Pareshbhai Annabhai Sonvane Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors, on 18th March, 2016 – Supreme Court of India Judgement

data-matched-content-ui-type="image_card_sidebyside" data-matched-content-rows-num="1" data-matched-content-columns-num="4"

 NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.209 OF 2016

[Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.1671 of 2016]

Pareshbhai Annabhai Sonvane…..Appellant

Versus

State of Gujarat & Ors.    …..Respondents

J U D G M E N T

SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.

The sole appellant was accused no.2 before  the  Sessions  Judge,  Surat  in

Sessions Case No.278/2008 along with three  other  co-accused  for  offences

under Sections 395,  397  and  504  of  the  IPC.   The  trial  court  found

sufficient evidence against accused nos.1 to  3  and  accordingly  convicted

them for the offence under  Section  395  of  the  IPC  while  holding  that

prosecution could not establish the other  charges.   Considering  that  the

value of the alleged loot including cash and  mobile  was  only  Rs.16,550/-

and the young age  of  the  accused,  the  trial  court  inflicted  rigorous

imprisonment of only one year along with fine of  Rs.100/-.   In  the  trial

court judgment dated 24.08.2011 the age of the appellant has  been  recorded

as 24 years and as such on the date of the alleged occurrence in  July  2008

he would be about 21-22 years of age.

The State of Gujarat opted to prefer Criminal Appeal No.1463 of  2011  under

Section 377 of the  Code  of  Criminal  Procedure  to  seek  enhancement  of

sentence imposed on the three convicts  including  the  appellant.   By  the

impugned judgment and order under appeal dated  21.09.2015  the  High  Court

came to the view that the trial court had rightly convicted the accused  but

data-matched-content-ui-type="image_card_sidebyside" data-matched-content-rows-num="1" data-matched-content-columns-num="4"

had erred in imposing a sentence of imprisonment which was  clearly  on  the

lower side.  The High Court allowed the appeal to the  extent  of  enhancing

the sentence to five years of rigorous  imprisonment  along  with  the  fine

imposed by the trial court.

After hearing the arguments of both  the  sides  we  are  not  persuaded  to

interfere with the conviction of the appellant under  Section  395  IPC  and

hence his conviction is affirmed.  However, for the  same  very  reasons  as

recorded by the trial court and finding  that  nothing  was  recovered  from

him, we are persuaded to reduce the sentence of imprisonment.  We have  been

informed on the basis of facts mentioned in the Surrender Certificate  dated

19.02.2016 available on record that the appellant has now remained  in  jail

for three years and two months on account of continuous incarceration  since

his surrender on 28.07.2008.  The certificate further  discloses  that  fine

of Rs.100/- has also been paid.  In the facts of the  case  and  considering

the period already undergone by the  appellant,  we  reduce  the  period  of

sentence imposed upon the appellant to the period already  undergone,  i.e.,

three years and two months of  actual  imprisonment.   In  case  he  is  not

required to be kept in prison  in  connection  with  any  other  matter,  he

should be released in the present matter forthwith.  The appeal  is  allowed

to the aforesaid extent only.

.…………………………………….J. [DIPAK MISRA]

……………………………………..J. [SHIVA KIRTI SINGH]

 

New Delhi.

March 18, 2016.

See Also: Case Brief

Pareshbhai Annabhai Sonvane Vs. State Of Gujarat & Ors. on 18th March, 2016, Supreme Court of India: Case Brief – Read Judgement

data-matched-content-ui-type="image_card_sidebyside" data-matched-content-rows-num="4" data-matched-content-columns-num="4"