STATE OF H P Vs. PREM CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Manali pronounced an order of conviction upon the accused for his committing an offence punishable under Section 325 IPC. The learned Judicial Magistrate concerned also sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months besides sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-, in default whereof he stood sentenced to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The convict/accused standing aggrieved by the judgment recorded upon him by the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned whereupon he stood convicted for the offence for which he stood charged besides his standing aggrieved by the imposition of the afore-stated sentences upon him by the learned trial Court, he made a concert to assail them by preferring an appeal therefrom before the learned appellate Court. The learned appellate Court on standing seized with an appeal preferred therebefore by the accused/convict affirmed the apposite conviction pronounced upon him by the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned whereas it modified the sentence of imprisonment of six months imposed upon him by the learned trial Court to a sentence of his suffering imprisonment till the rising of the Court.

(2.) Imminently, the State of Himachal Pradesh did not under Section 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure prefer any appeal before the learned first appellate Court for seeking enhancement of the sentence of imprisonment of six months imposed by the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned upon the accused/convict in a term higher than the aforesaid term of imprisonment. However, the State of Himachal Pradesh, through the instant appeal, constituted herebefore under Section 377 of the Cr.P.C. has sought enhancement of the term of imprisonment imposed upon the accused/convict by the learned first appellate Court whereupon he stood directed to suffer imprisonment till the rising of the Court, on anvil of it being grossly disproportionate vis-à-vis the concurrent renditions of conviction pronounced upon him by both the learned Courts below wherewithin both the learned Courts below concluded qua his committing a heinous offence constituted under Section 325 IPC.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/accused has contended qua the instant appeal constituted herebefore under Section 377 Cr.P.C. being statutorily not maintainable herebefore significantly with the State of Himachal Pradesh on conviction of the accused by the learned trial Magistrate on his facing trial therebefore, in sequel whereto a sentence of imprisonment as occurs in its apposite verdict stood imposed upon him, omitting to therefrom institute an appeal under Section 377 Cr.P.C. before the learned first appellate Court whereas it thereat held the apposite statutory empowerment to make a concert therebefore for enhancing the sentence of imprisonment as stood pronounced by the learned trial Magistrate upon the accused/convict on the latter's facing trial before the learned trial Magistrate concerned, in a term higher than the one to which he stood sentenced to undergo, on anvil of the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the accused/convict by the learned trial Magistrate being grossly inadequate besides grossly disproportionate vis-à-vis the order of conviction recorded upon him by the trial Magistrate qua the charge he faced therebefore under Section 325 IPC.