THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.946 of 2011 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the judgment dated 29.3.2011 made in Crl.A.No.83 of 2010 by the I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam. The case of the prosecution is as follows: Along with the petitioner-A1, two other accused were tried before the trial Court. P.W.1-the defacto-complainant is sister-in-law to petitioner-A1. A2 is mother and A3 is the wife of A1. The husband of P.W.1 is working as a coolie in rice mill and they were blessed with two children viz., P.W.3-Kagitha Srikanth and L.W.4-Sri Durga. The husband of P.W.1 was not looking after the welfare of P.W.1 and her children on the instigation of the accused. While so, on 29.7.2007 at about 10.30 a.m., the children of P.W.1 went to the house of the accused to get back their father. But their father and the accused abused them. They returned and informed the same to P.W.1. When P.W.1 questioned the accused, A1 beat P.W.1 with a stout stick on her legs below knee causing bleeding injuries. A1 to A3 beat the mother of P.W.1 with sticks and hands causing bleeding injuries, when she went to rescue P.W.1. The incident was witnessed by P.w.3, L.Ws.4 to 6. On the report given by P.W.1 and her mother, a case in Cr.No.80 of 2007 on the file of Challapalli Police station was registered against the petitioner and two others for the offence punishable under Section 324 r/w 34 IPC. After completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed for the offences under Sections 324 and 326 r/w 34 IPC. The learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Avanigadda, took cognizance of the same and numbered it as C.C.No.296 of 2007. On appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found A2 and A3 not guilty for the offence under Section 326 r/w 34 IPC, but found the petitioner-A1 guilty for the offence under section 326 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month; and further found A1 to A3 guilty of the offence under Section 324 r/w 34 IPC and accordingly, sentenced each of them to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Challenging the said judgment, the petitioner and other accused preferred an appeal in Crl.A.No.83 of 2010 before the I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam. The learned Additional Sessions Judge partly allowed the appeal and reduced the sentence of R.I. for one year imposed by the Court below against the petitioner-A1 to S.I. for three months for the charge under Section 326 IPC while confirming the sentence of fine under Sections 326 against petitioner-A1 and also the sentence of fine imposed against A1 to A3 for the offence under Section 324 r/w 34 IPC. Questioning the said judgment, the petitioner-A1 alone filed the present revision. Learned Counsel for the petitioner-A1 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 offence took place about four years back. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the nature of the offence committed by the petitioner-A1, I feel that the conviction recorded by the Courts below does not warrant any interference. But however, having regard to the fact that the petitioner- A1 has been in jail for about three days, this Court is of the view that this is a fit case where a lenient view can be taken. Accordingly, the sentence imposed by the lower appellate Court against the petitioner- A1 for the offence under Section 326 IPC is reduced to the period already undergone, while maintaining the sentence of fine under Section 326 and 324 r/w 34 IPC. In the result, the sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of three months imposed against the petitioner-A1 for the offence under Section 326 IPC by the learned I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam, in Crl.A.No.83 of 2010 by judgment dated 29.3.2011 is reduced to that of the period, which the petitioner-A1 has already undergone, while maintaining the sentence of fine under Section 326 and 324 r/w 34 IPC. The petitioner is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other crime. Except to the above modification, in all other aspects the revision is dismissed. _______________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J 31st March, 2011 Nn THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.946 of 2011 31.3.2011