THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.520 of 2011 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the judgment, dated 18.02.2011, made by the VI Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), East Godavari District, Rajahmundry, in Crl.A.No.39 of 2009. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: On 15.6.2008 at about 9 pm., after having dinner both P.Ws.3 and 4 left the home to visit the park of Kambala Tank and found the park locked, and they came to High Technical Bus shelter and slept in the last corner of the bus shelter by feeling some weakness. Then, the petitioner-A2 and another with an evil desire took them in auto of A1 by inducing that the petitioner-A2 is a policeman and they will drop them at their respective houses. Believing the version of the accused, both the victims got into the auto bearing No.AP 5V 7671. While roaming one place to another place by keeping P.W.4 in the backside seat and P.W.3 by the side of driver, the accused was behaving indecently towards them by touching and squeezing their personal parts of the body. Meanwhile, they were caught red handed by P.Ws.2 and 5 near Godavari Railway Station road. Later on receiving information from P.Ws. 2 and 5, the remaining witnesses approached there and identified them as accused and brought them to III Town P.S., Rajahmundry and handed over to the S.H.O. On receipt of the report of P.Ws.1 and 2, a case in Crime No.194 of 2008 was registered against the petitioner and another for the offences punishable under sections 366(a), 506(2), 354 r/w 34 IPC. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed. The learned III Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajahmundry took the case on file as P.R.C.No.20 of 2008 for the offences punishable under Sections 366(a), 506(2) and 354 r/w Section 34 IPC against the accused and after following due procedure under Section 207 Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions, East Godavari Division, Rajahmundry and after receipt of the same, the learned Sessions Judge made over the same to the Court of I Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Rajahmundry. On appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the petitioner and another guilty of the offence under Sections 354 and 363 IPC and accordingly, sentenced them to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default to undergo S.I. for one month under each count. The said judgment was questioned by the petitioner herein alone by way of filing an appeal in Crl.A.No.39 of 2009 before the VI Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari, Rajahmundry. During the pendency of the appeal, the offence under Section 354 IPC is compounded. On re-appreciation of the evidence with regard to the offence punishable under Section 363 IPC, the learned Additional Sessions Judge allowed the said appeal in part reducing the sentence of R.I. of three years to that of two years for the offence punishable under Section 363 IPC. Questioning the said judgment, the petitioner filed the present revision. Learned Counsel for the petitioner-accused fairly conceded that this is not a fit case for interference, but he requested to take a lenient view insofar as the sentence of imprisonment is concerned, having regard to the fact that the petitioner was in jail for 11 months. Heard and perused the material available on record. In the light of the above submission, this Court looked into the record. The petitioner was taken into custody on 16.6.2008 and sent to jail and he was released on bail on 23.3.2009. After dismissal of the appeal on 18.2.2011, again the petitioner was taken into custody and as of now, he has been in jail. The sentence imposed by the lower appellate Court is only two years. From the above, it is clear that the petitioner was in jail for almost 11 months. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the nature of the offence committed by the petitioner-accused, I feel that the judgment of the appellate Court does not warrant any interference. But however, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has already undergone imprisonment for a period of 11 months, this Court is of the view that this is a fit case where a lenient view can be taken insofar as the sentence of imprisonment is concerned. Accordingly, the sentence imposed by the lower appellate Court for the offence under Section 363 IPC against the petitioner-accused is reduced to the period already undergone. In the result, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years for the offence punishable under section 363 IPC imposed against the petitioner herein viz., Kada Srinu alias Chitti Babu by the learned VI Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), East Godavari District, Rajahmundry, in Criminal Appeal No.39 of 2009, by judgment dated 18.2.2011, is reduced to that of the period, which the petitioner has already undergone, while enhancing the fine amount of Rs.1,000/- to Rs.2,000/- . The fine amount shall be paid to the victims, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other crime. With the above modification, the Crl.R.C. is dismissed. _______________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J 25th March, 2011 Nn THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.520 of 2011 25.3.2011