Naresh Rameshlal Aseja vs The State Of Maharashtra
2017 Latest Caselaw 4466 Bom

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                       CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 573 OF 2001

                                               
Naresh Rameshlal Aseja,
Age : 21 years, Occu. Business,
R/o Zulelal Society,                                           APPELLANT/
Sakri Road, Dhule                                     ORIG. ACCUSED NO.1

       VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra                     RESPONDENT
                          ----
Mr. Bharat R. Waramaa, Advocate for the Appellant 
Mr. P.N. Kutti, A.P.P. for the respondent/State
                          ----

                                        CORAM :   SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.

                                        DATE  :  13th JULY, 2017

ORAL JUDGMENT :


                Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and 

the learned A.P.P.


2.              The   appellant   (original   accused   No.1)   has 

challenged   his   conviction   and   sentence   for   the   offence 

punishable   under   Section   363   of   the   Indian   Penal   Code 

("IPC",   for   short),   recorded   by   the   learned   3rd 

Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule in Sessions Case No. 82 

of   2000.   He   was   sentenced   to   suffer   rigorous 

imprisonment   for   three   years   and to pay a fine of 

Rs.1000/-,   in   default   to   suffer   rigorous   imprisonment 



     ::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2017                    ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2017 00:42:22 :::
                                       2                          criapl573-2001

for six months.   He has been acquitted of the offences 

punishable under Sections 364A and 384 of the IPC.


3.              The   learned   counsel   for   the   appellant   submits 

that at the time when the offence was committed i.e. on 

10th March, 2000, the appellant/accused was 21 years of 

age.   He submits that the period of more than 16 years 

has   been   elapsed   after   the   date   of   the   offence.   The 

appellant is now doing some business which he succeeded 

from his father. The relations between the appellant and 

the   family   members   of   the   victim   -   Dipesh   also   have 

become cordial. The appellant is not a previous convict. 

In the circumstances, he submits that the appellant may 

be   extended   the   benefit   of   probation.   On   instructions, 

he   submits   that   the   appellant   has   given   up   all   the 

grounds   of   objections   against   his   conviction   for   the 

above mentioned offence. 


4.              The   learned   A.P.P.   opposed   the   prayer   of   the 

appellant   for   grant   of   the   benefit   of   probation 

considering the serious nature of the offence.


5.              As   submitted   by   the   learned   counsel   for   the 

appellant, the appellant does not dispute his conviction 

for the offence punishable under Section 363 of the IPC, 



     ::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2017              ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2017 00:42:22 :::
                                        3                          criapl573-2001

which is punishable with imprisonment for either a term 

which   may   extend   to   seven   years   and   fine.   The   accused 

has   been   acquitted   of   the   offences   punishable   under 

Sections   364A   and   384   of   the   IPC.   Thus,   it   is   not 

established that the offence of kidnapping was committed 

by the appellant for ransom or for extortion.  


6.              It   may   be   noted   that   the   appellant   has   been 

convicted for a serious offence of kidnapping a child, 

aged   of   six   years.   Though   the   learned   Trial   Judge   has 

not extended the benefit of probation to the appellant, 

a   lenient   view   has   been   taken   and   the   sentence   of 

imprisonment of three years has been passed against the 

appellant.   Considering   the   serious   nature   of   the 

offence, I am also not inclined to extend the benefit of 

probation to the appellant.   However, since the period 

of   more   than   sixteen   years   has   been   elapsed   after   the 

date   of   the   incident,   the   appellant   is   doing   some 

business, he is not a person of criminal antecedents and 

the relations between the family of the victim boy and 

that of the appellant have become cordial, I am of the 

view   that,   to   meet   the   ends   of   justice,   the   appellant 

will   have   to   be  sentenced   for   the   period   which   he   has 

already   undergone   in   connection   with   this   offence.   The 



     ::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2017               ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2017 00:42:22 :::
                                          4                        criapl573-2001

appellant/accused was in jail from 11th March, 2000 to 

3rd   May,   2000.  The   appellant/accused   has   already 

deposited   the   fine   amount   before   the   Trial   Court.    In 

the circumstances, I pass the following order:-


                                     O R D E R     

(i) The appeal is partly allowed.

(ii) The sentence of imprisonment passed against the

appellant vide the impugned judgment and order,

is modified and reduced to the period that he

has already undergone i.e. from 11th March,

2000 to 3rd May, 2000.

(iii) The sentence of payment of fine passed against

the appellant is maintained as it is.

(iv) Rest of the part of the impugned judgment and

order is maintained as it is.

(v) Bail bonds of the appellant are cancelled. He

is set at liberty.

(vi) The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

[SANGITRAO S. PATIL] JUDGE npj/criapl573-2001