THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.710 OF 2010 1 The petitioner herein was tried as first accused by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Nalgonda in S.C.No.32 of 2008 for the offence punishable under section 395 of IPC. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 15 and exhibited Exs.P.1 to P.22 and M.Os.1 to 8. The trial court, after full fledged trial, found the petitioner guilty of the offence and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months. The said judgment dated 18.08.2008 was questioned by way of filing Criminal Appeal No.136 of 2008 and the learned Judge, Family Court, Nalgonda by his judgment dated 03.11.2009 dismissed the said appeal. Hence the petitioner approached this court and filed the present revision. 2 Brief facts are that on the intervening night of 5/6.01.2006 at about 3.00 a.m. five unknown offenders gained entry into the bed room of P.Ws.1 & 2 holding iron rods and gagged clothes in the mouths of P.Ws.1 and 2. Thereafter all the offenders snatched Mangala Suthram from the possession of P.W.1 and forcibly got opened the almirah and took away the gold and silver ornaments all worth Rs.1,70,000/-. When P.W.1 raised hue and cries P.W.3 alerted the colony people by informing about the entry of the dacoits over cell phone. On that several people gathered in front of their house and on hearing the cries the offenders fled away and while A.3 was scaling down from the compound wall and about to run away, the people gathered outside the house and P.Ws.1 and 2 chased and caught hold of him and handed over him to the police. The remaining accused fled way. In that connection a case in Cr.No.7 of 2006 was registered for the offence punishable under section 395 of IPC. After completion of investigation the police filed the charge sheet. 3 Heard. 4 The learned counsel for the petitioner 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 petitioners is concerned. He further submitted that the petitioner is in jail from 16.02.2006. In that view of the matter, this court directed the learned Additional Public Prosecutor to get instructions. On instructions the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 16.02.2006 and ever since he is in jail. 5 From the above it is clear that the petitioner had already undergone a total sentence of more than four years and eight months whereas the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner is only seven years. In that view of the matter, this court is of the view that a lenient view may be taken in so far as the said sentence is concerned. 6 In the result, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years for the offence punishable under section 395 of I.P.C imposed against the petitioner herein viz., Annareddy Madu by both the courts below is reduced to that of the period, which the petitioner had already undergone. The petitioner is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other crime. Except the above modification in all other aspects the revision is dismissed. _____________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J 25th October 2010 Registry is directed to dispatch the order Immediately. B/o Kvsn