Bombay High Court
Nimba Garbad Patil vs State Of Maharashtra And Others on 14 July, 2017
Bench: Sangitrao S. Patil
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.123 of 2002
Nimba Garbad Patil,
Age : 23 yrs, Occ. : Agri,
R/o : at Post : Anjanvihire,
Tal. Bhadgaon, Dist. Jalgaon. .. APPELLANT
(ORIGINAL ACCUSED NO.1)
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra
Through P.S.O. Bhadgaon
Police Station
Bhadgoan, Tal & Dist. Jalgaon. .. RESPONDENT
----
Ms.Chaitali Chaudhari, Advocate for Appellant
Ms.R.P.Gaur, APP for respondent - State
----
CORAM : SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.
DATE : 14th JULY, 2017
ORAL JUDGMENT :
The Appellant (original accused No.1) has
challenged his conviction and sentence for the offence
punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code
recorded by the learned first Ad-hoc Additional Sessions
Judge, Jalgaon on 04.02.2002 in Sessions Case No.
215/1999.
02. The learned counsel for the appellant, on
instructions, submits that the appellant is giving up
all the grounds of objections taken in the appeal memo
::: Uploaded on - 18/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2017 00:07:04 :::
2 6-CA 123.2002
against his conviction for the above-mentioned offence.
She submits that the appellant has been sentenced to
suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a
fine of Rs. 100/- in default to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for eight days. The appellant was aged
about 35 years at the time of the incident. The period
of eighteen years has been lapsed after occurrence of
the incident. The appellant has deposited the amount of
fine. Considering the long duration between the date of
occurrence of the incident and hearing of this appeal,
she prays that the sentence of imprisonment may be
modified and the appellant may be sentenced to suffer
imprisonment for the period, which he has already
undergone.
03. The learned APP opposes this prayer.
04. The appellant has been convicted for the
offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian
Penal Code and has been sentenced to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for one year. The period of eighteen years
has been lapsed after occurrence of the incident. This
long delay in disposal of the appeal certainly would be
::: Uploaded on - 18/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2017 00:07:04 :::
3 6-CA 123.2002
a mitigating factor in the matter of deciding the
quantum of sentence. The appellant must be now aged
about 53 years. He is not a previous convict. No
criminal antecedents are attributable against him. He
has already undergone the detention for a period of
three months in connection with this case. In my view,
no good purpose would be served by sending the appellant
behind the bars after about eighteen years of the
incident. Considering all these circumstances, I think
fit to modify the sentence of imprisonment passed
against the appellant and reduce it to the period which
the appellant has already undergone. Hence, the order :-
O R D E R
(i) The appeal is partly allowed.
(ii) The conviction of the appellant for the
offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian
Penal Code is confirmed. However, the sentence of
imprisonment is modified and it is reduced to the period
which has already been undergone by the appellant i.e.
from 27.06.1999 to 28.09.1999.
4 6-CA 123.2002
(iii) The bail bonds of the appellant stand
cancelled.
(iv) He be set at liberty.
(v) The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
Sd/-
[SANGITRAO S. PATIL]
JUDGE
shp
