SUNIL TUKARAM Vs. STATE OF GUAJRAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the original accused challenging the judgement and order dated 9.1.1996 rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Valsad in Special Atrocity Sessions Case No.46/94. The appellant-Sunil Tukaram was charged with commission of offences punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act and Section 3(1) of the Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

(2.) It was the case of the prosecution that on 24.7.1994, the complainant Geetaben Chotubhai along with her friends residing in the same locality including one Kalpanaben Ravjibhai were playing in the garden called Tata garden in Navsari at about 5:30 in the evening. At that time between 6:00 and 6:30 in the evening, the appellant came there and was starring at them. It appears that the appellant had love affair with Kalpanaben. When her mother came to know about the same, she instructed her daughter not to talk to the appellant. He approached Kalpanaben and asked her why she is not talking to her and immediately thereafter, took out a knife from his pocket and gave one blow to her on the right hand side of her upper body, another blow was given on the left side and also on her elbow, upon which Kalpanaben fell down. She was thereupon taken to hospital nearby in a Rickshaw. For the said alleged incident, the complaint came to be lodged by Geetaben. Upon police investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant. He was acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code as well as 3(11) of the Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Learned Judge however, found that he had committed offences punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and also pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in case of default of payment of fine, he is directed to undergo further imprisonment of four months. It is this judgement which the appellant has challenged in the present appeal.

(3.) At the outset, it may be noted that learned advocate for the appellant mainly confined his submissions to the quantum of punishment. He drew my attention to the averments made in the appeal memo in paragraph-30, that at the time of filing of the appeal, the appellant had already undergone imprisonment in excess of 17 months. He submitted that at the relevant time, the appellant was a young man aged 23 years. He had no criminal antecedence. The alleged incident took place even as per the prosecution on account of being spurned in love affair. He therefore, submitted that after more than 11 years, it would not be appropriate to direct the appellant to serve out rest of the sentence, since he was released on temporary bail by this Court by order dated 5.2.1996.