ARVINDBHAI DHANABHAI PARMAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants-orig.accused have been convicted and sentenced by the learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Patan in Sessions Case No. 28 of 2007 for the offences punishable under Sections 395 and 435 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) whereby they have been ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment of five years for the offence punishable under Section 395 of IPC and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment of three months and further ordered to suffer rigorous imprisonment of three years and fine of Rs.1000/- for the offence punishable under Section 435 of IPC, in default, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment of one month and further ordered that all the sentences to run concurrently.

(2.) THE prosecution case, in brief, leading to filing of the present appeal is that, the complainant is residing with her family consisting of two sons and her husband at Mayanagar, Siddhpur District. It is alleged that on the date of the incident, i.e. on 11.6.2005 at about 2.00 p.m., the appellant along with other co-accused had gathered and broke open the lock of the complainant, entered into the house and caused damage to household articles, set fire on them, and also taken away the golden and silver articles as well as copper and bronze vessels etc. and sold out as a result of which, the complainant incurred a loss of Rs.52,020/-. It is also alleged that the daughter of one Dalpatbhai Bhagwanbhai also went away with the appellant, son of the complainant and therefore, the appellant has committed the offences punishable under Sections 395 and 435 of Indian Penal Code. After investigation, the appellants were arrested and the charge sheet was filed against the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 395 and 435 of Indian Penal Code, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Siddhpur which was numbered as Criminal Case No. 706 of 2005. As the case was sessions triable, the learned Judicial Magistrate committed the same to the Court of Sessions, where it was numbered as Sessions Case No. 28 of 2007.

(3.) LEARNED advocate for the appellants has not pressed this appeal on merits, but on the point of sentence. However, learned APP has strongly opposed to this and submitted that the appellants-accused have committed a heinous crime and no interference of this Court is necessitated.