HARIBHAI MANGALBHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. to 6. xxx xxx xxx

(2.) Since no contentions are raised on merits of the appeal, the matter is now required to be decided with reference to limited issued of quantum of punishment. Though I have carefully gone through the evidence recorded of each of 10 witnesses and the documents produced. On dispassionate scrutiny and reappreciation of the evidence tendered by the prosecution, it is clear that the finding of the ld. Trial Judge about guilt of the appellant -accused cannot be interfered with in this appeal. Conviction of the appellant under Section 304 Part -II instead of under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and acquittal of the appellant for the charge under Section 498 -A of the Indian Penal Code, is not the subject -matter of any acquittal appeal filed by the State Government. In these circumstances, even otherwise, no interference in the findings and conclusion of the ld. Trial Judge is required.

(3.) At the same time, contention of interference in the quantum of punishment is certainly required to be taken into consideration. Record reveals that the appellant belongs to labour class and he is very poor. He has one son who was aged 4 years at the time of incident. His son may be of aged about 10 to 11 years today. As being father, is required to take care of his son in absence of mother of the child. Above all, the jail remarks produced on record denoted that after conviction, the appellant is served with the punishment for 3 years, 5 months and 2 days. He has been given set -off of 2 years, 1 month and 17 days for which period he was undertrial prisoner. The appellant has earned remission of 11 months and 16 days. So, today, out of substantive sentence of 7 years as awarded by the ld. Trial Judge, the appellant has undergone almost imprisonment of 6 years, 6 months and some days. There is no appeal from the State Government for enhancement of the sentence. In this circumstances, the contention raised on behalf of the appellant for reduction of quantum of sentence is required to be accepted because early release of the appellant from the jail may provide him an opportunity to reform himself and to live as law abiding citizen. The purpose of punishment deterrent as well as reformative, both will be served if the appellant is released after serving of punishment to the extent of 6 years, 6 months and some days when he has sentenced to undergo in all 7 years imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/ -, in default, to undergo imprisonment of three months.