HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1451 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C., against judgment, dated 09-08-2004, in Criminal Appeal No.161 of 2002 passed by the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool, confirming conviction and sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-in default to undergo further imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC, imposed by the Court of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Adoni against the petitioner – accused (for short ‘accused’) in Sessions Case No.538 of 1999. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows: On 02-07-1998 at 9-00 PM, the prosecutrix, a widow aged about 60 years, filed Ex.P-1 report before the Station House Officer, Maddikera Police Station, complaining that on the same day at about 1-00 PM she went to the fields of one Seetarami Reddy for picking up neem tree seeds, that at about 4-30 PM, the accused, who was a watchman of the fields of Seetarami Reddy, caught hold of her and closed her mouth with his hands and committed rape on her and left the scene of offence. Thereafter, the complainant went to her house and informed the matter to his son (PW-2) and both of them went to the house of Seetarami Reddy and informed him about the matter and on his advise, the de facto complainant along with her daughter and son- in-law went to the police station at Maddikera and lodged a report against the accused. On receipt of the said report, the SHO, registered the case in Crime No.45 of 1998 and sent the victim to the Government Hospital, Pathikonda for treatment. Subsequently, the Inspector of Police, Pattikonda, took up and conducted the investigation of the case. After, the investigation of the case, the police filed the corresponding charge sheet. 3. Charge under Section 376 I.P.C. was framed against the accused and read over and explained to him, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-8, besides case property M.Os.1 and 2. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., about the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, which he denied. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused. 5. The trial Court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, found the accused guilty of committing the offence under Section 376 IPC, and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default of paying the fine, to undergo further imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC, whereas aggrieved by the same the accused preferred the Criminal Appeal No.161 of 2002 whereby the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool, on the consideration of the material available on record, confirmed the conviction, but reduced the sentence from seven years to five years and aggrieved by that, the petitioner-accused has preferred the present criminal revision case. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly conceded that there is nothing to say about the merits of the judgment and has further contended that the accused has suffered a lot since the inception of the case and he spent lot of money eventually in connection with this case, attending various courts and consequently he lost valuable part of his life and hence, the matter may be viewed leniently. 7. This is a case of 1999. The accused has been attending various Courts since beginning facing the consequential proceedings and also facing the ordeal of the conviction and sentence. No doubt, the offence committed by him is very serious, but in view of the sufferance he has undergone, I deem it a fit case to reduce the sentence from five years to two years, while retaining the fine clause. 8. In the result, the Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed, confirming the conviction imposed by the Courts below but, modifying the sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment from five (5) years to two (2) years, while retaining the fine clause. ________________________ G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J July 19, 2011. KTL