Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 273 (KAR)

STATE BY KUMSI POLICE v. MAHADEVA

2001-03-22

H.N.NARAYAN, MANJULA CHELLUR

body2001
NARAYAN, J. ( 1 ) THIS matter when came up for admission before this bench on 8. 3. 2001, heard the learned State Public Prosecutor, but on the request of the learned Counsel for the respondent-accused, this matter was adjourned till today, as the learned Counsel for respondent-accused sought for time to consult his counter-part and make his submissions. Hence, this matter coming on for admission again this day, the appeal is taken up for hearing. ( 2 ) WE have heard Sri Mohan Shantana Goudar, learned Statepublic Prosecutor and Sri S. V. Tilgul, learned Counsel for the respondent-accused. ( 3 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order ofconviction dated 28. 7. 2000 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, shimoga, Respondent-accused was convicted by the learned prl. CJ. M, Shimoga for an offence under Section 326 of I. P. C. and sentenced him to undergo R. I. for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of the fine, he has to further undergo r. I. for one month. The respondent-accused aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction preferred an appeal in Crl. A. No. 26/96. The learned Sessions Judge, Shimoga has confirmed the conviction but modified the sentence by deleting the sentence of imprisonment, instead sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ -. In this background, the State has questioned only the judgment of the learned Sessions judge, Shimoga, who has modified the sentence. ( 4 ) THE accused has not challenged the judgment of learnedsessions Judge, Shimoga, who confirmed the conviction for the offence under Section 326 of I. P. C. The punishment prescribed for the offence punishable under Section 326 of I. P. C. is imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extent to 10 years, and shall also be liable to fine. But, the learned C. J. M. , Shimoga had come to the conclusion by sentencing him for a period of six months with a fine of Rs. 500/ -. In spite of the judgment of this Court, imposing minimum punishment of two years for offence under Section 326 of IPC. , the learned C. J. M. has shown extra-ordinary judicial leniency against the accused sentencing him to suffer R. I. for six months. 500/ -. In spite of the judgment of this Court, imposing minimum punishment of two years for offence under Section 326 of IPC. , the learned C. J. M. has shown extra-ordinary judicial leniency against the accused sentencing him to suffer R. I. for six months. The learned Sessions Judge, shimoga has extended this leniency further by sentencing him to pay a fine only. The learned Sessions Judge has not exercised his discretionary power reasonably and has not understood the seriousness of the offence and the sentence provided for the said offence. It is true that imposing a sentence for an offence is discretionary but it must be exercised judiciously. The learned sessions Judge, Shimoga has not applied his mind to the seriousness of the offence proved and the period of punishment provided. ( 5 ) WE are not happy with the punishment imposed by the learnedsessions Judge, Shimoga by sentencing him with a fine only in this case. Unfortunately, in this case, the State has not questioned the judgment of the Prl. CJ. M. , Shimoga for enhancement of sentence imposed on the accused. This Court cannot go beyond the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the learned C. . J. M. Shimoga. This Court in similar matters imposed imprisonment for two years with fine. We hope that the learned Sessions Judge and the C. J. M. , Shimoga would follow the judgments of this Court in the matter of sentencing the accused persons in such cases. We therefore confirm the conviction which is not challenged and also confirm the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Addl, Sessions Judge, Shimoga but set aside the sentence of fine. Instead. w3 confirm the sentence of imprisonment for a period of 6 months and a fine of Rs. 500/- with default clause imposed by C. J. M. Shimoga. We direct the respondent to surrender forthwith before the C. J. M. , Shimoga to undergo the sentence of imprisonment imposed on him. --- *** --- .