THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1913 OF 2003 ORDER: Petitioner herein and another were tried by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Siddipet in Medak District in S.C.No.335 of 2001 for the offence punishable under Sections 376 and 376 read with Section 109 of IPC. During the course of trial, the prosecution pressed into service the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 9 and got exhibited Exs.P.1 to P.8. Having considered the entire evidence both oral and documentary, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge believed the case of the prosecution and accordingly convicted and sentenced the petitioner herein to suffer 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. In so far as the second accused is concerned, he was acquitted. As against the said judgment passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Siddipet, dated 08.05.2002, the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No.100 of 2002 and the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Siddipet dismissed the said appeal by his judgment dated 11.11.2003. Assailing the same, the petitioner approached this court and filed the present revision. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 29.06.2000 at about 12.00 noon, in the outskirts of Sircinagandla village of Kondapak Mandal, the petitioner has committed rape on the victim-Smt. Gaddam Laxmi W/o Ilaiah and that the other person has instigated the petitioner to commit rape on her. Heard both sides. While admitting the Criminal Revision Case, this Court, on 26.12.2003, refused to grant bail to the petitioner and accordingly dismissed the Crl.M.P.No.8949 of 2003. Subsequently, when the petitioner filed another Crl.M.P.No.6007 of 2004, this Court, on 02.09.2004, granted bail to the petitioner for a period of one month from the date of his release and thereafter it was extended up to 22.11.2004 only. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had undergone substantive sentence of more than five years of imprisonment and hence the sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. In the aforesaid circumstances and in the interest of justice, without going into the merits of the case, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of seven years imposed against the revision petitioner-Dandla Ilaiah by both the Courts below, for the offence punishable under section 376 of I.P.C. is reduced to that of the period already undergone by him, while maintaining the sentence of fine imposed against the revision petitioner. The petitioner is directed to be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other crime. With the above modification in the sentence, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. (GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J) 05-03-2010 Gsn.