The State has preferred this appeal from judgment and order dated 11.02.2005, whereby the respondent, aged 20, was acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 394 and 114 of IPC, by giving him the benefit of doubt. It was seen from the impugned judgement that another accused person was absconding at the time of trial and therefore, trial against him was kept pending. Learned APP submitted that the petitioner was identified to be involved in commission of the serious offence of looting Rs.23,000/=, even as the entire amount was, in fact recovered. However, the evidence was not clear about the place or person from whom the amount was recovered. In these facts, it was submitted on instructions of the respondent, by learned Counsel Mr. Dagli, appearing for the respondent who was personally present in the Court that the petitioner has already undergone eleven months of imprisonment before the order of acquittal and proposes to plead guilty of the offences to the extent that only an attempt to commit offences punishable under Section 394 was committed, as far as the respondent was concerned. In view of limited attempted involvement of the respondent and recovery of the entire amount, as also the other accused person having not even been tried, it was requested that the respondent may be awarded minimum possible punishment in the discretion of the Court.
Having regard to the above undisputed facts, the fact that the petitioner was aged 20 at the time of the offence, and the fact that he has voluntarily chosen to confess and the submission that he is not otherwise found to be involved in any other offence, before or after the impugned order of acquittal, the appeal is required to be allowed, holding that the petitioner stands convicted for the offences punishable under Section 394 read with Section 511 of the IPC and sentenced to imprisonment which is already undergone by him. The appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(D.H.
Waghela, J.) Caroline Top