In the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh At Hyderabad. Dated this the thirtieth day of March, 2010. Present: The Hon’ble Sri Justice P. Swaroop Reddy CRL.R.C.No. 626 of 2010. Between: Velugu Lakshminarayana ..Petitioner/A4 And The State of AP Represented by the Public Prosecutor. ..Respondent PSR, J. CRL.R.C.No. 626 of 2010. Judgment: This revision is filed by the petitioner, who is A-4 in S.C.No. 172 of 2008 on the file of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Rajampet. He along with other accused was prosecuted for the offences 147, 395 and 398 IPC and were convicted for the offence under section 395 IPC and sentenced to under go rigorous imprisonment for five years each and to pay fine of Rs.500-00 each in default to under go simple imprisonment for three months each, which was confirmed by the learned appellate Judge. Aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned appellate judge the present revision is filed. 2. The facts are as follows - on 3-8-2007 at about 4.00 PM, A-1 to A-4 and some others went to Nandalur village in Kadapa District; consumed liquor and went to the farm-house of Chengal Reddy (PW-1) armed with sticks and stones. On seeing the culprits the dogs started barking, on which PW-1 got up and focused torch light on the accused. Then one of the accused attacked PW-1 and beat with stick and others hurled stones at him. The accused robbed the gold chain; silver idols; grocery and some cash. They distributed the booty among themselves. Later, on the report of PW-1 police investigated into the case; recovered the property from the accused on their confession and after completing investigation charge sheet was filed for the offences under sections 147, 395, 397 and 398 read with 149 IPC. 3. For the charges under sections 147, 395, 398 IPC the accused pleaded not guilty. On behalf of the prosecution PWs 1 to 10 were examined and Exs P-1 to P-13 were marked, apart from MOs-1 to 7. On the basis of the evidence on record, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Rajampet convicted and sentenced the accused, as referred to above, which was confirmed by the learned appellate judge, on appeal. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. Now the point for consideration whether there are any grounds for allowing the revision. 6. On behalf of prosecution PWs -1 to 10 were examined, of whom PW-1 is the complainant and eyewitness to the incident. PW-2 is the wife of PW-1. PW-3 is a panch for the scene of offence; PW-4 is the Village Administrative Officer and panch for confession and recovery of incriminating material from the petitioner and other accused; PW-5 is the Medical Officer, who treated PW-1; PW-6 is another panch for recovery, being the Panchayat Secretary and PW-7 is a witness for identification proceedings. On the basis of the evidence of these witnesses, the learned Magistrate convicted the accused and the same was confirmed by the learned appellate Judge. 7. PW-1 is the victim, whom the accused attacked and robbed the property from his house. He had occasion to see the accused for substantial time and as such there was no difficulty for him to identify the accused, who are habitual offenders. Apart from the direct evidence of PW-1, who identified the accused, there is circumstantial evidence for recovery of the property from the possession of the accused, for which witnesses were examined. Now, at the stage of revision, the question of re-appreciation of evidence, in detail, would not arise. No circumstances are brought to my notice by the learned counsel for the petitioner to say that appreciation of the evidence by the courts below is perverse. No other technical ground or circumstance was shown to say that the conviction of the accused is illegal. 8. In all these circumstances, there are absolutely no grounds to allow the revision case and it is accordingly dismissed. 9. However, the conviction of the petitioner/accused for the offence under section 395 IPC is confirmed. But the sentence of five years rigorous imprisonment imposed on the petitioner/accused by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court is reduced to two and half years, while sustaining the sentence of fine imposed. The period of detention already undergone by the petitioner/accused shall be given set off under section 428 Cr.P.C. _______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. March 30, 2010. *BVS