STATE Vs. J S VEERABASAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the arguments of learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the appellant -State and also the arguments of learned counsel appearing or the respondents -accused.

(2.) LEARNED High Court Government Pleader submitted that the respondents -accused have been convicted by the trial court and the sentence of imprisonment has been confirmed by this Court in Criminal appeal No.508/2006. He submitted that the present appeal is filed seeking enhancement of sentence imposed on the respondents accused. Though the trial court has held that the offence under Sections 323 and 354 of IPC are proved by the prosecution as against the respondents -accused, while imposing punishment, the trial court has imposed penalty of Rs.10,000/ - on each of the accused and in default of payment, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for each of the offences. The nature of the offence under Section 354 of IPC is a serious offence committed against the woman and the sentence imposed by the trial court is inadequate. The trial court ought to have imposed imprisonment of sentence and while imposing penalty, it has not properly considered the seriousness of the matter. It is his submission that the appeal be allowed by enhancing the sentence of imprisonment and the fine imposed by the trial court.

(3.) PER contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents -accused, during the course of arguments, submitted that respondent Nos.1 to 4 were convicted by the trial court. However, respondent Nos.1 to 3 preferred an appeal in Criminal Appeal No.506/2008 before this Court challenging the order passed by trial court against them. The learned counsel submitted that after considering merits of the case, ultimately, this Court has dismissed the said appeal by its judgment dated 5.12.2013 and upheld the conviction order passed by the trial court. At the same time, imposition of sentence passed by the trial court was also considered by this Court and opined that the imposition of sentence does not call for interference. Regarding imposition of penalty aspect also, this Court has observed that the imposition of penalty is proper and it may not be proper for this Court to again consider the said fact in the present appeal preferred by the State seeking enhancement of sentence imposed on the respondents -accused. He has also produced the copy of the judgment passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No.508/2006 and accordingly, sought to dismiss the appeal.