STATE Vs. APPAJIGOWDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor.

(2.) THOUGH the accused has been awarded a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, the state has presented this appeal and the contention raised is that a fine should also have been imposed. Apart from justifying the submission on the basis of the facts in the present case what the learned Additional state Public Prosecutor submits is that the Court ought to have imposed a fine and a default sentence and that not having done so is incorrect. First of all, a perusal of the judgment indicates that the Trial Judge has taken into consideration the economic condition of the accused and has held that having regard to his poverty conditions that no useful purpose would be served by imposing a sentence of fine which could only be meagre. The default sentence even if awarded would merge with the main sentence and having regard to this position, the Court has rightly not imposed any fine. We do accept the submission canvassed by the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor, that in appropriate cases even under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code that if the facts justify, it is certainly within the power of the Court to impose a fine. This however, is not one such case. The accused has appealed against the main appeal and the validity or otherwise of the conviction will be considered when Criminal Appeal No. 1286 of 1999 is heard. For the reasons set out by us above, we see no ground on which the appeal should be admitted. The same to stand dismissed on merits. LA. I is however allowed.