THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.743 OF 2011 ORDER: 1 Petitioners herein along with another were tried as accused by the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge at Tenali in C.C.No.144 of 2009 for the offences punishable under sections 324 and 326 r/w 34 of IPC. During the course of trial the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.6. The trial court having assessed the entire evidence, while holding that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the 2nd accused in the said case of any of the charged offences, however, found the 1st petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under section 324 of IPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for a period of six months for the said offence and found the 2nd petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under section 326 of IPC and accordingly sentenced her to suffer imprisonment for a period of six months and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two months. Aggrieved by the said judgment dated 13.10.2010 the petitioners preferred Criminal Appeal No.484 of 2010 before the learned XI Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Guntur at Tenali. However, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, while concurring with the findings given by the trial court, dismissed the said appeal by judgment dated 24.03.2011. Questioning the same, the accused preferred this revision. 2 Facts in brief are that on 06.04.2009 at about 5.30 p.m. the hens belonging to P.W.1 went into the house of the accused. Thereupon the accused abused P.W.1 in filthy language for which P.W.1 objected. Then all the 1st accused grew wild on P.W.1 abused her and picked up a stick and dealt a blow on her head and caused bleeding injuries. In the meanwhile P.W.2 intervened and went in rescue of P.W.1. Then the accused also beat him and caused injuries. In that connection a case in Cr.No.64 of 2009 was registered and investigated into and after completion of investigation filed the charge sheet. 3 When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners fairly conceded that this is not a fit case for interference, but, however, he requested this court to take a lenient view in so far as the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioners is concerned. 4 Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners this court looked into the record. The appellate court dismissed the appeal on 24.03.2011 and immediately they were taken into custody. Thus from the last five days the petitioners are in jail. Having regard to the fact that the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioners is only for a period of six months and also in view of the fact that the petitioners have already served a sentence of five days by now, this court is of the view that lenient view can be taken in so far as the said sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioners by the courts below is concerned. 5 In the result, the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioners by the court below is reduced to that of the period, which the petitioners have already undergone and the petitioners shall be released forthwith if not required in any other crime. Excepting the above modification, in all other aspects, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. __________ 28.03.2011 Kvsn