THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2070 of 2004 ORDER: 1 Petitioners herein were tried as accused in C.C.No.464 of 2000 for the offences punishable under sections 324 and 325 r/w 34 of IPC by the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Khammam. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 12 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P7 and M.Os.1 to 5. The learned Magistrate having assessed the entire evidence both oral and documentary found the petitioners guilty of the said offences and accordingly sentenced A.2 and A.4 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under section 324 of IPC. A.2 and A.4 are further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under section 325 of IPC. A.1, A.3, A.5 and A.6 to A.9 are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under section 324 r/w 34 of IPC and are further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under section 325 r/w 34 of IPC. As against the said judgment dated 09.10.2002, the petitioners preferred Criminal Appeal No.128 of 2002 and the learned IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, (F.T.C) Khammam by his judgment dated 10.12.2004 while confirming the said judgment passed by the trial court dismissed the said appeal. Questioning the same the accused before the trial court preferred this revision. 2 The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 01.08.2000 at 12.30 hours, the de facto complainant A. Narasamma gave a report to the police stating that the accused / petitioners beat her and her husband Satheyya with sticks and hands and they sustained bleeding injuries. In that connection a case in Cr.No.41 of 2000 was registered and investigated into and after completion of investigation the police filed the charge sheet. 3 Heard both sides. 4 The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that this is not a fit case for interference, but, however, he requested the court to take a lenient view in so far as the sentence of imprisonment is concerned. 5 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 10.12.2004 and the petitioners were taken into custody immediately. It is only after the revision was admitted and bail was granted by this court on 16.12.2004, the petitioners came out of the jail. From the above, the petitioners were in jail for a period of nearly one week. In that view of the matter, since the offence for which the petitioners were convicted and sentenced relates to the year 2000, and as the petitioners were in jail for a period of one week, this court takes a lenient view and reducing the said sentences of imprisonment imposed by the appellate court to that of the period, which the petitioners had already undergone. 6 Excepting the above modification, this revision in all other aspects is dismissed. -------------- 28.01.2011 Kvsn