THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.814 OF 2004 ORDER: On the basis of a report given by the de facto complainant who was examined as P.W.1 a case in Cr.No.65 of 1996 was registered against the petitioner and others for the offence punishable under section 326 r/w 34 of IPC. After investigation the police filed a charge sheet and the same was taken on file as C.C.No.39 of 1999 by the learned Additional Munsif Magistrate, Sattenapalli. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.3. On an analysis of the said evidence, though the trial court acquitted the other accused on the ground that there is no evidence, however, found the petitioner guilty of the said offence and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two months by judgment dated 02.12.2002. Questioning the said judgment, the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No.504 of 2002 and the learned XI Additional District & Sessions Judge, FTC, Guntur by his judgment dated 20.04.2004, while confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court, dismissed the said appeal. Hence the present revision. 2 The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 21.12.1996 in furtherance of an earlier altercation that took place on the same day between P.W.2 and them, all the accused beat P.W.2 with sticks. In the meantime when P.W.1 tried to interfere, the petitioner and the other accused beat her with sticks and caused fracture to neck of left femur. 3 The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that it is not a fit case for interference, but, however, requested this court to take a lenient view with regard to the quantum of sentence. 4 In the light of the said submissions, this court looked into the record. The petitioner was arrested on 26.2.1997 but he was released o bail on the same day itself. However, he was again taken into custody when the appellate court dismissed the appeal on 20.04.2004 and he was released on bail only after this revision was admitted and bail was granted by this court on 30.04.2004. From the above, it is clear that the petitioner was in jail for a period of ten days. As the alleged offence took place in 1996 and the petitioner was in jail for a period of ten days, this court is of the view that a lenient view can be taken. 5 Accordingly, the said sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment imposed on the petitioner by both the courts below for the offence punishable under section 326 of IPC is reduced to that of the period, which the petitioner had already undergone. Excepting the above modification in quantum of sentence, this revision in all other aspects shall stand cancelled. --------------- 20.01.2011 Kvsn