SUNIL Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) EXCEPTION is taken to the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur in Sessions Case No. 130 of 2012 Dt. 29 -4 -2014 by which the appellant is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304 -I of the Indian Penal Code and directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/ - and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months.

(2.) BHARAT Ninaji Thakare (P.W. -6) was attached to police station, Rajura. On 29/7/2012 he was present in the police station. That day Sangeeta Durge (P.W. -1) came to police station and lodged her oral report. The report was reduced into writing. It is at Exh.12. The report was disclosing commission of cognizable offence. Therefore, a crime was registered by Bharat Thakare vide Crime No. 126 of 2012 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. against the appellant. Printed F.I.R. is at Exh.13.

(3.) ACCORDING to learned Counsel Shri Mandpe, the Court below has committed mistake in convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 304 -I of I.P.C. According to him, the learned Judge of the trial Court ought to have convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 304 -II of I.P.C. Thus, according to him, on the touchstone of the prosecution evidence, the appellant was entitled to conviction for lessor offence and lessor punishment. The learned Counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Monica @ Mona D'souza Vs. State of Goa, reported in : 2009 (4) Mh.L.J. (Cri) 193. Alternatively, he submitted that even if this Court is of the view that the appellant is required to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304 -I of I.P.C., the quantum of sentence can be reduced by increasing the fine amount.