AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
8 paragraphs · 180 wordsLakshmana Rao, J.—The appellant has been convicted under Sections 397 and 324, Penal Code and Section 23, Clause (1)(b), Criminal
Tribes Act and sentenced to transportation for life. The appellant pleaded guilty to the charges and there is no ground for interference with the
conviction. But his last conviction was on 12th March 1928 when he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years and the present
offence was committed on 16th November 1939. There was thus an interval of about five years between his coming out of prison after serving his
last sentence and the commission of the offence and as held in In re Karuppa Thevan (1929) Mad 841 this is a special reason to the contrary
within the meaning of Section 28 (1) (b), Criminal Tribes Act, for awarding a lesser sentence than transportation for life. This was overlooked by
the Sessions Judge and having regard to all the circumstances a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for seven years would suffice. The sentence is
therefore reduced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years and otherwise the appeal is dismissed.