S.Tarachandra Reddy, vs State Of A.P., Rep By Pp.,
2022 Latest Caselaw 1179 Tel

                 HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

                     CRL.R.C.No.1601 OF 2008

JUDGMENT:

This criminal revision case is directed against the judgment of

the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar, in Crl.A.No.48

of 2007 dated 03.07.2008 confirming the conviction of the revision

petitioner for the offences punishable under sections 341 and 353 of

I.P.C., however, converted the sentence of imprisonment to fine.

Heard and perused the record.

A charge sheet has been filed against the revision petitioner/

A-1, along with one J. Rama Krishna Reddy (A-2) and they were tried

before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Wanaparthy, for the

offences punishable under Sections 341, 353, 504 and 510 of I.P.C.

The prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P1 to

P4 and M.Os.1 and 2 to prove the guilt of the revision petitioner and

another. On a perusal of the entire evidence, both oral and

documentary, the trial Court found the accused guilty of the offences

under Sections 341 and 353 of I.P.C. accordingly convicted and

sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each in default to suffer simple

imprisonment for two months for the offence punishable under

Section 341 of I.P.C. and also sentenced them to undergo simple

imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each

in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months for the

offence under Section 353 of I.P.C. The trial Court acquitted the

accused for the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 510 of

I.P.C. Challenging the said conviction and sentence for the offences

punishable under Sections 341 and 353 of I.P.C., the accused

preferred the appeal. During pendency of the appeal, A-2 died and

the case against him was abated. On appreciation of the evidence

both oral and documentary, the learned I Additional Sessions Judge,

Mahabubnagar, confirmed the conviction of the revision petitioner for

the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 353 of I.P.C., but

however, converted the sentence of simple imprisonment of three

months for the offence under Section 353 of I.P.C. into a fine and

directing the revision petitioner to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default

to suffer simple imprisonment for three months while maintaining the

fine imposed by the trial Court for the offence under Section 341 of

I.P.C. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner/A-1 preferred

this criminal revision case.

Admittedly, there is concurrent finding of both the Courts

below with regard to guilt of the revision petitioner and the learned

Counsel for the revision petitioner has also not shown me anything,

which would discredit the evidence. Therefore, there is no

interference warranted as far as conviction is concerned, but with

regard to the sentence, after considering the facts and circumstances

of the case, the appellate Court has already converted the sentence

of simple imprisonment of three months into fine. Therefore, I see

no ground to interfere with the sentence also.

Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed,

confirming the judgment dated 03.07.2008 passed in Crl.A.No.48 of

2007 on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

__________________ JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

15.03.2022 gkv/SHA