THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALAKRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1098 of 2004 13-07-2010 ORDER: This revision is filed by the petitioner-A1, questioning the judgment, dated 22-06-2004, passed in Crl.A.No.201 of 2002 by the learned I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kadapa, confirming the judgment, dated 04-07- 2002, in C.C.No.256 of 2001 passed by the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kapada. 2. The brief facts of the case are that due to some disputes between the petitioner herein-A1 and other accused with one V.Venkatasubbaiah-P.W.1, on 04-09-2001 at about 07.30 a.m. while V.Venkatasubbaiah-P.W.1 and G.Babaiah-P.W.2 were talking at the fire pit of P.W.3, petitioner herein-A1 along with the other accused came and abused P.W.1 and beat him with a blowing stick causing bleeding injury to right hand. A2 beat him with a stick on his left thigh and A3 and A4 kicked him with hands. On a complaint given by P.W.1, police registered a case in Cr.No.122 of 2001. During the course of investigation, the petitioner herein-A1 and A2 were arrested on 18-09-2001 and remanded to judicial custody and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed and the case was taken on file by the learned Magistrate as C.C.No.256 of 2001. 3. During the course of trial, P.Ws.1 to 7 were examined and Exs.P1 to P5 were marked. No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on behalf of the accused. 4. On an analysis of the entire evidence on record, the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the petitioner-A1 is guilty of the offence punishable under Section 325 IPC and accordingly sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and also to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for six months, vide his judgment, dated 04-07-2002. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner-A1 preferred Crl.A.No.201 of 2002 before the learned I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kadapa and the learned Sessions Judge vide his judgment, dated 22-06-2004, while concurring with the finding of the trial Court reduced the default sentence from six months to one month. Aggrieved thereby, the present revision is filed by the petitioner herein. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. Perused the record. 6. Having considered the said submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that it is not a fit case for interference. However, as the alleged offence took place on 04-09-2001 and the petitioner was in jail for a period of more than two weeks, this Court is of the view that a lenient view can be taken and the said sentence of six months imposed by the Courts below can be reduced to that of the period already undergone. 7. With the above modification, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. _______________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA,J 13th July, 2010. Tsy