IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL APPEAL No.322/2017 BETWEEN:
The State of Karnataka, By Huliyurudurga Police, Represented by State Public Prosecutor, High Court Building, Bengaluru – 01 …Appellant (By Sri. Vijayakumar Majage, Addl. SPP) AND:
Suresha, S/o. Kantaiah, Aged 37 years, R/o. Ungra Village, Amruthur Hobli Kunigal Taluk – 572 130 … Respondent (Respondent-served) This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 377 of Cr.P.C. praying to modify the Judgment and Order dated 17.08.2016 passed by the III Addl. Sessions Judge, Tumakuru in Spl.C.No.219/2012 in passing inadequate sentence for the offences p/u/s. 324 and 504 of IPC and impose proper and adequate sentence for the offence p/u/s. 324 and 504 of IPC.
This Criminal Appeal coming on for Orders, this day, the Court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T Heard learned Addl. SPP on I.A.No.1/2017.
2. The application is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking to condone the delay of 55 days in presenting the appeal. In the affidavit filed in support thereof, it is stated that after obtaining the certified copy of the order, the same was sent to the Director of Prosecution along with opinion. After verification, the Government authorized the office of the Advocate General to prefer an appeal before this Court, in the meanwhile, there was delay of 55 days in preferring the appeal.
3. Though the cause shown in the affidavit appears to be acceptable, but on going through the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal, I find that the appellant has preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of the sentence. The trial Court has sentenced the accused to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC and Simple Imprisonment for 15 days for the offence punishable under Section 504 of IPC. Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently. On going through the observations made in the impugned order, it is noticed that the accused was in judicial custody since 03.06.2016 till the date of judgment. As a result, the accused has already served two months and 14 days in custody.
4. In view of the above facts and having regard to the nature of the relief claimed in the appeal, I do not find any justifiable ground to allow the application. As such, I.A.No.1/2017 is dismissed. Hence, I.A.No.1/2017 is dismissed. Consequently, appeal is also dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE SV