IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.1281 of 2018 BETWEEN STATE BY SARGURU POLICE STATION, SARGURU, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU – 01.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI K.P. YOGANNA, HCGP) AND 1. DEVENDRA KUMAR SONI, S/O BASANTHILAL SONI, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHOPAT VILLAGE, ALIRAJ PUR DISTRICT – 457 887. MADHYA PRADESH STATE.
2. MOR SINGH S/O DIPLA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, RESIDING AT BAMORI VILLAGE, KUKSHI TALUK, DHAR DISTRICT, MADHYA PRADESH – 454 331.
3. DINESH THAKUR S/O PUL SINGH, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, RESIDING AT BAMORI VILLAGE, KUKSHI TALUK, DHAR DISTRICT, MADHYA PRADESH – 454 221.
4. MOHAN, S/O CHETU @ TER SINGH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT BAMORI VILLAGE, KUKSHI TALUK, DHAR DISTRICT, MADHYA PRADESH – 454 221.
5. CHOTA MOHAN @ KOR SINGH, S/O SURAJ, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, RESIDING AT JULAVANI VILLAGE, BAGA TALUK, DHAR DISTRICT, MADHYA PRADESH – 454 221.
6. SHIVA @ SHIVA NARAYANA, S/O RAMACHANDRA SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, RESIDING AT MANGALI VILLAGE, SANWER TALUK, INDORE DISTRICT, MADHYA PRADESH – 453 551.
7. HARI SINGH, S/O LATE MUNNA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, RESIDING AT DEVAD VILLAGE, KUKSHI TALUK, DHAR DISTRICT, MADHYA PRADESH – 454 331.
8. RAJENDRA PURI, S/O JAGADISH PURI, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT HAVUD VILLAGE, SANWER TALUK, INDORE DISTRICT, MADHYA PRADESH – 454 331.
(Notice to R1 to R8 dispensed with) ... RESPONDENTS THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 02.07.2018 PASSED IN CRIMINAL APPEAL No.124/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT MYSURU SITTING AT HUNSUR AND MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 20.01.2017 PASSED IN C.C.No.461/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HEGGADADEVANAKOTE BY IMPOSING MAXIMUM SENTENCE PROVIDED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 457, 511 READ WITH 34 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER This Revision Petition is filed by the State being not satisfied with the enhancement of sentence against the respondents on the file of the VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru, sitting at Hunsur, in Crl.A.No.124/2017, dated 02.07.2018.
2. The respondents are accused Nos.1 to 4 and 6 to 9 before the trail Court. The ranks of the parties before the Trial Court is retained for the sake of convenience.
3. Heard learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the petitioner-State.
4. The respondents are said to be in jail in various cases. Therefore, issuance of notice to them is dispensed with.
5. The case of the prosecution before the Trial Court is that the respondents-accused said to have attempted to commit lurking house trespass by breaking open the door to commit theft in the Hair Saloon shop situated neat KSRTC bus-stand at Sarguru, on 05.02.2015. After registering the case, the Police filed the charge sheet against the respondents. The respondents said to have pleaded guilty for the said offence. Hence, the Trial Court convicted and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 457 of IPC and to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 511 of I.P.C. The State being not satisfied with the sentence imposed by the Trial Court preferred appeal before the District and Sessions Court in Crl.A.No.124/2017. The accused persons also filed counter appeal in Crl.A.No.58/18. The First Appellate Court after hearing the arguments allowed both the appeals and enhanced the punishment from 1 year to 1 year 6 months for the offence under Section 457 of IPC and from 6 months to 1 year for the offence under Section 511 of IPC. However, the First Appellate Court extended the benefit available under Section 427 of Cr.P.C. for the sentence already undergone by the accused in other case vide judgment dated 02.07.2018.
6. This revision petition has been filed by the State for further enhancement of sentence passed by the First Appellate Court on the ground that the sentence imposed is meager. The punishment provided under Section 457 of IPC is extended to life and for committing theft, the punishment prescribed is for 7 years, but the First Appellate Court and the Trial Court have awarded very meager punishment, which is disproportionate to the offence committed by the accused persons. Hence, prayed for setting aside the judgment.
7. Upon hearing the learned High Court Government Pleader, it is brought to the notice of this Court that in a similar case in respect of the same respondents, this Court has upheld the order of sentence imposed by the First Appellate Court in Crl.R.P Nos.1318/2017 and 1319/2017, disposed off on 12.01.2018 on the ground that the responders were young aged and taking into account the background of the accused that in various cases registered against them, they have pleaded guilty before the Court and hence, dismissed the revision petitions. Following the same, this Court has also taken similar view in Crl.RP No.1278/2018. Admittedly, there were number of cases registered against the respondents and it appears they are in custody for more than four years as on the date of passing of the judgment by the Trial Court. The Trial Court after analyzing the facts and circumstances of the case and taken a lenient view has imposed the punishment. However, the same was enhanced by the First Appellate Court. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no special ground available for this Court to disagree with the lenient view taken by this Court in the earlier cases. Therefore, considering the facts of this case, I do not find any illegality or error committed by the First Appellate Court while exercising the power and in this case, there was no theft, but only an attempt was made. Therefore, the petition being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE mv