Partly allowed

Deelipmanohar Kulthe Alias Sonar v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC8 Mar 2011REVN/93/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision against conviction for voluntarily causing hurt under Section 325 IPC, the High Court modified the sentence by retaining conviction but reducing imprisonment to be served till the rising of the court, imposing a fine of Rs. 20,000 with alternative rigorous imprisonment of four months for default, and directing payment of compensation.

What did the court decide?

Conviction maintained; sentence modified to imprisonment till rising of court; fine of Rs. 20,000; default imprisonment for four months; Rs. 15,000 compensation directed.

Deelipmanohar Kulthe Alias Sonar Vs the State of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

1 CRA-93-11.sxw

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

Mhi

¶4

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 93 OF 2011

¶5

Deeli Manohar Kulthe alias Sonar ... Applicant vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ... Respondents

¶6

Mr. V.V.Purwant,Advocate, for the applicant Mrs.V.R.Bhosale, APP, for the respondent - State.

¶7

CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J.

¶8

DATE : 8th March, 2011.

¶9

P.C.

¶10

Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned APP. Perused the impugned judgment.

¶11

The Revision Application is filed against the conviction and sentence

¶12

for the offence punishable under Section 325 of IPC in R.C.C.No.164 of 1995 by the learned J.M.F.C. Kalyan and he was sentenced to undergo R.I. for four months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer R.I. for one month.

¶13

The learned Counsel for the applicant contended that in view of lapse of 15 years after the incident and the circumstances in which the offence was committed, the sentence may be reasonably reduced. It appears that on 15.11.1994 at about 10.30 p.m. when the complainant Digambar Deshpande was

¶14

2 CRA-93-11.sxw

¶15

proceeding towards his house, the accused rushed towards him and took out his spectacle and twisted his left hand. Due to this, there was fracture of his left hand small finger. Therefore, offence under Section 325 was registered. After investigation, the accused was tried for the said offence and was convicted and sentenced. The incident occurred about 16 years before. That time the applicant was 35 years old and now he is aged 50 years plus. Taking into consideration the incident, in my opinion, now no purpose will be served by requiring the accused/applicant to go to jail. In my opinion, the purpose will be served if the fine amount is enhanced substantially.

¶16

The Revision Application is allowed to the extent of sentence only, while the conviction and sentence under Section 325 of IPC is maintained. The sentence awarded by the Courts below is hereby modified and the accused is sentenced to undergo imprisonment till the rising of th Court and to pay fine of Rs. 20,000/-. In default to pay fine, he shall undergo R.I. for four months. Fine amount be despited before the trial Court within two weeks. If the fine amount is deposited, an amount of Rs.15,000/- shall be paid as compensation to the complainant - Digambar Deshpande.

¶17

(J.H.BHATIA,J.)

Deelipmanohar Kulthe Alias Sonar v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deelipmanohar Kulthe Alias Sonar v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

J.K. Ice Vs Malgave Milk and Milk Products and Anr.

Dilip Gulabrai Badlani Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Munir Ahmed Mohdali Nisargi Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sudha Manubhai Kapadia and Anr. Vs Genius Printers Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

D. S. Girish Vs the State of Maharashtra

M/S. Wytewater Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S. Hikal Limited and Anr.