THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALAKRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1054 of 2010 DATED: 27-09-2010 ORDER: This Criminal Appeal is filed by the petitioner questioning the judgment, dated 11-08-2010, in S.C.No.549 of 2009 on the file of the learned Special Judge for trial of offences under SCs & STs (POA) Act- cum-VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad. 2. P.W.1-V.Srinath gave a report on 17-07-2008 stating that he is working as Sales In-charge in Fortune Motors Private Limited, Vijayapuri colony, Lallaguda, Secunderabad, and that on 16-07-2008 at about 8.40 p.m., appellant herein came to the said showroom with a broken Sprite bottle and assaulted his wife causing bleeding injuries over her stomach and left arm and that when he tried to intervene, the appellant attacked him on his left hand and ran away towards Baptist Church, Vijayapuri colony, however he chased him on his motor cycle and caught hold of him and that her wife received grievous injuries on account of which she was shifted to Kamineni hospital for treatment. On the strength of the said statement, the Sub-Inspector of police, Lallaguda Police station, registered a case in Cr.No.118 of 2008 and after investigation, filed charge sheet against the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 307 IPC. Initially, it was numbered as P.R.C.No.69 of 2009 on the file of the learned X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, and after committal it was re- numbered as S.C.No.549 of 2009 before the learned Special Judge for trial of offences under SCs & STs (POA) Act-cum-VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad. 3. During the course of trial, P.Ws1 to 8 were examined and Exs.P1 to P6 were marked on behalf of the prosecution. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the defence. 4. Having considered the said evidence, learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the petitioner is not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and accordingly acquitted him, however he found the petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC and accordingly sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four months. Aggrieved thereby, appellant preferred the present appeal. 5. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that it is not a fit case for interference, however requested this Court to take a lenient view having regard to the fact that the petitioner was in jail for a period of more than four weeks. 7. In the light of the said submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court looked into the record and found that the judgment was pronounced on 11-08-2010 and immediately petitioner was taken into custody. 8. From the above, it is clear that as on date, petitioner is in jail for about more than four weeks. As the sentence imposed by the trial Court is only for four months and the petitioner has undergone a sentence of more than four weeks, this Court is of the view that the said sentence of rigorous imprisonment of four months imposed by the trial Court can be reduced to that of the period already undergone by him. 9. Accordingly, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of four months imposed against the petitioner–Anthony Micheal, S/o Late Anthony by the learned Special Judge for trial of offences under S.Cs & STs (Prevention of Atrocities) Act-cum-VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad in S.C.No.549 of 2009, for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC, is reduced to that of the period already undergone by him. Petitioner is directed to be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other crime. With the above modification, Criminal Appeal is disposed of. _______________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA,J 27th September, 2010. Tsy