RAMAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the appellant and learned Additional State Public Prosecutor. The appellant was the accused before the trial Court in the following circumstances:

(2.) THE learned Counsel for the appellant raises the following contentions:

(3.) WHILE it is true that, several grounds raised in the appeal do not make out a case for acquittal or that the finding and the reasoning of the Court below is in no way to be faulted, the glaring circumstances of the trial Court having punished the accused with imprisonment for a period of 10 years, apart from payment of fine for the offences punishable under Section 341 and 307 of IPC appears to be disproportionate to the offence committed. Though the injury caused is on premeditation by the appellant and even if it is termed as a grievous injury, the appellant has recovered from the same. He was certainly hospitalized for an extended period of 19 days, which in itself would indicate that, it was a grievous injury suffered by the complainant. Therefore, on the question of proportionality, whether the stringent punishment of 10 years' Rigorous Imprisonment is disproportionate to the nature of offence that is established against the accused, is a limited question that arises for consideration before this. Court.