Jignesh @ Jago Arjunbhai Gamit vs State Of Gujarat
2023 Latest Caselaw 662 Guj

      R/CR.A/1031/2020                       ORDER DATED: 24/01/2023




      IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

               R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1031 of 2020
======================================
            JIGNESH @ JAGO ARJUNBHAI GAMIT
                           Versus
                     STATE OF GUJARAT
======================================
Appearance:
A N KADRI(7990) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
DARSHIT R BRAHMBHATT(8011) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS DIVYANGNA JHALA, APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s)
No. 1
======================================
 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH A. TRIVEDI

                         Date : 24/01/2023
                           ORAL ORDER

1. Heard Mr. Darshit R. Brahmbhatt, learned advocate for

the appellant.

2. According to his submission, on instructions of the

appellant, he does not press this appeal so far as sentence of

imprisonment awarded by the trial Court is concerned. He

submitted that for an offence under Section 376 of the Indian

Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "IPC", for short), the

appellant is imposed a fine of Rs. 1 Lac and in default of

payment of fine, he is ordered to undergo further rigorous

imprisonment of 3 years.

2.1 He has further submitted that the appellant was also

R/CR.A/1031/2020 ORDER DATED: 24/01/2023

prosecuted and tried for an offence under Section 4 of the

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012,

(hereinafter referred to as "POCSO", for short). However, no

separate punishment was imposed upon the appellant as he is

convicted and sentenced for an offence under Section 376 of

the "IPC" in view of Section 42 of the "POCSO" Act.

2.2 He has further submitted that since he has been

awarded sufficient substantive sentence and he has undergone

major part thereof and he is not challenging the substantive

sentence but only the payment of fine as part of sentence, he

requests for reduction of the fine to a suitable extent as

appellant is basically a Labourer doing labour work and he is

from a lower strata of the society.

3. As against that, Ms. Divyangna Jhala, learned APP,

submitted that as such, conviction and the substantive

sentence of the appellant is not being interfered with at the

request of the learned advocate for the appellant and fine

remains to be a discretion of the Court, though default

sentence for payment of fine would be within the law, it

appears to be excessive and she leaves it to the discretion of

the Court. However, it is submitted that had he been convicted

R/CR.A/1031/2020 ORDER DATED: 24/01/2023

for offence under Section 4 of "POCSO", things would have

been different.

4. Considering the submissions made and going through

the provisions of the "POCSO" as also Section 376 of the "IPC",

keeping in mind the social status of the appellant and his age,

along with not forgetting the age of the victim, since he comes

from a lower strata of the society and when he is not

challenging the substantive sentence imposed upon him and

requests only for interfering with the fine, which is too

exorbitant for a person like him, I deem it fit to interfere with

the order of sentence, so far as it imposes a fine of Rs. 1 Lac

and default sentence of 3 years.

Therefore, not interfering with the judgment of conviction

but modifying the order of sentence, the appellant is hereby

directed to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-(Ten Thousand only) and

in default of payment of fine, he is further ordered to undergo

3 months rigorous imprisonment.

In view thereof, the appeal is hereby partly allowed to the

aforesaid extent only.

(UMESH A. TRIVEDI, J.) Raj