JUDGMENT : Both these Criminal Appeals arose as against the judgment in Sessions Case No.10 of 2002, on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Markapur, dated 13.10.2004, whereunder the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Markapur, found the respondents in Criminal Appeal No.1001 of 2008 not guilty of the charges framed against them and acquitted them under Section 235 (1) of Criminal Procedure Code (“Cr.P.C.” for short) and found the respondents in Criminal Appeal No.426 of 2007 guilty of certain charges and sentenced them accordingly. So, the Criminal Appeal No.426 of 2007 is filed questioning the quantum of sentence i.e., inadequacy of sentence and that is filed by the State. Similarly, the Criminal Appeal No.1001 of 2008 is filed as against the acquittal of the respondents therein. 2. The Sessions Case No.10 of 2002 arose out of committal order passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Markapu in P.R.C.No.34 of 2001. 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the State, represented by the Station House Officer, Pedda Araveedu Police Station, filed charge sheet in Crime No.23 of 2001 of Pedda Araveedu Police Station, under Sections 147, 148, 324 and 307 of Indian Penal Code (“I.P.C.” for short) r/w 149 of I.P.C., alleging that A.1 to A.13 and L.Ws.1 to 15 are residents of Ramayapalem Village of Pedda Araveedu Mandal. A.1 to A.13 belonged to Vaddera caste. The above prosecution witnesses except L.Ws.7 and 12 belonged to Reddy caste. L.Ws.7 and 12 belonged to Rajaka caste. 4. There are two rival groups in the village at Ramayapalem. L.Ws.1 to 15 and some others belonged to other group. There was a political rift in the village. Both the groups belonged to two political parties i.e., Telugudesam Party and Congress Party. There are strained feelings among the two groups since 1995 due to Panchayat elections. Apart from this, during September, 1995, the rival group belonging to accused brutally killed the father of L.W.1. So, there are strained feelings among the groups which reached climax. Both the accused party and the defacto-complainant (L.W.1) party laid their claim over Government banjar land in an extent of Ac.3-70 cents in Survey No.670, for which both the parties were not granted with any pattas. Accused group are waiting an opportunity to take revenge against the defacto-complainant. So, there are strained feelings among the groups which reached climax. Both the accused party and the defacto-complainant (L.W.1) party laid their claim over Government banjar land in an extent of Ac.3-70 cents in Survey No.670, for which both the parties were not granted with any pattas. Accused group are waiting an opportunity to take revenge against the defacto-complainant. They hatched a plan to do away L.W.1, if he raise any objection over the occupation of the said land. Accused party collected material with stones and constructed parapet wall with stones encroaching the bore pump and public road and caused obstruction to the public. L.W.1 on hearing the same, raised objection. 5. While so, on 04.04.2001 at 5-00 P.M. L.Ws.2 to 5 went to bore to bring water and they found the encroachments. Then, A.1 to A.13 formed themselves into unlawful assembly armed with spears, sticks and stones and attacked them. A.1 pierced L.W.2 with a spear on his head and caused bleeding injury. A.7 beat L.W.2 with stick on his left waist and caused bleeding injury. A.1 beat L.W.4 with a stone below right eye and caused bleeding injury. A.8 beat L.W.5 with a stone on the back side of her head and caused bleeding injury. A.2 pierced L.W.3 with a spear on his umbilical card and caused bleeding injury. They also beat L.Ws.2 to 5 with legs and hands. L.Ws.14 to 16 intervened and admonished accused. Then the accused found that L.W.1-Botchu Veera Reddy was not among L.Ws.2 to 5 and they learnt that he is proceeding to his land. Then the accused left hurriedly to kill him. Then L.Ws.8 to 10, who noticed the accused coming to kill L.W.1, gave signal to L.W.1 intimating that accused are coming to murder him. L.W.1 escaped and ran away. But, all the accused attacked L.W.1 armed with spears, sticks and surrounded him to kill him. Out of them, A.1 pierced L.W.1 with a spear on his left side stomach. A.2 beat L.W.1 with stick on his face and chin indiscriminately. A.13 pierced L.W.1 with spear on his right hand wrist. A.12 pierced L.W.1 with a spear on his chest. A.10 beat L.W.1 with a stick on his back. The rest of the accused beat L.W.1 with sticks indiscriminately. Accused left the place presuming that L.W.1 was died. L.W.2 and some others took the L.W.1 on a cart to his house. A.13 pierced L.W.1 with spear on his right hand wrist. A.12 pierced L.W.1 with a spear on his chest. A.10 beat L.W.1 with a stick on his back. The rest of the accused beat L.W.1 with sticks indiscriminately. Accused left the place presuming that L.W.1 was died. L.W.2 and some others took the L.W.1 on a cart to his house. Later, he was taken to Government hospital. L.W.1 came to know that L.Ws.2 to 5 were also beaten by the accused. In the meantime, L.Ws.2 to 5 also came to Dornal to see L.W.1. On intimation from L.W.22, L.W.23 recorded the statement of L.W.1 and sent to the Station House Officer, Pedda Araveedu Police Station on point of jurisdiction, which came to be registered as a case in Crime No.23 of 2001. L.W.1 was referred to Government General Hospital, Kurnool, for expert treatment. L.Ws.2 to 5 also came to Government Hospital, Markapur and took treatment. L.W.24 conducted investigation, recorded the statements of witnesses, examined the scene of offence and prepared observation report. L.W.17 took the photos of the scene of offence. 6. On 16.04.2001 at 8-00 A.M. L.W.24 arrested A.1 to A.13 and they confessed about the spears and sticks used in the commission of offence concealed amidst Japan babul trees, which were recovered under the cover of mahazarnama in the presence of the mahazar witnesses and the accused were sent to judicial custody. L.W.21 treated L.ws.2 to 5 and issued wound certificates. L.W.22 treated L.W.1 and issued wound certificate. L.W.25 further investigated into the case and after completion of investigation, laid the charge sheet. 7. The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Markapur, after taking cognizance of the case and after complying formalities under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., committed the case to the Court of Sessions and thereafter, it was made over to Assistant Sessions Judge, Markapur. 8. Before the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Markapur, after appearance of the accused and after following the procedure, charges under Section 148 of I.P.C. against A.1 to A.13, Section 324 of I.P.C. against A.1, A.2, A.7 and A.8, Section 324 of I.P.C. r/w 149 of I.P.C. against A.3 to A.6 and A.9 to A.13 and Section 323 of I.P.C. against A.1 to A.13 and Section 307 of I.P.C. against A.1 to A.13, were framed and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 9. 9. Before the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Markapur, during the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 21 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.32 were marked and M.Os.1 to 6 were marked and Ex.D.1 was marked on behalf of the accused. After the closure of the evidence of prosecution, accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and they denied the incriminating circumstances. 10. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Markapur, on hearing both sides and on considering the evidence on record, found A.2 to A.5, A.9 to A.11 not guilty of the offence under Section 148 of I.P.C., found A.2 not guilty of the offence under Section 323 of I.P.C. and further found A.3, A.6, A.9 to A.13 not guilty of the offence under Section 324 r/w 149 of I.P.C. and further found A.1, A.5, A.9 and A.11 not guilty for the offence under Section 307 of I.P.C. and acquitted them under Section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C. 11. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Markapur, found A.1, A.6 to A.8, A.10, A.12 and A.13 guilty for the offence under Section 148 of I.P.C. and further found A.1, A.7 and A.8 guilty of the offence under Section 324 of I.P.C. and further found A.6 to A.8, A.10, A.12 and A.13 guilty of the offence under Section 324 of I.P.C. and convicted them under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C. After hearing them about the quantum of sentence, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Markapur, sentenced A.1, A.6 to A.8, A.10, A.12 and A.13 to pay fine of Rs.500/- each for the offence under Section 148 of I.P.C. and further sentenced A.1, A.7 and A.8 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each and to pay fine of Rs.200/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month each for causing injuries to P.Ws.2 to 5 and further sentenced A.6 to A.8, A.10, A.12 and A.13 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each and to pay fine of Rs.200/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month each for causing injuries to P.W.1 and that the sentences of imprisonment imposed against A.7 and A.8 under two counts shall run concurrently. It is altogether a different aspect that the convicts filed Criminal Appeal before the appellate Court which was dismissed with certain modifications against which Criminal Revision Case No.260 of 2006 is filed before this Court which is being adjudicated today. It is altogether a different aspect that the convicts filed Criminal Appeal before the appellate Court which was dismissed with certain modifications against which Criminal Revision Case No.260 of 2006 is filed before this Court which is being adjudicated today. 12. Now, in deciding these appeals i.e., Criminal Appeal No.426 of 2007 and Criminal Appeal No.1001 of 2008, the points that arise for consideration are as follows : (i) Whether the judgment, dated 13.10.2004 in S.C.No.10 of 2002, on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Markapur, as regards the acquittal of the respondents in Criminal Appeal No.1001 of 2008 is concerned, it is liable to be interfered with? (ii) Whether the sentence imposed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Markapur as against the respondents in Criminal Appeal No.426 of 2007 is sufficient or not and whether it is liable to enhanced as contended by the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.426 of 2007? Point Nos.1 and 2:- 13. Insofar as the Criminal Appeal No.426 of 2007 is concerned, Sri Y. Jagadeeswara Rao, learned counsel, representing the learned Public Prosecutor, would contend that the sentence imposed against the respondents in Criminal Appeal No.426 of 2007 is very less and it is not in proportionate to the allegations, as such, it is liable to be enhanced. He would further contend in respect of the Criminal Appeal No.1001 of 2008 that the reasons recorded by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Markapur, in extending order of acquittal is not proper and there was cogent evidence adduced by the prosecution. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, failed to look into the same and did not consider the evidence of P.W.9 and erroneously acquitted A.2 to A.5, A.9 and A.11, as such, Criminal Appeal No.1001 of 2008 is liable to be allowed. 14. Sri A. Syam Sunder Reddy, learned counsel, representing Sri G. Rama Chandra Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents in Criminal Appeal No.1001 of 2008, would submit that though there was an allegation that all the accused were armed with deadly weapons, but no specific overt acts are attributed against the respondents in Criminal Appeal No.1001 of 2008 and the village was a faction ridden village where there was a possibility to rope as many as persons for false implication and the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Markapur, rightly appreciated the evidence on record and rightly acquitted the accused. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Markapur elaborately discussed as to how he extended benefit of doubt to the accused, as such, Criminal Appeal No.1001 of 2008 must fail. Insofar as Criminal Appeal No.426 of 2007 is concerned, he would contend that it is not a case where the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Markapur, let off the respondents with fine. On the other hand, he imposed imprisonment for six months against them and it is in proportion, as such, there is no necessity to enhance the sentence of imprisonment. He would further contend that challenging the conviction, the respondents in Criminal Appeal No.426 of 2007 filed Criminal Appeal No.153 of 2004 before the II Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Ongole at Prakasam Division, which came to be dismissed, as such, they filed Criminal Revision Case No.260 of 2006 before this Court. So, he would contend that this Criminal Appeal No.426 of 2007 must also fail. 15. The parties to these appeals will hereinafter be referred as described before the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Markapur, for the sake of convenience. 16. There is no dispute that both the accused party and the defacto-complainant party were trying to dominant with each other on account of the political rift in the village especially since the date of Panchayat elections. Both the groups were supported by two political parties according to the allegations, as such, there were strained feelings among the rival groups. There was also no dispute that there was a criminal case against the accused party alleging that they killed the father of defacto-complainant. So, in the Ramayapalem Village, Pedda Araveedu Mandal, according to the allegations of the prosecution, there was two faction ridden groups. 17. Coming to the incident in question, admittedly, the incident was said to be happened on 04.04.2001. There were two places of incidents. One was at the so-called Government banjar land. That incident is relating to causing injuries to P.Ws.2 to 5. Another incident was said to be happened in the fields of P.W.1, where the accused made an attempt to kill the P.W.1. Needless to point out here that though the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Markapur, acquitted the accused under Section 307 of I.P.C. and extended the punishment under only certain provisions, there is no appeal by the prosecution. Another incident was said to be happened in the fields of P.W.1, where the accused made an attempt to kill the P.W.1. Needless to point out here that though the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Markapur, acquitted the accused under Section 307 of I.P.C. and extended the punishment under only certain provisions, there is no appeal by the prosecution. As evident from Criminal Appeal No.1001 of 2008, the prosecution filed the said appeal only against the order of acquittal exonerating the respondents therein. It is not a case where the prosecution challenged the order of acquittal under Section 307 of I.P.C. specifically. If the intention of the prosecution is such, that it challenged the order of acquittal under Section 307 of I.P.C, the respondents in Criminal Appeal No.426 of 2007 would have been also figured as respondents in Criminal Appeal No.1001 of 2008. So, the scope of appeal in Criminal Appeal No.1001 of 2008 is very limited as to whether the acquittal order recorded against the respondents therein is liable to be interfered with? 18. Now, it is pertinent to refer herein the relevant evidence adduced by the prosecution. 19. P.W.1 is no other than the defacto-complainant. In his evidence, he spoken about the time of offence and date of offence. According to him at 6-15 P.M., he was proceeding to the fields to fix penal board. He came to know that there was a galata held in the village and accused are coming to kill him. Then, he started running. All the accused armed with spears and sticks surrounded him. Thammisetty Chinna Narayana (A.8) stabbed him with spear on the left side of the abdomen. Thammisetty Thimmaraju (A.7) beat him with stick on his face. Thammisetty Kistaiah (A.13) stabbed him with spear on right wrist. Thammisetty Venaktaswamy (A.6) stabbed him with spear on his left hand above the wrist. Thammisetty Tirupathaiah (A.12) stabbed him with a spear on his chest. Thammisetty Lakshminarayana (A.10) beat him with stick on his back. Remaining accused beat him with sticks on the body. 20. It is the evidence of P.W.2, who is also injured witness, that accused constructed Thette wall around the bore well. He questioned the accused about it. By then, all the accused were there. Then, Thammisetty Chinna Narayana (A.8) beat him with a spear. Thammisetty Thimmaraju (A.7) beat him with stick on his wrist left side. 20. It is the evidence of P.W.2, who is also injured witness, that accused constructed Thette wall around the bore well. He questioned the accused about it. By then, all the accused were there. Then, Thammisetty Chinna Narayana (A.8) beat him with a spear. Thammisetty Thimmaraju (A.7) beat him with stick on his wrist left side. Accused also beat Santhamma, Malleswari and Veerareddy. Madugula Veerareddy and Gali Veerareddy saw the said incident. 21. It is the evidence of P.W.3 that she, Malleswari, Santhamma and Palanki Reddy went to bore to fetch drinking water. Palanki Reddy stated why Thette wall is installed around the bore well. On that the accused beat P.W.2. Then she intervened. Thammiraju (A.7) stabbed him with spear on his abdomen. Accused beat Santhamma and Malleswari. Madugula Veera Reddy was also present. 22. It is the evidence of P.W.4 that she, Palanki Reddy, Gali Veerareddy, Botchu Santhamma and Malleswari, went to the bore well. Accused installed Thette wall around the bore well. P.W.2 questioned the act of the accused. Thammisetty Chinna Narayana (A.8) beat Palanki Reddy. A.1 beat her with stone. Malleswari also sustained injuries. 23. It is the evidence of P.W.5 that she along with P.Ws.1, 2 and 4 went to the well. P.W.2 questioned Thammisetty Narayana about Thette well. Then A.8 beat P.W.2. Then she intervened. Thammisetty Chinna Narayana beat her with stone. P.Ws.2 to 4 received injuries. 24. P.Ws.6 to 8 and 11 did not support the case of the prosecution. 25. The evidence of P.W.9 is that the offence took place about three years back at 6-15 P.M. They were coming from fields. They saw all the accused armed with spears and sticks at the fields of Tirumalasetty Venkateswara Reddy. He saw the accused and raised cries towards P.W.1 stating that they are coming to kill P.W.1. All the accused surrounded P.W.1. Then he (P.W.9) ran away. 26. The evidence of P.W.10 is that he came to know about the incident only. P.W.12 is a witness for observation of the scene of offence. P.W.13 is also a witness with regard to the arrest of the accused under the cover of mahazarnama. 27. P.Ws.14 and 15 are medical officers, who treated the injured and issued would certificates. P.W.14 spoken to the fact that he examined P.Ws.2 to 5 and issued wound certificates. P.W.15 spoken to the fact that he examined P.W.1 and issued wound certificate. 27. P.Ws.14 and 15 are medical officers, who treated the injured and issued would certificates. P.W.14 spoken to the fact that he examined P.Ws.2 to 5 and issued wound certificates. P.W.15 spoken to the fact that he examined P.W.1 and issued wound certificate. 28. P.W.15 is the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, who recorded the statement of P.W.1 and forwarded to Pedda Araveedu Police on point of jurisdiction. P.W.17 is the Photographer, who took the photographs of the scene of offence. P.W.18 verified the investigation of Head Constable. P.W.19 is the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, who registered the F.I.R. and taken part of certain investigation. P.W.20 is the person, who took X-rays of P.W.1 and found no bone injury. P.W.21 claimed to have done certain surgery on P.W.1. 29. Regarding the order of acquittal extended against the respondents in Criminal Appeal No.1001 of 2008 is concerned, the order relates to Section 148 of I.P.C., Section 324 r/w 149 of I.P.C., Section 323 of I.P.C. and further Section 307 of I.P.C. As seen from the evidence of P.W.1, the incident in question was in the fields at 6-15 P.M. when he was proceeding to the fields. His evidence is that all the accused armed with spears and sticks surrounded him. He could speak the overt acts only against A.8, A.7, A.13, A.6, A.12 and A.10 and rest of the accused beat him with sticks on the body. As against the overt acts attributed as above, there were four injuries found on the person of P.W.1 according to evidence of P.W.15, the medical officer coupled with wound certificate under Ex.P.16. So, the allegation that the remaining accused beat with sticks on his body cannot stands to any reason. 30. Apart from this, when he spoken about the names of the accused and ascribed overt acts in the evidence, his evidence that all the accused armed with spears and sticks and surrounded him is totally vague. Who is other accused apart from A.7, A.13, A.6, A.12 and A.10 and who armed with which weapon is not spoken to by P.W.1. Apart from this, if really the rest of the accused were armed with so-called spears and sticks, etc., definitely, they would have taken part in causing injuries to P.W.1. So, the evidence of P.W.1 as relates to A.2, A.3, A.4, A.5, A.9 and A.11 is totally vague. 31. Apart from this, if really the rest of the accused were armed with so-called spears and sticks, etc., definitely, they would have taken part in causing injuries to P.W.1. So, the evidence of P.W.1 as relates to A.2, A.3, A.4, A.5, A.9 and A.11 is totally vague. 31. As pointed out, there is no dispute that the defacto-complainant party and the accused party were grinding their axes against each other to show the supremacy against each other and there was a political rift in the village and the relations were also strained. Under such circumstances, the Court has to scrutinize the evidence with care and caution. Apart from this, leave part the evidence of P.W.1 as against the attack against him, which is vague, insofar as the respondents in Criminal Appeal No.1001 of 2008 is concerned, even other injured witnesses i.e., P.Ws.2 to 5 did not speak to the fact that all the accused were armed with deadly weapons like spears and sticks at the time of attack on them. P.W.2 deposed that accused constructed wall and he questioned and all accused were present. He did not reveal that whether other accused were armed with any weapons. He did not attribute any overt acts against the said accused. So, his evidence is also vague with regard to the presence of all accused so as to commit the offence on prosecution witnesses. 32. Apart from this, even the evidence of P.W.3 did not specify the presence of all the accused. His evidence is that accused also beat Santhamma and Malleswari. He could speak overt acts against some of the accused only. Even it is not his case the other accused were armed with deadly weapons and that they attacked him. Even it is not the evidence of P.W.4 that all the accused attacked him. His evidence is that all the accused installed Thette. His evidence does not reveal that apart from the accused against whom she attributed overt acts, other accused were also participants in the attack. Even P.W.5 did not testify the presence of all the accused armed with any deadly weapons. Under the circumstances, absolutely there was no evidence before the trial Court as to the participation of A.2, A.3, A.4, A.5, A.9 and A.11 in the attack on P.Ws.1 to 5. As pointed out the evidence of P.W.1 regarding them is also not convincing. 33. Under the circumstances, absolutely there was no evidence before the trial Court as to the participation of A.2, A.3, A.4, A.5, A.9 and A.11 in the attack on P.Ws.1 to 5. As pointed out the evidence of P.W.1 regarding them is also not convincing. 33. Apart from this, prosecution cited P.Ws.6 to 8, who were said to be the direct witnesses and who did not support the case of the prosecution. Coming to the evidence of P.W.9, he deposed that he saw all the accused armed with spears and sticks at the fled of Tirumalareddy Venkateswarlu and saw them surrounding P.W.1. A man like P.W.9 when he claimed to have witnessed the accused armed with deadly weapons surrounding P.W.1, he would have questioned as to why they are surrounding P.W.1. As the evidence of P.W.9 in this regard is not convincing, in my considered view, no reliance can be placed on the evidence of P.W.9. If really all the accused surrounded P.W.1, certainly other accused other than the accused against whom P.W.9 attributed overt acts, would have participated in the offence actually attacking P.W.1. The evidence of P.W.10 is hearsay in nature. 34. So, a perusal of the judgment of the trial Court goes to show that the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Markapur, took pains in appreciating the evidence on record. He appreciated the evidence with care and caution having looked into the background of the case. It is well settled that against a judgment recorded by the trial Court acquitting the accused with proper reasons, the Court of appeal shall be slow in reversing the order of acquittal unless the judgment of the trial Court is perversed and it is rendered without looking into the evidence on record, the Court of appeal shall be slow in reversing the order of the acquittal. As this Court already pointed out both the groups were trying dominant with each other on account of the political rift in the village and even there were criminal cases relating to the previous incidents. If the case of the prosecution has to be accepted that all the accused armed with spears and sticks, first the prosecution should have explained which accused armed with which weapon. 35. If the case of the prosecution has to be accepted that all the accused armed with spears and sticks, first the prosecution should have explained which accused armed with which weapon. 35. Apart from this, if the manner of attack was there, as projected by the prosecution, definitely, the respondents in Criminal Appeal No.1001 of 2008 would have attacked P.W.1 or P.Ws.2 to 5 by using the deadly weapons. In my considered view, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Markapur, appreciated the evidence with care and caution and extended benefit of doubt to the respondents in Criminal Appeal No.1001 of 2008, as such, it cannot be held by any stretch of imagination that the offences alleged against them were proved by the prosecution before the Court below beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, I am of the considered view that the Criminal Appeal No.1001 of 2008 must fail. 36. Coming to the Criminal Appeal No.426 of 2007 filed by the State questioning the so-called inadequacy of the sentence, this Court would like to make it clear that when the respondents filed Criminal Appeal No.153 of 2004 before the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Ongole at Prakasam Division, the said learned Sessions Judge allowed the appeal exonerating them under Section 148 of I.P.C. and confirmed the conviction under other provisions. 37. Now, coming to the quantum of sentence i.e., imposed against the respondents in Criminal Appeal No.426 of 2007 for the offence under Section 148 of I.P.C., fine was imposed and it is altogether a different aspect that appellate Court found the respondents in this appeal not guilty of the offence under Section 148 of I.P.C. As regards the offence under Section 324 of I.P.C., the trial Court awarded rigorous imprisonment for six months each and to pay fine of Rs.200/- each, in default simple imprisonment for one month each. The offence under Section 324 of I.P.C. is punishable with imprisonment for three years. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Markapur, imposed imprisonment of six months that too rigorous imprisonment. The said sentence imposed against the respondents herein cannot be taken as a lesser one. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Markapur, in my considered view, imposed rigorous imprisonment for six months having looked into the facts and circumstances, which cannot be taken as a lesser punishment. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the sentence imposed is also adequate. 38. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Markapur, in my considered view, imposed rigorous imprisonment for six months having looked into the facts and circumstances, which cannot be taken as a lesser punishment. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the sentence imposed is also adequate. 38. The point is answered accordingly. 39. In the result, the Criminal Appeal No.426 of 2007 and Criminal Appeal No.1001 of 2008 are dismissed. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.