Suraj Kumar Jha vs State and Others

A.P. Lavande, J.—Heard Mr. Parsekar, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Rivonkar, learned Public Prosecutor for respondent no. 1. It is not necessary to hear respondents no. 2 to 4 who are also accused in Sessions Case No. 35/2009. This appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 30/07/2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-1, South Goa in Sessions Case No. 35/2009. However, Mr. Parsekar, learned Counsel for the appellant has restricted his challenge only to the extent of sentence imposed on the appellant.

By the impugned judgment and order, the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable u/s 506(ii) of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for four years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for four months.

The appellant was the accused no. 3 in Sessions Case No. 35/2009 in which he along with three other accused was charged for the offences punishable under Sections 353, 189, 506(i) read with Section 34 of I.P.C., Section 3 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act and Section 307 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. The appellant has been convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable u/s 506(II) of I.P.C. and acquitted of the other offences for which he was charged. According to learned Counsel, the appellant has been in custody/jail from 13/08/2009 and having regard to the circumstances of the case, the substantive sentence imposed on the appellant be reduced to the period already undergone.

Mr. Rivonkar, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State submits that having regard to the circumstances of the case, the appellant be sentenced to imprisonment already undergone by him.

Having heard learned Counsel for the appellant and learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent and having perused the record, I am of the considered opinion that the submission made by Mr. Parsekar deserves to be accepted. It is pertinent to note that learned Counsel has not challenged the conviction but restricted his challenge only to sentence.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that interest of justice would be served by reducing the substantive sentence imposed on the appellant to the period already undergone by the appellant. The sentence of fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default sentence of four months'' Rigorous Imprisonment is maintained. The appeal stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.