the police, on the next day at about 8.30 am., A-2 to A-4 came to his house, searched for himself and his son and came to Khaleel Hotel and at that hotel while A-6 was standing, A-1 to A-4 beat him on his mouth with hands, as a result, his six teeth were lost and when his wife and sister-in-law-Salamma intervened, A-1 beat his wife with a stone on her head, due to which she received bleeding injury and his sister- in-law also received injuries. Thereafter, the accused also beat him with hands and kicked with legs. The said complaint was registered as a case in Crime No.145 of 2008 under Sections 325, 324 read with 34 IPC and that during the course of investigation, the statements of the witnesses were recorded, the injured were referred to hospital for treatment, scene of offence panchanama was conducted. Subsequently, the accused surrendered before the Court. After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet is filed. When this matter is taken up on 06.09.2010, the learned counsel for the petitioners fairly conceded that it is not a case for interference on merits, but, however, requested this Court to take a lenient view. Having regard to the said fact, this Court directed the learned Additional Public Prosecutor to get instructions with regard to sentence undergone by the petitioners. The petitioners, immediately after registration of the crime against them, were arrested on 30.06.2008 and were remanded to judicial custody and thereafter, they were released by virtue of the bail granted by the trial Court. Again, when the lower appellate Court dismissed the said Criminal Appeal on 03.09.2010, they were immediately taken into custody and as of date, they are in jail. From the above, it is clear that the petitioners have undergone a sentence of about two weeks. The allegation as per the charge sheet is to the effect that there is some rivalry between the accused and the complainant, on account of which the said quarrel took place on 26.06.2008. Hence, this Court is of the view that the said sentence suffered by the petitioners is sufficient. In the light of the above, this Court, without going into the merits, is of the view that ends of justice would be met if the said sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner by the lower appellate Court is reduced to that of the period already undergone by them. Accordingly, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of one year for the offence under Section 325 read with 34 IPC and also the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of six months for the offence under Section 324 read with 34 IPC imposed on the petitioners-accused by the Principal Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, by the judgment, dated 03.09.2010, passed in Criminal Appeal No.94 of 2009, is reduced to that of the period already undergone by them, while maintaining the sentence of fine. Except the said modification in the sentence of imprisonment, in all other aspects, this Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed. As the petitioners are in jail, the Office is hereby directed to send a copy of this order to the jail authorities and the jail authorities shall release the petitioners forthwith, if they are not required in connection with any other crime. ___________________________________ JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA 14th September 2010 dr