Babu @ Sridhar Babu Reddy vs State of Karnataka

V. Jagannathan

Learned HCGP is directed to take notice for the respondent-State.

Though the matte is Bated for hearing on I.A., with the consent of both sides and in the light of the prayer new sought, the petition is disposed of finally.

The petitioners who are accused Nos.2 & 3 in the trial Court and they along with A1 were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 457 & 380 of IPC. The lower appellate Court confirmed the trail Court''s wordings by dismissing the petitioners'' appeal.

The case against the accused persons in short is that, they entered Sri. Veerabhadreshwara Swamy temple at Bikkanahosahalli on 16.05.2001 by breaking open the door of the temple and after entering the temple, they committed theft of speaker sets and brass lamps. Following the complaint lodged by PW-1 Ranga Reddy, a case was registered and ultimately, all the accused were put on trial and learned trial Judge accepted the evidence on record and held that the prosecution has brought home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

Trial Court convicted each one of the accused to undergo 3 years S.I. and to pay Rs. 1,000/- fine in respect of an offence u/s 457 of IPC and 1 year imprisonment and Rs. 1,000/- fine in respect of an offence u/s 380 of IPC with default sentence. The lower appellate Court confirmed the trial Court''s judgment in all respects.

At the outset, learned Counsel for the petitioners who are A2 & A3 submitted that the petitioners are not questioning their conviction but they only want the sentence to be modified. The reason for seeking modification according to learned Counsel for the petitioners is that, A2 who as the 1st petitioner herein was in custody for 1 year 7 months and A3 who is the 2nd petitioner herein was in custody for 11 months 23 days and that Court taking note of the aforesaid period could have apply the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act (''P.O.'' Act for short) in the light of Section 3 of the said Act. It is also submitted that the incident took place about 10 years back and the petitioners have not been involved in any of the offences of such nature and they are agriculturists having permanent residence, Learned Counsel also referred to the order passed by this Court in Crl.R.P. No. 234/05 and sought for extending the benefit of P.O.Act or in the alternatives in adjust the sentence imposed by the trial Court to the period already undergone by the petitioners.

On the other hand, learned HCGP for the respondent-State submitted that no modification is called for in regard to the sentence considering the fact that the conviction is under Sections 457 & 380 of IPC. If however, the Court is inclined to consider the request of the petitioners'' Counsel for modification, then the fine amount be increased.

Having thus heard the submissions put forward by learned Counsel for the parties, as the only relief sought is with regard to modification of the sentence, taking note of the fact that the value of the theft articles has been put at Rs. 2,500/- as could be seen from the judgment of the trial Court, and incident having taken place about 10 years hack and Section 3 of the P.O. Act also give the Court discretion to extend the benefit of the said Act in respect of an offence u/s 380 of IPC, though not in respect of Section 457 of IPC, taking note of all these factors into account, the sentence imposed by the trial Court can be restricted to the period already undergone in custody by the petitioners but the fine amount requires to be modified.

Hence, I pass the following order:-

(i) Conviction of the petitioners by the courts below is sustained.

(ii) As far as the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the trial Court in respect of each of the two offences is concerned, the period already undergone by the respective petitioners, which have been mentioned at page No. 11 in the judgment of the trial Court, can be set off against the sentence imposed by the trial Court.

(iii) As for as the fine in concerned, in respect of each of the two offences in regard to which the petitioners have been convicted, they shall have to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- each instead of Rs. 1,000/- imposed by the trial Court and in default of payment of the said fine amount, each of the petitioners shall undergo default sentence of 3 months.

(iv) The fine amount shall be deposited by the petitioners within four weeks before the trial Court from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Revision petition is allowed in part to the extent of sentence being modified as mentioned above.