Criminal appeal against conviction and sentence for punishable attempt under Section 307 IPC. Court reduced substantive sentence to time served and set appellant at liberty while dismissing appeal on other aspects.
Substantive sentence reduced to period already undergone; appellant set at liberty forthwith.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1/4 (201)APEAL-428-09
Tilak
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.428 of 2009
Jitendra Madhukar Ghunte Age: 23, Occ:Education, R/o Plot No.9-A, Shahu Mill Colony, Kolhapur (At present in Dist.Jail Kolhapur ... Appellant
Versus State of Maharashtra Through P.I. Rajarampuri P.Stn. Kolhapur. ... Respondent
Mr.Sandesh Shukla i/b M/s.Paras Kuhad & Associates for the appellant.
Mrs.R.V.Newton, APP for the State.
CORAM : ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J.
DATED : JUNE 17, 2013
ORAL JUDGMENT:-
1 This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 24 February 2009, delivered by the Sessions Judge, Kolhapur, convicting the appellant who was an accused in Sessions case No.95 of 2007 before the learned Sessions Judge, of an offence punishable under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentencing him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for five years, and pay a fine of
2/4 (201)APEAL-428-09
Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer further Rigorous Imprisonment for three months.
2 I have heard Mr.Sandesh Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant. I have heard Mrs.R.V.Newton, learned APP for the State.
3 With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the evidence adduced during the trial.
4 In the course of arguments, it was conceded that the correctness of the conviction, as recorded by the Trial Court, was not being seriously disputed. As such, I do not wish to discuss the evidence adduced during the trial in details. It is sufficient to state that the evidence of the First Informant Amit Ghunte (PW 6), the evidence of the victim Anil Ghunte (PW 12), the evidence of Dr. Virendrasingh Pawar (PW 14) and the evidence of the Investigating Officer Anandrao Khobre (PW 15) is the crucial evidence in the case. The learned Sessions Judge had doubts about the truth of the version of the First Informant Amit Ghunte, but he accepted the evidence of the victim Anil Ghunte, as reliable. On going through the evidence of the said witness, the appreciation thereof, as done by the learned Sessions Judge appears to be proper. His evidence is corroborated by the evidence of Dr. Anandrao Pawar (PW 15). Thus, appreciation of evidence as done by the learned Sessions Judge, appears to be proper and legal.
3/4 (201)APEAL-428-09
5 Considering the nature of injury sustained by the victim that the offence committed by the appellant would be one punishable under section 307 of the IPC, also appears to be the correct conclusion.
6 There is only one point which is canvassed by the learned counsel for the applicant. He submitted that the appellant was of 19 years at the time of the commission of the offence. This seems to be correct from the observations made in paragraph no.64 of the impugned judgment. It is submitted that he was on bail during trial. He was taken in custody on the pronouncement of judgment i.e. on 24 February 2009. It is submitted that the appellant has already undergone an actual sentence of 4 years, 5 months and about 21 days. It is submitted that including remission, the sentence served by the appellant would be certainly more than that.
7 Under the circumstances, it is prayed that the substantive sentence awarded by the Trial Court, be reduced to the period already undergone.
8 After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned APP, and considering the circumstances in which the offence was committed, the age of the appellant at the material time and all other relevant aspects of the matter, I think it fit to reduce the substantive sentence awarded to the applicant to the period already undergone.
4/4 (201)APEAL-428-09
9 In the result, the Appeal is disposed of as follows:-
The substantive sentence imposed upon the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone. As such, the appellant be set at liberty forthwith.
The appeal is dismissed, subject to the aforesaid reduction in the sentence.
( ABHAY M.THIPSAY,J )
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant's substantive sentence awarded by the Trial Court should be reduced to the period already undergone.
Whether the appellant should be set at liberty upon the reduction of sentence.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Jitendra Madhukar Ghunte
State of Maharashtra
ABHAY M. THIPSAY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
