Santosh and Others vs The State of Karnataka

Budihal R.B., J.—Though, this matter is listed for admission, with the consent of both the sides, it is taken up for final disposal.

This is the petition filed by petitioners-Accused Nos. 2 and 4 under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the judgment and order of sentence dated 31.01.2014 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad in Crl. A. No. 20/2013 confirming and modifying the judgment and order dated 02.01.2013 passed by the III Addl. Civil Judge and CJM Dharwad in CC No. 13/2012 and requesting to acquit the petitioners/accused Nos. 2 and 4 from the other charges.

Brief facts of the case of the prosecution as per the complaint averments are that the PSI Vidyagiri Police Station, Dharwad has filed a charge sheet against the accused Nos. 1 to 4 for the offences punishable under Sections 454, 457 and 380 R/w. Section 34 of IPC making the allegations that in between 7.30 p.m. on 07.09.2011 and 10.30 a.m. on 08.09.2011, some persons gained entry into the house of the complainant and committed theft of jewels and ran away. While doing so, the said accused persons have committed lurking house trespass. Therefore, a complaint has been lodged. On the basis of which, a case has been registered against the petitioners herein who are accused Nos. 2 and 4 along with other accused persons for the alleged offences.

The Trial Court heard both the sides and perusing oral evidence of the parties adduced at PWs. 1 to 8 and the documentary evidence marked at Exs. P.1 to P. 34, ultimately convicted the petitioners/accused for the offences punishable under Section 457 and 380 read with 34 of the IPC and they were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three years for each offence with fine amount of Rs. 5,000/- each for each offence and in default to make payment of the fine amount, further they have to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for each offence.

The petitioners herein challenged the judgment and order of the conviction passed by the trial Court, by preferring an appeal before the 1st Appellate Court and the 1st Appellate Court after re-assessing the materials placed on record passed the judgment dated 31.01.2014 and the order of the conviction was upheld by the 1st Appellate Court and the sentence was modified as the simple imprisonment for 2 years instead of 3 years and the fine amount is also reduced to Rs. 3,000/- instead of Rs. 5,000/-.

Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of the 1st Appellate Court, the petitioners are before this Court.

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners-Accused Nos. 2 and 4 and also the learned HCGP for the respondent-State.

Learned counsel for the petitioners/accused Nos. 2 to 4 submitted that so far as merit of the case is concerned he fairly conceded that both the Courts below have taken all the aspects into consideration and but so far as quantum of sentence imposed by the Courts below is concerned, he submitted the petitioners are the coolies and they are leading their life by doing coolie work. He made the submission that during the course of trial they were released on bail, but after the judgment of the trial Court they were again taken to the custody. Hence, he made the submission that the petition may be allowed.

Per contra, learned HCGP made the submission that based on the materials produced in the case the trial Court as well as the 1st Appellate Court have taken all aspects into consideration and ultimately the punishment was imposed in the case. Learned HCGP made the submission that the sentence imposed is reasonable and proper. Hence there are no grounds made out in this revision petition to interfere into the quantum of sentence imposed by the 1st Appellate Court. Hence, the HCGP made the submission to dismiss the revision petition.

I have perused the averments made in the petition. I have also perused the judgment and order of the conviction passed by the trail Court, which is confirmed by the 1st Appellate Court. So far as conviction of the present petitioners are concerned, the materials clearly go to show that both the Courts below have taken into consideration all oral and documentary evidence and ultimately convicted and petitioners/accused No. 2 and 4 along with other two accused. The 1st Appellate Court also re-appreciated the entire materials and confirmed the judgment and order passed by the trial Court. Therefore, so far as conviction is concerned there are no grounds to interfere with the judgment and order passed by the Courts below. Hence, judgment and orders passed by the Courts below remain as it is.

So far as the sentence imposed by the Courts below is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioners/accused Nos. 2 and 4 submitted that the petitioners are coolies and leading their life by doing coolie work. Therefore, after assessing the materials placed on record, the family background of the accused persons, I am of the opinion to reduce the sentence to one year''s imprisonment for each offence, which is reasonable and it is proportionate. Accordingly, petition is allowed only to the extent of quantum of sentence and the petitioners/accused Nos. 2 and 4 are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year for each of the offence under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC and they have to pay the fine amount of Rs. 3,000/- each for each of the offence. In default of the payment, the petitioners shall undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months for each offence. The petitioners/accused Nos. 2 and 4 are entitled to the benefit of set of the custody period, which they have already undergone, as per Section 428 of the Cr.P.C.

With these observations, revision petition is disposed of.