IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRL.R.C. No.1820 of 2010 Date:01.10.2010 Between: Burri Brahmanandam .....Petitioner AND The State of A.P., rep. by its PP., High Court of A.P. ....RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRL.R.C. No.1820 of 2010 ORDER: 1. On a report given by the P.W.1 Gujju Rama Devi, Madhira Rural Police Station registered a case in Crime No.20 of 2007 against the petitioner herein for the offence punishable under Section 356 IPC. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the competent criminal court and after committal it was numbered as Sessions Case No.580 of 2007 by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Sathupalli. 2. During the course of trial, P.Ws.1 to 8 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-3 were also marked on behalf of the prosecution 3. Having heard both sides and gone through the oral and documentary evidence, the Assistant Sessions Judge, Sathupalli while holding that the prosecution is able to bring home the guilty of the petitioner herein and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 2 years and also to pay fine of Rs.200/-, in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of 15 days by his judgment dated 26.02.2009. 4. The said judgment was questioned by the petitioner by filing Criminal Appeal No.26 of 2009 and the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Khammam vide his judgment dated 31.08.2010, while concurring with the said finding of guilt and reduced the said sentence from 2 years to 6 months. The same is questioned in this revision. 5. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: The case of the prosecution as seen from the evidence of prosecution witnesses is that about one year prior to the date of the evidence of complainant Gujju Ramadevi (P.W.1), while she was grazing cattle in the fields of one Appa Rao, at about 1.00 p.m., accused approached her, hold her hands and called her to have sexual intercourse with him, that when P.W.1 refused, accused caught hold of her hair and assaulted her, then when P.W.1 started crying accused removed her saree. Thereafter, accused pulled her towards Subabul trees and when P.W.1 started hue and cries, accused left her and went away. Thereafter, P.W.1 went to her house and informed about the incident to her husband and elders. Ten days thereafter, while P.W.1 was grazing cattle in the fields of Perumallapalli Sunder Rao in the after noon, accused approached her and stated that P.W.1 informed to elders about the incident and no one can do anything, and caught hold of her hand, pulled towards Subabul trees. Then P.W.1 raised cries loudly, that on hearing her cries, one Meramma came there and questioned the act of the accused, at that time accused threatened her to kill if she intervenes. After Meramma approached there, accused left the hand of the accused and went away. Thereafter, P.W.1 and Meramma returned to the house, narrated the incident to the husband of P.W.1, then thereafter P.W.1 and her husband went to elders and informed them about the incident, then elders advised them that they would advise the accused, but the accused did not care their words, as such they cannot do anything. Then, they went to Police Station and lodged Ex.P-1 report, based upon which First Information Report is registered. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant contends that the petitioner/appellant was in jail for a period of 25 days and the trial court did not take into consideration of the same and further contended that this court to take a lenient view against the petitioner. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was in jail for a period of 25 days in all and that the alleged offence took place about three years ago, this Court is of the view that the said sentence of six months can be reduced to that of the period already undergone by the petitioner. Except the said modification, in all other aspects, this revision petition shall stand dismissed. 7. Accordingly, the criminal revision case is disposed of. _______________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA,J October 01, 2010 GK. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRL.R.C. No.1820 of 2010 Date: 01.10.2010 Gk.