SULAIMAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Criminal Appeal first above referred is preferred under the Proviso to Sec. 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. A preliminary issue as regards the maintainability of the said appeal is raised by the learned Public Prosecutor, Sri.V.S.Sreejith, pointing out that the Proviso to Sec. 372 does not envisage an appeal against an Order imposing inadequate sentence. The proviso contemplates an appeal against an order,

(2.) Per contra, the appellant contended that the subject appeal is well-nigh maintainable, since the Proviso to Sec. 372 Cr.P.C. contemplates an appeal against an Order imposing inadequate compensation, which expression takes within its sweep, an order imposing inadequate sentence as well. According to the learned counsel, the scope of an appeal, specifically engrafted in the Code by virtue of an amendment introduced by Act 5 of 2009, should not be restricted to cases where the punishment is for a lesser offence, more so when the 'Notes on Clauses' to the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Bill, 2006 stipulates, vide Clause 38, that the amendment to Sec. 372 gives the victim the right to prefer an appeal against any adverse order passed by the trial court.

(3.) The instant appeal preferred by the appellant/victim is directed against the judgment of the Special Court for Trial of Offences Against Children, Manjeri, dtd. 20/07/2017 in S.C.No.324/2010, as per which, the accused persons/respondents were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and a fine of Rs.3,000.00 for the offence under Sec. 307, read with Sec. 149; for six months for offence under Sec. 143; for one year for offence under Sec. 147; two years for offence under Sec. 148; six months for offence under Sec. 341, read with Sec. 149; one year for offence under Sec. 329, read with Sec. 149; two years for offence under Sec. 329, read with Sec. 149; three years and a fine of Rs.3,000.00, for offence under Sec. 326, read with Sec. 149 of the Indian Penal Code. According to the appellant/victim, the punishment imposed is grossly inadequate, having regard to the gravity of the offences. Therefore, the appellant seeks enhancement of punishment in the present appeal.