THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.829 & 577 OF 2008 & 845 OF 2009 & 337 OF 2010 COMMON JUDGMENT: 1 The appellants in these four Criminal Appeals and others were tried as accused 1, 7, 9 and 8 respectively in S.C.No.97 of 2007 by the learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge Cyberabad for the offence punishable under sections 394 and 396 of IPC. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 14 and exhibited Exs.P.1 to P.19 and M.Os.1 to 27. The trial court, after analysing the said evidence, found the appellants guilty of the offence punishable under section 394 and 396 of IPC and accordingly convicted and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and also to pay a fine of Rs.100/- each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two months each. The said judgment dated 12.11.2007 was questioned by way of filing these four Criminal Appeals. Hence these four appeals are disposed of by way of this common judgment. 2 Brief facts are that on 12.06.2005 at 9.30 AM Vanamamalai Panduranga Charyulu lodged a report at L.B. Nagar Police station stating that at about 9.00 AM he went to the house of their colony President Sri Dada Rao and that Dada Rao informed him that there was a theft in the house of one Vishveshwar Rao and found gate open and after removing the grill of window they found Vishweshwar Rao and his wife lying dead on the cot in the bed room. The articles in the house were found scattered. Panduranga Charyulu also stated in his report that some unknown offenders entered into the house of Vishweshwar Rao by forcibly removing the window grill and killed Vishweshwar Rao and his wife and caused injuries to his daughters Vagdevi and Vaishnavi and had stolen away the gold ornaments and valuables from his house. In that connection a case in Cr.No.567 of 2005 was registered and investigated into and after completion of investigation the police filed the charge sheet. 3 Heard. 4 The learned counsel for the appellants Mr. C. Praveen Kumar and Smt. Gaythri Reddy fairly conceded that this is not a fit case for interference, but requested this court to take a lenient view in so far as the sentence imposed on the appellants is concerned. 5 Apparently the appellants were apprehended on 07.10.2003 and ever since they are in jail i.e. for the last more than five years. The said fact is not disputed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 6 As the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the trial court on the appellants is 10 years and the appellants are in jail only for the last five years, this court is of the view that the same cannot be reduced to that of the period which the appellants had already undergone. However, taking the other fact that the accused 8 and 9 in the said case are aged just 18 years as on the date of the offence, and since it is not the case of the prosecution that the accused are habitual offenders, as the same was not elicited either in the charge sheet or in the evidence, this court is of the view that the said sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years imposed by the trial court on the appellants can be reduced to 7 ½ years. 7 Accordingly, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment imposed by the trial court on the appellants for a period of 10 years is reduced to 7 ½ years. Excepting the above modification with regard to the quantum of sentence, in all other aspects these appeals are dismissed. ________________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J 09th November 2010 Kvsn