The State Of Maharashtra vs Jagdish @ Ashish @ Rihan Krushnaji ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 1972 Bom

                                                                criapl688.20
                                        1



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                               BENCH AT AURANGABAD



                    CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.688 OF 2020

 The State of Maharashtra
                                                          ...APPELLANT
        VERSUS

 1) Jagdish @ Ashish @ Rihan Krushnaji
    Nakade,

 2) Chetan Madhukar Meshram,

 3) Rajesh Suresh Sadhankar,

 4) Vicky Anil Meshram,

 5) Harish Ambuji Barad (Rajput)
                                                        ...RESPONDENTS
                                                     (Original Accused)

                   ...
      Mrs.P.V. Diggikar, A.P.P. for Appellant.
                   ...

                CORAM: SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND
                       Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.

                 DATE :        28th FEBRUARY, 2023

 ORDER :

1. Heard learned A.P.P. at the stage of admission. The limited

question before us is that the present Appeal has been filed

under Section 377(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for

criapl688.20

enhancement of the sentence. Present respondents have been

held guilty in Sessions Case No. 84 of 2017 by the learned

Additional Sessions Judge, Latur on 27 th May 2020. They have

been held guilty under various sections and the maximum

punishment that has been awarded is 2 years 9 months and 3

days. That was the sentence they had already undergone.

2. With the able assistance of the learned APP, we have gone

through the depositions of 34 witnesses which have been made

available, however, suffice it to say that taking into consideration

the scope of the appeal, we are not supposed to go into the

aspect as to whether the findings given by the trial Judge are

correct. This appeal restricts to the quantum of sentence. We

can see from the impugned Judgment that after the learned trial

Judge had come to the conclusion that offence under Sections

394, 395, 170, 365 and 120-B read with Section 34 of the Indian

Penal Code has been proved, he went to hear the accused on the

point of sentence. So also the learned APP has been heard and

thereafter in Paragraph No.74 of the Judgment even the reasons

have been assigned for arriving at a particular quantum of

sentence. Taking into consideration the Sections, the maximum

punishment that could have been awarded, was imprisonment

criapl688.20

for life or rigorous imprisonment extended up-to ten years.

Therefore, it could have been in any way between one day to ten

years or even life, depending upon the manner in which the

offence has been committed. When the discretion has been

used, there would be less scope for exercise of our jurisdiction

under Section 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

3. As regards the criminal antecedents also, there is no

concrete evidence. Therefore, we come to the conclusion that

there are no grounds for admitting the Appeal. It might be the

case where the learned trial Judge has exercised his proper

discretion. We would refrain from going into that aspect further

because we are not dealing with the appeal by any of the

accused. When case for enhancement of punishment is not made

out, the Appeal deserves to be dismissed.

4. Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed at the threshold.

 [Y.G. KHOBRAGADE]                   [SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI]
       JUDGE                                   JUDGE

 asb/FEB23