Vishwambhar Narayan Jadhav v. Mallappa Sangramappa Mallipatil & Anr.

Judgment

VISHWAMBHAR NARAYAN JADHAV v. MALLAPPA SANGRAMAPPA MALLIPATIL & ANR. ORDER

1Leave granted.

2Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. I

3This Appeal has been filed against the impugned i judgment of the Bombay High Court dated 27th April, 2007 in Criminal Revision Application No.183 of 2007.

4The facts of the prosecution case are mentioned in the FIR dated 25th January, 2002, copy of which has been annexed as Annexure P-3 to this appeal. In the FIR, it has been mentioned that while the appellant was on a bus, respondent No.1 .entered the bus and came to the seat of the appellant and said that you always harassed my uncle and he started abusing the appellant. Respondent No.1 then took a bottle of acid from his pocket and poured the acid on the head of the appellant with the result that the face, neck, eyes, chest etc. of the appellant were seriously burnt. Appellant was then taken to the hospital where he was given medical treatment. We have seen the photographs showing serious bum injuries on the head, face and chest of the appellant.

5The trial Court, by its judgment dated 06th October, 2004, found respondent No.1 guilty under Section 326, IPC and sentenced him to suffer three years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default to undergo further three months' simple imprisonment.

6Against the aforesaid judgment, respondent No.1 filed an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, who by his judgment dated 13th April, 2007 confirmed the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court .

7Thereafter, it appears that respondent No.1 filed a Criminal Revision Applrcation No.183/2007 before the Bombay I High Court and by the impugned judgment, the High Court A reduced the sentence to the period already undergone but the fine was increased to Rs. 20,000/-.

8We are surprised that the High Court has, in such a heinous crime, chosen to reduce the punishment ·to the sentence already undergone which we are informed was only 35 days. In our opinion, there was no occasion for the High · Court to interfere with the· judgment of the trial Court. and the first appellate court. Respondent No.1 appears to be a person who has criminal inclinations and no leniency is called for for such. persons, otherwise people will not be able to go around in life in peace. Accordingly, we set aside the judgment of the High Court and restore the judgment of the trial court an~ first (lppellate_ court. Respondent No.1 be taken into custody forthwith to serve out his remaining part of sentence. R.P. Appeal allowed.