THE STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. DALWADI JASHMAT RANCHHOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these appeals are preferred by the State against the judgment and order dated 30.6.2004/1.7.2004 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Surendranagar in Sessions Case No. 65 of 2003, whereby the respondent -original accused was convicted for the offences punishable under Ss. 354 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, "IPC") and sentence of till rising of the Court was imposed. The accused was also directed to pay Rs. 7,000/ - towards compensation to the victim. The accused was acquitted from the charges of offence punishable under Sec. 376 and 506(2) of IPC. Being aggrieved by imposition of sentence, the State has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 1367 of 2004 under Sec. 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for enhancement of sentence, while Criminal Appeal No. 1369 of 2004 is preferred against acquittal of the accused from the charges of offence under Ss. 376 and 506(2) of IPC.

(2.) The facts in brief giving rise to the filing of present appeal are as under: -

(3.) Learned APP, Ms. C.M. Shah appearing for the appellant -State has taken us through the oral as well as documentary evidence and contended that though the trial Court found that accused guilty for the offences punishable under Ss. 452 and 354 of IPC, the trial Court has committed an error in imposing lesser sentence upon the accused inspite of voluminous evidence against him. She submitted that the prosecution has examined six witnesses in support of its case. The prosecution has also produced four documentary evidences on the record of the case. However, without appreciating those documentary as well as oral evidence available on the record of the case in their proper perspective, learned Judge has erred in imposing lesser punishment. She also submitted that though the accused is convicted by the trial Court for an offence punishable under Sec. 452 and 354 of IPC, the trial Court has committed an error in imposing lesser punishment. She also submitted that the offence is serious in nature and no leniency should have been showed towards the accused. She submitted that as per Sec. 452 of IPC maximum sentence of seven years is provided, however, the trial Court has imposed punishment only till rising of the Court. She also submitted that the accused is also found guilty for the offence punishable under Sec. 354 of IPC and the punishment for this offence is imprisonment for two years. She, therefore, submitted that the learned trial Judge has rightly convicted the accused, however, lesser sentence is imposed upon the accused. She further submitted that the learned Judge has also erred in not properly appreciating the gravity of the offence committed by the accused while imposing the sentence and thereby committed grave error by imposing lesser punishment. She also submitted that the learned Judge ought to have imposed maximum sentence on the present accused as provided under Ss. 354 and 452 of IPC. Hence, impugned judgment and order passed by learned Judge in imposing the lesser sentence deserves to be modified by this Hon'ble Court and the sentence imposed to the accused deserves to be enhanced to maximum sentence as provided under the aforesaid sections. She also submitted that the learned Judge has failed to appreciate the seriousness of the offence committed by the accused while imposing the sentence. The learned Judge also failed to appreciate that there is no sufficient and reasonable cause for the learned Judge to impose lesser punishment. She also submitted that the learned Judge failed to appreciate that there is no any mitigating circumstance to impose less punishment and it is very clear from the facts and circumstances of the case and the material available on record of the case that there are aggravating circumstances in which Hon'ble Judge ought to have imposed the maximum sentence as provided under the law. She, therefore, prays that Criminal Appeal No. 1367 of 2004 may be allowed by enhancing the sentence imposed upon the accused.