1 APEAL.1257-2011 acd IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1257 OF 2011 The State of Maharashtra ...Appellant. Vs. Balasaheb Laxman Patil . ...Respondent. ---- Mr. P.S. Hingorani, A.P.P. for the Appellant-State. Mr. K.S. Patil, for Respondent . ---- CORAM: V.M. KANADE & M.L. TAHALIYANI, JJ. DATE : DECEMBER 13, 2011. P.C.:- 1. Heard learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the Appellant- State, and Mr. Patil, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. 2 The State being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the learned Ad-Hoc Addl. Sessions Judge-1, Sangli. has preferred this appeal for enhancement of sentence. By the judgment and order dated 29.1.2011, the learned Sessions Judge is pleased to convict the respondent 2 APEAL.1257-2011 for the offence punishable under Section 325 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer R.I. for three years and also directed him to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default to suffer R.I. for six months. 3. We have perused the impugned judgment and order passed by the Trial Court. On the point of sentence, after hearing the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused, and the learned A.P.P, for the State, the Trial Court has taken into consideration the facts and cirumstances of the case and by exercising discretion vested in it has awarded three years of R.I. and also directed to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-. The Trial Court has also observed that there was some dispute between the accused, and the complainant and Dhondiram (PW No.6) as the sugarcane crop of the accused was damaged by the complainant and Dhondiram. They were also ready to pay the compensation to the accused towards damage of the crop. However, that request was not accepted by the accused and quarrel took place between them and accused had assaulted the complainant. 4. Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State submits that the sentence imposed by the Trial Court may be enhanced. 3 APEAL.1257-2011 5. Since the Trial Court, after giving cogent reasons has awarded the sentence of three years with fine of Rs.10,000/-, in our view there is no infirmity in the said order and no case is made out for interference in the finding of the Trial Court. 6. Hence, the Criminal Appeal is accordingly dismissed. (M.L. TAHALIYANI, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.)