SAMSON JULIAS CRASTO Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS common judgment and order disposes off the above two appeals preferred against the judgment and Order dated 26.7.2001 convicting the appellant in Appeal no. 45/2001 of the offence punishable under Section 307 of I.P.C and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment of six months and pay fine of Rs.20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand only), in default of payment of fine the appellant was to undergo simple imprisonment of six months. On recovery of the fine, the same was directed to be paid to PW12 the victim of assault by the appellant. The Appeal no. 45/2001 challenges the order of conviction and sentence. Appeal No. 52/2001 is by the State seeking enhancement of the sentence awarded to the accused. The appellant in the Appeal no. 45/2001 will be hereinafter referred to as the appellant and the State as the respondent.

(2.) IN short, the prosecution case is that on 21.11.1998 at about 7.30 hours the appellant attempted to commit murder of PW12 aged about 22 years by striking her with a sharp weapon on vital parts of her body while she was praying in prayer room out side the main church at Assolna. The motive for the offence was stated to be that the appellant and PW12 were in love for about 8 years and had undergone civil marriage. But subsequently PW12 rejected the appellant and refused to undergo religious ceremony of marriage with him. There were 9 incise wound upon the different parts of the body of PW12 and one abrasion. The description of the injuries read as follows:-

(3.) THE appellant has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months and pay fine of Rs.20,000/-( Rupees twenty thousand only). Mr. Ferreira, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the sentence awarded is actually appropriate for the offence punishable under Section 324 I.P.C., and was wholly disproportionate to the offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C. THErefore, there is no need to alter the sentence. Mr. Lotlikar, on the other hand submits that the Court should take into consideration the fact of passage of 12 years since the incident. During this period the life has moved on. THE appellant has a regular employment. He is a seaman. He has been attending his duties on the ship regularly. Whenever he had to sail out of India, he has been regularly seeking permission of this Court. Further he is now happily married and has a family to look after. In the circumstance the Court should be considered it and not disturb his family as award of substantial punishment would throw his whole life into termite. THEre would be serious prospect to he loosing a job.