STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. HIMABHAI DHULIYABHAI NINAMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Dahod (hereinafter referred to as "the learned trial Court") in Sessions Case No. 15/2013 in so far as imposing sentence of two years Rigorous Imprisonment only while convicting the original accused for the offence punishable under Sec. 395 of the Indian Penal Code, State has preferred the Appeal under Sec. 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for enhancement of sentence.

(2.) At the outset it is required to be noted that as such the learned trial Court has held the original accused guilty for the offence punishable under Sec. 395 of the Indian Penal Code. So far as the conviction of the original accused for the offence punishable under Sec. 395 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned the same has attained finality so far the original accused is concerned as the original accused has not challenged the judgment and order of conviction. It is also required to be noted at this stage that the original accused had already undergone two years imprisonment in view of the judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court for the offence punishable under Sec. 395 of the Indian Penal Code. Be that as it may. In the present Appeal the question, which is posed for consideration of this Court is, whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and while convicting the original accused for the offence punishable under Sec. 395 of the Indian Penal Code sentence imposed by the learned trial Court can be said to be just and adequate punishment commensurate with the gravity of the offence or not?

(3.) Shri L.B. Dabhi, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case and the manner in which the original accused alongwith other accused persons, who are absconding, have committed the loot of the goods/ornaments worth Rs. 1,75,000/ -, the learned trial Court has materially erred in imposing the sentence of two years Rigorous Imprisonment only. It is further submitted by Shri Dabhi, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State that while imposing the sentence of two years Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence punishable under Sec. 395 of the Indian Penal Code the learned trial Court has not exercised the discretion judiciously and as such has not applied the mind properly while imposing the sentence.