LAWS(KAR)-2013-1-113

NAYYU @ NAYAZ AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Decided On January 02, 2013
Nayyu @ Nayaz Appellant
V/S
STATE OF KARNATAKA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. challenging the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge at Ramanagara dt.7.7.2008 in Special (Sessions) Case No. 1/2007.

(2.) THE appellants were tried for the offences punishable under Sections - 323, 324, 326, 376(2)(g) IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the S.C.S.T. (POA) Act 1989, wherein they have been convicted for the aforesaid offences and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 323 read with 34 IPC and to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 324 read with 34 IPC., and also to undergo RI for three years and to pay a fine of Rs, 1000 -00 each with default sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 326 read with 34 IPC. They are further sentenced to undergo RI for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/ - each with default sentence of RI for six months for the offence punishable under Section 376(2) (g) of IPC and they are also sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/ - each for the offence punishable under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. It is further ordered to substantive sentence for all the offences shall run concurrently.

(3.) THOUGH several grounds are urged in support of the appeal Memo, at the time of arguments, the learned counsel for the appellants requests the Court to reconsider only the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against the appellants to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 5000/ - for the offence punishable under Section 3 (2) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. In other words, the appellants are not challenging the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against them for other offences.