HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1499 of 2004 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is preferred by the Petitioners-Appellants-Accused against judgment, dated 23.08.2004, rendered in Criminal Appeal No.192 of 2001 on the file of VI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ongole, confirming conviction imposed in Sessions Case No.9 of 2001 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge, Markapur, but reducing the sentence. 2. A-1 to A-3 were prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 307 IPC, whereas A-4 was prosecuted for the offences punishable under Section 341 read with Section 109 IPC and Section 307 read with Section 109 IPC. After due trial, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Markapur, convicted A-1 to A-3 under Section 235 (2) Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable under sections 341 & 326 IPC and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.200/- and in default of payment of the fine amount to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one week each for the offence punishable under Section 341 IPC and they were sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.300/- and in default of payment of the fine amount to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month each for the offence under Section 326 IPC vide judgment, dated 30.08.2001, whereas against the said conviction and sentence, A-1 to A-3 filed the Criminal Appeal No.192 of 2001 on the file of learned VI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ongole, which was dismissed confirming the conviction and the fine imposed against A-1 to A-3 for the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 326 IPC, but reducing the sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment of two years each imposed against A-1 to A-3 for the offence punishable under Section 326 IPC to that of Simple Imprisonment for a period of one year each, and further directed that the total fine amount imposed against A-1 to A-3 be paid to the defacto-complainant/PW.1 towards compensation and aggrieved thereby, A-1 to A-3 have preferred this Criminal Revision Case. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the accused and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the Respondent – State. 4. The prosecution version, in brief, is that the second son of PW.1 wrote a love letter to the daughter of A-4 and, in that connection, a panchayat was held on 05.05.2000, wherein PW.1 and his son tendered apology to A-4 and the matter was compromised, however A-4, having felt ashamed, intended to take revenge against PW.1 and on 28.06.2000, A-1 to A-3, at the instance of A-4, way laid near the fields of PW.2 and pounced on PW.1 while he was going towards Nekunambad on a cycle and stabbed on the back of his head, right abdomen, back of forehead and also on his neck with knives indiscriminately. 5. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners/Accused that the main reason for the offence according to the prosecution is that the son of PW.1 loved the daughter of A-4, and A-4 instigated A-1 to A-3 to attack PW.1 and kill him and accordingly A-1 to A-4 attacked PW.1 and caused three grievous injuries, and it is pertinent to note here that there was no enmity between PW.1 and A-1 to A-3, and A-1 to A-3 have been suffering since a long time by attending various courts in connection with this case, and hence, a lenient view may be taken in favour of A-1 to A-3. 6. In view of the aforesaid submission and also the fact that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court gave concurrent findings against A-1 to A-3, this Court is of the view that the merits of the prosecution case and the impugned judgment need not be adjudicated. 7. Admittedly, the offence took place in the year 2000 and for all these years, A-1 to A-3 must have suffered humiliation by attending various Courts in connection with this case, by reason of which they lost valuable part of their life and might have also incurred lot of expenditure correspondingly. In these circumstances, this Court is inclined to show some mercy upon A-1 to A-3. 8. Accordingly, the conviction recorded against the petitioners/ A-1 to A-3 by the trial Court and as confirmed by the appellate Court is further confirmed, but the sentence of Simple Imprisonment imposed against A-1 to A-3 for the offence punishable under Section 326 IPC is reduced to six months, while keeping the fine clause intact. The period of detention, if any, undergone by A-1 to A-3 in this case shall be given as set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C, and the trial court shall take necessary steps for the execution of the sentence imposed against A-1 to A-3. With the above noted modification, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. __________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J 29th July, 2011 v v