STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. NITIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present Appeal has been preferred by the State for enhancement of sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge in Sessions Cases No. 264 of 2007 whereby the learned Sessions Judge had imposed sentence upon the respondent -accused for the offence under Sections 307, 342, 452, 323, 324 read with Section 34 of I.P. Code for 7 years R.I. with fine of Rs. 2,000/ - and further 3 months S.I. for default in payment of fine and had imposed sentence of 5 years R.I. with fine of Rs. 2,000/ - and further 2 months S.I. in default of payment of fine for the offence under Section 395 of I.P. Code. The short facts of the case are that the complaint was filed by Pritiben (P.W. 1) (Ex. 10) with Navrangpura Police Station, stating that on 11.2.2007 at about 2.00 O'clock in the night when she was with her husband in their Hardik Bungalow, her former employee working as Security Man, with the help of other 4 persons assaulted with deadly weapon for committing crime of dacoity and when it was resisted, her husband and her son were assaulted with the knife and multiple serious injuries were caused and the cash amount and other ornamentsetc., worth Rs. 14,25,000/ - were robbed. The complaint was investigated by the police and the charge was framed. The prosecution, in order to prove the guilt, had examined 15 witnesses and has produced 18 documents, the details of which are recorded by the learned Sessions Judge at Para -4 of the Judgment. The learned Sessions Judge thereafter recorded the statement of the accused wherein the accused denied the evidence against him and in the further statement the accused has stated that since the complainant Pritiben had illicit relation with the accused and when her husband had seen him, he was beaten and removed from service and he has been wrongly involved in the offence. The learned Sessions Judge thereafter heard both the side, the prosecution as well as defence, and found the appellant original accused guilty for the offence under Sections 307, 342, 452, 323, 324, 395 read with Section 34 of I.P. Code and imposed sentence upon the respondent - accused for the offence under Sections 307, 342, 452, 323, 324, read with Section 34 of I.P. Code for 7 years R.I. with fine of Rs. 2,000/ - and further 3 months S.I. for default in payment of fine and had imposed sentence of 5 years R.I. with fine of Rs. 2,000/ - and further 2 months S.I. in default of payment of fine for the offence under Section 395 of I.P. Code. The learned Sessions Judge further directed the sentence to run concurrently. It is under these circumstances the State has preferred present Appeal for enhancement of sentence. It may be recorded that the accused -respondent had preferred Appeal against the Judgment and order of conviction being Criminal Appeal No. 607 of 2011 which came to be disposed of vide order dated 5.7.2013 since the accused had already undergone sentence period.

(2.) AT the out set we may record that as the conviction for the offence under Sections 307, 342, 452, 323, 324, read with Section 34 of I.P. Code is not interfered with by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 607 of 2011 disposed of vide order dated 5.2.2013, we are not required to examine the aspect of conviction made by the learned Sessions Judge. The only question to be considered in the present appeal is for appropriate sentence whether has been rightly imposed by the learned Sessions Judge or not.

(3.) IF we consider the matter only on the ground of non -recording of the reasons or imposition of appropriate sentence, we may say that we are not satisfied with the method and manner of recording of reasons and it can rather be said as no specific reasons recorded. But thereby it cannot be said that such would call for enhancement of sentence and for maximum sentence provided by I.P. Code. Section 307 of I.P. Code provides for sentence which may be either for the imprisonment of life or imprisonment which may extend to 10 years. But considering the facts and circumstances it appears that as it has transpired from the evidence that when the offence under Section 307 of LP. Code was committed a hurt is also caused the gravity of the offence can be said as more in comparison to simpliciter an attempt to commit murder, but at the same time the nature and the gravity of the injury may be required to be considered. The medical evidence shows that there were in all five injuries found on the body of Pradip Shah P.W. No. 12, husband of the complainant. Out of those injuries, injury Nos. 3 and 4 could be said as serious.