HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1709 of 2004 O R D E R: The revision is laid by A-1 and A-7 in CC No.351 of 2001 on the file of the II Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. A-1 was convicted by the trial court for the offence punishable u/Sec.324 and 427 IPC. A-1 was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence u/Sec.324 IPC. He was also sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of four months for the offence punishable u/Sec.427 ICP. The trail court directed that both the sentences should run concurrently. The trial court acquitted A2 to A6. A-7 was found guilty of the offence punishable u/Sec.324 r/w.34 IPC and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- with appropriate default sentence. In the appeal preferred before the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, in Crl.A.No.44 of 2003 by A1 and A7, the conviction on A-7 was confirmed. The imposition of penalty of fine of Rs.1000/- as recorded by the trial court against A7 was confirmed. The conviction of A-1 u/Sec.324 IPC by the trial court was modified to conviction u/Sec.324 r/w.34 IPC. The conviction of A-1 recorded by the trail court for the offence u/Sec.427 IPC was confirmed. The sentence of imprisonment recorded by the trial court was modified to sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of two months on each count with a direction that the sentences should run concurrently. The trial court as well as the appellate court accorded benefit of the provisions of Sec.428 of Cr.P.C. to A-1. Aggrieved by the Judgment of the trial court and the appellate court, the A-1 and A-7 preferred the present revision. 2. The case of the prosecution is in connection with the incident that occurred on 20.7.2000. All the accused in consortium on the date of the offence went to the shop of P.Ws.1,2 and 5 on 24.7.2000 at about 8.30 p.m. and attacked the owners of the shop and in that process, P.Ws.1 and 2 sustained injuries. PW-5 was allegedly insulted by the accused. This is the sum and substance of the allegation of the prosecution. PW-5 is the father of P.Ws.1 and 2. P.Ws.3 and 4 are flower vendor and cable operator respectively, who stay nearby the scene of offence. All of them are stated to be the eye-witnesses to the incident and they spoke about the incident that occurred on 24.7.2000. 3. Sri Y.Hyma Kumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioners/A-1 and A-7 contended that the evidence of P.Ws.1,2 and 5 is the evidence of interested witnesses as they happened to be relations to each other and that their evidence per se cannot be accepted. Be that as it may, there is the evidence of independent witnesses of P.Ws.3 and 4. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5 clearly and cogently established the guilt of the accused for the offence for which they were convicted. So far as the conviction recorded by the appellate court against A1 and A2 is concerned, it does not deserve to be interfered with. A-7 was sentenced to pay fine of Rs.4,000/-. It would appear that the fine amount was already paid. I do not consider any need to interfere with the quantum of fine amount imposed by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court against A-7, who is the petitioner No.2 herein. The claim of the 2nd petitioner/A-7 in this revision consequently deserves to be dismissed. 4. So far as the 1st petitioner/A-1 is concerned, not only A-1, all the other accused are said to be rickshaw pullers working at Vijayawada. A-1 was in Jail for 13 days. The incident occurred in the year 2000. Eleven years have elapsed from the date of the incident. The offence proved against A-1 is for the offence punishable u/Secs.324 r/w 34 and 427 IPC. In view of the nature of the offences proved against the accused and the date of incident, which is eleven years old, I consider it appropriate to reduce the sentence of imprisonment recorded against the A-1 as confirmed by the appellate court to sentence of imprisonment already undergone. The revision deserves to be allowed to this extent only. 5. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed so far as the convictions recorded by the appellate court is concerned. The revision is also dismissed so far as the fine amount imposed against the 2nd revision petitioner/A-7 is concerned. The revision petition is allowed so far as the 1st revision petitioner/A-1 is concerned, so far as the sentence of imprisonment is concerned. The imprisonment already undergone by A-1/1st petitioner is treated as the total period of imprisonment. 5. Accordingly, the criminal revision case is disposed of. _____________ K.G.SHANKAR,J Mjl/* Dt. 01.07.2011