ORDER l THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E v. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2413 oF 2013 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the order dated 06.11.2013 in Cr1.A.No.26 of 2008 passed by the VII Additional Sessions Judge, Bodhan, Nizar:rabad District (for short, 'the appellate Court'), conhrming the judgment dated 22.02.2008 in S.C.No.4O4 of 2OO6 passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge at Bodhan (for short, 'the trial Court)

02. Heard Sri Praveen Kumar Veerjala, learned counsel for the petitioner/ accused No.2 and Sri E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent- State. Perused the record.

03. The brief facts of the case are that one \radla Rajender filed a report in Police Station, Madnoor, on 05.06.2003 stating that he is working as PMP Doctor. On 04.06.2023 at about 2.O0 A.M, in the midnight, four thievr:s armed with swords and guns came to his house and thre:atened him to 2 EryJ :RLRC 2413 2013 '': { give Rs.2,OO,O00/-. He told them that he did not have money. They threatened him by showing guns and asked him to give money whatever he has. In the meantime, his brother namely Linguram went outside the house and raised hue and cries. On hearing his cries, the Village Protection Team Members carne from four corners of the village. On seeing them, the said thieves fired with Thapancha, as a result, one Maruthi Rachappa received injuries with iron balls. One of the thieves beat Labdi Shankar on his left shoulder with sword. Labdi Bhumanna and his brother Rachappa sustained head injuries. The said thieves tried to kill with Pistol, as such, all the members attacked them and beat with stick and they caught two thieves and remaining two thieves fled away with swords. On enquiry, the said thieves informed them that his villager one Gaini Gangadhar brought them in his auto and asked them to commit robbery with the help of Gaini Hanmanth and Begari Shankar and Sesha Rao. They further informed them that their name is Yapari sailu/accused No.1 and Chinnu/accused No.2. The names of the fled away thieves are Mala Sailoo and Mala a 3 EVY, J ('RLRC 2413 20t3 Voddenna. They further informed them that about 15 days back, they also committed theft of motorcycle by threatening one person. Hence, he requested the Police t,t take action against the accused. Basing on the cornplaint, Sub Inspector of Police, Madnoor, registered a case in Crime No.33 of 2003 for the offences punishable under Sections 398, 307 r/w 1O9 I.P.C and Sections 25(1) of the Arms Act and issued F.I.R.

04. On behalf of the complainant, PWs.1 to 13 were examined and got marked Exs.Pl to P14. In rlefence, none were examined and no documents were ntarked. After appreciation of evidence, both oral and documentar5r available on record, the trial Court uide ju<lgment dated 22 .O2.2OO8 convicted accused Nos. 1 and 2 f<rr the offence punishable under Sections 398& 307 LP.C and Section 25(1) ( 18) (a) of the Arms Act, 1959 ald they are sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of seven years each for the offence under Section 398 I.p.C and they were sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment Jbr a period of three years each and they directed to pay a hrLe of Rs.2OO/_ 4 EW,J CRLRC 241i 2013 3;' each in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months each for the offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C, I I accused No.l and 2 were further sentenced for a period of one year each and shall pay a hne of Rs.200/- each in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months each for the offence under Section 25(1)(1B)(a) of the Arms Act,

1959. The above sentences of accused Nos. 1 and 2 directed run concurrently. The period of detention, if any under gone by the accused, shall be given set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled.

05. Aggrieved by the said judgment dated 22.O2.2OO8 in S.C.No.404 of 2006, the petitioner/accused No.2 and one Yapari Sailu/accused No.1 preferred Crl.A.No.26 of 2008 before the appellate Court. The learned appellate Court after re-appreciation of evidence and the material facts placed before it and upon considering the judgment dated

22.O2.2OO8 in S.C.No.404 of 2O06 of the trail Court, vide judgment dated 06.11.2013 dismissed Crl.A.No.26 of 2OO9, while confirming the conviction and sentence impog:{ ,-..,. ( 5 EVI/, J |:RLRC 2413 2013 against the petitioners by the trail Court. Assailing the same, the petitioner has filed the present Revisi,rn.

06. Learned counsel for the revision . petition er contended that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court failed to appreciate the evidence available on record in proper perspective and concurrently found the petitioner guilty of the alleged offence. Aggrieved by the salne, the petitioner/ accused No.2 has filed the present Criminal Revision Case.

07. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that both the Courts upon careful scrutiny of the evidence available on record rightly passed their respectrve judgments and interference of this Court is unwarranted. Therefore, he seeks to dismiss the Revision.

08. A perusal of the record shows that this Court uide order dated 18.11.2013 suspended the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioners and ordered to release him on bail on executing a personal bond for a sum 6 EYT, J CRLRC 2413 2013 of Rs.10,000 I - each with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the tria-l Court.

09. In the present case on hand, both the Courts have concurrently held that the petitioner was guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 398, 3O7 r lw 109 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, which hnding of both the Courts below, in my considered view, does not call for any interference, in exercise of revisionai jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C

10. Having regard to the submission made by learned counsel for the respective parties and upon considering the fact that the petitioner suffered mental agony and hardship during the course of litigation before the trial Court as well as the appellate Court and as nineteen years have already been elapsed from the date of Iiling of this .Revision, Court is inclined to take a lenient view reduce the sentence from seven years rigorous imprisonment to three years simple imprisonment and rest of the judgment passed by the appellate Court shall remain unaltered. In default of '7 Et/y, J .RLRC 24t 3 2013 compliance of the order of this Court, the judgment of the appellate Court holds good.

11. Except the above said modification, this Criminal Revision Case, in all other aspects, stands dism.ssed. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any. shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/- MOHD. ISMAIL depurv REGTSTRAR .SECTION OFFICER To, W 1 . The Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bichkunda, Nizanabac. 2. The VllAdditional Sessions Judge at Bodhan, Nlzamabad 3. The Assistant Sessions Judge Judge STATE OF AP ' REP. PP. HYD ', represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., l-lyderabad 4. One CC to SRl. PRAVEEN KUMAR VEERJALA Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies I'lvI/gh HIGH COURT DATED:.2210'112025 ORDER CRLRC.No.2413 of 2013 r..* + o o 6(' 2 6 ,rlJN 2Ut 3 I o €sr n -r.r, DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE. il4 b