Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra filed an appeal against the judgment and order dated 29-12-1988 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, F.C. (Railway) Court, Kalyan, whereby both respondents/accused were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 394 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs.100 each, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three days. The State sought enhancement of the punishment on the ground that it was substantially inadequate considering the nature of the offence. The prosecution case was that on 6-1-1988, the complainant Ramkishore was travelling in a first class compartment of a local train from Ulhasnagar to Bombay V.T. When the train started moving, two persons aged about 22-25 years entered the compartment, showed a knife to the complainant, and under threats of injury took money and a wrist watch from his pocket. One of them gave a knife blow to the complainant while the other forcibly gave a knife blow on the right hand near the palm, resulting in a bleeding injury. After taking away the property, the culprits ran away when the next station arrived. The complainant filed a complaint at Kalyan police station. The trial court convicted the accused and imposed the sentence. The High Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant-State and the learned advocate for the respondents. The Court observed that the appeal was for enhancement of sentence and that the sentence imposed was not manifestly inadequate. The Court noted that the trial court had exercised its discretion in sentencing and that there was no reason to interfere. The Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the sentence.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Enhancement of Sentence - Adequacy of Punishment - Section 394 r/w 34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - State appeal for enhancement of sentence on ground of inadequacy - Trial court sentenced accused to one month RI and fine of Rs.100 each for robbery with knife - Held that the sentence is not manifestly inadequate and no interference is warranted as the trial court exercised its discretion reasonably (Paras 1-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the sentence of one month rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.100 each imposed on the respondents for the offence under Section 394 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is inadequate and requires enhancement.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The sentence imposed by the trial court is upheld.
Law Points
- Enhancement of sentence
- adequacy of punishment
- discretion of trial court
- Section 394 IPC
- Section 34 IPC
