MINGUR DORJEE TAMANG, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, S/O SHRI PRATAP SINGH TAMANG, R/O 6TH MILE, BELOW ENTEL MOTORS, P.O. & P.S. RANIPOOL, EAST SIKKIM Vs. STATE OF SIKKIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal has been filed assailing the Judgment and Order on Sentence of the Court of the Learned Sessions Judge, Special Division - II, East Sikkim, at Gangtok, both dated 19-12-2015, in Sessions Trial Case No. 14 of 2013, convicting the Appellant under Sec. 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short the "IPC ") and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000.00 (Rupees twenty five thousand) only, with a default stipulation.

(2.) Although the appeal assailed the above, however, when the verbal arguments were advanced by Learned Counsel for the Appellant, he urged that he only sought to assail the sentence imposed by the Learned Trial Court and had no quarrel with the decision on merits. According to him, the convict is a young unmarried man about 29 years and has no criminal antecedents. That, the offence committed by the Appellant was his first and done on the spur of the moment in a fit of rage. That, if he is incarcerated in jail, his future would be completely ruined, as he would be languishing therein with hardened criminals, making it difficult for him to rehabilitate in society due to the stigma attached to such persons and also ruining his prospects for marriage. It was also prayed that this Court may extend a reformative approach towards the convict instead of incarcerating him. It is thus prayed that the sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment imposed on the Appellant be set off against the period of imprisonment already undergone by him.

(3.) On the other hand, the arguments of Learned Additional Public Prosecutor were that, the conviction handed out by the Learned Trial Court, warrants no interference inasmuch as the Charge was initially framed under Sec. 307 of the Penal Code and thereafter, the Learned Trial Court on analysing the evidence on record, came to a finding that the offence committed instead amounted to one under Sec. 326 of the IPC. Thus, the imprisonment is commensurate with the offence and the sentence imposed ought not to be disturbed.