SANJAY TUKARAM WANKHEDE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri Patil, learned Counsel for the applicant, and Shri Fulzele, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent.

(2.) THE present criminal revision application is preferred by the applicant/accused only in respect of order of sentence awarded by the Sessions Judge, Buldhana by judgment dated 20-1-1996 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 42 of 1994. The applicant was prosecuted and convicted for the offences punishable under sections 304-A and 337 of Indian Penal Code by the trial Court. For the offence punishable under section 304-A of Indian Penal Code, the applicant was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of rupees one thousand, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one more month and for the offence punishable under section 337 of Indian Penal Code, the applicant was sentenced to suffer imprisonment till rising of the Court and pay fine of rupees five hundred, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one more month. The applicant being aggrieved by the said judgment and order dated 3-10-1994 passed by the trial Court, preferred Criminal Appeal No. 42 of 1994 before Sessions Judge, Buldhana. The said appeal was also preferred only on the point of sentence and applicant did not challenge conviction awarded by the trial Court in respect of offences punishable under the above referred sections of Indian Penal Code.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the applicant contended that the applicant is a young boy of 24 years and at the relevant time he was working as a Driver. The applicant is the only earning member in his family and offence in question is the first offence committed by the applicant/accused. The learned Counsel further contended that accused is not involved in any other criminal offence and has a clean record. It is also contended that the accused has already suffered imprisonment for one month and four days. The learned Counsel, therefore, submitted that leniency may be shown to the applicant/accused and sentence may be reduced to sentence already undergone. In support of his contentions, the learned Counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in (Nand Ballabh Pant v. State (Union Territory of Delhi)) A. I. R. 1977 S. C. 892.