SHYAMAPADA PAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition for revision of an order of an appellate Court upholding a conviction of the petitioner by a trial Court for dacoity and confirming the sentence of three years' rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) When the matter came before a Benck of this Court of which I was a member we were of opinion that if the petitioner was guilty a sentence of three years' rigorous imprisonment was far too lenient. The dacoity alleged, was accompanied by considerable force and we therefore issued notice to enhance the sentence.

(3.) We have now heard argument on behalf of the petitioner and we are satisfied that the petitioner was wrongly convicted in this case and it is therefore unnecessary to consider the Rule for enhancement. I should merely like to observe that if the present petitioner had been found guilty the minimum sentence which could be imposed upon him for the offence alleged would in my view be five years.