AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.T. Thomas, J.—This is a case in which the appellant was acquitted by the trial court but on appeal the High Court reversed the acquittal and convicted him of Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years.
Having heard learned counsel for the appellant in extenso we are not persuaded to interfere with the conviction reached by the High Court.
Learned counsel then alternatively contended that as the appellant was aged 17 years during the relevant time he should have been dealt with under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Considering the nature of the offence we are not inclined to afford the ameliorative benefits envisaged in the said Act to this appellant. All the same, we are of the view that some more consideration can be shown to the appellant in the matter of quantum of sentence. This is because of certain facts. The first is that the appellant was an adolescent when he committed the offence; the second is that a long period of seventeen years has elapsed between the incident and now; and the third is that the appellant has become a married person and a father of two kids. We, therefore, reduce the sentence to the period of imprisonment which the appellant has already undergone.
Appeal is disposed of in the above terms.