THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1026 OF 2004 ORDER: 1 The petitioners who are A.3 and A.4 along two others were initially charge sheeted but were tried along with A.2 by the learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, East & North, R.R. District in C.C.No.899 of 1995 for the offences punishable under section 394 of IPC. The learned Magistrate, having weighed the entire evidence let in by the prosecution i.e. the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 to 7 and the documents marked as Exs.P.1 to P.12 and M.Os.1 & 2, came to the conclusion that the accuse are guilty of the said offence and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default of payment of fine he shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month each by his judgment dated 04.12.2002. Questioning the said judgment, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.213 of 2002 and the learned IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, FTC, R.R. District at L.B.Nagar while concurring with the findings given by the trial court, dismissed the said appeal by his judgment dated 22.06.2004. Aggrieved by the same, the accused 3 and 4 in the said case preferred this revision. 2 The facts in brief are that on 22.09.1994 at about 5.00 p.m. the de facto complainant Y. Satyanarayana rao lodged a complaint stating that on 22.09.1994 at about 9.00 a.m. he left to his office leaving his wife Padma in the house. Then around 1.00 p.m. Mamidi Prabhakar Rao – A.1 who is the cousin of his wife went to his house and after few minutes he went out to purchase cigarettes and returned back to the house of the de facto complainant. Meanwhile A.2 to A.4 entered the house and bolted the doors from inside and on seeing their attitude, his wife tried to escape from the Northern side door. Then A.2 to A.4 caught hold of her tuft and tied with a towel around her face and beat on her face and forced her to sit in a chair and tied her to the chair with the help of lungi and then snatched away gold articles and also some cash. Thereafter they administered ‘Anvil’ injection to the hand of the wife of the de facto complainant to make her unconscious and fled away with the booty. After regaining conscious the victim informed the incident to her husband while he was at his office. Then he came to the house immediately and enquired with his wife and then lodged a report to the police. In that connection a case in Cr.No.560 of 1994 was registered and investigated into and after completion of investigation and recovering the stolen property, the police filed charge sheet against A.1 to A.4. During the pendency of the said case, the A.1 jumped over bail and as he could not be apprehended, case against A.1 was split up and only A.2 to A.4 were proceeded against. 3 When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners fairly conceded there are no merits in this revision and that the judgments of the courts below need no interference, however, requested the court take a lenient view in so far as the said sentence imposed on the petitioners is concerned. 4 In the light of the said submission, this court looked into the record. The appellate court dismissed the appeal on 22.06.2004 and the petitioners were taken into custody immediately. It is only after this revision was admitted and bail was granted on 25.06.2004, the petitioners came out of the jail. Thus the petitioners were in jail for a period of four days. The learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners were in jail for some period at the time when they were apprehended. Since the offence relates to the year 1994 and since the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioners is only for a period of one year and inasmuch as the petitioners were in jail for a period of four days after the appeal was dismissed and for some period at the time when they were arrested, this court takes a lenient view and reduces the said sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year to that of the period which the petitioners had already undergone. 5 Excepting the above modification, this revision, in all other aspects, is dismissed. --------------- 03.02.2011 Kvsn