RAVI MODEKNAWAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri Arun Bras De Sa, learned Counsel on behalf of the applicant/accused and Ms. Winnie Coutinho, learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent.

(2.) THIS revision is argued only on the point of sentence. The Applicant/accused has been convicted under Sections 279, 337 and 338 I. P. C. and has been ordered to undergo S. I. for a period of two months under Section 279 I. P. C. , one month under Section 337 I. P. C. , and three months under Section 338 I. P. C. with a rider that the said periods will run concurrently. Compensation has been ordered to be paid to the injured, namely, PW2 and PW4 in the sum of Rs. 2000/-for injuries suffered by them, and in default, the Appellant/accused has been ordered to undergo S. I. for a period of two months.

(3.) SHRI Arun Bras De Sa, learned Counsel on behalf of the Appellant/accused has submitted that all the offences for which the accused has been convicted are punishable either with imprisonment or with fine. He further submits that the Appellant/accused has already undergone sentence of thirteen days from 12th December to 24th December, 2008, and considering the nature of offences committed by the Appellant/accused the said period of imprisonment be considered as substantive sentence imposed upon the accused. Shri Bras De Sa, learned Counsel has also placed reliance on a Judgment of this Court in the case of State v. Antonio Soares (2007 ALL MR (Cri) 990) wherein the sentence imposed was one day S. I. till rising of the Court under Sections 279 and 338 I. P. C. , ordered to run concurrently. Shri Bras De Sa has further submitted that the Appellant/accused is inclined to compensate the said injured in the sum of Rs. 2000/-each ordered to be paid by the learned trial Court. This submission is not opposed to by the learned Public Prosecutor.