The courts reaffirmed conviction for serious offenses due to sufficient evidence, modifying the sentence based on the duration of litigation.

ORDER:

This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the order dated 06.11.2013 in Crl.A.No.26 of 2008 passed by the VII Additional Sessions Judge, Bodhan, Nizamabad District (for short, ‘the appellate Court’), confirming the judgment dated 22.02.2008 in S.C.No.404 of 2006 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 Vadla 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 2.00 A.M, in the midnight, four thieves armed with swords and guns came to his house and threatened him to give Rs.2,00,000/-. 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 came 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 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 to take action against the accused. Basing on the complaint, Sub Inspector of Police, Madnoor, registered a case in Crime No.33 of 2003 for the offences punishable under Sections 398, 307 r/w 109 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.P1 to P14. In defence, none were examined and no documents were marked. After appreciation of evidence, both oral and documentary available on record, the trial Court vide judgment dated 22.02.2008 convicted accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Sections 398& 307 I.P.C and Section 25(1) (1B) (a) of the Arms Act , 1959 and 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 for a period of three years each and they directed to pay a fine of Rs.200/-

each in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months each for the offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C, accused No.1 and 2 were further sentenced for a period of one year each and shall pay a fine 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 22.02.2008 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 22.02.2008 in