(1) The revisions in Crl. RC No.890 of 2004 and Crl. RC No.898 of 2004 are disposed of through this common order.

(2) PW1 lodged a police report. It was registered as F.I.R. PW5 gave another report in respect of the same incident. Curiously, the same Station House Officer who registered F.I.R. on the basis of the report of PW1 registered F.I.R. on the strength of the report of PW5 also.

In view of two F.I.Rs, two calendar cases arose in CC No.165 of 1999 and CC No.190 of 1999 on the file of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Narsapur. However, the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Narsapur more or less conducted a joint trial recording evidence commonly in both the cases. Conviction was recorded against various accused under various sections.

(3) AL in CC No.165 of 1999 was convicted for the offence under Sections 341 and 324 IPC. So far as the offence under Section 324 IPC, is concerned, A1 was convicted on two counts. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year on each count under Section 324 IPC. A3 and A4 were also convicted for the offence under Section 324 IPC on one count and were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each. A1 and A3 to A5 were found guilty for the offence under Section 341 IPC. Each of them was sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/- each with appropriate default sentence. A5 was further convicted under Section 324 read with 34 IPC and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year.

(4) A1 and A3 to A5 preferred Criminal Appeal No.28 of 2002 on the file of VI Additional Sessions Judge, Narsapur. In the appeal, A3 was completely acquitted. He was found not guilty either for the offence under Section 341 IPC or for the offence under Section 324 IPC. Convictions against Al, A4 and A5 for the offences under Sections 341 and 324 IPC were confirmed. The sentence of fine imposed by the trial Court for the offence under Section 341 IPC was maintained in the appeal. The imprisonment of one year for the offence under Section 324 IPC as recorded by the trial Court was modified to a fine of Rs.1,000/- each by the appellate Court. A2, A6 and A7 preferred Criminal Appeal No.29 of 2002. In the appeal, A6 and A7 were found not guilty of any offence and were completely acquitted. The conviction recorded by the trial Court against A2 for the offences under Sections 324 and 341 IPC. was confirmed by the appellate Court. The fine of Rs.500/- imposed by the trial Court against A2 was maintained in the appeal. The sentence of one year's rigorous imprisonment recorded by the trial Court against A2 for the offence under Section 324 IPC was modified to a fine of Rs. 1,000/- with appropriate default sentence. No revision was preferred by anyone either from the judgment in Criminal Appeal No.28 of 2002 or from the judgment in Criminal Appeal No.29 of 2002. The judgments in Criminal Appeal Nos.28 of 2002 and 29 of 2002, thus, became final.

(5) A2 in CC No. 190 of 1999 was convicted for the offence under Section 325 read with 34 IPC by the trial Court. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and fine of Rs.1,000/- with appropriate default sentence. He preferred appeal in Criminal Appeal No.33 of 2002 before the learned VI Additional Sessions Judge, Narsapur. The appeal was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, A2 in CC No.190 of 1999 preferred Criminal Revision Case No.898 of 2004.

(6) A5 in CC No.190 of 1999 was found guilty for the offence under Section 326 read with 34 IPC by the trial Court. A5 was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and fine of Rs.1,000/- with appropriate default sentence. A5 preferred Criminal Appeal No.30 of 2002 and the same was dismissed. A5, consequently, preferred Criminal Revision Case No.890 of 2004. Thus, Criminal Revision Case Nos.890 of 2004 and 898 of 2004 came up before me, which are preferred by A5 and A2 respectively in CC No.190 of 1999 on the file of Addi