STATE Vs. BANAILA DOME

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN Sessions Trial No. 160 of 1961, held in the Court of the 3rd Assistant Sessions Judge, Arrah, Banaila Dome was put on trial on a charge under Sections 395 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Assistant Sessions fudge by his judgement and order, dated the 20th December 1961, convicted Banaila Dome for the offence under S. S95 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. The learned trial Judge held that the charge under Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code failed, and, in the result, he acquitted Banaila Dome of that charge.

(2.) BY the order of this Court, dated the 14th of February 1962, notice was issued to Banaila Dome, the opposite -party, to show cause why his sentence should not be enhanced if his conviction is upheld. Banaila Doma has not sent any show cause petition from the jail nor has he appeared in this Court through any lawyer. Learned counsel appearing for the State took us through the judgement of the trial Court.

(3.) WE have looked into the evidence ourselves and we are satisfied that Banaila Doma was rightly convicted for the offence under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. It, however, appears to us that the sentence of five years' rigorous imprisonment for an offence of dacoity is inadequate. In our opinion, on the facts of the case the proper sentence ought to be eight years' rigorous imprisonment. Accordingly, we confirm the order of conviction passed against Banaila Dome under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code, but enhance the sentence from five years' rigorous imprisonment to sight years' rigorous imprisonment.