JAGDISH SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has challenged the impugned sentence on the ground only confined to its inadequacy in this revision petition, u/sec. 397 read with Section 401 Cr. P. C. praying therein for awarding deterrent sentence to the respondent (accused) Sangram Singh, who was convicted u/ss. 457, 458, 323 & 324 IPC but sentenced to undergo four months' simple imprisonment under each count and was imposed with fine of Rs. 200/- each u/sec. 457 & 458 IPC, by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bandikui (District Dausa) under Judgment dated 4. 7. 96 in Criminal Case No. 215/96 arising out of FIR No. 173/95 lodged on 8. 5. 1995 at Police Station Bandikui by complainant (petitioner) herein. THE accused-respondent Sangram Singh who at the time of incident was duly armed with axe is alleged to have intruded into complainant's house at about 1 O'clock in the midnight thereof, whereupon his mother and sister who were sleeping in the chowk got awaken, and respondent Sangram Singh inflicted axe blows upon them.

(2.) AFTER usual investigation the police submitted challan and the respondent was charged for offence punishable u/sec. 457, 458, 323 & 324 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. However, when the prosecution examined Babu Singh as PW, who was also not cross examined by the accused, then the respondent submitted an application and pleaded guilty therein, whereupon the prosecution evidence was closed. Accordingly the respondent was examined u/sec. 313 Cr. P. C. during which he pleaded his guilt by accepting the prosecution case.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY the State has not preferred any appeal for enhancement of the impugned sentence, by invoking Sec. 377, Cr. P. C. Since inadequacy of impugned sentence is challenged u/sec. 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr. P. C. , first of all I would like to have a brief resume as to the scope of revisional powers of this Court. Section 397 Cr. P. C. confers upon the High Court by calling for record to exercise powers of revision for satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any sentence. Sec. 401 Cr. P. C. does also postulate High Court's powers of revision. According to its sub section (1), "if otherwise comes to its knowledge",the High Court in its discretion can also exercise any of the powers conferred on a Court of Appeal by Sections 386, 389, 390 & 391 Cr. P. C. . As per sub section (4) of Sec. 401 Cr. P. C. where an appeal lies under Cr. P. C. and no appeal is brought, no proceeding by way of revision shall be entertained at the instance of the party who could have appealed. Moreover, according to sub sec. (3) of Sec. 401 Cr. P. C. , nothing in Sec. 401 shall be deemed to authorise a High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction meaning thereby that sub sec. (3) restricts the scope of its revisional powers as to conversion of findings acquittal into conviction. This evidently means that the revisional powers are to be exercised very sparingly and that too in exceptional case only.