Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (DB) No.629 of 2012 ====================================================== 1. Dhanjeet Pathak S/O Late Ram Naresh Pathak R/O Village - Chandi, P.S. Chandi, Distt. - Bhojpur .... .... Appellant/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Kamlesh Pathak S/O Bhawanath Pathak R/O Village - Chandi, P.S. Chandi, Distt. - Bhojpur 3. Renu Devi W/O Kamlesh Pathak R/O Village - Chandi, P.S. Chandi, Distt. - Bhojpur .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA) 2 09-07-2012 Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the State. The appeal has been preferred by the son of the informant against inadequacy of the sentence vide judgment dated 17.04.2012 and order dated 19.04.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.III, Bhojpur at Ara in Sessions Trial No.411 of 2007 in connection with Chandi P.S. Case No.34 of 2005, G.R. No.985/2005 whereby Kamlesh Pathak has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years under [STATUTE] . and a fine of Rs.15000/- and in default of payment of fine, further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. Kamlesh Pathak has been further convicted under [STATUTE] . for which he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months, whereas, for offence Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.629 of 2012 (2) dt.09-07-2012 2 under [STATUTE] ., two years rigorous imprisonment has been ordered. Renu Devi has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs.5000/- for offence under [STATUTE] . and in default of payment of fine, imprisonment for one year and for the offence under [STATUTE] ., sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three months. The learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the impugned judgment and it has been submitted that the court has taken lenient view in sentencing and considering the gravity of the offence harsher punishment should have been given. Considering the nature of offence, we cannot say that inadequate sentence has been pronounced. The order of the learned trial court is correct and needs no interference. We do no find any merit in this appeal and accordingly, it is dismissed. The learned counsel for the appellant has drawn attention towards the fact that the convicts have preferred Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.402 of 2012. The appellant’s counsel would be at liberty to assist this Court in the aforesaid appeal, if his client so desires. V.K. Pandey/- (Shyam Kishore Sharma, J) (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 504

Statute Text:
Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code. Insult intended to provoke breach of the peace. Whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.